Hon. Alfredo Lim, in his capacity as Mayor of Manila, and the City of Manila, petitioners,VersusHon. Felipe Pacquing, judge, RTC Manila and Associated Corporation, repondents

Teofisto Guingona, Jr. and Dominador Cepeda, petitionersVersus Hon. Vetino Reyes and Associated Development Corporation, respondents

January 27, 1995Padilla, J.:

FACTS:

DISSENTING OPINION By JUSTICE PUNO

Nothing from the explanatory note of House Bill 3204 suggests any intent of the law to revoke the power of the City of Manila to issue permits to operate jai-alai games within its territorial jurisdiction.

RA 954 does not intimate that it is repealing any existing law like Charter of manila. The reason is obvious- it simply prohibited certain practices in jai-alai then still unregulated by the laws of the land. It did not regulates aspects of jai-alai already regulated by existing laws, like the matter of whether it is the national government alone that should issue franchises to operate jai-alai games.

In clear and certain language, PD 771 recalled the power of local governments to issue jai-alai franchise and permits.

If the city of manila is empowered to license the ADC it is because the power was delegated to it by congress. The acts of the city of manila in the exercise of its delegated power bind congress as well. The permit given by the city to ADC is not any with legal inferior to a regular franchise. The permit given by the city endows the grantee complete right to operate. P.D. 771 has to revoke all existing franchises and permits without making any distinction. It treated permits in the same class as franchises.

POLICE POWERTests to determine validity of police measure. The exercise of police power cannot be allowed to run riot in a republic ruled by reason.1. the interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of particular class, requires its exercise;2. the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. Tests reiterates the essence of our constitutional guarantees of substantive due process, equal protection, and non-impairment of property rights.The revocation of delegated power to local governments does not impair any right. Applicants to franchises have no right to insist that their applications be acted upon by local governments. Their right to franchise is only in posse. Congress can delegate the exercise of this innate power to grant franchises as it did to the City of Manila when it grnated its charter. Congress can also revoke the delegated power and choose to wield the power itself as it did thru then President Marcos who exercised legislative powers. In the petition at bench, Congress revoked the power of local governments to issue franchises and permits which it had priorly delegated. The legislature exercised its distinct judgment and the other branches of government, including this court, cannot supplant this judgment without running afoul of the principle of separation of powers. There wee numerous applications to run jai-alai games in various cities and municipalities of the archipelago. To prevent the proliferation of these applications and minimize their ill effects, the law centralized their screening by the national government alone. The law excluded local governments in the process.

PD 771 seeks merely to control the multiplication by restoring the monopoly of national government in the dispensation of franchises.