TANO v. SOCRATES Facts: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of: (1) Ordinance No. 15-92 entitled: " AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH 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, requiring 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 is required to be had, to obtain first a Mayor’s and authorizing and directing to check or conduct necessary inspections on cargoes containing live fish and lobster being shipped out from Puerto Princesa and, (3) Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2 entitled: "A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE CATCHING, GATHERING, POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND SHIPMENT OF LIVE MARINE CORAL DWELLING AQUATIC ORGANISMS” The petitioners contend that the said Ordinances deprived them of due process of law, their livelihood, and unduly restricted them from the practice of their trade, in violation of Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution and that the Mayor had the absolute authority to 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 as the Airline Shippers Association are concerned, they were unduly prevented from pursuing their vocation and entering "into contracts which are proper, necessary, and essential to carry out their business endeavors to a successful conclusion Public 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 Provincial Government's power under the general welfare clause; they likewise maintained that there was no violation 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 the powers granted therein to local government units under Section 16 (the General Welfare Clause), and under Sections 149, 447(a) (1) (vi), 458 (a) (1) (vi) and
TANO v. SOCRATESFacts:The petitioners fled a petition for
certiorari and prohibitionassailing the constitutionality
of:(1)Ordi nanceNo. 15-9enti tl ed:! "N O#$%N"N&' ("NN%N) T*'
+*%,-'NT O. "// /%0'.%+* "N$ /O(+T'# O1T+%$' ,1'#TO ,#%N&'+"
&%T2 .#O-3"N1"#2 14 1995 TO 3"N1"#2 141996 "N$
,#O0%$%N)'7'-,T%ON+4 ,'N"/T%'+ "N$ .O# OT*'# ,1#,O+'+ T*'#'O.!() O8
ce Order No. 54 re9ui ri ng any personengaged or i ntendi ng to
engage i n any busi ness4trade4 occupation4 callingor profession or
ha:ing inhispossession any of the articles for ;hich a
peringanddirecting to chec? or conduct necessaryinspections
oncargoescontaining li:e fshandlobsterbeingshippedoutfro< ,uerto
,rincesa and4( 5 ) # e s o l u t i o n N o . 5 5 4 O r d i n a n c
e N o . e n t i t l e d : ! " # ' + O / 1 T % O N , # O * % ( % T %
N )T * '&"T&*% N)4 )"T*'#% N)4 ,O++'++% N)4 (12% N)4+'//%
N) "N$ +*% ,-'NT O. /% 0' -"#% N' &O#"/$@'//%N) "A1"T%&
O#)"N%+-+BT 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 dOr d i n a n c e s d e p r i : e d t h e
