Batac, Louissee Diamond S.

HUMSS 12 E

CASE DIGEST
HON. JOSE D. LINA, JR., SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF LAGUNA,
and HON.CALIXTO CATAQUIZ,
petitioners, vs. HON. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO and TONYCALVENTO,
respondents. G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001

ISSUES: question form

1.) Do prior consultations and approval by the concerned Sanggunian are needed before a lotto
system can be operated in a given local government unit? – (NO)

2.) Is Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna and the denial
of a mayor’s permit based thereon valid? (WON)

3.) Prior consultations and approval by the concerned Sanggunian, is it needed before a lotto
system can be operated in a given local government unit?

FACTS:
On December 29, 1995, respondent Tony Calvento was appointed agent by the
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) to install Terminal OM 20 for the operation of
lotto. He asked Mayor Calixto Cataquiz, Mayor of San Pedro, Laguna, for a mayor’s permit to
open the lotto outlet. This was denied by Mayor Cataquiz in a letter dated February 19, 1996.
The ground for said denial was an ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Laguna entitled Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995 which was issued on September 18, 1995.
“ISANG KAPASIYAHAN TINUTUTULAN ANG MGA ILLEGAL GAMBLING LALO NA ANG
LOTTO SA LALAWIGAN NG LAGUNA”

(A.) As a result of this resolution of denial, respondent Calvento filed a complaint for
declaratory relief with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. In the
said complaint, respondent Calvento asked the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro Laguna,
Branch 93, for the following reliefs:

(1) a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, ordering the defendants to refrain
from implementing or enforcing Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995;

(2) an order requiring Hon. Municipal Mayor Calixto R. Cataquiz to issue a business permit for
the operation of a lotto outlet; and

(3) an order annulling or declaring as invalid Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995. On February 10,
1997, the respondent judge, Francisco Dizon Paño, promulgated his decision enjoining the
petitioners from implementing or enforcing resolution or Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995.
(A1.) As A Result of denial, respondent Calvento filed a complaint for declaratory relief with
prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Petitioners contend that:

(1) the assailed resolution is a valid policy declaration of the Provincial Government of Laguna
of its vehement objection to the operation of lotto and all forms of gambling;

(2) It is likewise a valid exercise of the provincial government’s police power under the General
Welfare Clause of R.A. 7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991;

(3) they also maintain that respondent’s lotto operation is illegal because no prior consultations
and approval by the local government were sought before it was implemented contrary to the
express provisions of Sections 2 (c) and 27 of R.A. 7160. For his part, respondent Calvento
argues that the resolution is, in effect, a curtailment of the power of the state since in this case
the national legislature itself had already declared lotto as legal. As for the allegation that no
prior consultations and approval were sought from the sangguninang panlalawigan of Laguna,
respondent stated as a declaration of policy and not a self-executing provision of LGC of
1991.The respondent judge, Francisco Paño promulgated his decision enjoining the petitioners
from implementing or enforcing resolution of Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995. Motion for
reconsideration was denied. Thus, petitioners filed petition for review on certiorari.

RULING:
As the approaching explanation communicating the neighborhood government’s protest
to the lotto, such determination is substantial. This is portion of the nearby government’s
independence to discuss its sees which may be opposite to that of the national government.
However, this flexibility to work out opposite sees does not cruel that neighboring governments
may really order statutes that go against laws appropriately sanctioned by Congress. Given this
preface, the ambushed determination in this case could not and ought to not be translated as a
degree or law forbidding the operation of the lotto outlet.

The ordain Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995. is deemed to be valid stating in the policy
expressing the local government’s views No. The Petition is denied. The Court ruled that the
ordinance merely states the “objection” of the council to said game(amusement). It is but an
insignificant arrangement articulation on the portion of the nearby committee, which is not self-
executing. Nor could it serve as a substantial ground to disallow the operation of the lotto
framework in the territory of Laguna. It is but an insignificant arrangement articulation on the
portion of the nearby committee, which is not self-executing. Nor could it serve as a substantial
ground to disallow the operation of the lotto framework in the territory of Laguna.

It is but a mere policy statement on the part of the local council, which is not self-
executing. Nor could it serve as a valid ground to prohibit the operation of the lotto system in
the province of Laguna. As a policy statement expressing the local government’s objection to
the lotto, such resolution is valid. This is part of the local government’s autonomy to air its
views which maybe contrary to that of the national governments. However, this freedom to
exercise contrary views does not mean that local governments may actually enact ordinances
that go against laws duly enacted by Congress. Given this premise, the assailed resolution in
this case could not and should not be interpreted as a measure or ordinance prohibiting the
operation of lotto.
As for the second issue, Court ruled that petitioners erred in declaring that sections 2
(C) and 27 of RA 7160 apply mandatorily in the setting up of lotto outlets around the country.
From careful reading of said provisions, the Court find that these apply only to national
programs and/or projects which are to be implemented in a particular local community. Lotto is
neither a program nor a project of the national government, but of a charitable institution, the
PCSO. Though sanctioned by the national government, it is far-fetched to say that lotto falls
within the contemplation of Section 2 (c) and 27 of the Local Government Code.

As the approaching explanation communicating the neighborhood government’s protest

to the lotto, such determination is substantial. This is portion of the nearby government’s
independence to discuss its sees which may be opposite to that of the national government.
However, this flexibility to work out opposite sees does not cruel that neighboring governments
may really order statutes that go against laws appropriately sanctioned by Congress. Given this
preface, the ambushed determination in this case could not and ought to not be translated as a
degree or law forbidding the operation of the lotto outlet.