Manila Jockey Club Inc.

vs Games Amusement Board

Fact:

Philippine Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) were given 6 additional racing days in

virtue of the newly enacted RA No. 1502. However, the amendment law did not
specify the days on which they are to run. To accommodate the changes, Games
Amusement Board (GAB) resolved to reduce the number of Sundays assigned to
private individuals.

Issue:

WON petitioner had the vested rights over the unreserved Sundays stipulated by
Sec 4 RA No. 309
 WON additional sweepstake races should be inserted in the
club races as was discussed during the debate in the House of Representative
before the enactment of the bill

Held:

It was held that petitioners had no vested right over the unreserved Sundays
because their holding of races is only permissible, subject to the licensing and
determination of GAB. As such, GAB is given discretion by the law to determine
and allocate the racing days not specifically reserved by RA No. 309.

Moreover, petitioners’ contention that the additional races should be inserted in

the club races and not be given the whole day based on the House debate was
also rejected by the court. Legislative debates only expresses the opinions of
individual members and not the purpose or conformity of the whole lawmaking
body. According to the court, in the interpretation of a statute, it is not enough to
obtain the meaning or intention of the authors, but it must also see whether the
intention has been expressed in such a way as to give legal effect and validity.
The purpose of inquiry is not only to know what the author meant by the
language but also see that the language used sufficiently expresses the
meaning. The enactment of RA No. 1502 in which it did not expressly state how
the additional sweepstakes draws and races are to be held, it is concluded that
the statute did not intend to disturb the prevailing practice that all sweepstakes
draws and races are held every Sunday, the whole day and it only pertains to
regular races which are deemed to be held separately from other club races.

Marcos vs Castillo
Fact: Petitioner, the Mayor of Surigao del Sur, was placed under preventive
suspension by the Provincial Governor in pursuant to Sec. 5 RA No. 5185 or the
Decentralisation Act of 1967. This is in due of misconduct and dishonesty
complaint on the alleged connivance with certain private individuals in the cutting
and selling of timbers and logs for their own use and benefits to the damage and
prejudice of the public and the government.

Issue: WON the Governor has the power to order the suspension of the Mayor

Held: Based on the different wording of the new law, the power of suspension is
now given to the Provincial Board and not the Governor. Thus the old law vesting
the Governor the power to order preventive suspension when a municipal officer
is charged which affects his official integrity was repealed by RA No. 5185. The
Court also ruled that the purpose or objective of the legislator in making the law
should be given effect and it should be the one controlling the interpretation of
the provision. The purpose of RA No. 5185 was to give more freedom and
ampler means to respond to the needs of their people and promote prosperity
and happiness and to effect more equitable and systematic distribution of
governmental powers and resources. As such, their choice of public officials
should be respected and strict construction of law relating to suspension and
removal is the universal rule which is in line with the purpose of the law. It also
aims to prevent undesirable

consequences such as partisan influence. By vesting the power to the Provincial

Board, it avoided monopoly of one person over the power of suspension and
prevent abuse to gain partisan advantage.