Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    Bagatsing V Ramirez

    Uploaded by

    Adrian Gabriel S. Atienza
    The Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522 to regulate public markets and fees. A group filed a case to declare the ordinance null, arguing publication requirements were not met. The judge ruled the ordinance null due to lack of pre-enactment publication. The petitioners appealed. The Supreme Court held that the Local Tax Code, requiring only post-approval publication for tax ordinances, prevailed over the City Charter requiring pre- and post-enactment publication. It ruled the ordinance remained valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bagatsing V Ramirez

    Uploaded by

    Adrian Gabriel S. Atienza
    36 views2 pages
    The Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522 to regulate public markets and fees. A group filed a case to declare the ordinance null, arguing publication requirements were not met. The judge ruled the ordinance null due to lack of pre-enactment publication. The petitioners appealed. The Supreme Court held that the Local Tax Code, requiring only post-approval publication for tax ordinances, prevailed over the City Charter requiring pre- and post-enactment publication. It ruled the ordinance remained valid.

    Original Title

    Bagatsing v Ramirez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522 to regulate public markets and fees. A group filed a case to declare the ordinance null, arguing publication requirements were not met. The judge ruled the ordinance null due to lack of pre-enactment publication. The petitioners appealed. The Supreme Court held that the Local Tax Code, requiring only post-approval publication for tax ordinances, prevailed over the City Charter requiring pre- and post-enactment publication. It ruled the ordinance remained valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views2 pages

    Bagatsing V Ramirez

    Uploaded by

    Adrian Gabriel S. Atienza
    The Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522 to regulate public markets and fees. A group filed a case to declare the ordinance null, arguing publication requirements were not met. The judge ruled the ordinance null due to lack of pre-enactment publication. The petitioners appealed. The Supreme Court held that the Local Tax Code, requiring only post-approval publication for tax ordinances, prevailed over the City Charter requiring pre- and post-enactment publication. It ruled the ordinance remained valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-41631 December 17, 1976


    HON. RAMON D. BAGATSING, as Mayor of the City of Manila; ROMAN G.
    GARGANTIEL, as Secretary to the Mayor; THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR; and
    THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA, petitioners,
    vs.
    HON. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First
    Instance of Manila, Branch XXX and the FEDERATION OF MANILA MARKET
    VENDORS, INC., respondents.
    Facts:
    The 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." on June 12, 1974. The petitioner, City Mayor, Ramon D.
    qBagatsing, approved the ordinance on June 15, 1974.
    On February 17, 1975, Civil Case 96787 was commenced by respondent Federation of Manila
    Market Vendors, Inc. which was presided over by respondent Judge Ramirez, whose goal is to
    declare Ordinance No. 7522 as null and void because:
    (a) the publication requirement under the Revised Charter of the City of Manila has not been
    complied with;
    (b) the Market Committee was not given any participation in the enactment of the ordinance, as
    envisioned by Republic Act 6039;
    (c) Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has been violated; and
    (d) the ordinance would violate Presidential Decree No. 7 of September 30, 1972 prescribing the
    collection of fees and charges on livestock and animal products.
    Deciding on the prayer in the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, on March 11, 1975,
    respondent Judge issued an order that denies the plea of respondent Federation of Manila Market
    Vendors, Inc. due to failure in exhausting the administrative remedy as provided for in the Local
    Tax Code. After due hearing on the merits, respondent Judge rendered its decision on August 29,
    1975, 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.
    Petitioners moved for reconsideration on the decision, citing that a) only a post-publication is
    required under the Tax Code and b) private respondent had failed to use all possible
    administrative remedies before they made the action in court.
    Issue:
    1. 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.
    2. Whether or not Ordinance No. 7522 is valid
    Held:
    1. The Local Tax Code prevails. There is no question that the Revised Charter of the City of
    Manila is a special act since it relates only to the City of Manila whereas the Local Tax
    Code is a general law because it applies universally to all local governments. 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 rule readily yields to a situation where
    the special statute refers to a subject in general, which the general statute treats in
    particular. The Revised Charter of the City prescribes a rule for the publication of
    “ordinance” in general, while the Local Tax Code establishes a rule for the publication of
    “ordinance levying or imposing taxes fees or other charges” in particular.
    2. Yes. The ordinance remains valid.

    You might also like