Police Power

Tano v. Socrates, G.R. 110249, 27 August 1997, Davide Jr. [J].

Facts: Sometime in 1991, the respondents, Sanguniang Panglungsod of Puerto Princesa City, Acting
Mayor Lucero of PP, and Sanguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan issued different Ordinances banning the
catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling and shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic
organism (a family of) for 5 years. The respondents implemented the said ordinances thereby allegedly
depriving all the fishermen of the whole province of Palawan and the City of Puerto Princesa of their
only means of livelihood and the petitioners Airline Shippers Association of Palawan and other marine
merchants from performing their lawful occupation and trade. Hence, this petition for certiorari…
praying to declare unconstitutional the 3 Ordinances directly to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the three (3) Ordinances assailed are constitutional

Held: Yes, the Ordinances are constitutional.

The ordinances in question are police power measures, enacted by the Province of Palawan and
the City of Puerto Princesa, pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991 which makes it in fact their
duty to enact measures to “protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which
endanger the environment, such as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing. . . .” The
presumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of record for
over-throwing the statute. No evidence has been presented by petitioners to overthrow the factual
basis of the ordinances.
Moreover, the LGC imposes upon the sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang panlungsod, and the
sangguniang panlalawigan the duty to enact ordinances to “[p]rotect the environment and impose
appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing and other
forms of destructive fishing. . . and such other activities which result in pollution, acceleration of
eutrophication of rivers and lakes or of ecological imbalance.”
Furthermore, this petition is filed directly to the Supreme Court disregarding completely the
hierarchy of courts.
Hence, the Court finds petitioners’ contentions baseless and holds that the Ordinances do not
suffer from any infirmity both under the Constitution and applicable laws.

Fallo: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the temporary restraining
order issued on 11 November 1993 is LIFTED.