BAGATSING vs. RAMIREZ minors from 7-12 years old.

There was a fine from 200-600 pesos or

FACTS: a 2-6 month imprisonment
The Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522, “An The complaint was issued in the trial court. A TRO was then issued to
Ordinance Regulating the Operation of Public Markets and Prescribing prevent the law from being enforced. The respondent court entered its
Fees for the Rentals of Stalls and Providing Penalties for Violation decision declaring the law valid.
thereof and for other Purposes.” Respondent were seeking the Petitioners attack the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No.
declaration of nullity of the Ordinance for the reason that a) the 640 on the grounds that it is ultra vires and an invalid exercise of police
publication requirement under the Revised Charter of the City power. Petitioners contend that Ordinance No. 640 is not within the
of Manila has not been complied with, b) the Market Committee was power of' the Municipal Board to enact as provided for in Section 15(n)
not given any participation in the enactment, c) Sec. 3(e) of the Anti- of Republic Act No. 523 where it states that the Muncipal board can
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has been violated, and d) the ordinance only fix license fees for theaters and not admission rates.
would violate P.D. 7 prescribing the collection of fees and charges on The respondent attempts to justify the enactment of the ordinance by
livestock and animal products. invoking the general welfare clause embodied in Section 15 (nn) of the
cited law.
ISSUE:
What law shall govern the publication of tax ordinance enacted by Issue:
the Municipal Board of Manila, the Revised City Charter or the Local Does this power to regulate include the authority to interfere in the
Tax Code. fixing of prices of admission to these places of exhibitionand amusement
whether under its general grant of power or under the general welfare
HELD: clause as invoked by the City?
The fact that one is a special law and the other a general law creates
the presumption that the special law is to be considered an exception Held: The ordinance is under neither and thus unconstitutional. Petition
to the general. The Revised Charter of Manila speaks of “ordinance” in granted.
general whereas the Local Tax Code relates to “ordinances levying or
imposing taxes, fees or other charges” in particular. In regard therefore, Ratio:
the Local Tax Code controls. 1. Kwong Sing v. City of Manila- the word "regulate" was interpreted
to include the power to control, to govern and to restrain, it would
BALACUIT vs. CFI AGUSAN DEL NORTE seem that under its power to regulate places of exhibitions and
Facts: amusement, the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan could make
Petitioners, theater owners, assailed the constitutionality of Ordinance proper police regulations as to the mode in which the business shall be
No. 640 passed by the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan on April exercised.
21, 1969. This called for a reduction to ½ of the ticket price given to In this jurisdiction, it is already settled that the operation of theaters,
cinematographs and other places of public exhibition are subject to
regulation by the municipal council in the exercise of delegated police
power by the local government.
People v. Chan- an ordinance of the City of Manila prohibiting first run
cinematographs from selling tickets beyond their seating capacity was
upheld as constitutional for being a valid exercise of police power.
The City of Butuan, apparently realizing that it has no authority to
enact the ordinance in question under its power to regulate embodied in
Section 15(n), now invokes the police power as delegated to it under
the general welfare clause to justify the enactment of said ordinance
To invoke the exercise of police power, not only must it appear that
the interest of the public generally requires an interference with private
rights, but the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals.
The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public
interest, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unusual
and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations. In other words,
the determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police power is
not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts.
Petitioners maintain that Ordinance No. 640 violates the due process
clause of the Constitution for being oppressive, unfair, unjust,
confiscatory, and an undue restraint of trade, and violative of the right
of persons to enter into contracts, considering that the theater owners
are bound under a contract with the film owners for just admission
prices for general admission, balcony and lodge.
Homeowners Association- the exercise of police power is necessarily
subject to a qualification, limitation or restriction demanded by the
regard, the respect and the obedience due to the prescriptions of the
fundamental law
The court agreed with petitioners that the ordinance is not justified by
any necessity for the public interest. The police power legislation must
be firmly grounded on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable
relation must exist between purposes and means.
The evident purpose of the ordinance is to help ease the burden of cost
on the part of parents who have to shell out the same amount of
money for the admission of their children, as they would for themselves.
A reduction in the price of admission would mean corresponding savings
for the parents; however, the petitioners are the ones made to bear
the cost of these savings. The ordinance does not only make the
petitioners suffer the loss of earnings but it likewise penalizes them for
failure to comply with it. Furthermore, as petitioners point out, there
will be difficulty in its implementation because as already experienced by
petitioners since the effectivity of the ordinance, children over 12 years
of age tried to pass off their age as below 12 years in order to avail of
the benefit of the ordinance. The ordinance does not provide a safeguard
against this undesirable practice and as such, the respondent City of
Butuan now suggests that birth certificates be exhibited by movie house
patrons to prove the age of children. This is, however, not at all
practicable. We can see that the ordinance is clearly unreasonable if not
unduly oppressive upon the business of petitioners. Moreover, there is
no discernible relation between the ordinance and the promotion of
public health, safety, morals and the general welfare.
Respondent further alleges that by charging the full price, the children
are being exploited by movie house operators. We fail to see how the
children are exploited if they pay the full price of admission. They are
treated with the same quality of entertainment as the adults.
Moreover, as a logical consequence of the ordinance, movie house and
theater operators will be discouraged from exhibiting wholesome movies
for general patronage, much less children's pictures if only to avoid
compliance with the ordinance and still earn profits for themselves.
A theater ticket has been described to be either a mere license, revocable
at the will of the proprietor of the theater or it may be evidence of a
contract whereby, for a valuable consideration, the purchaser has acquired
the right to enter the theater and observe the performance on condition
that he behaves properly. Such ticket, therefore, represents a right,
Positive or conditional, as the case may be, according to the terms of
the original contract of sale. This right is clearly a right of property.
The ticket which represents that right is also, necessarily, a species of
property. As such, the owner thereof, in the absence of any condition
to the contrary in the contract by which he obtained it, has the clear
right to dispose of it, to sell it to whom he pleases and at such price as
he can obtain.
In no sense could theaters be considered public utilities. The State has
not found it appropriate as a national policy to interfere with the
admission prices to these performances. This does not mean however,
that theaters and exhibitions are not affected with public interest even
to a certain degree. Motion pictures have been considered important
both as a medium for the communication of Ideas and expression of the
artistic impulse. Their effects on the perceptions by our people of issues
and public officials or public figures as well as the prevailing cultural
traits are considerable.
While it is true that a business may be regulated, it is equally true that
such regulation must be within the bounds of reason, that is, the
regulatory ordinance must be reasonable, and its provisions cannot be
oppressive amounting to an arbitraryinterference with the business or
calling subject of regulation. A lawful business or calling may not, under
the guise of regulation, be unreasonably interfered with even by the
exercise of police power.
A police measure for the regulation of the conduct, control and operation
of a business should not encroach upon the legitimate and lawful exercise
by the citizens of their property rights. 34 The right of the owner to
fix a price at which his property shall be sold or used is an inherent
attribute of the property itself and, as such, within the protection of
the due process clause.
Although the presumption is always in favor of the validity or
reasonableness of the ordinance, such presumption must nevertheless be
set aside when the invalidity or unreasonableness appears on the face of
the ordinance itself or is established by proper evidence
LINA vs. PANO
FACTS:On December 29, 1995, respondent Tony Calvento was appointed
agent by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) to install
Terminal OM 20 for the operation of lotto. He asked Mayor Calixto
Cataquiz, Mayor of San Pedro, Laguna, for a mayor’s permit to open
the lotto outlet. This was denied by Mayor Cataquiz in a letter dated
February 19, 1996. The ground for said denial was an ordinance passed
by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna entitled Kapasiyahan Blg.
508, T. 1995which was issued on September 18, 1995.As a result of
this resolution of denial, respondent Calvento filed a complaint for
declaratory relief with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order. In the said complaint, respondent Calvento asked the
Regional Trial Court of San Pedro Laguna, Branch 93, for the following
reliefs: (1) a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order,
ordering the defendants to refrain from implementing or enforcing
Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995; (2) an order requiring Hon. Municipal
Mayor Calixto R. Cataquiz to issue a business permit for the operation
of a lotto outlet; and (3) an order annulling or declaring as invalid
Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995.On February 10, 1997, the respondent
judge, Francisco Dizon Paño, promulgated his decision enjoining the
petitioners from implementing or enforcing resolution or Kapasiyahan Blg.
508, T. 1995.
ISSUE: WON Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995 is valid
HELD: As a policy statement expressing the local government’s objection
to the lotto, such resolution is valid. This is part of the local
government’s autonomy to air its views which may be contrary to that
of the national government’s. However, this freedom to exercise
contrary views does not mean that local governments may actually enact
ordinances that go against laws duly enacted by Congress. Given this
premise, the assailed resolution in this case could not and should not be
interpreted as a measure or ordinance prohibiting the operation of (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
lotto.n our system of government, the power of local government units
(2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
to legislate and enact ordinances and resolutions is merely a delegated
power coming from Congress. As held in Tatel vs. Virac, ordinances (3) must not be partial or discriminatory;
should not contravene an existing statute enacted by Congress. The (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
reasons for this is obvious, as elucidated in Magtajas v. Pryce Properties
(5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and
Corp
(6) must not be unreasonable.
CITY OF MANILA vs. LAGUIO
The police power of the City Council, however broad and far-reaching, is
On 30 Mar 1993, Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7783 entitled AN
subordinate to the constitutional limitations thereon; and is subject to
ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF
the limitation that its exercise must be reasonable and for the public
BUSINESSES PROVIDING CERTAIN FORMS OF AMUSEMENT,
good. In the case at bar, the enactment of the Ordinance was an invalid
ENTERTAINMENT, SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE ERMITA-
exercise of delegated power as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to
MALATE AREA, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF,
general laws.
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. It basically prohibited establishments such
as bars, karaoke bars, motels and hotels from operating in the Malate
District which was notoriously viewed as a red light district harboring PALMA vs. FORTICH – Cannot find
thrill seekers. Malate Tourist Development Corporation avers that the
ordinance is invalid as it includes hotels and motels in the enumeration TEVES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN – Cannot find
of places offering amusement or entertainment. MTDC reiterates that
they do not market such nor do they use women as tools for GANZON vs. CA
entertainment. MTDC also avers that under the LGC, LGUs can only Rodolfo Ganzon was the then mayor of Iloilo City. 10 complaints were
regulate motels but cannot prohibit their operation. The City reiterates filed against him on grounds of misconduct and misfeasance of office.
that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of Police Power as provided as well The Secretary of Local Government issued several suspension orders
in the LGC. The City likewise emphasized that the purpose of the law against Ganzon based on the merits of the complaints filed against him
is to promote morality in the City. hence Ganzon was facing about 600 days of suspension. Ganzon appealed
ISSUE: Whether or not Ordinance 7783 is valid. the issue to the CA and the CA affirmed the suspension order by the
Secretary. Ganzon asserted that the 1987 Constitution does not
HELD: The SC ruled that the said Ordinance is null and void. The SC
authorize the President nor any of his alter ego to suspend and remove
noted that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the
local officials; this is because the 1987 Constitution supports local
corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and must be
autonomy and strengthens the same. What was given by the present
passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also
Constitution was mere supervisory power.
conform to the following substantive requirements:
ISSUE: Whether or not the Secretary of Local Government, as the
President’s alter ego, can suspend and or remove local officials.

HELD: Yes. Ganzon is under the impression that the Constitution has
left the President mere supervisory powers, which supposedly excludes
the power of investigation, and denied her control, which allegedly
embraces disciplinary authority. It is a mistaken impression because
legally, “supervision” is not incompatible with disciplinary authority.

The SC had occasion to discuss the scope and extent of the power of
supervision by the President over local government officials in contrast
to the power of control given to him over executive officials of our
government wherein it was emphasized that the two terms, control and
supervision, are two different things which differ one from the other in
meaning and extent. “In administration law supervision means overseeing
or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers
perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them the
former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them
perform their duties.

Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or

modify or nullify of set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former
for that of the latter.” But from this pronouncement it cannot be
reasonably inferred that the power of supervision of the President over
local government officials does not include the power of investigation
when in his opinion the good of the public service so requires.

The Secretary of Local Government, as the alter ego of the president,

in suspending Ganzon is exercising a valid power. He however overstepped
by imposing a 600 day suspension.