Hon.

Alfredo Lim IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF

MANILA vs. Hon. Pacquing AS JUDGE, BRANCH 40,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA AND
ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Guingona, Jr. Et.al vs. Hon. Reyes and ADC, G.R. No.
G.R. No. 115044, Jan. 27, 1995 117263, Jan. 27, 1995

FACTS:

Among the legislative powers of the Municipal Board as provided by the Charters of Manila is to tax,
license, permit and regulate amount others the game of jai-alai.

Subsequently Congress enacted RA 954 prohibiting certain activities which includes jai-alai.

However, the Municipal Board of Manila pass an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to allow and permit
the associated Development Corporation to establish and maintain, and operate a jai-alai.

But in a few months the president issued again another presidential decree, which is PD 810 which
allows the Philippine Jai-alai and Amusement Corporation to operate jai-alai (basque pelota) in
greater Manila.

But then Pres. Aquino issued EO 169 expressly repealing PD 810 which revoke and cancel the
franchise granted to the Philippine Jai-alai an Amusement Corporation.

However on May 1998, the Associated Development Corporation tried to operate a Jai-alai. To which
the government through GAB opposed invoking PD 771.

ADC questioned the constitutionality of PD 771 saying that it is violative of equal protection clause
and non-impairment clause.

Seno was referring to Presidential Decree 771, in particular, issued by then President Ferdinand Marcos in
1975, which revokes all powers and authority of local government to grant franchise or permit and
regulate wager or betting by the public on all forms of legal gambling.

ISSUES:

WHETHER OR NOT PD 771 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND NON-
IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

HELD:
The court says that all laws including PD 771 are presumed valid and constitutional unless otherwise ruled by
the SC. It also emphasizes of Art 18 Sec 3 of the Constitution. The petitioner argument must fail because there
is nothing on record that shows PD 771 being repealed, altered, amended by any subsequent law of PD. The
contention of the petitioner that in one case in court of 1 st instance, the PD has been declared unconstitutional
must fail, for it is only the SC, sitting en banc, can declare a law unconstitutional.