THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, RODOLFO A. MALAPIRA, STEPHEN A. MONSANTO, DAN R. CALDERON, and GRANDY N. TRIESTE, petitioners vs.

THE METROPOLITAN MANILA AUTHORITY and the MUNICIPALITY OF MANDALUYONG, respondents. FACTS: In Gonong Case, the Court held that the confiscation of the license plates of motor vehicles for traffic violations was not among the sanctions that could be imposed by the Metro Manila Commission under PD 1605 and was permitted only under the conditions laid dowm by LOI 43 in the case of stalled vehicles obstructing the public streets. Rodolfo A. Malapira complained to the Court that when he was stopped for an alleged traffic violation, his driver's license was confiscated by Traffic Enforcer Angel de los Reyes in Quezon City. Stephen L. Monsanto, complaining against the confiscation of his driver's license by Traffic Enforcer A.D. Martinez for an alleged traffic violation in Mandaluyong. Dan R. Calderon, a lawyer, also for confiscation of his driver's license by Pat. R.J. Tano-an of the Makati Police Force. Allan D. Martinez invoked Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1988, of Mandaluyong, authorizing the confiscation of driver's licenses and the removal of license plates of motor vehicles for traffic violations. Metropolitan Manila Authority defended the said ordinance on the ground that it was adopted pursuant to the powers conferred upon it by EO 392. It particularly cited Section 2 thereof vesting in the Council (its governing body) the responsibility among others of: 2. Promulgation of resolutions and other issuances of metropolitan wide application, approval of a code of basic services requiring coordination, and exercise of its rule-making powers. (Emphasis supplied) Solicitor General expressed the view that the ordinance was null and void because it represented an invalid exercise of a delegated legislative power. The flaw in the measure was that it violated existing law, specifically PD 1605, which does not permit, and so impliedly prohibits, the removal of license plates and the confiscation of driver's licenses for traffic violations in Metropolitan Manila. Page | 1 PUBCORP CASES MVB

ISSUE: Whether or not the exercise of such delegated power.is valid? NO HELD: According to Elliot, a municipal ordinance, to be valid: 1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; 2) must not be unfair or oppressive; 3) must not be partial or discriminatory; 4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; 5) must not be unreasonable; and 6) must be general and consistent with public policy. A careful study of the Gonong decision will show that the measures under consideration do not pass the first criterion because they do not conform to existing law. The pertinent law is PD 1605. PD 1605 does not allow either the removal of license plates or the confiscation of driver's licenses for traffic violations committed in Metropolitan Manila. There is nothing in the following provisions of the decree authorizing the Metropolitan Manila Commission (and now the Metropolitan Manila Authority) to impose such sanctions. Section 8. Insofar as the Metropolitan Manila area is concerned, all laws, decrees, orders, ordinances, rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. (Emphasis supplied). In fact, the above provisions prohibit the imposition of such sanctions in Metropolitan Manila. The Commission was allowed to "impose fines and otherwise discipline" traffic violators only "in such amounts and under such penalties as are herein prescribed," that is, by the decree itself. Nowhere is the removal of license plates directly imposed by the decree or at least allowed by it to be imposed by the Commission. Notably, Section 5 thereof expressly provides that "in case of traffic violations, the driver's license shall not be confiscated." These restrictions are applicable to the Metropolitan Manila Authority and all other local political subdivisions comprising Metropolitan Manila, including the Municipality of Mandaluyong. The requirement that the municipal enactment must not violate existing law explains itself. Local political subdivisions are able to legislate only by virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power from the national legislature (except only that the power to create their own sources of revenue and to levy taxes is conferred by the Constitution itself). They are mere agents vested with what is called the power of subordinate legislation. As delegates of the Congress, the local government unit cannot contravene but must obey at all times the will of

That is the prerogative of the political departments. the enactments in question. there is nothing in the Constitution categorically proscribing or penalizing gambling or. the legislature may prohibit gambling altogether or allow it without limitation or it may prohibit some forms of gambling and allow others for whatever reasons it may consider sufficient. cannot prevail against the decree. even mentioning it at all. It enacted Ordinance No.. CATANDUANES. which has the force and effect of a statute. to which the function .their principal. In the exercise of its own discretion. Curiously. Civic organizations angrily denounced the project. These principles require that a municipal ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must be general and consistent with public policy. 111097. PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City. PD 1605 remains effective and continues prohibit the confiscation of license plates of motor vehicles (except under the conditions prescribed in LOI 43) and of driver licenses as well for traffic violations in Metropolitan Manila. Other similar Ordinances followed. and must be in consonance with certain well established and basic principles of a substantive nature. for that matter. who is engaged in import and export of abaca as a public nuisance. much less reverse. For an ordinance to be valid. morality. Congress has consulted its own wisdom. it is the measure itself. which this Court has no authority to review. Thus. which is one of the primordial obligations of government. or practicibility of statutes are not addressed to the judiciary but may be resolved only by the legislative and executive departments. GR No. meets these criteria. Municipal corporations are agencies of the State for the promotion and maintenance of local selfgovernment and thus endowed with police powers to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared objects of their creation. In making such choices. The religious elements echoed the objection and so did the women's groups and the youth. it must not only be within the corporate powers of the municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It is left to Congress to deal with the activity as it sees fit. The reaction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City was swift and hostile. MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC. The warehouse is said to have violated Ordinance 13 which provided that warehouses should be at a distance of 200 meters from the blocks of houses nearest to it. HELD: The ordinance was held valid. and (6) must not be unreasonable. and prepared to inaugurate its casino there during the Christmas season. It is settled that questions regarding the wisdom. 13. Well has it been said that courts do not sit to resolve the merits of conflicting theories. that authorizes the Metropolitan Manila Authority to impose the questioned sanction. which are merely local in origin. July 20. Demonstrations were led by the mayor and the city legislators. renovated and equipped the same. and directed Tatel to move. cockfighting and horse-racing. 1994 FACTS: There was instant opposition when PAGCOR announced the opening of a casino in Cagayan de Oro City. HELD: The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. 40243 (207 SCRA 157) FACTS: The Municipal Council of Virac issued a resolution declaring the warehouse of Tatel. 3353 (An Ordinance prohibiting the issuance of business permit and cancelling existing business permit to any establishment for the using and allowing to be used its premises or portion thereof for the operation of casino). While it is generally considered inimical to the interests of the people. GR NO. it leased a portion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties Corporation. Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties. In the case before us. The self-serving language of Section 2 of the challenged ordinance is worth noting. The validity of these Ordinances was questioned. Ordinance No. The purpose is to avoid the loss of life and property in case of fire. To this end. The trouble arose when in 1992. What is regulated by the ordinance is the construction of warehouses wherein inflammable materials are stored within 200 meters from a block of houses and not the construction per se of a Page | 2 PUBCORP CASES MVB warehouse. Gambling is not illegal per se. Inc. which was enacted by the Metropolitan Manila Authority. TATEL VS. it has prohibited jueteng and monte but permits lotteries. Series of 1952.

and the CEB. which empowers the local government units to prevent or suppress only those forms of gambling prohibited by law. On August 15. Subsequently. ISSUE: Whether or not Resolution No. or in derogation of a common right. We hold that the power of PAGCOR to centralize and regulate all games of chance. Casino gambling is authorized by P. a bidding was conducted and private complainant Lopez Pugong (Pugong) won the contract for the construction of the said public market. Blg. Page | 3 PUBCORP CASES MVB . A formal contract was executed by and between Pugong. 19 which empowers certain public officials. 1869 and the public policy embodied therein insofar as they prevent PAGCOR from exercising the power conferred on it to operate a casino in Cagayan de Oro City. 20 is Batas Pambansa Bilang (B. Petitioner argue that the applicable law at the time of the passage of Resolution No. without permit. petitioners assert that their act of demolishing the structures erected on the construction site is an implementation of the provisions of the Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 20 is a valid exercise of police power? HELD: The Court is not persuaded by petitioners‟ contention that the subject demolition is a valid exercise of police power.P.A. particularly of the provisions of Section 3(e) of R. The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is obvious. the acts of petitioner have been established as a violation of law. Subsequently.D. or unless it is against public policy. P. including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. from which they have derived their power in the first place. they are answerable only to their own conscience and the constituents who will ultimately judge their acts. to remove illegal constructions which were built. either in public places or private property.) 337 or the Local Government Code of 1983. or those which affect the immediate safety of persons and property and may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity.D. partial. like the municipal mayor. Petitioners further contend that the demolition is a valid exercise of police power and that their act is justified by the general welfare clause under the LGC which empowers them to enact and implement measures for the general well-being of their constituents. and not to the courts of justice. No. 1869 has not been modified by the Local Government Code. or is unreasonable. It is a heresy to suggest that the local government units can undo the acts of Congress. 3019. The exercise of police power by the local government is valid unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the land. Neither can petitioners seek cover under the general welfare clause authorizing the abatement of nuisances without judicial proceedings. This principle applies to nuisances per se. remains unimpaired. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter.D. This decree has the status of a statute that cannot be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance. Petitioners claim that ROBERT TAYABAN y CALIPLIP. 20 which provide for the demolition of the erected structures of the ongoing public market. One of the requisites in order that an ordinance be valid is “It must not contravene the constitution or any statute. 1096.” The apparent flaw in the ordinances in question is that they contravene P. the Sangguniang Bayan of Tinoc adopted Resolution No. 1869. as the contractor.) No. vs. Respondents. or an act of the legislature. oppressive. Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Claiming that Pugong failed to obtain the requisite building permit pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.belongs in our scheme of government. Tayaban was informed by the Governor that his proposal was approved and that the project shall be funded by the Cordillera Executive Board (CEB). Whichever way these branches decide. discriminating. Actual construction of the public market was commenced in June 1989. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking body. FACTS: Mayor Tayaban submitted a project proposal to provincial governor Benjamin Cappleman for the construction of the Tinoc Public Market. as the project owner. Petitioners.D. FRANCISCO MADDAWAT y TAYOBAN. and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the statute. That function is exclusive. ARTEMIO BALANGUE* y LANGA. In the present case. 1989. FRANCISCO MAYUMIS y BAHEL and QUIRINO PANA y CUYAHEN.

notwithstanding that such distance was crucial in determining whether there was an actual violation of Section 44. Upon their advise. The first.* respondents. morals. 50. and for the protection of their property. petitioners never made known their supposed concerns either to the Governor or to the CEB. fall within the purview of the first branch of the general welfare clause. it should have given due deference to the law and the rights of petitioner. known as the police power proper. The matter was referred to the Municipal Engineer. PANGASINAN. to the due process clause of the Constitution. the records do not show that it even attempted to measure the distance. In 1989. JULY 2. 2004 (433 SCRA 362) HELD: The general welfare clause has two branches. as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon the municipal council by law. The abatement of a nuisance without judicial proceedings is possible only if it is a nuisance per se. Chief of Police. The different local offices that respondent municipality tapped to conduct an investigation never conducted such measurement either. However. for purposes of regulation enacted by the municipal council of Makati. Respondent municipality failed to comply with the due process clause when it passed Resolution No. JOSE JOVELLANOS and the MUNICIPALITY OF CALASIAO. the ordinances imposing licenses and requiring permits for any business establishment. In Resolution No. it declared: a) xxx the existing gasoline station is a blatant violation and disregard of existing law to wit: Petitioner insists that (1) the legal maxim of ejusdem generis did not apply to her case. Moreover. authorizes the municipality to enact ordinances as may be necessary and proper for the health and safety. (2) the closure/transfer of her gasoline filling station by respondent municipality was an invalid exercise of the latter's police powers and (3) it was the principle of res judicata that applied in this case. and convenience of the municipality and its inhabitants. A local government is considered to have properly exercised its police powers only when the following requisites are met: (1) the interests of the public generally. which in this case is the CEB.14 the power to take actions and enact measures to promote the health and general welfare of its constituents. While it maintained that the gasoline filling station of petitioner was less than 100 meters from the nearest public school and church. they took the law into their own hands and precipitately demolished the subject structures that were built without the benefit of any hearing or consultation with the proper authority. petitioner. MAKATI. comfort. GR NO. require the interference of the State and (2) the means employed are reasonably Page | 4 PUBCORP CASES MVB necessary for the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive. The first requirement refers to the equal protection clause and the second. some residents of Calasiao petitioned the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of said municipality for the closure or transfer of the station to another location. Instead. 150763. the Sangguniang Bayan recommended to the Mayor the closure or transfer of location of petitioner's gasoline station. vs. hence. known as the general legislative power. Respondent municipality invalidly used its police powers in ordering the closure/transfer of petitioner's gasoline station. under RA 7160. . petitioner's business could not be considered a nuisance which respondent municipality could summarily abate in the guise of exercising its police powers. authorizes the municipal council to enact ordinances and make regulations not repugnant to law. In the present case. good order. A gas station is not a nuisance per se or one affecting the immediate safety of persons and property. The second. CONCEPCION PARAYNO. While it had. peace. as distinguished from those of a particular class. FACTS: Petitioner was the owner of a gasoline filling station in Calasiao. prosperity. it cannot be closed down or transferred summarily to another location. 50.the public market would pose danger to the safety and health of schoolchildren if it were built on the place being contested. Municipal Health Officer and the Bureau of Fire Protection for investigation. RURAL BANK VS. ISSUE: Whether or not the closure/transfer of her gasoline filling station by respondent municipality was an invalid exercise of the latter's police powers? HELD: Yes. Pangasinan.

Section 8 of the Resolution provides that petitioner is authorized to charge its subscribers the maximum rates specified therein. to prescribe regulations to promote the health. To test its validity.A. vs. It alleged that respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod has no authority to regulate the subscriber rates charged by CATV operators because under Executive Order No. Inc. under R. Necessarily. THE BATANGAS CITY SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD and BATANGAS CITY MAYOR. morals. we must apply the particular requisites of a valid ordinance as laid Page | 5 PUBCORP CASES MVB On the assumption of a conflict between E. under E.down by the accepted municipal corporations. we hold that the NTC. install. When the State declared a policy of deregulation. however. At this juncture. Petitioner then filed a petition for injunction docketed as Civil Case No. or divest itself of any power over the inhabitants of the district which it possesses before the charter was granted. ruled that: "The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is obvious. Thus.. does not divest the State of any of its sovereignty.. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking body. in the case at bar. Being mere creatures of the State. 7160.00 per month. No. 210. 210 granting petitioner a permit to construct. we cannot sustain Resolution No." Sometime in 1993. education. the proper action is not to uphold one and annul the other but to give effect to both by harmonizing them if possible. that any increase of rates shall be subject to the approval of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. No. ISSUE: May a local government unit (LGU) regulate the subscriber rates charged by CATV operators within its territorial jurisdiction? HELD: While we recognize the LGUs‟ power under the general welfare clause. including specifically the fixing of subscriber rates. peace. Resolution No. petitioner increased its subscriber rates from P88. 4254. the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) has the sole authority to regulate the CATV operation in the Philippines. Verily.51 The legislature. pursuant to Resolution No. The flaws in Resolution No.A. absolve itself from its right and duty to administer the public affairs of the entire state. NOTES: Magtajas vs. It is a heresy to suggest that the local government units . INC. 210. by establishing a municipal corporation. LGUs cannot defeat national policies through enactments of contrary measures. it bears emphasizing that municipal corporations are bodies politic and corporate. In effect.00 to P180. "provided. both laws become equally effective and mutually complementary. Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. No. CATV system is not a mere local concern. Pryce Properties Corp. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. respondent Mayor wrote petitioner a letter threatening to cancel its permit unless it secures the approval of respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod. has exclusive jurisdiction over matters affecting CATV operation. This recourse finds application here. but as governmental agencies of the state. We are convinced that respondents strayed from the well recognized limits of its power. created not only as local units of local selfgovernment. 205. The grant of regulatory power to the NTC is easily understandable. As a result. THE COURT OF APPEALS. but nothing herein precludes LGUs from exercising its general power. respondents FACTS: Respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Resolution No. and operate a CATV system in Batangas City. petitioner. The complexities that characterize this new technology demand that it be regulated by a specialized agency. 205. the LGUs are bound to follow. 210 are: (1) it violates the mandate of existing laws and (2) it violates the State‟s deregulation policy over the CATV industry. petitioner may increase its subscriber rates without respondents’ approval. principles governing BATANGAS CATV.. 205 and R. good order or safety and general welfare of their constituents. No.O. 7160. 210 is an enactment of an LGU acting only as agent of the national legislature. To rule otherwise is to render the State‟s policy ineffective.O. its act must reflect and conform to the will of its principal.

The net result is that the authority to grant franchises for the operation of jaialai frontons is in Congress. fish enclosures. Moreover. with respect to wagers or betting. 1995 (251 SCRA 42) FACTS: Section 4 (k) of the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA)." Lim vs. the legislature might. which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it. mussels or other aquatic beds or bangus fry area within a definite zone of the municipal waters. 409. By and large. 392. It has to be conceded that there was no intent on the part of the legislature to repeal RA No. The power to grant still includes the power to withhold or recall. by a single act. and the corporation could not prevent it. we here confirm that Congress retains control of the local government units although in significantly reduced degree now than under our previous Constitutions. Unless there is some constitutional limitation on the right. CA. GR Nos.can undo the acts of Congress. but retained for itself such power "to franchise". such as the jai-alai where bets are accepted. without which they cannot exist. so it may destroy. permit. would not amount to something meaningful UNLESS the holder of the permit or Page | 6 PUBCORP CASES MVB license was also FRANCHISED by the national government to so operate. and Section 2 of EO No. the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991. from which they have derived their power in the first place. LLDA vs. . Pacquing. What Congress delegated to the City of Manila in Rep. or regulate" which therefore means that a license or permit issued by the City of Manila to operate a wager or betting activity. The Sangguniang Bayan (SB) may grant fishery privileges to erect fish corrals. including the jai-alai. „Municipal corporations owe their origin to. even this power to license. and operation of fishpens. Since ADC has no franchise from Congress to operate the jai-alai. the mere tenants at will of the legislature. 4850 and its amendments. construction. has granted to the municipalities the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters. GR No.‟ This basic relationship between the national legislature and the local government units has not been enfeebled by the new provisions in the Constitution strengthening the policy of local autonomy. On the other hand. True. specifically provide that the LLDA shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting the said region. so to phrase it. The repeal of laws should be made clear and expressed. 7160 do not necessarily repeal the aforementioned laws creating the LLDA and granting the latter water rights authority over Laguna de Bay and the lake region. As it may destroy. was the power to "license. and transferred to the GAB on 1 January 1951 by Executive Order No. and derive their powers and rights wholly from the legislature. The LGC does not contain any express provision which categorically expressly repeal the charter of the LLDA. ISSUE: Which agency of the Government — the LLDA or the towns and municipalities comprising the region — should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its environs insofar as the issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned? HELD: We hold that the provisions of RA No. As it creates. We know of no limitation on the right so far as to the corporation themselves are concerned. 927. like the direct conferment on the local government units of the power to tax. The power to create still includes the power to destroy. 115044 (240 SCRA 649) ISSUE: whether ADC has a valid franchise to operate the Jai-Alai de Manila? HELD: It is clear from the foregoing that Congress did not delegate to the City of Manila the power "to franchise" wagers or betting. RA No. 120865-71. Without meaning to detract from that policy. including the City of Manila. which cannot now be withdrawn by mere statute. and if we can suppose it capable of so great a folly and so great a wrong. They are. RA No. or regulate wagers or betting on jai-alai was removed from local governments. and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the statute. it may abridge and control. permit. while the regulatory function is vested in the GAB. 7160. fish corrals and the like. the national legislature is still the principal of the local government units. oyster. December 7. 4850. 813. Act No. including navigation. however. the provisions of PD No. It breathes into them the breath of life. sweep from existence all of the municipal corporations in the State. there are certain notable innovations in the Constitution. it may not so operate even if it has a license or permit from the City Mayor to operate the jai-alai in the City of Manila.

municipal corporations may exercise police powers within the fair intent and purpose of their creation which are reasonably proper to give effect to the powers expressly granted. the special statute should prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general statute. respondent COA disapproved Resolution No. It is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. as governmental agencies. and statutes conferring powers on public corporations have been construed as empowering them to do the things essential to the enjoyment of life and desirable for the safety of the people. p. 277). 60 which reads: A RESOLUTION TO CONFIRM AND/OR RATIFY THE ONGOING BURIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INITIATED BY THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR. 273) Thus. ISSUE: whether or not Resolution No. Resolution No.E. provisions and application. This is because implied repeals are not favored and as much as possible.J. 60. Qualified beneficiaries. FUNDS TO BE TAKEN OUT OF UNAPPROPRIATED AVAILABLE FUNDS EXISTING IN THE MUNICIPAL TREASURY.000. Salaveria. CFI of Agusan del Norte. effect must be given to all enactments of the legislature. The so-called inferred police powers of such corporations are as much delegated powers as are those conferred in express terms. reenacted under Resolution No. 60 was referred to respondent Commission on Audit (COA) for its expected allowance in audit.It has to be conceded that the charter of the LLDA constitutes a special law. 39 Phil. and as a general rule. amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere implication. or be inferred from the mere fact of the creation of the municipal corporation. are bereaved families of Makati whose gross family income does not exceed two thousand pesos (P2. Binay vs. p. not only does the State effectuate its purposes through the exercise of the police power but the municipality does also." Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute. 60. 102). safety. general in its terms. it has to be concluded that the charter of the LLDA should prevail over the LGC.S. A special law cannot be repealed.S. (62 C. under the Burial Assistance Program. 201 SCRA 508 (1991) FACTS: Petitioner Municipality. 60 and disallowed in audit the disbursement of finds for the implementation thereof. comfort and convenience.S. 243.00) a month.. Before a municipal corporation may exercise such power. 28 N. 849). through its Council. Based on its preliminary findings. Metro Manila Commission approved Resolution No. 7160 (LGC) is a general law. would receive the amount of five hundred pesos (P500. must have such measures of the power as are necessary to enable them to perform their governmental functions. of the Municipality of Makati is a valid exercise of police power under the general welfare clause? HELD: Police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal corporations (Balacuit v. The power is a continuing one.000. Furthermore. although the terms of the general law are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special law. (U. RA No. (62 C. is not repealed by a subsequent statute. The beneficiaries. unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest. provided for a particular case or class of cases. the municipal secretary certified a disbursement fired of four hundred thousand pesos (P400. v. approved Resolution No.00) for the implementation of the Burial Page | 7 PUBCORP CASES MVB Assistance Program. Thereafter. Municipal governments exercise this power under the general welfare clause: pursuant thereto they are clothed with authority to "enact such ordinances and issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out and discharge the responsibilities conferred upon it by law. Braden. OF EXTENDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OF FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500. there must be a valid delegation of such power by the legislature which is the repository of the inherent powers of the State.00) TO A BEREAVED FAMILY. municipal corporations. founded on public necessity.00) cash relief from the Municipality of Makati. A valid delegation of police power may arise from express delegation. The special law is to be taken as an exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. 163 SCRA 182). It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that "a special statute. Thus. and such as shall be necessary and proper to provide for the health.J. (Crawfordsville vs. upon fulfillment of other requirements. the inference of their delegation growing out of the fact of the creation of the municipal corporation and the additional fact that the corporation can only fully accomplish the objects of its creation by exercising such powers.. maintain peace . Domingo.

149. And under Section 7 of BP 337. The police power of a municipal corporation extends to all the great public needs.and order. SALVADOR VILLACORTA as City Engineer of Dagupan City. for respondents. Section 2.S. and preserve the comfort and convenience of the inhabitants therein. even . that the zoning ordinance and all other pertinent rules and regulations are observed." The police power of a municipal corporation is broad. and to everything worthwhile for the preservation of comfort of the inhabitants of the corporation (62 C. promote the prosperity and general welfare of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof. Jr. Every proposed subdivision plan over any lot in the City of Dagupan. Section 3. to reduce disorder. shalt before the same is submitted for approval and/or verification by the Bureau of Lands and/or the Land Registration Commission. and maintain peace and order in the local government unit. it is deemed inadvisable to attempt to frame any definition which shall absolutely indicate the limits of police power. Section 4. to forestall fraud. FACTS: ORDINANCE 22 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING SUBDIVISION PLANS OVER PARCELS OF LAND IN THE CITY OF DAGUPAN. Thus. Page | 8 PUBCORP CASES MVB GREGORIO BERNARDO and HON. those necessarily implied therefrom. and convenience as consistently as may be with private rights. improve morals. health. The list is endless. morals. in a broad sense includes all legislation and almost every function of the municipal government. be previously submitted to the City Engineer of the City who shall see to it that no encroachment is made on any portion of the public domain. to minimize carnaping. in a broad sense includes all legislation and almost every function of the municipal government. This ordinance immediately upon approval. enhance prosperity. Llamas. comfort. It shall be unlawful for the Register of Deeds of Dagupan City to allow the registration of a subdivision plan unless there is prior written certification issued by the City Engineer that such plan has already been submitted to his office and that the same is in order. Thus. but not to exceed. it is not limited thereto. petitioners. The Municipality of Makati approved a resolution providing a burial service to be taken out of the unappropriated funds. vs. while it is especially occupied with whatever affects the peace. the exercise of freedom of speech. and general welfare of the community. MACARIO OFILADA as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan respondents. but is broadened to deal with conditions which exists so as to bring out of them the greatest welfare of the people by promoting public convenience or general prosperity. Public purpose is not unconstitutional merely because it incidentally benefits a limited number of persons. an amount equivalent to P0. "every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted. Any violation of this ordinance shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred (P200. shall take effect ISSUE: whether or not ordinance 22 adopted by the municipal board of Dagupan City is valid? HELD: To sustain the ordinance would be to open the floodgates to other ordinances amending and so violating national laws in the guise of implementing them. and. and. the duty to provide for the real needs of the people in their health. as well as powers necessary and proper for governance such as to promote health and safety. CAGUIOA as Register of Deeds of Dagupan City." (Sections 91. Sec. and has been said to be commensurate with. but the means. and. safety. security. It covers a wide scope of subjects. and JUAN S. BP 337). and so on. the registration of vehicles. the execution of contracts. Section 5. Be it ordained by the Municipal Board of Dagupan City in session assembled: Section 1. and insure the protection of property therein. the validation of passports.30 per square meter of every lot resulting or win result from such subdivision shall be charged by the City Engineer's Office.00) pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both in the discretion of the judge. ordinances could be passed imposing additional requirements for the issuance of marriage licenses. to prevent bigamy. The drift is towards social welfare legislation geared towards state policies to provide adequate social services . It extends to all the great public needs. 177 and 208. the promotion of general welfare and social justice.J. improve public morals. This resolution was held valid. to deter imposture. Victor T. 128). As service fee thereof.

the Municipality may not delegate to a private individual as Manager-Administrator to "use or dispose of the fisheries portion in Page | 9 PUBCORP CASES MVB In sum. Ordinance No. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void. 8. on the time honored justification of Salus populi est suprema lex. the period granted the Manager-Administrator was for twenty-five (25) years. The so-called "general welfare" is too amorphous and convenient an excuse for official arbitrariness. INC. Let it always be remembered that in the truly democratic state. there is the proviso that the timber and other forest products therein shall be placed under the administration and control of the forest service so that insofar as the ordinance relates to the timber and other forest products and the reforestation of the timberland portions indicated in Plan Ipd-92 including the powers. 4041. Judge. Such is a question of law for if the Ordinance is illegal and contrary to law. if not more so than. LANAO DEL SUR. COURT OF APPEALS. It is of no moment that at the pre-trial hearing of Civil Case No. duties and responsibilities of the Manager-Administrator affecting the forestry portions are violative of Act No. respondents. we feel. CFI of Pangasinan. This has to be so for the individual must subordinate his interests to the common good. 4041. renewable for another twenty-five years. HON. and GERUNCIO LACUESTA. We therefore urge that proper care attend the exercise of the police power lest it deteriorate into an unreasonable intrusion into the purely private affairs of the individual. SCC-648 (which was transferred to Branch 111.if the end be valid. BALINDONG and . series of 1974 of the Municipal Council of Bayambang. the contract executed in pursuance thereto is consequently illegal. Under the Fisheries Act. MATALIN COCONUT CO. vs. Deputy Sheriff OSCAR SIBUNA of Pangasinan. SPOUSES LYDIA TERRADO & MARTIN ROSARIO.. Neither can the Municipality grant the exclusive privilege of fishing for a period more than five (5) years. Moreover. AMIR M. This advice is especially addressed to the local governments which exercise the police power only by virtue of a valid delegation from the national legislature under the general welfare clause. the police power becomes correspondingly ubiquitous. FACTS: ISSUE: validity or legality of the Municipal Ordinance HELD: The Ordinance is clearly against the provisions of the law for it granted exclusive fishery privileges to the private respondent without benefit of public bidding. So many excesses are attempted in the name of the police power that it is time. HON. 8 is not a question of fact that the parties may stipulate and agree at the pre-trial hearing of the case which is for annulment of the contract under Ordinance No. 8. CFI Dagupan and docketed as D5118) the parties had admitted the legality of Ordinance No. FELICIDAD CARANDANG VILLALON. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MALABANG. vs. protecting the rights of the public. 22 suffers from the additional defect of violating this authority for legislation in contravention of the national law by adding to its requirements. We hereby pronounce the nullity of Ordinance No. would be ultra vires. except when the law itself authorizes their validity. for a brief admonition. In the instant case. much less sell forest products. Pangasinan and the contract of management and supervision executed between the Municipality of Bayambang and Geruncio Lacuesta as Manager-Administrator of the Bayambang Fishery & Hunting Park and Municipal Watershed.. whereas in the instant case. protecting the rights of the individual is as important as. petitioners. wild games and fish from the area. under the specific provision of Act No. The issue as to the legality of Ordinance No. petitionerappellee. Regulation is a fact of life in any well-ordered community. As society becomes more and more complex. and DOMINGO FERNANDEZ. accordance with the general law on municipal waters" nor to charge foes for fishing and hunting in the park. 8.

45-66 enacted by respondent Municipal Council of Malabang." It imposed a "police inspection fee" of P. or both. that it is merely realizing a marginal average profit of P0. of the tax of P0.00 for every sack of flour being illegally shipped outside the municipality. the Quezon City Council passed the following resolution: RESOLVED by the council of Quezon assembled. is valid? HELD: No. oppressive and confiscatory. respondentsappellants. Any person or company or group of individuals violating the ordinance "is liable to a fine of not less than P100. 2264).00. 45-46. Quezon City vs. The area so designated shall immediately be developed and should be open for operation not later than six months from the date of approval of the application. to request.30 per sack of cassava starch or flour.30 per bag. being violative of Republic Act No. 6118.60 per bag. and of the nation. the petitioner prayed that the ordinance be declared null and void ab initio." The ordinance made it unlawful for any person. Quezon City.HADJI PANGILAMUN MANALOCON. 9. and is contrary to the economic policy of the government. ISSUE: Whether not Ordinance No. L-34915 (122 SCRA 759) FACTS: It involves Section 9 of Ordinance No. entitled "AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A POLICE INSPECTION FEE OF P.00.40. to stop any further selling and/or transaction of memorial park lots in Quezon City where the owners thereof have failed to donate the required 6% . The validity of the ordinance was challenged by the Matalin Coconut. 2264. as it does hereby request the City Engineer. while the prevailing market price is P16. therefore. The petitioner also prayed that during the pendency of the action. intervenor-appellee. Lanao del Sur. enacted Municipal Ordinance No. but not more than P1. in general. The so-called "police inspection fee" levied by Page | 10 PUBCORP CASES MVB the ordinance is "unjust and unreasonable. and to pay Pl." The Court finally finds the inspection fee of P0. Matalin Coconut Company. to be determined by competent City Authorities. in the discretion of the court. by the ordinance in question would force the petitioner to close or stop its cassava flour starch milling business considering that it is maintaining a big labor force in its operation. or to suffer imprisonment of 20 days. The respondents-appellants contend that the municipality has the power and authority to approve the ordinance in question pursuant to Section 2 of the Local Autonomy Act (Republic Act No.. Inc. The further imposition.00 per bag. GR No. therefore. entitled "ORDINANCE REGULATING THE ESTABLISHMENT. LANAO DEL SUR. but also unreasonable. 2264.30 PER SACK OF CASSAVA STARCH PRODUCED AND SHIPPED OUT OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MALABANG AND IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF. per bag. The ordinance. S64. FACTS: Municipal Council of Malabang. which shall be paid by the shipper before the same is transported or shipped outside the municipality. the aforequoted section of the Ordinance was not enforced by city authorities but seven years after the enactment of the ordinance. including transportation costs. For several years. and that the respondent Municipal Treasurer be ordered to refund the amounts paid by petitioner under the ordinance. has an adverse effect on the economic growth of the Municipality of Malabang. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF PRIVATE MEMORIAL TYPE CEMETERY OR BURIAL GROUND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF QUEZON CITY AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF" provides: Sec. including a force of security guards to guard its properties. At least six (6) percent of the total area of the memorial park cemetery shall be set aside for charity burial of deceased persons who are paupers and have been residents of Quezon City for at least 5 years prior to their death. in particular. of cassava flour starch shipped out from the Municipality of Malabang because the average production is P15. invoking the authority of Section 2 of Republic Act No. imposed by the ordinance in question to be excessive and confiscatory. PURAKAN PLANTATION COMPANY.000. cassava starch or flour without paying to the Municipal Treasurer or his authorized representatives the corresponding fee fixed by (the) ordinance. MUNICIPAL MAYOR and MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF MALABANG. otherwise known as the Local Autonomy Act. a preliminary injunction be issued enjoining the respondents from enforcing the ordinance. Inc. It has been shown by the petitioner. alleging among others that the ordinance is not only ultra vires. Lanao del Sur. Ericta. company or group of persons "to ship out of the Municipality of Malabang.30 per bag.

537). the contention being that it . fix the license fee." Police power is defined by Freund as 'the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property' (Quoted in Political Law by Tañada and Carreon. Sec. Pursuant to this petition. morals. Neither can the ordinance in question be justified under sub-section 't. p. prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction (Sp. We quote with approval the lower court's ruling which declared null and void Section 9 of the questioned city ordinance: "The issue is: Is Section 9 of the ordinance in question a valid exercise of the police power? An examination of the Charter of Quezon City (Rep. Petitioners argue that the taking of the respondent's property is a valid and reasonable exercise of police power and that the land is taken for a public use as it is intended for the burial ground of paupers HELD: We find the stand of the private respondent as well as the decision of the respondent Judge to be well-founded. and occupation as may be established or practiced in the City (Sub-sections 'C. Esguerra. the city passes the burden to private cemeteries. it is not taken for public use but rather to destroy in order to promote the general welfare. Municipal Board of Iloilo. Section 9 cannot be justified under the power granted to Quezon City to tax. in writing that Section 9 of Ordinance No. Q16002) seeking to annul Section 9 of the Ordinance in question The respondent alleged that the same is contrary to the Constitution. 12.' Section 12 of Republic Act 537. 81 Phil. It does not involve the taking or confiscation of property with the exception of a few cases where there is a necessity to confiscate private property in order to destroy it for the purpose of protecting the peace and order and of promoting the general welfare as for instance. Law.' Sec. Series of 1964 of Quezon City is not a mere police regulation but an outright confiscation. If he is deprived of his property outright. 1954. 6118. 33. 537). V-II. The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation. "It seems to the court that Section 9 of Ordinance No. The power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit (People vs. Rep. nay. or the general welfare of the people. does not reveal any provision that would justify the ordinance in question except the provision granting police power to the City. 6118.space intended for paupers burial. Vega vs. May 12. No. the Local Autonomy Act. Act 537. There is no reasonable relation between the setting aside of at least six (6) percent of the total area of all private cemeteries for charity burial grounds of deceased paupers and the promotion of health. 'Violation of the provision thereof is punishable with a fine and/or imprisonment and that upon conviction thereof the permit to operate and maintain a private cemetery shall be revoked or cancelled. good order. 70. Police power is usually exercised in the form of mere regulation or restriction in the use of liberty or property for the promotion of the general welfare. A fortiori. the confiscation of an illegally possessed article. such as opium and firearms. 39 N.J. Inc. safety. Mich. Proc. L-6765. the owner does not recover from the government for injury sustained in consequence thereof. the Quezon City Charter. 4964 of the City of Manila. 50). GR No. and the Revised Administrative Code. Velasco vs. the power to regulate does not include the power to confiscate. Act No. In police power. even without compensation. 396). because under Section 13 of said ordinance. the Quezon City Engineer notified respondent Himlayang Pilipino. trades.A. Page | 11 PUBCORP CASES MVB There is nothing in the above provision which authorizes confiscation. and regulate such other business. The ordinance in question not only confiscates but also prohibits the operation of a memorial park cemetery. R. 12. a petition for declaratory relief.' The confiscatory clause and the penal provision in effect deter one from operating a memorial park cemetery. It deprives a person of his private property without due process of law. It is usually exerted in order to merely regulate the use and enjoyment of property of the owner. L-24153. Instead of building or maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose. S-64 would be enforced Respondent Himlayang Pilipino reacted by filing with the Court of First Instance of Rizal Branch XVIII at Quezon City. The police power of Quezon City is defined in sub-section 00." We now come to the question whether or not Section 9 of the ordinance in question is a valid exercise of police power. Villegas. 120 SCRA 568(1983) FACTS: It is declaratory relief challenging the constitutionality based on Ordinance No.

or in any room or rooms within the same building where the barber shop is located as long as the operator of the barber shop and the room where massaging is conducted is the same person. it is well to recall. (2) in order to forestall possible immorality which might grow out of the construction of separate rooms for massage of customers.S. As above stated." As pointed out in the brief of respondentsappellees. therefore. The objectives behind its enactment are: "(1) To be able to impose payment of the license fee for engaging in the business of massage clinic under Ordinance No. The assailed ordinance is worded thus: "It shall be prohibited for any operator of any barber shop to conduct the business of massaging customers or other persons in any adjacent room or rooms of said barber shop. a 1918 decision. is the progressive view of Philippine jurisprudence. Page | 12 PUBCORP CASES MVB ." ISSUE: whether or not ordinance is valid? HELD: The assailed ordinance is worded thus: "It shall be prohibited for any operator of any barber shop to conduct the business of massaging customers or other persons in any adjacent room or rooms of said barber shop. it is a police power measure. Such. of the unconstitutionality of such ordinance. There is no showing. 3659 as amended by Ordinance 4767. Salaveria." As it was then. this clause has been given wide application by municipal authorities and has in its relation to the particular circumstances of the case been liberally construed by the courts. v. which "delegates in statutory form the police power to a municipality. so it has continued to be." This Court has been most liberal in sustaining ordinances based on the general welfare clause. As far back as U. this Court through Justice Malcolm made clear the significance and scope of such a clause. or in any room or rooms within the same building where the barber shop is located as long as the operator of the barber shop and the rooms where massaging is conducted is the same person.amounts to a deprivation of property of petitionersappellants of their means of livelihood without due process of law. an entirely different measure than the ordinance regulating the business of barbershops and.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times