THE Monday (Aug. 5) raid on the D & C Coliseum, a cockpit in Estancia-Ibabao, Mandaue City, set off a storm of interest and controversy for two reasons:
The big number of cockfight enthusiasts arrested and detained for at least two days: 372. That’s a lot of “perps” in one arrest in local police history.
The disputed issues spawned by the incident: local ordinance and authority against national law; an old special law vs. a newer general law; public interest conflicted by the mayor’s private interest.
Bettors not in list
The number of suspects hauled to Camp Sotero Cabahug by CIDG police ballooned because they included everyone who was inside the cockpit. The 45-year-old Presidential Decree 449 or Cockfighting Law of 1974 enumerates in section 8 (penal provisions) the persons liable for its violation: “financer, owner, manager or operator of cockpit, gaffer, referee, or bet taker.”
No mention of “bettor,” which the law defines in section 6. The others listed as persons liable are those “allowing, promoting or participating in any other kind of gambling in the premises of the cockpit during the cockfights.” Those arrested were presumably cockfight bettors unless police can show they were taking part in another kind of gambling during the arrest.
Local autonomy
The mayor, according to the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act #7160), has the power to grant licenses and permits “in accordance with existing laws and ordinances” and revoke them for violation of conditions. The City Council, the same law says, is authorized “to regulate cockpits, cockfighting and the keeping or training of gamecocks...”
That’s local autonomy, a policy “to which the Constitution is committed.”
And, as the Court of Appeals pointed out (in the 1986 case of Philippine Gamefowl Commission and Hee Acusar vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and Bogo Mayor Celestino Martinez Jr. et al), the policy is “recognition of the superior competence of local officials in dealing with a local matter with which they can be expected to be more knowledgeable than national officials.” Which the Supreme Court affirmed when it ruled on the same case, calling it “an interference in purely local affairs.”
CIDG decision
But here’s where the regulations clashed:
The Mandaue City Council ordinance, City Administrator Jamaal James Calipayan told news media, regulates operation of city cockpits and the mayor granted the permit basing on the ordinance. The four-day-per-week (Sunday to Wednesday) cockfights of D&C conform to the city ordinance, Calipayan said.
But PD 449 limits the gambling to Sundays, legal holidays (except on specified holidays when it is specifically banned), local fiestas for not more than three days, and fairs, carnivals and expos, as well as special cockfights for tourists and charity. And those exceptions carry rigid conditions.
The CIDG knew which law to enforce and staged the raid.
Limits of national law
Wait, did the 28-year-old Local Government Code not fully empower local governments as “self-reliant communities”? Powers, duties and functions of cities like Mandaue, as provided by the code’s section 458, include the authority “to license the establishment, operation and maintenance of cockpits and regulate cockfighting ...”
It appears, however, that local autonomy on cockfighting is still subject to the national Cockfighting Law’s limits. The Local Government Code’s section, which enumerate the decrees and laws repealed by it, does not include PD 449 or Cockfighting Law.
The reason for retaining the measures set by the national authority, as explained in the 2005 case of Tan vs. Parena, is the “ability of the National Government to implement police power measures that affect municipal governments,” especially if the subject regulated is “a condition of universal character irrespective of territorial jurisdictions.” And, the high court said, “cockfighting is one such condition.”
Conflict of interest
Sorting out the laws and ordinance governing local cockfights is only one facet of the controversy. More daunting is the challenge posed by the conflict-of-interest situation with the mayor or his family owning the D&C cockpit.
Even though city manager Calipayan said Mayor Jonas Cortes had long divested his interest in the cockpit, the clash of interests is still apparent if not real.
Mayor Jonas may need to act more prudently than he did during the years when he was both mayor and owner, or blood relative of the owner, of the business involved in the controversy.