MAGTAJAS VS PRYCE PROPERTIES CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. 111097 July 20, 1994

MAYOR PABLO P. MAGTAJAS & THE CITY OF CAGAYAN DE ORO, petitioners,
vs.
PRYCE PROPERTIES CORPORATION, INC. & PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION,

FACTS: There was instant opposition when PAGCOR announced the opening of a casino in Cagayan de
Oro City. Civic organizations angrily denounced the project.The trouble arose when in 1992, flush with
its tremendous success in several cities, PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro
City.he reaction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City was swift and hostile. On
December 7, 1992, it enacted Ordinance No. 3353.Nor was this all. On January 4, 1993, it adopted a
sterner Ordinance No. 3375-93Pryce assailed the ordinances before the Court of Appeals, where it was
joined by PAGCOR as intervenor and supplemental petitioner. Their challenge succeeded. On March 31,
1993, the Court of Appeals declared the ordinances invalid and issued the writ prayed for to prohibit
their enforcement

ISSUE: WON Ordinance 3353 and 3375-93 valid

RULING: No

Local Government Code, local government units are authorized to prevent or suppress, among others,
"gambling and other prohibited games of chance." Obviously, this provision excludes games of chance
which are not prohibited but are in fact permitted by law. The rationale of the requirement that the
ordinances should not contravene a statute is obvious. Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869. This
decree has the status of a statute that cannot be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance. Hence, it
was not competent for the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City to enact Ordinance No.
3353 prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of a casino and Ordinance No. 3375-93
prohibiting the operation of casinos. For all their praiseworthy motives, these ordinances are contrary to
P.D. 1869 and the public policy announced therein and is therefore ultra vires and void.
DRILON VS LIM XASE STUDY

G.R. No. 112497 August 4, 1994

HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, petitioner,

vs.
MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, VICE-MAYOR JOSE L. ATIENZA, CITY TREASURER ANTHONY ACEVEDO,
SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNSOD AND THE CITY OF MANILA, respondents.

Facts: The Secretary of Justice (on appeal to him of four oil companies and a taxpayer) declared
Ordinance No. 7794 (Manila Revenue Code) null and void for non-compliance with the procedure in the
enactment of tax ordinances and for containing certain provisions contrary to law and public policy. The
RTC revoked the Secretary’s resolution and sustained the ordinance. It declared Sec 187 of the LGC as
unconstitutional because it vests on the Secretary the power of control over LGUs in violation of the
policy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution. The Secretary argues that the annulled Section
187 is constitutional and that the procedural requirements for the enactment of tax ordinances as
specified in the Local Government Code had indeed not been observed. (Petition originally dismissed by
the Court due to failure to submit certified true copy of the decision, but reinstated it anyway.)

Issue: WON the lower court has jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of Sec 187 of the LGC.

Held:Yes. BP 129 vests in the regional trial courts jurisdiction over all civil cases in which the subject
ofthe litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Moreover, Article X, Section 5(2), of the
Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower
courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower courts are advised to act with the utmost
circumspection, bearing in mind the consequences of a declaration of unconstitutionality upon the
stability of laws, no lessthan on the doctrine of separation of powers. It is also emphasized that every
court, including this Court, is charged with the duty of a purposeful hesitation before declaring a law
unconstitutional, on the theory that the measure was first carefully studied by the executive and the
legislative departments and determined by them to be in accordance with the fundamental law before it
was finally approved. To doubt is to sustain. The presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only
by the clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution.
NATIONAL LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY VS. PAREDES CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. 130775 | September 27, 2004

Represented by ALEX L. DAVID in his capacity as National President and for his own Person, President
ALEX L. DAVID, petitioners,
VS
HON. VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES

.
Facts: DILG, appointed as interim caretaker to administer and manage the affairs of the Liga ng mga
Barangay in giving remedy to alleged violations made by the incumbent officer of the Liga in the conduct
of their elections, issued 2 memorandum circulars which alter, modify, nullify or set aside the actions of
the Liga. Petitioner contends that DILG’s appointment constitutes undue interference in the internal
affairs of the Liga, since the latter is not subject to DILG control and supervision. Respondent judge
contends that DILG exercises general supervisory jurisdiction over LGUs including the different leagues
based on sec. 1 of Admin. Order No. 267 providing for a broad premise of the supervisory power of the
DILG.

Issue: WON DILG Secretary as alter-ego of the President has power of control over the Liga ng mga
Barangay.

Held: No. Sec. 4, Art. X of the Constitution provides that the President of the Philippines shall exercise
general supervision over local government, which exclude the power of control. As the entity exercising
supervision over the Liga, the DILG’s authority is limited to seeing to it that the rules are followed, but it
cannot lay down such rules itself nor does it have the discretion to modify or replace the same.
THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF LEMERY VS PROVINCIAL BOARD OF BATANGAS

G.R. No. L-36201 .October 29, 1931

THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF LEMERY, BATANGAS, Petitioner,
vs.
THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF BATANGAS, VICENTE NOBLE and MODESTO CASTILLO, Respondents.
PROVINCE OF RIZAL VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; CONSULTATION TO LGU REGARDING NATIONAL PROJECTS

G.R. No. 129546 December 13, 2005

Facts: This is a petition filed by the Province of Rizal, the municipality of San Mateo, and various
concerned citizens for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, denying, for lack of
cause of action, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for a temporary
restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction assailing the legality and constitutionality of
Proclamation No. 635. At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its environs, parts
of the Marikina Watershed Reservation were set aside by the Office of the President [President Ramos],
through Proclamation No. 635, for use as a sanitary landfill and similar waste disposal applications. The
petitioners opposed the implementation of said order since the creation of dump site under the
territorial jurisdiction would compromise the health of their constituents. Moreso, the the dump site is
to be constructed in Watershed reservation. Through their concerted efforts of the officials and
residents of Province of Rizal and Municipality of San Mateo, the dump site was closed. However, during
the term of President Estrada in 2003, the dumpsite was re-opened. A temporary restraining order was
then filed. Although petitioners did not raised the question that the project was not consulted and
approved by their appropriate Sanggunian, the court take it into consideration since a mere MOA does
not guarantee the dump site’s permanent closure.

Issue: WON the consultation and approval of the Province of Rizal and municipality of San Mateo is
needed before the implementation of the project..

Ruling: Yes, as lucidly explained by the court: contrary to the averment of the respondents, Proclamation
No. 635, which was passed on 28 August 1995, is subject to the provisions of the Local Government
Code, which was approved four years earlier, on 10 October 1991. Section 2(c) of the said law declares
that it is the policy of the state- "to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic
consultation with appropriate local government units, non-governmental and people's organization, and
other concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their
respective jurisdiction." Likewise Section 27 requires prior consultations before a program shall be
implemented by government authorities ans the prior approval of the Sanggunian is obtained."
Corollarily as held in Lina , Jr. v. Paño, Section 2 (c), requiring consultations with the appropriate local
government units, should apply to national government projects affecting the environmental or
ecological balance of the particular community implementing the project.

Relative to the case, during the oral arguments at the hearing for the temporary restraining order,
Director Uranza of the MMDA Solid Waste Management Task Force declared before the Court of
Appeals that they had conducted the required consultations. However, the ambivalence of his reply was
brought to the fore when at the height of the protest rally and barricade made by the residents of
petitioners to stop dump trucks from reaching the site, all the municipal mayors of the province of Rizal
openly declared their full support for the rally and notified the MMDA that they would oppose any
further attempt to dump garbage in their province.

Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates the powers, duties and functions of the municipality,
grants the sangguniang bayan the power to, among other things, “enact ordinances, approve resolutions
and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section
16 of th(e) Code.” These include:
(1) Approving ordinances and passing resolutions to protect the environment and impose appropriate
penalties for acts which endanger the environment, such as dynamite fishing and other forms of
destructive fishing, illegal logging and smuggling of logs, smuggling of natural resources products and of
endangered species of flora and fauna, slash and burn farming, and such other activities which result in
pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of ecological imbalance; [Section 447
(1)(vi)]

(2) Prescribing reasonable limits and restraints on the use of property within the jurisdiction of the
municipality, adopting a comprehensive land use plan for the municipality, reclassifying land within the
jurisdiction of the city, subject to the pertinent provisions of this Code, enacting integrated zoning
ordinances in consonance with the approved comprehensive land use plan, subject to existing laws,
rules and regulations; establishing fire limits or zones, particularly in populous centers; and regulating
the construction, repair or modification of buildings within said fire limits or zones in accordance with
the provisions of this Code;[Section 447 (2)(vi-ix)]

(3) Approving ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and effective delivery of the basic services and
facilities as provided for under Section 17 of this Code, and in addition to said services and facilities,
…providing for the establishment, maintenance, protection, and conservation of communal forests and
watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves, and other similar forest development projects ….and,
subject to existing laws, establishing and providing for the maintenance, repair and operation of an
efficient waterworks system to supply water for the inhabitants and purifying the source of the water
supply; regulating the construction, maintenance, repair and use of hydrants, pumps, cisterns and
reservoirs; protecting the purity and quantity of the water supply of the municipality and, for this
purpose, extending the coverage of appropriate ordinances over all territory within the drainage area of
said water supply and within one hundred (100) meters of the reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct,
pumping station, or watershed used in connection with the water service; and regulating the
consumption, use or wastage of water.”[Section 447 (5)(i) & (vii)]

Briefly stated, under the Local Government Code, two requisites must be met before a national
project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be implemented:
(1) prior consultation with the affected local communities, and
(2)prior approval of the project by the appropriate sanggunian.

Absent either of these mandatory requirements, the project’s implementation is illegal.