Primary Holding

Tax ordinances are governed by the Local Tax Code’s publication requirements (post-approval only), overriding the Revised City Charter’s stricter pre- and post-enactment rules.

Background

June 12–15, 1974: Manila’s Municipal Board enacted and Mayor Bagatsing approved Ordinance No. 7522, imposing fees on public market stalls. February 17, 1975: The Federation of Manila Market Vendors sued to invalidate the ordinance, claiming non-compliance with the City Charter’s publication rules. August 29, 1975: The Court of First Instance (Manila) nullified the ordinance for lacking pre-enactment publication.

Facts

• 1. Ordinance No. 7522 regulated public markets and imposed stall rental fees.
• 2. Published only after approval via posting in public markets and legislative halls, per the Local Tax Code.
• 3. Respondents argued the City Charter (RA 409) required pre-enactment and post-approval publication in newspapers.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The Local Tax Code (PD 231) applies as a later general law, requiring only post-approval publication by posting or newspaper.
• 2. Respondents failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Local Tax Code (appeal to city fiscal and Secretary of Justice).
• 3. The ordinance’s fees are valid revenue-raising measures under the Local Tax Code and the Constitution.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The City Charter’s stricter publication rules (pre- and post-enactment in newspapers) were mandatory and not followed.
• 2. The Market Committee was not consulted, violating RA 6039.
• 3. The ordinance violated PD 7 (livestock fees) and the Anti-Graft Law.

Issues

• 1. Does the Local Tax Code (post-approval publication) override the City Charter’s dual publication requirement for tax ordinances?
• 2. Did respondents fail to exhaust administrative remedies?
• 3. Is the ordinance invalid for non-compliance with PD 7, RA 6039, or the Anti-Graft Law?

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court resolved the conflict between the Revised City Charter (RA 409) and the Local Tax Code (PD 231) by applying the principle that a later general law addressing a specific subject (tax ordinances) supersedes an earlier special law (City Charter). While RA 409 required pre- and post-enactment newspaper publication for all ordinances, PD 231—enacted later—mandated only post-approval publication via posting or newspapers for tax ordinances. The Court emphasized that PD 231’s specificity on tax-related ordinances rendered it controlling over RA 409’s general publication rules
• 2. The Court clarified that while RA 409 (a special law) governs ordinances in general, PD 231 (a general law) specifically regulates tax ordinances. Under the legal maxim “generalia specialibus non derogant” (general laws do not override specific ones), PD 231’s provisions on tax ordinance publication prevailed. The Court noted that PD 231’s enactment in 1973 implicitly modified RA 409’s 1949 requirements, reflecting legislative intent to harmonize conflicting systems
• 3. The Court rejected the respondents’ claim that Ordinance No. 7522 was not a “tax ordinance.” It affirmed that revenue-raising measures (e.g., stall rental fees) fall squarely under the Local Tax Code’s scope. Citing the 1987 Constitution, the Court underscored local governments’ authority to levy taxes and fees as part of their fiscal autonomy, provided they comply with national laws like PD 231
• 4. The Court dismissed arguments that the ordinance violated Presidential Decree No. 7 (prohibiting unauthorized livestock fees). PD 7 explicitly allows fees “authorized by local governments,” and PD 231 (Section 31) permits slaughter and corral fees. The ordinance’s fees were deemed lawful exercises of Manila’s taxing powers
• 5. The Court ruled that the Market Committee’s non-participation in drafting the ordinance did not invalidate it. Under RA 6039, the committee’s function is recommendatory, not mandatory. The Municipal Board retained full legislative authority, and the committee’s absence did not impair the ordinance’s legality
• 6. The Court upheld the reasonableness of the fees imposed by Ordinance No. 7522, noting they were designed to fund market maintenance and operations. It rejected claims of graft or overreach, emphasizing that the fees aligned with the Local Tax Code’s objectives and the city’s constitutional revenue-raising mandate
• 7. The Court reiterated that charter provisions must yield to national laws and the Constitution. A city charter cannot contravene statewide policies or later statutes addressing the same subject. This ensures uniformity in tax administration and prevents local laws from undermining national legislative intent
• 8. The ruling was en banc with no dissents, reflecting the Court’s unanimous agreement with Justice Martin’s rationale. The decision reinforced the hierarchy of laws and streamlined the publication requirements for local tax ordinances nationwide

Doctrines

• 1. General vs. Special Laws: A later general law on a specific subject (tax ordinances) overrides an earlier special law (City Charter) on the same subject.
• 2. Exhaustion of Remedies: Not required for pure legal questions or when administrative processes are inadequate.

Key Excerpts

• 1. “A charter must yield to the constitution and general laws of the state.”
• 2. “The law-making power cannot be said to have intended the establishment of conflicting and hostile systems upon the same subject.”

Precedents Cited

• 1. City of Manila v. Teotico (1968): Upheld the Civil Code over the City Charter in liability cases, establishing that specific statutes prevail over general charter provisions.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Revised City Charter (RA 409): §17 (publication rules).
• 2. Local Tax Code (PD 231): §43 (post-approval publication).
• 3. 1987 Constitution (Art. XI, §5): Local governments’ taxing authority.