Professional Documents
Culture Documents
As
Year and Retailers
No.-Establishments
Nationality
Pe
1941:
Filipino ..... 106,671
.....
20
11
40
20
10
8,7
1947:
1948:
(Census)
Filipino ..... 113,631
.....
21
93
10
21
12
12
22
1949:
1951:
1951:
SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines, September 17, 1968.
(SGD.) FRANCISCO ARCA
Judge 1
The controverted Ordinance No. 6537 was
passed by the Municipal Board of Manila on
February 22, 1968 and signed by the herein
petitioner Mayor Antonio J. Villegas of Manila
on March 27, 1968. 2
City Ordinance No. 6537 is entitled:
AN ORDINANCE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL
FOR ANY PERSON NOT A CITIZEN OF THE
PHILIPPINES TO BE EMPLOYED IN ANY
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT OR TO BE
ENGAGED IN ANY KIND OF TRADE,
BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION WITHIN THE
CITY OF MANILA WITHOUT FIRST
SECURING AN EMPLOYMENT PERMIT
FROM THE MAYOR OF MANILA; AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES. 3
Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 6537 4 prohibits
aliens from being employed or to engage or
participate in any position or occupation or
business enumerated therein, whether permanent,
temporary or casual, without first securing an
employment permit from the Mayor of Manila
and paying the permit fee of P50.00 except
persons employed in the diplomatic or consular
missions of foreign countries, or in the technical
assistance programs of both the Philippine
Government and any foreign government, and
those working in their respective households, and
members of religious orders or congregations,
sect or denomination, who are not paid
monetarily or in kind.
Violations of this ordinance is punishable by an
imprisonment of not less than three (3) months to
six (6) months or fine of not less than P100.00
but not more than P200.00 or both such fine and
imprisonment, upon conviction. 5
On May 4, 1968, private respondent Hiu Chiong
Tsai Pao Ho who was employed in Manila, filed
a petition with the Court of First Instance of
Manila, Branch I, denominated as Civil Case No.
72797, praying for the issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction and restraining order to
stop the enforcement of Ordinance No. 6537 as
10
III
RESPONDENT
JUDGE
FURTHER
COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND PATENT
ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT
ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Petitioner Mayor Villegas argues that Ordinance
No. 6537 cannot be declared null and void on the
ground that it violated the rule on uniformity of
taxation because the rule on uniformity of
taxation applies only to purely tax or revenue
measures and that Ordinance No. 6537 is not a
tax or revenue measure but is an exercise of the
police power of the state, it being principally a
regulatory measure in nature.
The contention that Ordinance No. 6537 is not a
purely tax or revenue measure because its
principal purpose is regulatory in nature has no
merit. While it is true that the first part which
requires that the alien shall secure an
employment permit from the Mayor involves the
exercise of discretion and judgment in the
processing and approval or disapproval of
applications for employment permits and
therefore is regulatory in character the second
part which requires the payment of P50.00 as
employee's fee is not regulatory but a revenue
measure. There is no logic or justification in
exacting P50.00 from aliens who have been
cleared for employment. It is obvious that the
purpose of the ordinance is to raise money under
the guise of regulation.
The P50.00 fee is unreasonable not only because
it is excessive but because it fails to consider
valid substantial differences in situation among
individual aliens who are required to pay it.
Although the equal protection clause of the
Constitution does not forbid classification, it is
imperative that the classification should be based
on real and substantial differences having a
reasonable relation to the subject of the particular
legislation. The same amount of P50.00 is being
collected from every employed alien whether he
is casual or permanent, part time or full time or
whether he is a lowly employee or a highly paid
executive
11
... (Batas Pambansa Big. 52) (Paragraphing and nature of a taxpayer's suit. Although petitioners
Emphasis supplied).
plead nine constraints as the reason of their joint
Petition, it would have required only a modicum
Section 1. Election of certain Local Officials more of effort tor petitioner Dumlao, on one
... The election shall be held on January 30, hand said petitioners lgot and Salapantan, on the
1980. (Batas Pambansa, Blg. 52)
other, to have filed separate suits, in the interest
of orderly procedure.
Section 6. Election and Campaign Period The
election period shall be fixed by the Commission For another, there are standards that have to be
on Elections in accordance with Section 6, Art. followed inthe exercise of the function of
XII-C of the Constitution. The period of judicial review, namely (1) the existence of an
campaign shall commence on December 29, appropriate case:, (2) an interest personal and
1979 and terminate on January 28, 1980. (ibid.)
substantial by the party raising the constitutional
question: (3) the plea that the function be
In addition to the above-cited provisions, exercised at the earliest opportunity and (4) the
petitioners Igot and Salapantan, Jr. also question necessity that the constiutional question be
the accreditation of some political parties by passed upon in order to decide the case (People
respondent COMELEC, as authorized by Batas vs. Vera 65 Phil. 56 [1937]).
Pambansa Blg. 53, on the ground that it is
contrary to section 9(1)Art. XIIC of the It may be conceded that the third requisite has
Constitution, which provides that a "bona fide been complied with, which is, that the parties
candidate for any public office shall be it. from have raised the issue of constitutionality early
any form of harassment and discrimination. "The enough in their pleadings.
question of accreditation will not be taken up in
this case but in that of Bacalso, et als. vs. This Petition, however, has fallen far short of the
COMELEC et als. No. L-52232) where the issue other three criteria.
has been squarely raised,
A. Actual case and controversy.
Petitioners then pray that the statutory provisions
they have challenged be declared null and void It is basic that the power of judicial review is
for being violative of the Constitution.
limited to the determination of actual cases and
controversies.
I . The procedural Aspect
Petitioner Dumlao assails the constitutionality of
At the outset, it should be stated that this Petition the first paragraph of section 4 of Batas
suffers from basic procedural infirmities, hence, Pambansa Blg. 52, quoted earlier, as being
traditionally unacceptable for judicial resolution. contrary to the equal protection clause
For one, there is a misjoinder of parties and guaranteed by the Constitution, and seeks to
actions. Petitioner Dumlao's interest is alien to prohibit
respondent
COMELEC
from
that of petitioners Igot and Salapantan Petitioner implementing said provision. Yet, Dumlao has
Dumlao does not join petitioners Igot and not been adversely affected by the application of
Salapantan in the burden of their complaint, nor that provision. No petition seeking Dumlao's
do the latter join Dumlao in his. The respectively disqualification has been filed before the
contest completely different statutory provisions. COMELEC. There is no ruling of that
Petitioner Dumlao has joined this suit in his constitutional body on the matter, which this
individual capacity as a candidate. The action of Court is being asked to review on Certiorari. His
petitioners Igot and Salapantan is more in the is a question posed in the abstract, a hypothetical
12
statutory
provisions
they
assail
as
unconstitutional Theirs is a generated grievance.
They have no personal nor substantial interest at
stake. In the absence of any litigate interest, they
can claim no locus standi in seeking judicial
redress.
It is true that petitioners Igot and Salapantan
have instituted this case as a taxpayer's suit, and
that the rule enunciated in People vs. Vera, above
stated, has been relaxed in Pascual vs. The
Secretary of Public Works (110 Phil. 331 [1960],
thus:
13
Vera, supra). We are constrained to hold that this should not be allowed to be substituted for a Ormoc City and ORMOC CITY, defendantsis one such clear case.
judicial determination.
appellees.
Ponce Enrile, Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Belo
Explicit is the constitutional provision that, in all Being infected with constitutional infirmity, a and Teehankee, Carreon & Taada for plaintiffcriminal prosecutions, the accused shall be partial declaration of nullity of only that appellant.
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, objectionable portion is mandated. It is separable Ramon O. de Veyra for defendants-appellees.
and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself from the first portion of the second paragraph of BENGZON, J.P., J.:
and counsel (Article IV, section 19, 1973 section 4 of Batas Pambansa Big. 52 which can
On January 29, 1964, the Municipal Board
Constitution). An accusation, according to the stand by itself.
of Ormoc City passed 1 Ordinance No. 4, Series
fundamental law, is not synonymous with guilt.
of 1964, imposing "on any and all productions of
The challenged proviso contravenes the
centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar
constitutional presumption of innocence, as a WHEREFORE, 1) the first paragraph of section Company, Inc., in Ormoc City a municipal tax
candidate is disqualified from running for public 4 of Batas pambansa Bilang 52 is hereby equivalent to one per centum (1%) per export
office on the ground alone that charges have declared valid. Said paragraph reads:
sale to the United States of America and other
been filed against him before a civil or military
foreign countries." 2
tribunal. It condemns before one is fully heard. SEC. 4. Special disqualification. In addition
Payments for said tax were made, under
In ultimate effect, except as to the degree of to violation of Section 10 of Article XII(C) of the protest, by Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. on
proof, no distinction is made between a person Constitution and disqualifications mentioned in March 20, 1964 for P7,087.50 and on April 20,
convicted of acts of dislotalty and one against existing laws which are hereby declared as 1964 for P5,000, or a total of P12,087.50.
whom charges have been filed for such acts, as disqualification for any of the elective officials
On June 1, 1964, Ormoc Sugar Company,
both of them would be ineligible to run for enumerated in Section 1 hereof, any retired Inc. filed before the Court of First Instance of
public office. A person disqualified to run for elective provincial, city or municipal official, Leyte, with service of a copy upon the Solicitor
public office on the ground that charges have who has received payment of the retirement General, a complaint 3 against the City of Ormoc
been filed against him is virtually placed in the benefits to which he is entitled under the law and as well as its Treasurer, Municipal Board and
same category as a person already convicted of a who shall have been 65 years of age at the Mayor, alleging that the afore-stated ordinance is
crime with the penalty of arresto, which carries commencement of the term of office to which he unconstitutional for being violative of the equal
with it the accessory penalty of suspension of the seeks to be elected, shall not be qualified to run protection clause (Sec. 1[1], Art. III,
right to hold office during the term of the for the same elective local office from which he Constitution) and the rule of uniformity of
sentence (Art. 44, Revised Penal Code).
has retired.
taxation (Sec. 22[1]), Art. VI, Constitution),
aside from being an export tax forbidden under
And although the filing of charges is considered 2) That portion of the second paragraph of Section 2287 of the Revised Administrative
as but prima facie evidence, and therefore, may section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 52 providing Code. It further alleged that the tax is neither a
be rebutted, yet. there is "clear and present that "... the filing of charges for the commission production nor a license tax which Ormoc City
danger" that because of the proximity of the of such crimes before a civil court or military under Section 15-kk of its charter and under
elections, time constraints will prevent one tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be Section 2 of Republic Act 2264, otherwise
charged with acts of disloyalty from offering prima facie evidence of such fact", is hereby known as the Local Autonomy Act, is authorized
contrary proof to overcome the prima facie declared null and void, for being violative of the to impose; and that the tax amounts to a customs
evidence against him.
constitutional presumption of innocence duty, fee or charge in violation of paragraph 1 of
guaranteed to an accused.
Section 2 of Republic Act 2264 because the tax
Additionally, it is best that evidence pro and con
is on both the sale and export of sugar.
of acts of disloyalty be aired before the Courts SO ORDERED.
Answering, the defendants asserted that
rather than before an administrative body such as (5) ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC., the tax ordinance was within defendant city's
the COMELEC. A highly possible conflict of plaintiff-appellant,
power to enact under the Local Autonomy Act
findings between two government bodies, to the vs.
and that the same did not violate the afore-cited
extreme detriment of a person charged, will THE TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, THE constitutional limitations. After pre-trial and
thereby
be
avoided.
Furthermore,
a MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, submission of the case on memoranda, the Court
legislative/administrative determination of guilt HON. ESTEBAN C. CONEJOS as Mayor of of First Instance, on August 6, 1964, rendered a
14
15
flexible
response
to
conditions
and
circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits.
The police power of a municipal corporation is
broad, and has been said to be commensurate
with, but not to exceed, the duty to provide for
the real needs of the people in their health,
safety, comfort, and convenience as consistently
as may be with private rights. It extends to all the
great public needs, and, in a broad sense includes
all legislation and almost every function of the
municipal government. It covers a wide scope of
subjects, and, while it is especially occupied with
whatever affects the peace, security, health,
morals, and general welfare of the community, it
is not limited thereto, but is broadened to deal
with conditions which exists so as to bring out of
them the greatest welfare of the people by
promoting public convenience or general
prosperity, and to everything worthwhile for the
preservation of comfort of the inhabitants of the
corporation (62 C.J.S. Sec. 128). Thus, it is
deemed inadvisable to attempt to frame any
definition which shall absolutely indicate the
limits of police power.
COA's additional objection is based on its
contention that "Resolution No. 60 is still subject
to the limitation that the expenditure covered
thereby should be for a public purpose, ... should
be for the benefit of the whole, if not the
majority, of the inhabitants of the Municipality
and not for the benefit of only a few individuals
as in the present case." (Rollo, Annex "G", p.
51).
COA is not attuned to the changing of the times.
Public purpose is not unconstitutional merely
because it incidentally benefits a limited number
of persons. As correctly pointed out by the Office
of the Solicitor General, "the drift is towards
social welfare legislation geared towards state
policies to provide adequate social services
(Section 9, Art. II, Constitution), the promotion
of the general welfare (Section 5, Ibid) social
justice (Section 10, Ibid) as well as human
dignity and respect for human rights. (Section
11, Ibid." (Comment, p. 12)
The care for the poor is generally recognized as a
public duty. The support for the poor has long
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
franchise
to
Associated
Development
Corporation, whether the franchise granted is
valied considering that the franchise has no
duration, and appears to be granted in perpetuity.
3. Whether the City of Manila had the power to
issue a Jai-Alai franchise to Associated
Development Corporation on 7 September 1971
in view of executive Order No. 392 dated 1
January 1951 which transferred from local
governments to the Games and Amusements
Board the power to regulate Jai-Alai. 1
On 15 September 1994, respondent Associated
Development Corporation (ADC) filed a petition
for prohibition, mandamus, injunction and
damages with prayer for temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction in the
Regional Trial Court of Manila against petitioner
Guingona and then GAB chairman Sumulong,
docketed as Civil Case No. 94-71656, seeking to
prevent GAB from withdrawing the provisional
authority that had earlier been granted to ADC.
On the same day, the RTC of Manila, Branch 4,
through presiding Judge Vetino Reyes, issued a
temporary restraining order enjoining the GAB
from withdrawing ADC's provisional authority.
This temporary restraining order was converted
into a writ of preliminary injunction upon ADC's
posting of a bond in the amount of
P2,000,000.00. 2
Subsequently, also in G.R. No. 115044, the
Republic of the Philippines, through the Games
and Amusements Board, filed a "Motion for
Intervention; for Leave to File a Motion for
reconsideration in Intervention; and to Refer the
case to the Court En Banc" and later a "Motion
for Leave to File Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration-in-Intervention and to Admit
Attached
Supplemental
Motion
for
Reconsideration-in-Intervention".
In an En Banc Resolution dated 20 September
1994, this Court referred G.R. No. 115044 to the
Court En Banc and required the respondents
therein to comment on the aforementioned
motions.
Meanwhile, Judge Reyes on 19 October 1994
issued another order, this time, granting ADC a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The constituttional rights to equal protection of
the law is not violated by an executive order,
issued pursuant to law, granting tax and duty
incentives only to the bussiness and residents
within the "secured area" of the Subic Special
Econimic Zone and denying them to those who
live within the Zone but outside such "fenced-in"
territory. The Constitution does not require
absolute equality among residents. It is enough
that all persons under like circumstances or
conditions are given the same privileges and
required to follow the same obligations. In short,
a classification based on valid and reasonable
standards does not violate the equal protection
clause.
The Case
Before us is a petition for review under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court, seeking the reversal of the
Court of Appeals' Decision 1 promulgated on
August 29, 1996, and Resolution 2 dated
November 13, 1996, in CA-GR SP No. 37788. 3
The
challenged
Decision
upheld
the
constitutionality and validity of Executive Order
No. 97-A (EO 97-A), according to which the
grant and enjoyment of the tax and duty
incentives authorized under Republic Act No.
7227 (RA 7227) were limited to the business
enterprises and residents within the fenced-in
area of the Subic Special Economic Zone
(SSEZ).
The assailed Resolution denied the petitioners'
motion for reconsideration.
On March 13, 1992, Congress, with the approval
of the President, passed into law RA 7227
entitled "An Act Accelerating the Conversion of
Military Reservations Into Other Productive
Uses, Creating the Bases Conversion and
Development Authority for this Purpose,
Providing Funds Therefor and for Other
Purposes." Section 12 thereof created the Subic
Special Economic Zone and granted there to
special privileges, as follows:
Sec. 12. Subic Special Economic Zone.
Subject to the concurrence by resolution of the
sangguniang panlungsod of the City of
31
32
33
Costs
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Congressman Asani Tammang of the LAKASLoong Wing for the 2nd District. In the
provincial level, of the eight (8) seats for the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, two (2) were won by
the camp of respondent Tan; three (3) by the
camp of petitioner Loong; two (2) by the MNLF;
and one (1) by LAMMP. In the mayoral race,
seven (7) out of eighteen (18) victorious
municipal mayors were identified with
respondent Tan; four (4) with petitioner Loong;
three (3) with the MNLF; two (2) with LAMMP
and one (1) with REPORMA. 27 There is logic to
private respondent Tan's contention that if the
manual count was tampered, his candidates
would not have miserably lost.1wphi1.nt
Seventh. We further hold that petitioner cannot
insist on automated counting under R.A. No.
8436 after the machines misread or rejected the
local ballots in five (5) municipalities in Sulu.
Section 9 of R.A. No. 8436 provides:
Sec. 9. Systems Breakdown in the Counting
Center. In the event of a systems breakdown
of all assigned machines in the counting center,
the Commission shall use any available machine
or any component thereof from another
city/municipality upon approval of the
Commission En Banc or any of its divisions.
The transfer of such machines or any component
thereof shall be undertaken in the presence of
representatives of political parties and citizens'
arm of the Commission who shall be notified by
the election officer of such transfer.
There is a systems breakdown in the counting
center when the machine fails to read the ballots
or fails to store/save results or fails to print the
results after it has read the ballots; or when the
computer fails to consolidate election
results/reports or fails to print election resultsreports after consolidation.
As the facts show, it was inutile for the
COMELEC to use other machines to count the
local votes in Sulu. The errors in counting were
due to the misprinting of ovals and the use of
wrong sequence codes in the local ballots. The
errors were not machine-related. Needless to
state, to grant petitioner's prayer to continue the
machine count of the local ballots will certainly
48
49
50
51
PURISIMA, J.:
At bar is a petition for certiorari and prohibition
with urgent prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order, assailing the validity of Section 44 of
Republic Act No. 8189 (RA 8189) otherwise
known as "The Voters Registration Act of
1996".
RA 8189 was enacted on June 10, 1996 and
approved by President Fidel V. Ramos on June
11, 1996. Section 44 thereof provides:
"SEC. 44. Reassignment of Election Officers. No Election Officer shall hold office in a
particular city or municipality for more than four
(4) years. Any election officer who, either at the
time of the approval of this Act or subsequent
thereto, has served for at least four (4) years in a
particular city or municipality shall automatically
be reassigned by the Commission to a new
station outside the original congressional
district."
By virtue of the aforequoted provision of law, the
Commission
on
Elections
(COMELEC)
promulgated Resolution Nos. 97-00021 and 9706102 for the implementation thereof. Thereafter,
the COMELEC issued several directives 3
reassigning the petitioners, who are either City or
Municipal Election Officers, to different stations.
Aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid
directives and resolutions, petitioners found their
way to this Court via the present petition
assailing the validity of Section 44 of RA 8189,
contending that:
I
SECTION 44 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8189
VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE
ENSHRINED
IN
THE
CONSTITUTION;
II
SECTION 44 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8189
VIOLATES
THE
CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEE ON SECURITY OF TENURE
OF CIVIL SERVANTS;
III
SECTION 44 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8189
CONSTITUTES
A DEPRIVATION
OF
52
53
54
55
56
57