Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Pedro V. Provincial Board of Rizal

    Uploaded by

    Fe Portabes
    Gregorio Pedro argues that Ordinance No. 36 revoking his license to operate a cockpit is invalid because (1) it impairs his acquired rights, (2) it was enacted with prejudice against him, and (3) it delegates powers to a special committee. However, the court held that (1) a cockpit license is a privilege, not a property right, and can be revoked for public interest, (2) asking a committee to study the sanitary effects is informational, not legislative, and (3) an ordinance suspending another to favor a license is valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pedro V. Provincial Board of Rizal

    Uploaded by

    Fe Portabes
    11 views1 page
    Gregorio Pedro argues that Ordinance No. 36 revoking his license to operate a cockpit is invalid because (1) it impairs his acquired rights, (2) it was enacted with prejudice against him, and (3) it delegates powers to a special committee. However, the court held that (1) a cockpit license is a privilege, not a property right, and can be revoked for public interest, (2) asking a committee to study the sanitary effects is informational, not legislative, and (3) an ordinance suspending another to favor a license is valid.

    Original Description:

    Constitutional Law 2

    Original Title

    Pedro v. Provincial

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Gregorio Pedro argues that Ordinance No. 36 revoking his license to operate a cockpit is invalid because (1) it impairs his acquired rights, (2) it was enacted with prejudice against him, and (3) it delegates powers to a special committee. However, the court held that (1) a cockpit license is a privilege, not a property right, and can be revoked for public interest, (2) asking a committee to study the sanitary effects is informational, not legislative, and (3) an ordinance suspending another to favor a license is valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    11 views1 page

    Pedro V. Provincial Board of Rizal

    Uploaded by

    Fe Portabes
    Gregorio Pedro argues that Ordinance No. 36 revoking his license to operate a cockpit is invalid because (1) it impairs his acquired rights, (2) it was enacted with prejudice against him, and (3) it delegates powers to a special committee. However, the court held that (1) a cockpit license is a privilege, not a property right, and can be revoked for public interest, (2) asking a committee to study the sanitary effects is informational, not legislative, and (3) an ordinance suspending another to favor a license is valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PEDRO V.

    PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL


    G. R. No. 34163, September 18, 1931

    FACTS:

    Gregorio Pedro argues for the nullity of Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, approved on December
    29, 1928, by the temporary councillors appointed by the provincial governor of Rizal, Eligio
    Naval, on the ground that (1) it impairs the acquired rights of said appellant; (2) it was enacted
    on account of prejudice, because it was intended for a special and not a general purpose, namely
    to prevent, at any cost, the opening, maintenance, and exploitation of the cockpit of the said
    petitioner-appellant; and (3) it provides for special committee composed of persons who are not
    members of the council, vested them with powers which of their very nature, cannot be delegated
    by said council to that committee.

    He further contends that, having obtained the proper permit to maintain, exploit, and open to the
    public the cockpit in question, having paid the license fee and fulfilled all the requirements
    provided by Ordinance No. 35, series of 1928, he has acquired a right which cannot be taken
    away from him by Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, which was subsequently approved.

    ISSUE:

    Whether a license authorizing the operation and exploitation of a cockpit falls under property
    rights which a person may not be deprived of without due process of law.

    HELD:

    NO. The court held: (1) That a license authorizing the operation and exploitation of a cockpit is
    not property of which the holder may not be deprived without due process of law, but a mere
    privilege which may be revoked when the public interests so require; (2) that the work entrusted
    by a municipal council to a special sanitary committee to make a study of the sanitary effects
    upon the neighbourhood of the establishment of a cockpit, is not legislative in character, but only
    informational, and may be delegated; and (3) that an ordinance, approved by a municipal council
    duly constituted, which suspends the effects of another which had been enacted to favor the
    grantee of a cockpit license, is valid and legal.

    You might also like