Legislative power; Review

Moday vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 586 - ri!"e

Municipality of Bunawan issued a resolution for expropriation of a private property.
The Owner appealed the resolution to the Provincial Council of Agusan del Sur.
The Provincial Council or the Sangguniang Panlalawigan reviewed and reversed the resolution.
#SS$%& '(et(er t(e rovi!"ial Cou!"il "a! reverse t(e Mu!i"ipal Cou!"il)s Resolutio!.
*%L+& ,-L. '*%- t(e M$-#C#AL C,$-C#L %/C%%+%+ its A$0*,R#0.. Se" 152 of
3 224, t(e Lo"al 5over!6e!t Code i! for"e at t(e ti6e, did !ot e7press a!y aut(ority give! to
t(e Sa!ggu!ia!g a!lalawiga! to review a!d reverse t(e resolutio! or ordi!a!"e of a
Sa!ggu!ia!g 3aya! e7"ept o!ly w(e! t(e latter a"ted 8eyo!d t(e Law. ,! t(e ot(er (a!d, 3
224 e7pressly gave t(e Sa!ggu!ia!g 3aya! t(e power to e7er"ise t(e rig(t of e6i!e!t do6ai!.
Si!"e t(e 6u!i"ipal "ou!"il a"ted wit(i! its aut(ority, t(e Sa!ggu!ia!g a!lalawiga! 6isapplied
Se" 152 a!d (as !o aut(ority to reversed its resolutio! or ordi!a!"e.
+. ower to #!vestigate
-egros ,rie!tal ## %le"tri" Cooperative vs. Sa!ggu!ia!g a!lu!gsod, 155 SCRA 921 : ri!"e
Duaguete residents coplained a!out "##CO$s inefficient powerlines.
Sangguniang Panglungsod sent a su!poena to "##CO$s %en. Manager for purpose of
investigation and in&uiry.
"##CO %en. Manager did not appear. 'ence( the Sangguniang Panglungsod cited hi in
contept unless he raises valid grounds for his a!sence.
#SS$%& '(et(er t(e order of "o!te6pt was "orre"t.
*%L+& ;,#+ ,R+%R of C,-0%M0. 0(e L5C did !ot gra!t t(e Sa!ggu!ia!g a!glu!gsod
t(e <urisdi"tio! of i!=uiry or i!vestigatio! wit( respe"t to i!effi"ie!"y of ele"tri" Cooperative.
0(e <urisdi"tio! lies wit( t(e -atio!al %le"trifi"atio! Ad6i!istratio!. Si!"e t(ere was !o legal
8asis, t(e Sa!ggu!ia!g a!glu!gsod)s "o!te6pt order is void.
Aside fro the lac) of *urisdiction( the +%C never expressly or ipliedly grant to local
legislative !odies the power to su!poena witnesses and cite the in contept.
The power to su!poena and the cite witnesses in contept is not incidental to delegated
legislative functions of the local legislative since it involves derogation of individual rights.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
%. ;alidity of ,rdi!a!"es a!d Resolutio!s; >o!i!g
,rtigas a!d Co., Li6ited part!ers(ip vs. ?eati 3a!@ a!d 0rust Co., A9 SCRA 522 : ri!"e
Ortigas and Co sold two lots to a !uyer.
The TCT has an annotation of Deed of restriction saying that the real properties shall !e
exclusively -esidential .se.
Municipality of Mandaluyong enacted a resolution reclassifying the residential areas into
coercial areas/
0eati !an) purchased the lots fro the original !uyer and !uilt a coercial !uilding.
#SS$%& '(et(er t(e Resolutio! is valid.
*%L+& ;AL#+ R%S,L$0#,- CA- ;AL#+L. #-0%R?%R% C,-0RAC0S. #! t(e e7er"ise of
its delegated poli"e powers, A 6u!i"ipality "a! e!a"t a! ordi!a!"e or a resolutio! de"lari!g a!
area as "o66er"ial a!d i!dustrial Bo!e, a!d 6ay !ot 8e 8arred 8y t(e i6pair6e!t of "o!tra"t
"lause.
The State( in the exercise of police powers( can read into contracts pursuant to pu!lic welfare.
The State delegated portions of its police powers to the various +%.s under the %eneral
1elfare Clause of the +%C.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
2elasco vs. Blas( 334 SC-A 45, 6 Prince
The Sangguniang Bayan7SB8 issued a resolution allowing the Blas to !uild a ovie house 5,
eters fro the edical clinic of 2elasco.
2elasco appealed the resolution to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan7SP8 who reviewed and
reversed the SB. SP says that the resolution violated -A 3995.
#SS$%& '(et(er t(e issued resolutio! was valid.
*%L+& ;AL#+ R%S,L$0#,-. RA 1229 does !ot e7pressly e!u6erate 6ovie (ouses as pla"es of
e!tertai!6e!t pro(i8ited to 8e wit(i! 2CC 6eters of pu8li" 8uildi!gs, s"(ools, (ospitals, a!d
"(ur"(es. Durisprude!"e, (owever pro(i8ited da!"i!g s"(ools, "o"@pits, a!d 8owli!g alleys
8e"ause of !oise. Si!"e t(e Sa!ggu!ia!g a!lalawiga! "a! o!ly disapproved t(e Sa!ggu!ia!g
3aya!)s resolutio! o!ly w(e! t(e latter a"ted 8eyo!d t(e law or aut(ority gra!ted 8y t(e law, t(e
Sa!ggu!ia!g a!lalawiga!)s disapproval is illegal a!d void.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
0atel vs. Mu!i"ipality of ;ira", 2C4 SCRA 154 : ri!"e
The Sangguniang Bayan7SB8 issued an ordinance prohi!iting warehouses storing flaa!le
aterials within 9,, eters fro any !loc) of houses.
Tatel stored copra and a!aca inside his warehouse.
The SB issued a resolution declaring the warehouse a pu!lic nuisance. :t sent notice to Tatel.
#SS$%& '(et(er t(e ordi!a!"e is valid.
*%L+& ;AL#+ ,R+#-A-C%. 0(e ordi!a!"e is valid e7er"ise of poli"e powers. #t is "o!siste!t
wit( t(e ge!eral welfare "lause of t(e L5C for it ai6s to preve!t loss of life a!d property i! "ase
of fire.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
+elfi!o vs. St. Da6es *ospital, #!"., 5C1 SCRA A4 - ri!"e
Santa -osa issued 3;<3 =oning Ordinance allowing two storey and ten>!ed capacity hospital in
residential ?ones.
:n 3;;,( St @aes !uilt a two storey and ten>!ed hospital inside residential su!division.
"ew 3;;3 =oning Ordinance identified a new ?one for hospitals and excluded clinics or
hospitals Awith not ore than ten 73,8 capacityB fro residential areas.
:n 3;;5( '+.-B =oning Adinistrator( ignorant of the 3;;3=oning Ordinance( granted the
expansion of the hospital. The '+.-B -eg. Director reversed the grant.
#SS$%& '(et(er t(e e7pa!sio! is proper.
*%L+& C,-S0#-$%+ ,%RA0#,- 3$0 -, %/A-S#,-. 0(e 1AA1 >o!i!g ordi!a!"es
i6pliedly repeal t(e 1A81 ordi!a!"e 8ut it failed to repeal t(e 8uildi!g of a 1C-8ed "apa"ity
wit(i! t(e reside!tial Bo!e. Si!"e t(e (ospital was 8uilt wit(i! t(e effe"tivity of t(e 1A81 >o!i!g
,rdi!a!"e, it "a! "o!ti!ue operatio!. *owever, e7pa!sio! is "learly pro(i8ited u!der 8ot( 1A81
a!d 1AA1 ordi!a!"es.
8. ?oodstuff
Davella!a vs. Ei!ta!ar, 115 SCRA 624 - ri!"e
Ordinance no. 359 prohi!its selling of perisha!le foodstuffs outside the pu!lic ar)et.
Ordinance no. 354 re&uires inspection of perisha!le foodstuffs !y the City 'ealth Officer.
Ordinance no. 34, prohi!its anyone fro operating a pu!lic ar)et except the City.
@avellana operated ar)et stalls and claied that he is exepted since it is privately owned.
#SS$%& Are t(e ordi!a!"es validF
*%L+& ;AL#+ ,R+#-A-C%S. ,rdi!a!"es 192 a!d 195 are "learly "o!siste!t wit( t(e ge!eral
welfare "lause. 'it( respe"t to ,rdi!a!"e 15C, petitio!er)s 6ar@et is a pu8li" 6ar@et si!"e (is
privately-ow!ed 6ar@et is dedi"ated to servi"e of t(e ge!eral pu8li". ,w!ers(ip is !ot a test.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
". Massage arlors
;elas"o vs. ;illegas, 12C SCRA 568 : ri!"e
City of Manila issued an ordinance iposing higher license fees for a assage parlor ad*acent
to a !ar!ershop or a separate assage roo inside a !ar!ershop.
2elasco( !ar!ershop and assage parlor owner( assails the ordinance for deprivation of
property.
#SS$%& '(et(er t(e ordi!a!"e is valid.
*%L+& ;AL#+ ,R+#-A-C%. 0(e ordi!a!"e is "o!siste!t wit( t(e 5e!eral 'elfare Clause.
?irst, 6assage parlors are disti!"t fro6 8ar8ers(ops, (e!"e 6ust 8e "(arged differe!tly. Se"o!d,
t(e ordi!a!"e preve!ts i66orality t(at 6ay arise i! separate roo6s i!side a 8ar8ers(op.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
d. Moratoriu6 o! ?is(i!g
0a!o vs. So"rates, 248 SCRA 159 - ri!"e
Sangguniang Panglungsod of Puerto Princesa issued and Ordinance !anning the shipping of live
fish and lo!ster outside Puerto Princesa. 2iolations of the ordinance is a criinal offense.
Airline Shipper Association of Palawan and fish erchants invo)e preferential right of arginal
fisheran under the 0ishery Code and +%C.
#SS$%& '(et(er t(e Lo"al ,rdi!a!"e is valid.
*%L+& R%?%R%-0#AL R#5*0 ,? MAR5#-AL ?#S*%RMA- .#%L+S 0, 5%-%RAL
'%L?AR%. 0(e prefere!tial rig(t of fis(er6a! is !ot a8solute a!d yields to t(e rig(t of t(e
people to a 8ala!"e a!d (ealt(ful e"ology. 0o 6aterialiBe t(e ge!eral welfare wit( respe"t to a
8ala!"e a!d (ealt(ful e"ology, t(e L5C e7pressly gives t(e power to e!for"e fis(ery laws to t(e
6u!i"ipality wit(i! its 6u!i"ipal waters; su"( power is e!u6erated u!der t(e L5C o!
devolutio! of powers of t(e 5over!6e!t.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
e. Allowa!"es for Dudges
+adole vs. C,A, 2A2 SCRA 262 : ri!"e
Mandaue City issued an ordinance designating onthly allowances for *udges/ P 3(4,,.xx.
COA disallowed since the allowances were channeled fro the :-A given to Mandaue.
DBM reasoned that the allowances were !eyond the purpose of the :-A.
#SS$%& '(et(er t(e 6o!t(ly allowa!"es are proper.
*%L+& R,%R M,-0*L. ALL,'A-C%S. 0(e +3M "a!!ot a!y6ore =uestio! t(e
allowa!"es gra!ted 8y Ma!daue si!"e it failed to "o6ply wit( t(e AC-day period u!der Se" 226 of
t(e L5C. $!der Se" 226, if wit(i! AC days fro6 re"eipt of t(e "opies of t(e appropriatio!
ordi!a!"e, a!d t(e +3M ta@es !o a"tio!, t(e appropriatio! ordi!a!"e s(all 8e dee6ed to (ave
8ee! reviewed i! a""orda!"e to law a!d s(all "o!ti!ue to 8e i! full for"e a!d effe"t.
Moreover, t(ere was !o proof t(at t(e allowa!"es were "(a!!eled fro6 t(e #RA.