Case title: Gregorio Pedro v. The Provincial Board Of Rizal, et al.

Citation:

Date: September 18, 1931

Ponente: J. Villa – real

Subject matter: Police Power | A license given for the operation of cockpit is a mere privilege which may
be revoked when public interest so requires.

Keywords: A license given for the operation of cockpit is not a property rights, but a mere privilege
which may be revoked when public interest so requires.

Facts: Pedro, owner of “Sociedad Bighani” a duly licensed cockpit under Ordinance 35 which reduces the
distance between a cockpit and hospital resulting noise that would retard the recovery of the patients of
Santol Tuberculosis Sanatorium. Pedro challenges the validity of Ordinance 36 which corrected irregularity
and suspended the effects of Ord. 35 as a result, prohibiting the operation of the cockpit. He contends
that Ord. 36 impairs his rights.

Issues: WON the Ordinance 36 is valid.

Resolution: Yes it is valid. The court held that an ordinance regulating the functioning of cockpits does not
create irrevocable rights and may be abrogated by another ordinance. A license authorizing the operation
and exploitation of a cockpit is not property of which the holder may not be deprived without due process
of law, but a mere privilege which may be revoked when the public interests so require.

Comments:

Case title: US v. TEN YU, et al

Citation: G.R. NO. 7482

Date: December 28, 1912

Ponente: J. Johnson

Subject matter: Police Power

Keywords: Municipal Ordinances. Generally, municipal corporations have only such powers as are
expressly delegated to them and such other powers as are necessarily implied from such express
powers.

Facts: Ten Yu et al., were found guilty by municipal court of city of Manila for violating sec. 3 of
Ordinance 152. The defendants appealed that the ordinance should be declared null and void for the
reason that the Municipal Board of the City of Manila does not have the authority to enact it.

Issues: WON the enactment of the ordinance is valid.

Resolution: Yes. The city of Manila is expressly authorized (section 16 of charter) to make such
ordinances or regulations as may be necessary to discharge the powers and duties conferred by its
charter and to provide for the peace, order, safety, and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants
and to fix penalties for the violation of such ordinances. Section 17 provides that the city of Manila may
adopt ordinances providing for the closing of opium joints is smoked or sold the keeping or visiting of
any place where opium is smoked or sold for the purpose of smoking. In pursuance of this express
authority ordinance No. 152 was adopted.

Comments: Section 3 of ordinance No. 152 - no person shall visit or be present at or in any place where
opium or any of its derivatives at or compounds are smoked or otherwise used in or on the human body,
or unlawfully sold, given away, or otherwise disposed of.

Case title: Uy Ha v. City Mayor of Manila

Citation: G.R. Nos. L-14069 and L-14149

Date: May 30, 1960

Ponente: J. Bautista Angelo

Subject matter: Police power

Keywords: Suppression of Pinball Machines proper under the General Welfare Clause

Facts: Ciy of Manila enacted Ordinance 3941 providing no license for the installation and/or operation of
‘Pinball’ machines shall be granted under any circumstances. Petitioner engaged in business, applied for
new permit – denied. Challenging the validity of the ord. contending pinball machines are devised for
amusement and not for gambling and so said ordinance is invalid and unconstitutional.

Issues: WON ord. 3941 is valid

Resolution: Yes it is valid. Pinball machines, being especially designed for gambling and as such prohibited
by law, had been properly suppressed when the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance
No. 3941 providing therein that no license for their installation or operation shall be granted under any
circumstances. In this sense said ordinance cannot be held to be invalid or unconstitutional; on the
contrary, it properly comes under the general welfare clause of the Charter of the City of Manila.

Comments: Pinball machines, in the different forms in which they are operated, are gambling devices in
that the winning therein depends wholly upon chance or hazard. They are inimical to the general welfare
because they tend to corrupt the people, especially youngsters and schoolchildren, robbing them of their
money and of their savings earned by the sweat of their brow.

Case title: Velasco v. Villegas

Citation: G.R. No. 24153

Date: Feb. 14, 1983

Ponente: Fernando, C.J

Subject matter: Police power

Keywords: Protection of public morals

Facts: Villegas, city mayor of manila promulgated ordinance 4964 prohibiting for any operator of any
barber shop to conduct the business of massaging customers. Velasco et al, challenges the
constitutionality of the ordinance contending deprivation of property and means of livelihood without
due process.

Issues: WON the ordinance is unconstitutional.

Resolution: No. The ordinance falls within the general welfare clause (power granted under LGC) in
order to forestall possible immorality which might grow out of the construction of separate rooms for
massage of customers.

Comments:

Case title: Dela Cruz v. Judge Paras

Citation: G.R. Nos. L-42571-72

Date: July 25, 1983

Ponente: J. Fernando

Subject matter: Police Power

Keywords: Municipal Corporation is to regulate not prohibit.

Facts: Municipality of Bocaue enacted Ord. 84 a prohition and closure of night clubs. It is contended that
the ordinance assailed as invalid, the municipality being devoid of power to prohibit a lawful business,
occupation or calling, petitioners at the same time alleging that their rights to due process and equal
protection of the laws were violated as the licenses previously given to them was in effect withdrawn
without judicial hearing.

Issues: WON municipality of Bocaue, Bulacan can prohibit the exercise of lawful trade, the operation of
night clubs and pursuit of lawful occupation, such as employing hostesses.

Resolution: No. Power granted to municipal corporations is that of regulation, not prohibition.
Furthermore, the ordinance is unreasonable, the objective of fostering public morals, a worthy and
desirable end can be attained by a measure that does not encompass too wide a field. Certainly the
ordinance on its face is characterized by overbreadth. The purpose sought to be achieved could have been
attained by reasonable restriction rather than by an absolute prohibition.

Comments: To compel petitioners so close their establishments would amount to no more than a
temporary termination of their business. During such time, their employees would undergo a period of
deprivation, if such an undesirable outcome can be avoided, it should be – J. Fernando.

Case title: Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corporation

Citation: G. .R. No. 111097

Date: July 20, 1994

Ponente: J. CRUZ
Subject matter: Police Power

Keywords: Ordinances should not contravene a statute

Facts: PAGCOR leased a portion of building to Pryce Properties Corp in order to open a casino.
Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) of Cagayan De Oro immediately enacted Ordinance No. 3353, prohibiting
the issuance of business permit and canceling existing business permit to the establishment for the
operation of the casino, and Ordinance No. 3375-93, prohibiting the operation of the casino and providing
a penalty for its violation.

Issues: WON the enacted Ordinance Nos. 3355 and 3375-93 by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan
de Oro City is valid

Resolution: No. The ordinances in question contravene P.D. 1869 and the public policy embodied
therein insofar as they prevent PAGCOR from exercising the power conferred on it to operate a casino in
Cagayan de Oro City. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than
those of the latter.

Comments:

Case title: MMDA v. Viron

Citation: 530 SCRA 341

Date: August 15, 2007

Ponente: J, Carpio

Subject matter: Police Power

Keywords: President cannot overstepped the limits of the authority conferred by law.

Facts: President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued E.O 179 in order to solve the traffic congestion problem
in Metro Manila by eliminating bus terminals along the thoroughfares of Metro Manila, MMDA as the
implementing agency. Viron Transportation Co. challenges the validity of the E.O. 179 and questions the
authority of MMDA.

Issues: WON E.O. 179 is unconstitutional.

Resolution: Yes it is unconstitutional. Undoubted is the authority of President to provide a solution in

order to solve decongested traffic by eliminating bus terminals, but designating MMDA as implementing
agency is ultra vires. It is the DOTC, not the MMDA, which is authorized to establish and implement such
a project. The President must exercise the authority through the instrumentality of the DOTC which, by
law is the primary implementing and administrative entity in the promotion, development and regulation
of networks of transportation.

Comments:
Case title: Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila, Inc. vs. Board of Transportation

Citation: No. L-59234.

Date: September 30, 1982.

Ponente: MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.

Subject matter: Police Power

Keywords: Police Power can prohibit all things hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare of society. It may
also regulate property rights.

Facts: Board of Transportation (BOT) issued Memorandum Circular No. 77-42 phasing out old taxis,
Bureau of Transportation in pursuance to memorandum implemented Circular No. 52 taxis over 6 years
old be banned from operating. Petitioners assailed the validity of the lifetime ceiling six years.

Issues: WON regulation phasing out taxicabs more than six years old is a valid exercise of police power

Resolution: Yes. The span of six years supplies that reasonable standard. The overriding consideration is
the safety and comfort of the riding public from the dangers possessed by old and dilapidated taxis. The
State, in the exercise of its police power, can prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals,
peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people. It can prohibit all things hurtful to comfort,
safety and welfare of society. It may also regulate property rights.

Comments:

Case title: Bautista v. Juinio

Citation: G.R. No. L-50908

Date: January 31, 1984

Ponente: Fernando, C.J.

Subject matter: Police Power

Keywords: The interests of the public in general, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require
the exercise of the power.

Facts: An energy conservation measure, Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 869, response to protracted oil
crisis, banning the use of private motor vehicles with H (heavy) and EH (extra heavy) plates on weekends
and holidays. Pursuant thereto, Mem. Cir. No. 39 was issued penalizing fine and confiscation of vehicle
violatinh LOI. Sps. Bautista assailed as violative of due process and in contravention of equal protection
clause.

Issues: WON LOI is unconstitutional

Resolution: No. the uncertainty of fuel supply availability underscores a compelling need for the
adoption of positive measures designed to insure the viability of the country’s economy and sustain its
developmental growth. Between fundamental right and police power, the latter is accorded much
leeway, due process cannot be validly invoked. It would destroy the very purpose of the state if it could
be deprived or allowed itself to be deprived of its competence to promote public health, public morals,
public safety and the general welfare.

Comments:

Case title: Sangalang vs Intermediate Appellate Court

Citation: G.R. No. 71169

Date: December 22, 1988

Ponente: Sarmiento, J

Subject matter: Police Power

Keywords: Non-impairment guaranty of the Constitution is secondary to the more compelling interests
of general welfare

Facts: Office of the Mayor of Makati wrote Bel-Air Village Association directing that, in the interest of
public welfare and for the purpose of easing traffic congestion, the following streets in BelAir Village
should be opened for public use, after zoning regulations. The residents opposed then municipal officials
force-opened the gates of said street for public use. Residents alleged that the ordinance impairs their
rights as homeowners in a private village.

Issues: W/N the passage of the zoning ordinance is a valid exercise of police power?

Resolution: Yes. The right against impairment of contracts cannot be raised as a deterrent to police
power in view of the zoning ordinance. Bel-Air, like all contracts, subject to the overriding demands,
needs, and interests of the greater number as the State may determine in the legitimate exercise of
police power.

Comments: Our jurisdiction guarantees sanctity of contract and is said to be the “law between the
contracting parties,” but while it is so, it cannot contravene “law, morals, good customs, public order, or
public policy.” Above all, it cannot be raised as a deterrent to police power, designed precisely to promote
health, safety, peace, and enhance the common good, at the expense of contractual rights, whenever
necessary

Case title:

Citation:

Date:

Ponente:

Subject matter:

Keywords:

Facts:

Issues:
Resolution:

Comments:

Case title:

Citation:

Date:

Ponente:

Subject matter:

Keywords:

Facts:

Issues:

Resolution:

Comments:

Case title:

Citation:

Date:

Ponente:

Subject matter:

Keywords:

Facts:

Issues:

Resolution:

Comments:

Case title:

Citation:

Date:

Ponente:
Subject matter:

Keywords:

Facts:

Issues:

Resolution:

Comments:

Case title:

Citation:

Date:

Ponente:

Subject matter:

Keywords:

Facts:

Issues:

Resolution:

Comments:

Case title:

Citation:

Date:

Ponente:

Subject matter:

Keywords:

Facts:

Issues:

Resolution:

Comments:
Case title:

Citation:

Date:

Ponente:

Subject matter:

Keywords:

Facts:

Issues:

Resolution:

Comments:

Case title:

Citation:

Date:

Ponente:

Subject matter:

Keywords:

Facts:

Issues:

Resolution:

Comments: