DOES IT MEAN THAT EVEN IF THE ORDINANCE IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG IT IS STILL PRESUMED VALID? Does that mean that even though there is national law RA 4136 which states that only the LTO and its deputized enforcers can confiscate driver’s licenses, the Manila ordinance is still PRESUMED VALID?
In other words, despite the clarity provided in RA 4136 that NO PROVINCIAL BOARD, CITY OR MUNICIPAL BOARD OR COUNCIL SHALL ENACT OR ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISION OF THIS ACT is the ordinance still presumed valid?
The Constitutional principle that an ordinance is PRESUMED VALID is NOT ABSOLUTE. In that case, our legislators are not careful in passing the bill. Let’s just pass it because it’s PRESUMED VALID anyway. The mayor will also not be careful and just sign and enforce the ordinance because it is PRESUMED VALID.
And can we expect an ordinary motorist to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer and filing a court case to attack a PRESUMED VALID ordinance?
When the ordinance is CLEARLY contrary to a national law or violates human rights, the presumption is reversed. The one who implements the law must prove that what he implements is valid.
Similar to the confiscation of the license, first follow the DILG and study the ordinance first. First suspend the confiscation of the license.
If other LGUs like QC follow suit, it might not be bad if Manila also follows rather than using the presumption that the ordinance is PRESUMED VALID.
The DILG’s memo to the LGUs although it cannot repeal the ordinances is an order that must be obeyed.
The DILG MEMO shall be PRESUMED VALID because it was passed “in the performance of the regular duties of the DILG SECRETARY WHO IS AN ALTER EGO OF THE PRESIDENT”.
oOo oOo oOo
Atty. Ariel Inton
President, Lawyers for Commuters Safety and Protection
The post IS IT PRESUMED VALID? (Last part) appeared first on REMATE ONLINE.