Magtajas v. Pryce - Case Digest

Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp. (G.R. No.
111097)
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 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.

Magtajas v. Pryce - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magtajas v. Pryce - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magtajas v. Pryce - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp. (G.R. No.

Whether the Ordinances are valid.

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.

Wherefore, the petition is denied.

You might also like