Case: Drilon v.

Lim
Date: August, 4, 1994
Ponente: J. Cruz

DOCTRINE
“Every court is charged with the duty of a purposeful hesitation before declaring a law
unconstitutional. Presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the clearest
showing that the Constitution was indeed violated. To doubt is to sustain.”

FACTS:
Pursuant to Section 187 of the Local Government Code (LGC), Petitioner Secretary of
Justice Drilon, on appeal to him, declared the Manila Revenue Code null and void for non-
compliance with the prescribed procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and for containing
certain provisions contrary to law and public policy. The City of Manila filed a petition in the lower
court which ruled in their favor. The lower court concluded that said Section 187 was
unconstitutional in that it, among others, gave to the Secretary the power of control (vested by the
Constitution in the President) and not of supervision only.

ISSUE:
WON Section 187 of the LGC is unconstitutional?

HELD:
No. The lower court was rather hasty in invalidating the provision. Every court is charged
with the duty of a purposeful hesitation before declaring a law unconstitutional. Utmost
circumspection is advised bearing in mind the consequences of a declaration of
unconstitutionality upon the stability of laws, no less than on the doctrine of separation of powers
for the questioned act is usually the handiwork of the legislative or executive departments or both.
It will be prudent, therefore, for lower courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to defer to the
higher judgment of this Court such questions of constitutionality which is better determined after
a thorough deliberation of a collegiate body. The theory is that the measure was first carefully
studied by the executive and the legislative departments and determined by them to be in accord
with the Constitution. Such presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the clearest
showing that the Constitution was indeed violated. To doubt is to sustain.