LEGAL OPINION RE ESTABLISHMENT OF COCKPITS [DELAYED POSTING]

Republic of the Philippines
Province of South Cotabato
City of Koronadal
OFFICE OF THE CITY LEGAL OFFICER
Tel No. (083) 228-1742


LEGAL OPINION NO. ________

DATE : 27 August 2013

TO : Hon. PETER B. MIGUEL, M.D., FPSO-HNS
City Mayor

RE : AS STATED
___________________________________________________


Kanami Koronadal!


This has reference to your request for legal opinion on the granting of franchise and issuance of special and/or business permit concerning the operation of a cockpit/cockfighting business.

Before delving into details, please be informed that this opinion is supplementary to the legal opinion rendered by the City Legal Office via Legal Opinion No. 2013-08-04 dated 2nd of August 2013. A perusal of the above-mentioned opinion may be helpful and contributive as the controversies and parties involved are the same as this case before us.

I. BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF COCKFIGHTING LAWS

Let us examine the evolution of Laws pertaining to the authorization of the Cockfighting/Cockpit Operation in the LGUs.


A. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 449, otherwise known as "The Cockfighting Law of 1974".


In 1970s, the desire for stricter licensing requirements of cockpits started to see legislative fruit. The Cockfighting Law of 1974 (PD 449) enacted several of these requisites/restrictions, to wit:

(a) one-cockpit-per-city/municipality rule except if its population exceeds one hundred thousand, in this case, two cockpits maybe operated.

x x x

“Section 5. Cockpits and Cockfighting: In General:

(a) xxx
(b) Establishment of Cockpits. Only one cockpit is allowed in each city or municipality, except that in cities or municipalities with a population of over hunddred thousand, two cockpits maybe established, maintained and operated.

x x x

(b) limitation of ownership of cockpits to Filipino citizens.

x x x

“Section 5. Cockpits and Cockfighting: In General:

(a) Ownership, Operation and Management of Cockpits. Only Filipino citizens not otherwise inhibited by existing laws shall be allowed to own, manage and operate cockpits. Cooperative capitalization is encouraged.

x x x

(c) it was the city or municipal mayor who was authorized to issue licenses for the operation and maintenance of cockpits, subject to the approval of the Chief of Constabulary or his authorized representatives.

x x x

“Section 6.LICENSING OF COCKPITS.

City and Municipal mayors are authorized to issue licenses for the operation and maintenance of cockpits subject to the approval of the Chief of Constabulary or his authorized representatives.”

x x x

Thus, the sole discretion to authorize the operation of cockpits as contained in previous laws was removed from the local government unit since the approval of the Chief of Constabulary was required

B. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1803, otherwise known as "Creating the Philippine Gamefowl Commission".


Then came P.D. No. 1803 which established the Philippine Gamefowl Commission and imposed further structure in the regulation of cockfighting.

x x x

"Section 4.

City and Municipal Mayors with the concurrence of their respectives Sangguniang Panglunsod or Sangguniang Bayan, shall have the authority to license and regulate regular cockfighting, under the supervision of the City Mayor and the Provincial Governor, as the case may be.

x x x

Based on the foregoing, the approval of the Chief Constabulary or his representative as enunciated in PD 449 was expressly removed.

However, the preceding section was subsequently amended by Presidential Decree 1802-A, otherwise known as "Amending Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1802". The amended provision ordained:

x x x

"Section 4.

City and Municipal Mayors with the concurrence of their respective "Sanggunians" shall have the authority to license and regulate regular cockfighting pursuant to the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission and subject to its review and supervision.

x x x

As above-mentioned, such amendment removes the supervision exercised by the mayor or governor and substituting in their stead the Philippine Gamefowl Commission (PGC). But the PGC’s power of supervision under such law has been clarified by the Honorable Supreme Court in the light of the Local Government Code then in effect, thus:

x x x

“According to the Local Government Code, the municipal mayor has the power to "grant licenses and permits in accordance with existing laws and municipal ordinances and revoke them for violation of the conditions upon which they have been granted," and the Sangguniang Bayan is authorized to "regulate cockpits, cockfighting and the keeping or training of gamecocks, subject to existing guidelines promulgated by the Philippine Gamefowl Commission."

A study of the above-cited powers shows that it is the municipal mayor with the authorization of the Sangguniang Bayan that has the primary power to issue licenses for the operation of ordinary cockpits. Even the regulation of cockpits is vested in the municipal officials, subject only to the guidelines laid down by the Philippine Gamefowl Commission. Its power to license is limited only to international derbies and does not extend to ordinary cockpits. Over the latter kind of cockpits, it has the power not of control but only of review and supervision.

We have consistently held that supervision means "overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that their subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such action or steps as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties." Supervision is a lesser power than control, which connotes "the power of the officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter." Review, on the other hand, is a reconsideration or reexamination for purposes of correction.

As thus defined, the power of supervision does not snow the supervisor to annul the acts of the subordinate, for that comes under the power of control. What it can do only is to see to it that the subordinate performs his duties in accordance with law. The power of review is exercised to determine whether it is necessary to correct the acts of the subordinate. If such correction is necessary, it must be done by the authority exercising control over the subordinate or through the instrumentality of the courts of justice, unless the subordinate motu proprio corrects himself after his error is called to his attention by the official exercising the power of supervision and review over him.

At that, even the power of review vested in the Philippine Gamefowl Commission by P.D. 1802-A may have been modified by the Local Government Code, which became effective on February 14, 1983. Under the Code, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is supposed to examine the ordinances, resolutions and executive orders issued by the municipal government and to annul the same, but only on one ground, to wit, that it is beyond the powers of the municipality or ultra vires. Significantly, no similar authority is conferred in such categorical terms on the Philippine Gamefowl Commission regarding the licensing and regulation of cockpits by the municipal government.

The conferment of the power to license and regulate municipal cockpits in the municipal authorities is in line with the policy of local autonomy embodied in Article II, Section 10, and Article XI of the 1973 Constitution. It is also a recognition, as the Court of Appeals correctly points out, of the superior competence of the municipal officials in dealing with this local matter with which they can be expected to be more knowledgeable than the national officials. Surely, the Philippine Gamefowl Commission cannot claim to know more than the municipal mayor and the Sangguniang Bayan of Bogo, Cebu, about the issues being disputed by the applicants to the cockpit license.” [PHILIPPINE GAMEFOWL COMMISSION AND HEE ACUSAR vs.HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, MAYOR CELESTINO E. MARTINEZ, JR., THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF BOGO (CEBU), and SANTIAGO SEVILLA, G.R. No. 72969-70 December 17, 1986]

x x x

C. REPUBLIC ACT 7160, otherwise known as "The Local Government Code of 1991".

More importantly, Republic Act 7160 has already conferred such power to the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Said law provides that:

x x x

Article Three – The Sangguniang Panlungsod

Section 458.Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. –

(a) The Sangguniang Panlungsod, as the legislative body of the city, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the city as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall:
(1) xxx
(2) xxx
(3) Subject to the provisions of Book II of this Code, enact ordinances granting franchises and authorizing the issuance of permits or licenses, upon such conditions and for such purposes intended to promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of the city and pursuant to this legislative authority shall:
(i)xxx
(ii)xxx
(iii)xxx
(iv)xxx
(v) Any law to the contrary notwithstanding, authorize and license the establishment, operation, and maintenance of cockpits, and regulate cockfighting and commercial breeding of gamecocks: Provided, That existing rights should not be prejudiced;


x x x

Article 99, Rule XV of the Local Government Code’s Implementing Rules and Regulations provides in toto a similar provision.

There is no more forceful authority on this landmark legislation than Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., its principal author. In his annotations to the Local Government Code, he makes the following remarks relating to Section 448(a)(3)(v):

x x x

"12.Licensing power. In connection with the power to grant licenses lodged with it, the Sangguniang Panlungsod may now regulate not only businesses but also occupations, professions or callings that do not require government examinations within its jurisdiction. It may also authorize and license the establishment, operation and maintenance of cockpits, regulate cockfighting, and the commercial breeding of gamecocks."

x x x

Ergo, based on the preceding provisions and annotation, the power to license cockpits and permits for cockfighting has been removed completely from the Gamefowl Commission and devolved to Sangguniang Panlungsod by virtue of R.A.7160.

Again, it must be stressed out also that even before the advent of RA 7160, the Court interpreted in a series of cases that the Philippine Gamefowl Commission's power of review and supervision does not extend to licensing which belongs exclusively to the Sangguniang Panlungsod. The landmark cases of the Supreme Court elucidates further in the following cases:

(a) Deang v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 24 September 1987, 154 SCRA 250)

(b) Municipality of Malolos v. Libangang Malolos Inc., 11 August 1988, 164 SCRA 290

(c) Adlawan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 9 February 1989, 170 SCRA 165).

In the afore-cited case of Philippine Gamefowl Commission et al. vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., the Honorable Supreme Court has intoned:

xxx xxx xxx

“This is as good an occasion as any to stress the commitment of the Constitution to the policy of local autonomy which is intended to provide the needed impetus and encouragement to the development of our local political subdivisions as "self-reliant communities." In the words of Jefferson, "Municipal corporations are the small republics from which the great one derives its strength." The vitalization of local governments will enable their inhabitants to fully exploit their resources and, more important, imbue them with a deepened sense of involvement in public affairs as members of the body politic. This objective could be blunted by undue interference by the national government in purely local affairs which are best resolved by the officials and inhabitants of such political units. The decision we reach today conforms not only to the letter of the pertinent laws but also to the spirit of the Constitution.”

xxx xxx xxx

It must be noted that the final provisions of RA 7160 decreed that:

xxx xxx xxx

“Title Four - Final Provisions

"Section. 534.

(a) xxx
(b) xxx
(c) xxx
(d) xxx
(e) xxx
(f) all general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, executive orders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.”

xxx xxx xxx

The above section repeals or amends expressly several laws mentioned thereat. However, PD 449 was not among them. It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that implied repeals are disfavoured and will not be so declared --

(a) UNLESS the intent of the legislators is manifest and unless the repugnancy between the two is not only irreconcilable but also clear and convincing as a result of the language used,

(b) UNLESS the latter Act fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier.

Hence, the conditions set therein still find application.

xxx xxx xxx

“Except as provided in this Decree, cockfighting shall be allowed only in licensed cockpits during Sundays and legal holidays and during local fiestas for not more than three days. It may also be held during provincial, city or municipal, agricultural, commercial or industrial fair, carnival or exposition for a similar period of three days upon resolution of the province, city or municipality where such fair, carnival or exposition is to be held, subject to the approval of the Chief of Constabulary or his authorized representative: Provided, that, no cockfighting on the occasion of such fair, carnival or exposition shall be allowed within the month of a local fiesta or for more than two occasions a year in the same city or municipality: Provided, further, that no cockfighting shall be held on December 30 (Rizal Day), June 12 (Philippine Independence Day) November 30 (National Heroes Day), Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Election or Referendum Day and during Registration Days for such election or referendum. (P.D. 449, Section 5)

xxx xxx xxx

Thus, the Honorable Supreme Court has ruled:

xxx xxx xxx

"We do not doubt, however, the ability of the national government to implement police power measures that affect the subjects of municipal government, especially if the subject of regulation is a condition of universal character irrespective of territorial jurisdictions. Cockfighting is one such condition. It is a traditionally regulated activity, due to the attendant gambling involved or maybe even the fact that it essentially consists of two birds killing each other for public amusement. Laws have been enacted restricting the days when cockfights could be held, and legislation has even been emphatic that cockfights could not be held on holidays celebrating national honor such as Independence Day (R.A. 137) and Rizal Day (R.A. 229)." (Tan vs. Perena, G.R. No. 149743, February 18, 2005)

xxx xxx xxx

II. THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE CITY MAYOR IN ISSUING A SPECIAL AND/OR BUSINESS PERMITS AS PROVIDED FOR BY LAWS AND CITY ORDINANCE

A. THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES/QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL /BUSINESS PERMITS FOR THE OPERATION OF COCKFIGHTING BUSINESS


The power and authority of the City Mayor to issue the Mayor’s Permit for cockpits owners, operators, licensees, promoters and cockpit personnel, is expressly provided under the 2008 Local Revenue Code of the City of Koronadal which provides that:

xxx xxx xxx

“CHAPTER 3. PERMIT AND REGULATORY FEES

Article K. – PERMIT FEE FOR COCKPITS OWNERS, OPERATORS, LICENSEES, PROMOTERS AND COCKPIT PERSONNEL

Sec. 3K. 01. Imposition of Fees. There shall be collected the following Mayor’s Permit fees from cockpit operators/owners/licensees and cockpit personnel:

(a) From the owner/operator/licensees of the cockpit:

xxx xxx xxxx
xxx xxx xxxx

(b) From Cockpit personnel

xxx xxx xxxx
xxx xxx xxxx

Sec. 3K. 02. Time and Manner of Payment.

(a) The application filing fee is payable to the City Treasurer upon application for a permit or license to operate and maintain cockpits.
(b) The cockpit registration fee is also payable upon application for a permit before a cockpit can operate and within the first twenty (20) days of January of each year in case of renewal thereof.
(c) The permit fees on cockpit personnel shall be paid before they participate in a cockfight and shall be paid annually upon renewal of the permit on the birth month of the permittee.

Sec. 3K. 03. Administrative Provisions.

(a) Ownership, operation and management of cockpit. Only Filipino Citizens not otherwise inhibited by existing ordinances or laws shall be allowed to own, manage and operate cockpits. Cooperative capitalization is encouraged.

(b) Establishment of Cockpits. The Sangguninang Panlungsod shall determine the number of cockpits to be allowed in this pursuant to the Philippine's Game and Fouls Commission PD449 & PD 1802.

(c) Cockpit-size and Construction. Cockpits shall be constructed and operated within the appropriate areas as prescribed in Zoning Law or Ordinance. In the absence of such law or ordinance, the City shall see to it that no cockpits are constructed within or near existing residential or commercial areas, hospitals, school buildings, churches or other public buildings. OWNERS, LESSEES, or OPERATORS of cockpits which are now in existence and do not conform to this requirement are required to comply with these provisions within a period to be specified by the City Mayor. Approval or issuance of building permits for the construction of cockpits shall be made by the City Engineer in accordance with existing ordinances, laws and practices.

(d) Only duly registered and licensed promoters, referees, cashiers, bet managers, pit referees, bet takers, or gaffers shall take part in all kinds of cockfights held in this City. No OPERATOR or OWNER OF A COCKPIT shall employ or allow any of the above-named personnel to participate in a cockfight unless he has registered and paid the fee herein required.

(e) Upon payment of the fees herein imposed, the corresponding Mayor's Permit shall be issued.

x x x

Article L. – SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DERBY COCKFIGHTING

“Sec.3L.01. Imposition of Fees. There shall be collected the following fees per day for cockfighting:

(a) xxx
(b) xxx

x x x


Notably, Sec. 3K. 04, Article K, of the said Ordinance provides:

xxx xxx xxx

“Sec 3K. 04. Applicability Clause. The provision of PD 449, otherwise known as the Cockfighting Law of 1974, PD 1802 (Creating the Philippines Gamefowl Commission), and such other pertinent laws shall apply to all matters regarding the operation of cockpits and the holding of cockfights in this City.”

xxx xxx xxx

Similarly, Sec. 3L. 05, Article L, of the same Ordinance likewise provides:

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 3L. 05. Applicability Clause. The provision of PD 449, otherwise known as the Cockfighting Law of 1974, PD 1802 (Creating the Philippines Gamefowl Commission), and such other pertinent laws shall apply to all matters regarding the operation of cockpits and the holding of cockfights in this city.”

xxx xxx xxx


Presidential Decree No. 449 provides:

xxx xxx xxx

“Section 5. Cockpits and Cockfighting: In General:

(a) Ownership, Operation and Management of Cockpits. Only Filipino citizens not otherwise inhibited by existing laws shall be allowed to own, manage and operate cockpits. Cooperative capitalization is encouraged.

(b) Establishment of Cockpits. Only one cockpit shall be allowed in each city or municipality, except that in cities or municipalities with a population of over one hundred thousand, two cockpits may be established, maintained and operated.

(c) Cockpits Site and Construction. Cockpits shall be constructed and operated within the appropriate areas as prescribed in Zoning Law or Ordinance. In the absence of such law or ordinance, the local executives shall see to it that no cockpits are constructed within or near existing residential or commercial areas, hospitals, school buildings, churches or other public buildings. Owners, lessees, or operators of cockpits which are now in existence and do not conform to this requirement are given three years from the date of effectivity of this Decree to comply herewith. Approval or issuance of building permits for the construction of cockpits shall be made by the city or provincial engineer in accordance with their respective building codes, ordinances or engineering laws and practice.

(d) Holding of Cockfights. Except as provided in this Decree, cockfighting shall be allowed only in licensed cockpits during Sundays and legal holidays and during local fiestas for not more than three days. It may also be held during provincial, city or municipal, agricultural, commercial or industrial fair, carnival or exposition for a similar period of three days upon resolution of the province, city or municipality where such fair, carnival or exposition is to be held, subject to the approval of the Chief of Constabulary or his authorized representative: Provided, that, no cockfighting on the occasion of such fair, carnival or exposition shall be allowed within the month of a local fiesta or for more than two occasions a year in the same city or municipality: Provided, further, that no cockfighting shall be held on December 30 (Rizal Day), June 12 (Philippine Independence Day) November 30 (National Heroes Day), Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Election or Referendum Day and during Registration Days for such election or referendum. (P.D. 449, Section 5)

xxx xxx xxx

It is important to note that under the Local Government Code of 1991, the City Mayor shall “issue licenses and permits and suspend and revoke the same for any violation of the conditions upon which said licenses or permits had been issued, pursuant to law or ordinance” [Sec. 455 (b) (3) (iv)]. The 2008 Local Revenue Code of the City of Koronadal has already set the policy and guidelines for the issuance such permit or license, incorporating therein the provisions of PD 449. In issuing the Mayor’s Permit contemplated in the ordinance, the City Mayor is guided by such policy and guidelines.

To sum up, based on the foregoing quoted provisions of national laws and ordinance, the City Mayor may issue the special and/or regular business permits in the conduct of cockfighting business provided all the essential requisites/qualifications are complied with, to wit:

(a) limitation of ownership of cockpits to Filipino citizens, although cooperative capitalization is encouraged;

(b) one-cockpit-per-city-rule except if its population exceeds one hundred thousand, in which case, two cockpits may be operated;

(c) the OWNERS, LESSEES, or OPERATORS are in actual possession and/or ownership of the licensed cockpit where regular and/or special cockfights may be held;

(d) only duly registered and licensed Cockpit Personnel shall take part in all cockfights held in this City;

(e) payment of imposed/necessary fees as scheduled shall be made before owners, lessees, operators and cockpit personnel may participate in cockfights.

However, mere compliance to all the above-mentioned requisites for the application of mayor’s special and/or business permit for the cockfighting business would not warrant or render the automatic approval of the City Mayor, otherwise it would tantamount to the undue encroachment on the Mayor’s administrative prerogatives. Such power is discretionary and not merely a ministerial duty on his part.


B. THE BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS ACQUIRED BY THE OWNERS, LESSEES, or OPERATORS UPON ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL/BUSINESS PERMITS RELATIVE TO THE OPERATION OF COCKFIGHTING BUSINESS

Upon compliance with the essential requirements/qualifications provided for by PD 449 and the City Ordinance, and upon approval of the City Mayor and/ or upon resolution of Sangguniang Panlungsod as the case maybe, OWNERS, LESSEES, or OPERATORS of Cockfighting Trade shall operate or conduct their business within the bounds of the mentioned laws, subject further to the police power measures of the local government.

In the case of Social Justice Society vs. Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008, the Supreme Court decided that:

“Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make statutes and ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people. While the police power rest primarily with the national legislature, such power may be delegated. Section 16 of the Local Government Code known as the general welfare clause, encapsulates the delegated police power to local governments:

x x x
“Section 16.General Welfare. - Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied there from, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient 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, among other 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-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants”.
X x x
“Section 18. Power to Generate and Apply Resources. - Local government units shall have the power and authority to establish an organization that shall be responsible for the efficient and effective implementation of their development plans, program objectives and priorities; to create their own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges which shall accrue exclusively for their use and disposition and which shall be retained by them; to have a just share in national taxes which shall be automatically and directly released to them without need of any further action; to have an equitable share in the proceeds from the utilization and development of the national wealth and resources within their respective territorial jurisdictions including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits; to acquire, develop, lease, encumber, alienate, or otherwise dispose of real or personal property held by them in their proprietary capacity and to apply their resources and assets for productive, developmental, or welfare purposes, in the exercise or furtherance of their governmental or proprietary powers and functions and thereby ensure their development into self-reliant communities and active participants in the attainment of national goals.
x x x

Article One – The City Mayor
“Section 455. Chief Executive; Powers, Duties and Compensation.
(a) xxx
(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance the purpose of which is the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the city mayor shall:
(3) Initiate and maximize the generation of resources and revenues, and apply the same to the implementation of development plans, program objectives and priorities as provided for under Section 18 of this Code, particularly those resources and revenues programmed for agro-industrial development and countryside growth and progress and, relative thereto, shall:
(i) xxx
(ii) xxx
(iii)
(iv) Issue licenses and permits and suspend or revoke the same for any violation of the conditions upon which said licenses or permits had been issued, pursuant to law or ordinance;
(v) Issue permits, without need of approval therefore from any national agency, for the holding of activities for any charitable or welfare purpose, excluding prohibited games of chance or shows contrary to law, public policy and public morals;
x x x

As gathered from the afore-quoted provisions, permits and licenses are issued for revenue and regulatory purposes, it carries therewith the corollary power to suspend, revoke or even refuse to issue the same including the power to inspect and investigate for any violation of the conditions of their licenses and permit.

The general welfare clause is the delegation in statutory form of the police power of the State to LGUs. Through this, LGUs may prescribe regulations to protect the lives, health, and property of their constituents and maintain peace and order within their respective territorial jurisdictions.

C. HOLDING OF FRANCHISE, SPECIAL AND/OR BUSINESS PERMITS IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT BUT A PRIVELEGE

It is a well-settled rule that the issuance of franchise and/or special/business permits are pursuant to laws and ordinances, the entitlement thereof is not a matter of right but a privilege, and neither is it a property.

x x x
In the case of ACEBEDO OPTICAL COMPANY, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, (G.R. No. 100152, March 31, 2000), Supreme Court decided that:
x x x
“xxx a license or a permit is not a contract between the sovereignty and the licensee or permitee, and is not a property in the constitutional sense, as to which the constitutional proscription against impairment of the obligation of contracts may extend. xxx a license is rather in the nature of a special privilege, of permission or authority to do what is within its terms. It is not in any way vested, permanent or absolute”.
x x x

In RCPI v. NTC (150 SCRA 450), Supreme Court held that:

x x x

“A franchise started out as a "royal privilege or (a) branch of the King's prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject." A franchise being merely a privilege emanating from the sovereign power of the state and owing its existence to a grant, is subject to regulation by the state itself by virtue of its police power through its administrative agencies.

x x x

Anent thereto, franchise, special and/or business permits are special privileges intended to individual persons or corporations. Being a privilege, it neither confers proprietary rights nor precludes the grantor, licensee or permitee to withdraw the same for causes not in tuned with the law or ordinances.

Therefore, the holding of franchise, special permit and/or business permit relative to the Cockfighting/Cockpit Business Operation is temporary in character.


Hoping that we have guided you accordingly.




In public service,




ATTY. EUFEMIO A. SIMTIM, JR.
City Legal Officer




ABEGAIL F. BATARA, LLB
Legal Assistant II