May 26, 2014

THE SANGUNIANG BAYAN

CATARMAN N. SAMAR

This is a legal opinion with regards to the letter of Ms. Wilhelmina M. Singzon, the
manager the CATARMAN CAPITOL COCKPIT. The letter is all about the request for a 3-day
hack fight on May 21-23 and a one day 3-cock derby on May 24, 2014 to honor the memory of
the late Jose F. Singzon.
The law that will govern on the issue that will be taken consideration is the
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 449 also know as COCKFIGHTING LAW OF 1974 of the
request of the manager to hold a 3-day hack fighting and a one day 3-cock derby on May 24,
2014.
The issue that Ive presume in this request is Whether or not is it legal for a 3 day hack
fighting and a one day 3-cock derby?
My opinion is base on the following:
1. Section 5- Cockpits and Cockfighting: In General

(d) Holding of Cockfights. Except as provided in this Decree, cockfighting shall be
allowed only in licensed cockpits during Sundays and legal holidays and during local
fiestas for not more than three days. It may also be held during provincial, city or
municipal, agricultural, commercial or industrial fair, carnival or exposition for a
similar period of three days upon resolution of the province, city or municipality where
such fair, carnival or exposition is to be held, subject to the approval of the Chief of
Constabulary or his authorized representative: Provided, that, no cockfighting on the
occasion of such fair, carnival or exposition shall be allowed within the month of a local
fiesta or for more than two occasions a year in the same city or municipality: Provided,
further, that no cockfighting shall be held on December 30 (Rizal Day), June 12
(Philippine Independence Day), November 30 (National Heroes Day), Holy Thursday,
Good Friday, Election or Referendum Day and during Registration Days for such
election or referendum.

2. In the case of Tan vs. Perena, G.R. No. 149743, February 18, 2005
The Honorable court ruled:
"We do not doubt, however, the ability of the national government to
implement police power measures that affect the subjects of municipal
government, especially if the subject of regulation is a condition of universal
character irrespective of territorial jurisdictions. Cockfighting is one such
condition. It is a traditionally regulated activity, due to the attendant gambling
involved or maybe even the fact that it essentially consists of two birds killing
each other for public amusement. Laws have been enacted restricting the days
when cockfights could be held, and legislation has even been emphatic that
cockfights could not be held on holidays celebrating national honor such as
Independence Day (R.A. 137) and Rizal Day (R.A. 229).
3. In the case of CONCEPCION RAMO VS. HON. ERICO B. AUMENTADO
G.R. No. 176004, March 11, 2008

Issue: Whether an LGU may enact ordinance allowing a cockpit operates cockfighting on
days other than Sundays and legal holidays and during local fiestas for not more than three
days.
By virtue of the license/permits granted by the municipalities of Baclayon and Maribojoc,
Bohol, petitioners were allowed to own and operate cockpits. Resolution No. 99-029 of the
Baclayon Sangguniang Bayan fixed the cockfighting days to Mondays and Fridays while
Municipal Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2002 of Maribojoc fixed it on Wednesdays.
Sometime in the 2002, the respondent governor of Bohol,issued Executive Order No. 2
ordering the strict enforcement of PD No. 449, and declaring that cockfighting be allowed
only during Sundays and legal holidays, and du5ing fiestas, for not more than 3 days.
Anticipating apprehension for violations of the order due to their cockpit operations,
petitioners went to the Courts to annul the order which petitioners perceived as in conflict
with the prerogatives of the sangguniang bayan to enact ordinances pertaining to
cockfighting.
The RTC of Bohol dismissed the petition. Petitioners went to the Court of Appeals where it
said that: Xxx.., every local ordinance must not be contrary to a statute or the Constitution.
Since PD 449 was not expressly or impliedly repealed by the Local Government Code of
1991, it remains a good law. The CA declared that Executive Order No. 02 as valid while
Resolution No. 99-029 of Baclayon and Resolution No. 11 of Maribojoc as invalid, insofar as
they fix the days of cockfighting to Mondays and Fridays, and then Wednesdays,
respectively.
Petitioners went to the Supreme Court where it affirmed the decision of the CA.
Based on the foregoing, this legal advisory is thus summarized as:
1. PD 449 remains valid and was not repealed by RA 7160.
2. Respective Sangguniang Bayan/Lungsod cannot enact ordinance contrary to provisions of
PD 449.
3. Municipal/City Mayors cannot give permit/license without authority from respective
sangguniang.
4. It follows that tupada in every barangay fiesta must be armed with permit from the
mayor as authorized by the respective sanngunian for the purpose.
5. Tupada in every Brgy. Fiesta in no case shall exceed 3 days.
6. License operators of cockpits in every city or municipality cannot operate on days other
than Sundays and legal holidays.
Section 8. Penal Provisions. Any violation of the provisions of this xx.. shall be punished as
follows:
a. By prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of two thousand pesos,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, when the offender is the financer,
owner, manger or operator of cockpit, or the gaffer, referee or bet taker in cockfights; or the
offender is guilty of allowing, promoting or participating in any other kind of gambling in the
premises of cockfights during cockfights.
b. By prision correccional or a fine of not less than six hundred pesos nor more than
two thousand pesos or both, such imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the court, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, in case of any other offender.

Cock fighting is a valid police power regulation, as it is a form of gambling essentially
antagonistic to the aims of enhancing national productivity and self reliance. But it should be in
accordance with the law.
The bases for this legal opinion is the Section 5 (d) of PD 449, it is for the holding of
cockfights, the allowable cockfighting in the license cockpit is only during Sundays and legal
Holiday and during local fiestas not more than 3 days.
The jurisprudence of the case Tan vs. Perena, G.R. No. 149743, February 18, 2005 is base on
the issue of days to hold a cockfight. In the case of Conception Ramo v. Hon. Enrico B.
Aumentado G.R. No. 176004, March 11, 2008 is base on whether an LGU may enact ordinance
allowing a cockpit operates cockfighting on days other than Sundays and legal holidays and
during local fiestas for not more than three days.
Thus in her requested letter the cockfighting days shall be held for a 3-day hack fight on May
21-23 and a one day 3-cock derby on May 24, 2014 and for honoring the owner of the
establishment, is beyond the allowable days and not enumerated in the section 5 (d), therefore
the request should not be granted and it violates the section 5 (d) of PD 449 for the said
cockfights days is beyond the allowable days and is not on the designated day nor on the
occasion of a local fiesta as provided for under the PD 449 as amended.

I hope that I have guided you accordingly.

Angelique I. Gonzales
LLB-3
UEP College of law