Manila Metropolitan Authority G.R. No. 102782 December 11, 1991
c.) Balacuit vs cfi GR. No. L38429 June 30, 1988
Law X Previous Law
Chronological
a.) Primicias v. Municipality
of Urdaneta G.R. No. L26702 (October 18, 1979) b.) China Bankl Corp. V. CA G.R. No. 121158, Dec. 5,1996
Principles
the enactment of the Ordinance
was an invalid exercise of delegated power as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws.
For a municipal ordinance to be
valid, it must not contravene the constitution or any statute.
The exercise of police power by
the local government is valid unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the land, or an act of the legislature, or unless it is against public policy or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating or in derogation of a common right therefore, Ordinance No. 640 which clearly invades the personal and property rights of petitioners is unconstitutional. Act No. 3992 has been explicitly repealed by RA No. 4136 (The Land and Transportation Code) and this express repeal, the general rule is that a later law prevails over an earlier law.
It is an elementary principle that
a stature is superior to an administrative directive and thus, the statute cannot be