TANO v.

SOCRATESFacts: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the co nstitutionality of:(1) Ordinance No. 15-92 entitled: " AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVEFISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRI NCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1,1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS, PENA LTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF"(2) Office Order No. 23, requiring any pers on engaged or intending to engage in any business,trade, occupation, calling or profession or having in his possession any of the articles for which a permit is required to be had, to obtain first a Mayor s and authorizing and directing to che ck or conduct necessaryinspections on cargoes containing live fish and lobster b eing shipped out from Puerto Princesa and,(3) Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2 entitled: "A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THECATCHING, GATHERING, POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND SHIPMENT OF LIVE MARINECORAL DWELLING AQUATIC ORGANISMS The petitione rs contend that the said Ordinances deprived them of due process of law, their l ivelihood, and unduly restricted them from the practice of their trade, in viola tion of Section 2, Article XIIand Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII of the 1987 C onstitution and that the Mayor had the absolute authorityto determine whether or not to issue the permit.They also claim that it took away their right to earn t heir livelihood in lawful ways; and insofar asthe Airline Shippers Association a re concerned, they were unduly prevented from pursuing their vocationand enterin g "into contracts which are proper, necessary, and essential to carry out their businessendeavors to a successful conclusionPublic respondents Governor Socrates and Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan defended the validity of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, as a valid exercise of the ProvincialGovernmen t's power under the general welfare clause; they likewise maintained that there was noviolation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitut ion. Issue: Whether or not the Ordinances in question are unconstitutional Held: NORatio: In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the LGC and thepowers granted therein to local government units under Section 16 (the General Welfare Clause), andunder Sections 149, 447(a) (1) (vi), 458 (a) ( 1) (vi) and 468 (a) (1) (vi), which unquestionably involve theexercise of police power, the validity of the questioned Ordinances cannot be doubted.***Sec. 16. General Welfare . Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted,those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or inci dental for itsefficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare.Within their respective territorial juri sdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, amongother things, t he preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology , encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliantscientifi c and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prospe rity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve thecomfort and convenience of their inhabitants. (emphasis supplied).It is clear to the Court that both Ordinances have two princ ipal objectives or purposes: (1) toestablish a "closed season" for the species o f fish or aquatic animals covered therein for a period of fiveyears; and (2) to protect the coral in the marine waters of the City of Puerto Princesa and the Pr ovince of Palawan from further destruction due to illegal fishing activities