Professional Documents
Culture Documents
It also must be noted that Legislative Powers for local government units were vested as a
means to promote the autonomy of local government units. It is only logical that local
government units are well aware of issues and circumstances prevailing over their particular
territory and, as such, with the powers provided by the Local Government Code, address these
issues with expediency thereby promoting harmony. It also addresses the need for local
governments to be more responsive and accountable” and ensure their fullest development as
self reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national
development and social progress”.3
1
Oxford Companion to the US Supreme Court
2
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
3
Angeles, The Restatement of the Law on Local Governments, p. 8 (2005)
However, ordinances enacted must be in consonance with laws of the state. For any
ordinance enacted that goes against the grain with prevailing laws is not valid.
EFFECTIVITY OF ORDINANCES
One very important matter to consider is that ordinances as with any legislation, in order
for it to be valid, it should follow and comply with the requisite procedures of a legislative
process; a series of steps that a legislative body takes to evaluate, amend, and vote on any
proposed legislation, in order to arrive at its enactment. 5 Otherwise the same is not valid.
6
Angeles, The Restatement of the Law on Local Governments, p. 148 (2005)
, McQuillin, The Law on Municipal Corporations
AFFIRMING its finding that the procedural requirements in the
enactment of the Manila Revenue Code have been observed. Drilon vs. Lim G.R.
No. 112497 August 4, 1994
Held: There is no question that the Revised Charter of the City of Manila is a
special act since it relates only to the City of Manila, whereas the Local Tax Code
is a general law because it applies universally to all local governments.
Blackstone defines general law as a universal rule affecting the entire
community and special law as one relating to particular persons or things of a
class. And the rule commonly said is that a prior special law is not ordinarily
repealed by a subsequent general law. The fact that one is special and the other
general creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as remaining
an exception of the general, one as a general law of the land, the other as the
law of a particular case. However, the rule readily yields to a situation where the
special statute refers to a subject in general, which the general statute treats
in particular. This exactly is the circumstance obtaining in the case at bar. Section
17 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila speaks of "ordinance" in general,
i.e., irrespective of the nature and scope thereof, whereas, Section 43 of the
Local Tax Code relates to "ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other
charges" in particular. In regard, therefore, to ordinances in general, the Revised
Charter of the City of Manila is doubtless dominant, but, that dominant force
loses its continuity when it approaches the realm of "ordinances levying or
imposing taxes, fees or other charges" in particular. There, the Local Tax Code
controls. Here, as always, a general provision must give way to a particular
provision. Special provision governs. This is especially true where the law
containing the particular provision was enacted later than the one containing
the general provision. The City Charter of Manila was promulgated on June 18,
1949 as against the Local Tax Code which was decreed on June 1, 1973.The law-
making power cannot be said to have intended the establishment of conflicting
and hostile systems upon the same subject, or to leave in force provisions of a
prior law by which the new will of the legislating power may be thwarted and
overthrown. Such a result would render legislation useless and Idle ceremony,
and subject the law to the reproach of uncertainty and unintelligibility. It is
maintained by private respondent that the subject ordinance is not a "tax
ordinance," because the imposition of rentals, permit fees, tolls and other fees is
not strictly a taxing power but a revenue-raising function, so that the procedure
for publication under the Local Tax Code finds no application. The pretence bears
its own marks of fallacy. Precisely, the raising of revenues is the principal object
of taxation. Under Section 5, Article XI of the New Constitution, "Each local
government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenue and
to levy taxes, subject to such provisions as may be provided by law." And one of
those sources of revenue is what the Local Tax Code points to in particular:
"Local governments may collect fees or rentals for the occupancy or use of public
markets and premises * * *." They can provide for and regulate market stands,
stalls and privileges, and, also, the sale, lease or occupancy thereof. They can
license, or permit the use of, lease, sell or otherwise dispose of stands, stalls or
marketing privileges .Private respondent bewails that the market stall fees
imposed in the disputed ordinance are diverted to the exclusive private use of
the Asiatic Integrated Corporation since the collection of said fees had been let
by the City of Manila to the said corporation in a "Management and Operating
Contract."The assumption is of course saddled on erroneous premise. The fees
collected do not go direct to the private coffers of the corporation. Ordinance
No. 7522 was not made for the corporation but for the purpose of raising
revenues for the city. That is the object it serves. The entrusting of the collection
of the fees does not destroy the public purpose of the ordinance. So long as the
purpose is public, it does not matter whether the agency through which the
money is dispensed is public or private. The right to tax depends upon the
ultimate use, purpose and object for which the fund is raised. It is not dependent
on the nature or character of the person or corporation whose intermediate
agency is to be used in applying it. The people may be taxed for a public
purpose, although it be under the direction of an individual or private
corporation.
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the court below is hereby reversed and set aside.
Ordinance No. 7522 is held validly enacted. BAGATSING vs. RAMIREZ 74 SCRA
306 G.R. No. L-41631 December 17, 1976