#5 G.R. No. 111097 July 20, 1994 MAYOR PABLO P. MAGTAJAS & THE !

TY O" AGAYAN #E ORO, petitioners, vs. PRY E PROPERT!ES ORPORAT!ON, !N . & PH!L!PP!NE AM$SEMENT AN# GAM!NG ORPORAT!ON,respondents. R$%, J.: There was instant opposition when PAGCOR announced the opening of a casino in Cagayan de Oro City. Civic organizations angrily denounced the project. The religious ele ents echoed the o!jection and so did the wo en"s groups and the youth. #e onstrations were led !y the ayor and the city legislators. The edia tru peted the protest, descri!ing the casino as an affront to the welfare of the city.

*ec. -. 9 P/,A5T(/*. *ec. :. 9 /33/CT(;(T7. ,or was this all. On <anuary :, $%%-, it adopted a sterner Ordinance ,o. --+.=%- reading as follows> OR#(,A,C/ ,O. --+.=%A, OR#(,A,C/ PRO0(1(T(,G T0/ OP/RAT(O, O3 CA*(,O A,# PRO;(#(,G P/,A5T7 3OR ;(O5AT(O, T0/R/3OR. ?5C4> 8hereas clauses deleted@. *ec. $. 9 The operation of ga !ling CA*(,O in the City of Cagayan de Oro is here!y prohi!ited. *ec. &. 9 P/,A5T(/*. Pryce assailed the ordinances !efore the Court of Appeals, where it was joined !y PAGCOR as intervenor and supple ental petitioner. Their challenge succeeded. On 4arch -$, $%%-, the Court of Appeals declared the ordinances invalid and issued the writ prayed for to prohi!it their enforce ent. 1 Reconsideration of this decision was denied on <uly $-, $%%-. 2 Assailed CA decisions> $. 2nder e'isting laws, the *angguniang Panlungsod of the City of Cagayan de Oro does not have the power and authority to prohi!it the esta!lish ent and operation of a PAGCOR ga !ling casino within the City"s territorial li its. &. The phrase Aga !ling and other prohi!ited ga es of chanceA found in *ec. :.B, par. ?a@, su!=par. ?$@ 9 ?v@ of R.A. +$CD could only ean Aillegal ga !ling.A -. The )uestioned Ordinances in effect annul P.#. $BC% and are therefore invalid on that point. :. The )uestioned Ordinances are discri inatory to casino and partial to cocEfighting and are therefore invalid on that point. .. The )uestioned Ordinances are not reasona!le, not consonant with the general powers and purposes of the instru entality concerned and inconsistent with the laws or policy of the *tate. C. (t had no option !ut to follow the ruling in the case of Basco, et al. v. PAGCOR, G.R. ,o. %$C:%,

"A TS& The trou!le arose when in $%%&, flush with its tre endous success in several cities, PAGCOR decided to e'pand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City. To this end, it leased a portion of a !uilding !elonging to Pryce Properties Corporation, (nc., one of the herein private respondents, renovated and e)uipped the sa e, and prepared to inaugurate its casino there during the Christ as season. The reaction of the *angguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City was swift and hostile. On #ece !er +, $%%&, it enacted Ordinance ,o. --.- entitled A, OR#(,A,C/ PRO0(1(T(,G T0/ (**2A,C/ O3 12*(,/** P/R4(T A,# CA,C/55(,G /6(*T(,G 12*(,/** P/R4(T TO A,7 /*TA15(*04/,T 3OR T0/ 2*(,G A,# A55O8(,G TO 1/ 2*/# (T* PR/4(*/* OR PORT(O, T0/R/O3 3OR T0/ OP/RAT(O, O3 CA*(,O. *ec. $. 9 That pursuant to the policy of the city !anning the operation of casino within its territorial jurisdiction, no !usiness per it shall !e issued to any person, partnership or corporation for the operation of casino within the city li its. *ec. &. 9 That it shall !e a violation of e'isting !usiness per it !y any persons, partnership or corporation to use its !usiness esta!lish ent or portion thereof, or allow the use thereof !y others for casino operation and other ga !ling activities.

4ay $:, $%%$, $%+ *CRA .- in disposing of the issues presented in this present case. !SS$ES& The petitioners assail that respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that> $. 2nder e'isting laws, does the City of Cagayan de Oro has the power and authority to prohi!it esta!lish ent and operations of a PAGCOR ga !ling casino within the CityFs territorial li itsG #oes the phrase Hga !ling and other prohi!ited ga es of chanceI could only ean illegal ga !lingG Are the )uestioned ordinances invalidG Are the )uestioned ordinances discri inatory to casino and partial to cocEfighting and are therefore invalidG Are the )uestioned ordinances not reasona!le, not consonant with the general powers and purposes of the instru entality concerned and inconsistent with the laws or policy of the *tateG ?#i na naEo i=apil ang sa Cth@

territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. (n Basco v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation, this Court sustained the constitutionality of the decree and even cited the !enefits of the entity to the national econo y as the third highest revenue=earner in the govern ent, ne't only to the 1(R and the 1ureau of Custo s. Cagayan de Oro City, liEe other local political su!divisions, is e powered to enact ordinances for the purposes indicated in the 5ocal Govern ent Code. (t is e'pressly vested with the police power under what is Enown as the General 8elfare Clause now e !odied in *ection $C as follows> *ec. $C. 9 General 8elfare. 9 /very local govern ent unit shall e'ercise the powers e'pressly granted, those necessarily i plied therefro , as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the pro otion of the general welfare. 8ithin their respective territorial jurisdictions, 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 !alanced ecology, encourage and support the develop ent of appropriate and self=reliant scientific and technological capa!ilities, i prove pu!lic orals, enhance econo ic prosperity and social justice, pro ote full e ploy ent a ong their residents, aintain peace and order, and preserve the co fort and convenience of their inha!itants. (n addition, *ection :.B of the said Code specifically declares that> *ec. :.B. 9 Powers, #uties, 3unctions and Co pensation. 9 ?a@ The *angguniang Panlungsod, as the legislative !ody of the city, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the city and its inha!itants pursuant to *ection $C of this Code and in the proper e'ercise of the corporate powers of the city as provided for under *ection && of this Code, and shall> ?$@ Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and effective city govern ent, and in this connection, shall> ''' ''' ''' ?v@ /nact ordinances intended to prevent, suppress and i pose appropriate penalties for ha!itual drunEenness in pu!lic places, vagrancy, endicancy, prostitution, esta!lish ent and aintenance of houses of ill repute,gambling and other prohi!ited ga es of chance, fraudulent devices and ways to

&.

-. :.

..

C.

"'()l '**u+& ?Eay wala gitu!ag sa *C ang a!ove= entioned specific issues@. The only )uestion we can and shall resolve in this petition is the validity of Ordinance ,o. --.. and Ordinance ,o. --+.=%- as enacted !y the *angguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City. And we shall do so only !y the criteria laid down !y law and not !y our own convictions on the propriety of ga !ling. HEL#& The ordinances violated P# $BC%, which has the character of a statute, as well as the pu!lic policy e'pressed in the decree allowing the playing of certain ga es of chance despited the prohi!ition of ga !ling in general. Petition denied. RAT!O& PAGCOR is a corporation created directly !y P.#. $BC%, to help centralize and regulate all ga es of chance, including casinos on land and sea within the

o!tain oney or property, drug addiction, aintenance of drug dens, drug pushing, juvenile delin)uency, the printing, distri!ution or e'hi!ition of o!scene or pornographic aterials or pu!lications, and such other activities ini ical to the welfare and orals of the inha!itants of the cityJ This section also authorizes the local govern ent units to regulate properties and !usinesses within their territorial li its in the interest of the general welfare. PetitionerFs clai s> $. The petitioners argue that !y virtue of these provisions, the *angguniang Panlungsod ay prohi!it the operation of casinos !ecause they involve ga es of chance, which are detri ental to the people. Ga !ling is not allowed !y general law and even !y the Constitution itself. The legislative power conferred upon local govern ent units ay !e e'ercised over all Einds of ga !ling and not only over Aillegal ga !lingA as the respondents erroneously argue. /ven if the operation of casinos ay have !een per itted under P.#. $BC%, the govern ent of Cagayan de Oro City has the authority to prohi!it the within its territory pursuant to the authority entrusted to it !y the 5ocal Govern ent Code. (t is su! itted that this interpretation is consonant with the policy of local autono y as andated in Article ((, *ection &., and Article 6 of the Constitution, as well as various other provisions therein seeEing to strengthen the character of the nation. (n giving the local govern ent units the power to prevent or suppress ga !ling and other social pro!le s, the 5ocal Govern ent Code has recognized the co petence of such co unities to deter ine and adopt the easures !est e'pected to pro ote the general welfare of their inha!itants in line with the policies of the *tate. &. The petitioners also stress that when the Code e'pressly authorized the local govern ent units to prevent and suppress ga !ling and other prohi!ited ga es of chance, liEe craps, !accarat, !lacEjacE and roulette, it eant all for s of ga !ling without distinction. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemos. Otherwise, it would have e'pressly e'cluded fro the scope of their power casinos and other for s of ga !ling authorized !y special law, as it could have easily done. The fact that it did not do so si ply eans that the local govern ent units are per itted to prohi!it

all Einds of ga !ling within their territories, including the operation of casinos. The adoption of the 5ocal Govern ent Code, it is pointed out, had the effect of odifying the charter of the PAGCOR. The Code is not only a later enact ent than P.#. $BC% and so is dee ed to prevail in case of inconsistencies !etween the . -. (t is also aintained that assu ing there is dou!t regarding the effect of the 5ocal Govern ent Code on P.#. $BC%, the dou!t ust !e resolved in favor of the petitioners, in accordance with the direction in the Code calling for its li!eral interpretation in favor of the local govern ent units, as specifically entioned in *ection . of the Code ?Rules of interpretation> Power of an 5G2 ust !e li!erally interpreted in its favorJ the general powers ust !e li!erally construed in its favor to give ore power to 5G2s@. 3inally, the petitioners also attacE ga !ling as intrinsically har ful and cite various provisions of the Constitution and several decisions of this Court e'pressive of the general and official disappro!ation of the vice. They invoEe the *tate policies on the fa ily and the proper up!ringing of the youth and, as ight !e e'pected, call attention to the old case of U.S. v. Salaveria, 7 which sustained a unicipal ordinance prohi!iting the playing of panguingue. The petitioners decry the i orality of ga !ling. They also i pugn the wisdo of P.#. $BC% ?which they descri!e as Aa artial law instru entA@ in creating PAGCOR and authorizing it to operate casinos Aon land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines.A

:.

#ecision proper> The orality of ga !ling is not a justicia!le issue. Ga !ling is not illegal per se. 8hile it is generally considered ini ical to the interests of the people, there is nothing in the Constitution categorically proscri!ing or penalizing ga !ling or, for that atter, even entioning it at all. (t is left to Congress to deal with the activity as it sees fit. (n the e'ercise of its own discretion, the legislature ay prohi!it ga !ling altogether or allow it without li itation or it ay prohi!it so e for s of ga !ling and allow others for whatever reasons it ay consider sufficient. Thus, it has prohi!ited ueteng and monte !ut per its lotteries, cocEfighting and horse=racing. (n aEing such choices, Congress has consulted its own wisdo , which this Court has no authority to review, uch less reverse. 8ell has it !een said that courts do not sit to resolve the erits of conflicting theories. That is the prerogative of the political depart ents. (t is

settled that )uestions regarding the wisdo , orality, or practica!ility of statutes are not addressed to the judiciary !ut ay !e resolved only !y the legislative and e'ecutive depart ents, to which the function !elongs in our sche e of govern ent. That function is e'clusive. 8hichever way these !ranches decide, they are answera!le only to their own conscience and the constituents who will ulti ately judge their acts, and not to the courts of justice. !he onl" #uestion $e can and shall resolve in this petition is the validit" o% Ordinance &o. ''(( and Ordinance &o. '')(*+' as enacted b" the Sangguniang Panlungsod o% Caga"an de Oro Cit". And $e shall do so onl" b" the criteria laid do$n b" la$ and not b" our o$n convictions on the propriet" o% gambling. The tests of a valid ordinance are well esta!lished. A long line of decisions has held that to !e valid, an ordinance ust confor to the following su!stantive re)uire ents> $@ (t ust not contravene the constitution or any statute. &@ (t -@ (t :@ (t ust not !e unfair or oppressive. ust not !e partial or discri inatory. ust not prohi!it !ut ay regulate trade.

8e could stop here as this interpretation should settle the pro!le )uite conclusively. 1ut we will not. The vigorous efforts of the petitioners on !ehalf of the inha!itants of Cagayan de Oro City, and the earnestness of their advocacy, deserve ore than short shrift fro this Court. The apparent flaw in the ordinances in )uestion is that they contravene P.#. $BC% and the pu!lic policy e !odied therein insofar as they prevent PAGCOR fro e'ercising the power conferred on it to operate a casino in Cagayan de Oro City. The petitioners have an ingenious answer to this isgiving. They deny that it is the ordinances that have changed P.#. $BC% for an ordinance ad ittedly cannot prevail against a statute. Their theory is that the change has !een ade !y the 5ocal Govern ent Code itself, which was also enacted !y the national law aEing authority. (n their view, the decree has !een, not really repealed !y the Code, !ut erely A odified pro tantoA in the sense that PAGCOR cannot now operate a casino over the o!jection of the local govern ent unit concerned. This odification of P.#. $BC% !y the 5ocal Govern ent Code is per issi!le !ecause one law can change or repeal another law. (t see s to us that the petitioners are playing with words. 8hile insisting that the decree has only !een A odified pro tanto,A they are actually arguing that it is already dead, repealed and useless for all intents and purposes !ecause the Code has shorn PAGCOR of all power to centralize and regulate casinos. *trictly speaEing, its operations ay now !e not only prohi!ited !y the local govern ent unitJ in fact, the prohi!ition is not only discretionary !ut mandated !y *ection :.B of the Code if the word AshallA as used therein is to !e given its accepted eaning. 5ocal govern ent units have now no choice !ut to prevent and suppress ga !ling, which in the petitioners" view includes !oth legal and illegal ga !ling. 2nder this construction, PAGCOR will have no ore ga es of chance to regulate or centralize as they ust all !e prohi!ited !y the local govern ent units pursuant to the andatory duty i posed upon the !y the Code. (n this situation, PAGCOR cannot continue to e'ist e'cept only as a toothless tiger or a white elephant and will no longer !e a!le to e'ercise its powers as a pri e source of govern ent revenue through the operation of casinos. (t is noteworthy that the petitioners have cited only Par. ?f@ of the repealing clause, conveniently discarding the rest of the provision which painstaEingly entions the specific laws or the parts thereof which are repealed ?or odified@ !y the Code. *ignificantly, P.#. $BC% is not one of the . A reading of the entire repealing clause, which is reproduced !elow, will disclose the o ission>

.@ (t ust !e general and consistent with pu!lic policy. C@ (t ust not !e unreasona!le.

8e !egin !y o!serving that under *ec. :.B of the 5ocal Govern ent Code, local govern ent units are authorized to prevent or suppress, a ong others, Aga !ling and other prohi!ited ga es of chance.A O!viously, this provision e'cludes ga es of chance which are not prohi!ited !ut are in fact per itted !y law. The petitioners are less than accurate in clai ing that the Code could have e'cluded such ga es of chance !ut did not. (n fact it does. The language of the section is clear and un istaEa!le. 2nder the rule of noscitur a sociis, a word or phrase should !e interpreted in relation to, or given the sa e eaning of, words with which it is associated. Accordingly, we conclude that since the word Aga !lingA is associated with Aand other prohi!ited ga es of chance,A the word should !e read as referring to only illegal ga !ling which, liEe the other prohi!ited ga es of chance, ust !e prevented or suppressed.

*ec. .-:. Repealing Clause. 9 ?a@ 1atas Pa !ansa 1lg. --+, otherwise Enown as the A5ocal Govern ent Code,A /'ecutive Order ,o. $$& ?$%B+@, and /'ecutive Order ,o. -$% ?$%BB@ are here!y repealed. ?!@ Presidential #ecree ,os. CB:, $$%$, $.DB and such other decrees, orders, instructions, e oranda and issuances related to or concerning the !arangay are here!y repealed. ?c@ The provisions of *ections &, -, and : of Repu!lic Act ,o. $%-% regarding hospital fundJ *ection -, a ?-@ and ! ?&@ of Repu!lic Act. ,o. .::+ regarding the *pecial /ducation 3undJ Presidential #ecree ,o. $:: as a ended !y Presidential #ecree ,os. ..% and $+:$J Presidential #ecree ,o. &-$ as a endedJ Presidential #ecree ,o. :-C as a ended !y Presidential #ecree ,o. ..BJ and Presidential #ecree ,os. -B$, :-C, :C:, :++, .&C, C-&, +.&, and $$-C are here!y repealed and rendered of no force and effect. ?d@ Presidential #ecree ,o. $.%: is here!y repealed insofar as it governs locally=funded projects. ?e@ The following provisions are here!y repealed or a ended insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Code> *ections &, $C, and &% of Presidential #ecree ,o. +D:J *ections $& of Presidential #ecree ,o. B+, as a endedJ *ections .&, .-, CC, C+, CB, C%, +D, +$, +&, +-, and +: of Presidential #ecree ,o. :C-, as a endedJ and *ection $C of Presidential #ecree ,o. %+&, as a ended, and ?f@ All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, e'ecutive orders, procla ations and ad inistrative regulations, or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Code are here!y repealed or odified accordingly. 3urther ore, it is a fa iliar rule that i plied repeals are not lightly presu ed in the a!sence of a clear and un istaEa!le showing of such intention. (n ,ichauco - Co. v. Apostol, 10 this Court e'plained> The cases relating to the su!ject of repeal !y i plication all proceed on the assu ption that if the act of later date clearly reveals an intention on the part of the law aEing power to a!rogate the prior law, this intention ust !e given effectJ !ut there ust always !e a sufficient revelation of this intention, and it has !eco e an un!ending rule of statutory construction that the intention to repeal a for er law will not !e i puted to the 5egislature when it appears that the two statutes, or provisions, with reference to which the )uestion arises !ear to each other the relation of general to special.

There is no sufficient indication of an i plied repeal of P.#. $BC%. On the contrary, as the private respondent points out, PAGCOR is entioned as the source of funding in two later enact ents of Congress, to wit, R.A. +-D%, creating a 1oard of Clai s under the #epart ent of <ustice for the !enefit of victi s of unjust punish ent or detention or of violent cri es, and R.A. +C:B, providing for easures for the solution of the power crisis. PAGCOR revenues are tapped !y these two statutes. This would show that the PAGCOR charter has not !een repealed !y the 5ocal Govern ent Code !ut has in fact !een i proved as it were to aEe the entity ore responsive to the fiscal pro!le s of the govern ent. (t is a canon of legal her eneutics that instead of pitting one statute against another in an inevita!ly destructive confrontation, courts ust e'ert every effort to reconcile the , re e !ering that !oth laws deserve a !eco ing respect as the handiworE of a coordinate !ranch of the govern ent. On the assu ption of a conflict !etween P.#. $BC% and the Code, the proper action is not to uphold one and annul the other !ut to give effect to !oth !y har onizing the if possi!le. This is possi!le in the case !efore us. T,+ -.o-+. .+*olu/'o( o0 /,+ -.o1l+2 )/ ,)(3 '* /o ,ol3 /,)/ u(3+. /,+ Lo4)l Go5+.(2+(/ o3+, lo4)l 6o5+.(2+(/ u('/* 2)y 7)(3 '(3++3 2u*/8 -.+5+(/ )(3 *u--.+** )ll 9'(3* o0 6)21l'(6 :'/,'( /,+'. /+..'/o.'+* +;4+-/ o(ly /,o*+ )llo:+3 1y */)/u/+* l'9+ P.#. 1<=9. The e'ception reserved in such laws ust !e read into the Code, to aEe !oth the Code and such laws e)ually effective and utually co ple entary. This approach would also affir that there are indeed two Einds of ga !ling, to wit, the illegal and those authorized !y law. 5egalized ga !ling is not a odern conceptJ it is pro!a!ly as old as illegal ga !ling, if not indeed ore so. The petitioners" suggestion that the Code authorizes the to prohi!it all Einds of ga !ling would erase the distinction !etween these two for s of ga !ling without a clear indication that this is the will of the legislature. Plausi!ly, following this theory, the City of 4anila could, !y ere ordinance, prohi!it the Philippine Charity *weepstaEes Office fro conducting a lottery as authorized !y R.A. $$C% and 1.P. :& or stop the races at the *an 5azaro 0ippodro e as authorized !y R.A. -D% and R.A. %B-. (n light of all the a!ove considerations, we see no way of arriving at the conclusion urged on us !y the petitioners that the ordinances in )uestion are valid. On the contrary, we find that the ordinances violate P.#. $BC%, which has the character and force of a statute, as well as the pu!lic policy e'pressed in the decree allowing the playing of certain ga es of

chance despite the prohi!ition of ga !ling in general. The rationale of the re)uire ent that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is o!vious. 4unicipal govern ents are only agents of the national govern ent. 5ocal councils e'ercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on the !y Congress as the national law aEing !ody. The delegate cannot !e superior to the principal or e'ercise powers higher than those of the latter. (t is a heresy to suggest that the local govern ent units can undo the acts of Congress, fro which they have derived their power in the first place, and negate !y ere ordinance the andate of the statute. This !asic relationship !etween the national legislature and the local govern ent units has not !een enfee!led !y the new provisions in the Constitution strengthening the policy of local autono y. 8ithout eaning to detract fro that policy, we here confir that Congress retains control of the local govern ent units although in significantly reduced degree now than under our previous Constitutions. The power to create still includes the power to destroy. The power to grant still includes the power to withhold or recall. True, there are certain nota!le innovations in the Constitution, liEe the direct confer ent on the local govern ent units of the power to ta', 12which cannot now !e withdrawn !y ere statute. 1y and large, however, the national legislature is still the principal of the local govern ent units, which cannot defy its will or odify or violate it. The Court understands and ad ires the concern of the petitioners for the welfare of their constituents and their apprehensions that the welfare of Cagayan de Oro City will !e endangered !y the opening of the casino. 8e share the view that Athe hope of large or easy gain, o!tained without special effort, turns the head of the worE anA 1> and that Aha!itual ga !ling is a cause of laziness and ruin.A 14 (n People v. Gorosti.a, 15 we declared> AThe social scourge of ga !ling ust !e sta ped out. The laws against ga !ling ust !e enforced to the li it.A George 8ashington called ga !ling Athe child of avarice, the !rother of ini)uity and the father of ischief.A ,evertheless, we ust recognize the power of the legislature to decide, in its own wisdo , to legalize certain for s of ga !ling, as was done in P.#. $BC% and i pliedly affir ed in the 5ocal Govern ent Code. That decision can !e revoEed !y this Court only if it contravenes the Constitution as the touchstone of all official acts. 8e do not find such contravention here. 8e hold that the power of PAGCOR to centralize and regulate all ga es of chance, including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the

Philippines, re ains uni paired. P.#. $BC% has not !een odified !y the 5ocal Govern ent Code, which e powers the local govern ent units to prevent or suppress only those for s of ga !ling prohi!ited !y law. Casino ga !ling is authorized !y P.#. $BC%. This decree has the status of a statute that cannot !e a ended or nullified !y a ere ordinance. 0ence, it was not co petent for the *angguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City to enact Ordinance ,o. --.prohi!iting the use of !uildings for the operation of a casino and Ordinance ,o. --+.=%- prohi!iting the operation of casinos. 3or all their praiseworthy otives, these ordinances are contrary to P.#. $BC% and the pu!lic policy announced therein and are therefore ultra vires and void. 80/R/3OR/, the petition is #/,(/# and the challenged decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is A33(R4/#, with costs against the petitioners. (t is so ordered. SEPARATE OP!N!ONS& PA#!LLA, J., concurring> ( concur with the ajority holding that the ordinances in )uestion cannot odify uch repeal PAGCOR"s general authority to esta!lish aintain ga !ling casinos anywhere in Philippines under Presidential #ecree ,o. $BC%. city less and the

(n Basco v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation /PAGCOR0, $%+ *CRA .&, ( stated in a separate opinion that> . . . ( agree with the decision insofar as it holds that the prohi!ition, control, and regulation of the entire activity Enown as ga !ling properly pertain to Astate polic"1. (t is, therefore, the political depart ents of govern ent, na ely, the legislative and the e'ecutive that should decide on what govern ent should do in the entire area of ga !ling, and assu e %ull responsibilit" to the people for such policy.A ?/ phasis supplied@ 0owever, despite the legalit" of the opening and operation of a casino in Cagayan de Oro City !y respondent PAGCOR, ( wish to reiterate y view that ga !ling in any for runs counter to the govern ent"s own efforts to re=esta!lish and resurrect the 3ilipino oral character which is generally perceived to !e in a state of continuing erosion. (t is in the light of this alar ing perspective that ( call upon govern ent to carefully weigh the

advantages and disadvantages of setting up ga !ling facilities in the country.

ore

That the PAGCOR contri!utes greatly to the coffers of the govern ent is not enough reason for setting up ore ga !ling casinos !ecause, undou!tedly, this will not help i prove, !ut will cause a further deterioration in the 3ilipino oral character. (t is worth re e !ering in this regard that, $@ what is legal is not always oral and &@ the ends do not always justify the eans. As in Basco, ( can easily visualize prostitution at par with gambling. And yet, legalization of the for er will not render it any less reprehensi!le even if su!stantial revenue for the govern ent can !e realized fro it. The sa e is true of ga !ling. (n the present case, it is y considered view that the national govern ent ?through PAGCOR@ should re=e'a ine and re=evaluate its decision of imposing the ga !ling casino on the residents of Cagayan de Oro CityJ for it is a!undantly clear that pu!lic opinion in the city is very uch against it, and again the )uestion ust !e seriously deli!erated> will the prospects of revenue to !e realized fro the casino outweigh the further destruction of the 3ilipino sense of valuesG #A?!#E, JR., J., concurring> 8hile ( concur in part with the ajority, ( wish, however, to e'press y views on certain aspects of this case. (t ust at once !e noted that private respondent Pryce Properties Corporation ?PR7C/@ directly filed with the Court of Appeals its so=called petition for prohibition, there!y invoEing the said court"s original jurisdiction to issue writs of prohi!ition under *ection %?$@ of 1.P. 1lg. $&%. As ( see it, however, the principal cause of action therein is one for declaratory relief> to declare null and unconstitutional 9 for, inter alia, having !een enacted without or in e'cess of jurisdiction, for i pairing the o!ligation of contracts, and for !eing inconsistent with pu!lic policy 9 the challenged ordinances enacted !y the Sangguniang Panglungsod of the City of Cagayan de Oro. /ven assu ing arguendo that the case is one for prohibition, then, under this Court"s esta!lished policy relative to the hierarchy of courts, the petition should have !een filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City. ( find no special or co pelling reason why it was not filed with the said court. ( do not wish to entertain the thought that PR7C/ dou!ted a favora!le verdict therefro ,

in which case the filing of the petition with the Court of Appeals ay have !een i pelled !y tactical considerations. A dis issal of the petition !y the Court of Appeals would have !een in order pursuant to our decisions in People vs. Cuaresma. The challenged ordinances are ?a@ Ordinance ,o. --.- entitled, AAn Ordinance Prohibiting the 2ssuance o% Business Permit and Canceling 3xisting Business Permit !o An" 3stablishment %or the Using and Allo$ing to be Used 2ts Premises or Portion !hereo% %or the Operation o% Casino,A and ?!@ Ordinance ,o. --+.=%- entitled, A An Ordinance Prohibiting the Operation o% Casino and Providing Penalt" %or 4iolation !here%or .A They were enacted to i ple ent Resolution ,o. &&%. entitled, AResolution 5eclaring As a 6atter o% Polic" to Prohibit and7or &ot to Allo$ the 3stablishment o% the Gambling Casino in the Cit" o% Caga"an de Oro ,A which was pro ulgated on $% ,ove !er $%%D 9 nearly two years !efore PR7C/ and PAGCOR entered into a contract of lease under which the latter leased a portion of the for er"s Pryce Plaza 0otel for the operation of a ga !ling casino 9 which resolution was vigorously reiterated in Resolution ,o. &C+- of $% Octo!er $%%&. The challenged ordinances were enacted pursuant to the *angguniang Panglungsod"s e'press powers conferred !y *ection :.B, paragraph ?a@, su!paragraphs ?$@=?v@, ?-@=?ii@, and ?:@=?i@, ?iv@, and ?vii@, 5ocal Govern ent Code, and pursuant to its i plied power under *ection $C thereof. The issue that necessarily arises is whether in granting local govern ents ?such as the City of Cagayan de Oro@ the a!ove powers and functions, the 5ocal Govern ent Code has, pro tanto, repealed P.#. ,o. $BC% insofar as PAGCOR"s general authority to esta!lish and aintain ga !ling casinos anywhere in the Philippines is concerned. ( join the ajority in holding that the ordinances cannot repeal P.#. ,o. $BC%. The nullification !y the Court of Appeals of the challenged ordinances as unconstitutional pri arily !ecause it is in contravention to P.#. ,o. $BC% is unwarranted. A contravention of a law is not necessarily a contravention of the constitution. (n any case, the ordinances can still stand even if they !e conceded as offending P.#. ,o. $BC%. They can !e reconciled, which is not i possi!le to do. *o reconciled, the ordinances should !e construed as not applying to PAGCOR. 3ro the pleadings, it is o!vious that the govern ent and the people of Cagayan de Oro City are, for o!vious reasons, strongly against the

opening of the ga !ling casino in their city. Ga !ling, even if legalized, would !e ini ical to the general welfare of the inha!itants of the City, or of any place for that atter. The PAGCOR, as a govern ent=owned corporation, ust consider the valid concerns of the people of the City of Cagayan de Oro and should not i pose its will upon the in an ar!itrary, if not despotic, anner.