Lina v. Pano

ADMIN LAW
Title: Lina v. Pano G.R. No. 129093

Date: August 30, 2001
Ponente: Quisumbing, J.
HON. JOSE D. LINA, JR., SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN
HON. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO and TONY CALVENTO,
OF LAGUNA, and HON. CALIXTO CATAQUIZ,
respondents
petitioners
FACTS
 On December 29, 1995, respondent Tony Calvento was appointed agent by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office
(PCSO) to install Terminal OM 20 for the operation of lotto. He asked Mayor Calixto Cataquiz, Mayor of San Pedro,
Laguna, for a mayor’s permit to open lotto outlet. This was denied by Mayor Cataquiz on the ground that an ordinance
was passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna entitled Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T.1995 which reads: “ISANG
KAPASIYAHAN TINUTUTULAN ANG MGA ILLEGAL GAMBLING LALO NA ANG LOTTO SA LALAWIGAN NG LAGUNA”
 As A Result of denial, respondent Calvento filed a complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for preliminary injunction
and temporary restraining order. Petitioners contend that : (1)the assailed resolution is a valid policy declaration of
the Provincial Government of Laguna of its vehement objection to the operation of lotto and all forms of gambling;(2)
It is likewise a valid exercise of the provincial government’s police power under the General Welfare Clause of R.A.
7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991;(3) they also maintain that respondent’s lotto operation
is illegal because no prior consultations and approval by the local government were sought before it was implemented
contrary to the express provisions of Sections 2 (c) and 27 of R.A. 7160. For his part, respondent Calvento argues that
the resolution is, in effect, a curtailment of the power of the state since in this case the national legislature itself had
already declared lotto as legal. As for the allegation that no prior consultations and approval were sought from the
sangguninang panlalawigan of Laguna, respondent stated as a declaration of policy and not a self-executing provision
of LGC of 1991.The respondent judge, Francisco Pano promulgated his decision enjoining the petitioners from
implementing or enforcing resolution of Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995. Motion for reconsideration was denied. Thus,
petitioners filed petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE/S
1. Whether or not the Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T.1995 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna and the denial of a mayor’s
permit based thereon are valid. NO
2. Whether or not the prior consultations and approval by the concerned Sanggunian are needed before a lotto system
can be operated in a given local government unit. NO
RATIO
 The Court ruled that the ordinance merely states the “objection” of the council to said game. It is but a mere policy
statement on the part of the local council, which is not self-executing. Nor could it serve as a valid ground to prohibit
the operation of the lotto system in the province of Laguna. As a policy statement expressing the local government’s
objection to the lotto, such resolution is valid. This is part of the local government’s autonomy to air its views which
maybe contrary to that of the national government’s. However, this freedom to exercise contrary views does not
mean that local governments may actually enact ordinances that go against laws duly enacted by Congress. Given this
premise, the assailed resolution in this case could not and should not be interpreted as a measure or ordinance
prohibiting the operation of lotto.
 Moreover, ordinances should not contravene statutes as municipal governments are merely agents of the national
government. The local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers which have been conferred on them by
Congress. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. This
being the case, these councils, as delegates, cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those
of the latter. The question of whether gambling should be permitted is for Congress to determine, taking into account
national and local interests. Since Congress has allowed the PCSO to operate lotteries which PCSO seeks to conduct in
Laguna, pursuant to its legislative grant of authority, the province's Sangguniang Panlalawigan cannot nullify the
exercise of said authority by preventing something already allowed by Congress.
 As held in Tatel vs. Virac, ordinances should not contravene an existing statute enacted by Congress.
 Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp: Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights
wholly from the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so
it may destroy. As it may destroy, it may abridge and control. 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. We know
of no limitation on the right so far as the corporation themselves are concerned. They are, so to phrase it, the mere
tenants at will of the legislature.
 As for the second issue, Court ruled that petitioners erred in declaring that Sections 2 (C) and 27 of RA 7160 apply
mandatorily in the setting up of lotto outlets around the country. From careful reading of said provisions, the Court
find that these apply only to national programs and/or projects which are to be implemented in a particular local
community. Lotto is neither a program nor a project of the national government, but of a charitable institution, the
PCSO. Though sanctioned by the national government, it is far-fetched to say that lotto falls within the contemplation
of Section 2 (c) and 27 of the Local Government Code.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Order of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna enjoining
the petitioners from implementing or enforcing Resolution or Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995, of the Provincial Board of
Laguna is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
NOTES
 Section 2. Declaration of Policy. -
xxx
(c) It is likewise the policy of the State to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic consultations
with appropriate local government units, nongovernmental and people's organizations, and other concerned
sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions.
 Section 27. Prior Consultations Required. - No project or program shall be implemented by government authorities
unless the consultations mentioned in Sections 2 (c) and 26 hereof are complied with, and prior approval of the
sanggunian concerned is obtained: Provided, That occupants in areas where such projects are to be implemented
shall not be evicted unless appropriate relocation sites have been provided, in accordance with the provisions of
the Constitution.
(SANTOS, 2B 2017-2018)

Lina v. Pano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lina v. Pano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lina v. Pano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADMIN LAW

Title: Lina v. Pano G.R. No. 129093

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.