Case #1: Mr.

Fernando Jose wishes to put – up an Php85 – million sports complex

within the vicinity of the Intramuros area. What advice will you give?
Knowing that Intramuros has been a priceless heritage of the past for the city Manila and
one of major historical landmark in the Philippines. My advice for Mr. Fernando Jose to find
another place for his wishes to put up an Php85 – million sports complexes within the vicinity of
the Intramuros area, because even though it can give benefits to the Intramuros and it can also
attract people or tourist and it can gain profit, but still, this is an historical landmark. Also he can
coordinate with the IA or also known as the Intramuros Administration, because according to the
Presidential Decree No. 1616, established in April 10, 1979, that the Intramuros Administration,
are charged with a role and responsibility, that they are responsible for the orderly restoration
and development of Intramuros as a monument to the Hispanic period of the Philippine history,
it also ensure that the general appearance of Intramuros shall conform to Philippine - Spanish
architecture of the Sixteen to the Nineteenth Century.

Case#2: On July 25, 2019, Mayor Isko Moreno ordered the cancellation of all business
permits of the stores in Manila selling alcoholic drinks within the 200 – meter range of
schools and universities. Moreno said that the order would also affect the convenience
stores that sell liquor. Executive Order No. 17 mandates the Bureau of Permits and
License Office (BPLO), City Treasurer’s Office, and business establishments to strictly
observe Ordinance No.3532 that prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquor within 200
meters of schools, and Ordinance No.8520 that prohibits the sale of any alcoholic
beverage to minors. Moreno, however, noted that establishments are still free to
continue business as long as they would not sell alcoholic drinks to students. The
executive order took effect immediately. On August 1, 2019, a week after the Executive
Order has been issues, Moreno ordered the closure of at least seven (7) bars in
Sherwood, Taft, for violation of city ordinances. He said business owners must mend
their violations before they can operate again. Is this valid in relation to the power to
regulate devolved by the Department of Tourism to local government units?

We known that the DOT also known as the Department of Tourism, are
responsible for the primary policy - making, planning, programming, coordinating, and
administrative entity of the executive branch of the government in developing the
tourism industry, both domestic and international, when it comes to issues to the case
study, the DOT give the power to regulate, license, and supervise tour operators and
accommodation facilities to the local government units, but it was noted that the power
to regulate does not include the power to prohibit the operation of these establishments

This study source was downloaded by 100000843362444 from CourseHero.com on 10-05-2022 08:02:52 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/144716782/02-Quiz-1-ARGdocx/
 without due process of law, in that way, I think everything should follow by process in a
sense that the LGU must give them first a warning or to pay for their violations or create
a regulations wherein they can amend to their violations but on the same time they can
operate their business, because based on the DOT policy, that the LGU do not have
any right to prohibited the operation of these establishment, but they have the power
only to regulate, in that way, the business has a right to continue their operation.

This study source was downloaded by 100000843362444 from CourseHero.com on 10-05-2022 08:02:52 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/144716782/02-Quiz-1-ARGdocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)