Scribd
Upload
157 views2 pages

PD 771's Constitutionality Confirmed

This case involved orders by Judge Pacquing directing the Mayor of Manila, Alfredo Lim, to issue a permit to operate a jai-alai facility to Associated Development Corporation (ADC). However, Presidential Decree 771 had revoked all existing gambling facility franchises and permits issued by local governments. The Supreme Court held that PD 771 was valid and constitutional as the constitution stated that all existing laws not inconsistent with the constitution would remain operative. As such, the Mayor was not required to issue the permit to ADC as their franchise had been revoked by PD 771.

Uploaded by

Ron Jacob Almaiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
157 views2 pages

PD 771's Constitutionality Confirmed

This case involved orders by Judge Pacquing directing the Mayor of Manila, Alfredo Lim, to issue a permit to operate a jai-alai facility to Associated Development Corporation (ADC). However, Presidential Decree 771 had revoked all existing gambling facility franchises and permits issued by local governments. The Supreme Court held that PD 771 was valid and constitutional as the constitution stated that all existing laws not inconsistent with the constitution would remain operative. As such, the Mayor was not required to issue the permit to ADC as their franchise had been revoked by PD 771.

Uploaded by

Ron Jacob Almaiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Lim v.

Pacquing
GR No. 115044, January 27, 1995 - 240 SCRA 649

FACTS:

Sec 3 of the Presidential Decree No. 771 expressly revoked all existing franchises and permits to
operate all forms of gambling facilities (including the jai-alai) issued by local governments.

Judge Pacquing had earlier issued the following orders which were assailed by the Mayor of the
City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim:

 order directing Manila mayor Alfredo S. Lim to issue the permit/license to operate the
jai-alai in favor of Associated Development Corporation (ADC).
 order directing mayor Lim to explain why he should not be cited for contempt for non-
compliance with the order dated 28 March 1994.
 order reiterating the previous order directing Mayor Lim to immediately issue the
permit/license to Associated Development Corporation (ADC). 

ISSUE:

Whether or not PD 771 is constitutional. 

HELD:

Yes. PD No. 771 is valid and constitutional.

The time-honored doctrine is that all laws (PD No. 771 included) are presumed valid and
constitutional until or unless otherwise ruled by this Court. Not only this; Article XVIII Section 3
of the Constitution states:

  Sec. 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and
other executive issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until
amended, repealed or revoked.
There is nothing on record to show or even suggest that PD No. 771 has been repealed, altered or
amended by any subsequent law or presidential issuance (when the executive still exercised
legislative powers). 

Neither can it be tenably stated that the issue of the continued existence of ADC's franchise by
reason of the unconstitutionality of PD No. 771 was settled in G.R. No. 115044, for the decision
of the Court's First Division in said case, aside from not being final, cannot have the effect of
nullifying PD No. 771 as unconstitutional, since only the Court En Banc has that power under
Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the Constitution.
And on the question of whether or not the government is estopped from contesting ADC's
possession of a valid franchise, the well-settled rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by
the mistakes or errors, if any, of its officials or agents.

Also refer to - Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 209 SCRA 90

Consequently, in the light of the foregoing expostulation, we conclude that the republic (in
contra distinction to the City of Manila) may be allowed to intervene in G.R. No. 115044.

You might also like