Scribd
Upload
72 views2 pages

Tano vs. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 Syllabus

The Supreme Court ruled that two ordinances passed by the city of Puerto Princesa banning the shipment of live fish and lobster and prohibiting the catching of live marine coral organisms were constitutional. The ordinances were enacted to establish a closed fishing season for certain species for five years and protect coral reefs from destruction. The court found that under the powers granted to local governments to exercise police power, the validity of the ordinances could not be doubted as their principal objectives were valid.

Uploaded by

Bingoheart
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
72 views2 pages

Tano vs. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 Syllabus

The Supreme Court ruled that two ordinances passed by the city of Puerto Princesa banning the shipment of live fish and lobster and prohibiting the catching of live marine coral organisms were constitutional. The ordinances were enacted to establish a closed fishing season for certain species for five years and protect coral reefs from destruction. The court found that under the powers granted to local governments to exercise police power, the validity of the ordinances could not be doubted as their principal objectives were valid.

Uploaded by

Bingoheart
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
You are on page 1/ 2

Tano vs.

Socrates , 278 SCRA 154

Syllabus:
It is of course settled that laws (including ordinances enacted by local government units) enjoy
the
presumption of constitutionality. To overthrow this presumption, there must be a clear and
unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative contradiction. In
short,
the conflict with the Constitution must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. Where doubt exists,
even if
well-founded, there can be no finding of unconstitutionality. To doubt is to sustain.

Facts:
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of
Ordinance
15-92 “An Ordinance Banning the Shipment of All Live Fish and Lobster outside Puerto Princesa
City from
January 1, 1993 to January 1, 1998 and Providing Exemptions, Penalties, and for Other Purposes
Thereof,”
and Ordinance 2 “A Resolution Prohibiting the Catching, Gathering, Possessing, Buying, Selling,
and Shipment
of Live Marine Coral Dwelling Aquatic Organisms.” The petitioners argue that the said
Ordinances deprived
them of due process of law, their livelihood, and unduly restricted them from the practice of
their trade,
in violation of Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution.

Issue:
Whether or not the Ordinances in question are unconstitutional

Ruling:
No. The Ordinances are declared constitutional.
Pursuant to the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the Local
Government
Code and the powers granted therein to local government units in the exercise of police power,
the
validity of the questioned Ordinances cannot be doubted. It is apparent that both Ordinances
have two
principal objectives or purposes. The first is to establish a closed season for the species of fish
or aquatic
animals covered therein for a period of five years. The second is to protect the coral in the
marine
waters of the City of Puerto Princesa and the Province of Palawan from further destruction due
to illegal
fishing activities.

You might also like