MAYOR PABLO P.
MAGTAJAS & THE CITY OF CAGAYAN DE ORO, petitioners
vs.
PRYCE PROPERTIES CORPORATION, INC. & PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND
GAMING CORPORATION, respondents
G.R. No. 111097. July 20, 1994
FACTS:
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation or PAGCOR is a corporation created
directly by Presidential Decree No. 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., which renovated & equipped the same,
and prepared to inaugurate its casino on Christmas season.
In reaction to this project, the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Cagayan de Oro City enacted
two ordinances a. Ordinance No. 3353 which prohibits the use of buildings for the operation of a
casino and b. Ordinance No. 3375-93 which prohibits the operation of casino and providing
penalty for its violation.
Pryce, together with PAGCOR, assailed the said ordinances before the Court of Appeals.
The COA declared the ordinances invalid and issued the writ prayed for to prohibit their
enforcement.
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Cagayan De Oro
City but it was denied by the COA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ordinance No. 3353 and Ordinance No. 3375-93 are a valid exercise of
police power.
HELD:
NO.
To be valid, an ordinance must conform to the following substantive requirements:
1. It must not contravene the constitution or any statute.
2. It must not be unfair or oppressive.
3. It must not be partial or discriminatory.
4. It must not prohibit but may regulate trade.
5. It must be general and consistent with public policy.
6. It must not be unreasonable.
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.
The Court held that casino gambling is authorized by P.D. No. 1869. This decree has the
status of a statute that cannot be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance. Hence, it was not
competent for the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City to enact Ordinance No. 3353
prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of a casino and Ordinance No. 3375-93
prohibiting the operation of casinos.
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 the people, there is nothing in the Constitution
categorically proscribing or penalizing gambling or, for that 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 some
forms of gambling and allow others for whatever reasons it may consider sufficient. Thus, it has
prohibited jueteng and monte but permits lotteries, cockfighting and horse-racing. In making such
choices, Congress has consulted its own wisdom, which this Court has no authority to review,
much less reverse. Well has it been said that courts do not sit to resolve the merits of conflicting
theories. That is the prerogative of the political departments. It is settled that questions regarding
the wisdom, morality, or practicibility of statutes are not addressed to the judiciary but may be
resolved only by the legislative and executive departments, to which the function belongs in our
scheme of government. That function is exclusive. Whichever way these branches decide, they are
answerable only to their own conscience and the constituents who will ultimately judge their acts,
and not to the courts of justice.
