Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Pedro Vs Provincial Board of Rizal

    Uploaded by

    Ronald Alasa-as Atig
    Gregorio Pedro argues that Ordinance No. 36 is invalid as it impairs his acquired rights after obtaining proper permits and licenses to operate his cockpit under Ordinance No. 35. The issue is whether such a license constitutes a property right that prevents revocation without due process. The court rules that 1) a cockpit license is a privilege, not property, and can be revoked for public interest; 2) delegating a study of sanitary effects to a committee is informational, not legislative; and 3) an ordinance suspending effects of a prior one is valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pedro Vs Provincial Board of Rizal

    Uploaded by

    Ronald Alasa-as Atig
    20 views1 page
    Gregorio Pedro argues that Ordinance No. 36 is invalid as it impairs his acquired rights after obtaining proper permits and licenses to operate his cockpit under Ordinance No. 35. The issue is whether such a license constitutes a property right that prevents revocation without due process. The court rules that 1) a cockpit license is a privilege, not property, and can be revoked for public interest; 2) delegating a study of sanitary effects to a committee is informational, not legislative; and 3) an ordinance suspending effects of a prior one is valid.

    Original Description:

    Consti 2 case digest

    Original Title

    Pedro vs Provincial Board of Rizal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Gregorio Pedro argues that Ordinance No. 36 is invalid as it impairs his acquired rights after obtaining proper permits and licenses to operate his cockpit under Ordinance No. 35. The issue is whether such a license constitutes a property right that prevents revocation without due process. The court rules that 1) a cockpit license is a privilege, not property, and can be revoked for public interest; 2) delegating a study of sanitary effects to a committee is informational, not legislative; and 3) an ordinance suspending effects of a prior one is valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    20 views1 page

    Pedro Vs Provincial Board of Rizal

    Uploaded by

    Ronald Alasa-as Atig
    Gregorio Pedro argues that Ordinance No. 36 is invalid as it impairs his acquired rights after obtaining proper permits and licenses to operate his cockpit under Ordinance No. 35. The issue is whether such a license constitutes a property right that prevents revocation without due process. The court rules that 1) a cockpit license is a privilege, not property, and can be revoked for public interest; 2) delegating a study of sanitary effects to a committee is informational, not legislative; and 3) an ordinance suspending effects of a prior one is valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Pedro vs Provincial Board of Rizal, 53 Phil 123

    Topic: Meaning of life, liberty and property

    FACTS:

    Gregorio Pedro argues for the nullity of Ordinance No. 36 series of 1928, approved on December 29,
    1928, by the temporary councilors appointed by the provincial governor of Rizal, Eligio Naval, on the
    ground that:
    1. It impairs the acquired rights of the said appellant
    2. It was enacted on account of prejudice, because it was intended for a special and not a
    general purpose, namely to prevent, at any cost, the opening, maintenance and exploitation
    of the cockpit of the petioner-appealant
    3. It provides for special committee composed of persons who are not members of the council,
    vested them with powers which of their very nature, cannot be delegated by said council to
    that committee.

    He further contends that, having obtained the proper permit to maintain, exploit, and open to the public
    the cockpit in question, having paid the license fee and fulfilled all the requirement provided by
    Ordinance no. 35, he has acquired a right which cannot be taken away from him by Ordinance No. 36
    which was subsequently approved.

    ISSUE:
    Whether a license authorizing the operation and exploitation of a cockpit fails under property rights
    which a person may not be deprived of without due process of law?

    RULING:
    No. The court states that:
    1. That a license authorizing the operation and exploitation of a cockpit is not property of
    which the holder may not be deprived without due process of law, but a mere privilege
    which may be revoked when the public interest so require
    2. That the work entrusted by a municipal council to a special sanitary committee to make a
    study of the sanitary effects upon the neighborhood of the establishment of the cockpit, is
    not legislative in character, but only informational, and may be delegated
    3. That an ordinance, approved by a municipal council duly constituted , which suspends the
    effects of another which had been enacted to favor the grantee of a cockpit license, is valid
    and legal.

    You might also like