21 June 2019

ATTY. EUGENE ESPEDIDO

Member, Transition Team of Mayor-Elect Chan
Lapu-Lapu City

RE: REQUEST FOR LEGAL OPINION ON PROPOSED

ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE
SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD FOR ANY AND ALL FORMS
OF USE OF ANY PORTION OF THE MUNICIPAL WATERS OF
LAPU-LAPU CITY

Dear Sir,

This has reference on your request for legal opinion on the

proposed ordinance of the City of Lapu-Lapu requiring the
endorsement of the Sangguniang Panlungsod for any and all
forms of use of any portion of the municipal waters of the City.

Here are my observations:

(a) In cases of foreshore lease, it must be stressed that the

subject matter is governed by DENR Administrative
Order No. 99-34 and that the application for any
foreshore lease must be with the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. In the said order, it
outlined the requirements for the process of the
application and it did not include the favorable
endorsement by the City Council. By enacting the
subject ordinance, it will in effect be adding a
requirement that is not required in the application for a
lease agreement.

The difficulty of securing an endorsement for a

foreshore lease may in itself be a hindrance for business
entities to apply for an agreement with the DENR.
 (b) The proposed ordinance will add an additional
requirement for the fishpond lease, which is already
covered by the guidelines set forth by the Department
of Agriculture- BFAR.

(c) It would appear that the purpose of the endorsement

that will be required is only as an additional
requirement for the Mayor’s permit and or the
development permit. But it must be stressed that any
activity that was mentioned in the proposed ordinance
requires only permits from different national agencies
and that the government agencies did not even
require a business permit and or development permit
from the City.

(d) The proposed ordinance is confiscatory in nature since

the non-compliance of it would ipso facto render the
business permit invalid and without force and effect.

In the case of Lim vs. CA1, the Supreme Court said that
it is clear that the power of the Mayor to issue business
licenses and permits necessarily includes the corollary
power to suspend, revoke or even refuse to issue the
same. However, the power to suspend or revoke these
licenses and permits is expressly premised on the
violation of the condition of the said licenses and
permits. As aptly discussed in the case of Austin-
Hardware, Inc. vs. CA2, the power to license carries with
it the authority to provide reasonable terms and
conditions under which the licensed business shall be
conducted.

It would appear that the power to suspend or revoke

the existence of the business permit lies within the
Office of the City Mayor and that to enact an

1
GR No. 111397, 12 August 2002
2
69 SCRA 564
 ordinance that would declare ipso facto the
invalidation of a business permit is actually infringing
with the power of the City Mayor.

The revocation of the business permit should not be

done without observing the requirement of due
process. The City Government must exercise caution in
revoking the business permit since once it is issued, it
vest with the grantee a right to conduct his affairs and
it can only be invalidated after the observance of due
process.

I hope you will find this in order.

Respectfully yours,

Atty. James Allan C. Sayson