8/10/2019 74004571 Bagatsing vs Ramirez Digest.doc_0 Copy

1/2

G.R. No. L-41631 December 17, 1976HON. RAMON D. BAGATSING, as Maor o! "#e $%" o! Ma&%'a( ROMAN G.

GARGANTI)L, as Secre"ar "o "#e Maor( TH) MAR*)T ADMINISTRATOR( a&+ TH)MNI$IAL BOARD O MANILA, petitioners,

vs.HON. )DRO A. RAMIR)/, %& #%s ca0ac%" as res%+%& 2+e o! "#e $or" o! %rs"

I&s"a&ce o! Ma&%'a, Bra&c# a&+ "#e )D)RATION O MANILA MAR*)T5)NDORS, IN$., respondents.

A$TS

On June 12, 1974, the Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522, "NO!#NN$% !%&'()#N& )*% O+%!)#ON O +'B(#$ M!-%) N +!%$!#B#N& %% O!

)*% !%N)( O )(( N +!O/##N& +%N()#% O! /#O()#ON )*%!%O N O!O)*%! +'!+O%." )he petitioner $it0 Ma0or, !aon . Baatsin, approved the ordinanceon June 15, 1974.

On e3ruar0 17, 1975, respondent ederation of Manila Maret /endors, #nc. coenced$ivil $ase 9767 3efore the $# of Manila presided over 30 respondent Jude, seein thedeclaration of nullit0 of Ordinance No. 7522 for the reason that a8 the pu3licationreuireent under the !evised $harter of the $it0 of Manila has not 3een coplied :ith; 38the Maret $oittee :as not iven an0 participation in the enactent of the ordinance, asenvisioned 30 !epu3lic ct &raft and $orrupt +ractices cthas 3een violated; and d8 the ordinance :ould violate +residential ecree No. 7 ofepte3er =copliance :ith the reuireent of pu3lication under the !evised $it0 $harter.

+etitioners oved for reconsideration of the adverse decision, stressin that a8 onl0 a post>pu3lication is reuired 30 the (ocal )a? $ode; and 38 private respondent failed to e?haust alladinistrative reedies 3efore institutin an action in court.

ISS)

@hat la: overns the pu3lication of a ta? ordinance enacted 30 the Municipal Board ofManila, the !evised $it0 $harter !.. 4

8/10/2019 74004571 Bagatsing vs Ramirez Digest.doc_0 Copy

2/2

the case at 3ar. ection 17 of the !evised $harter of the $it0 of Manila speas of "ordinance"in eneral, i.e., irrespective of the nature and scope thereof, whereas, ection 4= of the(ocal )a? $ode relates to "ordinances lev0in or iposin ta?es, fees or other chares" inparticular. #n reard, therefore, to ordinances in eneral, the !evised $harter of the $it0 ofManila is dou3tless doinant, 3ut, that doinant force loses its continuit0 :hen itapproaches the real of "ordinances lev0in or iposin ta?es, fees or other chares" in

particular. )here, the (ocal )a? $ode controls. *ere, as al:a0s, a eneral provision ust ive:a0 to a particular provision. pecial provision overns. )his is especiall0 true :here the la:containin the particular provision :as enacted later than the one containin the eneralprovision. )he $it0 $harter of Manila :as proulated on June 16, 1949 as aainst the (ocal

)a? $ode :hich :as decreed on June 1, 197=. )he la:>ain po:er cannot 3e said to haveintended the esta3lishent of conEictin and hostile s0stes upon the sae su3Dect, or toleave in force provisions of a prior la: 30 :hich the ne: :ill of the leislatin po:er a0 3eth:arted and overthro:n. uch a result :ould render leislation a useless and idlecereon0, and su3Dect the la: to the reproach of uncertaint0 and unintellii3ilit0.

#t is aintained 30 private respondent that the su3Dect ordinance is not a "ta? ordinance,"3ecause the iposition of rentals, perit fees, tolls and other fees is not strictl0 a ta?inpo:er 3ut a revenue>raisin function, so that the procedure for pu3lication under the (ocal

)a? $ode nds no application. )he pretense 3ears its o:n ars of fallac0. +recisel0, theraisin of revenues is the principal o3Dect of ta?ation. 'nder ection 5, rticle F# of the Ne:$onstitution, "%ach local overnent unit shall have the po:er to create its o:n sources ofrevenue and to lev0 ta?es, su3Dect to such provisions as a0 3e provided 30 la:." nd oneof those sources of revenue is :hat the (ocal )a? $ode points to in particularG "(ocalovernents a0 collect fees or rentals for the occupanc0 or use of pu3lic arets andpreises H H H." )he0 can provide for and reulate aret stands, stalls and privilees, and,also, the sale, lease or occupanc0 thereof. )he0 can license, or perit the use of, lease, sellor other:ise dispose of stands, stalls or aretin privilees.

$$O!#N&(I, the decision of the court 3elo: is here30 reversed and set aside. OrdinanceNo. 7522 of the $it0 of Manila, dated June 15, 1975, is here30 held to have 3een validl0enacted. No. costs.