Case Digest (G.R. No. 110249)
Facts:
Alfredo Tano, et al. v. Gov. Salvador P. Socrates, et al., G.R. No. 110249, August 21, 1997, Supreme Court En Banc, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioners (over eighty individuals and the Airline Shippers Association of Palawan) sought certiorari, injunction and related reliefs challenging: Ordinance No. 15-92 (Sangguniang Panlungsod, Puerto Princesa, enacted 15 December 1992, effective 1 January 1993), Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993 (Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero, dated 22 January 1993), and Resolution No. 33 / Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993 (Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan, enacted 19 February 1993). They alleged these measures unconstitutionally deprived fishermen and marine merchants of livelihood and sought to enjoin prosecutions and court proceedings based on the ordinances.The challenged municipal/provincial measures (summarized): Puerto Princesa Ordinance No. 15-92 banned shipment of all live fish and lobster outside the city (with enumerated exceptions) from 1 January 1993 to 1 January 1998 and prescribed fines/imprisonment; Office Order No. 23 authorized city inspectors to search cargoes and hold shipments lacking a mayor’s permit or BFAR clearance; Palawan Resolution/Ordinance No. 2 prohibited catching, possessing, buying, selling and shipment of specified live coral-dwelling organisms and related species for five years, with penalties and confiscation. The province later narrowed the species list by amendment.
Acting on alleged violations, local prosecutors filed and pursued criminal complaints (several petitioners were charged in Municipal Circuit and Regional Trial Courts and before the City Prosecutor). Without first seeking relief below (motions to quash were not shown), petitioners filed the present petition on 4 June 1993; the Court treated it as a Rule 65 special civil action. The Court provisionally issued a temporary restraining order on 11 November 1993 enjoining arraignment and pre-trial in one criminal case. Respondents (Governor Socrates and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan) defended the ordinances as valid exercises of local police power under the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) and related devolved fishery powers. The case...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition proper and ripe for relief by way of a Rule 65 special civil action (i.e., did petitioners, particularly those criminally charged, exhaust or preserve available remedies such that certiorari/prohibition was appropriate)?
- Should the Supreme Court exercise original jurisdiction to entertain this direct petition rather than require resort to the trial courts in respect of extraordinary writs?
- Are Ordinance No. 15-92, Ordinance No. 2 (Res. No. 33) and Office Order No. 23 unconstitutional as violating Article XII, Section 2 and Article XIII, Sections 2 and 7 of the 1987 Constitution, or otherwise beyond the power of the local governments under applicable statutes (e.g., P.D. No. 704 and the Local Government Code)?
- Was Office Order No. 23 void fo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)