Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
FACTS:
PAGCOR is a corporation created directly by P.D. 1869 to help centralize and regulate all games of chance,
including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines.
PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City. It leased a portion of a building belonging
to Pryce Properties Corporations, Inc., renovated & equipped the same, and prepared to inaugurate its casino
during the Christmas season.
Then Mayor Magtajas together with the city legislators and civil organizations of the City of Cagayan de Oro
denounced such project.
In reaction to this project, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City enacted two (2) ordinances
prohibiting the issuance of a business permit and canceling existing business permit to establishment for the
operation of casino (ORDINANCE NO. 3353) and an ordinance prohibiting the operation of casino and
providing penalty for its violation. (ORDINANCE NO. 3375-93).
Pryce assailed the ordinances before the Court of Appeals, where it was joined by PAGCOR as intervenor and
supplemental petitioner.
Court of Appeals declared the ordinances invalid and issued the writ prayed for to prohibit their enforcement. 1
Reconsideration of this decision was denied against petitioners.
ISSUE:
WON Ordinance No. 3353 and Ordinance No. 3375-93 are a valid exercise of police power.
HELD:
NO. The ordinances enacted are invalid. Ordinances should not contravene a statute. Municipal governments are
merely agents of the National Government. Local Councils exercise only delegated powers conferred by
Congress. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal powers higher than those of the latter. PD 1869
authorized casino gambling. As a statute, it cannot be amended/nullified by a mere ordinance. Blog Archive
▼ 2018 (96)
As to petitioners attack on gambling as harmful and immoral, the Court stressed that the morality of gambling is
not a justiciable issue. Gambling is not illegal per se. While it is generally considered inimical to the interests of ► June (1)
the people, there is nothing in the Constitution categorically proscribing or penalizing gambling or, for that ► March (9)
matter, even mentioning it at all. It is left to Congress to deal with the activity as it sees fit. In the exercise of its
own discretion, the legislature may prohibit gambling altogether or allow it without limitation or it may prohibit ▼ February (75)
some forms of gambling and allow others for whatever reasons it may consider sufficient. Thus, it has PEOPLE V. AMINUDDIN -
prohibited jueteng and monte but permits lotteries, cockfighting, and horse-racing. In making such choices, CASE DIGEST -
Congress has consulted its own wisdom, which this Court has no authority to review, much less reverse. Well CONSTITUTIONAL...
has it been said that courts do not sit to resolve the merits of conflicting theories. That is the prerogative of the PEOPLE V. MENGOTE -
political departments. It is settled that questions regarding the wisdom, morality, or practicability of statutes are CASE DIGEST -
not addressed to the judiciary but may be resolved only by the legislative and executive departments, to which CONSTITUTIONAL L...
the function belongs in our scheme of government. That function is exclusive. Whichever way these branches
thebattybarrister.blogspot.com/2018/02/magtajas-v-pryce-properties-case-digest.html 1/11
10/16/2019 The Batty Barrister: MAGTAJAS V. PRYCE PROPERTIES - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
decide, they are answerable only to their own conscience and the constituents who will ultimately judge their POSADAS V. CA - CASE
acts, and not to the courts of justice. DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL
at 9:34:00 AM LAW
thebattybarrister.blogspot.com/2018/02/magtajas-v-pryce-properties-case-digest.html 3/11
10/16/2019 The Batty Barrister: MAGTAJAS V. PRYCE PROPERTIES - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
AGUSTIN V. EDU - CASE
DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW
NDC AGRIX V.
PHILIPPINE
VETERANS BANK
(PVB) - CASE...
CARLOS SUPERDRUG
ET. AL V. DSWD -
CASE DIGEST - CO...
CARLOS BALACUIT
ET.AL V. CFI OF
AGUSAN DEL NORTE
-...
WHITE LIGHT
CORPORATION V.
CITY OF MANILA -
CASE ...
ERMITA-MANILA HOTEL
V. CITY OF MANILA -
CASE DIGES...
PEOPLE V. FAJARDO -
CASE DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL ...
CHURCHILL & TAIT v.
RAFFERTY - CASE
DIGEST - CONS...
YNOT V. IAC - CASE
DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW
UNITED STATES V. LUIS
TORIBIO - CASE
DIGEST - CONS...
AMERICAN INTER-
FASHION CORP. V.
OFFICE OF THE
PRES...
CASTILLO-CO V.
BARBERS - CASE
DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIO...
SALAW V. NLRC - CASE
DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW
NPC V. ZOZOBRADO -
CASE DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL
LA...
GLOBE V. NTC - CASE
DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW
RCPI V. NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIO
NS COMMISSION - C...
PHICOMSAT V. ALCUAZ -
CASE DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL...
COMMISSIONER
DOMINGO VS.
SCHEER - CASE
DIGEST - C...
LAO GI V. CA - CASE
DIGEST -
thebattybarrister.blogspot.com/2018/02/magtajas-v-pryce-properties-case-digest.html 4/11
10/16/2019 The Batty Barrister: MAGTAJAS V. PRYCE PROPERTIES - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW
UP V. LIGOT-TAN - CASE
DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW...
ADU V. CAPULONG -
CASE DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW...
NON V. JUDGE DAMES -
CASE DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL ...
GUZMAN ET. AL V.
NATIONAL
UNIVERSITY - CASE
DIGEST...
JINGGOY ESTRADA v.
OMBUDSMAN - CASE
DIGEST - CONST...
OCAMPO V. ABANDO -
CASE DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL
LA...
GOV’T OF HONGKONG
V. JUDGE OLALIA -
CASE DIGEST - ...
GOVERNMENT OF USA
V. PURGANAN - CASE
DIGEST - CON...
SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE V. LANTION -
CASE DIGEST - C...
OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN V.
CORONEL - CASE
DIGEST ...
THE SUMMARY
DISMISSAL BOARD V.
TORCITA - CASE
DIGE...
ABELLA V. COURT OF
APPEALS - CASE
DIGEST - CONSTIT...
LUMIQUED V. EXEVEA -
CASE DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL ...
OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR V.
JUDGE PASCUAL...
ANG TIBAY V. CHR -
CASE DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW...
PEREZ V. ESTRADA -
CASE DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL
LA...
CARVAJAL V. CA CASE
DIGEST-
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW
► January (11)
► 2017 (13)
► 2016 (6)
thebattybarrister.blogspot.com/2018/02/magtajas-v-pryce-properties-case-digest.html 5/11
10/16/2019 The Batty Barrister: MAGTAJAS V. PRYCE PROPERTIES - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Labels
thebattybarrister.blogspot.com/2018/02/magtajas-v-pryce-properties-case-digest.html 6/11
10/16/2019 The Batty Barrister: MAGTAJAS V. PRYCE PROPERTIES - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CASE BRIEFS
Case Digest
DIGEST CASE
EMINENT DOMAIN
ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN -
CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW
Fulltext
thebattybarrister.blogspot.com/2018/02/magtajas-v-pryce-properties-case-digest.html 7/11
10/16/2019 The Batty Barrister: MAGTAJAS V. PRYCE PROPERTIES - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
LAW
GOVERNMENT OF USA V.
PURGANAN - CASE DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Labor Relations
POLICE POWER
RCPI V. NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION - CASE DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE V.
LANTION - CASE DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
thebattybarrister.blogspot.com/2018/02/magtajas-v-pryce-properties-case-digest.html 10/11
10/16/2019 The Batty Barrister: MAGTAJAS V. PRYCE PROPERTIES - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Awesome Inc. theme. Powered by Blogger.
thebattybarrister.blogspot.com/2018/02/magtajas-v-pryce-properties-case-digest.html 11/11