Cases on Statutory Construction

On Presumption of Constitutionality
On Locus Standi
Power of Local Government
Statutory Construction
Bryan Villarosa

On Presumption of
Constitutionality
#1
Statutory Construction
#1 Presumption of Constitutionality | 235 SCRA 135, 10 (1994)
Bryan Villarosa

Drilon v Lim

Thesis Statement:
Justice Secretary Drilon declared a Manila
Drilon Lim
Revenue Ordinance, as null and void for
non-compliance with Section 187 of the
Local Government Code which vests to Non-compliance of Section 187 of Local
Ordinance 7794 with Government Code is
the Secretary the power to decide on tax enactment unconstitutional
taxation appeals. procedures (RTC)
 Presumption of Constitutionality
Statutory Construction
Bryan Villarosa
Supreme Court:

Is LGC 187 unconstitutional? No.

1 Section 187 only authorizes the
Secretary to review the legality of
ordinance.

Court 2
He only set aside as ultra vires
and non-compliance with

Decisions:
procedures, not replaced it.

Admonished the RTC judge as "hasty in

3 invalidating" LGU 187. Courts must exercise
RTC Manila: LGC 187 is unconstitutional. "purposeful hesitation" for laws were carefully
studied and presumed constitutional.
LGC 187 gave to the Secretary the power of
control, not supervision only. Control is only Reversed RTC Decision.
vested by the Constitution to the President. LGC Section 187 is
constituional.
On Locus Standi
#2
Bryan Villarosa #2 On Locus Standi | 338 SCRA 81 (2000)

IBP v Zamora

Thesis Statement:
Integrated Bar of the Philippines assailed
IBP Zamora + 3 Generals
the decision of President Estrada when
the latter deployed the marines to assist
There's no
the PNP in supressing lawless violence in Calling for the
emergency situation
Marines is the
Metro Manila. IBP argues it's a violation of President's discretion
the constitutional provision of civilian Makes military more
vested on his
powerful than
supremacy. civilians (police).
wisdom.
 #2 On Locus Standi
Bryan Villarosa
Supreme Court:
Does IBP have locus standi?

Locus standi is a substantial interest that a

1 party will sustain direct injury as a result of a
governmental act that is being challenged.

Supreme IBP grounds its claim of locus standi on its

Court 2 alleged responsibility to uphold the rule of

law and the Constitution.

Decision: While its claim is true, it's not sufficient. IBP

The President has already determined the

3 has not shown specific injury which it may
suffer due to the deployment of Marines.
necessity and factual basis for calling the
armed forces... the Marines render nothing
more than assistance required in conducting
the patrols. As such, there can be no "insidious IBP has no locus standi.
incursion...
Power to Local
Government
#3
 #3 Power to Local Government | 495 PHIL 289-338 (2005)
Bryan Villarosa

Manila v Laguio

Thesis Statement:
City of Manila enacted Ordinance 7783
which prohibited establishments around City of Manila Laguio, Malate T.D.C.
Ermita-Malate that promote immorality
and use women as tools. Ordinance • LGU have powers to • Ordinance 7783 is
prohibit under LGC
prohibits clubs, motels, lodging houses, unconstitutional
Section 458
among others. Malate Tourist Dev. Corp
• Local Governments
opposed, claiming that the ordinance is • It's an exercise of should only regulate.
unconstitutional. police power
 #3 Powers to Local Government
Bryan Villarosa
Supreme Court:
Does the City of Manila exceed its power limitations?

Ordinance must conform to the

1 Constitution, reasonableness, private rights,
and six substantive requirements.

Court LGC 458 only grants the power to regulate and

Decisions:
not to prohibit. Cannot hide under "general
2 welfare" clause because no judicial
declarations (e.g. motels are nuisance).
RTC Judge Laguio: Ordinance 778[3] of 1993 is null
and void. LGU police powers always receive liberal
3 interpretation but in this case, Manila has
SC: Ordinance invades fundamental personal and stretched too far. Did not specify standards
property rights and impairs personal privileges. It is for "community disturbance, adverse to
constitutionally infirm. The Ordinance contravenes morals"
statutes; it is discriminatory and unreasonable in its
operation; it is not sufficiently detailed and explicit
that abuses may attend the enforcement of its RTC Laguio's decision AFFIRMED.
sanctions. Ordinance 7783 is null and void.