MAYOR MAGTAJAS & CITY OF CAGAYAN DE ORO vs. PRYCE PROPERTIES & PAGCOR GR No.

111097, July 20, 199 F!"#s$ PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City. To this end, it leased a portion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties Corporation, Inc., renovated and e uipped the sa!e, and prepared to inaugurate its casino there during the Christ!as season. Civic organi"ations angrily denounced the pro#ect. The religious ele!ents echoed the ob#ection and so did the $o!en%s groups and the youth. &e!onstrations $ere led by the !ayor and the city legislators. The !edia tru!peted the protest, describing the casino as an affront to the $elfare of the city. The contention of the petitioners is that it is violative of the 'angguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City Ordinance (o. ))*) prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of a casino and Ordinance (o. ))+*,-) prohibiting the operation of casinos. On the other hand, the respondents invo.e P.&. /01- $hich created PAGCOR to help centrali"e and regulate all ga!es of chance, including casinos on land and sea $ithin the territorial #urisdiction of the Philippines. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents. 2ence, the petition for revie$. Issu%$ 3hether or not the Ordinance (o. ))*) and Ordinance (o. ))+*,-) are valid &%l'$ (o. Cagayan de Oro City, li.e other local political subdivisions, is e!po$ered to enact ordinances for the purposes indicated in the 4ocal Govern!ent Code. It is expressly vested $ith the (ol)"% (o*%+ under $hat is .no$n as the General 3elfare Clause no$ e!bodied in 'ection /1 as follo$s5 666'ec. /1. 7 General 3elfare. 7 8very local govern!ent unit shall exercise the po$ers expressly granted, those necessarily i!plied therefro!, as $ell as po$ers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those $hich are essential to the pro!otion of the general $elfare. 3ithin their respective territorial #urisdictions, local govern!ent units shall ensure and support, a!ong other things, the preservation and enrich!ent of

culture, pro!ote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the develop!ent of appropriate and self,reliant scientific and technological capabilities, i!prove public !orals, enhance econo!ic prosperity and social #ustice, pro!ote full e!ploy!ent a!ong their residents, !aintain peace and order, and preserve the co!fort and convenience of their inhabitants. The tests of a valid ordinance are $ell established. A long line of decisions has held that to be valid, an ordinance !ust confor! to the follo$ing substantive re uire!ents5 /9 I# ,us# -o# "o-#+!v%-% #.% "o-s#)#u#)o- o+ !-y s#!#u#%. :9 It !ust not be unfair or oppressive. )9 It !ust not be partial or discri!inatory. ;9 It !ust not prohibit but !ay regulate trade. *9 It !ust be general and consistent $ith public policy. 19 It !ust not be unreasonable. There is a re uire!ent that the ordinances should not contravene a statute. <unicipal govern!ents are only agents of the national govern!ent. 4ocal councils exercise only delegated legislative po$ers conferred on the! by Congress as the national la$!a.ing body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise po$ers higher than those of the latter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local govern!ent units can undo the acts of Congress, fro! $hich they have derived their po$er in the first place, and negate by !ere ordinance the !andate of the statute. Casino ga!bling is authori"ed by P.&. /01-. This decree has the status of a statute that cannot be a!ended or nullified by a !ere ordinance. Therefore, the petition is &8(I8& and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is A==IR<8&.