Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS REGULATING DISCO EVENTS
Early this week, people of the province’s capital, Tagbilaran City, was literally rocked or awakened or kept awake until the wee hours of the morning because of the loud music coming from a Disco event in Brgy. La Paz in the neighboring municipality of Cortes. Exaggeration or not, some even claimed over social media that the loud music reached as far as the municipalities of Dauis and Panglao. Several known personalities complained over social media and some lawyers even mulled in taking legal action on what they consider as a form of “nuisance”. Because of this hullabaloo, people started to question if Local Government Units (LGUs) have anti-noise pollution ordinances to regulate (not totally prohibit or ban) Disco events.
This is not the first time that this issue cropped up. Sometime in 2016, a lawyer by the name of Atty. Nilo Gasang Ahat, who was then a practitioner in Cebu City, went home in his hometown of Sikatuna. Atty. Ahat’s house happens to be near the town’s gymnasium. Because of the loud music, Atty. Ahat could not sleep. Atty. Ahat decided to write the Sangguniang Bayan for the august body to enact an ordinance regulating Disco events to certain tolerable decibels and at certain time of the day. Atty. Ahat even volunteered to assist the local council to craft the local regulation/. Much to his dismay, Atty. Ahat’s plea went unheeded, so he filed a case before the Office of the Ombudsman against the Sangguniang Bayan. The Ombudsman referred the matter to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for the conduct of appropriate proceedings. However, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement after SB Sikatuna enacted and passed Municipal Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2017, entitled “An Ordinance Prohibiting Excessive, Unnecessary and Unusually Loud Sounds Generated from Videoke/Karaoke System and Other Amplified Audio Devices Within Residential Areas and Public Streets in the Municipality of Sikatuna, and Further Providing Penalty for Violation Thereof, Subject to All Laws and Existing Laws and Regulations”. Under the said Municipal Ordinance, the Municipality set allowable decibels in different areas (School Sites, Nursery Schools, Hospitals, Churches, Government Offices, Commercial Areas and Residential Areas) which vary depending on the time of the day.
Under Constitutional fiat, LGUs can enact local legislation regulating these Disco events in the exercise of police power. Police power is defined as “the inherent power of the State to regulate or to restrain the use of liberty and property for public welfare”. (Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. vs. South Rich Acres, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 202384, May 4, 2021) Hence, in the case of Equitable PCI Bank, the Supreme Court held that “property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of Government.” In an old case of United States vs. Dominador Gomez Jesus, G.R. No. L-9651, August 4, 1915, the Supreme Court held that “police power of the State extends to the protection of lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons x x x .”
In terms of national legislation, those in favor of noise regulation will always utilize the Civil Code provision on abatement of nuisance. Article 694 of the Civil Code defines nuisance as “any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or (2) annoys or offends the senses; or (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use of property. The Civil Code further classifies nuisances as public or private. A private nuisance has been defined as one which violates private rights and produces damages to but one or few persons. A nuisance is public when it interferes with the exercise of public right by directly encroaching on public property by causing a common injury.
However, in the case of Frabelle Properties Corporation vs. AC Enterprises, G.R. No. 245438, November 3, 2020, the Supreme Court held that “noise can be considered a nuisance only if it affects injuriously the health or comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an unreasonable extent”. In the said case involving abatement of nuisance because of loud noise emitted from blowers of a condominium, the Supreme Court held that there is no law or jurisprudence that provides an absolute quantifiable standard as to the noise level that would qualify a sound as an actionable nuisance.” The Court further held that “setting an absolute quantifiable standard is almost impossible considering that noise seems inseparable from the conduct of many other necessary occupations.” Ergo noise pollution tests are not controlling but only among the factors in the determination of nuisance. In another case, the Supreme Court was constrained to rely on quantitative tests on the record. In the case of Velasco vs. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. L-18390, August 6, 1971, the Supreme Court declared as nuisance the transformers of MERALCO since it continuously emitted noise day and night and the Supreme Court had to rely its decision on actual physical discomfort and annoyance as proven by host of expert witnesses and voluminous medical literature and laboratory findings. The Supreme Court refused to apply the ruling in Velasco in the case of Frabelle since only one witness/tenant was presented. In short, it is hard to prove that noise itself is a nuisance that must be abated. In fact, it is relative depending on the locality and time of the day. A Disco event once or twice a year can hardly be classified as actionable nuisance under our jurisprudence.
The best way to regulate Disco events so as not to disturb the peace and affect the health and well-being of the populace is to enact local municipality ordinances since the factual milieu and circumstances of municipalities vary. Is there a national law wherein municipalities can have a standard to anchor their ordinance? Presidential Decree No. 1152, otherwise known as Philippine Environment Code, issued by late President Ferdinand E. Marcos provides that: “Section 5. Community Noise Standards. – Appropriate standards for community noise levels shall be established considering, among others, location, zoning and land use classification.” Section 6 of the same law provides that, “There shall be established a standard of noise-producing equipment, such as construction equipment, transportation equipment, stationary engines, and electrical or electronic equipment and such similar equipment and contrivances” and shall set a limit on the acceptable level of noise emitted from a given equipment for the protection of public health and welfare, considering among others, the magnitude and condition of use, the degree of noise reduction achievable through the application of best technology and the cost of compliance.”
Just like the Municipality of Sikatuna, LGUs should consider the passage of local legislation to regulate these Disco events. While Disco events are staple in town and barrio fiestas, there should be a limit as to the time and the appropriate decibels/equipment. For sure, there is a way to balance the interests of Dancegoers and that of those who want to have good night’s rest.