the province of zamboanga del norte case

8/9/2019 The Province of Zamboanga Del Norte Case

1/84

sanggunian concerned, as the case may be, shall require the respondent to submit his verified answer

within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, and commence investigation of the case within ten (10) days

after receipt of such answer of the respondent.

xxx.EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24440. March 28, 1968.]

THE PRO!NCE O" #AMBOANGA $EL NORTE,Plaintiff-Appellee, %. C!T& O" #AMBOANGA,

'ECRETAR& O" "!NANCE AN$ COMM!''!ONER O" !NTERNAL REEN(E,Defendants-Appellants.

"or)*+aa, Loo/, 'ar)o, M .T . &a3 A55oca)5 orPlaintiff-Appellee.

'oc)or Gra, orDefendant-Appellant.

'&LLAB('

1. !"#$%&' $%%' &$%*+! -#$'&&*/ #'%# $*+#!%*+ %+* &+ *-%+&/ &$%*+.

&ssuming that the law had already been violated and that plaintiff sought to give it coercive effect, sec. 2 of ule 23of the ules of $ourt authori4es the conversion of a petition for declaratory relief into an ordinary action.

. 67+%$%"&' $*"*&%*+! #8#+ * $*+9#!!%*+&' $*+*' *# 67+%$%"&'

"*"#/. he principle is this: %f the property is owned by the municipal corporation or municipality in itspublic and governmental capacity, the property is public and $ongress has absolute control over it if the property is

owned in its private or proprietary capacity, then it is patrimonial and $ongress has no absolute control, in which

case, the municipality cannot be deprived of it without due process and payment of ;ust compensation.

#$ * ?* +*6! "*%-#- =/ @# $%%' $*-# &+- @# '&? * 67+%$%"&'

$*"*&%*+!. he capacity in which the property is held is dependent on the use to which it is intended and

devoted. here are two norms, i.e., of the $ivil $ode and of the law of 6unicipal $orporations in classifying

whether municipal properties are patrimonial or public.

3. %-. %-. 7+-# $%%' $*-#, &'' 67+%$%"&' "*"#%#! #8$#" @*!# #+76#- %+ &.

33 "&%6*+%&'. he $ivil $ode classification is found in articles 3< and 33 of the same $ode.

7nder &rt. 33, property for public, use, consists of provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, the squares,fountains, public waters, promenades and public worAs for public service paid for by said municipal corporations.

&ll other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and is governed by the $ode without pre;udice to

provisions of special laws. 7nder this classification, all the properties in question save two lots used as @igh !chool

playgrounds are patrimonial properties of Bamboanga "rovince this includes the capitol site, the hospital andleprosarium sites, and the school sites which are patrimonial as they are not for public use. hey fall outside the

phrase public worAs for public service because under the e;usdem generis rule, such public worAs must be for free

and for the indiscriminate use by anyone.

5. %-. %-. $'&!!%%$&%*+ * 67+%$%"&' "*"#%#! 7+-# 67+%$%"&' $*"*&%*+ '&?.

7nder the norm provided for by the law of 6unicipal $orporations, all those properties which are devoted to publicservice are deemed public the rest remain patrimonial. 7nder this norm, to be considered public, it is enough that

the property be held and devoted for governmental purposes liAe local administration, public education, publichealth, etc.

2. %-. %-. =7%'-%+9! #8%!%+9 *+ '*! "&&C# * +&7# * @# '. &lthough the

records do not show whether the buildings on the lots in question were constructed at the expense of the municipalcorporation, since said buildings were constructed even before the enactment of $ommonwealth &ct


2/84

G. %-. %-. #9%!&%*+ $&++* $*+# "7='%$ "*"#/ %+* "% "*"#/. he

fact that the lots used for government purposes are registered is of no significance since registration cannot convert

public property to private.

D. %-. %-. $'&!!%%$&%*+ * "*"#%#! 7+-# $%%' $*-#, ?%@*7 "#>7-%$# *

"*%!%*+! * '&? *+ 67+%$%"&' $*"*&%*+!. he classification of properties other than those

for public use in the municipalities as patrimonial under art. 33 of the $ivil $ode is without pre;udice to provisions

of special laws. or purposes of this article, the law of 6unicipal $orporations is considered as special laws.@ence, the classification of municipal property devoted for distinctly governmental purposes as public should

prevail over the $ivil $ode classification in this particular case.

10. %-. +* '&$@#! 7+-# &$! * @# $&!#. 7nder $ommonwealth &ct +o.


3/84

*n 6ay 2, 1D3D, the &ppraisal $ommittee formed by the &uditor 9eneral, pursuant to $ommonwealth &ct une 2, 1D5, epublic &ct E11 was approved dividing the province of Bamboanga into two (): Bamboanga del

+orte and Bamboanga del !ur. &s to how the assets and obligations of the old province were to be divided between

the two new ones, !ec. 2 of the law provided:;gc:chanrobles.com.ph

7pon the approval of this &ct, the funds, assets and other properties and the obligations of the province of

Bamboanga shall be divided equitably between the "rovince of Bamboanga del +orte and the "rovince of

Bamboanga del !ur by the "resident of the "hilippines, upon the recommendation of the &uditor 9eneral.cralaw

virtua1aw library

"ursuant thereto, the &uditor 9eneral, on >anuary 11, 1D55, apportioned the assets and obligations of the defunct

"rovince of Bamboanga as follows: 53.une G, 1D2E, pursuant to the order of the $ourt dated >une 3E 1D2. +o costs are assessed


4/84

against the defendant.

%t is !* *-##-.cralaw virtua1aw library

!ubsequently, but prior to the perfection of defendantsI appeal, plaintiff province fled a motion to reconsider praying

that Bamboanga $ity be ordered instead to pay the "E03,0.05 in lump sum with 2H interest per annum. *ver

defendantsI opposition, the lower court granted plaintiff province motion.

he defendants then brought the case before 7s on appeal.

=rushing aside the procedural point concerning the propriety of declaratory relief filed in the lower court on the

assertion that the law had already been violated and that plaintiff sought to give it coercive effect, since assuming thesame to be true, the ules anyway authori4e the conversion of the proceedings to an ordinary action, 5 ?e proceed

to the more important and principal question of the validity of epublic &ct


5/84

ollowing this classification, epublic &ct


6/84

must have been erected even before 1D


7/84

6oreover, the fact that these 2 lots are registered strengthens the proposition that they are truly private in nature.

*n the other hand, that the 3 lots used for governmental purposes are also registered is of no significance since

registration cannot convert public property to private. 12

?e are more inclined to uphold this latter view. he controversy here is more along the domains of the 'aw of

6unicipal $orporations !tate v. "rovince than along that of $ivil 'aw. 6oreover, this $ourt is not inclined to

hold that municipal property held and devoted to public service is in the same category as ordinary private property.he consequences are dire. &s ordinary private properties, they can be levied upon and attached. hey can even be

acquired thru adverse possession all these to the detriment of the local community. 'astly, the classification of

properties other than those for public use in the municipalities as patrimonial under &rt. 33 of the $ivil $ode is. . .

without pre;udice to the provisions of special laws. or purposes of this article, the principles obtaining under the'aw of 6unicipal $orporations can be considered as special laws. @ence, the classification of municipal property

devoted for governmental purposes as public should prevail over the $ivil $ode classification in this particular case.

-efendantsI claim that plaintiff and its predecessorFinFinterest are guilty of laches is without merit. 7nder$ommonwealth &ct


8/84

H .B . Ba5co A55oca)5, orPetitioners.

ao) La< Oc5 coa=ora)+ co*5, orPetitioners.

A>*rr, La=or) a/ Ca3* or r53o/) PAGCOR.

'&LLAB('

1. !&7*/ $*+!7$%*+ "#!76"%*+ * &'%-%/ * !&7# 67! =# %+-7'9#- %+&* * %! $*+!%7%*+&'%/. &s ?e enter upon the tasA of passing on the validity of an act of a coF

equal and coordinate branch of the government ?e need not be reminded of the timeFhonored principle, deeply

ingrained in our ;urisprudence, that a statute is presumed to be valid. #very presumption must be indulged in favor

of its constitutionality. his is not to say that ?e approach *ur tasA with diffidence or timidity. ?here it is clear thatthe legislature or the executive for that matter, has overFstepped the limits of its authority under the constitution, ?e

should not hesitate to wield the axe and let it fall heavily, as fall it must, on the offending statute ('o4ano v.

6artine4, supra). %n ictoriano v. #li4alde ope ?orAersI 7nion, et al, 5D !$& 53, the $ourt thru 6r. >ustice

Baldivar underscored the . . . thoroughly established principle which must be followed in all cases where

questions of constitutionality as obtain in the instant cases are involved. &ll presumptions are indulged in favor ofconstitutionality one who attacAs a statute alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable

doubt that a law may worA hardship does not render it unconstitutional that if any reasonable basis may be

conceived which supports the statute, it will be upheld and the challenger must negate all possible basis that thecourts are not concerned with the wisdom, ;ustice, policy or expediency of a statute and that a liberal interpretation

of the constitution in favor of the constitutionality of legislation should be adopted. (-anner v. @ass, 1D3 +.?. nd

57-%$%&' -#"&6#+ #$@+%$&'%%#! * "*$#-7# 6&/=# =7!@#-

&!%-# * @# "*"# #8#$%!# * %! "*?#!. $onsidering however the importance to the public

of the case at bar, and in Aeeping with the $ourtIs duty, under the 1DGE $onstitution, to determine whether or not theother branches of government have Aept themselves within the limits of the $onstitution and the laws and that theyhave not abused the discretion given to them, the $ourt has brushed aside technicalities of procedure and has taAen

cogni4ance of this petition. (Capatiran ng mga +aglilingAod sa "amahalaan ng "ilipinas %nc. v. an, 12< !$&


9/84

government and of the people themselves as the repository of all state power. (almonte v. =elmonte, >r., 1E0

!$& 52.)chanrobles law library

5. %-. $*+$#" * "*'%$# "*?# $*+!7#-. he concept of police power is wellFestablished in this;urisdiction. %t has been defined as the state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or

property in order to promote the general welfare. (#du v. #ricta, anuary 1G, 1D5E)which has the power to create and abolish municipal corporations due to its general legislative powers

(&suncion v. /riantes, G "hil. 2E 6erdanillo v. *randia, 5 !$& 531). $ongress, therefore, has the power of

control over 'ocal governments (@ebron v. eyes, 9.. +o. D13, >uly , 1D50). &nd if $ongress can grant the $ityof 6anila the power to tax certain matters, it can also provide for exemptions or even taAe bacA the power. (c) he$ity of 6anilaIs power to impose license fees on gambling, has long been revoAed. &s early as 1DE5, the power of

local governments to regulate gambling thru the grant of franchise, licenses or permits was withdrawn by ".-. +o.

EE1 and was vested exclusively on the +ational 9overnment. herefore, only the +ational 9overnment has the

power to issue licenses or permits for the operation of gambling. +ecessarily, the power to demand or collectlicense fees which is a consequence of the issuance of licenses or permits is no longer vested in the $ity of

6anila. (d) 'ocal governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the +ational 9overnment. "&9$* is a

government owned or controlled corporation with an original charter, "- 1G2D. &ll of its shares of stocAs are ownedby the +ational 9overnment. %n addition to its corporate powers (!ec. ustice @olmes, speaAing for the !upreme

$ourt, made reference to the entire absence of power on the part of the !tates to touch, in that way (taxation) at least,the instrumentalities of the 7nited !tates (>ohnson v. 6aryland, 53 7! 51) and it can be agreed that no state or


10/84

political subdivision can regulate a federal instrumentality in such a way as to prevent it from consummating its

federal responsibilities, or even to seriously burden it in the accomplishment of them. (&ntieau, 6odern

$onstitutional 'aw, ol. , p. 130,Emphasis supplied) *therwise, mere creatures of the !tate can defeat +ational

policies thru extermination of what local authorities may perceive to be undesirable activates or enterprise using thepower to tax as a tool for regulation (7.!. v. !anche4, ustice

6arshall as the power to destroy (6c $ulloch v. 6aryland, supra) cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality

or creation of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it.

D. %-. +* & %*'&%*+ * @# '*$&' &7*+*6/ $'&7!# %+ @# $*+!%7%*+. he power

of local government to impose taxes and fees is always sub;ect to limitations which $ongress may provide by

law. !ince "- 1G2D remains an operative law until amended, repealed or revoAed (!ec.


11/84

government in areas which fall within their authority, except only when such policies pose a clear and present

danger to the life, liberty or property of the individual. his case does not involve such a factual situation.

. %-. '#9%!'&%# -#"&6#+ 67! *7'&? &'' *6! * 9&6='%+9, &! &7+-&6#+&' ! * "*'%$/ #&!*+ @##*. >. "adilla hasten to maAe of record that % do not

subscribe to gambling in any form. %t demeans the human personality, destroys selfFconfidence and eviscerates oneIs

selfFrespect, which in the long run will corrode whatever is left of the ilipino moral character. 9ambling has

wrecAed and will continue to wrecA families and homes it is an antithesis to individual reliance and reliability aswell as personal industry which are the touchstones of real economic progress and national development. 9ambling

is reprehensible whether maintained by government or privati4ed. he revenues reali4ed by the government out of

legali4ed gambling will, in the long run, be more than offset and negated by the irreparable damage to the peopleIs

moral values. &lso, the moral standing of the government in its repeated avowals against illegal gambling is fatallyflawed and becomes untenable when it itself engages in the very activity it seeAs to eradicate. *ne can go through

the $ourtIs decision today and mentally replace the activity referred to therein as gambling, which is legal only

because it is authori4ed by law and run by the government, with the activity Anown as prostitution. ?ould

prostitution be any less reprehensible were it to be authori4ed by law, franchised, and regulated by thegovernment, in return for the substantial revenues it would yield the government to carry out its laudable pro;ects,

such as infrastructure and social ameliorationK he question, % believe, answers itself. % submit that the sooner the

legislative department outlaws all forms of gambling, as a fundamental state policy, and the sooner the executive

implements such policy, the better it will be for the nation.

$ E C ! ' ! O N

PARA',J.

& ad proudly announces:;gc:chanrobles.com.ph

he new "&9$* responding through responsible gaming.cralaw virtua1aw library

=ut the petitioners thinA otherwise, that is why, they filed the instant petition seeAing to annul the "hilippine

&musement and 9aming $orporation ("&9$*) $harter "- 1G2D, because it is allegedly contrary to morals,public policy and order, and because

&. %t constitutes a waiver of a right pre;udicial to a third person with a right recogni4ed by law. %t waived the

6anila $ity governmentIs right to impose taxes and license fees, which is recogni4ed by law

=. or the same reason stated in the immediately preceding paragraph, the law has intruded into the localgovernmentIs right to impose local taxes and license fees. his, in contravention of the constitutionally enshrined

principle of local autonomy

$. %t violates the equal protection clause of the constitution in that it legali4es "&9$* conducted gambling,while most other forms of gambling are outlawed, together with prostitution, drug trafficAing and other vices

-. %t violates the avowed trend of the $ory government away from monopolistic and crony economy, and towardfree enterprise and privati4ation. (p. , &mended "etition p. E, ollo)

%n their !econd &mended "etition, petitioners also claim that "- 1G2D is contrary to the declared national policy of

the new restored democracy and the peopleIs will as expressed in the 1DGE $onstitution. he decree is said to have

a gambling ob;ective and therefore is contrary to !ections 11, 1 and 1< of &rticle %%, !ec. 1 of &rticle %%% and!ection < () of &rticle 8%, of the present $onstitution (p. anuary 1, 1DEE to establish, operate and

maintain gambling casinos on land or water within the territorial ;urisdiction of the "hilippines. %ts operation was

originally conducted in the well Anown floating casino "hilippine ourist. he operation was considered a successfor it proved to be a potential source of revenue to fund infrastructure and socioeconomic pro;ects, thus, ".-. 1une , 1DEG for "&9$* to fully attain this ob;ective.

!ubsequently, on >uly 11, 1DG


12/84

policy

!ection 1. -eclaration of "olicy. %t is hereby declared to be the policy of the !tate to centrali4e and integrate all

games of chance not heretofore authori4ed by existing franchises or permitted by law in order to attain the followingob;ectives:;gc:chanrobles.com.ph

(a) o centrali4e and integrate the right and authority to operate and conduct games of chance into one corporate

entity to be controlled, administered and supervised by the 9overnment.

(b) o establish and operate clubs and casinos, for amusement and recreation, including sports gaming pools,

(basAetball, football, lotteries, etc.) and such other forms of amusement and recreation including games of chance,

which may be allowed by law within the territorial ;urisdiction of the "hilippines and which will: (1) generatesources of additional revenue to fund infrastructure and socioFcivic pro;ects, such as flood control programs,

beautification, sewerage and sewage pro;ects, ulungan ng =ayan $enters, +utritional "rograms "opulation $ontrol

and such other essential public services () create recreation and integrated facilities which will expand and

improve the countryIs existing tourist attractions and (ustice) of &rticle 8%%% and !ection (#ducational alues) of &rticle 8% of the 1DGE $onstitution.

his challenge to ".-. +o. 1G2D deserves a searching and thorough scrutiny and the most deliberate consideration bythe $ourt, involving as it does the exercise of what has been described as the highest and most delicate function

which belongs to the ;udicial department of the government. (!tate v. 6anuel, 0 +.$. 133 'o4ano v. 6artine4,

132 !$&


13/84

$onsidering however the importance to the public of the case at bar, and in Aeeping with the $ourtIs duty, under the

1DGE $onstitution, to determine whether or not the other branches of government have Aept themselves within the

limits of the $onstitution and the laws and that they have not abused the discretion given to them, the $ourt has

brushed aside technicalities of procedure and has taAen cogni4ance of this petition. (Capatiran ng mga +aglilingAodsa "amahalaan ng "ilipinas %nc. v. an, 12< !$&


14/84

levied, established or collected by any municipal, provincial or national government authority (!ection 1< MN).

heir contention stated hereinabove is without merit for the following reasons:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) he $ity of 6anila, being a mere 6unicipal corporation has no inherent right to impose taxes (%card v. $ity of

=aguio, G< "hil. GE0 $ity of %loilo v. illanueva, 105 "hil.


15/84

cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality or creation of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it.

(e) "etitioners also argue that the 'ocal &utonomy $lause of the $onstitution will be violated by ".-. 1G2D. his is a

pointless argument. &rticle 8 of the 1DGE $onstitution (on 'ocal &utonomy) provides:;gc:chanrobles.com.ph

!ec. 5. #ach local government unit shall have the power to create its own source of revenue and to levy taxes, fees,

and other charges sub;ect to such guidelines and limitation as the congress may provide, consistent with the basic

policy on local autonomy. !uch taxes, fees and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local government. (Emphasissupplied).

he power of local government to impose taxes and fees is always sub;ect to limitations which $ongress may

provide by law. !ince "- 1G2D remains an operative law until amended, repealed or revoAed (!ec. ust how ".-. 1G2D in legali4ing gambling conducted by "&9$* is violative of the equal protection is not clearly

explained in the petition. he mere fact that some gambling activities liAe cocAfighting (".-. 33D) horse racing (.&.


16/84

&nent petitionersI claim that "- 1G2D is contrary to the avowed trend of the $ory 9overnment away from

monopolies and crony economy and toward free enterprise and privati4ation suffice it to state that this is not a

ground for this $ourt to nullify ".-. 1G2D. %f, indeed, "- 1G2D runs counter to the governmentIs policies then it isfor the #xecutive -epartment to recommend to $ongress its repeal or amendment.chanrobles law library : red

he ;udiciary does not settle policy issues. he $ourt can only declare what the law is and not what the law should

be. 7nder our system of government, policy issues are within the domain of the political branches of governmentand of the people themselves as the repository of all state power. (almonte v. =elmonte, >r., 1E0 !$& 52.)

*n the issue of monopoly, however, the $onstitution provides that:;gc:chanrobles.com.ph

!ec. 1D. he !tate shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when public interest so requires. +o combinations in

restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed. (&rt. 8%%, +ational #conomy and "atrimony)

%t should be noted that, as the provision is worded, monopolies are not necessarily prohibited by the $onstitution.he state must still decide whether public interest demands that monopolies be regulated or prohibited. &gain, this is

a matter of policy for the 'egislature to decide.

*n petitionersI allegation that ".-. 1G2D violates !ections 11 ("ersonality -ignity) 1 (amily) and 1< (ole of

/outh) of &rticle %% !ection 1< (!ocial >ustice) of &rticle 8%%% and !ection (#ducational alues) of &rticle 8% ofthe 1DGE $onstitution, suffice it to state also that these are merely statements of principles and policies. &s such,

they are basically not selfFexecuting, meaning a law should be passed by $ongress to clearly define and effectuate

such principles.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

%n general, therefore, the 1Dr., $ru4, eliciano, 9ancayco, =idin, !armiento, 9riRoF&quino, 6edialdea,


17/84

egalado and -avide, >r.,JJ., concur.

6elencioF@errera,J., concurring in the result with >ustice "adilla.

'3ara) O3o5

"&-%''&,J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

% concur in the result of the learned decision penned by my brother 6r. >ustice "aras. his means that % agree with

the decision insofar as it holds that the prohibition, control, and regulation of the entire activity Anown as gamblingproperly pertain to state policy. %t is, therefore, the political departments of government, namely, the legislative

and the executive that should decide on what government should do in the entire area of gambling, and assume full

responsibility to the people for such policy.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

he courts, as the decision states, cannot inquire into the wisdom, morality or expediency of policies adopted by the

political departments of government in areas which fall within their authority, except only when such policies pose a

clear and present danger to the life, liberty or property of the individual. his case does not involve such a factual

situation.

@owever, % hasten to maAe of record that % do not subscribe to gambling in any form. %t demeans the humanpersonality, destroys selfFconfidence and eviscerates oneIs selfFrespect, which in the long run will corrode whatever

is left of the ilipino moral character. 9ambling has wrecAed and will continue to wrecA families and homes it is anantithesis to individual reliance and reliability as well as personal industry which are the touchstones of real

economic progress and national development.

9ambling is reprehensible whether maintained by government or privati4ed. he revenues reali4ed by thegovernment out of legali4ed gambling will, in the long run, be more than offset and negated by the irreparable

damage to the peopleIs moral values.

&lso, the moral standing of the government in its repeated avowals against illegal gambling is fatally flawed andbecomes untenable when it itself engages in the very activity it seeAs to eradicate.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

*ne can go through the $ourtIs decision today and mentally replace the activity referred to therein as gambling,which is legal only because it is authori4ed by law and run by the government, with the activity Anown as

prostitution. ?ould prostitution be any less reprehensible were it to be authori4ed by law, franchised, and

regulated by the government, in return for the substantial revenues it would yield the government to carry out its

laudable pro;ects, such as infrastructure and social ameliorationK he question, % believe, answers itself. % submitthat the sooner the legislative department outlaws all forms of gambling, as a fundamental state policy, and the

sooner the executive implements such policy, the better it will be for the nation.

[G.R. No. 118?0?. 7a*ar ?1, 1996.]

'ENATOR HEHER'ON T. ALARE#, 'ENATOR 7O'E $. L!NA, 7R., MR. N!CA'!O B. BA(T!'TA, MR.

7E'(' P. GON#AGA, MR. 'OLOMON $. MA&LEM, LEONORA C. ME$!NA, CA'!ANO '.

AL!PON,Petitioners, %. HON. TEO"!'TO T. G(!NGONA, 7R., h5 ca3ac) a5 E@c*)% 'cr)ar, HON.

RA"AEL AL(NAN, h5 ca3ac) a5 'cr)ar o Loca Go%r), HON. 'ALA$OR ENR!(E#,

h5 ca3ac) a5 'cr)ar o B*/+), THE COMM!''!ON ON A($!T, HON. 7O'E M!RAN$A, h5

ca3ac) a5 M*c3a Maor o 'a)a+o a/ HON. CHAR!TO MAN(BA&, HON. !CTOR!NO

M!RAN$A, 7R., HON. ARTEM!O ALARE#, HON. $AN!LO ERGARA, HON. PETER $E 7E'(',

HON. NEL!A NAT!!$A$, HON. CEL'O CALEON a/ HON. ABEL M('NG!, )hr ca3ac) a5

'ANGG(N!ANG BA&AN MEMBER', MR. RO$R!GO L. 'ANTO', h5 ca3ac) a5 M*c3a Tra5*rr,

a/ ATT&. AL"RE$O '. $!R!GE, h5 ca3ac) a5 M*c3a A/5)ra)or,Respondents.

Bo, Goo, Ea, Par, A5*co L*ca, orPetitioners.

R P. P, orPrivate Respondents.

'&LLAB('

1. &-6%+%!&%# '&? '*$&' 9*#+6#+ $*-# '*$&' 9*#+6#+, $*+!7#-. &

local 9overnment 7nit is a political subdivision of the !tate which is constituted by law and possessed of substantial


18/84

control over its own affairs. emaining to be an intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation, but not

intended, however, to be an emperium in emperia, the local government unit is autonomous in the sense that it is

given more powers, authority, responsibilities and resources.

. %-. %-. %+$*6# -#%+#-. %ncome is defined in the 'ocal 9overnment $ode to be all revenues and

receipts collected or received forming the gross accretions of funds of the local government unit.

anuary G, 1DD3 a little less than a month thereafter, or on ebruary


19/84

*f main concern to the petitioners is whether epublic &ct +o. EE0, ;ust recently passed by $ongress and signed

by the "resident into law, is constitutionally infirm.

%ndeed, in this "etition for "rohibition with prayer for emporary estraining *rder and "reliminary "rohibitory

%n;unction, petitioners assail the validity of epublic &ct +o. EE0, entitled, &n &ct $onverting the 6unicipality of

!antiago, %sabela into an %ndependent $omponent $ity to be Anown as the $ity of !antiago, mainly because the &ctallegedly did not originate exclusively in the @ouse of epresentatives as mandated by !ection 3, &rticle % of the

1DGE $onstitution.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

&lso, petitioners claim that the 6unicipality of !antiago has not met the minimum average annual income requiredunder !ection 350 of the 'ocal 9overnment $ode of 1DD1 in order to be converted into a component city.

7ndisputed is the following chronicle of the metamorphosis of @ouse =ill +o. GG1E into epublic &ct +o.

EE0:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

*n &pril 1G, 1DD


20/84

otal income for 1DD1 and 1DD "31,D3D,12


21/84

-epartment of inance certified, among others, that the municipality had an average annual income of at least

wenty 6illion "esos for the last two () consecutive years based on 1DD1 constant prices. his, the -epartment of

inance did after including the %&s in its computation of said average annual income.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

urthermore, !ection 350 (c) of the 'ocal 9overnment $ode provides that the average annual income shall include

the income accruing to the general fund, exclusive of special funds, transfers, and nonFrecurring income.II o

reiterate, %&s are a regular, recurring item of income nil is there a basis, too, to classify the same as a special fund

or transfer, since %&s have a technical definition and meaning all its own as used in the 'ocal 9overnment $odethat unequivocally maAes it distinct from special funds or transfers referred to when the $ode speaAs of funding

support from the national government, its instrumentalities and governmentFownedF or Fcontrolled corporations. 1

hus, -epartment of inance *rder +o.


22/84

authori4ing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application must come from the @ouse of

epresentatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the members of the @ouse can be expected

to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. *n the other hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are

expected to approach the same problems from the national perspective. =oth views are thereby made to bear n theenactment of such laws.

+or does the $onstitution prohibit the filing in the !enate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill

from the @ouse, so long as action by the !enate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the @ouse =ill. . . . 1G

%%%. #very law, including & +o. EE0, has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality.

%t is a wellFentrenched ;urisprudential rule that on the side of every law lies the presumption of constitutionality. 1D$onsequently, for & +o. EE0 to be nullified it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the

$onstitution, not merely a doubtful and equivocal one in other words, the grounds for nullity must be clear and

beyond reasonable doubt. 0 hose who petition this court to declare a law to be unconstitutional must clearly and

fully establish the basis that will ;ustify such a declaration otherwise, their petition must fail. aAing intoconsideration the ;ustification of our stand on the immediately preceding ground raised by petitioners to challenge

the constitutionality of & +o. EE0, the $ourt stands on the holding that petitioners have failed to overcome the

presumption. he dismissal of this petition is, therefore, inevitable.

?@##*#, the instant petition is -%!6%!!#- for lacA of merit with costs against petitioners.

!* *-##-.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

+arvasa, C.J., "adilla, egalado, -avide, >r., omero, =ellosillo, 6elo, "uno, itug, Capunan, 6endo4a, rancisco

and "anganiban,JJ., concur.

[G.R. No. 118?0?. 7a*ar ?1, 1996.]

'ENATOR HEHER'ON T. ALARE#, 'ENATOR 7O'E $. L!NA, 7R., MR. N!CA'!O B. BA(T!'TA, MR.

7E'(' P. GON#AGA, MR. 'OLOMON $. MA&LEM, LEONORA C. ME$!NA, CA'!ANO '.

AL!PON,Petitioners, %. HON. TEO"!'TO T. G(!NGONA, 7R., h5 ca3ac) a5 E@c*)% 'cr)ar, HON.

RA"AEL AL(NAN, h5 ca3ac) a5 'cr)ar o Loca Go%r), HON. 'ALA$OR ENR!(E#, h5 ca3ac) a5 'cr)ar o B*/+), THE COMM!''!ON ON A($!T, HON. 7O'E M!RAN$A, h5

ca3ac) a5 M*c3a Maor o 'a)a+o a/ HON. CHAR!TO MAN(BA&, HON. !CTOR!NO

M!RAN$A, 7R., HON. ARTEM!O ALARE#, HON. $AN!LO ERGARA, HON. PETER $E 7E'(',

HON. NEL!A NAT!!$A$, HON. CEL'O CALEON a/ HON. ABEL M('NG!, )hr ca3ac) a5

'ANGG(N!ANG BA&AN MEMBER', MR. RO$R!GO L. 'ANTO', h5 ca3ac) a5 M*c3a Tra5*rr,

a/ ATT&. AL"RE$O '. $!R!GE, h5 ca3ac) a5 M*c3a A/5)ra)or,Respondents.

Bo, Goo, Ea, Par, A5*co L*ca, orPetitioners.

R P. P, orPrivate Respondents.

'&LLAB('

1. &-6%+%!&%# '&? '*$&' 9*#+6#+ $*-# '*$&' 9*#+6#+, $*+!7#-. &local 9overnment 7nit is a political subdivision of the !tate which is constituted by law and possessed of substantial

control over its own affairs. emaining to be an intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation, but not

intended, however, to be an emperium in emperia, the local government unit is autonomous in the sense that it is

given more powers, authority, responsibilities and resources.

. %-. %-. %+$*6# -#%+#-. %ncome is defined in the 'ocal 9overnment $ode to be all revenues and

receipts collected or received forming the gross accretions of funds of the local government unit.


23/84

receipts, such as other national aids, grants, financial assistance, loan proceeds, sales of fixed assets, and similar

others (#mphasis ours).

5. !&7*/ $*+!7$%*+ *-# $*+!%7%+9 #8#$7%# * $*+#6"*&+#*7!$*+!7$%*+ * & !&7# =/ &-6%+%!&%# &9#+$/ $@&9#- ?%@ @# &!C *

%+#"#%+9 @# !&6#, #+%'#- * 7'' #!"#$. !uch order, constituting executive or

contemporaneous construction of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the tasA of interpreting and

applying the same, is entitled to full respect and should be accorded great weight by the courts, unless suchconstruction is clearly shown to be in sharp conflict with the $onstitution, the governing statute, or other laws.

2. $*+!%7%*+&' '&? '#9%!'&%# =%'' $*+#%+9 67+%$%"&'%/ * $%/ 67!

*%9%+ *6 @# @*7!# "&!!%+9 * !7=!#O7#+ =%'' $*#%+9 @# !&6#67+%$%"&'%/, +* &-#!# ##$. &lthough a bill of local application liAe @= +o. GG1E should, by

constitutional prescription, originate exclusively in the @ouse of epresentatives, the claim of petitioners that

epublic &ct +o. EE0 did not originate exclusively in the @ouse of epresentatives because a bill of the same

import, != +o. 13


24/84

*n &pril 1G, 1DD


25/84

=y dividing the total income of !antiago for calendar years 1DD1 and 1DD, after deducting the %&s, the average

annual income arrived at would only be "1


26/84

order, constituting executive or contemporaneous construction of a statute by an administrative agency charged with

the tasA of interpreting and applying the same, is entitled to full respect and should be accorded great weight by the

courts, unless such construction is clearly shown to be in sharp conflict with the $onstitution, the governing statute,

or other laws. 15

%%. %n the enactment of & +o. EE0, there was compliance with !ection 3, &rticle % of the 1DGE $onstitution.

&lthough a bill of local application liAe @= +o. GG1E should, by constitutional prescription, 12 originate exclusivelyin the @ouse of epresentatives, the claim of petitioners that epublic &ct +o. EE0 did not originate exclusively in

the @ouse of epresentatives because a bill of the same import, != +o. 13


27/84

consideration the ;ustification of our stand on the immediately preceding ground raised by petitioners to challenge

the constitutionality of & +o. EE0, the $ourt stands on the holding that petitioners have failed to overcome the

presumption. he dismissal of this petition is, therefore, inevitable.

?@##*#, the instant petition is -%!6%!!#- for lacA of merit with costs against petitioners.

!* *-##-.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

+arvasa, C.J., "adilla, egalado, -avide, >r., omero, =ellosillo, 6elo, "uno, itug, Capunan, 6endo4a, rancisco

and "anganiban,JJ., concur.

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 11109. 7* 20, 1994.]

MA&OR PABLO P. MAGTA7A' THE C!T& O" CAGA&AN $E ORO,Petitioners, %. PR&CE

PROPERT!E' CORPORAT!ON, !NC. PH!L!PP!NE AM('EMENT AN$ GAM!NGCORPORAT!ON,Respondents.

'&LLAB('

-&%-#, >.,J., separate opinion:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. #6#-%&' '&? !"#$%&' $%%' &$%*+! "%+$%"&' $&7!# * &$%*+ %+ $&!# & =& *+#

* -#$'&&*/ #'%#. %t must at once be noted that private respondent "ryce "roperties $orporation("/$#) directly filed with the $ourt of &ppeals its soFcalled petition for prohibition, thereby invoAing the said

courtIs original ;urisdiction to issue writs of prohibition under !ection D(1) of =.". =lg. 1D. &s % see it, however, the

principal cause of action therein is one for declaratory relief: to declare null and unconstitutional for, inter alia,having been enacted without or in excess of ;urisdiction, for impairing the obligation of contracts, and for being

inconsistent with public policy the challenged ordinances enacted by the !angguniang "anlungsod of the $ity of

$agayan de *ro. he intervention therein of public respondent "hilippine &musement and 9aming $orporation

("&9$*) further underscores the declaratory relief nature of the action. "&9$* assails the ordinances forbeing contrary to the nonFimpairment and equal protection clauses of the $onstitution, violative of the 'ocal

9overnment $ode, and against the !tateIs national policy declared in ".-. +o. 1G2D. &ccordingly, the $ourt of

&ppeals does not have ;urisdiction over the nature of the action.

. %-. %-. "*@%=%%*+ #!&='%!@#- "*'%$/ #'&%# * @%#&$@/ * $*7! +*

*=!##- %+ %'%+9 * "#%%*+ %+ $&!# & =&. &ssuming arguendo that the case is one for

prohibition, then, under this $ourtIs established policy relative to the hierarchy of courts, the petition should have

been filed with the egional rial $ourt of $agayan de *ro $ity. % find no special or compelling reason why it was

not filed with the said court. % do not wish to entertain the thought that "/$# doubted a favorable verdicttherefrom, in which case the filing of the petition with the $ourt of &ppeals may have been impelled by tactical

considerations. & dismissal of the petition by the $ourt of &ppeals would have been in order pursuant to our

decisions in "eople v. $uaresma (1E !$& 315, M1DGDN) and -efensorF!antiago v. asque4 (1E !$& 2


28/84

$ E C ! ' ! O N

CR(#,J.

here was instant opposition when "&9$* announced the opening of a casino in $agayan de *ro $ity. $ivic

organi4ations angrily denounced the pro;ect, he religious elements echoed and ob;ection and so did the womenIs

groups and the youth. -emonstrations were led by the mayor and the city legislators. he media trumpeted the

protest, describing the casino as an affront to the welfare of the city.

he trouble arose when in 1DD, flush with its tremendous success in several cities, "&9$* decided to expand its

operations to $agayan de *ro $ity. o this end, it leased a portion of a building belonging to "ryce "roperties

$orporation %nc., one of the herein private respondents, renovated and equipped the same, and prepared toinaugurate its casino there during the $hristmas season.

he reaction of the !angguniang "anlungsod of $agayan de *ro $ity was swift and hostile. *n -ecember E, 1DD,

it enacted *rdinance +o.


29/84

E120) and under &rt. DD, +o. (3), "aragraph % of the implementing rules of the 'ocal 9overnment $ode, the $ity

$ouncil as the 'egislative =ody shall enact measure to suppress any activity inimical to public morals and general

welfare of the people andPor regulated or prohibit such activity pertaining to amusement or entertainment in order to

protect social and moral welfare of the community

+*? @##*#,

=# % *-&%+#- by the $ity $ouncil in session duly assembled that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

!#$%*+ 1. he operation of gambling $&!%+* in the $ity of $agayan de *ro is hereby prohibited.

!#$%*+ . &ny violation of this *rdinance shall be sub;ect to the following penalties:chanrob1es virtual 1awlibrary

a) &dministrative fine of "5,000.00 shall be imposed against the proprietor, partnership or corporation undertaAing

the operation, conduct, maintenance of gambling $&!%+* in the $ity and closure thereof

b) %mprisonment of not less than six (2) months nor more than one (1) year or a fine in the amount of "5,000.00 or

both at the discretion of the court against the manager, supervisor, andPor any person responsible in the

establishment, conduct and maintenance of gambling $&!%+*.

!#$%*+ uly 1


30/84

%n addition, !ection 35G of the said $ode specifically declares that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

!#$%*+ 35G. "owers, -uties, unctions and $ompensation. (1) he !angguniang "anlungsod, as the

legislative body of the city, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfareof the city and its inhabitants pursuant to !ection 12 of this $ode and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers

of the city as provided for under !ection of this $ode, and shall:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) &pprove ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and effective city government, and in thisconnection, shall:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x x x

(v) #nact ordinances intended to prevent, suppress and impose appropriate penalties for habitual drunAenness in

public places, vagrancy, mendicancy, prostitution, establishment and maintenance of houses of ill repute, gamblingand other prohibited games chance, fraudulent devices and ways to obtain money or property, drug addiction,

maintenance of drug dens, drug pushing, ;uvenile delinquency, the printing, distribution or exhibition of obscene or

pornographic materials or publications, and such other activities inimical to the welfare and morals of the inhabitants

of the city

his section also authori4es the local government units to regulate properties and business within their territoriallimits in the interest of the general welfare. 5

he petitioners argue that by virtue of these provisions, the !angguniang "anlungsod may prohibit the operation and

casinos because they involve games of chance, which are detrimental to the people. 9ambling is not allowed by

general law and even by the $onstitution itself. he legislative power conferred upon local government units may be

exercised over all Ainds of gambling and not only over illegal gambling as the respondents erroneously argue.#ven if the operation of casinos may have been permitted under ".-. 1G2D, the government of $agayan de *ro $ity

has the authority to prohibit them within its territory pursuant to the authority entrusted to it by the 'ocal

9overnment $ode.

%t is submitted that this interpretation is consonant with the policy of local autonomy as mandated in &rticle %%,

!ection 5, and &rticle 8 of the $onstitution, as well as various other provisions therein seeAing to strengthen the

character of the nation. %n giving the local government units the power to prevent or suppress gambling and othersocial problems, the 'ocal 9overnment $ode has recogni4ed the competence of such communities to determine and

adopt the measures best expected to promote the general welfare of their inhabitants in line with the policies of the

!tate.

he petitioners also stress that when the $ode expressly authori4ed the local government units to prevent and

suppress gambling and other prohibited games of chance, liAe craps, baccarat, blacA;acA and roulette, it meant all

forms of gambling within distinction. 7bi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemos. 2 *therwise, it would

have expressly excluded from the scope of their power casinos and other forms of gambling authori4ed by speciallaw, as it could have easily done. he fact that it did not do so simply means that the local government units are

permitted to prohibit all Ainds of gambling within their territories, including the operation of casinos.chanrobles

virtual lawlibrary

he adoption of the 'ocal 9overnment $ode, it is pointed out, had the effect of modifying the charter of the"&9$*. he $ode is not only a later enactment than ". -. 1G2D and so is deemed to prevail in case of

inconsistencies between them. 6ore than this, the powers of the "&9$* under the decree are expressly

discontinued by the $ode insofar as they do not conform to its philosophy and provisions, pursuant to "ar. (f) of itsrepealing clause reading as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(f) &ll general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, executives orders, proclamations and administrative

regulations, or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this $ode are herebyrepealed or modified accordingly.

%t is also maintained that assuming there is doubt regarding the effect of the 'ocal 9overnment $ode on ".-. 1G2D,

the doubt must be resolved in favor of the petitioners, in accordance with the direction in the $ode calling for itsliberal interpretation in favor of the local government units. !ection 5 of the $ode specifically provides:chanrob1es

virtual 1aw library

!#$%*+ 5. ules of %nterpretation. %n the interpretation of the provisions of this $ode, the following rules shallapply:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) &ny provision on a power of a local government unit shall be liberally interpreted in its favor, and in case of

doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of the lower local governmentunit. &ny fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the local

government unit concerned


31/84

x x x

(c) he general welfare provisions in this $ode shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers to localgovernment units in accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the people in the

community . . . (Emphasis supplied.)

inally, the petitioners also attacA gambling as intrinsically harmful and cite various provisions of the $onstitutionand several decisions of this $ourt expressive of the general and official disapprobation of the vice. hey invoAe the

!tate policies on the family and the proper upbringing of the youth and, as might be expected, call attention to the

old case of 7. !. v. !alaveria, E which sustained a municipal ordinance prohibiting the playing of panguingue. he

petitioners decry the immorality of gambling. hey also impugn the wisdom of ".-. 1G2D (which they describe as amartial law instrument) in creating "&9$* and authori4ing it to operate casinos on land and sea within the

territorial ;urisdiction of the "hilippines. cralawnad

his is the opportune time to stress an important point.

he morality of gambling is not ;usticiable issue. 9ambling is not illegal per se. ?hile it is generally considered

inimical to the interests of the people, there is nothing in the $onstitution categorically proscribing or penali4ing

gambling or, for that matter, even mentioning it at all. %t is left to $ongress to deal with the activity as it sees fit. %n

the exercise of its own discretion, the legislature may prohibit gambling altogether or allow it without limitation or itmay prohibit some forms of gambling and allow others for whatever reasons it may consider sufficient. hus, it has

prohibited ;ueteng and monte but permits lotteries, cocAfighting and horseFracing. %n maAing such choices, $ongress

has consulted its own wisdom, which this $ourt has no authority to review, much less reverse. ?ell has it been saidthat courts do no sit to resolve the merits of conflicting theories. G hat is the prerogative of the political

departments. %t is settled that questions regarding the wisdom, morality, or practicibility of statutes are not addressed

to the ;udiciary but may be resolved only by the legislative and executive departments, to which the function

belongs in our scheme of government. hat function is exclusive. ?hichever way these branches decide, they areanswerable only to their own conscience and the constituents who will ultimately ;udge their acts, and not to the

courts of ;ustice.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

he only question we can and shall resolve in this petition is the validity of *rdinance +o.


32/84

that have changed ".-. 1G2D for an ordinance admittedly cannot prevail against a statute. heir theory is that the

change has been made by the 'ocal 9overnment $ode itself, which was also enacted by the national lawmaAing

authority. %n their view, the decree has been, not really repealed by the $ode, but merely modified pro tanto in the

sense that "&9$* cannot now operate a casino over the ob;ection of the local government unit concerned. hismodification of ".-. 1G2D by the 'ocal 9overnment $ode is permissible because one law can change or repeal

another law.

%t seems to us that the petitioner are playing with words. ?hile insisting that the decree has only been modified protanto, they are actually arguing that it is already dead, repealed and useless for all intents and purposes because the

$ode has shorn "&9$* of all power to centrali4e and regulate casinos. !trictly speaAing, it operates may now be

not only prohibited by the local government unit in fact, the prohibition is not only discretionary by mandated by

!ection 35G of the $ode if the word shall as used therein is to be given its accepted meaning. 'ocal governmentunits have now on choice but to prevent and suppress gambling, which in the petitionersI view includes both legal

and illegal gambling. 7nder this connection, "&9$* will have no more games of chance to regulate or centrali4e

as they must all be prohibited by the local government units pursuant to the mandatory duty imposed upon them by

the $ode. %n this situation, "&9$* cannot continue to exist except only as a toothless tiger or a white elephant andwill no longer be able to exercise its powers as a price source of government revenue through the operation of

casinos.

%t is noteworthy that the petitioners have cited only "ar. (f) of the repealing clause, conveniently discarding the rest

of the provision which painstaAingly mentions the specific laws or the parts thereof which are repealed (or modified)by the $ode. !ignificantly, ".-. 1G2D is not one of them. & reading of the entire repealing clause, which is

reproduced below, will disclose the omission:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

!#$%*+ 5


33/84

respect as the handiworA of a coordinate branch of the government. *n the assumption of a conflict between ".-.

1G2D and the $ode, the proper action is not to uphold one and annul the other but to give effect to both by

harmoni4ing them if possible. his is possible in the case before us. he proper resolution of the problem at hand is

to hold that under the 'ocal 9overnment $ode, local government units may (and indeed must) prevent and suppressall Ainds of gambling within their territories except only those allowed by statutes liAe ".-. 1G2D. he exception

reserved in such laws must be read in the $ode, to maAe both the $ode and such laws equally effective and mutually

complementary.

his approach would also affirm that there are indeed two Ainds of gambling, to wit, the illegal and those authori4ed

by law. 'egali4ed gambling is not a modern concept it is probably as old as illegal gambling, if not indeed more so.

he petitionersI suggestion that the $ode authori4e them to prohibit all Ainds of gambling would erase the

distinction between these two forms of gambling without a clear indication that this is the will of legislature."lausibly, following this theory, the $ity of 6anila could, by mere ordinance, prohibit the "hilippine $harity

!weepstaAes *ffice from conducting a lottery as authori4ed by .&. 112D and =.". 3 or stop the races at the !an

'a4aro @ippodrome as authori4ed by .&.


34/84

+arvasa, C.J., eliciano, =idin, egalado, omero, =ellosillo, 6elo, Ouiason, "uno, itug, Capunan and

6endo4a,JJ., concur.

'3ara) O3o5

"&-%''&,J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

% concur with the ma;ority holding that the city ordinances in question cannot modify much less repeal "&9$*Is

general authority to establish and maintain gambling casinos anywhere in the "hilippines under "residential -ecree+o. 1G2D.cralawnad

%n =asco v. "hilippine &musement and 9aming $orporation ("&9$*), 1DE !$& 5, % stated in a separate

opinion that:;gc:chanrobles.com.ph

. . . % agree with the decision insofar as it holds that the prohibition, control, and regulation of the entire activity

Anown as gambling properly pertain to Jstate policyI. %t is, therefore, the political departments of government,

namely, the legislative and the executive that should decide on what government should do in the entire area ofgambling, and assume full responsibility to the people for such policy. (Emphasis supplied)

@owever, despite the legality of the opening and operation of a casino in $agayan de *ro $ity by respondent

"&9$*, % wish to reiterate my view that gambling in any form runs counter to the governmentIs own efforts to reFestablish and resurrect the ilipino moral character which is generally perceived to be in a state of continuing

erosion.

%t is in the light of this alarming perspective that % call upon government to carefully weigh the advantages anddisadvantages of setting up more gambling facilities in the country.

hat the "&9$* contributes greatly to the coffers of the government is not enough reason for setting up more

gambling casinos because, undoubtedly, this will not help improve, but will cause a further deterioration in theilipino moral character.

%t is worth remembering in this regard that, 1) ?hat is legal is not always moral and ) the ends do no always ;ustifythe means.

&s in =asco, % can easily visuali4e prostitution at par with gambling. &nd yet, legali4ation of the former will not

render it any less reprehensible even if substantial revenue for the government can be reali4ed from it. he same istrue of gambling.

%n the present case, it is my considered view that the national government (through "&9$*) should reFexamine

and reFevaluate its decision of imposing the gambling casino on the residents of $agayan de *ro $ity for it isabundantly clear that public opinion in the city is very much against it, and again the question must be seriously

deliberated: will the prospects of revenue to be reali4ed from the casino outweigh the further destruction of the

ilipino sense of valuesK

-&%-#, >.,J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

?hile % concur in part with the ma;ority, % wish, however, to express my views on certain aspects of this case.

%

%t must at once be noted that private respondent "ryce "roperties $orporation ("/$#) directly filed with the $ourt

of &ppeals its soFcalled petition for prohibition, thereby invoAing the said courtIs original ;urisdiction to issue writs

of prohibition under !ection D(1) of =.". =lg. 1D. &s % see it, however, the principal cause of action therein is one

for declaratory relief: to declare null and unconstitutional for, inter alia, having been enacted without or in excessof ;urisdiction, for impairing the obligation of contracts, and for being inconsistent with public policy the

challenged ordinances enacted by the !angguniang "anlungsod of the $ity of $agayan de *ro. he intervention

therein of public respondent "hilippine &musement and 9aming $orporation ("&9$*) further underscores the

declaratory relief nature of the action. "&9$* assails the ordinances for being contrary to the nonFimpairmentand equal protection clauses of the $onstitution, violative of the 'ocal 9overnment $ode, and against the !tateIs

national policy declared in ".-. +o. 1G2D. &ccordingly, the $ourt of &ppeals does not have ;urisdiction over the

nature of the action. #ven assuming arguendo that the case is one for prohibition, then, under this $ourtIs established

policy relative to the hierarchy of courts, the petition should have been filed with the egional rial $ourt of$agayan de *ro $ity. % find no special or compelling reason why it was not filed with the said court. % do not wish to

entertain the thought that "/$# doubted a favorable verdict therefrom, in which case the filing of the petition with

the $ourt of &ppeals may have been impelled by tactical considerations. & dismissal of the petition by the $ourt of


35/84

&ppeals would have been in order pursuant to our decisions in "eople v. $uaresma (1E !$& 315, M1DGDN) and

-efensorF!antiago v. asque4 (1E !$& 2


36/84

"&9$*I! general authority to establish and maintain gambling casinos anywhere in the "hilippines is

concerned.chanrobles law library

% ;oin the ma;ority in holding that the ordinances cannot repeal ".-. +o. 1G2D.

%%%.

he nullification by the $ourt of &ppeals of the challenged ordinances as unconstitutional primarily because it is in

contravention to ".-. +o. 1G2D is unwarranted. & contravention of a law is not necessarily a contravention of the

constitution. %n any case, the ordinances can still stand even if they be conceded as offending ".-. +o. 1G2D. heycan be reconciled, which is not impossible to do. !o reconciled, the ordinances should be construed as not applying

to "&9$*.

%.

rom the pleadings, it is obvious that the government and the people of $agayan de *ro $ity are, for obvious

reasons, strongly against the opening of the gambling casino in their city. 9ambling, even if legali4ed, would be

inimical to the general welfare of the inhabitants of the city, or of any place for that matter. he "&9$*, as a

governmentFowned corporation, must consider the valid concerns of the people of the $ity of $agayan de *ro andshould not impose its will upon them in an arbitrary, if not despotic, manner.

Endnotes:

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1?2988. 7* 19, 2000.]

A(!L!NO . P!MENTEL, 7R.,Petitioner, %. Ho. ALEAN$ER AG(!RRE h5 ca3ac) a5 E@c*)%'cr)ar, Ho. EM!L!A BONCO$!N hr ca3ac) a5 'cr)ar o )h $3ar)) o B*/+) a/

Maa+),Respondents.

ROBERTO PAG$ANGANAN, )r%or.

$ E C ! ' ! O N

PANGAN!BAN,J.

he $onstitution vests the "resident with the power of supervision, not control, over local government units ('97s).

!uch power enables him to see to it that '97s and their officials execute their tasAs in accordance with law. ?hilehe may issue advisories and seeA their cooperation in solving economic difficulties, he cannot prevent them from

performing their tasAs and using available resources to achieve their goals. @e may not withhold or alter anyauthority or power given them by the law. hus, the withholding of a portion of internal revenue allotments legally

due them cannot be directed by administrative fiat.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

he $ase

=efore us is an original "etition for Certiorariand "rohibition seeAing (1) to annul !ection 1 of &dministrative

*rder (&*) +o.


37/84

*n -ecember E, 1DDE, the "resident of the "hilippines issued &*


38/84

!#$%*+ . &gencies are given the flexibility to identify the specific sources of costFsavings, provided the 5H

minimum savings under !ection 1 is complied with.

!#$%*+ oseph #. #strada issued &* 3


39/84

=efore resolving the main issue, we deem it important and appropriate to define certain crucial concepts: (1) the

scope of the "residentIs power of general supervision over local governments and () the extent of the local

governmentsI autonomy.

!cope of "residents "ower of

!upervision *ver '97s

!ection 3 of &rticle 8 of the $onstitution confines the "residentIs power over local governments to one of general

supervision. %t reads as follows:;gc:chanrobles.com.ph

!#$%*+ 3. he "resident of the "hilippines shall exercise general supervision over localgovernments. . . .cralaw virtua1aw library

his provision has been interpreted to exclude the power of control. %n 6ondano v. !ilvosa, 5 the $ourt contrasted

the "residentIs power of supervision over local government officials with that of his power of control over executiveofficials of the national government. %t was emphasi4ed that the two terms supervision and control differed in

meaning and extent. he $ourt distinguished them as follows:;gc:chanrobles.com.ph

. . . %n administrative law, supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that

subordinate officers perform their duties. %f the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may taAe such actionor step as prescribed by law to maAe them perform their duties. $ontrol, on the other hand, means the power of an

officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer haMsN done in the performance of his duties

and to substitute the ;udgment of the former for that of the latter. 2

%n aule v. !antos, E we further stated that the $hief #xecutive wielded no more authority than that of checAing

whether local governments or their officials were performing their duties as provided by the fundamental law and by

statutes. @e cannot interfere with local governments, so long as they act within the scope of their authority.!upervisory power, when contrasted with control, is the power of mere oversight over an inferior body it does not

include any restraining authority over such body, G we said.

%n a more recent case, -rilon v. 'im, D the difference between control and supervision was further delineated.*fficers in control lay down the rules in the performance or accomplishment of an act. %f these rules are not

followed, they may, in their discretion, order the act undone or redone by their subordinates or even decide to do itthemselves. *n the other hand, supervision does not cover such authority. !upervising officials merely see to it that

the rules are followed, but they themselves do not lay down such rules, nor do they have the discretion to modify orreplace them. %f the rules are not observed, they may order the worA done or redone, but only to conform to such

rules. hey may not prescribe their own manner of execution of the act. hey have no discretion on this matter

except to see to it that the rules are followed.

7nder our present system of government, executive power is vested in the "resident. 10 he members of the $abinet

and other executive officials are merely alter egos. &s such, they are sub;ect to the power of control of the "resident,

at whose will and behest they can be removed from office or their actions and decisions changed, suspended or

reversed. 11 %n contrast, the heads of political subdivisions are elected by the people. heir sovereign powersemanate from the electorate, to whom they are directly accountable. =y constitutional fiat, they are sub;ect to the

"residentIs supervision only, not control, so long as their acts are exercised within the sphere of their legitimate

powers. =y the same toAen, the "resident may not withhold or alter any authority or power given them by the$onstitution and the law.

#xtent of 'ocal &utonomy

@and in hand with the constitutional restraint on the "residentIs power over local governments is the state policy ofensuring local autonomy. 1 %n 9an4on v. $ourt of &ppeals, 1< we said that local autonomy signified a more

responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentrali4ation. he grant of

autonomy is intended to breaA up the monopoly of the national government over the affairs of localgovernments, . . . not . . . to end the relation of partnership and interdependence between the central administration

and local government units . . . "aradoxically, local governments are still sub;ect to regulation, however limited, for

the purpose of enhancing selfFgovernment. 13

-ecentrali4ation simply means the devolution of national administration, not power, to local governments. 'ocal

officials remain accountable to the central government as the law may provide. 15 he difference between

decentrali4ation of administration and that of power was explained in detail in 'imbona v. 6angelin 12 as

follows:;gc:chanrobles.com.ph

+ow, autonomy is either decentrali4ation of administration or decentrali4ation of power. here is decentrali4ation

of administration when the central government delegates administrative powers to political subdivisions in order to

broaden the base of government power and in the process to maAe local governments Jmore responsive andaccountable,I 1E and Jensure their fullest development as selfFreliant communities and maAe them more effective


40/84

partners in the pursuit of national development and social progress.I 1G &t the same time, it relieves the central

government of the burden of managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate on national concerns. he "resident

exercises Jgeneral supervisionI 1D over them, but only to Jensure that local affairs are administered according to

law.I 0 @e has no control over their acts in the sense that he can substitute their ;udgments with his own. 1

-ecentrali4ation of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of political power in the favor of local

government units declared to be autonomous. %n that case, the autonomous government is free to chart its own

destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central authorities. &ccording to a constitutionalauthor, decentrali4ation of power amounts to JselfFimmolation,I since in that event, the autonomous government

becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to its constituency.

7nder the "hilippine concept of local autonomy, the national government has not completely relinquished all itspowers over local governments, including autonomous regions. *nly administrative powers over local affairs are

delegated to political subdivisions. he purpose of the delegation is to maAe governance more directly responsive

and effective at the local levels. %n turn, economic, political and social development at the smaller political units are

expected to propel social and economic growth and development. =ut to enable the country to develop as a whole,the programs and policies effected locally must be integrated and coordinated towards a common national goal.

hus, policyFsetting for the entire country still lies in the "resident and $ongress. &s we stated in 6agta;as v. "ryce

"roperties $orp., %nc., municipal governments are still agents of the national government. oseph #. #strada issued &dministrative *rder +o. 3< (&* +o.

3#$%* #!&-& "resident of the epublic of the "hilippines, by virtue of

the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order the reduction of the withheld %nternal evenue &llotment (%&) of

local government units from ten percent to five percent.

he five percent reduction in the %& withheld for 1DDG shall be released before 5 -ecember 1DDG.

-*+# in the $ity of 6anila, this 10th day of -ecember, in the year of our 'ord, nineteen hundred and ninety eight.

?ith all due respect, % beg to disagree with the ma;ority opinion.

!ection 3 of &* +o.


45/84

=udget, preparation and maintenance of accounting systems essential to the budgetary process, achievement of more

economy and efficiency in the management of government operations, administration of compensation and position

classification systems, assessment of organi4ational effectiveness and review and evaluation of legislative proposals

having budgetary or organi4ational implications. 1

%n a larger context, his role as chief fiscal officer is directed towards the nationIs efforts at economic and social

upliftment for which more specific economic powers are delegated. ?ithin statutory limits, the "resident can, thus,

fix tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within theframeworA of the national development program of the government, < as he is also responsible for enlisting the

country in international economic agreements. 3 6ore than this, to achieve economy and efficiency in the

management of government operations, the "resident is empowered to create appropriation reserves, 5 suspend

expenditure appropriations, 2 and institute cost reduction schemes. E

&s chief fiscal officer of the country, the "resident supervises fiscal development in the local government units and

ensures that laws are faithfully executed. G or this reason, he can set aside tax ordinances if he finds them contrary

to the 'ocal 9overnment $ode. D *rdinances cannot contravene statutes and public policy as declared by thenational government. 10 he goal of local economy is not to end the relation of partnership and interFdependence

between the central administration and local government units, 11 but to maAe local governments more responsive

and accountable MtoN ensure their fullest development as selfFreliant communities and maAe them more effective

partners in the pursuit of national development and social progress. 1

he interaction between the national government and the local government units is mandatory at the planning level.

'ocal development plans must thus hew to national policies and standards 1< as these are integrated into the

regional development plans for submission to the +ational #conomic -evelopment &uthority. 13 'ocal budgetplans and goals must also be harmoni4ed, as far as practicable, with national development goals and strategies in

order to optimi4e the utili4ation of resources and to avoid duplication in the use of fiscal and physical resources. 15

!ection 3 of &* +o.


46/84

serious economic crisis. %n the situation con;ured by the ma;ority opinion, the money would already have been gone

even before it is determined that fiscal crisis is indeed happening.

he ma;ority opinion overstates the requirement in !ection G2 of the 'ocal 9overnment $ode that the %&s shallnot be sub;ect to any lien or holdbacA that may be imposed by the national government for whatever purpose as

proof that no withholding of the release of the %&s is allowed albeit temporary in nature.

%t is worthy to note that this provision does not appear in the $onstitution. !ection 2, &rt 8 of the $onstitutionmerely directs that '97s shall have a ;ust share in the national taxes as determined by law and which share

shall be automatically released to them. his means that before the '97sI share is released, there should be first a

determination, which requires a process, of what is the correct amount as dictated by existing laws. or one, the

%mplementing ules of the 'ocal 9overnment $ode allows deductions from the %&s, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1awlibrary

&rticle


47/84

the said five percent (5H) of the %& pertaining to the 1DDG iscal /ear has been permanently withheld, there is no

showing that the amount actually released to the '97s that same year was less than thirty percent (ose . $apco, >r. was elected viceFmayor of "ateros on >anuary 1G, 1DGG for a term ending >une

une une r., who was also a candidate for mayor, sought $apcos

disqualification on the theory that the latter would have already served as mayor for three consecutive terms by >une


48/84

term. "etitioner argues that it is irrelevant that private respondent became mayor by succession because the purpose

of the constitutional provision in limiting the number of terms elective local officials may serve is to prevent a

monopoli4ation of political power.

his contention will not bear analysis. &rticle 8, G of the $onstitution provides:

!#$. G. he term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law,shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. oluntary renunciation of

the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full

term for which he was elected.

his provision is restated in 3


49/84

wo ideas thus emerge from a consideration of the proceedings of the $onstitutional $ommission. he first is the

notion of service of term, derived from the concern about the accumulation of power as a result of a prolonged stay

in office. he second is the idea of election, derived from the concern that the right of the people to choose those

whom they wish to govern them be preserved.

%t is liAewise noteworthy that, in discussing term limits, the drafters of the $onstitution did so on the assumption that

the officials concerned were serving by reason of reelection. his is clear from the following exchange in the$onstitutional $ommission concerning term limits, now embodied in &rt. % 3 and E of the $onstitution, for

members of $ongress:

6. 9&!$*+. % would liAe to asA a question with regard to the issue after the second term. ?e will allow the!enator to rest for a period of time before he can run againK

6. -&%-#. hat is correct.

6. 9&!$*+. &nd the question that we left behind before if the 9entlemen will rememberF was: @ow long will

that period of rest beK ?ill it be one election which is three years or one term which is six yearsK

6. -&%-#. %f the 9entlemen will remember, $ommissioner odrigo expressed the view that during

the election following the expiration of the first 1 years, whether suchelection will be on the third year or on thesixth year thereafter, this particular member of the !enate can run. !o it is not really a period of hibernation for six

years. hat was the $ommittees stand.10crVlVwvirtualibrVry

%ndeed, a fundamental tenet of representative democracy is that the people should be allowed to choose whom they

please to govern them.11o bar the election of a local official because he has already served three terms, although

the first as a result of succession by operation of law rather than election, would therefore be to violate this principle.

!econd, not only historical examination but textual analysis as well supports the ruling of the $*6#'#$ that &rt.8, G contemplates service by local officials for three consecutive terms as a result of election. he first sentence

speaAs of the term of office of elective local officials and bars such officialMsN from serving for more than three

consecutive terms. he second sentence, in explaining when an elective local official may be deemed to have served

his full term of office, states that voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be consideredas an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. he term served must

therefore be one for which Mthe official concernedN was elected. he purpose of this provision is to prevent a

circumvention of the limitation on the number of terms an elective official may serve. $onversely, if he is not

serving a term for which he was elected because he is simply continuing the service of the official he succeeds, suchofficial cannot be considered to have fully served the term now withstanding his voluntary renunciation of office

prior to its expiration.

eference is made to $ommissioner =ernas comment on &rt. %, E, which similarly bars members of the @ouse of

epresentatives from serving for more than three terms. $ommissioner =ernas states that if one is electedepresentative to serve the unexpired term of another, that unexpired term, no matter how short, will be considered

one term for the purpose of computing the number of successive terms allowed.1crVlVwvirtualibrVry

his is actually based on the opinion expressed by $ommissioner -avide in answer to a query of $ommissioner!uare4: or example, a special election is called for a !enator, and the !enator newly elected would have to serve

the unexpired portion of the term. ?ould that mean that serving the unexpired portion of the term is alreadyconsidered one termK !o, half a term, which is actually the correct statement, plus one term would disqualify the

!enator concerned from runningK %s that the meaning of this provision on disqualification, 6adam "residentK

$ommissioner -avide said: /es, because we speaA of term and if there is a special election, he will serve only for

the unexpired portion of that particular term plus one more term for the !enator and two more terms for the6embers of the 'ower @ouse.1


50/84

should liAewise be considered to have served a full term as mayor if he succeeds to the latters office and serves for

the remainder of the term.

he framers of the $onstitution included such a provision because, without it, the iceF"resident, who simply steps

into the "residency by succession would be qualified to run for "resident even if he has occupied that office for

more than four years. he absence of a similar provision in &rt. 8, G on elective local officials throws in bold relief

the difference between the two cases. %t underscores the constitutional intent to cover only the terms of office towhich one may have been elected for purpose of the threeFterm limit on local elective officials, disregarding for this

purpose service by automaticsuccession.

here is another reason why the iceF"resident who succeeds to the "residency and serves in that office for morethan four years is ineligible for election as "resident. he iceF"resident is elected primarily to succeed the

"resident in the event of the latters death, permanent disability, removal or resignation. ?hile he may be appointed

to the cabinet, his becoming so is entirely dependent on the good graces of the "resident. %n running for iceF

"resident, he may thus be said to also seeA the "residency. or their part, the electors liAewise choose as iceF"resident the candidate who they thinA can fill the "residency in the event it becomes vacant. @ence, service in the

presidency for more than four years may rightly be considered as service for a full term.

his is not so in the case of the viceFmayor. 7nder the local 9overnment $ode, he is the presiding officer of the

sanggunian and he appoints all officials and employees of such local assembly. @e has distinct powers andfunctions, succession to mayorship in the event of vacancy therein being only one of them.12%t cannot be said ofhim, as much as of the iceF"resident in the event of a vacancy in the "residency, that in running for viceFmayor, he

also seeAs the mayorship. @is assumption of the mayorship in the event of vacancy is more a matter of chance than

of design. @ence, his service in that office should not be counted in the application of any term limit.

o recapitulate, the term limit for elective local officials must be taAen to refer to theright to be elected as well as the

right to serve in the same elective position.$onsequently, it is not enough that an individual has served threeconsecutive terms in an elective local office, he must also have been elected to the same position for the same

number of times before the disqualification can apply. his point can be made clearer by considering the following

cases or situations:

$ase +o. 1. !uppose & is a viceFmayor who becomes mayor by reason of the death of the incumbent. !ix months

before the next election, he resigns and is twice elected thereafter. $an he run again for mayor in the next election.

/es, because although he has already first served as mayor by succession and subsequently resigned from office

before the full term expired, he has not actually served three full terms in all for the purpose of applying the term

limit. 7nder &rt. 8, G, voluntary renunciation of the office is not considered as an interruption in the continuity of

his service for the full term only if the term is one for which he was elected. !ince & is only completing the serviceof the term for which the deceased and not he was elected.& cannot be considered to have completed one term. @is

resignation constitutes an interruption of the full term.

$ase +o. . !uppose = is elected 6ayor and, during his first term, he is twice suspended for misconduct for a total

of 1 year. %f he is twice reelected after that, can he run for one more term in the next electionK

/es, because he has served only two full terms successively.

%n both cases, the mayor is entitled to run for reelection because the two conditions for the application of thedisqualification provisions have not concurred, namely, that the local official concerned has been elected three

consecutive times and that he has fully served three consecutive terms. %n the first case, even if the local official is

considered to have served three full terms notwithstanding his resignation before the end of the first term, the fact

remains that he has not been elected three times. %n the second case, the local official has been elected threeconsecutive times, but he has not fullyserved three consecutive terms.

$ase +o.


51/84

people can return him to office (even if it is ;ust the third time he is standing for reelection) if his service of the first

term is counted as one of the purpose of applying the term limit.

o consider $ as eligible for reelection would be in accord with the understanding of the $onstitutional $ommission

that while the people should be protected from the evils that a monopoly of political power may bring about, care

should be taAen that their freedom of choice is not unduly curtailed.

HERE"ORE, the petition is -%!6%!!#-.

'O OR$ERE$.

Nar%a5a, C.J., $a%/, 7r., Roro, Bo5o, Mo, P*o, )*+, Fa3*a, Pa+a=a, Mar),

*5*=+ a/ P*r5a,JJ., coc*r.

Regalado, J., on official leave.

Endnotes:

#+ =&+$

[G.R. No. 1D24. Ma 2, 2004]

THE PRO!NCE O" BATANGA', r3r5)/ = )5 Go%ror, HERM!LAN$O !. MAN$ANA',petitioner,

vs. HON. ALBERTO G. ROM(LO, E@c*)% 'cr)ar a/ Chara o )h O%r5+h) Co))

o $%o*)o HON. EM!L!A BONCO$!N, 'cr)ar, $3ar)) o B*/+) a/ Maa+)

HON. 7O'E $. L!NA, 7R., 'cr)ar, $3ar)) o !)ror a/ Loca Go%r), respondents.

$ E C ! ' ! O N

CALLE7O, 'R.,J.

he "rovince of =atangas, represented by its 9overnor,

the province of zamboanga del norte case

Documents