Public Corporations (AY 2015-16)by Atty. Randolph A. PascasioI. General PrinciplesA. Corporation1. Definition. An artificial being created by operation of law, having the right of succession and the powers, attributes and properties expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence.. Classification. a! Public" #rganized for the govern$ent of a portion of the %tate.b! Private" &or$ed for so$e private purpose, benefit, ai$ or end.c! 'uasi(public" A private corporation that renders public service or supplies public wants.). Criterion to deter$ine Public Corporation . *he relationship of the corporation to the %tate, i.e., if created by the %tate as its own agency to help the %tate in carrying out its govern$ental functions, then it is public+ otherwise, it is private.,. Classes of Public Corporations a!'uasi(corporation. Created by the %tate for a narrow or li$ited purpose. b! -unicipal corporation. A body politic and corporate constituted by the incorporation of the inhabitants for the purpose of local govern$ent.Case:.iban v. /ordon 0/.R. 1o. 123)3, 14 5anuary 611, 73, P89. 746(2)4!:oy %couts of the Phil. v. C#A 0/.R. 1o. 1221)1, ;5une 2, 611ed to rei$bursed the a$ount they received in excess of P1666 fro$ the last six $onths.I**,-+ Dhether or not .ocal :udget Circular 1o. 33 void for going beyond the supervisory powers of the President.$,.I%G+ Ees. Although the Constitution guarantees autono$y to local govern$ent units, the exercise oflocal autono$y re$ains sub@ect to the power of control by Congress and the power of supervision by thePresident. %ec , Art ? of1=42 Constitution" F*he President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local govern$ents. x x xF *he said provision has been interpreted to exclude the powerof control.*he $e$bers of the Cabinet and other executive officials are $erely alter egos of the President. Assuch, theyaresub@ect tothepower of control of thePresident+ hewill seetoit that thelocalgovern$entsor their officialswereperfor$ingtheir dutiesasprovidedbytheConstitutionandbystatutes, at whosewill andbehest theycanbere$ovedfro$office+ ortheir actionsanddecisionschanged, suspended or reversed. *hey are sub@ect to the PresidentCs supervision only, not control, solong as their acts are exercised within the sphere of their legiti$ate powers.*he President can onlyinterfere in the affairs and activities of a ./B if he or she finds that the latter has acted contrary to law.*his is the scope of the PresidentCs supervisory powers over ./BsPi#entel ". Auirre' et al. (G.$. %o. 1&2/00' Jul1 1/' 2000)' in relationto *ecs. 202-2/2' .GC.(AC)*+#n4#ctober 664, %enator -adrigal introducedP.%. Resolution267, whichdirectedthe%enateGthics Co$$itteetoinvestigatetheallegeddoubleinsertionof P66$illionby %enator-anny Aillar into the C3 Gxtension Pro@ect. After the election of %enator 5uan Ponce Gnrile as %enatePresident, the Gthics Co$$ittee was reorganized, but the -inority failed to na$e its representatives tothe Co$$ittee, pro$pting a delay in the investigation. *hereafter, the %enate adopted the Rules of theGthics Co$$ittee.9n another privilege speech, %enator Aillar stated he will answer the accusations before the %enate, andnot with the Gthics Co$$ittee. %enator .acson, then chairperson of the Gthics Co$$ittee, then $ovedthat theresponsibilityof theGthicsCo$$itteebetransferredtothe%enateasaCo$$itteeof theDhole, which was approved by the $a@ority. 9n the hearings of such Co$$ittee, petitioners ob@ected tothe application of the Rules of the Gthics Co$$ittee to the %enate Co$$ittee of the Dhole. *hey alsoHuestioned the Huoru$, and proposed a$end$ents to the Rules. %enator Pi$entel raised the issue onthe need to publish the rules of the %enate Co$$ittee of the Dhole.I**,-*+1. 34et4er *enator 5adrial' 64o 7iled t4e co#plaint aainst *enator8illar' is an indispensablepart1 in t4is petition92. 34et4er t4e petition is pre#ature 7or 7ailure to obser"e t4e doctrine o7 pri#ar1 :urisdiction orprior resort9&. 34et4er t4e trans7er o7 t4e co#plaint aainst *enator8illar7ro# t4e -t4ics Co##ittee to t4e*enate Co##ittee o7 t4e 34ole is "iolati"eo7 *enator8illarsri4t to e;ual protection92. 34et4er t4e adoption o7 t4e $ules o7 t4e -t4ics Co##ittee as $ules o7 t4e *enate Co##itteeo7 t4e34oleisa"iolati"eo7 *enator 8illarsri4t todueprocessando7 t4e#a:orit1;uoru#re;uire#ent under Art. 8I' *ection 16(2) o7 t4e Constitution9 and5. 34et4er publicationo7 t4e$uleso7 t4e*enateCo##itteeo7 t4e34oleisre;uired7ort4eire77ecti"it1.8G.D"*he petition is partially granted.RG-GD9A. .AD" 9ndispensable parties+ doctrine of pri$ary @urisdiction.&irst issue" An indispensable party is a party who has an interest in the controversy or sub@ect $atterthat a final ad@udication cannot be $ade, in his absence, without in@uring or affecting that interest. 9n thiscase, %enator -adrigal is not an indispensable party to the petition before the Court. Dhile it $ay betrue that she has an interest in the outco$e of this case as the author of P.%. Resolution 267, the issuesin this case are $atters of @urisdiction and procedure on the part of the %enate Co$$ittee of the Dholewhich can be resolved without affecting %enator -adrigals interest.%econd issue" *he doctrineof pri$ary @urisdictiondoesnot apply to this case. *heissuespresentedhere do not reHuire the expertise, specialized s>ills and >nowledge of respondent for their resolution. #nthe contrary, the issues here are purely legal Huestions which are within the co$petence and @urisdictionof the Court.C#1%*9*B*9#1A. .AD"9nternal rules of the %enate.*hirdissue" Dhileordinarilyaninvestigationaboutoneofits$e$bersallegedirregularorunethicalconduct iswithinthe@urisdictionof theGthicsCo$$ittee, the-inorityeffectivelypreventedit fro$pursuing the investigation when they refused to no$inate their $e$bers to the Gthics Co$$ittee. *hereferral of the investigation to the Co$$ittee of the Dhole was an extraordinary re$edy underta>en bythe Gthics Co$$ittee and approved by a $a@ority of the $e$bers of the %enate, and notviolative of theright to eHual protection.&ourth issue" *he adoption by the %enate Co$$ittee of the Dhole of the Rules of the Gthics Co$$itteedoes not violate %enatorAillarsright to due process. *he Constitutional right of the %enate to pro$ulgateits own rules of proceedings has been recognized and affir$ed by this Court in %ection 170)!, Article A9of the Philippine Constitution, which states"FGach 8ouse shall deter$ine the rules of its proceedings.F&ifth" *he Constitution does not reHuire publication of the internal rules of the 8ouse or %enate. %incerules of the 8ouse or the %enate that affect only their $e$bers are internal to the 8ouse or %enate,such rules need not be published,unless such rules expressly provide for their publication before therules can ta>e effect. 8ence, in this particular case, the Rules of the %enate Co$$ittee of the Dholeitself providethat theRules $ust bepublishedbeforetheRules canta>eeffect. *hus, evenifpublication is not reHuired under the Constitution, publication of the Rules of the %enate Co$$ittee ofthe Dhole is reHuired because the Rules expressly $andate their publication.Pro"ince o7 ctober20119 and $esolution dated 20 (ebruar1 2012)(AC)*+ #n August 1, 1=4= or two years after the effectivity of the 1=42 Constitution, Congressacted through Republic Act 0RA! 1o. 72), entitled F+n +ct Providing for an &rganic +ct for the+utonomous *egion in ,uslim ,indanao.F*he initially assenting provinceswere .anao del %ur,-aguindanao, %ulu and *awi(tawi.RA 1o. 72), scheduled the first regularelections for the regional officials of the AR-- on a date not earlier than 76 days nor later than=6 days after its ratification.*hereafter,R.A.1o. =63, was passed to further enhance the structure of AR-- under R.A.72),. Along with it is the reset of the regular elections for the AR-- regional officials to thesecond -onday of %epte$ber 661.RA 1o. =)))was subseHuently passed by Congress to reset the AR-- regional elections to the

nd-onday of August 663, and on the sa$e date every ) years thereafter. Bnli>e RA 1o. 72),and RA 1o. =63,, RA 1o. =))) was not ratified in a plebiscite.Pursuant to RA 1o. =))), the next AR-- regional elections should have been held onAugust 4,611. C#-G.GC had begun preparations for these elections and had accepted certificates ofcandidacies for the various regional offices to be elected.:ut on5une )6, 611, RA 1o. 1613)was enacted, resetting the AR-- elections to -ay 61), to coincide with the regular nationaland local elections of the country.Dith the enact$ent into law of RA 1o. 1613), the C#-G.GCstopped its preparations for the AR-- elections.%everal cases for certiorari, prohibition and $ada$us originating fro$ different parties arose asa conseHuence of the passage of R.A. 1o. =))) and R.A. 1o. 1613) Huestioning the validity ofsaid laws.#n%epte$ber 1), 611, the Court issued a te$porary restraining order en@oining thei$ple$entationof RA1o. 1613)andorderingtheincu$bent electiveofficialsofAR--tocontinue to perfor$ their functions should these cases not be decided by the end of their ter$on%epte$ber )6, 611.*he petitioners assailing RA 1o. =1,6, RA 1o. =))) and RA 1o. 1613) assert that these lawsa$endRA1o. =63,andthus, havetoco$plywiththesuper$a@orityvoteandplebiscitereHuire$ents prescribed under %ections 1 and ), Article ?A99 of RA 1o. =6=, in order to beco$eeffective.*he petitions assailing RA 1o. 1613) further $aintain that it is unconstitutional for its failure toco$ply with the three(reading reHuire$ent of %ection 70!, Article A9 of the Constitution.Alsocited as grounds are the alleged violations of the right of suffrage of the people of AR--, aswell as the failure to adhere to the Felective and representativeF character of the executive andlegislative depart$ents of the AR--. .astly, the petitioners challenged the grant to thePresident of the power to appoint #9Cs to underta>e the functions of the elective AR-- officialsuntil the officials elected under the -ay 61) regular elections shall have assu$edoffice. Corrolarily,they also argue that the power of appoint$ent also gave the President thepower of control over the AR--, in co$plete violation of %ection 17, Article ?of theConstitution.I**,-+1. Dhether or not the 1=42 Constitution $andates thesynchronization of elections. Dhether or not thepassageof RA1o. 1613)violatestheprovisions of the 1=42 Constitution@-.!+ Court dis$issed the petition and affir$ed the constitutionality of R.A. 1613) in toto- *heCourt agreedwithrespondent #fficeof the%olicitor /eneral 0 &.G! onitspositionthat theConstitution$andatessynchronization, citing%ections1, and3,Article?A999 0*ransitoryProvisions! of the1=42Constitution. DhiletheConstitutiondoesnot expresslystatethatCongress has to synchronize national and local elections, the clear intent towards this ob@ectivecan be gleaned fro$ the *ransitory Provisions 0Article ?A999! of the Constitution,which show theextent to which the Constitutional Co$$ission, by deliberately $a>ing ad@ust$ents to the ter$sof the incu$bent officials, sought to attain synchronization of elections.*he ob@ective behind setting a co$$on ter$ination date for all elective officials, done a$ongothers through the shortening the ter$s of the twelve winning senators with the least nu$ber ofvotes, is to synchronize the holding of all future elections whether national or local to once everythree years.*his intention finds full support in the discussions during the ConstitutionalCo$$ission deliberations. &urther$ore, to achieve synchronization, Congressnecessarilyhastoreconcilethescheduleof the AR--sregularelections0whichshouldhavebeenheldinAugust 611 based on RA 1o. =)))! with the fixed schedule of the national and local elections0fixed by RA 1o. 2177 to be held in -ay 61)!.9n&sme v- Commission on /lections, the court thus explained"9tisclearfro$ the aforeHuoted provisions ofthe 1=42 Constitutionthat theter$sof officeof%enators, -e$bers of the 8ouse of Representatives, the local officials, the President and theAice(President have been synchronized to end on the sa$e hour, date and year noon of 5une)6, 1==.9t is li>ewise evident fro$the wording of the above($entioned %ections that the ter$ofsynchroni0ationisusedsynony$ouslyasthephraseholdingsimultaneouslysincethisisthepreciseintent inter$inatingtheir #ffice*enureonthesa$edayor occasion.*hisco$$onter$inationdatewill synchronizefutureelections toonceevery threeyears0:ernas, theConstitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Aol. 99, p. 763!.*hat the election for %enators, -e$bers of the 8ouse of Representatives and the local officials0under %ec. , Art. ?A999! will have to be synchronized with the election for President and AicePresident 0under %ec. 3, Art. ?A999! is li>ewise evident fro$ the x x xrecords of the proceedingsin the Constitutional Co$$ission. ;G$phasis supplied.edreasonableness in light of the necessary ad@ust$ents that synchronization de$ands. Congress,therefore, cannot be accused of any evasion of a positive duty or of a refusal to perfor$ its dutynor is there reason to accord $erit to the petitioners clai$s of grave abuse of discretion.9n relation with synchronization, both autono$y and the synchronization of nationaland localelections are recognized and established constitutional $andates, with one being as co$pellingas the other.9f their co$pelling force differs at all, the difference is in their coverage+synchronization operates on and affects the whole country, while regional autono$y as the ter$suggests directlycarries anarrower regional effect althoughits national effect cannot bediscounted.9n all these, the need for interi$ $easures is dictated by necessity+ out(of(the(wayarrange$ents and approaches were adopted or used in order to ad@ust to the goal or ob@ectivein sight in a $anner that does not do violence to the Constitution and to reasonably acceptednor$s.Bnder theseli$itations, thechoiceof $easureswas aHuestionof wisdo$left tocongressional discretion.8owever, the holdover contained in R.A. 1o. 1613), for those who were elected in executiveand legislative positions in the AR-- during the 664(611 ter$ as an option that Congresscould have chosen because a holdover violates %ection 4, Article ? of the Constitution.9n thecase of the ter$s of local officials, their ter$ has been fixed clearly and uneHuivocally, allowingno roo$ for any i$ple$enting legislation with respect to the fixed ter$ itself and no vaguenessthat would allow an interpretation fro$ this Court. *hus, the ter$ of three years for local officialsshould stay at three 0)! years as fixed by the Constitution and cannot be extended by holdoverby Congress.RA 1o. 1613), does not in any way a$end what the organic law of the AR--0RA 1o. =63,!sets outs in ter$s of structure of governance.Dhat RA 1o. 1613) in fact only does is to1appointofficers2in2charge for the &ffice of the *egional Governor, *egional 3ice Governor and,embers of the *egional Legislative +ssembly who shall perform the functions pertaining to thesaid offices untilthe officials duly elected in the ,ay 45'6 elections shallhave !ualified andassumedoffice-1*hispower isfar different fro$appointingelective AR--officialsfor theabbreviatedter$ endingon theassu$ptionto office of theofficialselectedinthe -ay 61)elections. 9t $ust bethereforee$phasizedthat thelaw$ust beinterpretedasaninteri$$easure to synchronize elections and $ust not be interpreted otherwise./ov. Aillafuerte, 5r. andProv. #f Ca$sur v. Robredo, /.R. 1o.1=3)=6, 16 Dece$ber 61,C.-unicipal Corporations 0a>a .ocal /overn$ent Bnits ;./Bsnown.i! *he sangguniang panlalawigan $ay, in consultation with the Philippine 8istorical 9nstitute, change the na$e of co$ponent cities and $unicipalities, upon the reco$$endation of the sanggunian concerned+ provided that the sa$e shall be effective only upon ratification in a plebiscite conducted for the purpose in the political unit directly affected ;%ec. 1), R.A. 2176e effect unless approved by a $a@ority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose in the political unit or units directly affected. %aid plebiscite shall be conducted by the Co$elec within 16 days fro$ the date of effectivity of the law or ordinance effecting such action, unless said law or ordinance fixes another date ;%ec. 16, R.A. 2176e the petition $oot and acade$ic, as the petition raises an issue of constitutional di$ension, x x xib! Padilla v. Co$elec, 1, %CRA 2)3, reiterates *an v. Co$elec, and re@ects the proposition that the 1=42 Constitution has revived the ruling in Paredes v. Gxecutive %ecretary. *hus, even under the 1=42 Constitution, the plebiscite shall include all the voters of the $other province or the $other $unicipality.ic! 9n /rino v. Co$elec, 1) %CRA 72, it was held that the ballots in the plebiscite for the conversion of the sub(province of /ui$aras into a province should have contained spaces to allow voting for /overnor, Aice /overnor and $e$bers of the %angguniang Panlalawigan of 9loilo 0in the event of re@ection by the voters of the proposed conversion!. 8owever, since the great $a@ority of the votes turned out to be in favor of converting /ui$aras into a province, the petition was dis$issed for being $oot and acade$ic.id! 9n .opez v. Co$elec, 1)7 %CRA 7)), the %upre$e Court held that the creation of -etropolitan -anila is valid. *he referendu$ of &ebruary 2, 1=23 authorized the President to restructure local govern$ents in the four cities and 1) $unicipalities, x x x *he President had authority to issue decrees in 1=23. x x x *he 1=4, a$end$ents to the 1=2) Constitution i$pliedly recognized the existence of -etropolitan -anila by providing representation of -etro -anila in the :atasan Pa$bansa.b! %ec. 2. R.A, 2176" :ased on verifiable indicators of viability and pro@ected capacity to provide services, to wit"i! 9nco$e ( $ust be sufficient, based on acceptable standards, to provide for all essential govern$ent facilities and services and special functions co$$ensurate with the size of its population, as expected of the local govern$ent unit concerned. Average annual inco$e for the last two consecutive years based on 1==1 constant prices should be at least"ia!-unicipality" P,366,666.66 ib!City" P166,666,666.66 0Er. 666 constant prices, a$ended by R.A. =66=!ic!8ighly urbanized city" P36,666,666.66 id!Province " P6,666,666.66 9n Alvarez v. /uingona, 3 %CRA 7=3, it was held that the 9nternal Revenue Allot$ents 09RAs! should be included in the co$putation of the average annual inco$e of the $unicipality 0for purposes of deter$ining whether the $unicipality $ay be validly converted into a city!, but under RA =66=, it is specifically provided that for conversion to cities, the $unicipalityQs inco$e should not include the 9RA.ii! Population. 9t shall be deter$ined as the total nu$ber of inhabitants within the territorial @urisdiction of the local govern$ent unit concerned. ReHuired $ini$u$ population for"iia! :arangay " ,666 inhabitants ;except in -etro -anila and other $etropolitan political subdivisions or in highly urbanized cities, where the reHuire$ent is 3,666 inhabitantsilo$eters iiib! City " 166 sHuare >ilo$etersiiic! Province" ,666 sHuare >ilo$etersCo$pliance with the foregoing indicators shall be attested to by the Depart$ent of &inance, the 1ational %tatistics #ffice and the .ands -anage$ent :ureau of the Depart$ent of Gnviron$ent and 1atural Resources. 9n -ariano v. Co$elec, , %CRA 11, the %upre$e Court said that the reHuire$ent that the territory of newly( created local govern$ent units be identified by $etes and bounds is intended to provide the $eans by which the area of the local govern$ent unit $ay be reasonably ascertained, i.e., as a tool in the establish$ent of the local govern$ent unit. As long as the territorial @urisdiction of the newly created city $ay be reasonably ascertained R by referring to co$$on boundaries with neighboring $unicipalities R then, the legislative intent has been sufficiently served. ;1#*G" R.A. 243,, which converted -a>ati into a city, did not define the boundaries of the new city by $etes and bounds, because of a territorial dispute between -a>ati and *aguig, which was best left for the courts to decide.theiroathof officeon5anuary7, 662. .ater, duringthe-ay1,, 662synchronizedelections, the Dinagatnons elected their new set of provincialofficials who assu$ed office on5uly 1, 662.-eanwhile, on 1ove$ber 16, 667, petitioners Rodolfo /. 1avarro and otherfor$erpolitical leadersof %urigaodel 1orte, filedbeforethe%Capetitionfor certiorariandprohibition 0/.R. 1o. 123134! challenging the constitutionality of R.A. 1o. =)33 alleging that thatthe creation ofDinagatasanewprovince,ifuncorrected,wouldperpetuate an illegal actofCongress, and would un@ustly deprive the people of %urigao del 1orte of a large chun> of theprovincial territory, 9nternal Revenue Allocation 09RA!, and rich resources fro$ the area. I**,-+ 9s R.A. 1o. =)33 constitutionalV@-.!+>ebruary '5, 45'5 *uling( 1o. *he %C ruled that the population of 16,41) is below the .ocal/overn$ent Code 0./C! $ini$u$ population reHuire$ent of 36,666 inhabitants. 1either didDinagat 9slands, withanapproxi$atelandareaof 46.1sHuare>ilo$eters$eet the./C$ini$u$ land area reHuire$ent of ,666 sHuare >ilo$eters. *he Court reiterated its ruling thatparagraphofArticle=of the*ulesand*egulations)mplementingtheLocal GovernmentCode, which exe$pts proposed provinces co$posed of one or $ore islands fro$ the land areareHuire$ent,wasnull andvoidasthesaidexe$ptionisnot foundin%ec. ,71ofthe./C.I*hereisnodisputethat incaseof discrepancybetweenthebasiclawandtherulesandregulations i$ple$enting the said law, the basic law prevails, because the rules and regulationscannot go beyond the ter$s and provisions of the basic law,J held the Court.(GR No. 180050%a"arro ". -r#ita' !ay 1" "010#*he Republic, represented by the #ffice of the %olicitor /eneral, and Dinagatfiled their respective $otions for reconsideration of the Decision. 9n its Resolution dated -ay 1,616, the %upre$e Court denied the said $otions.+pril '4, 45'' *uling( Ees. 9n Navarro vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. no. 180050 $pril 1""011#,the8onorable%upre$eCourt ruledthat RepublicAct 1o. =)33is asAA.9DandC#1%*9*B*9#1A., and the procla$ation of the Province of Dinagat 9slands and the election ofthe officials thereof are declared AA.9D.*he %C also ruled that the provision in Article =0! of the Rules and Regulations 9$ple$entingthe .ocal /overn$ent Code of 1==1 stating, I*he land area reHuire$ent shall not apply wherethe proposed province is co$posed of one 01! or $ore islands,J is declared 8A.I!.According to the %C, Iwith respect to the creation ofbarangays, land area isnot areHuisiteindicator of viability. 8owever, withrespect tothecreationof $unicipalities,co$ponent cities, and provinces, the three 0)! indicators of viability and pro@ected capacity toprovide services, i-e-, inco$e, population, and land area, are provided for.JI:ut it $ust be pointed out that when the local govern$ent unit to be created consists of one 01!or $ore islands, it is exe$pt fro$ the land area reHuire$ent as expressly provided in %ection,, and %ection ,36 of the ./C if the local govern$ent unit to be created is a $unicipality or aco$ponent city, respectively. *his exe$ption is absent in the enu$eration of the reHuisites forthe creation of a province under %ection ,71 of the ./C, although it is expressly stated underArticle =0! of the ./C(9RR.JxxxI*hereappearsneither rhy$enor reasonwhythisexe$ptionshouldapply tocities and$unicipalities, but not toprovinces. 9nfact, consideringthe physicalconfiguration of the Philippine archipelago, there is a greater li>elihood that islands or group ofislandswouldfor$part of thelandareaof anewly(createdprovincethanin$ost citiesor$unicipalities.9t is, therefore,logical toinferthatthegenuinelegislativepolicydecisionwasexpressed in %ection ,, 0for $unicipalities! and %ection ,36 0for co$ponent cities! of the ./C,but fellester.blogspot.co$ was inadvertently o$itted in %ection ,71 0for provinces!. *hus, whenthe exe$ption was expressly provided in Article =0! of the ./C(9RR, the inclusion was intendedtocorrect thecongressional oversight in%ection,71of the./CMandtoreflect thetruelegislative intent. 9t would, then, be in order for the Court to uphold the validity of Article =0! ofthe ./C(9RR.JxxxIConsistent withthedeclaredpolicytoprovidelocal govern$ent unitsgenuineand$eaningful local autono$y, contiguityand$ini$u$landareareHuire$entsforprospective local govern$ent units should be liberally construed in order to achieve the desiredresults. *he strict interpretation adopted by the &ebruary 16, 616 Decision could prove to becounter(productive, if not outright absurd, aw>ward, and i$practical. Picture an intendedprovince that consists of several $unicipalities and co$ponent cities which, in the$selves, alsoconsist of islands. *he co$ponent cities and $unicipalities which consist of islands are exe$ptfro$ the $ini$u$ land area reHuire$ent, pursuant to %ections ,36 and ,,, respectively, of the./C. Eet, the province would be $ade to co$ply with the $ini$u$ land area criterion of ,666sHuare >ilo$eters, even if it consists of several islands. fellester.blogspot.co$ *his would $eanthat Congress has opted to assign a distinctive preference to create a province with contiguousland area over one co$posed of islands U and negate the greater i$perative of develop$ent ofself(reliant co$$unities, rural progress, and the delivery of basic services to the constituency.*his preferential option would prove $ore difficult and burdenso$e if the ,666(sHuare(>ilo$eterterritoryof aprovince is scatteredbecause theislands are separated by bodies ofwater, as co$pared to one with a contiguous land $ass.JxxxIDhat is$ore, thelandarea, whileconsideredasanindicator of viabilityof alocalgovern$ent unit, is not conclusive in showing that Dinagat cannot beco$e a province, ta>inginto account its average annual inco$e of P4,7=7,,)).) at the ti$e fellester.blogspot.co$ ofits creation, as certified by the :ureau of .ocal /overn$ent &inance, which is four ti$es $orethan the $ini$u$ reHuire$ent of P6,666,666.66 for the creation of a province. *he delivery ofbasic services to its constituents has been proven possible and sustainable. Rather than loo>ingat the results of the plebiscite and the -ay 16, 616 elections as $ere fait accomplicircu$stances which cannot operate in favor of DinagatQs existence as a province, they $ust beseen fro$ the perspective that Dinagat is ready and capable of beco$ing a province.5iranda ". Auirre (G.$. %o. 1&&062' 16 *epte#ber 1///)(AC)*+ 1==,, RA 1o. 226 effected the conversion of the $unicipality of %antiago, 9sabela, intoan independent co$ponent city. 5uly ,th, RA 1o. 226 was approved by the people of %antiago in a plebiscite. 1==4, RA 1o. 434 was enacted and it a$ended RA 1o. 226 that practically downgraded the City of %antiago fro$ an independent co$ponent city to a co$ponent city. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 1o. 434 for the lac> of provision to sub$it the law for the approval of the people of %antiago in a proper plebiscite.Respondents defended the constitutionality of RA 1o. 434 saying that the said act $erely reclassified the City of %antiago fro$ an independent co$ponent city into a co$ponent city. 9t allegedly did not involve any Icreation, division, $erger, abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries of local govern$ent units,J therefore, a plebiscite of the people of %antiago is unnecessary. *hey also Huestioned the standing of petitioners to file the petition and argued thatthe petition raises a political Huestion over which the Court lac>s @urisdiction.I**,-+ Dhether or not the Court has @urisdiction over the petition at bar.$,.I%G+ Ees. RA 1o. 434 is declared unconstitutional. *hat %upre$e Court has the @urisdiction over said petition because it involves not a political Huestion but a @usticiable issue, and of which only the court could decide whether or not a law passed by the Congress is unconstitutional.*hat when an a$end$ent of the law involves creation, $erger, division, abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of local govern$ent units, a plebiscite in the political units directly affected is $andatory.Petitioners are directly affected in the i$ple($entation of RA 1o. 434. -iranda was the $ayor of %antiago City, Afiado was the President of the %angguniang .iga, together with ) other petitioners were all residents and voters in the City of %antiago. 9t is their right to be heard in theconversion of their city through a plebiscite to be conducted by the C#-G.GC. *hus, denial of their right in RA 1o. 434 gives the$ proper standing to stri>e down the law as unconstitutional.%ec. 1 of Art. A999 of the Constitution states that" the @udicial power shall be vested in one %upre$e Court and in such lower courts as $ay be established by law. 5udicial power includes the duty of the courts of @ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally de$andable and enforceable, and to deter$ine whether or not there has been a grave abuse ofdiscretion a$ounting to lac> or excess of @urisdiction on the part of any branch or instru($entality of the /overn$ent.*a#son ". Auirre (G.$. %o. 1&&0=6' 22 *epte#ber 1///) (acts" R.A. 43)3 was signed into law creating the City of 1ovaliches out of 13 barangays in'uezonCity. 'uezonCitycouncilor-oises%a$sonHuestionedtheconstitutionalityof saidR.A. clai$ing that 1! certifications as to inco$e, land area and population of 1ovaliches werenot presented during the deliberations that led to the passage of R.A. 43)3 ! a certificationattesting to the fact that the $other ./B, 'uezon City, would not be adversely affected by thecreation of 1ovaliches city in ter$s of inco$e, land area and population, was also not presented)! a copy of the petition of concerned barangays calling or the creation of City of 1ovalicheswas not presented to the 'uezon City Council, as $andated by the 9$ple$enting Rules of the./C, 1==1 and ,! R.A. 43)3 failed to specify the seat of govern$ent of the proposed City of1ovaliches as $andated by %ec. 11 0a! of the ./C, 1==1.@eld" %a$son is wrong. Reasons"1.*hepresu$ptionof constitutionallyof lawsshall beappliedinthiscase,$eaningthat %a$sonhas burdenof proof toshowthat R.A. 43)3was unconstitutional.%a$son did not present any proof that no certifications were presented during the deliberations.And even granting that no certifications were indeed presented, the representatives of the D#&,1%#, DG1R and even 'uezon City $ayor 9s$ael -athay were present during thedeliberations. *heofficial state$entsattestingtotheinco$e, landareaandpopulationof1ovaliches could serve the certifications conte$plated by law. -athay was present during the deliberation. 9f 'uezon City would ob@ect tothecreationof theCityof 1ovaliches,hewouldbethefirst representativetodoso.:ut hedidnQt.).*hefailuretoprovidethe'Ccouncil apetitionof concernedbarangayscalling for the creation of the City of 1ovaliches is not fatal as such petition is $eant only toinfor$ the 'C council of such creation. Dith the $ass $edia publicizing the creation of the cityof 1ovaliches, %a$son could not clai$ he was not infor$ed of the proposed creation,. *he failure of R.A.43)3 to provide a seat of govern$ent for 1ovaliches isnot fatal. %ec. 1 of the ./C provides that a govern$ent center shall be established by the ./Bas far as practicable. /overn$ent centers can also serve as seats of govern$ent.3. *he fact that the City of 1ovaliches was not included a$ong the 12 citiesand $unicipalities listed in the ordinance attached to the 1=42 constitution does not $ean that aconstitutional a$end$ent is necessary in order for 1ovaliches to beco$e a city. *he ordinanceattached to the Constitution $erely apportions the seat of the 8ouse of Representatives to thedifferent legislative districts in the country. 1owhere, does it provide that -etro -anila shall beforever co$posed of 12 cities and $unicipalities.1#*G" the proposed City of 1ovaliches was later voted down in a plebisciteheld for that purposeAl"areG ". Guinona (G.$. %o. 110&0&' &1 Januar1 1//6)(acts+8: 4412, entitled IAn Act Converting the -unicipality of %antiago into an 9ndependentCo$ponent City to be >nown as the City of %antiago,J was filed in the 8ouse ofRepresentatives, subseHuently passed by the 8ouse of Representatives, and trans$itted to the%enate. Acounterpart of 8: 4412, %: 1,) was filed in the %enate, and was passed as well.*heenrolledbill wassub$ittedtoandsignedbytheChief GxecutiveasRA226. Dhenaplebisciteonthe Actwas heldon5uly1),1==,,a great$a@ority oftheregistered voters of%antiago voted in favor of the conversion of %antiago into a city.Issue+ D#1 considering that the %enate passed %: 1,), its own version of 8: 4412, RA 226can be said to have originated in the 8ouse of Representatives@eld+Ees.inance, the Court said that what the Constitution si$ply $eans is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff, or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application $ust co$e fro$ the 8ouse of Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are fro$ the districts, the $e$bers of the 8ouse can be expected to be $ore sensitive to the local needs and proble$s. #n the other hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are expected to approach the sa$e proble$s fro$ the national perspective. :oth views are thereby $ade to bear on the enact$ent of such laws. 1or does the Constitution prohibit the filing in the %enate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill fro$ the 8ouse, so long as action by the %enate as a body is withheld pendingreceipt of the 8ouse bill.5ariano ". C>5-.-C (G.$. %os. 1105==' 0= 5arc4 1//5)(AC)*+ 5uanito -ariano, a resident of -a>ati, along with residents of *aguig suing as taxpayers, assail %ections , 31 and 3 of R.A. 1o. 243, 0IAn Act Converting the -unicipality of-a>ati into a 8ighly Brbanized City to be >nown as the City of -a>atiJ!.Another petition which contends the unconstitutionality of R.A. 1o. 243, was also filed by 5ohn 8. #s$ena as a senator, taxpayer and concerned citizen.I**,-*+). Dhether %ectionof R.A. 1o. 243, delineated the land areas of the proposed city of -a>ati violating sections 2 and ,36 of the .ocal /overn$ent Code on specifying $etes and bounds with technical descriptions,. Dhether %ection 31, Article ? of R.A. 1o. 243, collides with %ection 4, Article ? and %ection 2, Article A9 of the Constitution stressing that they new cityQs acHuisition of a new corporate existence will allow the incu$bent $ayor to extend his ter$ to $ore than two executive ter$s as allowed by the Constitution3. Dhether the addition of another legislative district in -a>ati is unconstitutional as the reapportion$ent cannot be $ade by a special law@-.!F$,.I%G+1. %ectionof R.A. 1o. 243, states that"%ec. . *he City of -a>ati. U *he -unicipality of -a>ati shall be converted into a highly urbanized city to be >nown as the City of -a>ati, hereinafter referred to as the City, 64ic4 s4allco#prise t4e present territor1 o7 t4e 5unicipalit1 o7 5aHati in 5etropolitan 5anila Area over which it has @urisdiction bounded on the northeast by Pasig River and beyond by the City of-andaluyong and the -unicipality of Pasig+ on the southeast by the $unicipalities of Pateros and *aguig+ on the southwest by the City of Pasay and the -unicipality of *aguig+ and, on the northwest, by the City of -anila.G$phasis has been provided in the provision under dispute.%aid delineation did not change even by an inch the land area previously covered by -a>ati as a $unicipality. 9t $ust be noted that the reHuire$ent of $etes and bounds was $eant $erely as a tool in the establish$ent of ./Bs.9t is not an end in itself.&urther$ore, at the ti$e of consideration or R.A. 1o. 243,, the territorial dispute between the $unicipalities of -a>ati and *aguig over &ort :onifacio was under court litigation.#ut of beco$ing a sense of respect to co(eHual depart$ent of govern$ent, legislators felt that the dispute should be left to the courts to decide.1. %ection 31 of R.A. 1o. 243, provides that"%ec. 31. #fficials of the City of -a>ati. U *he represent elective officials of the -unicipality of -a>ati shall continue as the officials of the City of -a>ati and shall exercise their powers and functions until such ti$e that a new election is held and the duly elected officials shall have already Hualified and assu$e their offices" Provided, *he new city will acHuire a new corporate existence. *he appointive officials and e$ployees of the City shall li>ewise continues exercising their functions and duties and they shall be auto$atically absorbed by the city govern$ent of the City of -a>ati.%ection 4, Article ? and section 2, Article A9 of the Constitution provide the following"%ec. 4. *he ter$ of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be deter$ined by law, shall be three years and no suc4 o77icial s4all ser"e 7or #ore t4an t4ree consecuti"e ter#s. Aoluntary renunciation of the office for any length of ti$e shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full ter$ for which he was elected.xxx xxx xxx%ec. 2. *he -e$bers of the 8ouse of Representatives shall be elected for a ter$ of three yearswhich shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of 5une next following their election.1o -e$ber of the 8ouse of Representatives shall serve for $ore than three consecutive ter$s. Aoluntary renunciation of the office for any length of ti$e shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full ter$ for which he was elected.*his challenge on the controversy cannot be entertained as the pre$ise on the issue is on the occurrence of $any contingent events.Considering that these events $ay or $ay not happen, petitioners $erely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy.-oreover, only -ariano a$ong the petitioners is a resident of *aguig and are not the proper parties to raise this abstract issue.%ection 301!, Article A9 of the Constitution clearly provides that the Congress $ay be co$prised of not $ore than two hundred fifty $e$bers, unless ot4er6ise pro"ided b1 la6.As thus worded, the Constitution did not preclude Congress fro$ increasing its $e$bership by passing a law, other than a general reapportion$ent of the law.Ca6alin Jr. ". C>5-.-C (G.$' %o. 126&1/' >ctober 26' 2001)A;uino ". Co#elec (G.$. %o. 10/=/&' 0= April 2010)(acts+*hesaidcasewasfiledbythepetitionersbywayof aPetitionfor Certiorari andProhibition under Rule 73 of the Rules of Court.9t was addressed to nullify and declared asunconstitutional, R.A. =217 entitled IAn Act Reapportioning the Co$position of the &irst 01st!and %econd .egislative Districts 0nd! in the province of Ca$arines %ur and *hereby Creating a1ew .egislative District fro$ such Reapportion$ent.J%aid Act originatedfro$ 8ouse:ill1o. ,7,, andit wasenactedbyPresident -acapagal(Arroyo. Gffectuating the act, it has divided the existing four districts, and apportioned districtsshall for$ additional district where the new first district shall be co$posed of 127,)4) populationcount. Petitionerscontendthatthereapportion$entruns afoul ofthe explicitconstitutionalstandardwith a $ini$u$ population of 36,666 for the creation of a legislative district under %ection 30)!,ArticleA9 of the1=42Constitution. 9t wase$phasizedaswell bythepetitionersthat ifpopulationislessthanthat providedbytheConstitution, it $ust bestric>en(downfor non(co$pliance with the $ini$u$ population reHuire$ent, unless otherwise fixed by law. Respondents have argued that the petitioners are guilty of two fatal technical effects" first, errorin choosing to assail R.A. =217 via the Re$edy of Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 73 ofthe Rules of Court. And second, petitioners have no locus standi to Huestion the constitutionalityof R.A. =217. Issue" Dhether or not Republic Act 1o. =217 is unconstitutional and therefore null and void, orwhether or not a population of 36,666 is anindispensableconstitutionalreHuire$ent for thecreation of a new legislative district in a province. @eld" 9t was ruled that the said Act is constitutional. *he plain and clear distinction between acity and a province was explained under the second sentence of %ection 3 0)! of theConstitution. 9t states that a province is entitled into a representative, with nothing was$entioned about a population. Dhile in cities, a $ini$u$ population of 36,666 $ust first besatisfied. 9n 662, Ca$%ur had a population of 1,7=),41 $a>ing the province entitled to twoadditional districts fro$ the present of four. :ased on the for$ulation of #rdinance, other thanpopulation, the results of the apportion$ent were valid. And lastly, other factors were $entionedduring the deliberations of 8ouse :ill 1o. ,7,.)an ". Co#elec (G.$. %o. =&155' 11 Jul1 1/06)/overning law" Art ?9 %ec. ) of Constitution in relation to %ec. 1=2 of .ocal /overn$ent Code(acts+*his case was pro$pted by the enact$ent of :atas Pa$bansa :lg. 443, An Act Creating a 1ew Province in the 9sland of 1egros to be >nown as the Province of 1egros del 1orte, effective Dec. ), 1=43. 0Cities of %ilay, Cadiz and %an Carlos and the $unicipalities of Calatrava, *aboso, Gscalante, %agay, -anapla, Aictorias, G.R. -agalona, and %alvador :enedicto proposed to belong to the new province!.Pursuant to and in i$ple$entation of this law, the C#-G.GC scheduled a plebiscite for 5anuary), 1=47. Petitioners opposed, filing a case for Prohibition and contending that the :.P. 443 is unconstitutional and not in co$plete accord with the .ocal /overn$ent Code because"W *he voters of the parent province of 1egros #ccidental, other than those living within the territory of the new province of 1egros del 1orte, were not included in the plebiscite.W *he area which would co$prise the new province of 1egros del 1orte would only be about ,437.37 sH. >$., which is lesser than the $ini$u$ area prescribed by the governing statute, %ec. 1=2 of ./C.Issue+D#1 the plebiscite was legal and co$plied with the constitutional reHuisites of the Consititution, which states that U I%ec. ). 1o province, city, $unicipality or barrio $ay be created, divided, $erged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered except in accordance with the criteria established in the .ocal /overn$ent Code, and sub@ect to the approval by a $a@ority of the votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units affectedJV 1#.@eld+Dhenever a province is created, divided or $erged and there is substantial alteration of the boundaries, Ithe approval of a $a@ority of votes in the plebiscite in the unit or units affectedJ $ust first be obtained. *he creation of the proposed new province of 1egros del 1orte will necessarily result in the division and alteration of the existing boundaries of 1egros #ccidental 0parent province!.Plain and si$ple logic will de$onstrate that two political units would be affected. *he first would be the parent province of 1egros #ccidental because its boundaries would be substantially altered. *he other affected entity would be co$posed of those in the area subtracted fro$ the $other province to constitute the proposed province of 1egros del 1orte.Paredes vs. Gxecutive 0/.R. 1o. 3374! should not be ta>en as a doctrinal or co$pelling precedent. Rather, the dissenting view of 5ustice Abad %antos is applicable, to wit"IXwhen the Constitution spea>s of Ithe unit or units affectedJ it $eans all of the people of the $unicipality if the $unicipality is to be divided such as in the case at bar or of the people of two or $ore $unicipalities if there be a $erger.J*he re$aining portion of the parent province is as $uch an area affected. *he substantial alteration of the boundaries of the parent province, not to $ention the adverse econo$ic effects it $ight suffer, eloHuently argue the points raised by the petitioners.J%C pronounced that the plebscite has no legal effect for being a patent nullity.G. *he .ocal /overn$ent Code, as a$ended1. Gffectivity. 5anuary 1, 1==, unless otherwise provided herein, after its co$plete publication in at least one newspaper of general circulation ;%ec. 3)7, R.A. 2176e place.II. General Po6ers and Attributes o7 .G,sA. %ources of Powers1. %ources in general"a!%ec. 3, Art. 99+ %ecs. 3, 7 L 2, Art. ?, Philippine Constitution b!%tatutes, e.g., R. A. 2176 c!Charter ;particularly of cities< d!Doctrine of the right of self(govern$ent, but applies only in %tates which adhere to the doctrine.. Classification" a! express, i$plied, inherent 0powers necessary and proper for governance, e.g., to pro$ote health and safety, enhance prosperity, i$prove $orals of inhabitants!b!public or govern$ental, private or proprietary c!intra$ural, extra$ural d!$andatory, directory" $inisterial, discretionary ). Gxecution of powers.a! Dhere statute prescribes the $anner of exercise, the procedure $ust be followed.b! Dhere the statute is silent, local govern$ent units have discretion to select reasonable $eans and $ethods of exercise.:. /overn$ental Powers 1. Police power a>a /eneral Delfare Clause 0%ec. 17, ./C!.Gvery local govern$entunit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily i$pliedtherefro$, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficientand effective governance, and those which are essential to the pro$otion of thegeneralwelfare.Dithintheirrespective territorial @urisdictions, local govern$entunits shall ensure and support, a$ong other things, the preservation andenrich$ent of culture, pro$ote health and safety, enhance the right of the peopletoabalancedecology, encourageandsupport thedevelop$entof appropriateandself(reliant scientificandtechnological capabilities, i$provepublic$orals,enhance econo$ic prosperity and social @ustice, pro$ote full e$ploy$ent a$ongits residents, $aintain peace and order, and preserve the co$fort andconvenience of their inhabitants.a! *he general welfare clause is the statutory grant of police power to local govern$ent units.b!.i$itations on the exercise of powers under this clause"i! Gxercisable only within territorial li$its of the local govern$ent unit, except for protection of water supply.ii! GHual protection clause. 0*he interests of the public in general, as distinguished fro$ those of a particular class, reHuire the exercise of the power.!iii!Due process clause. 0*he $eans e$ployed are reasonably necessary for the acco$plish$ent of the purpose and not unduly oppressive on individuals.!iv!-ust not be contrary to the Constitution and the laws. Prohibited activities $ay not be legalized in the guise of regulation+ activities allowed by law cannot be prohibited, only regulated. 9n -agta@as v. Pryce Properties, /.R. 1o. 1116=2, 5uly 6, 1==,, the %upre$e Court reiterated its ruling in *atel v. -unicipality of Airac, Catanduanes, 62 %CRA 132, and in %olicitor /eneral v.-etropolitan -anila Authority, 6, %CRA 4)2, that to be valid, an ordinance ;a< $ust not contravene the Constitution and any statute+ ;b< $ust not be unfair or oppressive+ ;c< $ust not be partial or discri$inatory+ ;d< $ust not prohibit, but $ay regulate trade+ ;e< $ust not be unreasonable+ and ;f< $ust begeneral in application and consistent with public policy.9n De la Cruz v. Paras, 1) %CRA 37=, the :ocaue, :ulacan ordinance prohibiting the operation of night(clubs, was declared invalid, because of its prohibitory, not $erely regulatory, character.9n :inay v. Do$ingo, 61 %CRA 364, it was held that the power of $unicipal corporations is broad and has been said to be co$$ensurate with but not to exceed the duty to provide for the real needs of the people in their health, safety, co$fort and convenience, and consistently as $ay be with private rights, x x x #rdinance is not unconstitutional $erely because it incidentally benefits a li$ited nu$ber of persons x x x *he support for the poor has long been an accepted exercise of the police power in the pro$otion of the co$$on good.9n *ano v. %ocrates, /.R. 1o. 11=,=, August 1, 1==2, the %upre$e Court upheld, as legiti$ate exercise of the police power, the validity of athering, possessing, buying, selling and ship$ent of live $arine coral dwelling of aHuatic RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRCases: !ela CruG ". Paras (G.$. %os. .-225=1-=2' 25 Jul1 1/0&)(acts+ *he $unicipality of :ocaue, :ulacan issued #rdinance 4, 0Prohibition and Closure #rdinance of :ocaue, :ulacan! prohibited the operation of night clubs, and such clubs e$ploying hostesses. #n 3 1ove$ber 1=23, two cases for prohibition with preli$inary in@unctionwere filed with the C&9 :ulacan. *he cases were assigned to 5udge, now Associate 5ustice Paras of the 9nter$ediate Appellate Court 09AC!, who ssued a restraining order on 2 1ove$ber 1=23. *he answers were thereafter filed. #n 13 5anuary 1=27, the lower court upheld the constitutionality and validity of #rdinance 4, and dis$issed the cases. 8ence the petition for certiorari by way of appeal. Issue+ Dhether the prohibition on the operation of night clubs, to foster public $orals, is reasonable andOor valid. @eld+ Reasonableness is consonant with the general powers and purposes of $unicipal corporations, as well as consistency with the laws or policy of the %tate. %weeping exercise of a law$a>ing power could not Hualify under the ter$ reasonable. *he ob@ective of fostering public $orals, a worthy and desirable end can be attained by a $easure that does not enco$pass too wide a field. #n its face, the #rdinance is characterized by overbreadth. *he purpose sought to be achieved could have been attained by reasonable restrictions rather than by an absolute prohibition. A prohibition is a clear invasion of personal or property rights, personal in the case ofthose individuals desirous of patronizing those night clubs and property in ter$s of the invest$ents $ade and salaries to be earned by those therein e$ployed. Republic Act =)4 0An Act granting $unicipal or city boards and councils the power to regulate the establish$ent, $aintenance and operation of certain places of a$use$ent within their respective territorial @urisdiction! granted the $unicipal or city board or council of each chartered city to have the power to regulate by ordinance the establish$ent, $aintenance and operation of night clubs, cabarets, dancing schools, pavilions, coc>pits, bars, saloons, bowling alleys, billiard pools, and other si$ilar places of a$use$ent within its territorial @urisdiction. *he power to regulate, was a$ended to li>ewise prohibit on 1 -ay 1=3,+ but the title re$ained intact. *he power granted re$ains that of regulation, not prohibition. *he power clai$ed to enact the ordinance is at the $ost dubious and under the present .ocal /overn$ent Code non(existent. *he law $andates the sangguniang bayan to F0rr! Regulate cafes, restaurants, beer(houses, hotels, $otels, inns, pension houses and lodging houses, except travel agencies, tourist guides, tourist transports, hotels, resorts, de luxe restaurants, and tourist inns of international standards which shall re$ain under the licensing and regulatory power of the -inistry of *ouris$ which shall exercise such authority without infringing on the taxing or regulatory powers of the $unicipality+ 0ss! Regulate public dancing schools, public dance halls, and sauna baths or $assage parlors+ and 0tt! Regulate the establish$ent and operation of billiard pools, theatrical perfor$ances, circuses and other for$s of entertain$ent. 9t is clear that $unicipal corporations cannot prohibit the operation of night clubs. *hey $ay be regulated, but not prevented fro$ carrying on their business. ing effect on 1 5anuary 1==)+ An ordinance banning the ship$ent of all livefish and lobster outside Puerto Princesa City fro$ 1 5anuary 1==) to 1 5anuary 1==4, and providing exe$ptions+ penalties and for other purposes thereof!. *o i$ple$ent said ordinance, Acting -ayor A$ado .. .ucero issued #ffice #rder ) 0series of 1==)! dated5anuary 1==) authorizing the inspection of cargoes shipped out fro$ the Puerto Princesa Airport, Dharf, and any other port within the @urisdiction of the City. #n 1= &ebruary 1==), the %angguniang .alawigan of Palawan enacted Resolution )) ;A resolution prohibiting the catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling, and ship$ent of live $arine coral dwelling aHuatic organis$s, to wit" &a$ily" %caridae 0-a$eng!, Gpine Phelus &asciatus 0%uno!, Cro$ileptes Altivelis 0Panther or %enorita!, .obster below 66 gra$s and spawning, *ridacna /igas 0*a>llobo!, Pinctada -argaritefera 0-other pearl, #ysters, /iant cla$s, and other species!, Penaeus -onodon 0*iger Prawn, :reeder size or $other!, Gpinephelus %uillus 0.oba or /reen grouper!, and &a$ily" :alistidae 0*ropical AHuariu$ &ishes! for a period of 3 years in and co$ing fro$ Palawan waters for the sustainable develop$ent of Palawan co$patible with protecting and enhancing the natural resources and endangered environ$ent of the province, which serve to guide the local govern$ent of Palawan and the govern$ent agencies concerned in the for$ulation and i$ple$entation of plans, progra$s and pro@ects affecting said province. *he first ob@ective 0to establish a Fclosed seasonF for the species of fish or aHuatic ani$als covered therein for a period of five years! is well within the devolved power to enforce fishery laws in $unicipal waters which allows the establish$ent of Fclosed seasons.F *he second ob@ective 0to protect thecoral in the $arine waters of the City of Puerto Princesa and the Province of Palawan fro$ further destruction due to illegal fishing activities! falls within both the general welfare clause of the ./C and the express $andate thereunder to cities and provinces to protect the environ$entand i$pose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environ$ent. 34ite .i4t Corp. ". Cit1 o7 5anila (G.$. %o. 122026' 20Januar1 200/)(acts+ #n Dece$ber ), 1==, City -ayor Alfredo %. .i$ signed into a law -anila City #rdinance 1o. 222, entitled IAn #rdinance Prohibiting %hort(*i$e Ad$ission, %hort(*i$e Ad$ission Rates, and Dash(Bp Rate %che$es in 8otels, -otels, 9nns, .odging 8ouses, Pension 8ouses, and %i$ilar Gstablish$ents in the City of -anila.J #n Dece$ber 13, 1==, the -alate *ourist and Develop$ent Corporation 0-*DC! filed a co$plaint for declaratory relief withprayer for a writ of preli$inary in@unction andOor te$porary restraining order 0*R#! i$pleading as defendant, herein respondent City of -anila represented by -ayor .i$ with the prayer that the #rdinance be declared invalid and unconstitutional.#n Dece$ber 1, 1==, petitioners Dhite .ight Corporation 0D.C!, *itaniu$ Corporation 0*C! and %ta. -esa *ourist and Develop$ent Corporation 0%*DC! filed a $otion to intervene and to ad$it attached co$plaint(in(intervention on the ground that the #rdinance directly affects their business interests as operators of drive(in(hotels and $otels in -anila. *he R*C issued a *R# directing the City to cease and desist fro$ enforcing the #rdinance. *he City alleges that the #rdinance is a legiti$ate exercise of police power. #n #ctober 6, 1==), the R*C rendered a decision declaring the #rdinance null and void. #n a petition for review on certiorari, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the R*C and affir$ed the constitutionality of the #rdinance.Issue+ Dhether -anila City #rdinance 1o. 222, is a valid exercise of police power$ulin+ 1o.*he test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions includingCity of -anila has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it $ust not only be within the corporatepowers of the local govern$ent unit to enact and pass according to the procedure prescribed bylaw, it $ust also confor$ to the following substantive reHuire$ents" 01! $ust not contravene theConstitutionoranystatute+ 0!$ust not beunfair or oppressive+ 0)! $ust not bepartial ordiscri$inatory+ 0,! $ust not prohibit but $ay regulate trade+ 03! $ust be general and consistentwith public policy+ and 07! $ust not be unreasonable. Police power, while incapable of an exactdefinition, has been purposely veiled in general ter$s to underscore its co$prehensiveness to$eet all exigenciesandprovideenoughroo$for anefficient andflexibleresponseastheconditions warrant. Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the %tate and itscorresponding right to protect itself and its people.Police power has been used as @ustificationfor nu$erousandvariedactionsby the%tate. *heapparent goal of the#rdinanceis to$ini$ize if not eli$inate the use of the covered establish$ents for illicit sex, prostitution, druguseandali>e. *hesegoals, bythe$selves, areuni$peachableandcertainlyfall withinthea$bit of the police power of the %tate. Eet the desirability of these ends do not sanctify any andall $eansfor their achieve$ent. *hose$eans $ust alignwiththeConstitution, andoure$erging sophisticated analysis of its guarantees to the people.*hat the #rdinance prevents thelawful usesof awashratedeprivingpatronsof aproduct andthepetitionersof lucrativebusiness ties inwith another constitutionalreHuisitefor the legiti$acy ofthe#rdinance as apolice power $easure. 9t $ust appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguishedfro$ those of a particular class, reHuire an interference with private rights and the $eans $ustbe reasonably necessary for the acco$plish$ent of the purpose and not unduly oppressive ofprivate rights. 9t $ust also be evident that no other alternative for the acco$plish$ent of thepurpose less intrusive of private rights can wor>. -ore i$portantly, a reasonable relation $ustexist between the purposes of the $easure and the $eans e$ployed for its acco$plish$ent,for even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining toprivate property will not be per$itted to be arbitrarily invaded. .ac>ing a concurrence of thesereHuisites, the police $easure shall be struc> down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights.As held in -orfe v. -utuc, the exercise of police power is sub@ect to @udicial review when life,liberty or property is affected. 8owever, this is not in any way $eant to ta>e it away fro$ thevastness of %tate police power whose exercise en@oys the presu$ption of validity. #rdinance1o. 222, is hereby declared B1C#1%*9*B*9#1A..%ocial 5ustice %ociety v. Atienza, /.R. 1o. 13763.&ebruary 1), 664+ see also %ocial 5ustice %ociety 0%5%! #fficers v. .i$OAtienza 0/.R. 1o. 1424)7, 3 1ove$ber 61,!(acts+ *he %ocial 5ustice %ociety sought to co$pel respondent 8on. 5ose .. Atienza, 5r., then$ayor of the City of -anila, to enforce #rdinance 1o. 462 that was enacted by the%angguniang Panlungsod of -anila in 661. #rdinance 1o. 462 reclassified the areadescribedthereinfro$industrial toco$$ercial anddirectedtheownersandoperatorsofbusinessesdisallowedunder thereclassificationtoceaseanddesist fro$operatingtheirbusinesses within six $onths fro$the date of effectivity of the ordinance. A$ong thebusinesses situatedintheareaaretheso(calledYZ[Pandacan*er$inalsYZof theoilco$panies 0the brief history of the Pandacan #il *er$inals is here!.9n 66, the City of -anila and the Depart$ent of Gnergy 0D#G! entered into a $e$orandu$ ofunderstanding0-#B!withtheoil co$panies. *heyagreedthat YZ[thescalingdownof thePandacan *er$inals ;was< the $ost viable and practicable option.YZ*he %angguniangPanlungsodratifiedthe-#BinResolution1o. =2. 9nthesa$eresolution, the%angguniandeclared that the -#B was effective only for a period of six $onths starting 3 5uly 66, whichperiod was extended up to )6 April 66).*his is the factual bac>drop of the %upre$e CourtQs2 -arch 662 Decision. *he %C ruled thatrespondent had the $inisterial duty under the .ocal /overn$ent Code 0./C! to YZ[enforce alllaws and ordinances relative to the governance of the city,YZincluding #rdinance 1o. 462.After the %C pro$ulgated its Decision, Chevron Philippines 9nc. 0Chevron!, Petron Corporation0Petron! and Pilipinas %hell Petroleu$ Corporation 0%hell! 0the YZ[oil co$paniesYZ! and theRepublicof thePhilippines, representedby theD#G, sought tointerveneandas>for areconsideration of the decision.Inter"ention o7 t4e oil co#panies and t4e !>- allo6ed in t4e interest o7 :ustice9nterventionisare$edybywhichathirdparty, notoriginallyi$pleadedintheproceedings,beco$es a litigant therein to enable hi$, her or it to protect or preserve a right or interest which$ay be affected by such proceedings. *he allowance or disallowance of a $otion to intervene isaddressed to the sound discretion of the court. Dhile the $otions to intervene respectively filedby the oil co$panies and the D#G were filed out of ti$e, these $otions were granted becausethey presented novel issues and argu$ents. D#GYZ\s intervention was also allowedconsidering the transcendental i$portance of this case.>rdinance %o. 011/ did not i#pliedl1 repeal >rdinance %o. 002=Repeal by i$plication proceeds on the pre$ise that where a statute of later date clearly revealsthe intention of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the sub@ect, that intention $ust be giveneffect. 9$pliedrepealsarenot favoredandwill not besodeclaredunlesstheintent of thelegislators is $anifest.*here are two >inds of i$plied repeal. *he first is" where the provisions in the two acts on thesa$e sub@ect $atter are irreconcilably contradictory, the latter act, to the extent of the conflict,constitutes an i$plied repeal of the earlier one. *he second is" if the later act covers the wholesub@ect of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it willoperate to repealtheearlier law. *he oil co$panies argue that the situation here falls under the first category.&orthefirst>indof i$pliedrepeal, there$ustbeanirreconcilableconflict betweenthetwoordinances. 8owever, there was no legislative purpose to repeal #rdinance 1o. 462. *here isnoconflict sincebothordinancesactuallyhaveaco$$onob@ective,i-e-, toshift thezoningclassification fro$ industrial to co$$ercial 0#rdinance 1o. 462! or $ixedresidentialOco$$ercial 0#rdinance 1o. 411=!. Dhile it is true that both ordinances relate to thesa$e sub@ect $atter, i-e-, classification of the land use of the area where Pandacan oil depot islocated, if there is no intent to repeal the earlier enact$ent, every effort at reasonableconstruction $ust be $ade to reconcile the ordinances so that both can be given effect.-oreover, it is a well(settled rule in statutory construction that a subseHuent general law doesnot repeal a prior special law on the sa$e sub@ect unless it clearly appears that the legislaturehas intended by the latter general act to $odify or repeal the earlier special law. *he special law$ust be ta>en as intended to constitute an exception to, or a Hualification of, the general act orprovision.#rdinance1o.462is a speciallaw since itdeals specificallywith acertain areadescribed therein 0the Pandacan oil depot area! whereas #rdinance 1o. 411= can beconsidered a general law as it covers the entire city of -anila.5anda#us lies to co#pel respondent 5a1or to en7orce >rdinance %o. 002=*he oil co$panies insist that $anda$us does not lie against respondent in consideration of theseparation of powers of the executive and @udiciary. 8owever, while it is true that Courts will notinterfere by $anda$us proceedings with the legislative or executive depart$ents of thegovern$ent in the legiti$ate exercise of its powers, there is an exception YZI to enforce $ere$inisterial acts reHuired by law to be perfor$ed by so$e officer thereof. A writ of $anda$us isthe power to co$pel YZ[the perfor$ance of an act which the law specifically en@oins as a dutyresulting fro$ office, trust or station.YZ*heoil co$paniesalsoarguethat petitionershadaplain, speedyandadeHuatere$edytoco$pel respondent to enforce #rdinance 1o. 462, which was to see> relief fro$ the Presidentof the Philippines through the %ecretary of the Depart$ent of 9nterior and .ocal/overn$ent0D9./! by virtue of the PresidentYZ\s power of supervision over local govern$ent units. *hissuggested process, however, would be unreasonably long, tedious and conseHuently in@uriousto the interests of the local govern$ent unit 0./B! and its constituents whose welfare is soughtto be protected. A party need not go first to the D9./ in order to co$pel the enforce$ent of anordinance. :esides, the resort to an original action for $anda$us before the %C is undeniablyallowed by the Constitution.>rdinance %o. 002= is constitutional and "alid*he tests of a valid ordinance are well established. &or an ordinance to be valid, it $ust not onlybe within the corporate powers of the ./B to enact and be passed according to the procedureprescribed by law, it $ust also confor$ to the following substantive reHuire$ents" 01! $ust notcontravene the Constitution or any statute+ 0! $ust not be unfair or oppressive+ 0)! $ust not bepartial or discri$inatory+ 0,! $ust not prohibit but $ay regulate trade+ 03! $ust be general andconsistent with public policy and 07! $ust not be unreasonable. *here is no showing that the#rdinance is unconstitutional.)4e Cit1 o7 5anila 4as t4e po6er to enact >rdinance %o. 002=#rdinance 1o. 462 was passed by the %angguniang Panlungsod of -anila in the exercise ofits police power. Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to $a>e statutesandordinancestopro$otethehealth, $orals, peace, education, goodorder or safetyandgeneral welfareof thepeople. *hispower flowsfro$therecognitionthat saluspopuli estsuprema lex 0the welfare of the people is the supre$e law!.Dhile police power rests pri$arily with the national legislature, such power $ay be delegated.%ection 17 of the ./C, >nown as the general welfare clause, encapsulates the delegated policepower to local govern$ents. ./Bs li>e the City of -anila exercise police power through theirrespectivelegislativebodies, inthiscase, the%angguniangPanlungsodor thecitycouncil.%pecifically, the %anggunian can enact ordinances for the general welfare of the city.*his police power was also provided for in RA ,6= or the Revised Charter of the City of -anila.%pecifically, the %anggunian has the power to YZ[reclassify land within the @urisdiction of thecity.YZ)4e enact#ent o7 >rdinance %o. 002= is a leiti#ate eEercise o7 police po6erAswiththe%tate, local govern$ents$aybeconsideredashavingproperlyexercisedtheirpolice power only if the following reHuisites are $et" 01! the interests of the public generally, asdistinguished fro$ those of a particular class, reHuire its exercise+ and 0! the $eans e$ployedarereasonably necessary forthe acco$plish$entofthe purpose and notunduly oppressiveupon individuals. 9n short, there $ust be a concurrence of a lawful sub@ect and a lawful $ethod.#rdinance 1o. 462 is a valid police power $easure because there is a concurrence of lawfulsub@ect andlawful $ethod. 9t wasenactedYZ[for thepurposeof pro$otingsoundurbanplanning, ensuring health, public safety and general welfareYZ of the residents of -anila. *he%anggunian was i$pelled to ta>e $easures to protect the residents of -anila fro$ catastrophicdevastation in case of a terrorist attac> on the Pandacan *er$inals. *owards this ob@ective, the%anggunian reclassified the area defined in the ordinance fro$ industrial to co$$ercial.*heordinancewasintendedtosafeguardtherightstolife, securityandsafetyof all theinhabitants of -anila and not @ust of a particular class. *he depot is perceived, rightly or wrongly,as a representation of western interests which $eans that it is a terrorist target. As long as itthere is such a target in their $idst, the residents of -anila are not safe. 9t therefore beca$enecessary to re$ove these ter$inals to dissipate the threat. Dide discretion is vested on thelegislative authority to deter$ine not only what the interests of the public reHuire but also what$easures are necessary for the protection of such interests. Clearly, the %anggunian was in thebest position to deter$ine the needs of its constituents.9n the exercise of police power, property rights of individuals $ay be sub@ected to restraints andburdens in order to fulfill the ob@ectives of the govern$ent. #therwise stated, the govern$ent$ay enact legislation that $ay interfere with personalliberty, property, lawful businesses andoccupations to pro$ote the general welfare. 8owever, the interference $ust be reasonable andnot arbitrary. And to forestall arbitrariness, the $ethods or $eans used to protect public health,$orals, safety or welfare $ust have a reasonable relation to the end in view.*he$eansadoptedbythe%anggunianwastheenact$ent of azoningordinancewhichreclassifiedtheareawherethedepot is situatedfro$industrial toco$$ercial. Azoningordinance is defined as a local city or $unicipal legislation which logically arranges, prescribes,defines and apportions a given political subdivision into specific land uses as present and futurepro@ection of needs. As a result of the zoning, the continued operation of the businesses of theoil co$panies in their present location will no longer be per$itted. *he power to establish zonesforindustrial, co$$ercial andresidential usesisderivedfro$thepolicepoweritself andisexercised for theprotection andbenefit of theresidents of alocality. ConseHuently, theenact$ent of #rdinance 1o. 462 is within the power of the %angguniang Panlungsod of theCity of -anila and any resulting burden on those affected cannot be said to be un@ust.>rdinance %o. 002= is notun7air'oppressi"e orcon7iscator1 64ic4a#ounts to taHin6it4out co#pensationAccording to the oil co$panies, #rdinance 1o. 462 is unfair and oppressive as it does not onlyregulatebutalsoabsolutely prohibits the$ fro$conductingoperationsin the City of-anila.8owever, the oil co$panies are not prohibited fro$ doing business in other appropriate zones in-anila. *he City of -anila $erely exercised its power to regulate the businesses and industriesin the zones it established.*he oil co$panies also argue that the ordinance is unfair and oppressive because they haveinvestedbillionsof pesosinthedepot, andtheforcedclosurewill result inhugelossesininco$e and tre$endous costs in constructing new facilities. *his argu$ent has no $erit. 9n theexercise of police power, there is a li$itation on or restriction of property interests to pro$otepublic welfare which involves no co$pensable ta>ing. Co$pensation is necessary only whenthe stateYZ\s power of e$inent do$ain is exercised. 9n e$inent do$ain, property isappropriated and applied to so$e public purpose. Property conde$ned under the exercise ofpolice power, on the other hand, is noxious or intended for a noxious or forbidden purpose and,conseHuently,isnot co$pensable. *herestriction i$posedto protect lives,public healthandsafety fro$ danger is not a ta>ing. 9t is $erely the prohibition or abate$ent of a noxious usewhich interferes with para$ount rights of the public. 9n the regulation of the use of the property,nobody else acHuires the use or interest therein, hence there is no co$pensable ta>ing.9n this case, the properties of the oil co$panies and other businesses situated in the affectedarea re$ain theirs. #nly their use is restricted although they can be applied to other profitableuses per$itted in the co$$ercial zone.>rdinance %o. 002= is not partial and discri#inator1*he oil co$panies ta>e the position that the ordinance has discri$inated against and singledout the Pandacan *er$inals despite the fact that the Pandacan area is congested with buildingsand residences that do not co$ply with the 1ational :uilding Code, &ire Code and 8ealth and%anitation Code.An ordinance based on reasonable classification does not violate the constitutional guaranty ofthe eHual protection of the law. *he reHuire$ents for a valid and reasonable classification are"01! it $ust rest on substantial distinctions+ 0! it $ust be ger$ane to the purpose of the law+ 0)! it$ust not be li$ited to existing conditions only+ and 0,! it $ust apply eHually to all $e$bers ofthesa$eclass. *helaw$aytreat andregulateoneclassdifferentlyfro$another classprovided there are real and substantial differences to distinguish one class fro$ another.8ere, there is a reasonable classification. Dhat the ordinance see>s to prevent is a catastrophicdevastation that will result fro$ a terrorist attac>. Bnli>e the depot, the surrounding co$$unityis not a high(value terrorist target. Any da$age caused by fire or explosion occurring in thoseareas would be nothing co$pared to the da$age caused by a fire or explosion in the depotitself.Accordingly, thereisasubstantial distinction. *heenact$ent of theordinancewhichprovides for the cessation of the operations of these ter$inals re$oves the threat they pose.*herefore it is ger$ane to the purpose of the ordinance. *he classification is not li$ited to theconditions existing when the ordinance was enacted but to future conditions as well. &inally, theordinance is applicable to all businesses and industries in the area it delineated.>rdinance %o. 002= is not inconsistent 6it4 $A =6&0 and $A 02=/*he oil co$panies and the D#G assert that #rdinance 1o. 462 is unconstitutional because itcontravenes RA 27)4 0D#G Act of 1==! and RA 4,2= 0Downstrea$ #il 9ndustry Deregulation.aw of 1==4!.9t is true that ordinances should not contravene existing statutes enacted by Congress.8owever, a brief survey of decisions where the police power $easure of the ./B clashed withnational lawsshowsthat theco$$ondo$inator isthat thenational lawswereclearlyandexpressly in conflict with the ordinancesOresolutions of the ./Bs. *he inconsistencies were sopatent that there was no roo$ for doubt. *his is not the case here. *he laws cited $erely gaveD#G general powers to YZ[establish and ad$inister progra$s for the exploration,transportation, $ar>eting, distribution, utilization, conservation, stoc>piling, and storage ofenergy resourcesYZand YZ[to encourage certain practices in the ;oil< industry which servethe public interest and are intended to achieve efficiency and cost reduction, ensure continuoussupplyof petroleu$products.YZ*hesepowerscanbeexercisedwithout e$asculatingthe./Bsof thepowersgrantedthe$. Dhenthesea$biguouspowersarepittedagainst theuneHuivocal powerofthe./Btoenactpolice power and zoning ordinances for thegeneralwelfareofitsconstituents,it isnot difficulttoruleinfavorof thelatter. Consideringthat thepowers of the D#G regarding the Pandacan *er$inals are not categorical, the doubt $ust beresolved in favor of the City of -anila.*he principle of local autono$y is enshrined in and zealously protected under the Constitution.An entire article 0Article ?! of the Constitution has been devoted to guaranteeing and pro$otingtheautono$y of ./Bs. *he./Cwasspecially pro$ulgatedbyCongresstoensuretheautono$y of local govern$ents as $andated by the Constitution. *here is no showing how thelaws relied upon by the oil co$panies and D#G stripped the City of -anila of its power to enactordinances intheexerciseof its policepower andtoreclassify thelanduses withinits@urisdiction.)4e !>- cannot eEercise t4e po6er o7 control o"er .G,sAnother reason that $ilitates against the D#GYZ\s assertions is that %ection , of Article ? ofthe Constitution confines the PresidentYZ\s power over ./Bs to one of general supervision.ConseHuently, the Chief Gxecutive or his or her alter egos, cannot exercise the power of controlover the$. *he President and his or her alter egos, the depart$ent heads, cannot interfere withtheactivitiesof local govern$ents, solongastheyact withinthescopeof their authority.Accordingly, theD#Gcannotsubstitute itsown discretionforthediscretion exercised bythesanggunian of the City of -anila. 9n local affairs, the wisdo$ of local officials $ust prevail aslong as they are acting within the para$eters of the Constitution and the law.>rdinance %o. 002= is not in"alid 7or 7ailure to co#pl1 6it4 $A =/22 and -> =2*he oil co$panies argue that zoning ordinances of ./Bs are reHuired to be sub$itted to the-etropolitan -anila Develop$ent Authority 0--DA! for review and if found to be in co$pliancewith its $etropolitan physical fra$ewor> plan and regulations, it shall endorse the sa$e to the8ousing and .and Bse Regulatory :oard 08.BR:!. *heir basis is %ection ) 0e! of RA 2=, and%ection1ofG.#.2.*hey arguethatbecause#rdinance1o.462did notgothrough thisreview process, it is invalid.*he argu$ent is flawed. RA 2=, does not give --DA the authority to review land use plansand zoning ordinances of cities and $unicipalities. *his was only found in its i$ple$enting ruleswhich $ade a reference to G# 2. G# 2 expressly refers to co$prehensive land use plans0C.BPs! only. #rdinance 1o. 462 is ad$ittedly not a C.BP nor intended to be one. 9nstead, itis a very specific ordinance which reclassified the land use of a defined area in order to preventthe $assive effects of a possible terrorist attac>. 9t is #rdinance 1o. 411= which was explicitlyfor$ulatedastheYZ[-anila;C.BP< andKoning#rdinanceof 667.YZC.BPsaretheordinances which should be sub$itted to the --DA for integration in its $etropolitan physicalfra$ewor> planand approvedby the 8.BR:toensure that they confor$with nationalguidelines and policies. -oreover, even assu$ing that the --DAreview and 8.BR:ratification are necessary, the oil co$panies did not present any evidence to show that thesewere not co$plied with. 9n accordance with the presu$ption of validity in favor of an ordinance,itsconstitutionalityor legalityshouldbeupheldintheabsenceof proof showingthat theprocedure prescribed by law was not observed.ConclusionGssentially, the oil co$panies are fighting for their right to property. *hey allege that they standto lose billions of pesos if forced to relocate. 8owever, based on the hierarchy of constitutionallyprotectedrights,therighttolifeen@oysprecedenceoverthe rightto property.*he reasonisobvious" life is irreplaceable, property is not. Dhen the state or ./BYZ\s exercise of policepower clashes with a few individualsYZ\ right to property, the for$er should prevail.:othlawand@urisprudencesupport theconstitutionalityandvalidityof #rdinance1o. 462.Dithout a doubt, there are no i$pedi$ents to its enforce$ent and i$ple$entation. Any delay isunfair to the inhabitants of the City of -anila and its leaders who have categorically expressedtheir desire for the relocation of the ter$inals. *heir power to chart and control their own destinyand preserve their lives and safety should not be curtailed by the intervenorsYZ\ warnings ofdoo$sday scenarios and threats of econo$ic disorder if the ordinance is enforced.5ust the sa$e, the Court noted that it is not about to provo>e a crisis by ordering the i$$ediate relocation of the Pandacan *er$inals out of its present site. *he enforce$ent of a decision, specially one with far(reaching conseHuences, should always be within the bounds of reason, in accordance with a co$prehensive and well(coordinated plan, and within a ti$e(fra$e that co$plies with the letter and spirit of our resolution. *o this end, the oil co$panies have no choice but to obey the law.%&e 'etitionsG.R. No. 18(8)**osupport their petitionfor prohibitionagainst theenforce$ent of #rdinance1o. 4142, thepetitioner %ocial 5ustice %ociety 0%5%! officers allege that"1. *he enact$ent of the assailed #rdinance is not a valid exercise of police power because the$easures providedtherein donot pro$ote the general welfareof the peoplewithin theconte$plation of the following provisions of law"a! Article 999, %ection 14 0>>!,2 of Republic Act 1o. ,6= otherwise >nown as the IRevised Charter of the City of -anila,J which provides that the -unicipal :oard shall have the legislativepower to enact all ordinances it $ay dee$ necessary and proper+b! %ection 17,4 of Republic Act 1o. 2176 >nown as the .ocal /overn$ent Code, which defines the scope of the general welfare clause+. *he conditions at the ti$e the Court declared #rdinance 1o. 462 constitutional in /.R. 1o.13763 exist to this date+). Despitethefinality of theDecisionin/.R. 1o. 13763, andnotwithstandingthat theconditionsandcircu$stanceswarrantingthevalidityof the#rdinancere$ainthesa$e, the-anilaCity Councilpasseda contrary #rdinance,therebyrefusing torecognize that I@udicialdecisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution for$ part of the legal syste$ ofthe Philippines+J,= and,. #rdinance 1o. 4142 is violative of %ections 13 and 17, Article 99 of the Constitution of thePhilippines on the duty of the %tate Ito protect and pro$ote the right to health of the peopleJ36and Iprotect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthfulecology.J31chanrobleslawPetitioners pray that #rdinance 1o. 4142 of the City of -anila be declared null and void, andthat respondent, and all persons acting under hi$, be prohibited fro$ enforcing the sa$e.G.R. No. 18(+1**hepetitionforProhibition,,andamusandCertiorariwithPrayerfor *e$poraryRestraining#rder andOor 9n@unction against the enforce$ent of #rdinance 1o. 4142 of for$er %ecretary ofDepart$ent of Gnviron$ent and 1atural Resources and then -ayor Atienza, together with otherresidents and taxpayers of the City of -anila, also alleges violation of the right to health of thepeople and the right to a healthful and balanced environ$ent under %ections 13 and 17 of theConstitution.Petitioners li>ewise clai$that the #rdinance is in violation of the following health andenviron$ent(related$unicipal laws, andinternational conventionsandtreatiestowhichthePhilippines is a state party"chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary1. -unicipal .aws M0a! %ections ,,3 1,3) 1=3, and )633 of Republic Act 1o. 42,= otherwise >nown as the PhilippineClean Air Act+0b! Gnviron$ent Code 0Presidential Decree 1o. 113!+0c! *oxic and 8azardous Dastes .aw 0Republic Act 1o. 7=7=!+ and0d! Civil Code provisions on nuisance and hu$an relations+. 9nternational Conventions and *reaties to which the Philippines is a state party Ma. %ection 1 of the Bniversal Declaration of 8u$an Rights, which states that I;es the petitionersQlac> of legal standing to sue. 8e li>ewise points out that the petitioners failed to observe theprinciple of hierarchy of courts.-aintaining that #rdinance 1o. 4142 is valid and constitutional, he expounds on the followingargu$ents"chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary#n the procedural issues, he contends that" 01! it is the function of the .angguniangPanlungsodto enact zoning ordinances, for which reason, it $ay proceed to a$end or repeal#rdinance 1o. 411= without prior referral to the -anila Koning :oard of Ad@ust$ent and Appeals0-K:AA! as prescribed under %ection 46 0Procedure for Re(Koning! and the City Planning andDevelop$ent #ffice 0CPD#! pursuant to %ection 41 0A$end$ents to the Koning #rdinance! of#rdinance1o. 411=, especiallywhentheactionactuallyoriginatedfro$the.angguniangPanlungsoditself+ 0! the.angguniangPanlungsod$ay, inthelater ordinance, expresslyrepeal all or part of the zoning ordinance sought to be $odified+ and 0)! the provision repealing%ection)of #rdinance1o. 411=is not violativeof %ection7, ArticleA9 of the1=42Constitution, which reHuires that every bill $ust e$brace only one sub@ect and that such shallbe expressed in the title.#n the substantive issues, he posits that the petitions are based on unfounded fears+ that theassailedordinanceisavalidexerciseof policepower+ that it isconsistent withthegeneralwelfare clause and public policy, and is not unreasonable+ that it does not run contrary to theConstitution, $unicipal laws, andinternational conventions+ andthat thepetitionersfailedtooverco$e the presu$ption of validity of the assailed ordinance.Respon,ents 0ice1!ayor 2omagosoan, t&e .ity .ouncilors w&o vote,in favor of t&e assaile, or,inance#n 1, %epte$ber 61, after the Court gave the respondents several chances to sub$it their-e$orandu$,7they, through the %ecretary of the .angguniang Panlungsod, prayed that theCourt dispense with the filing thereof.9n their Co$$ent,7)however, respondents offered a position essentially si$ilar to thoseproffered by for$er -ayor .i$.chanrobleslaw%&e 3ntervenors- 'ositionon t&e .onsoli,ate, 'etitions#n the other hand, the oil co$panies sought the outright dis$issalof the petitions based onalleged procedural infir$ities, a$ong others, inco$plete reHuisites of @udicial review, violation ofthe principle of hierarchy of courts, i$proper re$edy, sub$ission of a defective verification andcertification against foru$ shopping, and foru$ shopping.Astothesubstantiveissues, they$aintain, a$ongothers, that theassailedordinanceisconstitutional and valid+ that the .angguniang Panlalawigan is in the best position to deter$inetheneedsof itsconstituents+ that it isavalidexerciseof legislativepower+ that it doesnotviolatehealthandenviron$ent(relatedprovisionsof theConstitution, laws, andinternationalconventions and treaties to which the Philippines is a party+ that the oildepots are not li>elytargets of terrorists+ that the scaling down of the operations in Pandacan pursuant to the -#Bhas been followed+ and that the people are safe in view of the safety $easures installed in thePandacan ter$inals.9ncidentally, in its -anifestation dated )6 1ove$ber 616,7, Petron infor$ed the Court that it willIcease ;the< operation of its petroleu$ product storage facilitiesJ73 in the Pandacan oil ter$inalnot later than 5anuary 617 on account of the following".61 Gnviron$ental issues, $any of which are unfounded, continually crop up and tarnish theCo$panyQs i$age..6. *helocationof itsPandacanter$inal iscontinuallythreatened, and$adeuncertainpreventinglong(ter$planning, bythechanginglocal govern$ent co$position. 9ndeed, therelevant zoning ordinances have been a$ended three 0)! ti$es, and their validity sub@ected tolitigation.773ntervening Events#n4 August 61, whiletheCourt wasawaitingthesub$issionof the-e$orandu$ofrespondentsAice(-ayor Do$agosoandthecouncilorswhovotedinfavor of theassailed#rdinance, the.angguniang Panlungsod, which co$position had already substantiallychanged, enacted #rdinance 1o. 44)72 entitled IA1 #RD91A1CG A-G1D91/ %GC*9#1#RD91A1CG 1#. 4142 :E RGC.A%%9&E91/ *8G ARGA D8GRG PG*R#.GB- RG&91GR9G%A1D #9.DGP#*% ARG .#CA*GD &R#- 8GAAE 91DB%*R9A. 01()! *# 89/891*G1%9*EC#--GRC9A.O-9?GD B%G K#1G 0C)O-?D!.*henewordinanceessentiallya$endedtheassailedordinancetoexcludetheareawherepetroleu$ refineries and oil depots are located fro$ the 9ndustrial Kone.#rdinance 1o. 44) thus per$its the operation of the industries operating within the 9ndustrialKone. 8owever, the oil co$panies, whose oil depots are located in the 8igh 9ntensityCo$$ercialO-ixed Bse Kone 0C)O-?D!, are given until the end of 5anuary 617 within which torelocate their ter$inals.&or$er -ayor .i$, whowasthentheincu$bent $ayor, didnot support thea$end$ent.-aintaining that the re$oval of the oil depots was pre@udicial to public welfare, and, on accountof the pending cases in the %upre$e Court, he vetoed #rdinance 1o. 44) on 11 %epte$ber61.74chanrobleslaw#n41ove$ber 61,for$er-ayor .i$filed a -anifestationinfor$ingthis Court thatthe.angguniang Panlungsod voted to override the veto, and that he, in turn, returned it again withhis veto. 8e li>ewise directed the .angguniang Panlungsodto append his written reasons forhis veto of the #rdinance, sothat the sa$ewill be forwarded to the President for hisconsideration in the event that his veto is overridden again.7=chanrobleslaw#n 11 Dece$ber 61, %hell also filed a si$ilar -anifestation.26chanrobleslaw-eanwhile, three days after for$er -ayor .i$ vetoed the new ordinance, Atty. .uch R. /e$pis,5r. 0Atty. /e$pis!, %ecretary of the .angguniang Panlungsod, writing on behalf of respondentsAice(-ayorDo$agosoandtheCityCouncilorsof-anilawhovotedinfavoroftheassailed#rdinance, finally co$plied with this CourtQs Resolution dated 12 5uly 61 reiterating its earlierdirectives21 to sub$it the said respondentsQ -e$orandu$.9nhisCo$plianceOGxplanationwithBrgent -anifestation2dated1)%epte$ber 61, Atty./e$pis explained that it was not his intention to show disrespect to this Court or to delay orpre@udice the disposition of the cases.According to hi$, he signed the Co$$ent prepared by respondents Aice(-ayor and the CityCouncilorsonlytoattest that thepleadingwaspersonallysignedbytherespondents. 8eclarified that he was not designated as the legal counsel of the respondents as, in fact, he wasof the i$pression that, pursuant to %ection ,410b!0)! of the .ocal /overn$ent Code,2) it is theCity .egal #fficer who is authorized to represent the local govern$ent unit or any official thereofin a litigation. 9t was for the sa$e reason that he thought that the filing of a -e$orandu$ $ayalready be dispensedwith whenthe City.egal #fficer filed its ownon 4&ebruary616.8efurther explained that the #rdinance sub@ect of these cases was passed during the 2thCouncil0662(616!+ that the co$position of the 4th Council 0616(61)! had already changed after the616 elections+ and that steps were already ta>en to a$end the ordinance again. 8ence, hewas in a dile$$a as to the position of the.angguniang Panlungsod at the ti$e he received theCourtQs Resolution of )1 -ay 611.Atty. /e$pis, thus, prayed that the Court dispense with the filing of the reHuired $e$orandu$in view of the passing of #rdinance 1o. 44).chanrobleslaw3ssue*he petitionersQ argu$ents are pri$arily anchored on the ruling of the Court in /. R. 1o. 13