Cases - Lpg Digest

7/25/2019 Cases - Lpg Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cases-lpg-digest 1/9

Greater Balanga Development Corporation v. Municipalityof Balanga, Bataan (1998)

Facts

• The case involves a parcel of land, Lot 261-B-6-A-3

located behind the public market in the Municipalit of Balan!a, "rovince of Bataan# $t is re!istered in the nameof %reater Balan!a &evelopment, 'orp#, o(ned andcontrolled b the 'amacho famil# The lot (as part of Lot261-B, formerl re!istered in the name of Aurora Ban)on'amacho, (hich (as later subdivided into certain lots,some of (hich (ere sold, others donated# *ive buers of the lot filed a civil case a!ainst 'amacho for partition anddeliver of titles#

• "etitioner applied for and (as !ranted a business

permit b the +ffice of the Maor of Balan!a but failed tomention the eistence of the civil case for partition anddeliver of titles# The permit (as !ranted the privile!e of a real estate dealer.privatel-o(ned market operator#/0o(ever, the an!!unian! Baan B passed 4esolution5o# 12 s-, annullin! the Maor7s permit issued to"etitioner, on the !round that the issue as to theo(nership of the lot caused aniet, uncertaint andrestiveness amon! the stallholders and traders in the lot,/and advisin! the Maor to revoke the permit to operate a

public market#/ The Maor then revoked the permitthrou!h 8+ 5o# 1 s-#

• "etitioner filed this petition (ith praer for

preliminar prohibitor and mandator in9unction orrestrainin! order and to reinstate the Maor7s permit andto curtail the municipalit7s collection of market andentrance fees from the lot occupants# 0e alle!es that: 1it didn7t violate an la(, thus, there7s no reason forrevocation of the permit; 2 4espondents failed to observedue process in the revocation; 3 the collection of marketfees is ille!al#

• +n the other hand, 4espondents assert that the Maor

as the local chief eecutive has the po(er to issue, denor revoke permits# The claim that the revocation (as due

to the violation b "etitioner of ection 3A-<6b of theBalan!a 4evenue 'ode (hen it: 1 made false statement inthe application form, failin! to disclose that the lot (assub9ect to adverse claims for (hich a civil case (as filed;2 failed to appl for 2 separate permits for the 2 lines of business real estate and public market#

!ssue =.5 the revocation of the Maor7s permit (as valid#

"el# 5+#

• The po(ers of municipal corporations are to be

construed in strictissimi juris and an doubt or ambi!uitmust be construed a!ainst the municipalit# The authoritof the Maor to revoke permits is premised on a violationb the !rantee of an of its conditions for its !rant# *or

revocation to be 9ustified under the Balan!a 4evenue'ode, there must be: 1 proof of (illfulmisrepresentation, and 2 deliberate intent to make afalse statement# %ood faith is al(as presumed#◦ $n this case, the application for Maor7s permit

re>uries the applicant to state the tpe of business,profession, occupation, privile!es applied for#/"etitioner left this entr bank in its applicationform# $t is onl in the Maor7s permit itself thatpetitioner7s lines of business appear# 4evocation isnot 9ustified because "etitioner did not make anfalse statement therein#

◦ 5either (as petitioner7s applin! for t(o

businesses in one permit a !round for revocation#

The second para!raph of ection 3A-<6b does notepressl re>uire t(o permits for their conduct of t(o or more businesses in one place, but onl thatseparate fees be paid for each business# %rantin!,ho(ever, that separate permits are actuallre>uired, the application form does not contain anentr as re!ards the number of businesses theapplicant (ishes to en!a!e in#

• The B7s 4esolution merel mentioned the plan to

ac>uire the Lot for epansion of the Balan!a "ublicMarket ad9acent thereto# The B doesn7t actuallmaintain a public market on the area# ?ntil

epropriation proceedin!s are instituted in court, thelando(ner cannot be deprived of its ri!ht over the land#

• +f course, the B has the dut in the eercise of its

police po(ers to re!ulate an business sub9ect tomunicipal license fees and prescribe the conditionsunder (hich a municipal license alread issued ma berevoked B#"# Bl!# 33@, ec# 1 C1D CrD, but the Eaniet,uncertaint, restivenessE amon! the stallholders andtraders doin! business on a propert not o(ned b theMunicipalit cannot be a valid !round for revokin! thepermit of "etitioner#

• Also, the manner b (hich the Maor revoked the

permit trans!ressed petitioner7s ri!ht to due process#The alle!ed violation of ection 3A-<6b of the Balan!a4evenue 'ode (as not stated in the order of revocation,and neither (as petitioner informed of this specificviolation# Moreover, 4espondent Municipalit isn7t theo(ner of Lot 261 B-6-A-3, and thus cannot collectmarket fees, (hich onl an o(ner can do#

$i#asan v. Comelec

Digest$i#asan v ComelecG.%. &o. $'889 *cto+er , 19-Sanchez, J.:

*acts:1# Lidasan, a resident and tapaer of the

detached portion of "aran!, 'otabato, and a>ualified voter for the 16@ elections assailsthe constitutionalit of 4A @< and

petitioned that 'omelec7s resolutionsimplementin! the same for electoralpurposes be nullified# ?nder 4A @<, 12barrios in t(o municipalities in the provinceof 'otabato are transferred to the provinceof Lanao del ur# This brou!ht about achan!e in the boundaries of the t(oprovinces#

2# Barrios To!ai! and Madalum are (ithin the

municipalit of Buldon in the Province of Cotabato, and that Baan!a, Lan!kon!,arakan, Fat-bo, &i!akapan, Ma!abo,Taban!ao, Tion!ko, 'olodan andFabamaka(an are parts and parcel of another municipalit, the municipalitof Parang, also in the Province of Cotabato and not of Lanao del ur#

3# Apprised of this development, the +ffice of the "resident, recommended to 'omelec

that the operation of the statute besuspended until Eclarified b correctin!le!islation#E

# 'omelec, b resolution declared that thestatute should be implemented unlessdeclared unconstitutional b the upreme'ourt#



!//0 23et3er or not %4 59, 63ic3 isentitle# 74n 4ct Creating t3e Municipalityof Dianaton in t3e rovince of $anao #el/ur7, +ut 63ic3 inclu#es +arrios locate# inanot3er province Cota+ato isunconstitutional for em+racing more t3anone su+:ect in t3e title

G8# 4A @< is null and void

1# The constitutional provision contains duallimitations upon le!islative po(er# First#'on!ress is to refrain from con!lomeration,under one statute, of hetero!eneoussub9ects# Second # The title of the bill is tobe couched in a lan!ua!e sufficient to notifthe le!islators and the public and thoseconcerned of the import of the sin!le

sub9ect thereof# +f relevance here is thesecond directive# The sub9ect of the statutemust be Eepressed in the titleE of the bill#This constitutional re>uirement Ebreathesthe spirit of command#E 'ompliance isimperative, !iven the fact that the'onstitution does not eact of 'on!ress theobli!ation to read durin! its deliberationsthe entire tet of the bill# $n fact, in thecase of 0ouse Bill 12@, (hich became 4A@<, onl its title (as read from itsintroduction to its final approval in the0ouse (here the bill, bein! of localapplication, ori!inated#

2# The 'onstitution does not re>uire 'on!ressto emplo in the title of an enactment,lan!ua!e of such precision as to mirror, fullinde or catalo!ue all the contents and theminute details therein# $t suffices if the titleshould serve the purpose of the

constitutional demand that it inform thele!islators, the persons interested in thesub9ect of the bill, and the public, of thenature, scope and conse>uences of theproposed la( and its operation# And this, tolead them to in>uire into the bod of thebill, stud and discuss the same, takeappropriate action thereon, and, thus,prevent surprise or fraud upon thele!islators#

3# The test of the sufficienc of a title is(hether or not it is misleadin!; and, (hichtechnical accurac is not essential, and thesub9ect need not be stated in epress terms(here it is clearl inferable from the detailsset forth, a title (hich is so uncertain thatthe avera!e person readin! it (ould not beinformed of the purpose of the enactmentor put on in>uir as to its contents, or (hich

is misleadin!, either in referrin! to orindicatin! one sub9ect (here another ordifferent one is reall embraced in the act,or in omittin! an epression or indicationof the real sub9ect or scope of the act, isbad#

# The title H EAn Act 'reatin! the Municipalitof &ianaton, in the Province of Lanao delSur E H pro9ects the impression that onl theprovince of Lanao del ur is affected b thecreation of &ianaton# 5ot the sli!htestintimation is there that communities in thead9acent province of 'otabato areincorporated in this ne( Lanao del urto(n# The phrase Ein the "rovince of Lanaodel ur,E read (ithout subtlet orcontortion, makes the title misleadin!,

deceptive# *or, the kno(n fact is that thele!islation has a t(o-pron!ed purposecombined in one statute: 1 it creates themunicipalit of &ianaton purportedl fromt(ent-one barrios in the to(ns of Buti! andBalaba!an, both in the province of Lanaodel ur; and 2 it also dismembers t(omunicipalities in 'otabato, a provincedifferent from Lanao del ur#

I# *inall, the title did not inform themembers of 'on!ress the full impact of thela(# +ne, it did not apprise the people inthe to(ns of Buldon and "aran! in 'otabatoand in the province of 'otabato itself thatpart of their territor is bein! taken a(afrom their to(ns and province and added tothe ad9acent "rovince of Lanao del ur# T(o,it kept the public in the dark as to (hatto(ns and provinces (ere actuall affectedb the bill#

MMD4 v Bel'4ir

;illage

4ssociation, !nc."osted on &ovem+er 18, 1

G% 1<9-

Marc3 ,

F4C=/:

+n &ecember 3<, 1I, respondent received

from petitioner a notice re>uestin! the former

to open its private road, 5eptune treet, to

public vehicular traffic startin! Januar 2, 16#

+n the same da, respondent (as apprised that

the perimeter separatin! the subdivision from

https://lexislove.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/mmda-v-bel-air-village-association-inc/

https://lexislove.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/mmda-v-bel-air-village-association-inc/



Falaaan Avenue (ould be demolished#

4espondent instituted a petition for in9unction

a!ainst petitioner, prain! for the issuance of a

T4+ and preliminar in9unction en9oinin! the

openin! of 5eptune treet and prohibitin! the

demolition of the perimeter (all#

!//0:

=+5 MM&A has the authorit to open 5eptune

treet to public traffic as an a!ent of the state

endo(ed (ith police po(er#

"$D:

A Klocal !overnment is a political subdivision

of a nation or state (hich is constituted b la(

and has substantial control of local affairs/# $t is

a bod politic and corporate/ one endo(ed(ith po(ers as a political subdivision of the

5ational %overnment and as a corporate entit

representin! the inhabitants of its territor

L%' of 11#

Our Congress delegated police power to the

LGUs in Sec.16 of the LGC of 1991# $t

empo(ers the san!!unian! panlala(i!an,

panlun!sod and baan to enact or#inances,

approve resolutions an# appropriate fun#s for

t3e general 6elfare of t3e >province, city or

municipality? an# its in3a+itants pursuant

to ec#16 of the 'ode and in the proper eercise

of the CL%?s corporate po(ersD provided under

the 'ode#/

There is no sllable in !" #$%& that grants the

''(" police power , let alone legislative power)

Unli*e the legislative bodies of the LGUs+ there

is no grant of authorit in !" #$%& that allows

the ''(" to enact ordinances and regulations

for the general welfare of the inhabitants of

'etro 'anila) The ''(" is merel a

,development authorit- and not a political

unit of government since it is neither an L%? or

a public corporation endo(ed (ith le!islative

po(er# The ''(" Chairman is not an electiveofficial, but is merel appointed b the

"resident (ith the rank and privile!es of a

cabinet member#

$n sum, the ''(" has no power to enact

ordinances for the welfare of the communit # !t

is t3e $G0s, actin! throu!h their respective

le!islative councils, t3at possess legislative

po6er an# police po6er#

The an!!unian! "anlun!sod of Makati 'it did

not pass an ordinance or resolution orderin!

the openin! of 5eptune treet, hence, its

proposed openin! b the MM&A is ille!al#

./ SC!" /0$ 1 Political Law 1 Sufficient

Standard 2est and Completeness 2est

$n 16, "resident *erdinand Marcos issued

eecutive orders creatin! 33 municipalities

this (as purportedl pursuant to ection 6 of

the 4evised Administrative 'ode (hich provides

in part:

2he President ma b e3ecutive order definethe boundar4 of an4 municipalit4 and ma

change the seat of government within an

subdivision to such place therein as the public

welfare ma re5uire4

The then Nice "resident, 8mmanuel "elae),

as a tapaer, filed a special civil action to

prohibit the auditor !eneral from disbursin!

funds to be appropriated for the said

municipalities# "elae) claims that the 8+s (ereunconstitutional# 0e said that ection 6 of the

4A' had been impliedl repealed b ection 3 of

4A 23@< (hich provides that barrios ma not

be created or their boundaries altered nor their

names chan!ed/ ecept b Act of 'on!ress#

"elae) ar!ues: $f the "resident, under this ne(

la(, cannot even create a barrio, ho( can he

create a municipalit (hich is composed of

several barrios, since barrios are units of municipalitiesO/

The Auditor %eneral countered that there (as

no repeal and that onl barrios (ere barred

from bein! created b the "resident#

Municipalities are eempt from the bar and that

a municipalit can be created (ithout creatin!

barrios# 0e further maintains that throu!h ec#

6 of the 4A', 'on!ress has dele!ated such

po(er to create municipalities to the "resident#

!//0 =hether or not 'on!ress has dele!ated

the po(er to create barrios to the "resident b

virtue of ec# 6 of the 4A'#

"$D 5o# There (as no dele!ation

here# Althou!h 'on!ress ma dele!ate to

another branch of the !overnment the po(er to

fill in the details in the eecution, enforcement



or administration of a la(, it is essential, to

forestall a violation of the principle of

separation of po(ers, that said la(: a be

complete in itself H it must set forth therein

the polic to be eecuted, carried out or

implemented b the dele!ate H and b fi a

standard H the limits of (hich are sufficientl

determinate or determinable H to (hich the

dele!ate must conform in the performance of

his functions# $n this case, ec# 6 lacked an

such standard# $ndeed, (ithout a statutor

declaration of polic, the dele!ate (ould, in

effect, make or formulate such polic, (hich is

the essence of ever la(; and, (ithout the

aforementioned standard, there (ould be no

means to determine, (ith reasonable certaint,

(hether the dele!ate has acted (ithin or

beond the scope of his authorit#

*urther, althou!h ec# 6 provides the >ualifin!

clause as the public (elfare ma re>uire/

(hich (ould mean that the "resident ma

eercise such po(er as the public (elfare ma

re>uire is present, still, such (ill not replace

the standard needed for a proper dele!ation of

po(er# $n the first place, (hat the phrase as

the public (elfare ma re>uire/ >ualifies is the

tet (hich immediatel precedes hence, the

proper interpretation is the "resident ma

chan!e the seat of !overnment (ithin an

subdivision to such place therein as the public

(elfare ma re>uire#/ +nl the seat of

!overnment ma be chan!ed b the "resident

(hen public (elfare so re>uires and 5+T the

creation of municipalit#

The upreme 'ourt declared that the po(er to

create municipalities is essentiall and

eminentl le!islative in character not

administrative not eecutive#

rovince of

Batangas

vs. %omulo"osted on &ovem+er , 1

G% 15

May , 5

F4C=/:

$n 1, then "resident 8strada issued 8+ 5o#

establishin! the "ro!ram for &evolution

Ad9ustment and 8>uali)ation/ to enhance the

capabilities of L%?s in the dischar!e of the

functions and services devolved to them throu!h

the L%'#

The +versi!ht 'ommittee under 8ecutive

ecretar 4onaldo Pamora passed 4esolutions

5o# +'&--<<I, +'&--<<6 and +'&--<<3

(hich (ere approved b "res# 8strada on

+ctober 6, 1# The !uidelines formulated b

the +versi!ht 'ommittee re>uired the L%?s to

identif the pro9ects eli!ible for fundin! under

the portion of L%8* and submit the pro9ect

proposals and other re>uirements to the &$L%

for appraisal before the 'ommittee servesnotice to the &BM for the subse>uent release of

the correspondin! funds#

0on# 0erminaldo Mandanas, %overnor of

Batan!as, petitioned to declare unconstitutional

and void certain provisos contained in the

%eneral Appropriations Acts %AAs of 1,

2<<<, and 2<<1, insofar as the uniforml

earmarked for each correspondin! ear the

amount of "Ibillion for the $nternal 4evenue

Allotment $4A for the Local %overnment

ervice 8>uali)ation *und L%8* Q imposed

conditions for the release thereof#

!//0:

=hether the assailed provisos in the %AAs of

1, 2<<<, and 2<<1, and the +'& resolutions

infrin!e the 'onstitution and the L%' of 11#

"$D:

Ges#

The assailed provisos in the %AAs of 1, 2<<<,

and 2<<1, and the +'& resolutions constitute a

(ithholdin!/ of a portion of the $4A the

effectivel encroach on the fiscal autonom

en9oed b L%?s and must be struck do(n#Accordin! to 4rt. !!, /ec. of t3e

Constitution, @t3e /tate s3all ensure t3e local

autonomy of local governments# 'onsistent

(ith the principle of local autonom,

theConstitution confines the President6s power

over the LGUs to one of general supervision,

(hich has been interpreted to e3clude

https://lexislove.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/province-of-batangas-vs-romulo/

https://lexislove.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/province-of-batangas-vs-romulo/



the power of control# Drilon v.

$imdistin!uishes supervision from

control: control las down the rules in the

doing of an act the officer has the discretion

to order his subordinate to do or redo the act+

or decide to do it

himself ; supervision merel sees to it that the

rules are followed but has no authorit to set

down the rules or the discretion to

modif7replace them#

The entire process involvin! the distribution Q

release of the L%8* is constitutionall

impermissible# The L%8* is part of the $4A or

9ust share/ of the L%?s in the national

taes# /ec.-, 4rt.A of t3eConstitution mandates that the :ust

s3are shall beautomaticall released to the

LGUs# ince the release is automatic, the LGUs

aren6t re5uired to perform an act to receive

the ,just share- it shall be released to them

without need of further action# To sub9ect its

distribution Q release to the va!aries of the

implementin! rules Q re!ulations as sanctioned

b the assailed provisos in the %AAs of 1-

2<<1 and the +'& 4esolutions (ould violate this

constitutional mandate#

The onl possible eception to the mandator

automatic release of the L%?s $4A is if the

national internal revenue collections for the

current fiscal ear is less than <R of the

collections of the 3rd precedin! fiscal ear# The

eception does not appl in this case#

2he Oversight Committee6s authorit is limited

to the implementation of the LGC of .$$.

not to supplant or subvert the same, and

neither can it e3ercise control over the 8!" of

the L%?s#

Congress ma amend an of the provisions of

the LGC but onl through a separate law and notthrou!h appropriations la(s or %AAs# Congress

cannot inclu#e in a general appropriations +ill

matters t3at s3oul# +e more properly enacte#

in a separate legislation.

A general appropriations bill is a special tpe of

le!islation, (hose content is limited to

specified sums of mone dedicated to a specific

purpose or a separate fiscal unit an

provision therein (hich is intended to amend

another law is considered an ,inappropriate

provision,# $ncreasin!.decreasin! the $4A of

L%?s fied in the L%' of 11 are matters of

!eneral Q substantive la(# To permit the

'on!ress to undertake these amendments

throu!h the %AAs (ould undul infrin!e the

fiscal autonom of the L%?s#

=3e value of $G0s as institutions of

#emocracy is measure# +y t3e #egree of

autonomy t3ey en:oy# +ur national officials

should not onl compl (ith the constitutional

provisions in local autonom but should also

appreciate the spirit and libert upon (hichthese provisions are based#

A5 J?A5 N ', &BM Q ALMAJ+8"osted b kae lee on 6:I< "M4enaldo 4# an Juan vs '', &BM, 'ecilia Alma9ose%4 5o# 22, April 1, 11

*A'T:The position of "rovincial Bud!et +fficer for the "rovince of 4i)al (as left vacant on March 22, 1#

"rovincial %overnor, petitioner informed the &irector of &BMthat Ms# &alisa antos, then Municipal Bud!et +fficer of

Tata, 4i)al, assumed offices as Actin! "B+ since March 22,1 and re>uested the &irector of &BM to endorse theappointment of Ms# antos to the position of "B+# &BM4e!ional &irector found 'ecilia Alma9ose, amon! thenominees of the petitioner to be the most >ualified andrecommended to the &BM ecretar the appointment of Alma9ose as "B+ of 4i)al, (hich the &BM ?ec si!ned theappointment papers of Alma9ose as "B+#

?pon learnin! of Alma9oses appointment, petitioner (rote&BM ec protestin! a!ainst the said appointment on the!rounds that the &BM ?sec is not le!all authori)ed toappoint the "B+, that Alma9ose lacks the re>uired 3 rs (orkseperience as provided in Local Bud!et 'ircular 5o# 31, andthat under 8+ 5o# 112, it is the "rovincial %overnor, not the4e!ional &irector or a 'on!ressman, (ho has the po(er torecommend nominees for the position of "B+#

$?8:=hether or not the &BM has the po(er to appoint the "B+(ithout violatin! the principle of Local Autonom#

4?L$5%:=e have to obe the clear mandate on local autonom# =herea la( is capable of t(o interpretations, one in favor of centrali)ed po(er in MalacaSan! and the other beneficial tolocal autonom, the scales must be (ei!hed in favor of autonom#

The 13I 'onstitution had no specific article on localautonom but distin!uished presidential control tosupervision:EThe "resident shall have control of all the eecutivedepartments, bureaus, or offices, eercise !eneralsupervision over all local !overnments as ma be provided bla(, and take care that the la(s be faithfull eecuted# ec#11, Article N$$, 13I 'onstitutionE

The "resident controls the eecutive departments# 0e has nosuch po(er over local !overnments# 0e has onl supervisionand that supervision is both !eneral and circumscribed bstatute#



Article $$, # 2I, 1@ 'onstitution states:Eec# 2I# The tate shall ensure the autonom of local!overnments#E

The 1 sections in Article , on Local %overnment not onlreiterate earlier doctrines but !ive in !reater detail theprovisions makin! local autonom more meanin!ful#Eec# 2# The territorial and political subdivisions shall en9olocal autonom#

Eec# 3# The 'on!ress shall enact a local !overnment code(hich shall provide for a more responsive and accountablelocal !overnment structure instituted throu!h a sstem of decentrali)ation (ith effective mechanisms of recall,initiative, and referendum, allocate amon! the different local!overnment units their po(ers, responsibilities, andresources, and provide for the >ualifications, election,appointment and removal, term, salaries, po(ers andfunctions and duties of local officials, and all other mattersrelatin! to the or!ani)ation and operation of the local units#E

The ri!ht !iven b Local Bud!et 'ircular 5o# 31 (hich states:ec# 6#< H The &BM reserves the ri!ht to fill up an eistin!vacanc (here none of the nominees of the local chief

eecutive meet the prescribed re>uirements#

is ultra vires and is, accordin!l, set aside# The &BM maappoint onl from the list of >ualified recommendeesnominated b the %overnor# $f none is >ualified, he mustreturn the list of nominees to the %overnor eplainin! (h noone meets the le!al re>uirements and ask for ne(recommendees (ho have the necessar eli!ibilities and>ualifications#

Tano vs ocrates9atural and :nvironmental Laws; Constitutional

Law; !egalian (octrine%4 5o# 11<2; Au!ust 21, 1@

F4C=/:+n &ec 1I, 12, the an!!unian! "an!lun!sodn! "uerto "rincesa enacted an ordinancebannin! the shipment of all live fish and lobsteroutside "uerto "rincesa 'it from Januar 1,13 to Januar 1, 1# ubse>uentl thean!!unian! "anlala(i!an, "rovincial%overnment of "ala(an enacted a resolution

prohibitin! the catchin! , !atherin!, possessin!,buin!, sellin!, and shipment of a severalspecies of live marine coral d(ellin! a>uaticor!anisms for I ears, in and comin! from"ala(an (aters#"etitioners filed a special civil action forcertiorari and prohibition, prain! that thecourt declare the said ordinances andresolutions as unconstitutional on the !roundthat the said ordinances deprived them of thedue process of la(, their livelihood, and undul

restricted them from the practice of theirtrade, in violation of ection 2, Article $$ andections 2 and @ of Article $$$ of the 1@'onstitution#

!//0:Are the challen!ed ordinances unconstitutionalO

"$D:5o# The upreme 'ourt found the petitionerscontentions baseless and held that the

challen!ed ordinances did not suffer from aninfirmit, both under the 'onstitution andapplicable la(s# There is absolutel no sho(in!that an of the petitioners >ualifies as asubsistence or mar!inal fisherman# Besides,ection 2 of Article $$ aims primaril not tobesto( an ri!ht to subsistence fishermen, butto la stress on the dut of the tate to protect

the nations marine (ealth# The so-calledpreferential ri!ht/ of subsistence or mar!inalfishermen to the use of marine resources is notat all absolute#$n accordance (ith the 4e!alian &octrine,marine resources belon! to the state andpursuant to the first para!raph of ection 2,Article $$ of the 'onstitution, theireploration, development andutili)ation###shall be under the full control andsupervision of the tate#

$n addition, one of the devolved po(ers of theL'% on devolution is the enforcement of fisherla(s in municipal (aters includin! theconservation of man!roves# This necessarilincludes the enactment of ordinances toeffectivel carr out such fisher la(s (ithinthe municipal (aters# $n li!ht of the principlesof decentrali)ation and devolution enshrined inthe L%' and the po(ers !ranted therein to L%?s(hich un>uestionabl involve the eercise ofpolice po(er, the validit of the >uestioned

ordinances cannot be doubted#



%#4# 5o# 16 Ma 1, 11Basco vs# "A%'+4

0#B# Basco Q Associates for petitioners Nalmonte

La( +ffices collaboratin! counsel for

petitionersA!uirre, Laborte and 'apule forrespondent "A%'+4

*acts:

UThe "hilippine Amusements and %amin!

'orporation "A%'+4 (as created b virtue of

"#&# 1<6@-A dated Januar 1, 1@@ and (as

!ranted a franchise under "#&# 1<6@-B also dated

Januar 1, 1@@Eto establish, operate and

maintain !amblin! casinos on land or (ater (ithin

the territorial 9urisdictionof the "hilippines#E

U"etitioners filed an instant petition seekin! to

annul the "hilippine Amusement and

%amin!'orporation "A%'+4 'harter H "& 16,

because it is alle!edl contrar to morals, public

polic and order

U"etitioners claim that "#&# 16 constitutes a

(aiver of the ri!ht of the 'it of Manila to impose

taesand le!al fees; that the eemption clause in

"#&# 16 is in violation of the principle oflocalautonom#

oection 13 par# 2 of "#&# 16 eempts "A%'+4,

as the franchise holder from pain! anEta of an

kind or form, income or other(ise, as (ell as

fees, char!es or levies of (hatever nature,

(hether 5ational or Local#E$ssue:

U&oes the local %overnment of Manila have the

po(er to impose taes on "A%'+4O0eld

U

5o, the court rules that The 'it !overnment of

Manila has no po(er to impose taes on

"A%'+4#4eason:

U

The principle of Local autonom does not make

local !overnments soverei!n (ithin the state; the

principle of local autonom (ithin the constitution

simpl means decentrali)ation# $t cannot bean$mperium in imperio/ it can onl act intra

soverei!n, or as an arm of the 5ational

%overnment#

U

"A%'+4 has a dual role, to operate and to

re!ulate !amblin! casinos# The latter role is

!overnmental,(hich places it in the cate!or of

an a!enc or instrumentalit of the %overnment#

Bein! aninstrumentalit of the %overnment,

"A%'+4 should be and actuall is eempt from

local taes#

U

The po(er of local !overnment to Eimpose taes

and feesE is al(as sub9ect to ElimitationsE (hich'on!ress ma provide b la(# ince "& 16

remains an EoperativeE la( until Eamended,

repealed or revokedE ec# 3, Art# N$$$, 1@

'onstitution, its Eeemption clauseE remains as an

eception tothe eercise of the po(er of local

!overnments to impose taes and fees# $t cannot

therefore beviolative but rather is consistent (ith

the principle of local autonom#

1@ '4A I2 "olitical La( 'onstitutional La(

Bill of 4i!hts 8>ual "rotection 'lause

Municipal 'orporation Local Autonom

$mperium in $mperio

$n 1@@, the "hilippine Amusements and %amin!

'orporation "A%'+4 (as created b "residential

&ecree 1<6@-A# "& 1<6@-B mean(hile !ranted

"A%'+4 the po(er to establish, operate and

maintain !amblin! casinos on land or (ater (ithin

the territorial 9urisdiction of the "hilippines#/

"A%'+4s operation (as a success hence in 1@,

"& 13 (as passed (hich epanded "A%'+4s

po(er# $n 13, "A%'+4s charter (as updated

throu!h "& 16# "A%'+4s charter provides that

"A%'+4 shall re!ulate and centrali)e all !ames of

chance authori)ed b eistin! franchise or

permitted b la(# ection 1 of "& 16 provides:

ection 1# &eclaration of "olic# $t is hereb

declared to be the polic of the tate to

centrali)e and inte!rate all !ames of chance not

heretofore authori)ed b eistin! franchises or

permitted b la(#

Att# 0umberto Basco and several other la(ers

assailed the validit of the la( creatin! "A%'+4#

The claim that "& 16 is unconstitutional

because a it violates the e>ual protection clause

and b it violates the local autonom clause of theconstitution#

Basco et al ar!ued that "& 16 violates the e>ual

protection clause because it le!ali)es "A%'+4-

conducted !amblin!, (hile most other forms of

!amblin! are outla(ed, to!ether (ith

prostitution, dru! traffickin! and other vices#



Anent the issue of local autonom, Basco et al

contend that "#&# 16 forced cities like Manila to

(aive its ri!ht to impose taes and le!al fees as

far as "A%'+4 is concerned; that ection 13 par#

2 of "#&# 16 (hich eempts "A%'+4, as the

franchise holder from pain! an ta of an kind

or form, income or other(ise, as (ell as fees,

char!es or levies of (hatever nature, (hether

5ational or Local/ is violative of the local

autonom principle#

$?8:

1# =hether or not "& 16 violates the e>ual

protection clause#

2# =hether or not "& 16 violates the local

autonom clause#

08L&:

1# 5o# Just ho( "& 16 in le!ali)in! !amblin!

conducted b "A%'+4 is violative of the e>ual

protection is not clearl eplained in Bascos

petition# The mere fact that some !amblin!

activities like cockfi!htin! "& horse racin!

4A 3<6 as amended b 4A 3, s(eepstakes,

lotteries and races 4A 116 as amended b B" 2

are le!ali)ed under certain conditions, (hile

others are prohibited, does not render the

applicable la(s, "&# 16 for one,

unconstitutional#

Bascos posture i!nores the (ell-accepted

meanin! of the clause e>ual protection of the

la(s#/ The clause does not preclude classification

of individuals (ho ma be accorded different

treatment under the la( as lon! as theclassification is not unreasonable or arbitrar# A

la( does not have to operate in e>ual force on all

persons or thin!s to be conformable to Article $$$,

ec 1 of the 'onstitution# The e>ual protection

clause/ does not prohibit the Le!islature from

establishin! classes of individuals or ob9ects upon

(hich different rules shall operate# The

'onstitution does not re>uire situations (hich are

different in fact or opinion to be treated in la( as

thou!h the (ere the same#

2# 5o# ection I, Article 1< of the 1@

'onstitution provides:

:ach local government unit shall have the power

to create its own source of revenue and to lev

ta3es+ fees+ and other charges subject to such

guidelines and limitation as the congress ma

provide+ consistent with the basic polic on local

autonom) Such ta3es+ fees and charges shall

accrue e3clusivel to the local government)

A close readin! of the above provision does not

violate local autonom particularl on tain!

po(ers as it (as clearl stated that the tain!

po(er of L%?s are sub9ect to such !uidelines and

limitation as 'on!ress ma provide#

*urther, the 'it of Manila, bein! a mere

Municipal corporation has no inherent ri!ht to

impose taes# The 'harter of the 'it of Manila is

sub9ect to control b 'on!ress# $t should be

stressed that municipal corporations are mere

creatures of 'on!ress/ (hich has the po(er to

create and abolish municipal corporations/ due

to its !eneral le!islative po(ers/# 'on!ress,

therefore, has the po(er of control over Local

!overnments# And if 'on!ress can !rant the 'it of

Manila the po(er to ta certain matters, it can

also provide for eemptions or even take back the

po(er#

*urther still, local !overnments have no po(er to

ta instrumentalities of the 5ational %overnment#

"A%'+4 is a !overnment o(ned or controlled

corporation (ith an ori!inal charter, "& 16# All

of its shares of stocks are o(ned b the 5ational

%overnment# +ther(ise, its operation mi!ht be

burdened, impeded or sub9ected to control b amere Local !overnment#

This doctrine emanates from the supremac/ of

the 5ational %overnment over local !overnments#

%<< SC!" %#. 1 Political Law 1 Control Power 1 Local

Government

4odolfo %an)on (as the then maor of $loilo 'it# 1<

complaints (ere filed a!ainst him on !rounds of

misconduct and misfeasance of office# The ecretar of

Local %overnment issued several suspension orders a!ainst

%an)on based on the merits of the complaints filed

a!ainst him hence %an)on (as facin! about 6<< das of

suspension# %an)on appealed the issue to the 'A and the

'A affirmed the suspension order b the ecretar# %an)on

asserted that the 1@ 'onstitution does not authori)e the

"resident nor an of his alter e!o to suspend and remove

local officials; this is because the 1@ 'onstitution

supports local autonom and stren!thens the same# =hat

(as !iven b the present 'onstitution (as mere

supervisor po(er#

!//0 =hether or not the ecretar of Local %overnment,

as the "residents alter e!o, can suspend and or remove

local officials#



"$D Ges# %an)on is under the impression that the

'onstitution has left the "resident mere supervisor

po(ers, (hich supposedl ecludes the po(er of

investi!ation, and denied her control, (hich alle!edl

embraces disciplinar authorit# $t is a mistaken

impression because le!all, supervision/ is not

incompatible (ith disciplinar authorit#

The ' had occasion to discuss the scope and etent of

the po(er of supervision b the "resident over local

!overnment officials in contrast to the po(er of control

!iven to him over eecutive officials of our !overnment

(herein it (as emphasi)ed that the t(o terms, control

and supervision, are t(o different thin!s (hich differ one

from the other in meanin! and etent# $n administration

la( supervision means overseein! or the po(er or

authorit of an officer to see that subordinate officers

perform their duties# $f the latter fail or ne!lect to fulfill

them the former ma take such action or step as

prescribed b la( to make them perform their duties#

'ontrol, on the other hand, means the po(er of an officer

to alter or modif or nullif of set aside (hat a

subordinate officer had done in the performance of his

duties and to substitute the 9ud!ment of the former for

that of the latter#/ But from this pronouncement it cannot

be reasonabl inferred that the po(er of supervision of

the "resident over local !overnment officials does not

include the po(er of investi!ation (hen in his opinion the

!ood of the public service so re>uires#

The ecretar of Local %overnment, as the alter e!o of

the president, in suspendin! %an)on is eercisin! a valid

po(er# 0e ho(ever overstepped b imposin! a 6<< da

suspension#

Documents

Cases - Lpg Digest