With the facts under consideration for this opinion (Excerpts from

the Journal of Proceedings and the Legal Opinion of the

Provincial Legal Officer as attached herewith), I am in the notion
to uphold the validity of Ordinance No.11 Series of 2016
exempting CARP-covered lands from the coverage of Ordinance
No.14 Series of 2012, because of this reason:

Ordinance No. 11 Series of 2016 is only a curative ordinance.

According to Black Law Legal Dictionary, a CURATIVE

STATUTE is intended to cure (that is, to obviate the ordinary
legal effects or consequences of) defects, errors, omissions,
or irregularities. Applied particularly to statutes, a curative
act being a retrospective law passed in order to validate
legal proceedings, the acts of public officers, or private
deeds or contracts, which would otherwise be void for
defects or irregularities or for want of conformity to existing
legal requirements.

- Ordinance No. 14 Series of 2012, in one of its provisions,

states that the DAR can only process the distribution of
lands to its beneficiaries UPON CLEARANCE from the city
government.

- Said provision in the ordinance is on its face contrary to

the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) which is
a national law that empowers DAR in the distribution of
CARP-covered agricultural lands strictly observing the
method and standard of distribution set forth on it.
A rule in law interpretation states that an ordinance
enacted by the local legislature cannot overcome a
national law enacted by the national legislature.
Therefore, the procedure in Ordinance 14 cannot be
interpreted as an addition to the procedure in CARL.

- The power delegated to the City is only limited to lands

enumerated under PD 957 and BP 220 which are
 residential, commercial and industrial lands but do
not include CARP-covered lands. A rule in law
interpretation states that what is not EXPRESSLY included
in the enumeration cannot be included by mere inference
and is deemed excluded. Therefore, the coverage of
Ordinance 14 is only limited to residential, commercial
and industrial lands and does not include CARP-covered
lands.

- Notwithstanding the fact, Ordinance 14 is already in effect

for 4 years now. The proper venue to question its validity
is a court of law, not the Sanggunian Panlalawigan.

- However, the enactment of Ordinance 11, the one under

issue, has impliedly repealed the provision in Ordinance
14 that requires DAR to secure a license/permit from the
City Government. In other words, the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Koronadal cured the defect they may
have seen in the course of their review by passing a
curative ordinance. This interpretation is acceptable
under the rules on law interpretation because the
Sanggunian also enjoys the presumption of regularity and
all interpretation must be in favour of upholding an
ordinance rather than to easily struck it down by simple
construction.