Facts: Ordinance No.207 was passed by Municipal Board of Cebu, which required ships whose vessels dock at the public wharves of piers located in the said city, but owned by the national government. The petitioner paid the wharfage charges under protest. Aboitiz questioned the validity of the ordinance contending that the said ordinance could not have been enacted because the right to collect wharfage belongs to the national government. As a result of this ordinance, they will be paying twice. The petitioner attacked Sec. 17(w) of the ordinance which states that “charges to be paid by all watercrafts landing at or using public wharves, docks, levees, or landing places,” questioning the application of the word “public” whether it refers to the ownership of the national government, provincial, or municipality, because the local legislators did not make distinction between those owned by the national government and those owned by the city of Cebu.
Issue: Whether or not the city of Cebu may provide an ordinance charging vessels dock at public wharves of piers located in the said city but owned by the national government
Held: No.
Ratio: Because Sec 17(w) of the Charter of Cebu would refer only to those public wharves or landing places owned by the City of Cebu and not those owned by the national government, under the exclusive supervision of Bureau of Customs, Sec. 1142 of Revised Administrative Code.
StatCon maxim: Legislative intent should accordingly be ascertained from a consideration if the whole context of the statute and not from an isolated part or particular provision.
No comments:
Post a Comment