Bagatsing vs. Ramirez

BAGATSING VS.
RAMIREZ
Topic: Statutes and Ordinance
FACTS:
 Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522, "AN ORDINANCE
REGULATING THE OPERATION OF PUBLIC MARKETS AND PRESCRIBING FEES
FOR THE RENTALS OF STALLS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION
THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." The petitioner City Mayor, Ramon D.
Bagatsing, approved the ordinance on June 15, 1974.
 Respondent Federation of Manila Market Vendors, Inc. sought the declaration of

nullity of the said Ordinance. Among the reason for its nullification was that the
publication requirement under the Revised Charter of the City of Manila has not
been complied with, and that the ordinance would violate PD No. 7 prescribing
the collection of fees and charges on livestock and animal products.
 After due hearing on the merits, respondent Judge rendered its decision declaring
the nullity of Ordinance No. 7522 of the City of Manila on the primary ground of
non-compliance with the requirement of publication under the Revised City
Charter. (Note that under the Revised City Charter that … “Each proposed
ordinance shall be published in two daily newspapers of general circulation in the
city… Each approved ordinance * * * shall be published in two daily newspapers
of general circulation in the city, within ten days after its approval).
 Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the adverse decision, stressing that what
is required was the publication of the Ordinance after it is approved by local
legislative bodies in accordance to Local Tax Code. In other words, while the
Revised Charter of the City of Manila requires publication before the enactment
of the ordinance and after the approval thereof in two daily newspapers of general
circulation in the city, the Local Tax Code only prescribes for publication after the
approval of "ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges"
 The chief question to be decided in this case is what law shall govern the
publication of a tax ordinance enacted by the Municipal Board of Manila, the
Revised City Charter (R.A. 409, as amended), which requires publication of the
ordinance before its enactment and after its approval, or the Local Tax Code (P.D.
No. 231), which only demands publication after approval.
ISSUE (1):
Was the ordinance properly and validly published.
HELD (1):
Yes. Publication of ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges are
governed by Local Tax Code.
The general rule is that a prior special law is not ordinarily repealed by a subsequent
general law. The fact that one is special and the other general creates a presumption
that the special is to be considered as remaining an exception of the general, one
as a general law of the land, the other as the law of a particular case.
However, the exception is when where the special statute refers to a “subject” in
general, while the general statute treats the “subject” in particular. The exactly is
the circumstance obtaining in the case at bar. Section 17 of the Revised Charter of
the City of Manila speaks of "ordinance" in general, i.e., irrespective of the nature
and scope thereof, whereas, Section 43 of the Local Tax Code relates to "ordinances
levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges" in particular. In regard, therefore,
to ordinances in general, the Revised Charter of the City of
Manila is doubtless dominant, but, that dominant force loses its continuity when it
approaches the realm of "ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other
charges" in particular. There, the Local Tax Code controls. Here, as always, a general
provision must give way to a particular provision. 3 Special provision governs. 4
This is especially true where the law containing the particular provision was enacted
later than the one containing the general provision. The City Charter of Manila was
promulgated on June 18, 1949 as against the Local Tax Code which was decreed on
June 1, 1973.
ISSUE (2):
Were the fees for rentals of stalls, penalties and other charges are taxes?
HELD (2):
Yes, they were considered as taxes, and hence the Ordinance do not violate PD No.
7. Precisely, the raising of revenues is the principal object of taxation. Under Section
5, Article XI of the New Constitution, "Each local government unit shall have the
power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, subject to such
provisions as may be provided by law." 13 And one of those sources of revenue is
what the Local Tax Code points to in particular: "Local governments may collect fees
or rentals for the occupancy or use of public markets and premises * * *." 14 They
can provide for and regulate market stands, stalls and privileges, and, also, the sale,
lease or occupancy thereof. They can license, or permit the use of, lease, sell or
otherwise dispose of stands, stalls or marketing privileges

Bagatsing vs. Ramirez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bagatsing vs. Ramirez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Bagatsing vs. Ramirez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAGATSING VS.

 Respondent Federation of Manila Market Vendors, Inc. sought the declaration of

You might also like