3. Lina v.

Pano
Facts:
Atty. Tony Calvento applied for mayor's license to open a lotto outlet in the pr
ovince of Laguna. However, mayor Cataquiz denied such application in view of the
ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna entitled Kapasiyahan
Blg. 508, T. 1995 which states the firm objection of the province in any form o
f gambling. Atty. Calvento filed a complaint for declaratory relief with prayer
for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, assailing the resolu
tion to be curtailment of the power of the state, prior consultation was not man
datory and his operation of lotto system was legal because of the authority give
n to him by PCSO. In its decision, the regional trial court favored the Atty. Ca
lvento. Hence, the present petition of Mayor Cataquiz contending that it was a v
alid policy declaration, valid exercise of the police power of the province unde
r the general wetware clause and lotto operation is illegal.
Issue:
(1) whether Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Lag
una and the denial of a mayor's permit based thereon are valid; and
(2) whether prior consultations and approval by the concerned Sanggunian are nee
ded before a lotto system can be operated in a given local government unit.
Held:
The policy statement expressing the local government's objection to the lotto is
valid in exercise of its autonomy to air its views. However, it could not and s
hould not be interpreted as a measure or ordinance prohibiting the operation of
lotto because the game is a game of chance authorized by the national government
. It is worth stressing that the local government unit's owe their origin to, an
d derive their powers and rights wholly from the legislature. As such, the munic
ipal government are only agents of the national government. In our unitary form
of government, any form of autonomy granted to local governments will necessaril
y be limited and confined within the extent allowed by the central authority. Si
nce the operation of the business activity is authorized by a law passed by Cong
ress, the ordinance cannot prevail over the source of its power.
In the second issue is only an afterthought of the province. Sections 2 (c) and
27 of Republic Act 7160 should be read with Section 26 thereof, which apply only
to national programs and/or projects which are to be implemented in a particula
r local community. Lotto is neither a program nor a project of the national gove
rnment, but of a charitable institution, the PCSO.
Therefore the petition is denied.