Held
No, the ordinances prohibiting casino operations and the issuance of business permits for casinos within San Fernando City are invalid as ultra vires, under the ruling in Mayor Pablo P. Magtajas & The City Of Cagayan De Oro v. Pryce Properties Corporation, G.R. No. 111097.
Explanation
The 1987 Constitution grants local government units the power to create revenue sources and levy taxes consistent with local autonomy, but this autonomy is subject to limitations and guidelines set by Congress. The Local Government Code authorizes the Sangguniang Panlungsod to enact ordinances for the general welfare of the city, including ordinances to prevent and suppress gambling and other activities inimical to public morals and welfare. However, this power is limited to gambling activities that are prohibited by law.
The Supreme Court in Mayor Pablo P. Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corporation clarified that local government units cannot prohibit all forms of gambling by ordinance when some forms are expressly authorized by national law, such as casino operations under Presidential Decree No. 1869 (P.D. 1869). The Court emphasized the principle that local governments are agents of the national government and only exercise delegated powers. They cannot override or nullify national laws by mere local ordinances. The Court held that ordinances prohibiting casino operations and related business permits are ultra vires and void because they conflict with P.D. 1869, which authorizes casino gambling.
Thus, while local governments may regulate or suppress illegal gambling, they cannot prohibit gambling activities that the national government has expressly authorized. The ordinances must not contravene existing statutes, and local autonomy does not extend to overriding national laws.
Application to the facts
In this case, PAGCOR's decision to expand casino operations in San Fernando City is authorized under national law, specifically P.D. 1869, which permits casino gambling. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of San Fernando City enacted ordinances prohibiting the issuance of business permits for casino operations and banning casino operations outright within city limits.
Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Mayor Pablo P. Magtajas, these ordinances are invalid because they attempt to prohibit an activity expressly authorized by national law. The local government cannot use its delegated legislative power to override or nullify PAGCOR's authority to operate casinos. Although the ordinances were enacted to protect public morals and welfare, the power to prohibit casino operations lies with the national government, not the local government.
Therefore, the ordinances are ultra vires and void for contravening P.D. 1869 and the public policy it embodies. PAGCOR and the Surfer Hotel owner are correct in challenging the ordinances as invalid.
- a constitutional provision is among the sources and controls over any conflicting statute
"Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments."
"(a) The sangguniang panlungsod, as the legislative body of the city, shall enact ordinances... and shall: ... (v) Enact ordinances intended to prevent, suppress and impose appropriate penalties for habitual drunkenness in public places, vagrancy, mendicancy, prostitution, establishment and maintenance of houses of ill repute, gambling and other prohibited games of chance, fraudulent devices and ways to obtain money or property, drug addiction, maintenance of drug dens, drug pushing, juvenile delinquency, the printing, distribution or exhibition of obscene or pornographic materials or publications, and such other…
[[CASE HOLDING]] Under Sec. 458 of the 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 Supreme Court held that under the Local Government Code, local government units may prevent and suppress all kinds of gambling within their territories except only those allowed by statutes like P.D. 1869. The ordinances in question violate P.D. 1869, which has the character and force of a statute, as well as the public policy expressed in the decree allowing the playing of certain games of chance despite the prohibition of gambling in general. Municipal governments are only agents of the national government and exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress. P.D. 1869 has not been modified by the Local Government Code, which empowers local government units to prevent or suppress only those forms of gambling prohibited by law. Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869, which cannot be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance. Hence, ordinances prohibiting casino operations are ultra vires and void. (Mayor Pablo P. Magtajas & The City Of Cagayan De Oro v. Pryce Properties Corporation, G.R. No. 111097)
It is a canon of legal hermeneutics that instead of pitting one statute against another in an inevitably destructive confrontation, courts must exert every effort to reconcile them, remembering that both laws deserve a becoming respect as the handiwork of a coordinate branch of the government. On the assumption of a conflict between P.D. 1869 and the Code, the proper action is not to uphold one and annul the other but to give effect to both by harmonizing them if possible. This is possible in the case before us. The proper resolution of the problem at hand is to hold that under the Local Government Code, local government units may (and indeed must) prevent and suppress all kinds of gambling within their territories except only those allowed by statutes like P.D. 1869.
The exception reserved in such laws must be read into the Code, to make both the Code and such laws equally effective and mutually complementary. This approach would also affirm that there are indeed two kinds of gambling, to wit, the illegal and those authorized by law. Legalized gambling is not a modern concept; it is probably as old as illegal gambling, if not indeed more so. The petitioners' suggestion that the Code authorizes them to prohibit all kinds of gambling would erase the distinction between these two forms of gambling without a clear indication that this is the will of the legislature.
Plausibly, following this theory, the City of Manila could, by mere ordinance, prohibit the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office from conducting a lottery as authorized by R.A. 1169 and B.P. 42 or stop the races at the San Lazaro Hippodrome as authorized by R.A. 309 and R.A. 983. In light of all the above considerations, we see no way of arriving at the conclusion urged on us by the petitioners that the ordinances in question are valid. On the contrary, we find that the ordinances violate P.D. 1869, which has the character and force of a statute, as well as the public policy expressed in the decree allowing the playing of certain games of chance despite the prohibition of gambling in general. The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is obvious.
Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. 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. Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so it may destroy. As it may destroy, it may abridge and control.
P.D. 1869 has not been modified by the Local Government Code, which empowers the local government units to prevent or suppress only those forms of gambling prohibited by law. 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 are therefore ultra vires and void." (Mayor Pablo P. Magtajas & The City Of Cagayan De Oro v. Pryce Properties Corporation, G.R. No. 111097)
Laws retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.
- Section 5, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
- Section 458, Local Government Code of 1991 and the SK Reform Act of 2015
- Section 511, Local Government Code of 1991 and the SK Reform Act of 2015
- Section 56, Local Government Code of 1991 and the SK Reform Act of 2015
- Section 57, Local Government Code of 1991 and the SK Reform Act of 2015
- Section 455, Local Government Code of 1991 and the SK Reform Act of 2015
"The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions 9 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. We begin by observing that under Sec. 458 of the Local Government Code, local government units are authorized to prevent or suppress, among others, "gambling and…
Cases retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.