Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila
GR No. L-24693 July 31, 1967
FACTS:
The petition for prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760 was filed on July 5, 1963 by the petitioners, against the respondent Mayor of the City of Manila who was sued in his capacity as such "charged with the general power and duty to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila and to give the necessary orders for the faithful execution and enforcement of such ordinances."
Read: Lim v. Pacquing
It was alleged that the petitioner non-stock corporation is dedicated to the promotion and protection of the interest of its eighteen (18) members "operating hotels and motels, characterized as legitimate businesses, duly licensed by both national and city authorities, regularly paying taxes, employing and giving livelihood to not less than 2,500 person and representing an investment of more than P3 million." Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila
It was then alleged that on June 13, 1963, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 4760, approved on June 14, 1963 by the then Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga, who was at the time acting as Mayor of the City of Manila.
Alleged grievance against the ordinance:
Whether or not the challenged ordinance is unconstitutional and void.
Read: Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) vs. Bel-Air
HELD:
No. The judgment is reversed. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila
The reversal of the decision is due to the absence of any evidence to offset the presumption of validity that attaches to a challenged statute or ordinance.
Justice Malcolm:
READ FULL TEXT
GR No. L-24693 July 31, 1967
FACTS:
The petition for prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760 was filed on July 5, 1963 by the petitioners, against the respondent Mayor of the City of Manila who was sued in his capacity as such "charged with the general power and duty to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila and to give the necessary orders for the faithful execution and enforcement of such ordinances."
Read: Lim v. Pacquing
It was alleged that the petitioner non-stock corporation is dedicated to the promotion and protection of the interest of its eighteen (18) members "operating hotels and motels, characterized as legitimate businesses, duly licensed by both national and city authorities, regularly paying taxes, employing and giving livelihood to not less than 2,500 person and representing an investment of more than P3 million." Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila
It was then alleged that on June 13, 1963, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 4760, approved on June 14, 1963 by the then Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga, who was at the time acting as Mayor of the City of Manila.
Alleged grievance against the ordinance:
- Section 1 of the challenged ordinance is unconstitutional and void for being unreasonable and violative of due process insofar as it would impose P6,000.00 fee per annum for first class motels and P4,500.00 for second class motels. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila
Whether or not the challenged ordinance is unconstitutional and void.
Read: Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) vs. Bel-Air
HELD:
No. The judgment is reversed. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila
The reversal of the decision is due to the absence of any evidence to offset the presumption of validity that attaches to a challenged statute or ordinance.
Justice Malcolm:
The presumption is all in favor of validity. x x xErmita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manil
The action of the elected representatives of the people cannot be lightly set aside.
The councilors must, in the very nature of things, be familiar with the necessities of their particular municipality and with all the facts and circumstances which surround the subject and necessitate action.
The local legislative body, by enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the well being of the people x x x
The Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation.
READ FULL TEXT
Comments
Post a Comment