Fall in L(aw)ve.

By Dennie Idea

Balacuit v CFI (substantive due process)

MissIdea Uncategorized March 8, 2016 2 Minutes
Balacuit v CFI G.R. No. L-38429 June 30, 1988

Facts:

Petitioners, theater owners, assailed the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 passed by the
Municipal Board of the City of Butuan on April 21, 1969. This called for a reduction to ½ of the
ticket price given to minors from 7-12 years old. There was a fine from 200-600 pesos or a 2-6
month imprisonment

The complaint was issued in the trial court. A TRO was then issued to prevent the law from
being enforced. The respondent court entered its decision declaring the law valid.

Petitioners attack the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 on the grounds that it
is ultra vires and an invalid exercise of police power. Petitioners contend that Ordinance No.
640 is not within the power of’ the Municipal Board to enact as provided for in Section 15(n) of
Republic Act No. 523 where it states that the Muncipal board can only fix license fees for
theaters and not admission rates.

The respondent attempts to justify the enactment of the ordinance by invoking the general
welfare clause embodied in Section 15 (nn) of the cited law.

Issue:

W/N Ordinance 640 – prohibiting payment on theater tickets for children below seven (7) is
constitutional?

Ruling:

NO, because it infringes theater owners’ right to property.

There is nothing pernicious in demanding equal price for both children and adults. The
petitioners are merely conducting their legitimate businesses. The object of every business
entrepreneur is to make a profit out of his venture. There is nothing immoral or injurious in
charging the same price for both children and adults. In fact, no person is under compulsion to
purchase a ticket. It is a totally voluntary act on the part of the purchaser if he buys a ticket to
such performances.

Such ticket represents a right, Positive or conditional, as the case may be, according to the
terms of the original contract of sale. This right is clearly a right of property. The ticket which
represents that right is also, necessarily, a species of property. As such, the owner thereof, in the
absence of any condition to the contrary in the contract by which he obtained it, has the clear
right to dispose of it, to sell it to whom he pleases and at such price as he can obtain. So that an
act prohibiting the sale of tickets to theaters or other places of amusement at more than the
regular price was held invalid as conflicting with the state constitution securing the right of
property.

Advertisements Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD REPORT THIS AD

Published by MissIdea

Dennie Vieve Idea graduated Magna Cum Laude with the degree of AB Political Science at Far Eastern
University-Manila. She is a working law student - currently a fourth year Juris Doctor student at New
Era University College of Law in Quezon City and a Legal Assistant of Pollution Adjudication Board
Secretariat of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). She is also a former
legislative staff of Congresswoman Emmi De Jesus of Gabriela Women's Party; aside from
environmental laws, her knowledge and expertise include women's rights and legislation. Aside from
politics and law, she also loves to read Young Adult and ChickLit books. She is also into TV series like
How I met your mother, Big Bang Theory, Scandal, How To Get Away with Murder and Pretty Little
Liars. Ignorantia legis non excusat is her favorite legal maxim. :) View all posts by MissIdea

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.