ABOITIZ V. CITY OF CEBY FACTS: Ordinance No.

207 was passed by the Municipal Board of Cebu, requiring the shipping concerns whose vessels dock at the public wharves of piers located in said city but owned by the National Government to pay for wharfage. Aboitiz Shipping Corporation paid the wharfage charges under protest. The petitioner questioned the validity of the said ordinance contending that the said ordinance could not have been enacted because the right to collect wharfage in question belongs to the National Government. Respondent on the other hand cited Sec 17 (w) of the Charter of Cebu which gives the Municipal Board the power xxx To fix the charges to be paid by all watercrafts landing at or using public wharves, docks, levees, or landing places. They further contest that the legislature made no distinction between those owned by the National Government and those owned by the City of Cebu. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not under its charter, the City of Cebu may provide by ordinance for the collection of wharfage from shipping concerns whose vessels dock at the public wharves of piers located in said city but owned by the National Government. HELD: The City of Cebu may not provide by ordinance for the collection of wharfage from shipping concerns whose vessels dock at the public wharves of piers located in said city but owned by the National Government because Sec 17 (w) of the Charter of Cebu as cited by the respondent in consonance with its preceding section, would refer only to those public wharves or landing places owned by the City of Cebu and not to those owned by the National Government under the exclusive supervision of the Bureau of Customs, according to section 1142 of the Revised Administrative Code. Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole and not of an isolated part or a particular provision alone. This is a cardinal rule of statutory construction. MAGTAJAS & CITY OF CAGAYAN v. PRYCE PROPERTIES & PAGCOR Facts: PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City. To this end, it leased aportion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties Corporation, Inc., renovated and equipped the same,and prepared to inaugurate its casino there during the Christmas season.. Civic organizations angrily denounced the project. The religious elements echoed the objectionand so did the women's groups and the youth. Demonstrations were led by the mayor and the citylegislators. The media trumpeted the protest, describing the casino as an affront to the welfare of the city.The contention of the petitioners is that it is violative of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayande Oro City Ordinance No. 3353 prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of a casino andOrdinance No. 3375-93 prohibiting the operation of casinos.On the other hand, the respondents invoke P.D. 1869 which created PAGCOR to help centralizeand regulate all games of chance, including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of thePhilippines.The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents. Hence, the petition for review. Issue: Whether or not the Ordinance No. 3353 and Ordinance No. 3375-93 are valid Held: No Ratio: Cagayan de Oro City, like other local political subdivisions, is empowered to enact ordinances for the purposes indicated in the Local Government Code. It is expressly vested with the police power under what is known as the General Welfare Clause now embodied in Section 16 as follows:***Sec. 16. General Welfare. Every local government unit shall exercise the powersexpressly granted, thos e necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary,appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essentialto the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, localgovernment units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichmentof culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology,encourage and support the development of appropriate and selfreliant scientific andtechnological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice,promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve thecomfort and convenience of their

inhabitants.There is a requirement that the ordinances should not contraven e a statute. Municipalgovernments are only agents of the national governme nt. Local councils exercise only delegatedlegislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking body. The delegate cannotbe superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. It is a heresy to suggest thatthe local government units can undo the acts of Congress, from which they have derived their power inthe first place, and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the statute.Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869. This decree has the status of a statute that cannotbe amended or nullified by a mere ordinance. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. CA Facts: RA 4850 was enacted creating the "Laguna Lake Development Authority." Thi sagency was supposed to accelerate the development and balanced growth of the LagunaLake area and the surrounding provinces, cities and towns, in the act, within the context of the national and regional plans and policies for social and economic development.PD 813 amended certain sections RA 4850 because of the concern for the rapidexpansion of Metropolitan Manila, the suburbs and the lakeshore towns of Laguna de Bay,combined with current and prospective uses of the lake for municipal-industrial watersupply, irrigation, fisheries, and the like. To effectively perform the role of the Authority under RA 4850, the Chief Executiveissued EO 927 further defined and enlarged the functions and powers of the Authority andnamed and enumerated the towns, cities and provinces encompassed by the term "Lagunade Bay Region". Also, pertinent to the issues in this case are the following provisions of EO927 which include in particular the sharing of fees:Sec 2: xxx the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permit forthe use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting thesaid region including navigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fishenclosures, fish corrals and the like.SEC. 3. Collection of Fees . The Authority is hereby empowered to collectfees for the use of the lake water and its tributaries for all beneficialpu rposes including but not limited to fisheries, recreation, municipal,industrial, agricultural, navigation, irrigation, and waste disposal purpose;Provided, that the rates of the fees to be collected, and the sharing withother government agencies and political subdivisions, if necessary, shall besubject to the approval of the President of the Philippines uponrecommen dation of the Authority's Board, except fishpen fee, which will beshared in the following manner: 20 percent of the fee shall go to thelakesh ore local governments, 5 percent shall go to the Project DevelopmentFund which shall be administered by a Council and the remaining 75 percentshall constitute the share of LLDA. However, after the implementation withinthe three-year period of the Laguna Lake Fishery Zoning and ManagementPlan the sharing will be modified as follows: 35 percent of the fishpen feegoes to the lakeshore local governments, 5 percent goes to the ProjectDevelopment Fund and the remaining 60 percent shall be retained by LLDA;Provided, however, that the share of LLDA shall form part of its corporatefunds and shall not be remitted to the National Treasury as an exception tothe provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1234. Then came Republic Act No. 7160. The municipalities in the Laguna Lake Regioninterpreted the provisions of this law to mean that the newly passed law gave municipalgovernments the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges wit hin their municipalwaters because R.A. 7160 provides:Sec. 149. Fishery Rentals; Fees and Charges (a) Municipalities shall have theexclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in the municipal waters and impose rental fees or charges therefor in accordance with the provisions of this Section.Municipal governments thereupon assumed the authority to issuefis hing privileges and fishpen permits. Big fishpen operators took advantageof the occasion to establish fishpens and fishcages to the consternation of the Authority. Unregulated fishpens and fishcages occupied almost one-thirdthe entire lake water surface area, increasing the occupation drastically from7,000 ha in 1990 to almost 21,000 ha in 1995. The Mayor's permit tocon struct fishpens and fishcages were all undertaken in violation of thepolicies adopted by the Authority on fishpen zoning and the Laguna Lakecarrying capacity. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Authorityserved notice to the general public that: 1. All fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in the Laguna deBay Region, which were not registered or to which no application for

registrationand/or permit has been filed with Laguna Lake Development Authority as of March31, 1993 are hereby declared outrightly as illegal.2.All fishpens; fishcages and other aqua-culture structures so declared asillegal shall be subject to demolition which shall be undertaken by the Presidential Task Force for illegal Fishpen and Illegal Fishing. 3. Owners of fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures declared asillegal shall, without prejudice to demolition of their structures be criminally chargedin accordance with Section 39-A of Republic Act 4850 as amended by P.D. 813 forviolation of the same laws. Violations of these laws carries a penalty of im prisonment of not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Pesosor both at the discretion of the court.All operators of fishpens, fishcages and other aquaculture structuresdeclared as illegal in accordance with the foregoing Notice shall have one (1)month on or before 27 October 1993 to show cause before the LLDA whytheir said fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures should notbe demolished/dismantled.One month, thereafter, the Authority sent notices to the concerned owners of theillegally constructed fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures advising them todismantle their respective structures within 10 days from receipt thereof, o therwise,demolition shall be effected. The fishpen owners filed injunction cases against the LLDA. The LLDA filed motions todismiss the cases against it on jurisdictional grounds. The motions to dismiss were denied.Meanwhile, TRO/writs of preliminary mandatory injunction were issued enjoining the LLDAfrom demolishing the fishpens and similar structures in question. Hence, the present petitionfor certiorari, prohibition and injunction. The CA dismissed the LLDAs consolidated petitions.It ruled that (A) LLDA is not among those quasi-judicial agencies of government appealableonly to the Court of Appeals; (B) the LLDA charter does vest LLDA with quasijudicialfunctions insofar as fishpens are concerned; (C) the provisions of the LLDA charter insofar asfishing privileges in Laguna de Bay are concerned had been repealed by the LocalGovernment Code of 1991; (D) in view of the aforesaid repeal, the power to grant permitsdevolved to respective local government units concerned. Issue: Which agency of the Government - the LLDA or the towns and municipalitiescomprising the region - should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its environsinsofar as the issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned? Held: LLDA. Section 4 (k) of RA 4850, the provisions of PD 813, and Section 2 of EO 927,specifically provide that the LLDA shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for theuse or all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting the said region, includingnavigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like.On the other hand, RA 7160 has granted to the municipalities the exclusive authority togrant fishery privileges in municipal waters. The Sangguniang Bayan may grant fisheryprivileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussels or other aquatic beds or bangus fry areawithin a definite zone of the municipal waters. The provisions of RA7160 do not necessarily repeal the laws creating the LLDA andgranting the latter water rights authority over Laguna de Bay and the lake region. The Local Government Code of 1991 does not contain any express provision whichcategorically expressly repeal the charter of the Authority. It has to be conceded that therewas no intent on the part of the legislature to repeal Republic Act No. 4850 and itsamendments. The repeal of laws should be made clear and expressed.It has to be conceded that the charter of the LLDA constitutes a special law. RA 7160is a general law. It is basic is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a laterlegislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. It is awell-settled rule in this jurisdiction that "a special statute, provided for a particular case orclass of cases, is not repealed by a subsequent statute, general in its terms, provisions andapplication, unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest, although the terms of the generallaw are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special law." Where there is aconflict between a general law and a special statute, the special statute should prevail sinceit evinces the legislative intent more clearly that the general statute. The special law is to betaken as an exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstances forcing acontrary conclusion. This is because implied repeals are not favored and as much aspossible, given to all enactments of the legislature. A special

law cannot be repealed,amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere implication.Considering the reasons behind the establishment of the Authorit y, which areenviromental protection, navigational safety, and sustainable development, there is everyindication that the legislative intent is for the Authority to proceed with its mission.We are on all fours with the manifestation of LLDA that "Laguna de Bay, like anyother single body of water has its own unique natural ecosystem. The 900 km lake surfacewater, the 8 major river tributaries and several other smaller rivers that drain into the lake,the 2,920 km2 basin or watershed transcending the boundaries of Lagun a and Rizalprovinces, constitute one integrated delicate natural ecosystem that needs to be protectedwith uniform set of policies; if we are to be serious in our aims of attaining sustainabledevelopment. This is an exhaustible natural resourcea very limited onewhich requires judicious management and optimal utilization to ensure rene wability and preserve itsecological integrity and balance. Managing the lake resources would mean theimplementation of a national policy geared towards the protection, conservation, balancedgrowth and sustainable development of the region with due regard to the inter-generationaluse of its resources by the inhabitants in this part of the earth. The authors of Republic Act4850 have foreseen this need when they passed this LLDA law-the special law designed togovern the management of our Laguna de Bay lake resources. Laguna de Bay thereforecannot be subjected to fragmented concepts of management policies where lakeshore local government units exercise exclusive dominion over specific portions of the lake water. Theimplementation of a cohesive and integrated lake water resource management policy,therefore, is necessary to conserve, protect and sustainably develop Laguna de Bay." The power of the LGUs to issue fishing privileges was clearly granted for revenuepurposes. This is evident from the fact that Section 149 of the New Local Government Codeempowering local governments to issue fishing permits is embodied in Chapter 2, Book II, of Republic Act No. 7160 under the heading, "Specific Provisions On The Taxing And OtherRevenue Raising Power of LGUs.On the other hand, the power of the Authority to grant permits for fishpens, fishcagesand other aqua-culture structures is for the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoringactivities in the Laguna de Bay region and for lake quality control and management. 6 Itdoes partake of the nature of police power which is the most pervasive, the least limitableand the most demanding of all State powers including the power of taxation. Accordingly thecharter of the Authority which embodies a valid exercise of police power should prevail overthe Local Government Code of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de Bay. There should be no quarrel over permit fees for fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in the Laguna de Bay area. Section 3 of Executive Order No. 927 providesfor the proper sharing of fees collected.In respect to the question as to whether the Authority is a quasijudicial agency ornot, it is our holding that, considering the provisions of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 4850and Section 4 of Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983, and the ruling of this Court inLaguna Lake Development Authority vs. Court of Appeals, there is no question that theAuthority has express powers as a regulatory a quasi-judicial body in respect to pollutioncases with authority to issue a "cease a desist order" and on matters affecting theconstruction of illegal fishpens, fishcages and other aquaculture structures in Laguna deBay. The Authority's pretense, however, that it is co-equal to the Regional Trial Courts suchthat all actions against it may only be instituted before the Court of Appeals cannot besustained. On actions necessitating the resolution of legal questions affecting the powers of the Authority as provided for in its charter, the Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction.In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that Section 149 of RA 7160, otherwiseknown as the Local Government Code of 1991, has not repealed the provisions of thecharter of the LLDA, Republic Act No. 4850, as amended. Thus, the Authority has theexclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the enjoyment of fishery privileges in Laguna deBay to the exclusion of municipalities situated therein and the authority to exercise suchpowers as are by its charter vested on it.