G.R. No. 111097
July 20, 1994
Facts
Cagayan De Oro City enacted an ordinance to prohibit the establishment of casino and to provide penalties for violation thereof. Such ordinance was because petitioners opposed the establishment in the city of a casino run by PAGCOR. They contend that by virtue general welfare clause ,the Local Government Unit (LGU) has the power to enact ordinance preventing gambling.
Issue
Whether or not the ordinance is valid?
Held
No. The test of a valid ordinance provides that an ordinance must conform to the following substantive requirements:- It must not contravene the constitution or any statute.
- It must not be unfair or oppressive.
- It must not be partial or discriminatory.
- It must not prohibit but may regulate trade.
- It must be general and consistent with public policy.
- It must not be unreasonable.
Under Sec. 458 of the Local Government Code, local government units are authorized to prevent or suppress, among others, “gambling and other prohibited games of chance.” We conclude that since the word “gambling” is associated with “and other prohibited games of chance,” the word should be read as referring to only illegal gambling which, like the other prohibited games of chance, must be prevented or suppressed.
However, the ordinance contravene P.D. 1869 and the public policy embodied therein insofar as they prevent PAGCOR from exercising the power conferred on it to the operate a casino in Cagayan de Oro City.
The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is because municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local government units can undo the acts of Congress, from which they have derived their power in the first place, and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the statute.
Since the ordinance in question violated a stature (i.e. PD 1869), the ordinance is not valid.