Skip to main content

Abdula vs. Guiani

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 foun...
Post a Comment

Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila

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:
  • 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
ISSUE:

 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 x 
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.
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manil
READ FULL TEXT 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO G.R. NO. 73748, May 22, 1986 FACTS: President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 on February 25, 1986 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines." Petitioners alleged that the Aquino government is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate. HELD: Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics  where only the people are the judge. The Supreme Court further held that: The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in eff...
Read more

TECSON VS. COMELEC

GR No. 161434, March 3 2004 FACTS: Respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) filed his certificate of candidacy on 31 December 2003 for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines in the forthcoming national elections.  In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. Petitioner Fornier filed before the COMELEC a petition to disqualify FPJ and cancel his certificate of candidacy by claiming that FPJ is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, his parents were foreigners: his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.  The COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. ISSUE: Whether or not FPJ is a natural-born ...
Read more

DRILON VS. LIM

GR No. 112497, August 4 1994 FACTS: Pursuant to Section 187 of the Local Government Code or the Procedure For Approval And Effectivity Of Tax Ordinances And Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings, Secretary of Justice had, on appeal to him of four oil companies and a taxpayer, declared Ordinance No. 7794, otherwise known as the Manila Revenue Code, null and void for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and for containing certain provisions contrary to law and public policy. In a petition, the Regional Trial Court of Manila revoked the Secretary's resolution and sustained the ordinance, holding inter alia that the procedural requirements had been observed. Instead, it declared Section 187 of the Local Government Code as unconstitutional because of its vesture in the Secretary of Justice of the power of control over local governments in violation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution and of the specific...
Read more