Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Rules of

Interpretation

Context

Law
x
Constitutional Law

Fundamental

Jurisprudence

a.) A. CITY OF MANILA VS.


LAGUIO G.R. No.
118127, April 12, 2005

b.) Solicitor Gen. Vs


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repealed by RA No. 4136 (The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