You are on page 1of 2

Law on Public Corporations Case Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal

Article X – Local Government

Title Facts Issue/s Ruling Doctrine/s


Lina v. Paño In 1995, the Philippine Charity W/N the denial of the Mayor’s NO. The Kapasiyahan merely states The freedom to exercise contrary
GR No. 129093 Sweepstakes Office appointed Tony Permit was valid. the “objection” of the council to the views does not mean that local
30 August 2001 Calvento as an agent to install a lotto said game. It is but a mere policy governments may actually enact
Quisumbing, J. terminal in San Pedro, Laguna. statement on the part of the local ordinances that go against laws duly
Calvento, as such, applied for a council, which is not self-executing. enacted by Congress.
Mayor’s Permit to open the lotto It should not be interpreted as a
outlet. Mayor Cataquiz, the San measure or ordinance prohibiting the What the national legislature
Pedro Mayor, denied the application operation of lotto. The game of lotto expressly allows by law, a provincial
by virtue of the ordinance passed by is a game of chance duly authorized board may not disallow by ordinance
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of by the national government through or resolution.
Laguna entitled Kapasiyahan Blg. an Act of Congress. While lotto is
508, which prohibits gambling in the clearly a game of chance, the The power of local government units
province of Laguna. national government deems it wise to legislate and enact ordinances and
and proper to permit it. Hence, the resolutions is merely a delegated
The trial court ruled in favor of Sangguniang Bayan of Laguna, a power coming from Congress.
Calvento and enjoined the local government unit, cannot issue a
enforcement the said Kapasiyahan. resolution or an ordinance that would Municipal corporations owe their
seek to prohibit permits. origin to, and derive their powers and
rights wholly from the legislature. It
W/N the Kapasiyahan is valid. YES. As a policy statement breathes into them the breath of life,
expressing the local government’s without which they cannot exist. As
objection to the lotto, such resolution it creates, so it may destroy. As it
is valid. This is part of the local may destroy, it may abridge and
government’s autonomy to air its control.
views which may be contrary to that
of the national government’s. Obiter:
Unless there is some constitutional
limitation on the right, the legislature
might, by a single act, and if we can
suppose it capable of so great a folly
and so great a wrong, sweep from
existence all of the municipal
corporations in the state, and the
corporation could not prevent it.

Ours is still a unitary form of


government, not a federal state.
Being so, any form of autonomy
granted to local governments will
necessarily be limited and confined
within the extent allowed by the
central authority.

The principle of local autonomy


under the 1987 Constitution simply
means “decentralization.” It does
not make local governments
Law on Public Corporations Case Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal

sovereign within the state or an


“imperium in imperio.”