TANO v. SOCRATES Facts: The petitioners filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of:(1)
Ordinance No. 15-92 entit led: " AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT
OF ALL LIVEFISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM
JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1,1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS,
PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF"(2) Office Order No. 23,
requir ing any person engaged or intending to engage in any
business,trade, occupation, calling or profession or having in his
possession any of the articles for which a permit isrequired to be
had, to obtain first a Mayors and authorizing and directing to
check or conduct necessaryinspections on cargoes containing live
fish and lobster being shipped out from Puerto Princesa and,( 3 ) R
e s o l u t i o n N o . 3 3 , O r d i n a n c e N o . 2 e n t i t l
e d : " A R E S O L U T I O N PR O H I B I T I N G T H E CATCHING,
GATHERING, POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND SHIPMENT OF LIVE
MARINECORAL DWELLING AQUATIC ORGANISMST h e p e t i t i o n e r s c
o n t e n d t h a t t h e s a i d O r d i n a n c e s d e p r i ve
d t h e m o f d u e p r o c e s s o f l a w , t h e i r livelihood,
and unduly restricted them from the practice of their trade, in
violation of Section 2, Article XIIand Sections 2 and 7 of Article
XIII of the 1987 Constitution and that the Mayor had the absolute
authorityto determine whether or not to issue the permit.They also
claim that it took away their right to earn their livelihood in
lawful ways; and insofar asthe Airline Shippers Association are
concerned, they were unduly prevented from pursuing their
vocationand entering "into contracts which are proper, necessary,
and essential to carry out their businessendeavors to a successful
conclusionPublic respondents Governor Socrates and Members of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan defended the validity of
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, as a valid exercise of the
ProvincialGovernment's power under the general welfare clause; they
likewise maintained that there was noviolation of the due process
and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. Issue: Whether or
not the Ordinances in question are unconstitutional Held: NO Ratio:
In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution
enshrined in the LGC and thepowers granted therein to local
government units under Section 16 (the General Welfare Clause),
andunder Sections 149, 447(a) (1) (vi), 458 (a) (1) (vi) and 468
(a) (1) (vi), which unquestionably involve theexercise of police
power, the validity of the questioned Ordinances cannot be
doubted.***Sec. 16. General Welfare . Every local government unit
shall exercise the powers expressly granted,those necessarily
implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or
incidental for itsefficient and effective governance, and those
which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare.Within
their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units
shall ensure and support, amongother things, the preservation and
enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right
of the people to a balanced ecology , encourage and support the
development of appropriate and self-reliantscientific and
technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic
prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their
residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve thecomfort and
convenience of their inhabitants. (emphasis supplied).It is clear
to the Court that both Ordinances have two principal objectives or
purposes: (1) toestablish a "closed season" for the species of fish
or aquatic animals covered therein for a period of fiveyears; and
(2) 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.
