I. HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITSA. In GeneralB. Pre-Spanish Times
b. 1 The Sumakwel Code
In 1212, after fleeing from the oppressive regime of Datu Makatunaw in Borneo, 10 datus set up their own tribalcolonies in the Visayan Islands. One of them, Datu Sumakwel, established on the Island of Panay the Confederation of Madiaas and its constitution, the Code of Maragtas or the Code of Sumakwel. The Code of Sumakwel was consideredamong the first Filipino laws enacted before the Pre-Hispanic times. It consisted of 10 articles, mainly focusing onpunishment for laziness.An American historian, Paul Morrow debunks the Sumakwel Code as nothing more than the product of GuillermoCuino’s imagination. Cuino was the first person to write about the Code Sumakwel in an essay in 1858 wherein heclaimed to have translated the Code from an ancient Filipino document. However, Cuino presented no other proof other than his dubious essay. Nevertheless, Paul Morrow laments, much of the Filipino education system to this day stillpreaches the Sumakwel Code as gospel historical truth.
b. 2 The Code of Kalantiaw
Datu Kalantiaw was among the ancient Visayans who built a kingdom with its own tribal code known as the Codeof Kalantiaw, supposedly around 1150. It contains 18 articles, which consists mainly of punishment for criminal actsranging from the traditional ones such as homicide, theft and nonpayment of debts to the bizarre and superstitious suchas disrespect for revered trees or killing black cats during the new moon. The Code of Kalantiaw also has feudalisticovertones such as obligating those with the beautiful daughters to give them up to the sons of chiefs as well as providingspecial punishment for those who commit particular crimes against the tribal headmen as stated in the Code.Punishments for the crimes stated in the Code are cruel by today’s standards; for example, those who sing whiletraveling by night are beaten for two days while those who commit homicide and theft are condemned to death by beingdrowned in the river or in boiling water.In 1968, William Henry Scott, another American historian revealed the Code of Kalantiaw as an outright hoaxperpetuated by forger Jose Marco. Marco gave the Philippine Library and Museum as ancient document claiming to bethe Code of Kalantiaw in 1912. The supposed Code and Marco’s claims on how he obtained the ancient document hadtoo many discrepancies and anomalous reference to historical facts that could not have existed during the time of theCode’s supposed existence. Only recently have a few historians such as Sonia M. Zaide regarded the Code as a fraudbut, as Paul Morrow says, the lie still lives on.
C. The Spanish Erac. 1 Harty v. Mun of Victoria 13 Phil. 152Facts
: Monsignor Harty, an archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church based in Manila, claims that his parishowns the plaza located in the municipality of Victoria, Tarlac, claiming to be in peaceful possession of it for more than 60years up to 1901. The defendant municipality replied that Victoria was constituted into a town in 1855 and that the parishof Tarlac was established many years afterwards; therefore the latter cannot claim title to the plaza. Evidence seemed toshow that the original owner, Casimiro Tanedo, of the land wherein the plaza is located, donated said land to the church ingeneral and not to the town curate, since a permanent curate was not appointed in Victoria until 1867. However, from themoment the town was created, both the town curate and the townspeople have enjoyed free access of the plaza. Still,Monsignor Harty claims the parish of Tarlac owns the plaza on the grounds of 1) prescription and 2) that the act of thecurates and the gobernadorcillos of planting fruit trees and plants on the plaza constituted private ownership.
Held
: Monsignor Harty’s contentions are incorrect. Reasons:1. It was a Philippine custom then that upon the establishment of a new town, a large tract of land is alwaysreserved in its center for the creation of a plaza. Before Victoria became a town it was a mere barrio. It must be assumedthat the principal residents of Victoria wanted to have a public plaza should their barrio be converted into a town.Therefore, even before Victoria became a town, the land now in dispute was always intended to be a public plaza.2. There was no sufficient proof that the late Casimiro Tanedo intended to donate the portion of the land intendedto be a public plaza to the church in general3. It has been fully proven that the plaza has always been used by the people of Victoria from the moment thetown was created4. Plazas destined for public use are not subject to prescription (Art. 1936, the Old Civil Code)5. Planting of fruit trees by the curates, etc. do not constitute an act of private ownership but either evidence of public use or as embellishments for the benefit of the townspeople.
c. 2 Rubi v. Provincial board of Mindoro 39 Phil. 660Facts
: Rubi and his fellow Manguianes filed an application for habeas corpus on the ground that they were beingdeprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of Mindoro. Rubi claimed they were being held against their will at areservation in Tigbao, Mindoro while one Dabalos was imprisoned for having run away from the reservation. Theprovincial officials of Mindoro however, countered that they were authorized under section 2145 of the AdministrativeCode of 1917 to implement measures for the advancement of the non-Christian people of Mindoro by obliging them to livein one place in order to educate them.
Held
: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the provincial officials of Mindoro on the grounds that:1. They were merely exercising the police power of the state for a lawful purpose and through lawful means,which can validly limit the exercise of Civil liberty. The Supreme Court cited past legislation implemented in the Philippineswhich justified the placing in a reservation of the Manguianes such as:a. Book 6, Title 3 – A compilation of laws implemented during the Spanish forcing the Indios to leave poblaciones(communities) or reducciones in order to instruct them to the Catholic faith and enable them to live in a civilized manner.b. Decree of the Governor-General of January 14, 1881- Decree ordering the Indios to be governed by thecommon law and not allowing them, unless with absolute necessity, to change their residence.c. Letter of Instructions by President McKinley – Uncivilized tribes are allowed to keep their tribal governments,subject to regulation by the Americans.d. The Philippine Bill of 1902 – The Philippine Commission (which composed ½ of the Philippine Legislature, theother being the Philippine Assembly) was given exclusive jurisdiction over the territory inhabited by the Moros and other non-Christian tribes of the Philippinese.The Jones Law2. Although the Maguianes were labeled as “non-Christian,” the intent of the law was not to refer to any particular religions or geographical discrimination but is predicated on the lack of civilization by them, which the measureimplemented by the provincial officials of Mindoro intended to correct.3. The measure implemented was a valid delegation of legislative power by the Philippine legislature as it wasdone in accordance with Administrative Code of 1917
c.3 The Maura Law
Queen Regent Maria Cristina of Spain, upon the recommendation of Colonial Minister Antonio Maura,promulgated the Royal Decree of May 19, 1893 which provided for an autonomous local government in the Philippines.Under the Maura Law there was constituted a Municipal Tribunal of five, the captain and 4 lieutenants. It was given chargeof the active work of governing the municipality, such as administration of public works, etc. and the details of taxation. Inaddition, each of its members was required to have special qualifications. These positions were honorary. The term of office was 4 years. The officers, together with 2 substitutes, were elected by 12 delegates of the principalia. Theprincipalia was composed of all persons who has held certain offices (such as cabeza de barangay or former captains) or who has paid a land tax of P50. The Governor General and the provincial governor retained disciplinary jurisdiction over the council and its individual members, the Provincial Board also had supervision of the municipal council (Malcolm, Gov’t.of the Philippines Islands, pp. 69-71, Document 362, The Maura Law of 1893)
c. 4 The Treaty of Paris
The Treaty of Paris officially ended the Spanish-American War of 1898. It was ratified by Spain and the UnitedStates on December 10, 1898. It contained 17 articles, important provisions including:Art. 1 – Relinquishment by Spain of its claim of sovereignty and title to Cuba. Art. 2 – Cession to the U.S. of theislands of Puerto Rico and Marianas. Art. 3 – Cession to the U.S. of the Philippines for the sum of $20 million. Art. 9 –Allowing Spanish subjects which are natives of the Philippines to remain in the Philippines if they so desire. The civil rightsand political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the U.S. shall be determined by Congress.Art. 11 – Relinquishment of all civil and criminal jurisdictions over all territories ceded. Art. 12 – Provides for rules ondeciding judicial proceedings pending at the time of the ratification of the treaty.
D. The American Periodd.1 The Jones Law
The Jones Law of 1893 was virtually an American-made constitution providing for a complete form of semi-autonomous government in the Philippines. It defined government functions into an executive to be appointed by the U.S.President with the consent of the Senate, who was called the American Governor-General in the Philippines. Thelegislative power was vested in an elective bicameral/legislature – a Senate and a House of Representatives. The judicialpower was exercised by the Supreme-Court and other lower courts, with Filipino and American justices. The Jones Lawalso extended the Bill of Rights, defined Filipino citizenship and provided for other safeguards and restrictions.The bulk of the Jones Law comprised mainly of defining the executive, legislative and judicial powers of thegovernment.
E. The Japanese Occupatione.1 Topacio Nueno Angeles, 76 Phil. 12Facts
: Jose Topacio Nueno and 3 other petitioners ran for and eventually obtained seats in the Municipal Board of Manila in 1940. World War II and the subsequent Japanese occupation however took place. After the war, 6 new boardmembers were appointed by the President. Nueno, et. al. claimed that the appointment was null and void because 1) their term of office had not expired due to the world war and 2) even if 1) were not true, they still had the right to hold over their officers until their new successors were elected and qualified.
Held
: Nueno and his goons were incorrect. Reasons:1) The word “term” isdifferent from “tenure.” There is no law which allows the extension of terms of office by reason of war. 2) As for tenure, thesame may be shortened or extended for various reasons, such as the death of the incumbent or as otherwise provided bylaw. The principle of the right to hold over may validly extend the tenure of office. However, Nueno, et. al. cannot invokethis right because under 16 (a) of the Commonwealth Act, the President has the discretion of appointing temporary boardmembers until duly elected board members can be qualified.
F. The Post War Yearsf. 1
R.A. 2264, as amended – The Local Autonomy Act
Entitled, “An Act Amending the Laws governing Local Governments by Increasing their Autonomy andReorganizing the Provincial Governments,” the Act provides for, among other things: Procedure in establishing theprovincial, city, municipal and regularly organized municipal district budgets for each fiscal year, taxation sources;appropriation of funds for the general welfare of the public; grant of the power of eminent domain; composition of theprovincial board; qualifications of members of the provincial board, governors, vice-governors, mayors and vice-mayor;appointment power of provincial governor, city mayor and municipal mayor; and assignment of other powers to theprovincial board, municipal board or city councils. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the interpretation of the LocalAutonomy Act shall be resolved in favor of the local government and shall be presumed to exist.
f. 2 R.A. 2370 – The Barrio Charter Act
“Barrios” are units of municipalities or municipal districts in which they are located. They are quasi-municipalcorporations endowed with such powers as herein provided in said Act for the performance of particular governmentfunctions to be exercised by and through their respective barrio governments in conformity with law.Barrios may be created or its name changed by a petition of the majority of voters in the areas affected. They maysue and be sued and may be deal with any real or personal property in the manner provided by law.No barrio may be created if its population is less than 500 people or out of chartered cities, or poblaciones of municipalities.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
