1991. Under the 1987 Constitution, declared policy: The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments (Art. II, Sec. 25)

Political Law – branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations of the governmental organs of the To highlight this policy, note, an entire Article (X) with State and defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of fourteen sections is devoted to “Local Governments”. Section (3) its territory. thereof mandates: Congress SHALL enact a local government code (a) to provide a more responsive and accountable local government structure initiated through a system of DIVISIONS OF POLITICAL LAW: DECENTRALIZATION with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative and referendum, (a) allocate among different local government (a) Constitutional Law – branch of public law which units their powers, responsibilities and resources, (c) provide for deals with the maintenance of the proper balance qualifications, elections appointment and removal, term, salaries, between authority as represented by three inherent powers and function and duties of local officials and (d) other powers of the State and liberty as guaranteed by matters relating to the organization and operation of local units. the Bill of Rights. (b) Administrative law – branch of public law which fixes Autonomy – is either decentralization of administration the organization of government, determines (deconcentration) or decentralization of power (devolution). competence of administrative authorities who execute the law and indicates to the individual Decentralization of administration – delegation by the central remedies for violation of his rights. government of administrative powers to local subdivisions in (c) Law on Municipal Corporations order to broaden the base of governmental power making such (d) Law of Public Officers local governments “more responsive and accountable” and (e) Election Laws insuring their fullest development as self-reliant communities and (f) Public International Law effective partners in the pursuit of national development and progress” (declared policy of LGC); relieves central government of the burden of managing local affairs, enabling it to concentrate GENERAL PRINCIPLES on national concerns; the President exercises “general supervision” over them but only to ensure that local affairs are CORPORATION Defined: An artificial being created by operation of administered according to law (President’s mandate to ensure law having the right of succession and powers, attributes and faithful execution of the laws) but he has no control over their properties expressly authorized by law or incident to its acts (he cannot substitute their judgment with his own). existence. Decentralization of power –abdication of political power in favor of CLASSIFICATION OF CORPORATIONS: local government units declared to be autonomous; the autonomous government is free to chart its own destiny and (i) Public – organized for the government of a shape its future with minimum intervention from central portion of the State; authorities; amount to self-immolation since the autonomous (ii) Private – formed for some private purpose, government becomes accountable not to the central authority but benefit, aim or end; to its constituency. (iii) Quasi-public – private corporation that renders public service or supplies NOTE: Constitutional guarantee of Local Autonomy refers to public wants. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTONOMY of local government units (or decentralization of government authority). NOTE: Criterion to determine whether a corporation is public – The relationship of the corporation to the Sate, that is, if created by the State as its own agency to help the State in carrying out its Case: PROVINCE OF BATANGAS vs. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, G.R. No. governmental functions then it is public, otherwise, it is private. 152774, 5/27/2004. CLASSES OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS: (i) (ii) Quasi-corporation – created by the State for a narrow/limited purpose (PCSO, etc.); Municipal Corporations – body politic and corporate constituted by the incorporation of the inhabitants for the purpose of local government. FACTS: Province of Batangas filed a petition for certiorari to declare unconstitutional and void certain provisos contained in the General Appropriations Acts (GAA) of 1999, 2000 and 2001 earmarking for said years five billion pesos (P5,000,000,000.00) of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for the Local Government Service Equalization Fund (LGSEF) and imposed conditions for the release thereof such as modifying the allocation scheme for such allotment as prescribed under the Local Government Code and securing approval for local projects from the Oversight Committee on Devolution. RULING: In Section 25, Article II of the Constitution, the State has expressly adopted as a policy tha, “The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments”. The State policy on local autonomy is amplified in Section 2 thereof, “It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals x x x . The assailed provisos in the GAAs of 1999, 2000 and 2001 and the OCD resolutions violate the constitutional precept on local autonomy. Section 6, Article X of the Constitution reads: Sec. 6. Local government units shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them. "Automatic" means "involuntary either wholly or to a major extent so that any activity of the will is largely negligible; of a reflex nature; without volition; mechanical; like or suggestive of an automaton. Being "automatic," thus, connotes something mechanical, spontaneous and perfunctory. As such, the LGUs are not required to perform any act to receive the "just share" accruing to them from the national coffers. The "just share" of the LGUs is incorporated as the IRA in the appropriations law or GAA enacted by Congress annually. The entire process involving the LGSEF’s distribution and release is constitutionally impermissible. The LGSEF is part of the IRA or “just share” of the LGUs in the national taxes. Submitting its distribution and release to the vagaries of the implementing rules including the guidelines and mechanisms unilaterally prescribed by the Oversight Committee from time to time as sanctioned by the challenged laws and OCD resolutions, makes the release not automatic – a flagrant violation of the constitutional and statutory mandate that LGUs’ just share shall be automatically released to

ELEMENTS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. Legal creation or incorporation – there must be a law creating/authorizing the creation or incorporation of a municipal corporation]; Corporate name – name by which the corporation is known; Inhabitants – people residing in the territory of the corporation; Territory – land mass where the inhabitants reside together with internal and external waters and air space above the land and waters.

DUAL NATURE & FUNCTIONS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS: Every local government unit created/organized under the Local Government Code is a BODY POLITIC and CORPORATE endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law. As such it shall exercise powers as a political subdivision of the National Government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of the territory (Section 15, RA7160). Accordingly, it has dual functions – (i) public or governmental – acts as an agent of the State for the government of the territory and the inhabitants; and private or proprietary – acts as an agent of the community in the administration of local affairs, as such, acts as a separate entity for its own purposes and not as a subdivision of the State. BASIC PRINCIPLES Sec. 1 – Act shall be known as the Local Government Code of


them. Meaning of Administrative Regions – are mere grouping of contiguous provinces for administrative purposes, not for political representation. The division of the country into regions is intended to facilitate not only the administration of local governments which the law requires to have regional offices. Creation of administrative regions for purpose of expediting the delivery of services is nothing new. The Integrated Reorganization plan of 1972, which was made part of the law of the land by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1, established 11 regions, later became 12. With definite regional centers and required departments and agencies of the Executive Branch of the National Government to set up field offices therein (DTI VII, DOLE VII, DPWH Regional Office). The functions of the regional offices is to be established pursuant the reorganization plan are: (a) implement laws, policies, plans, programs, rules and regulation of the department or agency in the regional area; (2) provide economical, efficient and effective services to the people in the area; (3) to coordinate with regional offices of other departments, bureaus and agencies in the area; and (3) perform such other functions as may be provided by law. Meaning of Autonomous Regions – creation of autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras, which is unique to the 1987 Constitution, contemplates grant of political autonomy and not just administrative autonomy to those regions. Thus, Art. X, Section 18 of Constitution mandates for Congress to enact an organic act for the autonomous regions (with assistance and participation of consultative commission composed of representatives appointed by the President from list of nominees of multisectoral bodies) to provide for an autonomous regional government with a basic structure consisting of an executive department and a legislative assembly and special courts with personal, family and property law jurisdiction in each of the autonomous regions.

Decentralization comes in two forms — deconcentration and devolution. Deconcentration (administrative decentralization) is administrative in nature; it involves the transfer of functions or the delegation of authority and responsibility from the national office to the regional and local offices. Devolution, on the other hand, connotes political decentralization, or the transfer of powers, responsibilities, and resources for the performance of certain functions from the central government to local government units. By regional autonomy, the framers intended it to mean "meaningful and authentic regional autonomy (that is, a kind of local self-government which allows the people of the region or area the power to determine what is best for their growth and development without undue interference or dictation from the central government). To this end, Section 16, Article X limits the power of the President over autonomous regions. In essence, the provision also curtails the power of Congress over autonomous regions. Consequently, Congress will have to re-examine national laws and make sure that they reflect the Constitution's adherence to local autonomy. And in case of conflicts, the underlying spirit which should guide its resolution is the Constitution's desire for genuine local autonomy. E.O. 426 officially devolved the powers and functions of the DPWH in ARMM to the Autonomous Regional Government (ARG). More importantly, Congress itself through R.A. 9054 transferred and devolved the administrative and fiscal management of public works and funds for public works to the ARG. The aim of the Constitution is to extend to the autonomous peoples, the people of Muslim Mindanao in this case, the right to self-determination — a right to choose their own path of development; the right to determine the political, cultural and economic content of their development path within the framework of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippine Republic. Self-determination refers to the need for a political structure that will respect the autonomous peoples' uniqueness and grant them sufficient room for self-expression and self-construction.

Case: DISOMANGCOP vs. DPWH SECRETARY, G.R. No. 149848, 11/25/2004. With R.A. 8999, however, this freedom is taken away, and the National Government takes control again. The hands, once more, FACTS: Pursuant to Sec. 15, Art. X of the Constitution (for the of the autonomous peoples are reined in and tied up. The creation of autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the challenged law creates an office with functions and powers which, Cordilleras), RA 6734 (An Act Providing for An Organic Act for the by virtue of E.O. 426, have been previously devolved to the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao) was enacted. DPWH-ARMM, First Engineering District in Lanao del Sur. Subsequently, the four provinces of Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, voting in favor of autonomy, became the Section 2, LGC- Declaration of Policy - LGU to enjoy genuine and Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (provinces of Basilan, meaningful autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest Cotabato, Davao del Sur, Lanao del Norte, Palawan, South development as self-reliant communities and make them effective Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Zamboanga del Norte, and Zamboanga partners in attainment of national goals – thru decentralization. del Sur, and the cities of Cotabato, Dapitan, Dipolog, General National agencies and offices to conduct periodic consultations Santos, Iligan, Marawi, Pagadian, Puerto Princesa and Zamboanga with appropriate lgu, ngo and po, before any proect or program is said no in the plebiscite) (later virtue of RA9054, the provinces of implemented in their jurisdiction. Basilan and Marawi City joined). In accordance with RA6734, EO426 was issued placing the control and supervision of the The declaration of policy as stated in Section 2 of LGC reinforces offices of the DPWH within the autonomous region in Muslim declared State policy (Art. II, Sec. 25 of Constitution) ensuring Mindanao under the Autonomous Regional Government. autonomy to local government units. Petitioners Arsadi M. Disomangcop and Ramir M. Dimalotang (Dimalotang), in their capacity as Officer-in-Charge and District Case: LINA VS. PANO 364 SCRA 76 Engineer/Engineer II, respectively, of the 1st Engineering District of DPWH-ARMM in Lanao del Sur petitioned to nullify Dept. Order FACTS: Respondent Tony Calvento was appointed PSCO agent to 119 and RA8999 (creating the Marawi Sub-District Engineering install and operate a lotto terminal. Mayor of San Pedro Laguna Office and vesting it with jurisdiction over all national denied his application for a business permit citing an ordinance infrastructure projects and facilities under the DPWH within (Kapasyahan Blg. 508, taong 1995) passed by the Provincial Marawi City and Lanao del Sur. Petitioners contend that the Board of Laguna, objecting/opposing any form of gambling challenged measures violate ARMM’s constitutional autonomy including lotto in Laguna. Calvento arguing that KB508 is considering that the functions of the Marawi Sub-District curtailment of State power since in this case the national Engineering Office have already been devolved to the DPWH- legislature itself already declared lotto as legal and permitted its ARMM 1st Engineering District in Lanao del Sur. operation around the country, filed for declaratory relief before the RTC, to annul KB 508 and compel the the local mayor to issue RULING: Petition GRANTED. DO119 is violative of the provisions of a business permit for the operation of a lotto outlet. Suit decided EO426 (issued pursuant to RA6734). The 1987 Constitution in Calvento’s favor. MR by Respondent denied. Petition with SC. mandates regional autonomy to give a bold and unequivocal answer to the cry for a meaningful, effective and forceful RULING: Game of lotto is a game of chance duly authorized by autonomy. Autonomy, as a national policy, recognizes the the national government through an Act of Congress (RA1169), as wholeness of the Philippine society in its ethnolinguistic, cultural amended by BP42, the law granting a franchise to the PCSO and and even religious diversities. It strives to free Philippine society allows it to operate lotteries. This statute remains valid today. of the strain and wastage caused by the assimilationist approach. While lotto is a game of chance, the national government deems Policies emanating from the legislature are invariably it wise and proper to permit it. Hence, the Provincial Board of assimilationist in character despite channels being open for Laguna, as a LGU, cannot issue a resolution or an ordinance that minority representation. would seek to prohibit permits. What the national legislature allows by law, such as lotto, a provincial board may not disallow A necessary prerequisite of autonomy is decentralization. by ordinance or resolution. Decentralization is a decision by the central government authorizing its subordinates, whether geographically or Ours is till a unitary government, not a federal state. Being so, functionally defined, to exercise authority in certain areas. It any form of autonomy granted to LGs will necessarily be limited involves decision-making by subnational units. It is typically a and confined within the extent allowed by the central delegated power, wherein a larger government chooses to government. Besides, the principle of local autonomy under the delegate certain authority to more local governments. Federalism 1987 Constitution simply means decentralization. It does not implies some measure of decentralization, but unitary systems make local governments sovereign within the state or an may also decentralize. Decentralization differs intrinsically from “imperium in imperio”. federalism in that the sub-units that have been authorized to act (by delegation) do not possess any claim of right against the Municipal governments are only agents of the national central government. government. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred upon them by Congress as the national

lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal When is statute AMBIGIOUS? If capable of being understood by or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. It is heresy to reasonably well-informed persons in either of two or more senses. suggest that the LGUs can undo the acts and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the statute. Power of judicial review can be exercised by courts to invalidate constitutionally infirm acts. Ergo, courts are not bound by Section 2(c) requiring consultations should be read together with legislative interpretation of their own acts. Section 26, 27, LGC (prior consultation by national agencies with lgus involving projects that may cause pollution, climatic change, De Facto Municipal Corporations requisites: depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop land, range- Valid law authorizing incorporation; attempt in good faith to land or forest cover and extinction of animal or plant species). organize under it; colorable compliance with law, assumption of Thus, Section 2(c) does not apply to lotto, the latter being neither corporate powers. a program nor project of the national government, but of a charitable institution, the PCSO. Also, the argument is an afterthought, Mayor denied application for business permit solely MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS on ground of KB508. Elements: (a) legal creation/incorporation – there must be a law Section 3, LGC – Operative Principles of Decentralization – policies creating/authorizing creation or incorporation of a municipal and measures on local autonomy to be guided by these: corporation; (b) corporate name- name by which the corporation shall be known; (c) inhabitants – people residing in the territory of (a) effective allocation among the different LGUs of their the corporation; and (d) territory – land mass where inhabitants respective powers, functions and responsibilities [is provided for reside together with internal and external waters and airspace by LGC], above land and waters. (b) establishment in every LGU of an accountable, efficient and dynamic organizational structure and operating mechanism that will meet priority needs and service requirements of its communities, Section 6 – Authority to Create LGU – (created, divided, merged, abolished or borders substantially altered) either by LAW enacted by Congress in the case of province, city, municipality or any other political subdivision, or ORDINANCE by sangguniang panlalawigan/panglungosd in the case of a barangay located (c) local officials and employees, subject to civil service law, rules within its territorial jurisdiction, subject to limitations prescribed and regulation, to be appointed or removed, according to merit in this Code. and fitness, by the appropriate appointing authority, Section 7 – Creation/Conversion of LGU – generally, creation of (d) vesting of duty, responsibility and accountability in LGUS shall LGU or its conversion from one level to another, subject to be accompanied with provision for reasonably adequate verifiable indicators of viability and projected capacity to provide resources to discharge their powers and effectively carry out their services: INCOME, POPULATION and LAND AREA, compliance with function – they shall have the power to create and broaden their which to be attested to by the Dept. of Finance, NSO and Land own sources of revenue and the right to a just share in the Management Bureau of DENR. national taxes and an equitable share in proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their Income – must be sufficient, based on acceptable standards to respective areas provide all essential government facilities and services and special functions commensurate with the size of its populations, (e) provinces – to component cities and municipalities; cites and as expected of the LGU concerned. municipalities – to component barangays to ensure that acts of component units are within scope of prescribe powers and Population – total number of inhabitants within the territorial functions (supervisorial powers) jurisdiction of the LGU concerned. (f) LGUs may group themselves, consolidate their efforts, services Land Area – must be contiguous, unless it comprises two (2) or and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them – thus, more islands or is separated by a LGU independent of the others MMDA; properly identified by metes and bounds with technical descriptions and sufficient to provide for such basic services and NOTE: Autonomy denotes “state of independence” (referred facilities to meet the requirements of its populace. previously to states) – community autonomy, that is, local autonomy. In the LGC, local autonomy does not mean total (READ GRINO VS. COMELEC 213 SCRA 672) independence of LGUS from the central or national government. It only means decentralization of powers from national to local Section 8 – Division/Merger of existing LGUs – to comply with government. When exercising governmental powers and same requisites for creation under Section 7. No reduction in performing duties, a LGU is an agency of the national income, population or land area; no reduction in current income government. classification. Section 4, LGC – Scope of Application – scope means areas of coverage, that is, to provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays and other political subdivisions as may be created by law and to the extent herein provided to officials, offices or agencies of the National Government. Section 5, LGC – Rules of Interpretation – (a) provision on power of LG shall be liberally interpreted in its favor; in case of doubt, any question shall be resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of the lower LGU. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to existence of power, interpreted in favor of LGU concerned Section 9 – Abolition – LGU may be abolished when its income, population or land aea has been irreversibly reduced to less than the minimum standards prescribed for its creation (as certified by DOF, NSO and LMB); law/ordinance abolishing an LGU to specify province, city, municipality or barangay to which the LGU to be abolished will be incorporated or merged.

Section 10 – Plebiscite requirement – pre-condition to creation, abolition, merger, division or substantial alteration of boundaries of LGUs; requires majority of the votes cast in plebiscite called for the purpose in the political unit/s directly affected; plebiscite to be conducted by COMELEC within 120 days from date of (b) doubt as to any tax ordinance or revenue measure, strictly effectivity of law/ordinance effecting such action, unless said construed against LGU, liberally in favor of taxpayer (deprivation law/ordinance fixes another date. of property). Tax exemption, incentive r relief granted any LGU, construed strictly against person claiming it (loss of income on Section 11- Seat of Government considerations of part of LGU). GEOGRAPHICAL CENTRALITY, ACCESSIBILITY, AVAILABILITY OF TRANSPORATION AND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, DRAINAGE (c) liberal interpretation of general welfare provisions in order to AND SANITATION DEVELOPMENT, ECONOMIC PROGRESS and give more power to LGU in accelerating economic development OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS; transfer of seat when and upgrading quality of life for the people. conditions and development in LGU concerned has subsequently changed significantly, requires 2/3 vote of members of Note: Basic precept in statutory construction that legislative sanggunian, after public hearing; transfer site shall not be outside intent is the controlling factor in the interpretation of statute. the territorial boundaries of the LGU; old site together with Power to declare what the law shall be is a legislative power, improvements thereon may be disposed of by sale or lease or power to declare what the law is or has been is judicial. When law converted to such other use as the sanggunian concerned may is unambiguous and unequivocal, application and not deem beneficial to the LGU and its inhabitants. interpretation thereof is IMPERATIVE. When is statute AMBIGIOUS? If capable of being understood by Section 12 – Government Centers – Provinces, cities and reasonably well-informed persons in either of two or more senses. municipalities shall endeavor to establish a government center where offices, agencies or branches of the National Government, Power of judicial review can be exercised by courts to invalidate lgu or government-owned or controlled corporations may, as far constitutionally infirm acts. Ergo, courts are not bound by as practicable, be located. In designating such a center, the lgu legislative interpretation of their own acts. concerned shall take into account the existing facilities of the national and local agencies and offices which may serve as the

government center as contemplated under this Section. The National Government, the lgu or gocc shall bear the expenses for the construction of its buildings and facilities in the government center. Section 13 – Name of LGU and Public Places, Streets and Structures – always in consultation with Philippine Historical Commission; prohibition against naming after living persons, change of name not oftener than once every 10 years unless for justifiable reason; change requires prior plebiscite; change of name involving a lgu, public place, street or structure with historical, cultural or ethnic significance can be done only by a UNANIMOUS VOTE of the sanggunian concerned and in consultation with the PHC. Section 14 – Beginning of Corporate Existence – When a new LGU is created, its corporate existence shall commence upon election and qualification of its chief executive and majority of members of sanggunian.

organized under color of a statute before this was declared unconstitutional (by Pelaez ruling), its officers having been either elected or appointed, and the municipality itself having discharged its corporate functions for the past five years preceding the institution of this action. That as a de facto corporation, its existence cannot be collaterally attacked, although it may be inquired into directly in an action for quo warranto at the instance of the State and not of an individual like the petitioner Balindong. DECISION: Petition granted, Executive Order 386 declared void. Generally, the inquiry into the legal existence of a municipality is reserved to the State in a proceeding for quo warranto or other direct proceeding, and that only in a few exceptions may a private person exercise this function of government. But the rule disallowing collateral attacks applies only where the municipal corporation is at least a de facto corporation. For where it is neither a corporation de jure nor de facto, but a nullity, the rule is that its existence may be questioned collaterally or directly in any action or proceeding by any one whose rights or interests are affected thereby, including the citizens of the territory incorporated unless they are estopped by their conduct from doing so.

MEJIA vs. BALOLING 81 PHIL 486 – Since a city is a public corporation or juridical entity, and as such cannot operate or transact business by itself but through agents and officials, it is necessary that officials thereof be appointed or elected in order A de facto municipal corporation is recognized as such despite that it may transact business as such public corporation or city. the fact that the statute creating it was later invalidated, rests upon the consideration that there was some other valid law giving corporate validity to the organization. Hence, in the case at bar, NOTE: De Facto Municipal Corporations requisites: Valid law the mere fact that Balabagan was organized at a time when the authorizing incorporation; attempt in good faith to organize under statute had not been invalidated cannot conceivably make it a de it; colorable compliance with law, assumption of corporate facto corporation, as, independently of Section 68 of the powers. Administrative Code, there is no other valid statute to give color of authority to its creation. Thus, Executive Order 386 creating Case: EMMANUEL PELAEZ vs. THE AUDITOR GENERAL, G.R. No. L- the municipality in question is a nullity pursuant to the ruling in 23825, 1/24/1965 Pelaez ruling. This is not to say, however, that the acts done by the municipality of Balabagan in the exercise of its corporate FACTS: President of the Philippines, purporting to act pursuant to powers are a nullity because the executive order "is, in legal Sec. 68 of Revised Administrative Code (presidential authority to contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been define the boundary, or boundaries, of any province, sub- passed." Note, the existence of Executive Order 386 is "an province, municipality, [township] municipal district or other operative fact which cannot justly be ignored." The actual political subdivision, and increase or diminish the territory existence of a statute, prior to such a determination, in an comprised therein, may divide any province into one or more operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly subprovinces, separate any political division other than a be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial province, into such portions as may be required, merge any of declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity such subdivisions or portions with another, name any new may have to be considered in various aspects — with respect to subdivision so created, and may change the seat of government particular relations, individual and corporate, and particular within any subdivision to such place therein as the public welfare conduct, private and official. may require), issued several executive orders creating 33 municipalities. Petitioner (as Vice-President and as taxpayer), Case: MUN. OF JIMENEZ, vs. HON. VICENTE T. BAZ. JR., G.R. No. instituted a special civil action seeking to enjoin Auditor General 105746. 12/2/1996 from passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in implementation of said certain executive orders and/or FACTS: In 1949, Pres. Elpidio Quirino (pursuant to Sec. 68 of disbursement by said municipalities. Revised Admin Code) issued EO258 creating the Municipality of Sinacaban consisting Petitioner’s southern portion. In 1988, the DECISION: PETITION GRANTED. Since January 1, 1960, when Municipality of Sinacaban filed with the Provincial Board of Republic Act No. 2370 became effective, barrios may "not be Misamis Occiental a claim against Petitioner over portions created or their boundaries altered nor their names changed" affecting certain barrios based on the technical description in E.O. except by Act of Congress or of the corresponding provincial No. 258. Petitioner conceded that, under EO258 the disputed area board "upon petition of a majority of the voters in the areas is part of Sinacaban, but nonetheless asserted jurisdiction on the affected" and the "recommendation of the council of the basis of an agreement it had with the Municipality of Sinacaban municipality or municipalities in which the proposed barrio is and approved by provincial board resolution in 1950. The board situated." This statutory denial of the presidential authority to declared the disputed area to be part of Sinacaban ruling that the create a new barrio implies a negation of the bigger power to previous resolution approving the agreement between the create municipalities, each of which consists of several barrios. municipalities was void because the Board had no power to alter the boundaries of Sinacaban as fixed in E.O. No. 258, that power Whereas the power to fix a common boundary, in order to avoid being vested in Congress pursuant to the Constitution and the or settle conflicts of jurisdiction between adjoining municipalities, LGC of 1983 (B.P. Blg. 337). Before the SC, Petitioner challenges may partake of an administrative nature — involving, as it does, the trial court’s decision affirming the legal existence of the adoption of means and ways to carry into effect the law Sinacaban and ordering the relocation of its boundary for the creating said municipalities - the authority to create municipal purpose of determining whether certain areas claimed by it corporations is essentially legislative in nature. belonged to it. Case: MALABANG vs. BENITO, 27 SCRA 533 FACTS: Petitioner Balindong (municipal mayor of Malabang, Lanao del Sur), Respondents (Mayor Benito and councilors of Municipality of Balabagan of the same province). Balabagan, (formerly part of Malabang) was created on March 15, 1960, by Executive Order 386 of the then President Carlos P. Garcia, out of barrios and sitios of the Malabang. Citing Pelaez ruling (that Republic Act 2370 [Barrio Charter Act, approved January 1, 1960], vested power to create barrios in the provincial board, and Section 68 of the Administrative Code, insofar as it gives the President the power to create municipalities, is unconstitutional (a) because it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power and (b) because it offends against Section 10 (1) of Article VII of the Constitution, which limits the President's power over local governments to mere supervision”), Petitioner sought to nullify E.O. 386 and restrain respondents from performing their official functions.

DECISION: The principal basis for the view that Sinacaban was not validly created as a municipal corporation is the Pelaez ruling that the creation of municipal corporations is essentially a legislative matter and therefore the President was without power to create by executive order Sinacaban. The ruling in this case has been reiterated in a number of cases later decided. However, we have since held that where a municipality created as such by executive order is later impliedly recognized and its acts are accorded legal validity, its creation can no longer be questioned. Sinacaban is at least a de facto municipal corporation in the sense that its legal existence has been recognized and acquiesced publicly and officially. Sinacaban had been in existence for sixteen years when the Pelaez ruling yet the validity of E.O. No. 258 creating it had never been questioned.

The State and even the Municipality of Jimenez itself have recognized Sinacaban's corporate existence entering in 1950 into an agreement with it regarding their common boundary. Also, it has attained de jure status, 442(d) of the LGC, must be deemed to have cured any defect in the creation of Sinacaban. Respondents argued that Pelaez ruling did not apply because, (“Municipalities existing as of the date of the effectivity of this unlike the municipalities involved therein, the municipality of Code shall continue to exist and operate as such. Existing Balabagan is at least a de facto corporation, having been municipal districts organized pursuant to presidential issuances or

executive orders and which have their respective set of elective municipal officials holding office at the time of the effectivity of the Code shall henceforth be considered as regular municipalities”).

GENERAL POWERS & ATTRIBUTES OF LGUs Sources of Powers – Article II, Section 25 and Article X of the Constitution; statutes (eg. RA7160), charter.

no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. It is the local government units, acting through their respective legislative councils, that possess legislative power and police power. In the case at bar, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune Street, hence, its proposed opening by petitioner MMDA is illegal and the respondent Court of Appeals did not err in so ruling. We desist from ruling on the other issues as they are unnecessary.

Section 15 – Political and Corporate Nature of LGUs – every LGU is Points of Discussion – Police power is inherent in the State, a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by the Legislature, but may be validly delegated. Upon exercised by it in conformity with law. valid delegation, the exercise thereof by the delegate being limited only to such powers as conferred by the legislature. Dual Functions of LGU – (1) public/governmental – acts as an Legislature has delegated police power to LGUs (Sec. 15, LGC) agent of State for the government of the territory and its through their respective legislative bodies, under the General inhabitants; (2) proprietary/private – acts as an agent of the Welfare Clause (Sec. 16, LGC). community in the administration of local affairs, and as such, it acts as a separate entity for its own purposes and not as a subdivision of the State. NOTE: RA 7924 declared Metropolitan or Metro Manila (body composed of several LGUs, i.e., twelve (12) cities of Caloocan, Municipal Corporation in the Philippines: Manila, Mandaluyong, Makati, Pasay, Pasig, Quezon, Muntinlupa, Las Piñas, Marikina, Parañaque and Valenzuela, and the five (5) (1) Province (Sec. 459, LGC) – cluster of municipalities or municipalities of Malabon, Navotas, Pateros, San Juan and Taguig) municipalities and component cities, as a political and as a "special development and administrative region" with the corporate unit of government which serves as a dynamic administration of "metro-wide" basic services affecting the region mechanism for developmental processes and effective placed under "a development authority" referred to as the MMDA governance of LGUs within its territorial jurisdiction. (governed by the Metro Manila Council composed of the mayors of the component 12 cities and 5 municipalities, the president of (2) City (Sec. 448) – composed of more more urbanized and the Metro Manila Vice-Mayors' League and the president of the developed barangays, serves as a general purpose Metro Manila Councilors' League) headed by the Chairman. government for coordination and delivery of basic, regular and direct services and effective governance of the inhabitants within its jurisdiction; NOTE: When R.A. No. 7924 took effect, Metropolitan Manila became a "special development and administrative region" and the MMDA a "special development authority" whose functions (3) Municipality (Sec. 440, LGC) – groups of barangays, were "without prejudice to the autonomy of the affected local serves primarily as a general purpose government for government units." The character of the MMDA was clearly coordination and delivery of basic, regular and direct defined in the legislative debates enacting its charter. MMDA not services and effective governance of inhabitants within a special metropolitan political subdivision, because the latter’s creation requires the approval by a majority of the votes cast in a its jurisdiction; plebiscite in the political units directly affected. 56 R.A. No. 7924 was not submitted to the inhabitants of Metro Manila in a plebiscite. The Chairman of the MMDA is not an official elected by (4) Barangay (Sec. 384, LGC) – basic political unit, serves as the people, but appointed by the President with the rank and the primary planning and implementing unit of privileges of a cabinet member. In fact, part of his function is to government policies, plans, programs, projects and perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the activities in the community and as a forum wherein President, 57 whereas in local government units, the President collective views of people may be expressed, crystallized merely exercises supervisory authority. This emphasizes the and considered where disputes are also amicably administrative character of the MMDA. settled; Section 16 – General Welfare Clause – LGUs shall exercise powers (5) Autonomous Regions – refer to Article 10 of the expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as those necessary, appropriate or incidental for efficient and Constitution. effective governance (i.e. promote health, safety, enhance prosperity, improve morals of inhabitants) – is the statutory grant of police power to LGUs through their respective legislative Note: Metropolitan Manila Development Authority is not a local bodies empowering them to enact ordinances and approve government unit. The power delegated to MMDA is that given to resolutions and appropriate functions for the general welfare of the Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and the LGU. regulations in the Note: Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty vested Case: MMDA vs. BAVA, G.R. No. 135962, 3/27/2000 in Congress to make, ordain and establish all manners of wholesome and reasonable laws for the common good; it is FACTS: Petitioner is a government agency tasked with delivery of plenary and its scope is vast and pervasive. However, by virtue of basic services in Metro Manila. Respondent Bel-Air Village valid delegation, it may be exercised by LGUs. The latter being Association, Inc. is a non-stock, non-profit corporation composed only agents can only exercise such powers as are conferred upon of homeowners in Bel-Air Village, a private subdivision in Makati them by Congress. City. Respondent had sought to enjoin Petitioner’s plan to demolition the perimeter fence and open to public access Limits on LGUs police Power Neptune Street, a road (beside) privately/legally owned by the (1) Exercisable only within territorial limits of LGU subdivision. The Court of Appeals, in reversing the dismissal of (2) Equal Protection Clause ( interest of public vs. those of a Respondent’s complaint, ruled that Petitioner did not have the particular class requires exercise of such power) authority to order the opening of the street in issue. Before the (3) Due Process Clause (reasonable means employed and not SC, Petitioner asserted that, there was no need for an ordinance unduly oppressive – case of Villavicencio vs. Lukban, GR No. from the City of Manila to open Neptune Street to public because, 14639, March 25, 1919) as an agent of the State, it was endowed with police power in the (4) Not contrary to the Constitution and the laws (It cannot delivery of basic services in Metro Manila including traffic legalize prohibited act under the guise of regulation. Likewise, it management (involving regulation of the use of thoroughfares to cannot prohibit legal activities but only regulate) insure the safety, convenience and welfare of the general public). Note: Under Section 16, LGU to ensure and support preservation DECISION: Petition DENIED. It is beyond doubt that MMDA is not a and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance local government unit or a public corporation endowed with people’s right to balance and healthful ecology, improve public legislative power. It is not even a “special metropolitan political morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, subdivision” as contemplated in Sec. 11, Art. X of the maintenance of peace and order. Constitution. MMDA’s powers are limited to formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, Case: REPUBLIC (DENR) vs. CITY OF DAVAO, G.R. No. 148622, management, monitoring, policy-setting, installation of a system 9/12/2002 and administration. There is no syllabus in RA7924 that grants MMDA police power, let alone legislative power. PD 1596 (The Environmental Impact Statement System) ensures environmental protection and regulates certain government Clearly then, the MMC under P.D. No. 824 is not the same entity activities affecting the environment. Related to PD 1151 as the MMDA under R.A. No. 7924. Unlike the MMC, the MMDA has

(Philippine Environment Policy), requires an environmental impact statement from all agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and entities, for every proposed project and undertaking which significantly affect the quality of the environment.

law governing local government units. The general welfare clause has two branches. The first, known as the general legislative power, authorizes the municipal council to enact ordinances and make regulations not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon the municipal council by law. The second, known as the police power proper, authorizes the municipality to enact ordinances as may be necessary and proper for the health and safety, prosperity, morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the municipality and its inhabitants, and for the protection of their property.

Davao City in 2000, applied for a certificate of non-coverage (CNC) for its proposed Davao City Artica Sports Dome project from the required Environmental Compliance Certificate (having been certified that its project is not located in an environmentally critical area (ECA). Application denied for the reason that Davao City must undergo the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), In the present case, the ordinances imposing licenses and before it can proceed with the construction of its project. requiring permits for any business establishment, for purposes of regulation enacted by the municipal council of Makati, fall within Denial of application lead to complaint for injunction against the purview of the first branch of the general welfare clause. DENR filed by Davao City. RTC ruled in latter’s favor reasoning Moreover, the ordinance of the municipality imposing the annual that the laws do not require local government units (LGUs) to business tax is part of the power of taxation vested upon local comply with the EIS law. Only agencies and instrumentalities of governments. the national government, including government owned or controlled corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and RE (closure order) - The bank was not engaged in any illegal or entities are mandated to go through the EIA process for their immoral activities to warrant its outright closure. The appropriate proposed projects which have significant effect on the quality of remedies to enforce payment of delinquent taxes or fees are the environment. A local government unit, not being an agency or provided for in Section 62 of the Local Tax Code, (by distraint of instrumentality of the National Government, is deemed excluded personal property, and by legal action). The law did not provide under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. for closure which furthermore violated petitioner's right to due process. Petition for certiorari filed by Republic from RTC decision. Case moot and academic when subsequent change in administration of Case: TANO vs. HON. GOV. SALVADOR P. SOCRATES, G.R. No. Davao City which filed manifestation expressing that it needs to 110249, 8/21/ 1997 secure an ECC for its proposed project. But Court, for the guidance of the implementors of the EIS law and pursuant to our FACTS: City Council of Puerto Princesa, Palawan, to effectively symbolic function to educate the bench and bar, addressed the free city seawaters from cyanide and other obnoxious substances, issue. passed Ordinance No. 15-92 (effective January 1, 1993) banning the shipment of all live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princesa Decision: Sec. 15, LGC (a local government unit is body politic from January 1, 1993 to January 1, 1998. To implement said city and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in ordinance, the acting city mayor issued Office Order No. 23, conformity with law). As such, it performs dual functions, authorizing local law enforcers to to check or conduct necessary governmental and proprietary. In exercise of governmental inspections on cargoes containing live fish and lobster being powers and performing governmental duties, an LGU is an agency shipped out from the Puerto Princesa to ascertain whether the of the national government. shipper possessed the required Mayor's Permit issued by this Office and the shipment is covered by invoice or clearance issued Sec. 16, LGC - duty of the LGUs to promote the people's right to a by the local office of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic balanced ecology. Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City of Davao, Resources and as to compliance with all other existing rules and can not claim exemption from the coverage of PD 1586. As a regulations on the matter. Subsequently, the Provincial Board of body politic endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has Palawan issued a similar ordinance. the duty to ensure the quality of the environment, which is the very same objective of PD 1586. Petitioners, who were charged with violation of certain provisions of the foregoing issuances upon the latter’s implementation, Section 4 of PD 1586 clearly states that "no person, partnership sought relief with the SC contending that (a) the challenged or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared ordinances deprived them of due process of law, their livelihood, environmentally critical project or area without first securing an and unduly restricted them from the practice of their trade, in Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or violation of constitutional guarantees, and (b) the challenged his duly authorized representative." 13 The Civil Code defines a office order contained no regulation nor condition under which person as either natural or juridical. The state and its political the Mayor's permit could be granted or denied, vesting the mayor subdivisions, i.e., the local government units 14 are juridical absolute authority to determine whether or not to issue the persons. 15 Undoubtedly therefore, local government units are permit. not excluded from the coverage of PD 1586. DECISION: PETITION dismissed. It is of course settled that laws Note: Based on DENR-Community Environment and Natural (including ordinances enacted by local government units) enjoy Resources Office (CENRO-West) certification, project area not the presumption of constitutionality. To overthrow this environmentally critical area. SC is not trier of facts. Proclamation presumption, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the No. 2146 issued on December 14, 1981, lists areas and types of Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative projects as ECA and within EIS system under PD1586, eg., heavy contradiction. In short, the conflict with the Constitution must be industries, iron and steel mills, smelting plants, major mining and shown beyond reasonable doubt. Where doubt exists, even if quarrying projects, etc.) well-founded, there can be no finding of unconstitutionality. To doubt is to sustain. Case: RURAL BANK OF MAKATI, INC. vs. MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI, The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it a G.R. No. 150763, 7/2/2004 correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment . . . The LGC provisions invoked by private respondents merely seek to FACTS: For non-payment of mayor’s permit fee and annual give flesh and blood to the right of the people to a balanced and business taxes, criminal charges against certain officers of healthful ecology. In fact, the General Welfare Clause, expressly Petitioner. Pending these charges, Respondent ordered the mentions this right. closure of the bank, prompting the latter to pay, under protest P82,408.66 as mayor’s permit fee and annual business taxes. In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution Petitioner filed a civil complaint for sum of money and damages enshrined in the LGC and the powers granted therein to local against Respondent with RTC alleging that the collection of government units under Section 16 (the General Welfare Clause), subject fees and closure order were oppressive and arbitrary and under Sections 149, 447(a) (1) (vi), 458(a)(1)(vi) and 468(a) which resulted loss of expected earnings. RTC dismissed the (1)(vi), which unquestionably involve the exercise of police power, complaint, which decision was sustained by the CA holding that the validity of the questioned Ordinances cannot be doubted. the closure order was a legitimate exercise of police power by Respondent. Hence, petition with SC. Case: TAN vs. PEREÑA, G.R. No. 149743, 2/18/2005 DECISION: Assailed decision AFFIRMED with modification deleting closure order. RE (imposition of fees) - Municipal corporations are agencies of the State for the promotion and maintenance of local self-government and as such are endowed with police powers in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared objects of their creation. 20 The authority of a local government unit to exercise police power under a general welfare clause is not a recent development. Thus, the closure of the bank was a valid exercise of police power pursuant to the general welfare clause contained in and restated by B.P. Blg. 337, which was then the FACTS: How many cockpits may be allowed to operate in a city or municipality? Comes into play, the traditional power of the national government to enact police power measures, on one hand, and the vague principle of local autonomy now enshrined in the Constitution on the other. PD449 (Cockfighting Law of 1974) provided that only one cockpit shall be allowed in each city/municipality except that in cities or municipalities with a population of over 100T, two cockpits may be established, maintained or operated. In 1993, the Municipal Council of Daanbantaya, Cebu enacted municipal ordiances which

eventually allowed the operation of not more than three cockpits in the municipality. In 1995, Petitioner (Leonardo Tan) applied for a license to operate a cockpit. Respondent (Socorro Perena), who was an existing licensee, filed a complaint with the RTC to enjoin Petitioner from operating his cockpit citing that the challenged ordinance allowing the operation of not more than three cockpits violated PD449. The trial court dismissed the complaint and upheld Petitioner’s franchise reasoning that, while the ordiance may be in conflict with PD449, any doubt in interpretation should be resolved in favor of the grant of more power to LGUs under the LGC’s principle of devolution. Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. Hence, Petitioner’s appeal to the SC.

(under EO205) has the authority to issue a certificate of authority to operate a CATV system, this does not preclude the city council from regulating the operation of such a system in their locality under the powers conferred by the LGC (of 1983).

RULING: Petition GRANTED. Significantly, President Marcos and President Aquino, in the exercise of their legislative power, issued P.D. No. 1512, E.O. No. 546 and E.O. No. 205. Hence, they have the force and effect of statutes or laws passed by Congress. That the regulatory power stays with the NTC is also clear from President Ramos' E.O. No. 436 mandating that the regulation and supervision of the CATV industry shall remain vested "solely" in the NTC. In light of the above laws and E.O. No. 436, the NTC RULING: Petition DENIED. For Petitioner, Section 447(a)(3)(v) of exercises regulatory power over CATV operators to the exclusion the LGC sufficiently repeals Section 5(b) of the Cockfighting Law, of other bodies. vesting as it does on LGUs the power and authority to issue franchises and regulate the operation and establishment of But, lest we be misunderstood, nothing herein should be cockpits in their respective municipalities, any law to the contrary interpreted as to strip LGUs of their general power to prescribe notwithstanding. However, while the Local Government Code regulations under the general welfare clause of the Local expressly repealed several laws, PD449 was not among them. Government Code. It must be emphasized that when E.O. No. 436 Section 534(f) of the LGC declares that all general and special decrees that the "regulatory power" shall be vested "solely" in the laws or decrees inconsistent with the Code are hereby repealed or NTC, it pertains to the "regulatory power" over those matters modified accordingly, but such clause is not an express repealing which are peculiarly within the NTC's competence, such as, the: clause because it fails to identify or designate the acts that are (1) determination of rates, (2) issuance of "certificates of intended to be repealed. authority, (3) establishment of areas of operation, (4) examination and assessment of the legal, technical and financial While the sanggunian retains the power to authorize and license qualifications of applicant operators, (5) granting of permits for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of cockpits, its the use of frequencies, (6) regulation of ownership and operation, discretion is limited in that it cannot authorize more than one (7) adjudication of issues arising from its functions, and (8) other cockpit per city or municipality, unless such cities or similar matters. Within these areas, the NTC reigns supreme as it municipalities have a population of over one hundred thousand, possesses the exclusive power to regulate — a power comprising in which case two cockpits may be established. varied acts, such as "to fix, establish, or control; to adjust by rule, method or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction; or to Cockfighting Law arises from a valid exercise of police power by subject to governing principles or laws." the national government. Of course, local governments are similarly empowered under Section 16 of the Local Government There is no dispute that respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod, like Code. We do not doubt, however, the ability of the national other local legislative bodies, has been empowered to enact government to implement police power measures that affect the ordinances and approve resolutions under the general welfare subjects of municipal government, especially if the subject of clause of B.P. Blg. 337, the Local Government Code of 1983. That regulation is a condition of universal character irrespective of it continues to posses such power is clear under the new law, R.A. territorial jurisdictions. Cockfighting is one such condition. It is a No. 7160. traditionally regulated activity, due to the attendant gambling involved or maybe even the fact that it essentially consists of two The general welfare clause is the delegation in statutory form of birds killing each other for public amusement. Laws have been the police power of the State to LGUs. Through this, LGUs may enacted restricting the days when cockfights could be held, and prescribe regulations to protect the lives, health, and property of legislation has even been emphatic that cockfights could not be their constituents and maintain peace and order within their held on holidays celebrating national honor such as Independence respective territorial jurisdictions. Accordingly, we have upheld Day and Rizal Day. enactments providing, for instance, the regulation of gambling, the occupation of rig drivers, the installation and operation of The obvious thrust of our laws designating when cockfights could pinball machines, the maintenance and operation of cockpits, the be held is to limit cockfighting and imposing the one-cockpit-per- exhumation and transfer of corpses from public burial grounds, municipality rule is in line with that aim. Cockfighting is a valid and the operation of hotels, motels, and lodging houses as valid matter of police power regulation, as it is a form of gambling exercises by local legislatures of the police power under the essentially antagonistic to the aims of enhancing national general welfare clause. productivity and self-reliance. Limitation on the number of cockpits in a given municipality is a reasonably necessary means Like any other enterprise, CATV operation maybe regulated by for the accomplishment of the purpose of controlling cockfighting, LGUs under the general welfare clause. This is primarily because for clearly more cockpits equals more cockfights. the CATV system commits the indiscretion of crossing public properties. (It uses public properties in order to reach A municipal ordinance must not contravene the Constitution or subscribers.) The physical realities of constructing CATV system any statute, otherwise it is void. Ordinance No. 7 unmistakably — the use of public streets, rights of ways, the founding of contravenes the Cockfighting Law in allowing three cockpits in structures, and the parceling of large regions — allow an LGU a Daanbantayan. certain degree of regulation over CATV operators. This is the same regulation that it exercises over all private enterprises Case: BATANGAS CATV, INC. vs. CA, G.R. No. 138810, 9/29/2004 within its territory. In the late 1940s, John Walson, an appliance dealer in Pennsylvania, suffered a decline in the sale of television (tv) sets because of poor reception of signals in his community. Troubled, he built an antenna on top of a nearby mountain. Using coaxial cable lines, he distributed the tv signals from the antenna to the homes of his customers. Walson's innovative idea improved his sales and at the same time gave birth to a new telecommunication system — the Community Antenna Television (CATV) or Cable Television. The query in this case is – may a LGU regulate the subscriber rates charged by CATV operators within its territorial jurisdiction? On July 28, 1986, Respondent city council enacted a resolution granting Petitioner a permit to construct, install, and operate a CATV system in Batangas City with authority to charge subscribers the maximum rates specified therein with condition that rate increases would be subject to council approval. When Petitioner increased its subscriber rates from P88.00 to P180.00 per month in 1993, Respondent Mayor wrote/threatened Petitioner with the cancellation of its permit unless it secures the approval of respondent City Council. Petitioner claiming that, under EO205, the National Telecommunications Commission has sole authority to regulate the CATV operation in the Philippines, Petitioner filed a petition before the RTC to enjoin from enforcing the questioned ordinance. The trial court granted the injunction reasoning that the sole agency of the government which can regulate CATV operation is the NTC, and that the LGUs cannot exercise regulatory power over it without appropriate legislation. Trial court’s ruling was reversed by the CA holding that, NTC But, while we recognize the LGUs' power under the general welfare clause, we cannot sustain Resolution No. 210. We are convinced that respondents strayed from the well recognized limits of its power. The flaws in Resolution No. 210 are: (1) it violates the mandate of existing laws and (2) it violates the State's deregulation policy over the CATV industry. Resolution No. 210 is an enactment of an LGU acting only as agent of the national legislature. Necessarily, its act must reflect and conform to the will of its principal. To test its validity, we must apply the particular requisites of a valid ordinance as laid down by the accepted principles governing municipal corporations. The apparent defect in Resolution No. 210 is that it contravenes E.O. No. 205 and E.O. No. 436 insofar as it permits respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod to usurp a power exclusively vested in the NTC, i.e., the power to fix the subscriber rates charged by CATV operators. As earlier discussed, the fixing of subscriber rates is definitely one of the matters within the NTC's exclusive domain. "The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is obvious. Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local government units can undo the acts of Congress, from which they have derived their power in

the first place, and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the statute. OTHER CASES: VELASCO vs. VILLEGAS 120 SCRA 568 – Manilia ordinance prohibiting barbershops from conducting massage business in another room was held valid, as it was passed for protection of public morals. BALACUIT vs. CFI OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE 163 SCRA 182 Ordinance penalizing persons charging full payment for admission of children ages (ages 7 to 12) in moviehouse was an invalid exercise of the police power for being unreasonable and oppressive on business of petitioners.



Local revenue is generated only from sources expressly authorized by law or ordinance, collection thereof shall at all times be acknowledged properly; All monies officially received by a local government officer in any capacity or on any occasion shall be accounted for as local funds, unless otherwise, provided by law; Trust funds in local treasury shall not be paid out except in fulfillment of purpose for which trust was created or funds received; Local budget shall operationalize approved development plans.

DE LA CRUZ vs. PARAS 123 SCRA 759 – Ordinance of Bocaue, Case: HUMBERTO BASCO vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 91649, 5/14/1991 Bulacan prohibiting operation of nightclubs was declared invalid because it was prohibitory and not merely regulatory in character. Under PD 1869, the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) was empowered to regulate and Section 17, LGC – Basic Services and Facilities – LGU endeavor to centralized all games of chance authorized by existing franchise be self-reliant and continue exercise powers and discharge their or permitted by law. Petitioners (as lawyers and taxpayers) duties and functions currently vested upon them; also discharge challenging the constitutionality of PD1869, alleged that said law functions and responsibilities of national agencies devlolved to waived Manila City’s right to impose taxes and license fees, which them pursuant to the LGC; exercise such other powers and by law is recognized and thus, was an intrusion into LGU’s right discharge other functions as are necessary, appropriate or to impose local taxes and license fees in contravention of the incidental to efficient and effective provision of basic services and constitutionally enshrined principle of local autonomy. facilities enumerate in Sec. 17. (see list of basic services and Specifically, the challenged is directed against Section 13 par. (2) facilities) of P.D. 1869 which exempts PAGCOR, as the franchise holder from paying any "tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well Note: Public works and infrastructure projects and other facilities, as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or programs and services funded by national government under GAA Local", except for the 5% franchise tax due to the National and other laws, not covered by Section 17 except where LGU is Government. duly designated as the implementing agency for such project/facilities/programs and services. RULING: Petition DISMISSED. Section 5, Article X of the 1987 Constitution (on Local Autonomy) provides that “each local government unit shall have the power to create its own source of Section 18 – Power to Generate & Apply Resources – restates and revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and other charges subject to implements Section 5, 6 and 7 of Article 10 of the Constitution, such guidelines and limitation as the congress may provide, but the power is subject to limitations imposed by Congress. consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy. Such taxes, -includes: fees and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local government." The power of local government to "impose taxes 1. Establishing an organization responsible for and fees" is always subject to "limitations" which Congress may efficient and effective implementation of their provide by law. Since PD 1869 remains an "operative" law until development plans, programs and objective and "amended, repealed or revoked" (Sec. 3, Art. XVIII, 1987 priorities; Constitution), its "exemption clause" remains as an exception to 2. 2. Creating their own sources of revenue and to the exercise of the power of local governments to impose taxes levy taxes, fees and charges which shall accrue and fees. It cannot therefore be violative but rather is consistent exclusively to their own use and disposition and with the principle of local autonomy. Local governments have no which shall be retained by them; power to tax instrumentalities of the National Government. 3. Having a just share in national taxes which shall PAGCOR is a government owned or controlled corporation with an be automatically and directly released to them original charter, PD 1869. All of its shares of stocks are owned by without need of further action; the National Government. In addition to its corporate powers 4. Having an equitable share in proceeds and from (Sec. 3, Title II, PD 1869) it also exercises regulatory powers, thus utilization and development of national wealth PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and to regulate gambling and resources within their respective casinos. The latter role is governmental, which places it in the jurisdictions including sharing the same with category of an agency or instrumentality of the Government. inhabitants by way of direct benefits; Being an instrumentality of the Government, PAGCOR should be 5. To acquire, develop, lease, encumber and and actually is exempt from local taxes. Otherwise, its operation alienate or otherwise dispose of real or personal might be burdened, impeded or subjected to control by a mere property held by them in their private capacity Local government. Otherwise, mere creatures of the State can and apply their resources and assets for defeat National policies thru extermination of what local productive, developmental or welfare purposes, authorities may perceive to be undesirable activates or enterprise in exercise or furtherance of their governmental using the power to tax as "a tool for regulation" or proprietary powers and functions and ensure thereby their development as self-feliant Case: LUZ YAMANE vs. BA LEPANTO CONDOMINIUM CORP., G.R. communities and active participants in No. 154993, 10/25/2005 attainment of national goals. FACST: Respondent, a duly organized condomium corporation holding title to the common and limited common areas of the BANOTE: Sections 128-383, Book II of LGC provides for detailed Lepanto Condominium, collected regular assessments from its provisions on Local Taxation and Fiscal Matters. members for operating expenses, capital expenditures on the common areas, and other special assessments, pursuant to its NOTE: Section 130, LGC (Fundamental Principles Governing Amended By-Laws. Exercise of Power to Tax and Generate Revenues by LGUs): Taxation shall be uniform in each LGU; Without citing as basis any specific provision of the Revenue Code Taxes, fees, charges and imposition shall be of Makati or the Local Government Code, Petitioner (City equitable and based as far as practicable on Treasurer of Makati City) issued a notice of assessment holding taxpayer’s ability to pay; levied only for a public Petitioner liable to pay business taxes, fees and charges totaling purpose; not unjust, excessive, oppressive or P1,601,013.77 for the years 1995 to 1997. Petitioner reasoned confiscatory; not contrary to law, public policy, that Respondent is engaged in a profit venture as the collection of national economic policy or in restraint of trade; dues from unit owners was primarily "to sustain and maintain the Collection of taxes, fees, charges and other expenses of the common areas, giving full appreciative living impositions shall in no case be let to any private values for the individual condominium occupants, generating person; better marketable prices for future sale of their units. Revenue collection shall inure solely to the benefit of, and be subject to the disposition by LGU unless Upon denial of its protest, Respondent filed an appeal with the specifically provided herein; and Regional Trial Court which appeal was dismissed. On review by Each LGU shall, as far as practicable, evolve a the Court of Appeals, the latter reversed the trial court’s decision progressive system of taxation and declared that the corporation was not liable to pay business taxes to the City of Makati. Her motion for reconsideration denied, NOTE: Section 305, LGC (Fundamental Principles Governing Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. Financial Affairs, Transactions and Operations of LGU): No money to be paid out of local treasury except in RULING: Petition DENIED. The power of local government units to pursuance of an appropriation ordinance or law; impose taxes within its territorial jurisdiction derives from the Local government funds and monies shall be spent Constitution itself, which recognizes the power of these units "to solely for public purposes; create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and

charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy." These guidelines and limitations as provided by Congress are in main contained in the Local Government Code of 1991, which provides for comprehensive instances when and how local government units may impose taxes. The significant limitations are enumerated primarily in Section 133 of the Code (prohibition on income taxes except when levied on banks and other financial institutions). Found in Title I of Book II of the Code are other taxes imposable by local government units, including business taxes. Under Section 151 of the Code, cities such as Makati are authorized to levy the same taxes fees and charges as provinces and municipalities. Section 143 of the Code specifically enumerates several types of business on which municipalities and cities may impose taxes. Moreover, the local sanggunian is also authorized to impose taxes on any other businesses not otherwise specified under Section 143 which the sanggunian concerned may deem proper to tax. The coverage of business taxation particular to the City of Makati is provided by the Makati Revenue Code enacted through Municipal Ordinance No. 92-072. Article A, Chapter III of said code governs business taxes in Makati, and it is quite specific as to the particular businesses which are covered by business taxes. The initial inquiry is what provision of the Makati Revenue Code does the City Treasurer rely on to make the Corporation liable for business taxes. As stated earlier, local tax on businesses (that is, "trade or commercial activity regularly engaged in as a means of livelihood or with a view to profit") is authorized under Section 143 of the Local Government Code. It is thus imperative that in order that Respondent may be subjected to business taxes, its activities must fall within the definition of business as provided in the Local Government Code. And to hold that they do is to ignore the very statutory nature of a condominium corporation. The creation of the condominium corporation is sanctioned by RA No. 4726, (Condominium Act - a condominium is an interest in real property consisting of a separate interest in a unit in a residential, industrial or commercial building and an undivided interest in common, directly or indirectly, in the land on which it is located and in other common areas of the building). In line with the authority of the condominium corporation to manage the condominium project, it may be authorized, in the deed of restrictions, "to make reasonable assessments to meet authorized expenditures, each condominium unit to be assessed separately for its share of such expenses in proportion (unless otherwise provided) to its owner's fractional interest in any common areas." The collection of these assessments from unit owners is the basis for the City Treasurer's claim that the Corporation is doing business as these collections are "with the end view of getting full appreciative living values" for the condominium units, and as a result, profit is obtained once these units are sold at higher prices. The Court cites with approval the two counterpoints raised by the Court of Appeals in rejecting this contention. First, if any profit is obtained by the sale of the units, it accrues not to the corporation but to the unit owner. Second, if the unit owner does obtain profit from the sale of his unit, he is already required to pay capital gains tax on the appreciated value of the condominium unit. Case: MIAA vs. CA, G.R. No. 155650. 7/20/2006 FACTS: Petitioner Manila International Airport Authority operates the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Complex in Parañaque City under Executive Order No. 903, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the Manila International Airport Authority. Subsequently, Executive Order Nos. 909 and 298 amended the MIAA Charter, where as operator of the international airport, MIAA administers the land, improvements and equipment within the NAIA Complex. The MIAA Charter transferred to MIAA approximately 600 hectares of land, 3 including the runways and buildings then under the Bureau of Air Transportation.

Charter is the proof that MIAA is exempt from real estate tax. MIAA petitioned the CA for prohibition and injunction, with prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order seeking to restrain the City of Parañaque from imposing real estate tax on, levying against, and auctioning for public sale the Airport Lands and Buildings, which petition however was dismissed for having been filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. Hence, this petition for review. RULING: Petition GRANTED. The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are EXEMPT from the real estate tax imposed by the City of Parañaque. All the real estate tax assessments, including the final notices of real estate tax delinquencies, issued by the City of Parañaque on the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority, except for the portions that the Manila International Airport Authority has leased to private parties, are declared VOID. As a rule, a government-owned or controlled corporation is not exempt from real estate tax. However, MIAA is not a governmentowned or controlled corporation. A government-owned or controlled corporation must be "organized as a stock or non-stock corporation." MIAA is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. MIAA is not a stock corporation because it has no capital stock divided into shares, has no stockholders or voting shares and its capital is not divided into shares of stock. Neither is it a non-stock corporation because it has no members. A nonstock corporation must have members. Even if the Government is considered as the sole member of MIAA, this will not make MIAA a non-stock corporation because non-stock corporations cannot distribute any part of their income to their members and in MIAA’s case, Section 11 of its Charter requires it to remit 20% of its annual gross operating income to the National Treasury, thus, preventing MIAA from qualifying as a non-stock corporation. Further, non-stock corporations are organized for charitable, religious, educational, professional, cultural, recreational, fraternal, literary, scientific, social, civil service, or similar purposes, like trade, industry, agriculture and like chambers. MIAA is not organized for any of these purposes. MIAA, a public utility, is organized to operate an international and domestic airport for public use. MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently its governmental functions. MIAA is like any other government instrumentality, the only difference is that MIAA is vested with corporate powers. When the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate powers, the instrumentality does not become a corporation, unless the government instrumentality is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. Thus, MIAA exercises the governmental powers of eminent domain, police authority and the levying of fees and charges. At the same time, MIAA exercises "all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as these powers are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order." A government instrumentality like MIAA falls under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code, which states that, unless otherwise provided by the Code, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities and local government units. Section 133(o) recognizes the basic principle that local governments cannot tax the national government, which historically merely delegated to local governments the power to tax. While the 1987 Constitution now includes taxation as one of the powers of local governments, local governments may only exercise such power "subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide."

When local governments invoke the power to tax on national government instrumentalities, such power is construed strictly against local governments. The rule is that a tax is never presumed and there must be clear language in the law imposing the tax. Any doubt whether a person, article or activity is taxable After, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) is resolved against taxation. This rule applies with greater force issued Opinion No. 061 stating that the Local Government Code of when local governments seek to tax national government 1991 withdrew the exemption from real estate tax granted to instrumentalities. MIAA under Section 21 of the MIAA Charter, MIAA negotiated with Respondent City of Parañaque to pay the real estate tax imposed The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are property of public by the City and paid some of said taxes already due. Later, MIAA dominion and therefore owned by the State or the Republic of the received Final Notices of Real Estate Tax Delinquency (totaling Philippines. Properties of public dominion mentioned in Article P624,506,725.42) from the City of Parañaque for the taxable 420 of the Civil Code, like "roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports years 1992 to 2001. and bridges constructed by the State," are owned by the State. The term "ports" includes seaports and airports. The MIAA Airport When Parañaque City issued notices of levy and warrants of levy Lands and Buildings constitute a "port" constructed by the State. on the Airport Lands and Buildings and threatened to sell at The Airport Lands and Buildings are devoted to public use public auction these properties if MIAA failed to pay the real because they are used by the public for international and estate tax delinquency, MIAA sought clarification of OGCC Opinion domestic travel and transportation. The fact that the MIAA No. 061. The OGCC then issued Opinion No. 147 clarifying OGCC collects terminal fees and other charges from the public does not Opinion No. 061 stating that Section 206 of the Local Government remove the character of the Airport Lands and Buildings as Code requires persons exempt from real estate tax to show proof properties for public use. The charging of fees to the public does of exemption and that in the case of MIAA, Section 21 of the MIAA not determine the character of the property whether it is of public

dominion or not. Article 420 of the Civil Code defines property of municipal government allow, provide for additional allowances public dominion as one "intended for public use." and other benefits to judges, prosecutors, public elementary and high school teachers, and other national government officials As properties of public dominion, the airport properties are stationed in or assigned to the municipality; outside the commerce of man. Properties of public dominion, being for public use, are not subject to levy, encumbrance or The controversy actually centers on the seemingly sweeping disposition through public or private sale. Any encumbrance, levy provision in NCC No. 67 which states that "no one shall be on execution or auction sale of any property of public dominion is allowed to collect RATA from more than one source." Does this void for being contrary to public policy. Essential public services mean that judges cannot receive allowances from LGUs in will stop if properties of public dominion are subject to addition to the RATA from the Supreme Court? By no stretch of encumbrances, foreclosures and auction sale. This will happen if the imagination can NCC No. 67 be construed as nullifying the the City of Parañaque can foreclose and compel the auction sale power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges under the Local of the 600-hectare runway of the MIAA for non-payment of real Government Code of 1991. It was issued primarily to make the estate tax. grant of RATA to national officials under the national budget uniform. In other words, it applies only to the national funds Case: SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. vs. CITY OF DAVAO, G.R. No. administered by the DBM, not the local funds of LGUs. 155491, 9/16/2008 To rule against the power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges FACTS: The Tax Code of Davao City ISec. 1, Art. 10 thereof) as what respondent COA would like us to do will subvert the provided that: “Notwithstanding any exemption granted by any principle of local autonomy zealously guaranteed by the law or other special law, there is hereby imposed a tax on Constitution. The Local Government Code of 1991 was specially businesses enjoying a franchise, at a rate of seventy-five percent promulgated by Congress to ensure the autonomy of local (75%) of one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts for the governments as mandated by the Constitution. By upholding, in preceding calendar year based on the income or receipts realized the present case, the power of LGUs to grant allowances to within the territorial jurisdiction of Davao City. judges and leaving to their discretion the amount of allowances they may want to grant, depending on the availability of local RULING: Smart is of the view that the only taxes it may be made funds, we ensure the genuine and meaningful local autonomy of to bear under its franchise are the national franchise tax (now LGUs. VAT), income tax, and real property tax. It claims exemption from the local franchise tax because the “in lieu of taxes” clause in its franchise does not distinguish between national and local taxes. Section 19,LGC – LGU’s Power of Eminent Domain – LGU through We pay heed that R.A. No. 7294 is not definite in granting its Chief Executive acting pursuant to an ordinance; for public use exemption to Smart from local taxation. Section 9 of R.A. No. or purpose or welfare for the benefit of poor and landless; upon 7294 imposes on Smart a franchise tax equivalent to three payment of just compensation, pursuant to provisions of the percent (3%) of all gross receipts of the business transacted Constitution and pertinent laws. under the franchise and the said percentage shall be in lieu of all taxes on the franchise or earnings thereof. R.A. No 7294 does not Conditions for Exercise of Power of Eminent Domain: (i) Prior valid expressly provide what kind of taxes Smart is exempted from. It is and definite offer to owner which latter did not accept; (II) LGU not clear whether the “in lieu of all taxes” provision in the may take immediate possession of property upon filing of franchise of Smart would include exemption from local or national expropriation proceedings (Rule 67 of Rules of Court) and taxation. What is clear is that Smart shall pay franchise tax payment of deposit of at least 15% of fair market value of equivalent to three percent (3%) of all gross receipts of the property based on current tax declaration; amount to be paid for business transacted under its franchise. But whether the expropriation shall be determined by proper court (reference to franchise tax exemption would include exemption from exactions Commissioner) based on fair market value at the time of taking. by both the local and the national government is not unequivocal. - Eminent Domain – inherent attribute of sovereignty to take The uncertainty in the “in lieu of all taxes” clause in R.A. No. 7294 private property upon payment of just compensation. on whether Smart is exempted from both local and national franchise tax must be construed strictly against Smart which Case: MUN. OF PARANAQUE vs. V.M. REALTY CORP. 292 SCRA 678 claims the exemption. Smart has the burden of proving that, aside from the imposed 3% franchise tax, Congress intended it to FACTS: A resolution passed by Municipal Council authorized Chief be exempt from all kinds of franchise taxes – whether local or Executive to exercise police power. national. However, Smart failed in this regard. RULING: LGC in effect when complaint for expropriation was filed, Tax exemptions are never presumed and are strictly construed explicitly requires an ordinance for this purpose. If Congress against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. intended to allow LGU to exercise eminent domain through MERE [22] They can only be given force when the grant is clear and resolution, it would have simply adopted the language of the categorical. The surrender of the power to tax, when claimed, previous local government code (BP 337 of 1983). Where the law must be clearly shown by a language that will admit of no is clear and ambiguous, the law is applied according to the reasonable construction consistent with the reservation of the express terms. Eminent Domain necessarily involves a derogation power. If the intention of the legislature is open to doubt, then the of a fundamental or private right of the people, hence, manifest intention of the legislature must be resolved in favor of the State. change in legislative language from “resolution” under BP337 to “ordinance” under RA7160 demands strict interpretation. In this case, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the City of Petitioner relies on Art. 36 of Rule VI of the Implementing Rules Davao. The “in lieu of all taxes” clause applies only to national which requires only a “resolution” to authorize the LGU to internal revenue taxes and not to local taxes. exercise eminent domain. This is clearly misplaced. Section 19 of the LGC, the law itself, surely prevails over said rule which merely [T]he "in lieu of all taxes" clause in Smart's franchise refers only seeks to implement it. The clear letter of the law is controlling to taxes, other than income tax, imposed under the National and cannot be amended by mere administrative rule issued for its Internal Revenue Code. The "in lieu of all taxes" clause does not implementation. apply to local taxes. The clear intent is for the "in lieu of all taxes" clause to apply only to taxes under the National Internal Revenue Note: Resolution is a mere declaration of sentiment/opinion of Code and not to local taxes. Even with respect to national internal lawmaking body on a specific matter; it is temporary in nature; revenue taxes, the "in lieu of all taxes" clause does not apply to third reading not necessary unless decided otherwise by majority income tax. of all sangguniang members. Ordinance on the otherhand, is law and is of general and permanent character and requires 3 Case: JUDGE TOMAS C. LEYNES vs. COA, G.R. No. 143596, readings. 12/11/2003 Case: AMOS FRANCIA, vs. MUN. OF MEYCAUAYAN, G.R. No. FACT: Petitioner was formerly receiving a P1600-monthly 170432, 3/24/2008 allowance from the Municipality of Naujan while he was stationed there as judge of the municipal trial court. Respondent FACTS: Respondent filed a complaint to expropriate Petitioners’ Commission on Audit (upholding the Regional Director and 16,256 sq. m. idle property which it planned to use as a common Provincial Auditor) disallowed said allowance citing that the latter public terminal for all types of public utility vehicles with a along with Petitioner’s RATA from the Supreme Court violated weighing scale for heavy trucks. In their answer, Petitioners certain budget circulars (NCC#67) that no one shall be allowed to averred that the subject land was developed contrary to collect RATA from more than one source. Respondent’s claim of being raw land, for which reason, Respondent’s offer price of 333,500 (or P111.99 per square RULING: On October 10, 1991, Congress enacted RA 7160, (Local meter) was too low. Petitioners essentially aver that the CA erred Government Code of 1991). The power of the LGUs to grant in upholding the RTC's order that, in expropriation cases, prior allowances and other benefits to judges and other national determination of the existence of a public purpose was not officials stationed in their respective territories was expressly necessary for the issuance of a writ of possession. provided in Sections 447(a)(1)(xi), 458(a)(1)(xi) and 468(a)(1)(xi) of the Code. Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of RA 7160, the Local RULING: Petitioner DENIED. Sec. 19, LGC provides that, a LGU Government Code of 1991, provides: “When the finances of the may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an

ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws. Before a LGU may enter into possession of the property sought to be expropriated, it must (1) file a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance in the proper court and (2) deposit with the said court at least 15% of the property's fair market value based on its current tax declaration. The law does not make the determination of a public purpose a condition precedent to the issuance of a writ of possession. Section 20, LGC – LGU Power to Reclassify Land – City or Municipality through ordinance passed after conducting public hearings for that purpose, may authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition.

portion to Shell Corporation. Petitioner Favis protested the lease to Shell claiming that said lease diminished the width of LapuLapu Street and that the City was bereft of authority to lease any portion of its public streets in favor of anyone. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of the lease with damages in the Court of First Instance of Baguio. The latter court dismissed his complaint. Hence, appeal to the Supreme Court. RULING: APPEAL Denied. Appellant may not challenge the city council's act of withdrawing a strip of Lapu-Lapu Street at its dead end from public use and converting the remainder thereof into an alley. These are acts well within the ambit of the power to close a city street. The city council is the authority competent to determine if a certain property is still necessary for public use. This power is discretionary and will not ordinarily be controlled or interfered with by the courts, absent a plain case of abuse or fraud or collusion. Faithfulness to the public trust will be presumed. The fact that some private interests may be served incidentally will not invalidate the vacation ordinance.

Agricultural Land, defined: Those public lands acquired from Spain which are not timber or mineral land; land devoted to Given the precept that the discretion of a municipal corporation is agriculture or to any growth. broad in scope and should thus be accorded great deference in the spirit of the Local Autonomy Law (R.A. 2264), and absent a Grounds for Reclassification: (i) When land ceases to be clear abuse of discretion, we hold that the withdrawal for lease of economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as the disputed portion of Lapu-Lapu Street and the conversion of determined by the Dept. of Agriculture; and (ii) when land shall the remainder of the dead-end part thereof into an alley, does not have substantially greater economic value for residential, call for, and is beyond the reach of, judicial interference. commercial or industrial purposes as determined by the Sanggunian; From the fact that the leased strip of 100 square meters was withdrawn from public use, it necessarily follows that such leased Conditions for Reclassification: Percentage limits, that is, of the portion becomes patrimonial property. Article 422 of the Civil total agricultural area at the time of passage of reclassification – Code indeed provides that property of public domain, "when no (a) for highly urbanized cities and independent component cities – longer intended for public use or public service, shall form part of 15%; (b) for component cities and 1st to 3rd class municipalities – the patrimonial property of the State." Authority is not wanting for 10%; and (c) for 4th to 6th class municipalities – 5% the proposition that "[property for public use of provinces and towns are governed by the same principles as property of public Note: President (upon Nat’l Economic Dev’t Authority’s dominion of the same character." There is no doubt that the strip recommendation), when public interest so requires, authorize a withdrawn from public use and held in private ownership may be city or municipality to reclassify lands in excess of limits set in given in lease. Section 20(a). The general rule is, one whose property does not abut on the - Under Sec. 20(e) – Agricultural lands distributed to agrarian closed section of a street has no right to compensation for the reform beneficiaries pursuant to RA6657(CARL), shall not be closing or vacation of the street, if he still has reasonable access affected by the reclassification and the conversion of such lands to the general system of streets. The circumstances in some into other purposes shall be governed by Sec. 65 of CARL. cases may be such as to give a right to damages to a property owner, even though his property does not abut on the closed Note: Sec. 65 of RA6657 – Conditions for conversion of section. But to warrant recovery in any such case the property agricultural lands held by agrarian reform program beneficiaries owner must show that the situation is such that he has sustained to non-agricultural use with DAR: (a) 5 year lapse from award of special damages differing in kind, and not merely in degree, from land; (ii) land ceased to be economically feasible and sound for those sustained by the public generally." agricultural purpose; (iii) notice to affected parties; (iv) beneficiary has fully paid his obligation. In the case at bar, no private right of appellant has been invaded. No special damage or damages he will incur by reason of the Section 21, LGC – Closure & Opening of Roads – The closure of closing of a portion of Lapu-Lapu Street at its dead end. His streets/roads is within the power of the local government unit property does not abut that street. In fact, the court has found (through council by way of ordinance). that the remaining portion of Lapu-Lapu Street, which actually is 4 meters in width, is sufficient for the needs of appellant and that - LGU (by ordinance) – may permanently/temporarily close or the leased portion — subject of this suit — "was not necessary for open any local road, alley, park or square falling within its public use." jurisdiction. "The Constitution does not undertake to guarantee to a property Note: In case of permanent closure, ordinance must be approved owner the public maintenance of the most convenient route to his by, at least 2/3 of all members of the sanggunian and when door. The law will not permit him to be cut off from the public necessary, an adequate substitute for the public facility subject of thoroughfares, but he must content himself with such route for closure, is provided. outlet as the regularly constituted public authority may deem most compatible with the public welfare. When he acquires city - Property publicly withdrawn from public use may be property, he does so in tacit recognition of these principles. If, used/conveyed for any purpose for which other real property subsequent to his appreciation, the city authorities abandon a belonging to the LGU concerned may be lawfully used or portion of the street to which his property is not immediately conveyed. adjacent, he may suffer loss because of the inconvenience imposed, but the public treasury cannot be required to Note: No freedom park shall be closed permanently without recompense him. Such case is damnum absque injuria." provision for its transfer/relocation to a new site. (see related B.P.880 Public Assembly Act). Case: COACO, INC. vs. HON. PASCUAL A. BERCILLES, G.R. No. L- LGU has the power to close local and even national roads (Note: 40474, 8/29/1975 LGU has no authority to order permanent closure/opening of a national road, alley, park or square, such authority applies to local FACTS: Petitioner Cebu Oxygen & Acytelene Co., Inc. applied for roads only, see sec. 2[a]). registration of title over a portion of M. Gorces Street in Mabolo, Cebu City. Said portion was declared an abandoned road by the Conditions for temporary closure of national/local roads under City Council of Cebu the same not being included in the Cebu Sec. 2[c]: (i) occasion of actual emergency, fiesta celebrations, Development Plan, and later, by authority of the City Council, was public rallies, agricultural or industrial fairs, or undertaking of sold by the Acting Mayor to petitioner who was the highest bidder public works and highways (eg. Banilad flyover); (ii) written order at a public bidding. On motion by the Assistant Provincial Fiscal for temporary closure by local chief executive; (iii) no national or (alleging that the subject property being a public road intended local road, alley, park or square shall be temporarily closed for for a public use, it is part of the public domain, outside the athletic, cultural or civic activity not officially sponsored, commerce of men, and cannot be subject to registration by any recognized or approved by local LGU concerned. private individual), the trial court dismissed Petitioner’s application. Case: ANTONIO FAVIS vs. THE CITY OF BAGUIO, G.R. No. L-29910, 4/25/1969 RULING: PETITION is granted. Order of dismissal set aside and trial court ordered to proceed with the hearing of the petitioner's FACTS: A resolution passed by the city council closed the dead- application for registration of title. end portion of Lapu-lapu Street to public use. By subsequent Under the Cebu City Charter, the City Council is empowered to resolution, the Mayor as authorized therein, leased the closed close a city road or a street and further, use or convey property

thus withdrawn from public servitude for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the City may be lawfully used or Case: MUNICIPALITY OF PILILIA vs. CA 233 SCRA 484 – conveyed. Municipality cannot be represented by a private lawyer. Only provincial fiscal or municipal attorney can represent a province or In the case of Favis vs. City of Baguio, the Court upholding the municipality in lawsuits. This is mandatory. The municipality’s power of the city council to close city streets and to vacate or authority to employ a private lawyer is limited to situations where withdraw the same from public use was similarly assailed, the provincial fiscal is disqualified to present it which declared that the city council is the authority competent to disqualification must appear on record. Fiscal’s refusal to determine whether or not a certain property is still necessary for represent the municipality is not legal justification for employing public use. This power to vacate a street or alley is discretionary, the services of private counsel, Municipality should request the and will not ordinarily be controlled or interfered with by the Secretary of Justice to appoint an acting provincial fiscal in place courts, absent a plain case of abuse or fraud or collusion. of the one who declined to handle it. Faithfulness to the public trust will be presumed. Case: RAMOS vs. CA 269 SCRA 34 –Petitioners Ramos and Baliuag Since that portion of the city street subject of petitioner's Market Vendors’ Association filed a petition to declare certain application for registration of title was withdrawn from public use, ordinances illegal. In said suit, Petitioners challenged the it follows that such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial appearance of a private lawyer for the municipality. SC held, Only property which can be the object of an ordinary contract provincial fiscal, under (Sec. 1683 of Revised Admin Code) consisting with Article 422 of the Civil Code (that property of provincial attorney or municipal attorney may validly represent public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for the municipality. The legality of the representation of an public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the unauthorized counsel may be raised at any stage of the State). proceedings. Case: MMDA vs. BAVA, G.R. No. 135962, 3/27/2000 RE: POWER TO ACQUIRE/CONVEY REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY – LGU may acquire real/personal, tangible or intangible in any FACTS: Petitioner issued an order to open to public traffic Neptune manner allowed by law, eg., sale or donation, etc. Street (and to demolition its perimeter fence) – a private road owned by Respondent. Case: VILLANUEVA vs. CASTANEDA 454 SCRA 142 – Public plaza is beyond the commerce of man and cannot be the subject of a RULING: Petition DENIED. While we hold that the general welfare lease or other contractual undertaking, and even assuming the should be promoted, we stress that it should not be achieved at existence of a valid lease of the public plaza or part thereof, the the expense of the rule of law. It is thus beyond doubt that the municipal resolution effectively terminated the agreement, for it MMDA is not a local government unit or a public corporation is settled that the police power cannot be surrendered or endowed with legislative power. It is not even a "special bargained away through the medium of a contract. metropolitan political subdivision" as contemplated in Section 11, Article X of the Constitution. The powers of the MMDA are limited RE: POWER TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS – requires: (i) LGU has to formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, express/implied or inherent power to enter into the particular preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, contract (refer to LGC, special laws or charter); (ii) contract is installation of a system and administration. It is the local entered into by the proper department, board, committee, officer government units, acting through their respective legislative or agent (under LGC, generally such authority is with the Local councils that possess legislative power and police power. In the Chief Executive upon prior authorization by sanggunian); (iii) case at bar, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not contract must comply with certain substantive requirements, eg., pass any ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune when expenditure of public funds is to be made, there must be Street, hence, its proposed opening by Petitioner is illegal. actual appropriation and certificate of availability of funds; (iv) contract must comply with formal requirements of written NOTE: Closure of Roads is not expropriation where the property contracts, eg. Statutes of fraud. owner is entitled to just compensation. Construction of new road was undertaken under the General Welfare Clause (police power), NOTE: A contract entered into without complying with (i) and (iii) that is, for enjoyment of convenience, every individual must be above is ULTRA VIRES, ergo, NULL AND VOID. Such contract prepared to give his share. cannot be ratified or validated. Ratification of defective contracts is possible only when there is non-compliance with (ii) and (iv) Section 22, LGC – Corporate Powers – As a body corporate, has requirements. the following powers; (a) To continuous succession in its corporate name; Case: CITY OF QUEZON vs. LEXBER, INC., G.R. 141616, 3/15/01 – (b) To sue and be sued; (c) To have and use a corporate seal; FACTS; Before the effectivity of the LGC in 1991, a tri-partite (d) To acquire and convey real or personal property; agreement was signed by Lexber, Quezon City and the (e) To enter into contracts; such other powers as are Municipality of Antipolo whereby, with the conformity of Antipolo, granted corporation subject to limits provided in Quezon City would lease and use the private land owned by LGC and other laws. Lexber as a dumpsite situated in Antipolo in exchange for exclusive services and equipment for landfill to be provided Corporate Powers, defined: Corporation’s capacity/right to do Lexber. From 1991-1992, Quezon City used the site for dumping certain acts or engage in certain activities such as sue/be sued but suddenly stopped without any explanation. Lexber sent a enter into contracts, borrow money and do suc other things demand letter claiming that it was still entitled to compensation necessary to obtain its purposes. pursuant to the agreement but Mayor Mel Mathay of Quezon City refused citing that the contract was void having been signed by NOTE: Local Chief Executive enters into contracts in behalf of then Mayor Simon without the approval or ratification by City LGU, requires prior authorization by sangguniang concerned Council and that there was no budget appropriation. Collection UNLESS otherwise provided in the LGC. suit was filed by Lexber. RTC ruled in the latter’s favor and which decision was affirmed by the CA. NOTE: Legible copy of contract to be posted in conspicuous place in provincial capitol/city/municipality/barangay hall (for RULING: Petition DENIED. In the case at bar, the contract requires Transparency). P94M for a 5-year period. Quezon City invoked PD1445 (Auditing Code of the Philippines) that contracts involving expenditure of NOTE: Full autonomy in exercise of corporate powers (not acting public funds can only be entered into when there is an as agent of the State), and limited only by LGC and other appropriation thereof to be certified by proper accounting applicable laws. official/agent that funds have been appropriated for that purpose. Also, Quezon City cited the LGC empowering the sanggunian with RE: RIGHT TO SUE/BE SUED – Case: CITY COUNCIL OF CEBU vs. authority to appropriate funds for expenses of the city CUIZON 47 SCRA 325 government. PD1445 does not provide that the absence of appropriation law ipso facto makes a contract entered into by the FACTS: For lack of prior authority from the Council, the latter filed LGU null and void. Under the LGC (1973), the power of a mayor to with CFI-Cebu, a complaint to nullify the contract between Mayor enter contract is not subject to prior authorization by the council. Cuizon and Tropical Commercial Co., Inc. involving the purchase of road construction equipments for $520,912.00 cash from Case: MANANTAN vs. MUNICIPLAITY OF LUNA (LA UNION) 82 Phil Tropical. Complaint was dismissed for lack of legal capacity as 844 – Contract of lease granting fishing privileges is a valid and trial court reasoned that there is no provision of law authorizing binding contract and cannot be impaired by a subsequent city council to sue in behalf of the city and that the authorized resolution setting it aside and granting the privilege to another representative under the LGC is the city mayor for that purpose. (unless the subsequent resolution is a police power measure because the exercise of the latter prevails over the nonRULING: Generally, suit is commenced by the local executive impairment clause. upon authority of the sanggunian, except where the city councilors themselves and as representatives of/in behalf of the Section 23, LGC – Grants and Donations – sets forth the rules on city, bring the action to prevent unlawful disbursement of city grants and donations to LGUs from local and foreign assistance funds. agencies) which local chief executive may “upon authority of the

sanggunian” negotiate and secure in order to “support the basic fails or neglects to perform their duties, the former may take such services or facilities enumerated in Sec. 17. steps/action as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. Supervision does not mean control. Control includes the - No need of securing clearance/approval for grant/donation from power to alter/modify/set aside acts of a subordinate officer. any department, agency or office of the national government or from any higher LGU. Note: National agencies/offices with project implementation function shall coordinate with each other and with LGU concerned - Projects financed by such grants/assistance with national in the discharge of these functions to ensure participation of LGU security implications shall be approved by the national agency both in the planning and implementation of said national projects. concerned. Failure of such agency to act on request within 30 days from receipt thereof, it is deemed approved. Note: National agencies may be directed by the President, upon LGU’s request, to provide financial, technical or other forms of - Local Chief shall, within 30 days, upon signing of such grant, assistance to LGU without extra cost to LGU. agreement or deed of donation, report the nature, amount, terms of such assistance to both Houses of Congress and the President. Note: National agencies (including GOCCs) with field offices/branches in province/city/municipality to furnish local chief Section 24, LGC – Municipal Liability – Rule: LGU and their officials executive concerned, for his information and guidance, monthly are not exempt from liability for death or injury to reports including duly certified budgetary allocations and persons/damage to property. expenditures. Damages – in legal contemplation refers to the sum of money which law awards or imposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense or satisfaction for an injury done or a wrong sustained as a consequence either of a breach of contractual obligation or a tortuous act. It includes all kinds of damages contemplated in the Civil Code; it is awarded to one as a vindication of the wrongful invasion of his rights. Case: RODOLFO GANZON vs. CA, G.R. No. 93252, 8/5/1991 FACTS: Petitioner, Mayor of Iloilo City and a member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod thereof, respectively, were charged administratively on various charges, among them, abuse of authority, oppression, grave misconduct, disgraceful and immoral conduct, intimidation, culpable violation of the Constitution, and arbitrary detention. Hearing on the charges ensued and the Respondent DILG, upon finding of probable cause and reasons, issued successive preventive suspension orders against Petitioner Mayor. Before the SC, Petitioners’ primary argument is that the DILG Secretary (as President’s alter ego) is devoid, in any event, of any authority to suspend and remove local officials.

Case: CORREA vs. CFI of BULACAN 92 SCRA 312 – Municipal corporation is responsible only for acts of its officers only when they have acted by authority of law and in conformity with requirements. A public officer who commits a tort or wrongful act, done in excess or beyond the scope of his duty, is not protected by his office and is personally liable therefor like any private individual. RULING: Since local governments remain accountable to the national authority, the latter may, by law, and in the manner set Case” PILAR vs. SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF DANSOL, PANGASINAN forth therein, impose disciplinary action against local officials. In 128 SCRA 173 – Municipal mayor is personally liable for damages the case at bar, the DILG Secretary, the President’s alter ego, in (moral and exemplary) and attorney’s fees for having vetoed in consonance with the specific provisions of BP337 (the existing bad faith, resolution appropriating funds for salary of the vice- Local Gov’t Code) can suspend Petitioners. mayor. Supervision is not incompatible with disciplinary authority. As this Case: MENDOZA vs DE LEON 33 PHIL 508 – Operation of ferry Court held in Ganzon vs. Cayanan, 104 Phil 484, “in service is a proprietary function. Municipality is negligent and administrative law, supervision means overseeing or the power or therefore liable for having awarded franchise to operate ferry authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform service to another notwithstanding previous grant of franchise to their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them the former the plaintiff. may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties”. Case: MUNICIPALITY OF JAASAN, MISAMIS ORIENTAL vs. GENTALLAN, G.R. 154961, 5/9/2005 – There being no malice or While the respondent Secretary, as President’s alter ego, under bad faith in the illegal dismissal and refusal to reinstate the existing Local Gov’t Code, has the power to suspend the respondent Gentallan by her superior officers, the latter cannot petitioner, such power cannot be exercised oppressively. Ten be held personally liable for her back salaries. Municipal administrative cases have been successively filed against the city government, ergo, should disburse funds to answer for her mayor. The latter has been made to serve a total of 120 days of claims. suspension for the first two cases and the respondent Secretary has issued another order preventively suspending the former for NOTE: Liability for contracts – Rule: LGU, like ordinary person is antoehr 60 days, the third time in twenty months. We are liable on a contract it enters, provided that contract is ultra vires. allowing the mayor to suffer the duration of his third suspension. Otherwise, become personal liability of the officer who acted Insofar as the remaining charges are concerned, we are urging beyond his power. the DILG, upon finality of this decision to undertake steps to expedite the same, subject to the mayor’s usual remedies of See Articles 2189, 2180 and 34 of the Civil Code on provisions on appeal, judicial or administrative or certiorari, if warranted and liability. meanwhile, we are precluding the Secretary from meting out further suspensions based on those remaining complaints, NOTE: As to tort liability: LGU is not liable if engaged in notwithstanding findings of prima facie evidence. governmental function but liable if engaged in proprietary function. Section 26, LGC – National agency/GOCC (in planning/implementation) of a project/program have DUTY TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS CONSULT LGU on objectives/goals, impact to the people in terms of environmental/ecological balance and measures to – as a body political and corporate (to serve its constituents) prevent/minimize adverse effects. NATIONAL GOVERNMENT – LGU RELATIONS:

NOTE: Project/Program intended may cause pollution, climactic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of cropland, Section 25, LGC – National supervision over LGU – despite the rangeland, forest cover or extinction of animal or plant species. unitary and centralized Phil. Governmental structure, 1987 Constitution limits the authority of the President over LGU only to Section 27, LGC – (read alongside Sec. 2 © and Sec. 26) - Prior GENERAL SUPERVISION. consultation with LGU (plus prior approval by sanggunian) is indispensable for implementation of program/project. President’s General Supervision – (i) directs over provinces, highly urbanized NOTE: If project results in eviction, appropriate relocation sites to cities and independent component cities, be provided. (through provinces over) component cities and municipalities; and (through cities and See: REPUBLIC vs. CITY OF DAVAO, G.R. No. 148622, 9/12/2002; municipalities over) barangays; LINA VS. PANO 364 SCRA 76 (ii) to ensure that acts of LGU are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions; LGU – PNP RELATIONS: (iii) Article X, Section 16 of 1987 Constitution – President shall exercise general supervision Section 28, LGC – LGU Power of Operational Supervision and over authonmous regions to ensure that Control over PNP – laws are faithfully executed. as as provided under RA 6975 (DILG Act of 1990) amended by RA 8551 (PNP Reorganization Act of 1991). These laws govern the Supervision defined – means overseeing or power/authority of an extent of operational supervision and control of local chief office to see that subordinate performs their duties. If the latter executive over police force, fire protection unit and jail

management assigned in their respective jurisdiction. NOTE: Governors and mayors, upon having been elected and qualified as such, are automatically deputized as representatives of NAPOLCOM in their respective jurisdiction and as such, they can inspect police forces and units, conduct audit and exercise such other functions as may be duly authorized. NOTE: Operational Control and Supervision (OCS), defined – power to direct, oversee, superintend, the day to day functions of police investigation of crimes and crime prevention activities and traffic control in accordance with rules and regulations issued by the NAPOLCOM. It includes the power to employ and deploy police personnel and units.

Section 60 – Bureau of Jail Management and Penology – supervision and control over all city and municipal jails. Provincial jails shall be supervised and controlled by Provincial government within its jurisdiction whose expenses shall be subsidized by National Government for not more than three years after effectivity of RA6975. 3. INTER-LOCAL GOVERNMENT RELATIONS - -

Section 29, LGC – Province has SUPERVISORY POWER – (or oversight power but does not include any restraining authority over supervised party) of province over components but not over highly urbanized and independent component cities; Province (through Governor) – shall ensure that every component city/municipality within its territorial jurisdiction acts within scope NOTE: OCS for GOVERNOR: (a) choose the provincial police of its prescribed powers and functions. director from a list of three eligibles recommended by the PNP Director; and (b) as chair of peace and order council, oversee Section 30, LGC – POWER TO REVIEW – Governor has power of implementation of provincial public safety plan. (Sec. 64, RA8551) review of all executive orders promulgated by component cities/municipalities within his jurisdiction. Exception: otherwise NOTE: OCS for CITY/MUNICIPAL MAYOR: includes – power to: (i) provided under the Constitution and special statues. choose chief of police from list of 5 eligibles recommeneded by City/municipal mayor shall review all executive orders provincial police director, preferably from same province, city or promulgated by the punong barangay within his jurisdiction. municipality, no OIC to be for more than 30 days; local peace and order council through Mayor may recommend recall/reassignment NOTE: It is mandatory upon these named higher local chiefs to of chief of police when in its perception, the latter has been review executive orders of the lower local chiefs. ineffective in combating crime or maintaining peace and order in the LGU, relief shall be based on guidelines established by NOTE: Review – to ensure that executive orders are within the NAPOLCOM; (ii) recommend to provincial police director, transfer, powers granted by law and in conformity with the reassignment or detail of PNP members outside their respective provincial/city/municipal ordinances, as the case may be, that is, city/town residences; (iii) authority to recommend from list of to ensure that such orders do not violate existing law/ordinance. eligibles previously screened by local peace and order council appointment of new PNP members to be assigned to the NOTE: Executive order submitted to reviewing authority within 3 respective cities/municipalities without which no such days from issuance; inaction within 30 days from submission, the appointments shall be attested. Whenever practicable and same is deemed consistent with law and therefore valid. consistent with requirements of service, PNP members shall be assigned to the city/municipaliy of their residence; (iv) control Section 31, LGC – MUNICIPAL QUESTIONS – questions affecting and supervision of anti-gambling operation within its jurisdiction. the municipality are to be submitted to the municipal legal officer, if none, to the provincial legal officer, if none, to the NOTE: Exercise operational supervision and control over PNP units provincial prosecutor. in their respective jurisdiction, except, 30-day period immediately preceding and 30 days after any national or local and barangay Section 32, LGC – POWER OF GENERAL SUPERVISION – elections in which instances, police under authority of COMELEC. City/Municipality has power of general supervision over component barangays to ensure said barangays act within the Note: City/Municipal mayors, in coordination with local peace and scope of their prescribed powers and functions. order council which he CHAIRS, shall develop an integrated area/community public safety plan embrancing a priority of action Section 33, LGC – LGUs through appropriate ordinance, may and program thrusts for implementation by local PNP stations. group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts/services and resources for the purpose commonly beneficial to them. For Case: ANDAYA vs. RTC 319 SCRA 696 – PNP RD Andaya submitted such undertaking, LGUs, upon approval of sangguniang a list of 5 eligibles not including the name of P/Chief Insp. Andres concerned, after public hearing conducted therefor, shall Sarmiento, to Mayor of Cebu City. Mayor Garcia wants the name contribute funds, real estate, equipment and other property, of Sarmiento on the list. Andaya claims Sarmiento not qualified. appoint/assign personnel under terms agreed upon by SC held that, Mayor has no power to appoint, has only limited participating LGU through a memorandum of agreement. power of selecting, one from among list of eligibles to be named chief of police. Mayor cannot require Regional Director to include LGU – PEOPLES’S AND NON-GOV’TAL ORGANIZATIONS RELATIONS the name of any officer, no matter how qualified, in the list. – People’s organizations are bonafide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership and structure (Art. NOTE: Unless reversed by President, deputization may be XIII, Section 15 of 1987 Constitution). withdrawn/revoked by Commission after consultation with Provincial Governor and congressman concerned. Deputization, Section 16, Art. XIII of the Constitution – “The right of the people upon good cause shown, may be restored by President directly or and their organizations to effective and reasonable levels of through the Commission. Withdrawal/Revocation may be on social, political and economic decision-making shall not be grounds of frequent unauthorized absence; abuse of authority; abridged. The State, by law, shall facilitate the establishment of providing material support to criminal elements; engaging in acts adequate consultation mechanisms”. inimical to national security or which negate effectiveness of peace and order campaign. NOTE: Sections 34, 35 and 36 of LGC implement Section 16, Art. XIII of the 1987 Constitution. NOTE: LGU DISCIPLINARY POWERS OVER PNP MEMBERS – City/Municipal mayors, after due notice and summary hearing, Section 34, LGC – LGU to promote establishments and operation shall impose DISCIPLINARY PENALTIES for minor offenses of PO and NGO to become active partners in pursuit of local committed by PNP membes assigned to their respective autonomy. jurisdiction as provided in Section 41 of RA6975 (not involving moral turpitude, includes, but not limited to, simple misconduct, Section 35, LGC – LGU may enter joint ventures and such other insubordination, frequent absences, tardiness, habitual cooperative arrangements with PO and NGO to engage in delivery drunkenness, gambling as prohibited by law). of certain basic services, capability and livelihood projects. RELATED ITEMS INVOLVING LGU CONTAINED IN RA 6975 (DILG Act Section 36, LGC – LGU may through local chief executive with the of 1990): concurrence of sanggunian, provide assistance, financial or otherwise to such PO and NGO is for economic, socially-oriented, Section 55 – Bureau of Fire Protection – tasked with prevention environmental or cultural projects to be implemented within its and suppression of destructive fires, investigate all causes of fire, territorial jurisdiction. file complaint with fiscal; composed of provincial/district offices and city/municipal stations; LGU at city and municipal levels shall be responsible for fire protection and various emergency services such as rescue and evaluation of injured people at fire-related incidents and in general, all fire prevention and suppression measures to secure the safety of life and property of citizenry. Section 56 – At least 1 fire station with adequate firefighting facilities and equipment for provincial capitol, city and municipality; LGU to provide the necessary site for the fire station.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.