9/8/2021
Amor Legis: Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp. (G.R. No. 111097)
Higit Pa
Amor Legis
Providing Resources for Future Lawyers
Home
Constitutional Law
Criminal Law 1
Executive Orders, Presidential Decrees, Letter of ...
Persons and Family Relations
Basic Legal Ethics
Case Digest
Gallery
Sunday, December 20, 2015
About Me
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp. (G.R. No. 111097)
View my complete profile
Facts:
PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City. It leased a portion of a building
belonging to Pryce Properties Corporations, Inc., renovated & equipped the same, and prepared to inaugurate
its casino during the Christmas season.
Civil organizations angrily denounced the project. Petitioners opposed the casino’s opening and enacted
Ordinance No. 3353, prohibiting the issuance of business permit and canceling existing business permit to the
establishment for the operation of the casino, and Ordinance No. 3375-93, prohibiting the operation of the
casino and providing a penalty for its violation.
Respondents assailed the validity of the ordinances on the ground that they both violated Presidential Decree
No. 1869. Petitioners contend that, pursuant to the Local Government Code, they have the police power
authority to prohibit the operation of casino for the general welfare.
Issue:
Whether the Ordinances are valid.
Ruling:
No. 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 powers expressly granted, those necessarily
implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective
governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective
territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation
and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology,
encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological
capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment
among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their
inhabitants.
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 tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions has held that to be valid, an
ordinance must conform to the following substantive requirements:
1) It must not contravene the constitution or any statute.
2) It must not be unfair or oppressive.
3) It must not be partial or discriminatory.
4) It must not prohibit but may regulate trade.
5) It must be general and consistent with public policy.
6) It must not be unreasonable.
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
amorlegis.blogspot.com/2015/12/magtajas-v-pryce-properties-corp-gr-no.html
Unknown
Total Pageviews
1 6 9 6 2
2
Blog Archive
▼ 2015 (57)
▼ December (32)
Burgos vs. Chief of
Staff (G.R. No. L64261)
Trillanes vs. Pimentel
(G.R. No. 179817)
People vs. Jalosjos
(G.R. No. 132875-76)
International School
Manila Alliance of
Educators ...
Ormoc Sugar Central
vs. Ormoc City
(G.R. No. L-23794)
People vs. Cayat
(G.R. No. L-45987)
Alauya vs. COMELEC
(G.R. Nos. 15215152)
Guzman vs. NU (G.R.
No. L-68288)
Mejia vs. Pamaran
(G.R. No. L-5674142)
Secretary of Justice
vs. Judge Lantion
(G.R. No. 1...
Fabella vs. CA (G.R.
No. 110379)
RUBEN SERRANO
vs. NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISS...
City of Manila vs.
Judge Laguio (G.R.
No. 118127)
Ang Tibay vs. CIR
(G.R. No. L-46496)
1/3
9/8/2021
Amor Legis: Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp. (G.R. No. 111097)
nullified by a mere ordinance. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by
Congress as the national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers
higher than those of the latter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local government units can undo the acts of
Congress, from which they have derived their power in the first place, and negate by mere ordinance the
mandate of the statute.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 are therefore ultra vires and void.
Wherefore, the petition is denied.
No comments:
Philippine Blooming
Mills Employeest
Organization ...
American InterFashion
Corporation vs.
Office of t...
NAPOCOR vs.
Gutierrez (G.R. No.
L-60077)
Post a Comment
Lozano vs. Martinez
(G.R. No. L-63419)
Enter your comment...
Publish
Lupangco vs. CA
(G.R. No. 77372)
Philippine Press
Institute vs.
COMELEC (G.R.
No. L...
Posted by Unknown at 4:12 PM
Comment as:
Balacuit vs. CFI (G.R.
No. L-38429)
People of the
Philippines vs.
Pomar (G.R. No. L22...
hazelantazo.p
Sign out
Notify me
Preview
Newer Post
Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Older Post
Acebedo Optical
Company, Inc. vs.
The Honorable Co..
Tablarin vs. Gutierrez
(G.R. No. 78164)
Tatel vs. Municipality
of Virac (G.R. No
L-29159)
US vs. Toribio (G.R.
No. L-5060)
Ynot vs. IAC (G.R. No.
74457)
Republic of the
Philippines vs. Vda.
De Castellvi ...
MMDA vs. Bel-Air
Village Association
(G.R. No. 135...
Magtajas v. Pryce
Properties Corp.
(G.R. No. 111097)
Lina v. Paño (G.R. No
129093)
SUBIC BAY
METROPOLITAN
AUTHORITY vs.
COMELEC (G.R....
► October (14)
► September (11)
Contact Janina
for any
comments,
suggestions,
violent
reactions, etc.
amorlegis.blogspot.com/2015/12/magtajas-v-pryce-properties-corp-gr-no.html
2/3
9/8/2021
Amor Legis: Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp. (G.R. No. 111097)
Name
Email *
Message *
Send
Picture Window theme. Theme images by duncan1890. Powered by Blogger.
amorlegis.blogspot.com/2015/12/magtajas-v-pryce-properties-corp-gr-no.html
3/3