I. HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS A. In General B. Pre-Spanish Times b.

1 The Sumakwel Code In 1212, after fleeing from the oppressive regime of Datu Makatunaw in Borneo, 10 datus set up their own tribal colonies in the Visayan Islands. One of them, Datu Sumakwel, established on the Island of Panay the Confederation of Madiaas and its constitution, the Code of Maragtas or the Code of Sumakwel. The Code of Sumakwel was considered among the first Filipino laws enacted before the Pre-Hispanic times. It consisted of 10 articles, mainly focusing on punishment for laziness. An American historian, Paul Morrow debunks the Sumakwel Code as nothing more than the product of Guillermo Cuino’s imagination. Cuino was the first person to write about the Code Sumakwel in an essay in 1858 wherein he claimed to have translated the Code from an ancient Filipino document. However, Cuino presented no other proof other than his dubious essay. Nevertheless, Paul Morrow laments, much of the Filipino education system to this day still preaches the Sumakwel Code as gospel historical truth. b. 2 The Code of Kalantiaw Datu Kalantiaw was among the ancient Visayans who built a kingdom with its own tribal code known as the Code of Kalantiaw, supposedly around 1150. It contains 18 articles, which consists mainly of punishment for criminal acts ranging from the traditional ones such as homicide, theft and nonpayment of debts to the bizarre and superstitious such as disrespect for revered trees or killing black cats during the new moon. The Code of Kalantiaw also has feudalistic overtones such as obligating those with the beautiful daughters to give them up to the sons of chiefs as well as providing special punishment for those who commit particular crimes against the tribal headmen as stated in the Code. Punishments for the crimes stated in the Code are cruel by today’s standards; for example, those who sing while traveling by night are beaten for two days while those who commit homicide and theft are condemned to death by being drowned in the river or in boiling water. In 1968, William Henry Scott, another American historian revealed the Code of Kalantiaw as an outright hoax perpetuated by forger Jose Marco. Marco gave the Philippine Library and Museum as ancient document claiming to be the Code of Kalantiaw in 1912. The supposed Code and Marco’s claims on how he obtained the ancient document had too many discrepancies and anomalous reference to historical facts that could not have existed during the time of the Code’s supposed existence. Only recently have a few historians such as Sonia M. Zaide regarded the Code as a fraud but, as Paul Morrow says, the lie still lives on. C. The Spanish Era c. 1 Harty v. Mun of Victoria 13 Phil. 152 Facts: Monsignor Harty, an archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church based in Manila, claims that his parish owns the plaza located in the municipality of Victoria, Tarlac, claiming to be in peaceful possession of it for more than 60 years up to 1901. The defendant municipality replied that Victoria was constituted into a town in 1855 and that the parish of Tarlac was established many years afterwards; therefore the latter cannot claim title to the plaza. Evidence seemed to show that the original owner, Casimiro Tanedo, of the land wherein the plaza is located, donated said land to the church in general and not to the town curate, since a permanent curate was not appointed in Victoria until 1867. However, from the moment the town was created, both the town curate and the townspeople have enjoyed free access of the plaza. Still, Monsignor Harty claims the parish of Tarlac owns the plaza on the grounds of 1) prescription and 2) that the act of the curates and the gobernadorcillos of planting fruit trees and plants on the plaza constituted private ownership. Held: Monsignor Harty’s contentions are incorrect. Reasons: 1. It was a Philippine custom then that upon the establishment of a new town, a large tract of land is always reserved in its center for the creation of a plaza. Before Victoria became a town it was a mere barrio. It must be assumed that the principal residents of Victoria wanted to have a public plaza should their barrio be converted into a town. Therefore, even before Victoria became a town, the land now in dispute was always intended to be a public plaza. 2. There was no sufficient proof that the late Casimiro Tanedo intended to donate the portion of the land intended to be a public plaza to the church in general 3. It has been fully proven that the plaza has always been used by the people of Victoria from the moment the town was created 4. Plazas destined for public use are not subject to prescription (Art. 1936, the Old Civil Code) 5. Planting of fruit trees by the curates, etc. do not constitute an act of private ownership but either evidence of public use or as embellishments for the benefit of the townspeople.

c. 2 Rubi v. Provincial board of Mindoro 39 Phil. 660 Facts: Rubi and his fellow Manguianes filed an application for habeas corpus on the ground that they were being deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of Mindoro. Rubi claimed they were being held against their will at a reservation in Tigbao, Mindoro while one Dabalos was imprisoned for having run away from the reservation. The provincial officials of Mindoro however, countered that they were authorized under section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 to implement measures for the advancement of the non-Christian people of Mindoro by obliging them to live in one place in order to educate them. Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the provincial officials of Mindoro on the grounds that: 1. They were merely exercising the police power of the state for a lawful purpose and through lawful means, which can validly limit the exercise of Civil liberty. The Supreme Court cited past legislation implemented in the Philippines which justified the placing in a reservation of the Manguianes such as: a. Book 6, Title 3 – A compilation of laws implemented during the Spanish forcing the Indios to leave poblaciones (communities) or reducciones in order to instruct them to the Catholic faith and enable them to live in a civilized manner. b. Decree of the Governor-General of January 14, 1881- Decree ordering the Indios to be governed by the common law and not allowing them, unless with absolute necessity, to change their residence. c. Letter of Instructions by President McKinley – Uncivilized tribes are allowed to keep their tribal governments, subject to regulation by the Americans. d. The Philippine Bill of 1902 – The Philippine Commission (which composed ½ of the Philippine Legislature, the other being the Philippine Assembly) was given exclusive jurisdiction over the territory inhabited by the Moros and other non-Christian tribes of the Philippines e. The Jones Law 2. Although the Maguianes were labeled as “non-Christian,” the intent of the law was not to refer to any particular religions or geographical discrimination but is predicated on the lack of civilization by them, which the measure implemented by the provincial officials of Mindoro intended to correct. 3. The measure implemented was a valid delegation of legislative power by the Philippine legislature as it was done in accordance with Administrative Code of 1917 c.3 The Maura Law Queen Regent Maria Cristina of Spain, upon the recommendation of Colonial Minister Antonio Maura, promulgated the Royal Decree of May 19, 1893 which provided for an autonomous local government in the Philippines. Under the Maura Law there was constituted a Municipal Tribunal of five, the captain and 4 lieutenants. It was given charge of the active work of governing the municipality, such as administration of public works, etc. and the details of taxation. In addition, each of its members was required to have special qualifications. These positions were honorary. The term of office was 4 years. The officers, together with 2 substitutes, were elected by 12 delegates of the principalia. The principalia was composed of all persons who has held certain offices (such as cabeza de barangay or former captains) or who has paid a land tax of P50. The Governor General and the provincial governor retained disciplinary jurisdiction over the council and its individual members, the Provincial Board also had supervision of the municipal council (Malcolm, Gov’t. of the Philippines Islands, pp. 69-71, Document 362, The Maura Law of 1893) c. 4 The Treaty of Paris The Treaty of Paris officially ended the Spanish-American War of 1898. It was ratified by Spain and the United States on December 10, 1898. It contained 17 articles, important provisions including: Art. 1 – Relinquishment by Spain of its claim of sovereignty and title to Cuba. Art. 2 – Cession to the U.S. of the islands of Puerto Rico and Marianas. Art. 3 – Cession to the U.S. of the Philippines for the sum of $20 million. Art. 9 – Allowing Spanish subjects which are natives of the Philippines to remain in the Philippines if they so desire. The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the U.S. shall be determined by Congress. Art. 11 – Relinquishment of all civil and criminal jurisdictions over all territories ceded. Art. 12 – Provides for rules on deciding judicial proceedings pending at the time of the ratification of the treaty.

D. The American Period d.1 The Jones Law The Jones Law of 1893 was virtually an American-made constitution providing for a complete form of semiautonomous government in the Philippines. It defined government functions into an executive to be appointed by the U.S. President with the consent of the Senate, who was called the American Governor-General in the Philippines. The legislative power was vested in an elective bicameral/legislature – a Senate and a House of Representatives. The judicial power was exercised by the Supreme-Court and other lower courts, with Filipino and American justices. The Jones Law also extended the Bill of Rights, defined Filipino citizenship and provided for other safeguards and restrictions. The bulk of the Jones Law comprised mainly of defining the executive, legislative and judicial powers of the government.

E. The Japanese Occupation e.1 Topacio Nueno Angeles, 76 Phil. 12 Facts: Jose Topacio Nueno and 3 other petitioners ran for and eventually obtained seats in the Municipal Board of Manila in 1940. World War II and the subsequent Japanese occupation however took place. After the war, 6 new board members were appointed by the President. Nueno, et. al. claimed that the appointment was null and void because 1) their term of office had not expired due to the world war and 2) even if 1) were not true, they still had the right to hold over their officers until their new successors were elected and qualified. Held: Nueno and his goons were incorrect. Reasons: 1) The word “term” is different from “tenure.” There is no law which allows the extension of terms of office by reason of war. 2) As for tenure, the same may be shortened or extended for various reasons, such as the death of the incumbent or as otherwise provided by law. The principle of the right to hold over may validly extend the tenure of office. However, Nueno, et. al. cannot invoke this right because under 16 (a) of the Commonwealth Act, the President has the discretion of appointing temporary board members until duly elected board members can be qualified. F. The Post War Years f. 1 R.A. 2264, as amended – The Local Autonomy Act Entitled, “An Act Amending the Laws governing Local Governments by Increasing their Autonomy and Reorganizing the Provincial Governments,” the Act provides for, among other things: Procedure in establishing the provincial, city, municipal and regularly organized municipal district budgets for each fiscal year, taxation sources; appropriation of funds for the general welfare of the public; grant of the power of eminent domain; composition of the provincial board; qualifications of members of the provincial board, governors, vice-governors, mayors and vice-mayor; appointment power of provincial governor, city mayor and municipal mayor; and assignment of other powers to the provincial board, municipal board or city councils. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the interpretation of the Local Autonomy Act shall be resolved in favor of the local government and shall be presumed to exist. f. 2 R.A. 2370 – The Barrio Charter Act “Barrios” are units of municipalities or municipal districts in which they are located. They are quasi-municipal corporations endowed with such powers as herein provided in said Act for the performance of particular government functions to be exercised by and through their respective barrio governments in conformity with law. Barrios may be created or its name changed by a petition of the majority of voters in the areas affected. They may sue and be sued and may be deal with any real or personal property in the manner provided by law. No barrio may be created if its population is less than 500 people or out of chartered cities, or poblaciones of municipalities.

The Act also provides for the barrio council headed by the barrio lieutenant. The barrio council shall meet with the qualified voters of the barrio at least once a year in a barrio assembly to discuss, among others, election of new officers, raising of funds and adopt measures for the welfare of the barrio. The Act also provides for the qualifications of the barrio council members and their powers and responsibilities, such as the taxation power and its sources. f. 3 R.A. 3590 – Revised Barrio Charter Act This Act is essentially the same as its predecessor, with the following pertinent amendments;

1) A plebiscite may be called to decide on the recall of any member of the barrio council member or approve any
budgetary, supplement appropriations or special tax ordinances. 2) Renaming the barrio lieutenant as barrio captain

3) Right of succession in case of vacancy in the barrio captain position (there is no vice-barrio captain in both Acts). 4) The municipal mayor shall have power of supervision over barrio officials\
5) Procedure in barrio council, such as holding of meetings every month 6) Effectively of barrio ordinances (unless otherwise, after 60 days after its passage or 15 days after its confirmation in a plebiscite) f. 4 R.A. 5185 – The Decentralization Act of 1967 This Act further strengthens the autonomous powers of local governments by providing for the following pertinent provisions: 1) Provincial and city governments are empowered to undertake field agricultural work and rural health work whenever deemed to be necessary to assist in national programs or services. 2) Appointment of heads, assistant heads of local officers and their subordinates 3) Suspension and removal of elective local officials (grounds: disloyalty to RP, dishonesty, oppression and misconduct in the office) 4) Restriction in practice of law by members of provincial, city or municipal board of vice-governor and vice-mayor. 6) Filling of special vacancies in local legislative bodies. 7) Filling of elective officers in newly created and newly classified provinces, cities, municipalities or municipal districts 8) List of actions of provincial, city and municipal officials and provincial boards declared immediately effective. 9) Certain duties and powers of local chief executives not to be subject to direction and review of any national official 10) Release and apportionment of certain government funds positions: provincial engineer, city public works official, provincial attorney and city legal officer 11) Creation of following 5) Succession to office

12) Creation of Joint Local Government Reform Commission (for continuing studies on local autonomy of Local Government and prepare local government code)

G. The Martial Law Epoch g. 1 P.D. 145 This decree amended Section 2 of R.A. 2264 or Local Autonomy Act because the said section was ineffective in carrying out the Secretary of Finance’s power to suspend the effectively of any local tax ordinance which in his opinion is

limited non-liability for damages. enter into contracts. 3) National supervision over local governments 4) Relationship between Province-city. 1 R. municipal and municipal officials. province-municipality. Expenditure of government funds.P. officials.A. preparation of budget 6) Requirement and prohibitions of local gov’t. municipality-barangay. officials. 1987 Constitution . city-barangay. Bids and Awards Committee 7) Other procedural and technical changes II. eminent domain. Said decree improves this situation by giving the local legislative body either 30 days to modify the tax ordinance or appeal the suspension order of the Secretary of Finance in a court of competent jurisdiction. city and city officials. divide. city-barangay. suability. 7160 – The Local Government Code of 1991. excessive or oppressive or contrary to national policy. province and province officials H. 2 B. From the LGC of 1983. abolish or alter boundaries 3) Emphasis on general welfare and imposition of basic services and facilities on political subdivisions 4) Reclassification of lands 5) Authority of LGUs to secure and negotiate grants 6) Creation of Local Prequalification.unjust. Section 9 and Article XVIII. convey property. the tax ordinance or its part of parts in question is considered revoked g. Read Article X. vacancy and succession 8) Recall. public officials-LGUs 5) Fiscal matters. merge. vacancy and succession 7) Qualification and election of local gov’t. 337 – The Local Government Code of 1983 This Code provides for the pertinent following provision: 1) General powers and attributes of local government units. The Present h. otherwise. the following pertinent provisions were added: 1) Operative principles of decentralization 2) Authority by Congress or any political subdivision to create. 2) Powers and restrictions of Local Government Units to: Create sources of revenue. closure of roads. PRIMARY LAW AND GENERAL PROVISIONS A. suspension and removal of elective officials 9) Creation of local school boards 10) Personnel Administration 11) Settlement of municipal and barangay boundary disputes 12) Details on barangay and barangay officials.

COMELEC. B. 136 SCRA 633 Facts: Mel Lopez. questioned the validity of P. the President may constitute the Metropolitan Authority to be composed of the heads of all local government units comprising the Metropolitan Manila Area. Read R. accredited people’s organizations b. Besides. and Pasay) and 13 municipalities. Article XVIII. 2 of the 1973 Constitution expressly recognizes the juridical entity known as Metropolitan Manila 4. Also Prof. Reasons: 1. MMDA issued a notice to the Bel-Air Village Assoc. There is presumption of constitutionality in the President’s power of direct supervision and control over the Metropolitan Manila Commission. Both actions. Sec. NOTE: There’s no point in reading all other sections of Article XVIII. P. mainly to formulate. 1 Lopez. 8 . divided. mainly to approve projects of MMDA 5) Function of MMDA chairman: Execute policies of MMC and manage operations of MMDA. It contains 21 sectors. Jr. except in accordance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code and subject to the approval of the majority of votes cast in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected. 6) Institutional linkages of MMDA: NEDA. The presidential power of control can and should be constructed to mean that said control is limited to those that may be considered national in character. transport and traffic management. merged or its boundaries substantially altered. Sec. The requirements for a plebiscite were therefore deemed satisfied. Sec. 1975 wherein the residents of the Greater Manila area authorized the President to reorganize the cities and municipalities under the Metro Manila Commission. 2. Inc.Unless otherwise provided by Congress. the President had authority to enact said P.D. ex officio board member (or his representative) of departments related to activities of MMDA such as DOTC. disciplinary power on subordinates. See for yourself. 824 which provides for the creation of Metro Manila Commission which shall hold sway over 4 cities (Manila. a. as it refers to local.D. at the time of the referendum. et. coordinate. He says it runs counter to Art. 2) Creation of Metro Manila Council (MMC) consisting of all mayors in Metro Manila 3) Powers and Functions of MMDA. divided. zoning and land use planning. abolished. and regulate implementation of above metro-wide services 4) Functions of MMC. supervised and coordinated by a development authority as created herein. D. city. Bel-Air Assn. municipality or barrio may be created. Quezon. 7924 which created the MMDA. Sec. prepare budget of MMDA. DOH. governments in general.A. 9 – A sub-province shall continue to exist and operate until it is converted into a regular province or its component municipalities are reverted to the mother province. etc. Urban protection and pollution control. Held: Mel Lopez is incorrect. Caloocan.1 Article X. except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected. Section 10 – No province. there was no Local Government Code in existence then which provided the need for a plebiscite.a.D. the MMDA said. Article 8. a referendum was held Feb.. NGOs . He also claims the P. v. 328 SCRA 836 Facts: Pursuant to R. . Al. Ulep must have meant Season 10 and not 5 in his outline. municipality or barangay may be created. Also the President cannot exercise direct supervision and control over the Metropolitan Manila Commission as it runs counter to the autonomy of local governments. 2 MMDA v. 11. Although a plebiscite was not conducted. is necessary for the decongestion of traffic along the said areas. appointment power. without prejudice to the autonomy of the affected LGU. is a denial of the equal protection clause as other cities and municipalities were not similarly organized into such. 2 Article XVIII. By virtue of martial law and the absence of an interim Batasang Pambansa at that time. as well as tear down a perimeter wall owned by said village. health sanitation. 27.A. Urban renewal. There is reasonable classification in organizing said 4 cities and 13 municipalities into a metropolitan area 3. city.” No plebiscite was conducted to vote for the creation of Metro Manila. 7924(Metropolitan Manila Development Authority) This Act states the policy of the State to treat Metro Manila as a special development and administrative region and certain basic services affecting or involving Metro Manila as metro wide services more efficiently and effectively planned. solid waste disposal and management. merged abolished or its boundaries substantially altered. Among its pertinent provisions are: 1) Scope of MMDA (metro-wide) services: Development planning. b. (BAVA) that the former will open Neptune Street owned by the latter in Bel-Air Village. Flood control. 3 of the 1973 Constitution which states that: “No province. NOTE: Read the whole of Article X of the 1987 Constitution as well. pu8blic safety.

the latter being subject to approval by Congress. “No province city. 6734 thus conflicts the Constitution 4) R.al. Abbas claims. BAVA’s petition was granted. claiming among others that its proposed actions were in the exercise of the police power. The provinces and cities which in the plebiscite do not vote for inclusion in the Autonomous Region shall remain in the existing administrative regions: Provided however. without diminution of the autonomy of the LGUs concerning purely local matters (See.A. municipality or barangay may be created. 179 SCRA 287 Facts: Datu Firdausi Abbas. encompassing 13 provinces and 9 cities. 1987 Constitution) Held: Abbas is wrong. 6734 as an enactment of Congress. 2. power to enact laws pertaining to the national economy and patrimony responsive to the needs of the Regional Government. The legislative power is conferred in the Regional Assembly. programs and projects aimed at the delivery of metro-wide services in Metro Manila. A. that the President may. A. is contrary to the Constitutional mandate that. A.A. as mayors per se. the Court of Appeals and the lower courts shall continue to exercise their power as mandated in the Constitution. 6734 provides for the unconditional creation of the ARMM and not through the mode of a plebiscite as provided in the Constitution 3) The Constitution provides that ARMM shall be approved by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite by all voters residing in the provinces and cities affected. social justice and services. Reasons: 1) R. science and technology and sports development. A. 7924 did not expressly or impliedly delegate any police power to the MMDA. but R. A. et. abolished or its boundary substantially altered. urban and rural planning and development. The executive power is conferred on the Regional Governor. either by Congress or by the Regional Assembly. merge the existing regions. The MMDA thus now seeks recourse with the Supreme Court. the governing board of the MMDA. COMELEC. the political will to enact ordinances) C. R. 6734 does provide for a plebiscite (1 guess nobody reads the transitory provisions) 3) The framers of the Constitution must have intended that the majority of votes must come from each of the constituent units and not all the votes of the provinces and cities (I couldn’t understand how the justices arrived at this conclusion) 4) It is not for the Court to decide on the wisdom of the law concerning the inclusion of provinces and cities which Abbas claims should not be included in a plebiscite 5) There is no actual controversy yet as to any violation of freedom of religion. This government shall operate within the framework of the Regional Government. 6734 violates constitutional guarantee on freedom of exercise of religion as some its provisions run counter to the Koran 6) The creation of an Oversight Committee to supervise the transfer of power to the ARMM is contrary to the constitutional mandate that the creation of the autonomous region hinges solely on the result of the plebiscite 7) R. Sec.A.A. 6734 includes provinces and cities which do not have the same cultural and historical heritage and other relevant characteristics needed for admission to the ARMM 5) R. 7924) MMDA’s proposed actions were not under the authority of any ordinance (What’s funny is that the MMC. have the power or at least. and these guys. subject to the limitations of the Constitution and this Organic Act. merged. however. The Supreme Court. The Organic Act also provides for: Protection of ancestral lands. 6734 says “by a majority or votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite and only those provinces and cities where a majority of votes cast in favor of the Organic Act shall be included in the Autonomous Region. 10. R.BAVA petitioned the trail court and later on the Court of Appeals to enjoin the implementation of MMDA’s proposed actions. 10. 6734 says “…that only the provinces and cities voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the ARMM. 6734 was prior to the Tripoli Agreement) 2) The transitory provisions of R. divided. 6734 on the following grounds: 1) R. education. Read R. 6734 conflicts with the Tripoli Agreement (what conflicts the case doesn’t say) 2) R. Tribal Appellate Courts for cases dealing with tribal codes shall also be established. public order and security. The Regional Government shall have fiscal autonomy or the power to create its own sources of revenue.A. Held: MMDA is wrong.A. only a potential one . The reason is that R.” (Art. being a subsequent law to the Tripoli Agreement (though in my opinion it wouldn’t matter if R. and power to amend or revise the Organic Act. by administrative determination. 1 Abbas v. there shall be a Shari’ah Appellate Court which shall also be learned in Islamic law and jurisprudence. through a plebiscite for that purpose. 6732 (Organic Act for ARMM [Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao]) Mindanao. The Shari’ah Court’s decisions shall be final and executory subject to the original and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. except in accordance with the criteria established with the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the units directly affected. A. most notably the power to enact ordinances necessary for the implementation of its plans. This provision. A. is composed of the different mayors of Metro Manila. is superior to the Tripoli Agreement. ancestral domain and indigenous cultural communities. c. challenged the constitutionality of R. A.

6) The creation of an Oversight Committee is merely procedural and in fact will aid in the timely creation of the ARMM 7) The power of the President to merge administrative regions is inherent in his power of general supervision over local governments. Besides, administrative regions are not territorial or political regions. Examples of administrative regions are Regions I to XII and the NCR c. 2 Chiongbian v. Orbos, 245 SCRA 253 Facts: In 1990, President Aquino issued E. O. No. 439 wherein she picked certain provinces and cities, some of which did not participate in the inclusion to the ARMM, to the reorganized to new regions (e.g. Misamis Occidental, which did not participate in the ARMM plebiscite, was transferred from Region X to Region XI). Aquino issued said E. O. pursuant ant R. A. 6734, which says: “…That only the provinces and cities voting favorably in suitable plebiscites shall be included in the ARMM. The provinces and cities which plebiscite no vote for inclusion in the Autonomous Region shall remain in the existing administrative regions. Provided however, that the President may, by administrative determination, merge existing regions. James Chiongbian, a Sultan Kudarat congressman, filed a certiorari prohibition to protest the E. O., claiming that President Aquino had no power to reorganize administrative regions because said provision in R. A. 6734 1) also states that provinces, cities which in the plebiscite do not vote for inclusion in the Autonomous Region shall remain the existing administrative regions 2) the Constitution does not expressly provide the President the power to merge administrative regions; in fact Art. 10, Sec. 10 of the Constitution (see II of your outline) prohibits this and 3) even granting that the President is allowed to merge administrative regions, there is law setting standard on how it is to be done. Held: Chiongbian is wrong. Reasons: 1) The sentence “…shall remain in the existing administrative regions, is further qualify by the phrase, “Provided however that the President may, by administration determination merge the existing regions.” 2) Past legislation, particularly R. A. 5345 issued in 1968, authorized the President the help of a Commission on Reorganization, to reorganize the different example departments including administrative regions. This shows that traditional power to reorganize administrative regions has always been lodged in the President 3) The standard is found in R. A. 5345 which states “to promote simplicity, economic efficiency in the government to enable it to pursue programs consistent with no goals for accelerated social and economic development and to improve service transaction of the public business.” D. Read R. A. 6766 (Organic Act for Cordillera Autonomous Region of 1989) This Act provides for creation of the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) shall consist of the cities and provinces that shall vote favorable in a plebiscite pursuant ant 10, Sec. 18 of the Constitution. Those cities and provinces are Benguet, Ifugao, Muslim Province, Abra, Kalinga-Apayao and Baguio The Act consists of the following pertinent articles: 1) Guiding principles and policies similar to that of Art. 2 of the 1987 Constitution 2) Vesting of legislative power in the Cordillera Assembly; executive power Cordillera governor with a deputy governor as well; creation of indigenous special courts whose decisions are final and executory but subject to the original and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 3) Creation of a Regional Commission on Appointments 4) Measures to protect and develop the ancestral lands and ancestral domains of indigenous cultural communities as well as the national economy and patrimony The rest of its provisions are roughly similar to the Organic Act for ARMM (see11-c) CAR never came to existence. Only Ifugao province voted in favor of CAR, so the Supreme Court in Ordillo v. COMELEC ruled that Ifugao could no constitute itself into the CAR> d. 1 Ordillo v. COMELEC, 192 SCRA 100 Facts: CAR Regional Assembly member Alexander Ordillo raised the question in his petition on whether the province of Ifugao, being the only province which voted favorably for the creation of the CAR, can alone legally and validly constitute such region. Held: Ordillo’s petition is meritorious. Reasons: 1) Statutory construction of Art. X, Sec. 15 of the 1987 Constitution shows that the word “region” is to be made up of more than one constituent unit 2) Section 2 or R. A. 6766 says “The Regional Government shall exercise powers and functions necessary for the proper governance and development of all provinces, cities, barangays and municipalities within the CAR.” Therefore, Congress could not have intended that only a single province would constitute CAR 3) It would be illogical for Ifugao to have 2 sets of officials, one for Ifugao and one for the CAR, when Ifugao is the only member of the CAR d. 2 Cordillera Board Coalitions v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 495

Facts: Pending the convening of Congress after President Aquino was swept into power in 1986, she issued E. O. 220 which petitioner Cordillera Board Coalitions claimed created the CAR, thus preempting the constitutional mandate that Congress shall be the one to pass an Organic Act providing for the creation of CAR. Petitioner also questions the constitutionality of the CAR as it runs contrary to Article 10, Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution (See 11-1). Finally petitioner claims the CAR will interfere with the local autonomy of individual cities and provinces in general. Held: Cordillera Board Coalition is wrong. Reasons: 1. The presumption of constitutionality of laws shall be applied in the case. E. O. 220 was actually envisioned to consolidate and coordinate the delivery of services of line departments and agencies of the National Government in the areas covered by the CAR as a step preparatory to the grant of autonomy to the Cordillera. It was not intended to preempt Congress 2. CAR is not a public corporation or a territorial or political subdivision. It is in the same genre as an administrative region for the purpose of coordinating the planning and implementation of program and services in the covered areas. Thus no new territorial or political subdivision was created or merged with another. 3. Local autonomy is administrative autonomy. In the case of CAR and Muslim Mindanao, they are granted both administrative and political autonomy. Petitioner has failed to show specifically how the creation of administrative regions will interfere with local autonomy. d. 3 E.O. 459 dated May 17, 1991 This E. O. is entitled “Devolving to the Autonomous Region” Government of the Autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao Certain Powers of the DECS, the Control and Supervision Over Its Offices in the Region and for other Offices. The E. O. aims to implement Sec. 1, Article XV of R. A. 6734 which states that, “The Autonomous Region shall establish, maintain and support a complete and integrated system of quality education and adopt an educational framework that is meaningful, relevant and responsive to the needs, aspirations and ideals of the people in the region.” To this end, the Regional Government is made responsible for the regional educational framework of the ARMM, such as formulating and implementing programs to improve education in general in the region. E. Read R. A. 7901, dated Feb. 23, 1995 (Creating the CARAGA Administrative Region) This Act is entitled “An Act Creating Region 13 to be known as the CARAGA Administrative Region, and For Other Purposes.” It consists of the provinces of Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur and the cities of Butuan and Surigao. The Act also transfers Sultan Kudarat to Region 11. F. Local Government Unit Defined Definition: A political subdivision of the state constituted by law and possessed a substantial control over its own affairs. Supporting Definition: The LGU is autonomous in the sense that it is given more power authority, responsibilities and resources remaining to be an intra sovereign subdivision of a sovereign nation, but no intended to be an imperium in imperia state within a state f. 1 Alvarez v. Guingona, Jr. 252 SCRA 695 Facts: Senator Heherson Alvarez, et. al. filed a petition for prohibition with prayer TRO and preliminary prohibitory injunction assailing R. A. 7720, Said R. A. provides for a conversion of the municipality of Santiago, Isabela into a City. Alvarez said the municipality of Santiago failed to meet the requirement of Sec. 450 of the LGC that, for a municipality to become a component city, it must have an annual income of P20M. The reason is that in the computation of the average annual income, the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA) should have been deducted from the total income. Instead, the IRAs were added to the total income. Held: Alvarez is wrong. IRAs are the local government unit’s rightful share to the national taxes. Section 450(c) of the LGC provides that “the average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund, exclusive of special funds, transfers, and any recurring income.” IRAs are a regular, recurring source of income; they are not special funding transfers since Sec. 17(g) of the LGC gives a technical description for the IRA for purposes of the LGC G. Local Autonomy explained 1. Autonomy – either decentralization of administration or decentralization of power (Limbona v. Mangelin) 2. Decentralization of Administration – Occurs when the central government delegate administrative powers to political subdivision in order to broaden the basic government power and in the process to make local government more responsive accountable” and “Ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national development and progress.” At the same time, it relieves the central government of the bureau managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate or national concerns (Supra) 3. Decentralization of power – An abdication of political power in favor of local government units declared to be autonomous. In that case the local government is free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central government authorities. According to a constitution author (Father Bernas) decentralization of

power amounts to “self-immolation” since in that event, the autonomous government becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to its own constituency (Supra) 4. Local Autonomy, Philippine Concept – The national government does not completely relinquish all its power over local governments, including autonomous regions. Only administrative powers over local affairs are delegated to political subdivisions. The purpose of the delegation is to make governance more directly responsive and effective at the local levels. In turn, economic, political and social developments at the smaller political units are expected to propel social and economic growth and development. But to enable the country to develop as whole the programs and policies effected locally must be integrated and coordinate towards a common national goal. Thus, policy-setting for the entire country still lies in the President and Congress. In Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp. Inc., municipal governments are still agents of the national government (Pimentel v. Aguirre) 5. Fiscal autonomy – Local government have the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable share in the national taxes released by the national government, as well as the power to the allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities. g. 1 Malonzo, et, al v. Zamora, et, al 311 SCRA 224 NOTE: Dates and peso figures are crucial to this case. Facts: In 1994, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Caloocan City issued Ordinance No. 0168, authorizing Caloocan City mayor Macario Asistio Jr. to initiate expropriation proceedings for lot 26 of the Maysilo Estate owned by the CLT Realty Development Corp. An amount of P39, 352,047.75 was appropriated for this purpose. CLT however countered with an interpleaded and prayer for TRO on August 6, 1997, on the ground that Maysilo estate actually straddled both Caloocan City and the municipality of Malabon; therefore the Caloocan City and Malabon municipal governments should be restrained and CLT must interplead and litigate among themselves their conflicting rights to claim such taxes. In the meantime, the voluntary sale of the CLT property failed to push through so the city government field a suit for eminent domain against CLT on March 23, 1998. Some months afterwards, Rey Malonzo became mayor of Caloocan City. The expropriation of the CLT property was then declared discontinued, thus the appropriation of P50M for the budgetary item “Expropriation of properties” could now be reverted for use in supplement budget. Ordinance No. 0254 was then passed appropriating an amount of P39, 343,028.00 for the immediate repair of offices and hiring of additional personnel. Because of this, the office of the President (OP), acting on an administrative complaint filed against Malonzo et. al., were adjudged guilty of misconduct and meted the penalty of suspension. Malonzo’s refuted the decision, claiming that 1) the interpleader filed by CLT was an unavoidable discontinuance of the expropriation project; thus the amount of P39, 352,047.00 could be reverted into savings and 2) said amount was could be denominated as “Expropriation of Properties” and classified under “Current Operating Expenditures. The OP countered that the amount of P39, 352,047.75 was a capital outlay that must be spent for the project it is intended for, thus under Sec. 322 of the LGC it could not be reverted into savings for another use 2) the filling of the interpleader could not be considered as an unavoidable discontinuance since months after the interpleader, the Caloocan City government even filed an expropriation case for the CLT property 3) The Sangguniang Panlungsod, at the time of passing Ordinance No. 0254 did not adopt new or updated rules of procedure for the current year; this was shown by the hurried passage in one day of the said ordinance and 4) the appropriation of P50M for “Expropriation of Properties” actually did not exist this was merely a subterfuge by Malonzo to dip his hands into the P39, 352. 017.75 intended for the CLT property expropriation project. Held: Malonzo is correct. Reasons: 1) During the oral arguments and pleadings, it was clear that the amount of P39, 352, 017.75 and whether it was a capital outlay or continuing appropriation was not the issue; rather the issue was the budgetary item “Expropriation of Properties” wherein the amount of P50M was appropriated for said use but was later discontinued, and later on, an amount of P39, 313, 028.00 from the P50M was appropriated for office repair and other miscellaneous expenses. Malonzo’s explanation that the P50M was not intended for the purchase of CLT property but for expenses incidental to expropriation, such as relocation of squatters, appraisal fee, etc. was believed by the Court. (So what happened to the P39, 352, 047.75, if Malonzo’s explanation is to be believed? Justice Kapunan and 2 others dissented, believing the OP’s argument that there was actually no P50M existing to fund the “Expropriation of Properties item. In fact, Malonzo used the nonexistent P50M appropriation as a cover-up to illegally spend the P32, 352, 047.75 for repair of offices and hiring of personnel. Can you say kickback?) 2) The failure to adopt new or updated rules of procedure of the Sangguniang Panlungsod as mandated by Sec. 50 and 52 of the LGC is not intended to paralyze said Sanggunian from doing its job. An interpretation of Sec. 50 and 52 of the LGC that will avoid inconvenience and absurdity must be adopted, thus the OP’s contention is mistaken. g. 2 Sec. 1, Chapter 1, Title XII, E. O. 292 “Declaration of policy. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments. For this purpose, it shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization. The allocation of powers and resources to loose government units shall be promoted and inter-local government grouping, consolidation a coordination of resources shall be encouraged. The state shall guarantee the local government units their

just share in national taxes and their equitable shares in proceeds from the use natural resources, and afford them wider latitude for resource generation.” g. 3 Pimentel v. Aguirre, G. R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000 Facts: In 1997, President Ramos issued A. O. No. 372 which caught the ire of Senator Aquilino Pimentel because of certain 2 provisions which state 1) All government departments and agencies, including state universities and colleges, government-owned and controlled corporation and local government units will identify and implement measures in FY 1998 that will reduce total expenditures for the year by at least 25% of authorized regular appropriation for non-personal service items, along the following suggested areas… and 2) Pending of assessment and evaluation of the Development Budget Coordinating Committee of the emergency fiscal situation, the amount equivalent to 10% of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) to LGUs shall be withheld. Pimentel claims that both provisions do not comply with Section 284 of LGC, which provides for the 4 requisites before the President may interfere in local fiscal matters 1) an unmanaged public sector deficit of the national government 2) consultations with the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the presidents of various local leagues 3) the corresponding recommendation of the secretaries of the DOF, DILG and DBM and 4) any adjustment in the allotment shall in no case be less than 30% of the collection of national internal revenue taxes of the third fiscal year preceding the current one. Specially, Pimentel claims that there was no showing that there was actually an unmanaged public sector deficit and that there was no consultations conducted with the different leagues of local governments. Held: Pimentel is partly correct. Reasons: 1. The Supreme Court is prepared to believe the Solicitor General’s assurance that the first provision above stated is merely an advisory or guiding policy for local executives to follow, thus local autonomy is not interfered upon. 2. The second provision is violative of local fiscal autonomy because its basic feature, the automatic release of the shares of LGUs in the national internal revenue, is missing. This is mandated in Article 10, Sec. 6 of the Constitution. Furthermore, Section 286 of the LGC provides that the release shall be made directly to the LGU concerned within 5 days after every quarter of the year and shall not be subject to any lien or holdback that may be imposed by the national government for whatever purpose. The withholding of 10% of the IRA is definitely a holdback. H. Public Corporation defined Definition 1: Those formed or organized for the government of a portion of the State (Act 1459, Sec.2) Definition 2: Those corporations created by the State as its own device and agency for the accomplishment of parts of its own public works (Eliot, Mun. Corp. p. 1) I. Essential Elements of a Municipal Corporation 1) A legal creation or incorporation 2. A corporate name by which the artificial personality or legal entity is known and in which all corporation acts are done. 3) Inhabitants constituting the population who are invested with the political and corporate powers which are executed through duly constituted officers and agents; 4) a place or territory within which the local civil government and corporate functions are exercised (Martin, Pub. Corp., 1971) J. Two fold character of a municipal corporation; its significance 1) Government – the municipal corporation is an agent of the State for the government of the territory and the inhabitants within the municipal limits. The municipal corporation exercises by delegation a part of the sovereignty of the State. 2) Private – the MC acts in a similar category as a business corporation, performing functions not strictly government or political. The MC stands for the community in the administration of local affairs w/c is wholly beyond the sphere of the public purposes for which its governmental powers are conferred K. What is Federalism? Definition: A system in which political power is divided between a central (national) government and smaller government units. Supporting Definition: The central government is often called the federal government and the smaller units, states or provinces. In a true federal system, citizens owe their loyalty directly to the central government, even though they live in states or provinces. The central government has direct authority over the people concerning powers granted to it in the constitution. III. CREATION AND ABOLITION OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

situations may arise where he can submit local officials to his dictation by creating a new municipality and including therein the barrio wherein the officials preside. specially that a future province must have at least an area of 3. B. Negros del Norte. what more municipalities? (But I think this is not a very good argument coz it’s implying way too much). to provide for all essential government facilities and services and special functions commensurate with the size of its population. as expected of the LGU concerned. mainly in Northern Luzon and Mindanao. merged. President Macapagal issued several EOs creating 33 new municipalities. Decided cases: b. km. The Barrio Charter Act states that “barrios may not be created nor their boundaries altered or their names changed except by act of Congress of the corresponding municipal board upon petition of the majority of voters in the areas affected and the recommendation of the municipality or municipalities in which the proposed barrio is situated” This implies that if the President cannot create barrios. Requisites for creation of Local Government Units 1. Pelaez contends that: 1) Sec 68 of the Revised Administration Code has been impliedly repealed by R.P. the . Section 3 of the Constitution which states: “No province. except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code. in relation to the law in question. restraining him from passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in implementation of said executive order and/or any disbursement by said municipalities. the area of Negros del Norte is really 4. The President based his power from Sec. Held: Tan is correct. is so broad that is virtually unfettered. No. 15 SCRA 569 Facts: In 1964. Petitioner avers. It must be sufficient based on acceptable standards. The plebiscite is declared null and void Reasons: 1) The phrase “subject to the approval by a majority of the votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected” must be construed to mean that the remaining areas in the province of Negros Occidental should have been allowed to participate in the said plebiscite. Certainly. and subject to the approval by a majority of the votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected”. 885 was passed allowing for the creation of the province of Negros del Norte on the Island of Negros. since the waters falling under the jurisdiction and control of Negros del Norte must be included in the total area of the province.A 2370. city. 2. It must be contiguous unless it comprises 2 or more islands or is separated by an LGU independent of the other properly identified by metes and bounds with technical descriptions and sufficient to provide for such basic services and facilities to meet the requirements of its populace. the remaining areas in the province of Negros Occidental were not allowed to participate in the plebiscite for the creation of Negros del Norte.P. It shall be determined as the total number of inhabitants of the within the territorial jurisdiction of the LGU concerned. 2. Held: Pelaez is correct. A law must be: a) Complete in itself so that there is nothing left for the delegate to do but to implement the statute and b) Fix a standard the limits of which are sufficiently determinable The standard set by Sec.Sec. is actually only 2. Income.019.95 sq km. 2 Tan v. A local government unit may be created divided. Petitioner Patricio Tan claimed that B. the NSO and the Land Management Bureau of the DENR. Specifically. municipality or barrio may be created. 3. Vice President Emmanuel Pelaez filed a petition for writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction. 3. 68 can allow the president to interfere in local government affairs. Compliance with the foregoing indicators shall be arrested by the Department of Finance. Land Area. divided. abolished or its boundaries substantially altered either by law enacted by Congress in the case of a province. 6. The power of control by the president over local government is denied by the 1935 Constitution b.856. The creation of Municipal Corporation is essentially legislative in character. municipality or any other political subdivision of by ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan or Sangguniang Panlungsod concerned in the case of a barangay located within its territorial jurisdiction. Reasons: 1. If the president can create municipalities. city. 1 Pelaez V. Moreover. COMELEC 142 SCRA 727 Facts: B. LGC: Authority to create Local Government Units. 68 of the Revised Penal Code of 1917. the Barrio Charter Act. abolished or its boundary substantially altered. 197 of the LGC of 1983.56 sq km. thus Negros Occidental’s land area will be dismembered. merged. Respondent claims the issue was already rendered moot and academic as the new province of Negros del Norte was already proclaimed. thus said officials’ positions would suddenly becomes vacant. no 885 violated Article XI. 68 is “as the public welfare may require” This standard. 68 is an undue delegation of legislative power to the President and 3) Sec. Population. Auditor General. Petitioner also claims the proposed province of Negros del Norte failed to meet the requirements of Sec. The reason is that cities belonging to Negros Occidental will be added to Negros del Norte. A. subject to such limitations and requirements prescribed in this Code.500 sq. against the Auditor General. 2) Sec.

claiming that 1) the CA misapplied the equiponderance of evidence rule and 2) the municipality of Alicia had no juridical personality. Executive Secretary 128 SCRA 6 Facts: By virtue of B. the court must rule in favor of the defendant. the RTC ruled in favor of Sinacaban using as its basis the curative benefits of Sec. 56 b. b. then not only would they claim Pagahat but also other certain barrios as well. the court will find for the defendant.O. Moreover. Jimenez in its reply with the provincial Board that same year and later on with the RTC in 1990. Presumption of constitutionality should be applied in this case. XI. b.O. most notably the recognition by the 1987 Constitution of Alicia as one of the 20 municipalities of the Third District of Bohol. The CA ruled in favor of Alicia on the grounds that 1) applying the rule of equiponderance of evidence (a principle in Civil Procedure) with Candijay as plaintiff and Alicia as defendant in the lower court.O.500 sq. Alicia therefore. “The territory need not be contiguous if it comprises 2 or more islands”. km for it to become a province. 3 Paredes v. 265 SCRA 182 NOTE: Dates in this case are important because essentially Jimenez lost on account of the slow wheels of justice Facts: In 1949.” In this case.O.P. Blg 56.O. which would as a result. 56 is a reflection of local autonomy on the part of the barangay wanting to constituent themselves into a new municipality. since the municipality of Alicia claims to have current territorial jurisdiction over said barrio. No. Sec of the 1973 Constitution as the other barangays are also affected by the creation of the municipality of Aguinaldo. certainly expand Candijay’s territory far beyond than what the law allows her. The objection against it being a municipal corporation should have been done before the LGC was enacted in 1991. Even if the evidence of the plaintiff may be stronger than that of the defendant. The equiponderance of evidence rule states: “Where the scale shall stand upon equipoise and there is nothing in the evidence which shall incline it to one side or the other. Said barangays should be given leeway in becoming self-reliant communities. President Quirino issued E. was declared unconstitutional in Pelaez v. and which have their respective set of municipal officials holding officials holding office at the time of the effectivity of the code shall henceforth be considered as regular municipalities. 265 in 1949. The Municipality of Alicia was created by virtue of E. 442 (d) is therefore a curative law in favor of Alicia. Jr.people of Negros Occidental should have been allowed to vote in the plebiscite as they are directly affected by the diminution in land size of their province. claiming that its boundary line actually covered barrio Pagahat. The use of the word ‘territory” clearly reflects that the law refers only to the land mass and excludes the waters over which the political unit has control. the people in said barangays are the ones who will constitute the new municipality of Aguinaldo.O. however claimed that the rest of the barangays on Mayoyao should be allowed to participate in the plebiscite by virtue of Art. 16 years late when Pelaez v. can claim the benefits of Sec. In other words. of Candijay. as promulgated in Pelaez Auditor General and 2) the disputed barrios belong to Jimenez since in 1950 the municipalities entered into an agreement duly approved by the Provincial Board of Misamis Occidental back then which recognized Jimenez’s jurisdiction over the disputed barrio in 1992. said that Sinacaban had no juridical personality to file a suit because it was created under a void E. Sec. there is no preponderance of evidence on his side if such evidence is insufficient in itself to establish his cause of action.O. Negros del Norte failed to meet the required land area of 3. Baz. having been created under avoid E. 258. both municipalities failed to satisfactorily back their claims that they owned barrio Pagahat: and 2) if Candijay’s boundary line claim was true. ( E. 2 of the LGC of 1991. Ifugao held a plebiscite to determine whether they want to constitute themselves into the new municipality of Aguinaldo. Candijay petitioned is review on certiorari with the SC. 4 Mun. creating the municipality of Sinacaban in the Province of Misamis Occidental. Jimenez added in its petition with the Supreme Court the RTC’s decision was null and void because it failed to decide the case within one year mandated by the LGC of 1983 and the Constitution. Blg. the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of defendant’s claim. 5 Municipality of Jimenez v. indicate the State’s recognition and acknowledgement of the existence thereof.P.265) since Sec. Sinacaban filed a claim with the provincial Board of Misamis Occidental against the municipality of Jimenez territorial possession of about 5 barrios.P. 442 (d) of the LGC of 1991 which states “Municipal District organized pursuant to presidential issuances and E.O. . Auditor General was promulgated. various government acts. 2) A reading of the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 197 LGC of 1983 says. In 1988 by virtue of said E. Bohol v. Angrily. B. The RTC awarded Pagahat to Candijay Alicia appealed to the Court of Appeals. And yet even after. Audition General (See III-b 1). Under said principle. Ca 251 SCRA 182 Facts: The municipality of Candijay petitioned the RTC of Tagbilaran. Held: The Municipality of Candijay is incorrect Reasons: 1. not the other barangays of Mayoyao excluded from B. Governor Zosimo Paredes et. al. derived its authority. Bohol. Held: Paredes is wrong. Blg. certain barangays in the municipality of Mayoyao. 68 of the RAC of 1917 from which the said E. The SC sees no need in reviewing the equiponderance rule as it was not arrived whimsically or capriciously by the CA 2.

thus the city council arrogated upon itself the appointing power by dictating who shall occupy the DPOS positions. 51. Article XVII of the charter which provides that the City Mayor the Vice Mayor. Even in the local government level. the said ordinance stated are to be absorbed into the DPOS. the Supreme Court cited Sec. in 1959.O. otherwise the agreement in void (A relocation survey was ordered but the results of the survey was not stated in the case) 3. the CSU personnel became regular employees and such they have gained the protection of the Civil Service Law. Simon’s authority to appoint was based upon P. The Secretary of Justice rendered an Opinion. Mayor Brigido Simon appointed 16 people to positions in the Civil Service Unit (CSU) of the local government of Quezon City. the effects of such revocation were temporarily cushioned when the city council issued an ordinance creating the Department of Public Order and Safety (DPOS).P. 2 also applies to the CSC. 337 or the old LGC and not the LGC of 1991 since the material events of the case took place during the time of the old LGC. Even granting that the RTC was deliberately slow.A. The only remedy left would be to file administrative sanctions against it. therefore. When the city council issued the ordinance allowing for the absorption of CSU personnel into the DPOS. 51 was never published in the Gazette. 6 Mendenilla v. when Jose Manuel Onandia was appointed by the President City Chief of Police.A. 2. meaning its power to make any kind of law is. etc. Held: Mathay is correct. the law applicable is B. Nowhere does it mention the Chief of Police in the said list of officials. In effect. Therefore. However.P. 96. Congress has the plenary power to make laws. most notably when the 1987 Constitution recognized Sinacaban as part of the 2nd District of Misamis Occidental. b.D. 3) The reasoning in no. Reasons: 1) First of all. 7 Mathay v. Whatever agreement Sinacaban and Jimenez entered into 1950 must still conform with the territorial metes and bounds set forth in E. The CSC claims that by virtue of the ordinance enacted by the city council. it specifically made use of the wordings “Present Personnel” and not positions.A. as city Mayor to the CSC.Held: Jimenez is incorrect Reasons: 1. Held: Mendenilla is incorrect Reasons: 1. b. All present personnel of the CSU. Simon and later on his successor.D. Tuvera ruling P. 557 and the Civil Service Law. giving the appointing power he possesses. can the judge continue to serve in the new city? Answer: Yes. since various government acts through the years after the Pelaez case of 1965 indicate the recognition by the years after the Pelaez case 1965 indicate the recognition by the state of the municipality of Sinacaban. the CSU personnel complained to the CSC. Quiz: If the municipality of a municipal judge is converted into a city. the regular positions in the DPOS never got filled due to insufficient number of said positions and lack of funds. In support of this contention. R.D. Therefore. Mathay now asserts that the CSC cannot order him to reinstate the said personnel as it is. He does not derive his power or his appointment from a city charter. 2234 provides that the position of Chief of Police of the city of Legaspi is to be appointed by the President. 2234. Onandia 5 SCRA 536 Facts: In 1954. When Mathay refused to renew their appointments. claiming that his position as chief of police was not abolished when Legaspi was converted from a city to a municipality 2) Under R.A. thus they were . Sinacaban can claim the benefits of Sec. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The CSC replied by issuing resolutions ordering the CSU personnel reinstated. Then.442 (d) of the LGC of 1991. remedied the situation by offering the CSU personnel contractual appointment. in theory. 557 his employment status as Chief of Police may not be abolished except in the manner specified in R.A. the separation of powers must be respected.A. he derives them from the Constitution and other Laws. 2) Under B. conformably with the Tanada v. 51 never became law at all. CA 320 SCRA 703 NOTE: Don’t confuse CSU with CSC Facts: During his term. 258. the mayor of the municipality of Legaspi appointed Emilio Mendenilla as Chief of Police. its decision is not rendered void. 2. it is within the legal competence of Congress to enact R. 2234 abolished the position of municipality Chief of Police and replaced it with a city Chief of police. the power to appoint rests in the local chief executive in the case the Mayor. A judge is not a municipal official. stating that P. 557 and 3) The Civil Service Law guarantees his security of tenure. Mayor Ismael Mathay. Congress passed R. are allowed to continue in office upon the effectivity of the charter until the expiration of their terms in office.A. However. Such reasoning is wrong because in the first place the CSU never existed at all. unlimited. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) thus ordered the revocation of all appointments in the CSU. The position of Chief of Police of a municipality is totally different from the position of the Chief of Police of a city. Mendenilla assailed the legality of such a move. Notwithstanding both R. 2234 converting the municipality of Legaspi into the City of Legaspi R. 337.

No creation. NOTE: the proposed City of Novaliches was later voted down in a plebiscite held for that purpose C. he would be the first representative to do so. as they have the option not to renew their appointments b. * Sec.A.A. 3. 10 LGC: Plebiscite Requirement. The failure of R. land area and population. If Quezon City would object to the creation of the City of Novaliches. NSO. Government centers can also serve as seats of government. DENR and even Quezon City mayor Ismael Mathay were present during the deliberations. Grino v. 8 Samson v. Reasons: 1. C 1. How are existing sub-provinces converted to provinces? * Sec. 5. 12 of the LGC provides that a government center shall be established by the LGU as far as practicable. land area and population of Novaliches were not presented during the deliberations that led to the passage of R. But he didn’t. would not be adversely affected by the creation of Novaliches city in terms of income. 213 SCRA 672 . division. Thus when Simon and later on Mathay offered them contractual appointments. Sec.A. shall be filled by appointment by the President. After effectivity of such conversion. 1991 and 4) R. claiming that 1) certifications as to income.A. And even granting that no certifications were indeed presented. abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of LGUs shall take effect unless approved by a majority of the voted cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose in the political unit or units directly affected.A. merger. Said plebiscite shall be conducted by the COMELEC within 120 days from the date of effectivity of the law or ordinance effecting such action. 315 SCRA 53 Facts: R.A. they were at the mercy of the appointing power of the said mayors. With the mass media publicizing the creation of the city of Novaliches.8535 to provide a seat of government for Novaliches is not fatal. 462 LGC: Existing Sub-provinces Existing sub-provinces are hereby converted into regular provinces upon approval of the voters cast in a plebiscite to be held in the said sub provinces and the original provinces directly affected. Mathay was present during the deliberation. was also not presented 3) a copy of the petition of concerned barangays calling or the creation of City of Novaliches was not presented to the Quezon City Council. all of whom shall likewise hold office unit their successors shall have been elected in the next local election and qualified. 1992. The presumption of constitutionally of laws shall be applied in this case. The official statements attesting to the income. Quezon City. as mandated by the Implementing Rules of the LGC. The appointees shall hold office until their successors shall have been elected in the regular local elections following the plebiscite mentioned herein and qualified. 1991. All qualified appointive officials and employees in the career service of the said sub-provinces at the time of their conversion into regular provinces shall continue in accordance with civil service law. meaning that Samson has burden of proof to show that R. land area and population of Novaliches could serve the certifications contemplated by law 2. 8535 failed to specify the seat of government of the proposed City of Novaliches as mandated by Sec. 8535 was signed into law creating the City of Novaliches out of 15 barangays in Quezon City. Aguirre. the President shall fill up the position of governor of the newly created province through appointment if none has yet been appointed to the same as hereinbefore provided. the representatives of the DOF. Held: Samson is wrong. rules and regulation. unless the law or ordinance fixes another date. 11 (a) of the LGC. Nowhere. COMELEC. The fact that the City of Novaliches was not included among the 17 cities and municipalities listed in the ordinance attached to the 1987 constitution does not mean that a constitutional amendment is necessary in order for Novaliches to become a city. The failure to provide the QC council a petition of concerned barangays calling for the creation of the City of Novaliches is not fatal as such petition is meant only to inform the QC council of such creation. Samson could not claim he was not informed of the proposed creation 4. or resulting from expiration of resulting from expiration of their terms of office in case of negative votes in the plebiscite results. Any vacancy occurring in the offices occupied by said incumbent elected officials. 8535 was unconstitutional. 8535 2) a certification attesting to the fact that the mother LGU. The plebiscite shall be conducted by the COMELEC simultaneously with the national elections following the effectivity of this code.never part of the Civil Service to begin with. Samson did not present any proof that no certifications were presented during the deliberations. and shall also appoint a vice governor and other members of the Sanggunian Panlalawigan. The new legislative district created as a result of such conversion shall continue to be represented in Congress by the duly elected representatives of the original districts out of which said new province or districts were created unit their own representative shall have been elected in the next regular congressional elections and qualified The incumbent elected officials of the said sub-provinces converted into regular provinces shall continue to hold office until June 30. does it provide that Metro Manila shall be forever composed of 17 cities and municipalities. Quezon City councilor Moises Samson questioned the constitutionality of said R. The ordinance attached to the Constitution merely apportions the seat of the House of Representatives to the different legislative districts in the country.

after verifying that the income and population requirements have been met. Its section 3. transfers and non-recurring income and 2. 1992 elections. D. * Art 12 Conversion of a component city into a highly urbanized city a) Requisites for conversion. The annual income shall included the income accruing to the general fund exclusive of special funds. as hereinabove defined shall no participate nor vote in the election of the official of the province in which the highly urbanized city is geographical located. NGO’s and other interested parties. Ceniza and his fellow goons claim Sec. Grino says if Guimaras voted for regular “provincehood” then there would have been no need for them at all to vote for the provincial officials of Iloilo.3 regulates the exercise of freedom of suffrage and violates the equal protection of the law. 22 1979. Resolution. All other cities shall be considered components of the provinces where they are geographically located. If it’s charter so provides. Any city now existing with an annual regular income derived from infrastructure and general funds of not less than P40M at the time of the approval of the act shall be classified as a highly urbanized city. A component city shall not be converted into a highly urbanized city unless the following requirements are present: 1. 462. Plebiscite.A. Robert Ceniza et. 1980. However. LGC). LGC. They particularly cited the charter’s provision denying Mandaue the right to participate in provincial elections.000 inhabitants as certified by NSO. which shall not be less than 200. since at the time of the plebiscite Guimaras was still a sub-province of Iloilo. But what if Guimaras votes to remain as a sub-province? Should special election be held for the 3 municipalities so that they can vote for the provincial official of Iloilo? Held: Obviously. Grino’s petition would have been meritorious. Income latest annual income of not less than P50M based on 1991 constant prices. a plebiscite to determine whether the sub-province of Guimaras (its mother province was Iloilo) wants to become a regular province was held simultaneously with the May 11. vicegovernor and the members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province of Iloilo. Declaration of conversion. filed a case as tax payers and registered voters in the cities of Cebu ad Mandaue assailing Sec. Moreover. 51 providing for local elections on Jan 30. media. COMELEC 95 SCRA 763 Facts: on Dec. Population. LDP Iloilo governor-candidate Simplicio Grino claims that the COMELEC erred in not allowing the said 3 municipalities to vote for the provincial officials of Iloilo. they questioned the use of annual income of a given city as basis for classification of whether or not a particular city is a highly urbanized city whose voters may no participate in the election of provincial officials of the province in which the city is geographically located. Grino’s petition was rendered moot and academic when Guimaras voted to become regular province. b) Procedure for conversion: 1. 5519 the law creating the City of Mandaue. Blg.P. Within 120 days from the declaration of the President or as specified in the declaration. declare the component city as highly urbanized 3. Said resolution shall be accompanied by certifications as to income and population 2. reads as follows: xxx Until cities are reclassified into highly urbanized and component comes in accordance with standard established in the LGC as province for in Art XI. and approved and endorsed by the city mayor. Conversion of a component city into a highly urbanized city and reclassification (implementing Rules and regulations. voters in a highly urbanized city. c) Effect of conversion The conversion of a component city into a highly-urbanized city shall make it independent of the province where it is geographically located Reclassification (See cases below and III-e) d. as certified by the city treasure. the subject of controversy. xxx The registered voters may be entitled to voter in the election of the official of the province of which that city is a component. . The interested component city shall submit to the office of the President a resolution of its Sanggunian adopted by a majority of all it’s members in a meeting duly called for the purpose. the ballots issued in the said 3 municipalities did not provided any space for the election of governor. Besides it’s too late to undo what COMELEC has done. 1 Ceniza v. Surprisingly.Facts: Pursuant to Sec. the COMELEC shall conduct a plebiscite in the city proposed to the converted such plebiscite shall be preceded by a comprehensive information campaign to be conducted by the COMELEC with the assistance of national and local government officials. which went to effect without the benefit of ratification by the residents of Mandaue in the plebiscite or referendum.al. 3 Specially. the President shall. If Guimaras did vote to remain as a sub province. Sec 4 (1) of the Constitution. the interim Batasang Pambansa enacted B. Within 30 days from receipt of such resolution. they attacked R. The participants in the said plebiscite were the residents of Iloilo (except Iloilo city) and the 3 municipalities of Guimaras.

Isabel into an independent component city. et. he field the petition in his capacity as mayor of Santiago.3 Miranda v.A.A. The creation of a new legislative district is a natural logical consequence of its conversion into a highly urbanized city. Also. Said section refers to alteration of boundaries of Santiago were substantially altered nor any of its income. the Executive Secretary and other respondents on the other hand countered that (1) Miranda et. The revenue of a city would show whether or not it is capable of existence and development as a relatively independent economic. 10 of the 1987 Constitution. 8528 was passed amending R. 49 of R. which provides that “As a highly urbanized city. the constitutional requirement that the creation.” They cited. Alexander Aguirre. had no standing to file their petition 2) the issue is a political question and 3) R. 2. since it runs contrary to article X. 7720 on 2 points: 1 Sec. population or land area been . Aguirre 314 SCRA 603 Facts: On May 5.A. assailed the constitutionality of R. Its political independence will diminish. 7675 thus being contrary to the one title-one subject rule since it creates a legislative district whereas the title expressly provides only for the conversion of Mandaluyong into highly urbanized city. No. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of R. 2 of R. social and political unit. is mistaken. contend that the people of san Juan should have been made to participate in the plebiscite as the same involves a change in their legislative district. Reasons: 1. Sec. the City of Mandaluyong shall have its own legislative district with the first representative to be elected in the next national elections after the passage of this Act. the mayor of Santiago and other petitioners assailed the constitutionality of R. Thus the inhabitants of San Juan were properly excluded from the said plebiscite as they have nothing to do with the changed in status of neighboring Mandaluyong. 8528 did not created divide. 3. if a plebiscite can be held for the upgrading of an LGU. al. 7675. The city of Mandaue came into existence.A. Art. 2 Tobias v. Taxes collected by the city would then be shared with the province. more particularly the selection of elective provincial officials since these provincial officials have ceased to exercise any government jurisdiction and authority over said city. d. al. X Sec. Reasons: 1. Freedom of suffrage is not imperiled since the Constitution does not give the city voter the right to participate in provincial elections for territorial reasons 4. Sec 10 of the 1987 Constitution. Ordinance and resolution passed by the city council of Santiago will have to be reviewed by the Provincial Board of Isabel. Abalos 239 SCRA 106 Facts: Robert Tobias. et. Far reaching changes will then take place. The issue is justiciable.A.A. should not a plebiscite be held for its downgrading as well? NOTE: Mendoza’s strong dissent was anchored on Art. d. The matter of separate district representation was only ancillary thereto. the equal protection of the laws in not violated. Miranda had standing. 3. All these changes merit the need of a plebiscite so that the people at Santiago can air their side on the issue.A. of a city. The thrust of the 1973 Constitution is towards the fullest autonomy of LGU’s Corollary to independence however. 7675 as the same involved a change in their legislative district is benefit of merit. Jose Miranda. 7675. is subject to a plebiscite only came into being when the 1973 Constitution was enacted and therefore cannot be applied retroactively. at. invoking their right as taxpayers and as residents of Mandaluyong City. 2. “an independent” so that the municipality of Santiago will be converted into a component city only and 2) the voters of Santiago could now vote again for the provincial officials of the province of Isabela. et.A. alteration. al. is the concomitant loss of right to participate in provincial affairs. 1998 R. 1994 R. etc. province. (This argument is rather strange for me). 7720 was passed converting the municipality of Santiago. On Feb 14. Held: Aguirre and his cohorts are gravely mistaken. Held: Tobias. 8528. Regular annual income of a given city is substantial distinction for classification. The reason is that the principle subject involved I the plebiscite was the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city.Held: Ceniza et. Moreover. etc or after any boundaries of Santiago it merely reclassified Santiago from an independent component city into a component city. 8528. The court has the power to decide the constitutionality of any law.A. known as “An act Converting the City of Mandaluyong into a Highly urbanized city known as the City of Mandaluyong. are grossly erroneous Reasons: 1. 7720 is hereby amended by deleting the words. among others. etc. Thus. The city mayor will be placed under the administrative supervision of the provincial governor. He says that said law lacks the provision requiring that the plebiscite be held for its ratification. The remainder of the former legislative district of San Juan/Mandaluyong shall become the new legislative district of San Juan with its first representative to be elected at the same region” Said provision Tobias claims is not germane to the title of R.al.A. The contention that the people of San Juan should have been made to participate in the plebiscite on R. Tobias. VIll. The reclassification will downgrade Santiago’s status from an independent component city into a component city. In 1969. 2.A.

. Boundary dispute between and among LGUs shall. less than P1M. *Sec. cities and other municipalities” Pertinent provisions include: Sec. as much as possible. 5 Use of income classification of provinces. and municipalities. 2. As used this E. Average annual income.O. Sec. Financial grants and other forms of assistance to local government c) Establishment of salary scales and rates of allowances per diems. Thereafter the dispute shall be formally tried by the Sangguniang concerned which shall decide the issue within 60 days from the date of the certification referred to above. f) Sixth class less than P5M Sec. P10M-15M c) Third class. sales of fixed assets and similar others b. it shall issue a certification to that effect. Cities and Municipalities. Boundary dispute involving a component city or municipality on the one hand and a highly urbanized city on the other or 2 or more highly urbanized cities. 118. grants. Boundary dispute involving municipalities or component cities of different provinces shall be jointly referred for settlement to the Sangguniang of the province concerned. transfers. 4. cities and municipalities. loan proceeds. and municipalities. 1. There is a boundary dispute when a portion or a whole of the territorial area of an LGU is claimed by 2 or more LGUs. Sec. Boundary disputes involving 2 or more barangays in the same city or municipality shall be referred for settlement to the Sangguniang Panlungsod Sangguniang Bayan concerned. LGC. such as other national ads. on the basis of the foregoing schedules of the average annual income of each province. ways to put more money into the pocket of our bureaucrats F. Be settled amicably. as much as possible. Classification of provinces. c) Third class P15M-P20M. Classification of provinces and cities. Annual Income revenues and receipts realized by provinces. (This good justice is implying the reclassification was administrative in nature.sum of the “Annual Income” as herein defined actually obtained by a province. mainly on salaries and taxes. 15 definition and policy. a. 349) This act is entitled “providing for a new income classification of provinces. To this end: a. and other emoluments that local government officials and personnel may be entitled to d) Implementation of personnel policies on promotions. Classification of Municipalities x x x according to the annual average income they actually realized during the last 4 calendar years immediately preceding as follows. e) Fifth class P5M-10-M.O. P5M-10M d) fourth class P3M-P5M e) Fifth class. both as amended but exclusive of non-recurring receipt. d. Boundary disputes between or among LGUs shall. Upon the effectivity of this E. Settlement of boundary disputes( Sec. the Secretary of Finance shall reclassify the all provinces. city or municipality derived during the last 4 consecutive calendar years immediately such reclassification according to the provisions hereof. IRR) * Section 118. Judicial Responsibility for settlement of Boundary Dispute. and for each period of 4 consecutive calendar years thereafter. financial assistance. a) First class. Boundary disputes involving 2 or more municipalities within the same province shall be referred for settlement to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan concerned. and related matters at the local government levels e) formulation and execution of local government budget policies and f) Determination of the financial capability of local government units to undertake development programs and priority projects NOTE: There are 7 more sections. c. which shall be considered as special class cities. E. Period of General Reclassification of Province. details or secondment. much less its boundaries alter. Sec 15-19. cities and municipalities (Read E.radically changes Santiago was neither recreated into another LGU nor abolished. Which shall remain as special class cities. Provinces and cities except Manila and Quezon City.you know. 3. cities and municipalities from regular sources of the local general and infrastructure funds including the internal revenue and specific tax allotments provided for in PDs 144 and 436. xxx as basis for: a) Fixing of maximum tax ceiling imposable by the local government b) Determination of statutory and administrative aids. P15M or more b) second class. b. Sec. be settled amicably. shall be jointly referred for settlement to the respective Sangguniang of the parties e.O. In the event the Sangguniang fails to present an amicable settlement within 60 days from the date the dispute was referred thereto. d) Fourth class P10M-15M. except Manila and Quezon City. Definition of Terms. are hereby divided into 6 main classes according to the annual average income they actually realized during the last 4 calendar years immediately preceding as follows: a) First class P30M or more b) Second class P20M-P30M.sum of the “annual income”. cities. cities. P1M-3M f) Sixth Class.

2 DILG Opinion No. COMELEC. LGC. Held: SC held that the plebiscite should be held in abeyance. to the respective Sangguniang for those involving a component city or municipality and highly urbanized city of 2 or more highly urbanized cities. to the Sanggunian of provinces concerned. The DILG shall be the official custodian of all documents on boundary disputes of LGUs. hence the suspension of the scheduled plebiscites is justified. Both Questioned the priority of the suspension of the scheduled plebiscites for the proposed creation of Barangay Karangalan and barangay Napico (pursuant to 2 ordinances passed by both cities) Cainta had contended that the proposed barangays involve areas included in the boundary dispute between her and Pasig. the plebiscite already conducted for the creation of Barangay Napico can be annulled and set aside. Boundary disputes shall be referred for settlement to the following: a. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan may in consultation with the Philippine Historical Commission (PHC).* Sec. COMELEC et. Provincial roads. 17 Procedures for settling Boundary Disputes they are 1) filing of petition 2) contents of petition 3) documents attached to petition (e.g. b. The importance of drawing with precise strokes the territorial boundaries of an LGU cannot be overemphasized. Sangguniang Panlalawigan for those involving 2 or more municipalities with in the same province. 2. provincial. for those involving component cities or municipalities of different provinces. Pasig however contends otherwise. b. 161-1994 (still to search) G. f 1. the COMELEC ruled against Cainta and the plebiscite for the creation of barangay Napico pushed through. As was done before in Tan v. any uncertainty in the boundaries of LGUs will sow costly conflicts in the exercise of government powers which will ultimately the people’s welfare. Reasons 1. Component cities and municipalities upon the recommendation of the Sangguniang concerned. city or barangay map as the case may be technical description of the boundaries of the LGUs concerned 4) Joint hearing 5) failure to settle amicably (a certification shall be submitted to the effect 6) Decision 7) Appeal (To the proper RTC) *Sec 18. change the name of the following within territorial jurisdiction: 1.16 Jurisdictional Responsibility. health centers and other health facilities 5. 2-5 above except only to those within its concerned. territorial jurisdiction. the status of the affected area prior to the dispute shall be maintained and continued for all purposes. . Pasig cannot deny that there is a pending boundary dispute between her and Cainta Surely. Beyond these limits. Any other place or building owned by the provincial government. City barangays. its acts are ultra vires. * Sec 19. boulevards. IRR a. Art 20-23. Naming of LGU naming of LGUs and public places. Official Custodian. Needless to state. Held: Cainta is correct. upon the recommendation of the Sangguniang barangay 2-5 essentially the same as (a) nos. f. The boundaries must be clear for they define the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of an LGU. d. hereinafter referred to in this code as independent component cities may in consultation with the PHC change the name of the following within its territorial jurisdiction: 1. The Sangguniang of highly urbanized cities and of component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial electrical officials. Provincial hospitals. Jointly. Jointly. 2. whether the area in controversy shall be decided as within the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Cainta or the City of the Pasig has material bearing to the proposed barangay Karangalan and Napico. City of Pasig v. * Sec. Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang for those involving 2 or more barangays in the same city or municipality as the case may be. Despite this. c.al. thoroughfares and bridges 3. Pending final resolution of the dispute. Public vocational or technical school and other post-secondary and tertiary schools 4. avenue. It can legitimately exercise powers of government only within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction. 314 SCRA 179 Facts: 2 petitions were raised by the City of Pasig and the municipality of Cainta respectively. Maintenance of Status Quo. streets and structures * Sec 13. The core issues now are 1) whether or not the said barangay dispute is a prejudicial question which must be resolved before any plebiscite can be held and 2) Whether the plebiscite already conducted ratifying the creation of Barangay Napico has rendered the issue as to it moot and academic.

g. in consultation with its territorial. Rules of Interpretation. and liberally in favor of the tax buyer.23. e. 5. any question thereof shall be reserved in favor of devolution of powers and the lower LGU. culture or ethic significance shall not be changed. In the interpretation of the provisions of this Code. No change in the name of an LGU shall be effective unless ratified in a plebiscite called for that purpose. d. 4. and other health facilities shall be made only upon the local board concerned. Any and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of LGU concerned. unless by a unanimous vote of the sanggunian concerned and in consultation with the PHC. No name of LGUs. A change in name of public hospitals. A chance in name of local public hospital. The sanggunians of component cities and municipalities may. * Art. Note: Letters (d) to (b) are the limitations in the change of name of a local government unit institution or places or buildings. b. relief of incentive granted by any LGU pursuant to the provisions of this code shall be construed strict against the person claiming it. The whole line of the street shall have only.1 Principle of devolution (See Sec 17 [4] (c) and (i) LGC} * Sec 17. streets and structures H. They shall also discharge the functions and responsibilities of national agencies and offices devolved to them pursuant to this code. the representative of the legislative district concerned. The general welfare provision of this code shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers LGUs in accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the people in the community. Naming shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Local government shall likewise exercise such other powers and . places. The name of an LGU or a public place. d. In the resolution of controversies arising under this code where no legal provision of jurisprudence applies. In case of doubt. Any provision on a power of local government shall be liberally interpreted its favor. 3. Rules of interpretation. A chance in name of a local public school shall be made upon the recommendation of the school board.LGC See for yourself * Art. Any tax exemption. b. (Sec 5. health center and other health facilities only upon the recommendation of the local school board. the representative of the legislative district concerned and the bureau of posts shall be notified. public places. street and structures with historical. e. Any change shall not be made more than once every ten years. 7. c. A chance in the name shall only be for a just able reason. the office of the president. culture or ethnic significances shall be changed. any tax ordinance or revenue measure shall be construed strictly against the LGU enacting it. Naming after leaving person shall be not followed. unless with unanimous vote of the sanggunian and in consultation with the National Historical Institution (NHI). health centers. a. 5. h. A change in name of a public school shall be made only upon the recommendation of the local school board concerned. IRR Guidelines and limitation a. None of the foregoing LGUs institutions. public places. c. Rights and obligations existing on the effective of this code and a rising out contact or any other source of presentation involving an LGU shall be governed by the original terms conditions of contracts or the law in force at the time such rights were vested. LGC) *Sec.c. LGUs shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall continue exercising the powers and discharging the duties and functions currently vested upon them. d. Basic Services and Facilities. street or structure with historical. 6. In any change of name. LGC. 20-22 IRR These articles are essentially copied from sec 13 (a) (b) and (c). and the postal service shall be notified of any change in name of LGUs. The name of the family in a particular community whose members contributed significantly to the welfare of the Filipino people maybe used. resort may be had to the customers and traditions of the place where the controversies took place. and in case of doubt. f. 2. or buildings shall be named after a living person nor a change of name be made unless for a justifiable reason and in any case not oftener than once every 10 years. The office of the president. the following rules shall apply: a.

Valera’s heir. h. Held: The petition is that the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) never came into legal existence as a consequence of the Ordillo v. That the right accorded to such personnel pursuant to civil service law. The tribal court rule in favor of Quema when the Baduas refused to vacate the subject land.those granted which arise by natural implication from the granted of express power or by necessary inference from the purposes or function of the corporation (e.David Quema as the owner of 2 parcels of land in Lacaga. without any revolution of rank. an ordinance to prevent fires necessarily carries with it the authority to chase fire trunks). The charter 4. As Quema was prevented by Rosa from cultivating the land. applicable to the particular municipal corporation. Erotida Valera. the Baduas did file a timely petition with the SC. By analogy to the pangkat or conciliatory panels created under P. settle and compromise. A. IV. The Baduas the felid a special and extraordinary relief with the SC. COMELIC ruling. Statutes of a state including a) those applicable to all municipal corporation or to the class to which the particular municipal corporation belongs and b) special act of the legislature. c. Doctrine of inherent right of self-government with respect to certain municipal matters (applicable to states which adhere to it). long after Dra. questioning the jurisdiction and legal personality of the Maeng Tribal Court. Classification of Power 1. He allegedly was able to pay the redemption price of Dra. That regional directors who are career service executed officers and other officers of similar rank in the said regional offices who cannot be absorbed by the LGU shall be retained by the National Government. the following: a. Instead. if the Badua had failed to seasonably repudiate the Maeng Tribal Court’s decision. As a result. Express . Such courts are not considered part of Philippine judicial system. Valera had already died. Inherent-those which are necessary and inseparable from every corporation. Spouses Leonor and Rosa Badua alleged however that Dra. the CBA and the CPLA.6766. they (the Baduas) received a warning order from the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army. implied and inherent power a. and which come into existence as a matter of course as soon as an MC is created they are: . The devolution contemplated in this Code shall include the transfer to LGUs of the records . Abra mortgaged said parcels of land of 6. and other assets and personnel of national agencies and offices corresponding to the develop powers. As was shown. 2 Badua v.D. B. b. Constitution of a state 2. b. Quema.000 to Dra. function and responsibilities personnel of said national agencies or office shall be absorb by the local government units to which they belong or in whose areas they are assigned to the extend that it is administratively viable as determined by the said oversight community Provided.those granted in express word by the special charter or the general law under which corporation is organized. instead of filling a case with the provincial courts. 94 SCRA 10 Facts: In 1996.) Express. However. Adequate communication and transportation facilities.g. [4] For a city All the services and facilities of the municipally and province. and in addition thereto. He was able to redeem the land of 22 years later. c. Lumaba.1508.equipment. Valera sold the land to her while she was still alive. Cordillera Bodong Administration. Villaviciosa. police and fire services and facilities b. National agencies or offices concerned shall devolve to LGUs the responsibility for the provision of basic service and facilities enumerated in this section within six months from the effect of this code As used in this code the term devolution refers to the act by which the National Government confers power and authority upon the various LGUs to perform specific functions and responsibilities. rules of similar regulation shall not be impaired Provided for their. 3. filed it instead with the Maeng Tribal Court of the Cordillera Bondong Administration (CBA) In 1989. which was duly treated as a petition for certiorari and prohibition. POWERS OF MUNICAL CORPORATION (MC) A. Implied. the Maeng Tribal Court was not constituted into an advisory or special court under R. it is just an ordinary tribal court with mere advisory and conciliatory power to make peace. salary or tenure. Support for education.discharge such other functions and responsibilities as are necessary appropriate or incidental to efficient and effective provision of the basic services and facilities enumerated herein. said decision would have had the force and effect of a final judgment in court. Sources of Power 1. Rosa could not produce the deed of sale because it was allegedly in the possession of Vice-governor Benesa. as far as authorized.

LGC) 1. health. morals or general welfare in order to be sustained as a legitimate exercise of police power.1.) Intramural – those exercised within the corporate limits of a municipal corporation. The Commission on Audit (COA) disapproved Res. Police Power – the power to prescribe regulations to promote health. which provided for a burial assistance program by the office of the mayor. and also for police purposes. and those which are essential to the promotion of general welfare. promotes public education. private and corporate plans of which the corporation receives no compensation. and 2. he preservation and enrichment of culture. fire prevention and safety.) Municipal – those exercised for the specified benefits and advantage of the urban community and they include those which are ministerial. 5. 16. Executive – authority to enforce laws NOTE: The test to determine what is legislative and what is administrative is whether the ordinance is one making a new or one executing law already in existence. To have perpetual succession 2. Legislative – authority to make laws b. education. In order that a municipality corporation may exercise police power. Mayor Jejomar Binay now petitions the SC that the Resolution be declared a valid exercise of the police power. preemptory.) did not have an obvious or real connection to the public safety. 2. promote health and safety. moral. 2. They include those which are legislative. as distinguish from those of a particular class. there must be a legislative grant which necessarily also sets limits for the exercise of the power. appropriated incidental for its efficient and effective governance. To sue and be sued. eminent domain. 3. implead. 60 on the grounds that the said resolution 1.) Governmental – those exercised by the corporation in administering the powers of the state and promoting the public welfare within. judicial. Police power is inherent in the State but not in municipal corporations. police power. public and political. b. promote full employment among their residents. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions. 2. 1988. LGU’s shall ensure and support among other things. 4. Said program aims to extend financial assistance of P500 to bereaved families whose income does not exceed P2. through its Council. the latter’s executive. It is the most essential insistent and illimitable of power.a police power measure may be struck down as invalid if it does not meet tests a. Kinds of Powers A.) mandatory and discretionary powers a. Binay y Domingo 201 SCRA 508 Facts: On Sept 27.) Extramural – those exercised without like those given for the protection of water supply. enhance the right people to balanced ecology. the Municipality of Makati.) said resolution only benefits few individuals when it should benefit the inhabitants of the municipality as a whole. Limitations on the exercise . Held: The COA is wrong Reasons: . 4. No. LGC) Every LGU shall exercise the power expressly granted. peace. 16. It is elastic and must be responsive to various social conditions. 1. those necessarily implied there from.) Discretionary – those which the corporations may perform or not depending upon own judgment and discretion. as well as the powers necessary. prevention of Nuisance. Note: Usually these so-called inherent powers are expressly provided in MCs charter. To make by laws and ordinances for the government of the corporation. To make and ordinance for the government of the corporation.) Intramural and extramural powers 1. and all other powers to be exercised by the MC as an agent the State. 2.) The interest of the public generally. III. grant and receive by its corporation name and other acts as a judicial person 3. 3.) Mandatory – those the exercise of which are required of municipal corporations. requires the exercise of the police power and b. good order or safety and general welfare of the people. Police Power (General Welfare Clause) and the limitations on the exercise (Sec. enhance economic prosperity and social justice. General Welfare Clause (Sec. 60. improve public morals. Specific examples are: Administration of justice. approved Resolution No.) Governmental and municipal powers 1. The former is legislative. maintain peace and order and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitant. encourage and support the development of appropriate the self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities. for the benefit of the public or of the exercise of which the corporation receives consideration. 000.) The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.) Legislative and executive powers a.

Moreover. The action was protested in Civil Case No. The City of Basilan answered that heir power to enact such an ordinance is based on a city’s exercise of its revenue raising or of its police power. including American Mail Lines questioned the validity of such an ordinance with regards to the right of City of Basilan to impose such a fee. Basilan said the fees in question are for a regulatory purpose. It is settled that the police power cannot be surrendered or bargained away through the medium of a contract. . as well as human dignity and respect for human rights. 288) which states: “Sec. The vendors protested (they apparently had little legal basis coz’ all they did was protest) Held: Resolution no. the City Council of Basilan City enacted Ordinance No. the promotion of the general welfare. 2. By 1982. under the Civil Code. social justice. channel or any point within the territorial waters of the City of Basilan. the phrase.” Several foreign shipping companies. and subject to the conditions and limitations thereof. 20 was decided and held that the land occupied by the market vendors was beyond the commerce of man and could not be the subject of private occupancy. (Huh? Excuse me?) 3. The reason is that.) of the Charter means that the City of Basilan is not given a blanket taxation power. This power can be activated at any time to change the provision of contract. 180. COA tried to redefine for itself the meaning of police power. City of Basilan 2 SCRA 309 Facts: On Sept. the municipal council then passed Resolution no. Basilan’s claim that Ordinance No. 1955. and everything worthwhile for the preservation of comfort of the inhabitants of the corporation. To support their contention. which read as follows: “Article IV Regulation of berthing. or landing places. In fact. Ordinance No. And even assuming that here was a lease agreement actually existing between the vendors and municipal government as the vendors claimed the resolution could have effectively terminated the agreement. irrespective of the greater tonnage of shippage. Except as otherwise provided by law.) To levy and collects taxes for general and special purposes in accordance with law x x x c) To enact ordinances for the maintenance and preservation of peace and good morals x x x v) fix the charges to be paid by all watercraft at or using public wharves. 180 also added a new paragraph as an amendment with read: “Any foreign vessel engaged in otherwise trade which may anchor at any open bay. American Mail Line v. After an investigation by he municipal attorney. Pampanga. the Council. Police power is not capable of an exact definition. Civil Case no. (wow) 2. the reason being the island is a potential haven for smugglers and other illegal activities (the understatement of the century). in accordance with the law in Sec. Thereof. the Council shall have the following legislative powers: a. the maximum charge of P75 is more than what the National Government imposes for harbor fees. 2. ordered the demolition of the stall. 29 which declared the subject area as a parking place and a public plaza. COA is not attuned to the changing times. 154SCRA 142 Facts: On Nov. Villanueva y Castaneda Jr. Such act will not militate against the impairment clause. channel or any loading point within the territorial limits of the City of the City of Basilan for the purpose of unloading logs or passengers and other cargoes shall pay an anchorage fee of ½ centavo (P0. the municipal council of San Fernando passed Resolution no. 14 General Powers and Duties of the Council. 29 grew. the OIC of the Office of the Mayor Vicente Macalino. mooring. amending Title Iv. 7. provided that maximum charge shall not exceed P75 per day. and levies or landing places. morals and all the crap but is broadened to deal with conditions which exists so as to bring out of them the greatest welfare of the people by promoting public convenience or general prosperity. docks. 2040 in the CFE of Pampanga and a preliminary injunction was issued to prevent construction of said stalls. The decision was apparently not enforced. The market vendors even claim that in 1971. Public purpose is not unconstitutional merely because it incidentally benefits a limited number of persons. every contract affecting the public interest suffers a congenial infirmity that it contains an implied reservation of the police power as a postulate of existing legal order. which is subject to and limited by the police power.A. It is automatic that the power to regulates as an exercise of police power does not include the power to impose fees for revenue purposes. While the case was pending. 7. levees. 218 allowing some 24 market vendors to construct their stalls along the vicinity of public market in San Fernando. First of all. 218.” Ordinance No. thereby impliedly repealing Resolution no. public plazas are properties of public dominion to be devoted for public use. Basilan presented their Charter (R. Basilan’s Charter also grants Basilan the power to fix charges to be paid by all watercraft landing at or using public wharves. In 1968. 12. Moreover. 29 must be enforced. docks. Who is correct? Held: American Mail Line is correct Reasons: 1. the municipal government allotted them specific areas for which hey paid daily fees to municipal government. for promotion and protection the general welfare. the number of vendors has ballooned to 200. 1961. Said provision does not authorize Basilan to collect anchorage fees as can be shown by the need of Basilan to enact the amendatory ordinance. 14 a. It is not limited to peace. order.1.50) per registered gross ton of the vessel for the first 24 hours or part of thereof and for succeeding hours part thereof. The clamor to enforce Resolution no. or even abrogate it entirely. docking and anchoring at piers or wharves at any point within the City of Basilan and for anchoring at any open bay. 180 is for a regulatory purpose and not just for revenue purpose won’t save said Ordinance from invalidity. The drift is toward social welfare legislation geared towards state policies to provide adequate social services. 3.

Overall. states. or in any room or rooms within the same building where the barber shop is located as long as the operator of the barber shop and the room where massaging is conducted is the same person. claiming that1. Cruz Barber Shop Association deplored said ordinance as tantamount to deprivation of property. nuisances. The second is well obviously. The prohibition x x x shall include the prohibition in the renewal thereof. for a period not exceeding 5 days in any one month. among others. 2. 5. state: “ Being the principal cause in the decadence of morality and because of their other adverse effects on the community as explained above no operator night club. hospitality girls and professional dance for employment in any of the aforementioned establishments. “With the approval of provincial governor. Pompeya argues that the said ordinance violates the citizen provisional right to liberty. and property in terms of the investments made and salaries to e earned by those therein employed. in apprehending ladrones. the respondent. However. The SC has been most liberal in sustaining ordinances based on the general welfare clause. 1914. the Ordinance invaded personal or property rights personal in the case of those individuals desirous of patronizing their night clubs. is the mayor of Manila at that time. Silvestre Pompeya was charged with violation of municipality ordinance of Iloilo. 3659 as amended by Ordinance no.4. there is a distinction between a nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens. E. as indicated in the ordinance. et. 84 which among others. as based from Act 1309. Municipal Council 24 Phil 471 Facts: The Municipal Council of Iloilo granted the Iloilo Ice Cold Storage Company (ICS) authority to construct an ice cold storage plant in the city of Iloilo. No. Only the counts may do so. the reason being that everything would be at the uncontrolled will of the local . Way back during the feudal age. 1. specifically of their means of livelihood without due process of law (Astor Villegas. Posse comitatus is in other words common law and Act 1309 is statutory recognition of such common-law right. the judge who ruled against them at the lower court and who was a former Associate Justice of the SC). cabarets and dance halls shall henceforth be issued permits/licenses to operate within the jurisdiction of the municipality and no license/permit shall be issued to any professional hostess. Said ordinance. robbers and other lawbreakers and suspicious characters and to act as patrols for the protection of the municipality. 1 series of 1914 based on section 40 (m) of Municipal Cod.) to be able to impose payment of the license fee for engaging in the business of the massage clinic under Ordinance no.” Violation of said ordinance is penalized by a fine not less than P100 or 3 months imprisonment or both. Held: ICS is correct Reasons: 1. Pompeya 31 Phil 245 Facts: On June 1. 6. circuses and other forms of entertainment…”That the Municipal Council of Bocaue is allowed to regulate but not to altogether prohibit such establishment is all too clear. “It shall be prohibited for any operator of any barber shop to conduct the business of massaging customers or other persons in any adjacent room or rooms of said barber shop. not exceeding one day in each week. O.) it is conceded that 39(j) of the Municipal code empowers the Municipal Council to declare and abate nuisances.) Municipality had no authority to prohibit a lawful business or calling and 2. The Municipal Council thus ordered the ICS to elevate the subject smokestacks. Some time later. lords of manors have called upon their vassals to defend the very land they till upon. The court ruled in the negative. 4964 which said. 2. Held: Pompeya is just plain lazy (in other words. Held: The Court ruled in favor of de la Cruz Reasons. otherwise the plant would be enforced to close down. ICS replied that the Municipal Council has no power under the Municipal Code to declare their plant as a nuisance. the opposite of the first.” Vicente de la Cruz and other club owners assailed this Ordinance (among the respondents was Edgardo L. In the guise of a police regulation. the objective said Ordinance are: 1. to assist. 4767. Pompeya is wrong).) Held: Villegas’ contention doesn’t deserve even an inkling of sympathy. the Sanggunian Bayan is allowed to regulate. when a province of municipality is infested with ladrones or outlaws the municipality council is empowered to authorize the able-bodied male residents of the municipality between the ages of 18 to 50 years. theatrical performances.) The question now is whether the Municipal Council has the blanket authority to declare anything as a nuisance. 7. The first refers to those which are unquestionably and under all circumstances. US v. Iloilo Cold Storage v. Under the LGC of 1983. the State is simply exercising its police power. Al who works for them are being deprived of their property rights without due process of law. Paras.) in order to forestall possible immorality which might grow out of the construction of separate rooms for massage of customers. The ancient obligation to assist in the protection of peace and good order of the community is still recognized in all well-organized governments in the “posse comitatus” (power of the country). Even up to the time remote towns and countries have made it obligatory upon their citizens to defend their territory from felons. Bulacan passed Ordinance No. The reason is that.) the Ordinance violated their right to due process and equal protection of the laws as they and the professional hostess. the establishment and operation of billiard pools. residents within the vicinity of said plant complained of the smoke and fumes emitted by the smokestacks of the said plant. Velasco y Villegas 120 SCRA 568 Facts: The City of Manila passed Ordinance no. Paras 123 SCRA 569 Facts: The Municipal Council of Bocaue. De la Cruz v.” Tomas Velasco and other members of he Sta. an entirely different measure than the ordinance regulating the business of barbershops and 2.

TDI was found to lack a Mayor’s Permit and the Region III-Pollution of Environment and Natural Resources AntiPollution Permit.) Region III Pollution of Environment and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit. while the Municipal Council has the power to declare and abate nuisance it does not have the power to declares such nuisance as a fact and that it exists. An appeal by TDI with the CA proves fruitless. 1990 the Metropolitan Manila Authority (MMA) issued ordinance No. Solicitors Generally MMA No. the trial court dissolved the writ. TDI sought relief with the SC. the language of the statue is fairly susceptible of two or more constructions.authorities. 9.7 series of 1988 and that the Gonong decision should be interpreted to mean that only the confiscation of license plates are prohibited. Another reason for the adoption of the second construction is that it is more attuned to the exercise of the police power of the state.) Building permit b. 8. On July 2. Reasons: . The ice plant in question can be definitely said to be not nuisance per se.11 is null and void for begin unrivalled exercise of the delegated legislative power since PD 1605 does not permit and thus impliedly prohibits. any animal he slaughters elsewhere does not require a permit from the municipal treasure. Strayed or stolen therefore the act can also be constructed as to require a permit for all slaughter of cattle whether in or out of a municipal slaughterhouse. 10. and other documents. Technological developers. Maria. the removal of license plates and the confiscation of driver’s license (Expresio unuis est exclusion alterius). 1991. in order to protect the community from the lost of service of such animals by their slaughter by improvised owners. which vested in it among others the responsibility of promulgating resolutions and other is issuances of Metropolitan Wide Application.) any person violating this Act shall be punished by line of up to P500 or imprisonment of up to 6 months or both. the confiscations were valid pursuant to ordinance no. (TDI) is a domestic private corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of charcoal briquette. Also MMA said that the ordinance cannot be attacked collaterally but only in a direct action challenging its validity. Director General Cesar Nazareno of the PNP even insisted that his office has never authorized the removal of license plates of illegally parked vehicles and has in fact. the SC issued a resolution asking the solicitor general and the MMA to file their comments regarding the issue. Thus. and a construction should be rejected which will tend most to tender abortive other provision of the statue. Luis Toribio insists that he had not violated any law since. Acting Mayor Cruz presented evidence that TDI’s plant produce hazardous fumes which endangered the lives of the people living nearby. y CA 193 SCRA 147 Facts: Technology Developers Inc. The solicitor general involves the view that ordinance no. Bulacan. Held: TDI's petition has no merit. that construction can be adopted which will tell most to give effect to the manifest intent of the law maker and promote the object for which the statue was enacted. It was there also observed that even confiscation of drivers licenses for traffic violations was not directly prescribe by the degree nor was it allowed by the decree to be impose by the commission Months later. Without previous and reasonable notice to TDI. the more popular once being that. The Temporary Permit it received from the national Pollution Control Commission has already expired. Several officers offered different defenses justifying the confiscation. The MMA however. 837 Facts: On May 24.) Mayor’s Permit c. Also TDI Plant manager Armando Meneses was ordered to appear before the said mayor and produce the following a. Based on the evidence presented. Held: The MMA is wrong. Held Toribio is wrong. Toribio’s construction of the law should not be adopted and be replaced instead with the omniscient SC. event the directed full compliance of the Gonong decision in memorandum dated February 28. And if as a result. If you read the provision quite carefully. approval of a code of basic services requiring coordination and the exercise of its role making powers. TDI was granted a writ of preliminary injunction against the Acting Mayor’s order. In order words. It received an order from Acting Mayor Pablo Cruz ordering he full cessation of TDI’s plant in Guyong Sta. several complaints again proliferated all over metro Manila concerning the confiscation of driver’s licenses and license plates. Acting Mayor Cruz ordered the padlock of TDI’s plant. The simple reason is that TDI failed to secure a Mayor’s Permit and Region IIIPollution of Environment and natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit. 204 SCRA No. The act primarily seeks to protect large cattle of the Philippines against them and to make easy the return and recovery of such cattle to their proper owners when lost. Toribio 15 Phil. Only the ordinary courts can determine the fact of nuisance. 86 Facts: Act No. Upon motion for reconsideration.) no large cattle shall be slaughter or killed for food at the municipal slaughterhouse except upon permit secured from the municipal treasure and 2. invokes EO 392 the law providing for MMA’s creation. branding and slaughter of cattle. 1991. there was no showing that the animal he slaughtered was committed inside a municipal slaughterhouse and that thereof. 1147 regulates the registration. Inc. US v. Its provisions state among others that 1. 11 series of 1991 authorizing itself “to detach the license plates of motor vehicles for traffic violation was not among the sanction imposed by the Metro Manila Commission under PD 1605 and was permitted only under the conditions laid down by Letter of Instruction 43 in the case of stalled vehicles obstructing the public street. Convicted under said Act. Thus.

v CA 329 SCRA 314 Facts: Acebedo Optical Co. But the real issue is not the validity of the delegation of legislative power. the control exercised by corporations over optometrist hired as employees might force said optometrist in sacrificing their professional opinion for the for the sake of selling the corporation’s products (All these arguments about optometry being a profession is BS. City Mayor Camilo Cabili issued the said permit but subject to the following conditions. Reason: 1) The court has already ruled in SOPI v. 3 NOTE: Is optometry a profession or a mechanical art? Both the majority (as penned by just Purisima) and dissenting opinions (as penned by justice Vitug) could not agree on this question.O. ledged a complaint against Acebedo. Held: Acebedo is correct. 5) Acebedo is allowed to grind glasses but only upon the prescriptions of an independent optometrist. in hiring optometrist. them corporation might compromise the professional accountability of optometry as the motivation to sell eyeglasses may prevail over professional ethics. Acebedo cannot put up an optical clinic but only an optical store. The Samahan ng Optometrist ng Pilipinas (SOPI) however. 2) As to the merits. Ray ban and similar eye glasses. NOTE: In effect. Acebedo in response. alleging that Acebedo violated all the conditions impose on its business permit. 8050) contains no such prohibitions. The current optometry law (R. the only condition challenged by Acebedo was condition No. Acebedo Optical Co. For instance. then the optometry. Such purpose may be fully accomplished although the person rendering the service is employed by a corporation.1) Considering the confusion over what law to follow regarding the confiscation.11 was not challenged in a direct action. 3) Overall. Distinction is important because if optometry is a profession. the SC admits that the power to promulgate measures to promote the comfort and convenience of the public and to alleviate the worsening traffic problems due in a large part to stimulation of traffic rules (E. Acebedo can only sell directly to the public without need of prescriptions. Besides. there is then no prohibition against the hiring by corporations of optometrist (this is in reference to the No.3 conditions of the business permit). because these are function of optical clinics. Therefore the business permit in the case at bar not being a contract Acebedo is not stopped from challenging the conditions therein as ultra vires. Acebedo International that in the absence of a law prohibiting the hiring by corporation of optometrist. A license is rather in the nature of a special privilege of permission or authority to do what is within its term. may be perceived as engaged in the practice of optometry is a profession. 11. 2) Acebedo cannot examine and/or prescribe reading and similar optical glasses for patients. A municipal ordinance to be valid a) Must not contravene the Constitution b) Must not be unfair or oppressive c) Must not be partial or discriminatory d) Must not prohibit but may regulate trade and e) Must be general and consistent with public policy. 4) Acebedo cannot advertise optical lenses and eyeglasses but can advertise Ray ban and similar glasses and frames. It is the validity of such exercise of delegated power. but the Court. in its infinite wisdom not touch on that) B) Eminent Domain .A. Law should be reexamined as there is the danger that corporation . said rule concerning direct actions is not an inflexible one. with some officers even declaring that Gonong decision was wrong the SC decided to rule on the issue squarely despite the fact that ordinance No. It is not anyway vested permanent or absolute. applied with the office of the City Mayor Iligan for a business permit. 2) a license of contract is not a contract between the sovereignty and the licensee or permitted and is not a property in the constitutional sense. the primary purpose of the optometry law in regulating the practice of optometry to insure that opt metrical services are too be rendered by competent and licensed person in order protect the health and physical welfare of the people from the dangers endangered by unlicensed practice. protested the conditions impose by the city mayor stating that 1) The conditions impose are beyond what the city mayor can impose within his authority as they have no basis in any law or ordinance and 2) Acebedo’s acceptance of the business permit does not stop it from challenging the said conditions as ultra vires since a permit is not a binding contract. the SC squarely said. The SOPI is just afraid of the competition offered by corporation. Inc. 3) Acebedo cannot sell reading and similar eye glasses without a prescription having been first made by an independent optometrist (not its employee) or independent optical clinic. 392 and the general welfare clause LGC) is valid delegation of legislative power. 1) Since it is a corporation.

No. The amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall determined by the proper court based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property. *Art 32. let’s use instead the summary given by the Court regarding the 3 stages of every action of expropriation in NAPOCOR v.1. and leave nothing more for the Court to be done by the Court regarding the issue. “of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned. by whom paid 13) recording. would an order of condemnation be a final one. P. *Art.” This is done by the Court with the assistance of not more than 3 commissioners. 2 has been repealed by P. Jocson: 1) The first is concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiffs to exercise the power of eminent domain ant the property of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit. 42) 3) defenses and objection 4) order of condemnation 5) ascertainment of compensation 6) proceeding by commission 7) report by commission and judgment thereupon 8) action upon commissioner report 9) uncertain ownership/conflicting claim 10) right of plaintiff after judgment and payment entry not delayed by appeal. 2) The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by the Court of the “just compensation for the property sought to be taken. 3) However. NOTE: So that you don’t have to bother reading the crappy 14 sections enumerated in Rule 76. The order fixing the just compensation on the basis of the evidence before. upon the filling of the complaint or at anytime thereafter. would be a final one since it finally disposes of the action and leaves the Court with nothing more to be done on the merits. 36 IRR – a) if the LGU fails to acquire private property for public use purpose or welfare through purchase.D. It would finally dispose of the second stage of the suit. to deposit with the PNB in its main office or any of its branches or agencies “an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation. So too. the commissioners will be final too. IRR – Payment.” An order of dismissal. for thereafter. effectively removes the discretion of the counting determining the provisional volume. LGU may expropriate said property through a resolution of the Sangguniang authorizing its chief executive to initiate expropriation proceeding b) The local chief executive shall cause the provincial.42 in a relation to Section 2 of Rule 67. for the public use or purpose described in the complaint.” The assessed value is that indicated in the tax declaration. No hearing is required for the purpose. after due notice to the defendant. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure This rule consists of 14 sections enumerating the procedure to be followed in eminent domain. through its chief executive. 42 which requires the petitioner. the provincial or city prosecutor to file expropriation proceeding in the proper court in accordance with rule of Court and other pertinent laws c) The LGU may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing expropriation proceeding and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least 15% of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated *Art 37. the petitioner has the right to take or enter upon the possession of the property involved upon compliance with P. No. 19.D. Provided further . Provided finally that the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property. All that is needed is noticed to the owner of the property sought to be condemned. if this is to be ordained. Briefly the rule enumerates the following section: 1) The Complaint 2) entry of plaintiff depositing value with National or provincial Treasure (but this section No. exercise the power of eminent domain for public use or purpose or welfare for the benefits of the poor and landless upon payment of just compensation pursuant to the provision of the Constitution and pertinent laws: provided however that the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offering has been previously made to the owner and such offer was not accepted. What is to be deposited is an amount equivalent to the assessed value for taxation purposes. city or municipal attorney concern or: in his absence . . An LGU may. and findings of. the Rules expressly state in the proceedings before the Trial Court.IRR – Eminent Domain when exercise a) an LGU may through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance exercise the power of eminent domain for public use purpose welfare of the poor and landless upon payment of just compensation. payment and its effect 14) power of guardian in such proceedings. that the LGU may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of expropriation proceeding and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least 15% of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated. LGC – Eminent Domain. upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of date of the filling of the complaint. Requisites for the Exercise *Sec. pursuant to the provision the Constitution and pertinent laws b) The power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner and such offer was not accepted. It ends with an order if not of dismissal of the action. *Rule 67.D. “no objection to exercise of the right of condemnation (or the propriety thereof) shall be filled or heard. effect of reversal 12) cost. and acting pursuant to an ordinance.

*DILG Opinion No. artesian wells or systems for the supply of water. On July 18. On June 25. deposited the additional amount of P22. and be pray that. 1990.00 with the PNB. The complaints uniformly a allege that petitioner urgently needs position of the affected land to enable it to construct its tower and transmission line in a manner that’s is compatible with the greatest good while at the same time causing the least private injury. or sewage systems. or system for the supply of Water. Rule 67 of the Rules of the Court. NAPOCOR deposited the sum of P23. spring and waterfall in the Philippines and supplying such power to the inhabitants thereof. as amended. drainage system. the establishment of parks. 1990 the RTC Judge Enrique Jocson issued another Order increasing the amounts to be received as compensation on the part of the Gonzaga Four. b. the construction of the public buildings including schoolhouses. crematories. cesspools. drainage system.828. that the RTC fix the provisional value of the portion of the parcels of land sought to be expropriated pursuant to Sec. auxiliary plants. levees. artesian wells. – sought for a re-evaluation of the areas owned by them as said areas were contiguous to the Gonzaga Four and were thus affected by the same condition. Michael and Ma. among others. Municipalities in regular provinces are authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain for any of the following purposes: the construction or extension of roads. Moreover. 180. ferries. dams. mains. streets. streets. ferries. Two of the defendants however. The first one – filled by Jesus. marketplaces. market places. and the establishment of cemeteries.860. the construction buildings. particularly by constructing. the subject areas are located near several posh subdivisions. National Power Corporation v.00 with the PNB. cesspools. and the establishment of cemeteries. creek. the production of power from any source. In compliance with said Order. 1990. lake. “The second one – filled by Louis Gonzaga. Louis Gonzaga and 3 other defendants’ amounts. Cristina Gonzaga (the Gonzaga Four) – alleged that the provisional value of the property involved therein has been set much to low. after finding the existence of public interest which may be serve by the expropriation. Did the Judge act with grave abuse of discretion? Held: Yes. sidewalks. fixed the provisional values of the 7 subject areas and directed the NAPOCOR to deposit the amounts with the PNB in escrow of the benefits of the defendants pending decision on the merits. and it had negotiated with the offered to pay defendants for the portion affected by the Bacolod Tamonton Transmission Line. filled motions for reconsideration. wharves or piers. plazas. operating and maintaining power plants. in compliance. Fernando. the purpose for which the lands are principally developed will not be injured by the transmission lines as it will only acquire a right of easement thereon . due to the urgent need to complete the interconnection project as soon as possible. it is authorized to carry out the power of eminent domain. plazas. but the parties failed to reach an agreement despite long and repeated negotiations. the RTC. playground. Reasons: . On March 30. In the Philippines. NAPOCOR claimed the Judge stubbornly refused to issue the writ of possession. In order to carry out these purposes. for the purpose of undertaking the development of hydraulic power. Nevertheless. 6395. playground. and the making of necessary improvements in connection therewith. al. et. particularly the Bacolod Tamonton Transmission Line. NAPOCOR filled 7 cases of eminent domain against 7 private citizens before the RTC of Bacolod city for the acquisition of a right of way easement over portion of the parcels of land described in the complaint for its Negros Panay Interconnection Project. pipes. transmission lines. the reason being that the expropriation of their areas “would render the remaining portion practically at a loss considering that the presence of the transmission lines will pose a danger to the inhabitants in the area as well as destroy the marketability of the remaining potion after expropriation. crematories. reservoirs. and the making of improvements on parks. Still despite doing so. 3) Illustrative cases: 1. 10-1996 The researcher isn’t too keen in going to the DILG to get their opinions. levees. power station and other works for the purpose of developing hydraulic power from any river. “R” 2) Purposes of expropriation a. saying the increases he ordered are excessive and unconscionable. regular provinces are authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain for the following purposes: the construction and extension of roads. Jocson 206 SCRA 520 Facts: The NAPOCOR is a GOCC created and existing by virtue of RA No. wharves or piers. sidewalks. The RTC granted their motion and the NAPOCOR.2.866. bridges. bridges. The market values mentioned in the Order are the same values appearing in the fax declarations of the properties and the notices of Assessment issued by the Assessor. NAPOCOR in a response filled a complaint of grave abuse of discretion against the said judge. or sewage systems. including schoolhouses. NAPOCOR deposited the order additional amounts.

the said Judge last plenary control over the order fixing the amount of the deposit and has no power to annul. The question now raised is: Is the said ordinance a valid exercise of the police power? Held: No.No. The power to regulate however. The Judge ignore P.” 3. Sec. The Charter of Q. It is within the power of the . specifically that the there is no constitutional provision authorizing the taking of private property for tourism purposes.1. even without compensation. Public use is not use by the public. in effect. 3.C praying that the ordinance be declared null and void. Inc. All these show the gross ignore of the Judge and his orders and rulings must be reversed. for the burial of the dead in such manner as prescribed by law or ordinance it simply authorized the city to provide its owned city owned land or to buy of expropriate private properties to construct public cemeteries. Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. 13 of said ordinance. The area so designated shall immediately be developed and should be open for operation not later than 6 months from the date of approval of the application. Cebu City. Held : The Ardona’s forty’s petition should be dismissed. parks and the like.D. fixed the provisional values of the subject property and NAPOCOR in turn deposited the said amounts. “ to acquire by purchase. page 27 of this reviewer).” It also mean. responded by filling a petition for declaratory relief.” For 7 years. the defendants claimed that the land they own subject of the expropriation is actually covered by certificate of land transfer (CLT) and emancipation patents Thereby making the lands expropriated within the coverage of the land reform area under P.9 . among others: “Sec. requires payment of just compensation.defined geographic areas with potential tourism value. More importantly. maintenance and operation of private memorial type cemetery or burial ground within the jurisdiction of Q. imprisonment and/or that the permit to operate and maintain a private cemetery shall be revoked or cancelled. numbering 40. The Judge also. gave the defendants the final authority to determine just compensation when in fact. Moreover. Moreover. 5 of Rule 67 of Court in order to ascertain and report to him the just compensation sought to be taken. although erroneously. public well-fare and such a concept are broad. which should not be permitted to delay the progress of the work.6118 S-94 entitled “ Ordinance regulating the establishment.42 ( see the info titled “ Rule 67. He even ruled that the writ of possession shall be issued only after the defendants have received the amounts. Thus. by negotiation or by condemnation proceedings any private land within and without the tourist zones “ for the development into integrated resort and sport complexes of selected and well. The defendants. The ordinance not only confiscates but also prohibits the operation of a memorial park cemetery because under Sec. The concept of public use is not limited to traditional purposes like the construction of roads.Rules of Court”. Expropriation however. Said petition was granted. Reasons: 1.9 is not mere police regulation but an outright confiscation of private property without due process of law may. bridges. Himlayang Pilipino.C and providing penalties for he violation thereof.Reyes 125 SCRA 221 Facts: The Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) filed 4 complaints with the CFI of Cebu City for the expropriation of some 282 hectares of rolling land situated in Barangays Malubog and Babag.At least 6% o f the total area of the memorial park cemetery shall be seta side for a charity burial of deceased persons who are paupers and have been residents of Q. he did not even appoint the 3 commissioners as mandated by Sec. something which should not be done. When the Local Government Code of 1983 provided that a Sangguniang Panlungsod may provide. filed motions to dismiss on the ground that the taking was not for Public use. amend or modify it matters of substance pending the course of the condemnation proceedings.C Council decided to enforce it by passing a resolution to that effect. which should not be the ease. cannot be said to have impliedly acknowledge sequestration of 6 % of its property without just compensation when it accepted the permits to operate from the city government. the determination of just compensation in expropriation proceedings is a judicial function. 2. City Government of QC v.He fixed the provisional values of the subject properties at their market values and daily opportunity profits. when the Judge. fix the license fee and regulate such other Business.C. the power to tax. 2. 2. trade and occupation as may be established or practiced in the City.D No.2The defendants argue that the agrarian reform program occupies a higher level in the order of priorities than other state policies like those relating to the health and physical well-being of the people. aesthetic as well as monetary. to be determined by competent City Authorities. violation of its provisions is punishable by fine. The values should be fixed at an amount equivalent to the assessed value for taxation purpose. but when the Q. Ericta 129 SCRA 759 Facts: The Quezon City Council passed Ordinance No.C for at least 5 years prior to their death. the power to regulate does not include the power to confiscate. The values it represents are spiritual. Himlayang Pilipino Inc. under PTA’s express authority. prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction with the CFI in Q. does not include the power to prohibit. A portion. the ordinance was not enforced by city authorities. The reason for this is that a contrary ruling would defeat the very purpose of the law which is to provide for a speedy and summary procedure whereby the peaceable possession of the property subject of the expropriation proceedings “may be secured without the delays incident to prolonged and vexatious litigation touching the ownership and value of such lands.C grants Q. as well as physical. “Said ordinance provides. and inclusive. Reasons: 1. as mandated in its Charter.

1974. 3. “if the Court shall find upon trial that the right to expropriate the land exists. it shall then appoint commissioners. Mangondato demanded compensation from NAPOCOR. when NAPOCOR started building its Agus 1 (Hydroelectric plant) project. As to the authority of determining whether a law granting the expropriation exists. the City of Manila presented a petition in the CFI of Manila praying that for the purpose of constructing a public improvement. Manila. In the present case. the authority of the courts then is limited to determining the following a whether a law granting the expropriation exists and b) the value of the land in question. The proposed extension of Rizal Avenue however will take a part of the Chinese cemetery. the Court has authority to inquire on whether the exercise of such expropriation by the City of Manila is indeed public. Is the Chinese Community correct? Held: The Chinese community is correct as to its contention Reasons: 1. Therefore. 11. NAPOCOR took possession of a 21. a distinction must be made between a) laws granting special purpose and b) laws grating a general authority. for public purpose. the Court may inquire into the necessity of the expropriation. the right to realize it through the exercise of Eminent Domain is clear. 5. a public cemetery at that the Chinese Community of Manila thus contended that 1) the City of Manila cannot appropriate the cemetery or a portion thereof as said cemetery is public property. the place is open to anybody for as long as she or he can pay). spacious. 2.” The City of Manila contends that since expropriation is exclusively a Legislative function. the record contain no proof of the necessity of opening the same through the cemetery.1916.in other words. the Chinese Cemetery or a portion thereof may not be expropriated. public. It is axiomatic that the taking of private property for public use is not justified unless there is a genuine public necessity for the taking. etc.3. National Power Corporation v.legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy. the courts then would have Authority then to make inquiry and to hear proof. (This last sentence did not sit well which Justice Makasiar and 2 others dissenters because the two persons who had CLT’s were conveniently ignored). then the Court’s would he without jurisdiction to inquire into the purpose of that legislation. 2. will lease the subject areas will not diminish the public character of the expropriation ( In other words.995 sq. since the City of Manila was given a general grant of authority to expropriate private lands under its Charter. the human settlement needs of the many beneficiaries of the 32 hectare Resettlement area should prevail over the property rights of two of their compatriots. the matter regarding the extent of the court’s authority in expropriation cases must settled. In 1979. The City of Manila was not granted such a special authority. The fact that private concessionaires such as private firms. And those CLT’s in their possession covers only less than 1 hectare of the 282 hectares intended fore expropriation.243 in Act No. In the instant case. owned by Macapanton Mangondato. Moreover.190 (the predecessor of today’s Rule 67 of the Rules of Court) reveals. 1354 of the President of the Philippines dated Dec. namely the extension of Rizal Avenue. The records show that adjoining and adjacent lands and have been offered to the city free of charge. First of all. m. As mentioned above public property may be expropriated provided a special grant of Authority for a particular parcel of land was passed by the Legislature. NAPACOR had paid the city a :financial assistance : of P40 sq. 3. well balanced as well as carefully patrolled. land which is a portion of Lot 1 Of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd_116169 situated in Marawi City. The records show that the only 2 of the 40 defendants have CLT’s or emancipation patents. 4. There is no question that the court has authority to fix the values of the land question. If the law in question grants expropriation of a particular parcel of land and for a specific public purpose. Under the mistaken belief that it forms part of the public land reserved for use by NAPOCOR of Hydroelectric power purposes under Proclamation No. even if granting that a necessity exists for The opening of the street in question. 349 Facts: On Dec. Once the object is within the authority of Congress. As a general rule then. which will answer every purpose of the city. Certainly. the less-than 10-hectare portion of land is not even part of the resort and sports complex proper but is part of the 32 hectare resettlement are for all persons affected by the expropriation. But if the Legislature should grant general authority to a municipal corporation then to expropriate private lands. upon an issue properly presented concerning whether Or not the land in question was private and whether the purpose was in fact. CA 254 SCRA 577 Facts: In 1978. An examination of Sec. City of Manila v. NAPOCOR refused to compensate insisting that the property is public land and that it has already paid “financial assistance “to Marawi City in exchange for the rights over the property. as well as clean. m. . food outlets. as long as the taking is public. it is necessary for the City of Manila to acquire ownership in fee simple of certain parcels of land situated in the district of Binondo of said city within Block 83 of said district. regardless on whether or not the land in question is private or public. NAPOCOR alleged that the subject land was until then possessed and administered by Marawi City so that in exchange for the city’s waiver and quitclaim of any right over the property. This contention is partly meritorious. the power of eminent domain comes into pay. only private property may be expropriated and 2) there is no necessity for the improvement as a whole in the first place. Chinese Community 40 Phil. Mangondato claimed that the subject land is his duly registered property covered by a TCT in his name that he was not privy to agreement between Marawi City and NAPOCOR and that any Payment made to said city cannot be considered as payment to him.

authorizing.More than a decade later. and the said province filed a motion for the issuance of the write of possession. NAPOCOR countered by filling a complaint for eminent domain against Mangondato.4 rule 67. the greedy bastard replied by filling a civil case seeking to recover possession of he property described in the complaint as Lot of the subdivision plan against NAPOCOR. On July 7. 808. the court erred in fixing the value of just compensation at P1. NAPOCOR‘s National power Board (hereafter Power Board) passed a resolution resolving to pay Mangondato the base price of P40 per sq. the power Board passed a resolution resolving to pay Mangondato P100 per sq. Rules of Court. Pursuant to the aforementioned resolution. when it initiated expropriation proceedings.S-88. The lower court then ordered.088. In its decision. 1991. the payment of a P15. Camarines Sur. Pursuant to the resolution. On July 27. d) The property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected. ergo. the lower court denied the recovery of possession by Mangondato but ordered NAPOCOR to pay the former a monthly rent of P 15. after duly appointing 2 commissioners. if the time of taking does not coincides with the time of the filling.000. e) The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property. the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. when he property was taken by petition.132 sq. Mangondato paid P1. CA 222 SCRA 173 Facts: On Dec.00 with the PNB.129.001) plus 12% interest per annum from 1978 (P698. is determined when the following elements concur.m but he was willing to settle for P300 per sq. a) The expropriator must enter a private property. 1354.00) pending A determination by NAPOCOR’s regional legal council on whether P100.00 as just compensation. 000 monthly rent until the surrender of the property.995. in order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non. NAPOCOR authorized its president to negotiate with Mangondato for the payment of P100 for the land plus 12 % per annum from 1978 less the payments already made 10 Mangodato and to Marawi City on the portion of his land. c) The entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority.traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government employees.3 was not present when NAPOCOR took possession of the subject property in 1978 since NAPOCOR falsely believed that the subject property was public land reserved for its own use under Proclamation No. On August 14. Reasons: 1. The San Joaquins failed to appear at the hearing of the motion. b) The entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period.m greedy bastard). m. when the complaint was filed. The taking for the purpose of determining the value of the property.m instead of P40 per sq. that NAPOCOR deposit the amount of P10. Mangondato disagrees with the power board’s new resolution. the rule is that the value of the property should be computed from the time the property as taken into possession from the time he was deprived thereof while the value itself it’s determined at the time of the filling of the complaint. 2. with the RTC of Pill. However. provisionally fixing the value of the land at P500 per sq.m portion Of the subject property (P 485. On May 25. 184. and the issuance of a TRO and a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restrain NAPOCOR from proceeding with any construction and/or improvements on Mangondato’s land or from committing any act of dispossession. In NAPOCOR’s case. He said that this property was worth even more than p300 per sq. In a letter. and not its value in 1978. the Province of Camarines Sur. 22.000 from 1978 to 1992 with 12 % interest per annum and condemning the property in favor of NAPOCOR effective July 1992 upon payment of P1000 per sq. or P21. 1988.. Only in 1992. The San Joaquins filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of inadequacy of the price offered for their property. 1992. The court denied the motion to dismiss and authorized the Province to take possession of the said property upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court of the amount P5. P100 lower than the assessed value of the land appearing in its tax declaration for 1992 which was P100. 1990. 714. Normally.500.m for only a 12. the time of taking coincides with the filling of the complaint for just compensation. 000 per sq. the amount provisionally fixed by the trial court to answer for damages that the San Joaquins may suffer in the event that the expropriation cases do not prosper.00 is the fair market value of Property. through Governor Luis Villafuerte filed two separate cases of expropriation against Ernesto and Efren San Joaquin.m Held: NAPOCOR is wrong.m excluding the 12 % interest per annum.m. NAPACOR contested the decision. the Provincial governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site. . did it obtain color of legal authority.192. NAPOCOR acceded to the fact that the property belongs to Mangondato.00. The provisional value of the same would then be assessed as of 1992. 1992.280. element no.00. On May 17. The general rule in determining just compensation in eminent domain is the value of the property as of the date of the filling of the complaint Sec. Province of Camarines Sur v. 997. In its assignment of errors. NAPOCOR said that the lower court erred in affirming that the just compensation for the property is its value in 1992. Forthwith. 6.

The effect of such action shall be to annul the ordinance. the same should be deemed effective. The SP therefore. claiming its authority from Sections 4 and 7 of the Local Government Code of 1983. simply because the L:GC of 1983 nor any other laws does not require the same. 2) A reading of Sec. saying that among others. and acting pursuant to a resolution of its Sanggunian. Finally. stating among others that the trial court suspend the expropriation proceedings until after the province shall have submitted toe requisite approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform to convert the classification of the property of the private respondents from agricultural to non. The SC simply ruled that there was no evidence to support such claim. “LGUs may. the RTC ruled in favor of the Municipality. the Municipality of Bunawan nevertheless filed a petition for Eminent Domain against Moday. Held: The Province of Camarines Sur is correct. also adds that since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved the resolution. Public use now means public advantage. 2. Once operational. the RTC has 2 different meanings for ‘invalid’ and ‘disapproval’). was without authority to disapprove said resolution. 3. 7. through its head. Reasons: 1) The Municipality’s power to exercise the right of eminent domain is not disputed. fishery and the cottage industry. the center would make available to the community invaluable information and technology on agriculture. the Municipality filed a Motion to Take or Enter Upon the Possession of the Subject Matter.The trial court ruled in favor of the Province. the SC issued a TRO to prevent the Municipality from using the buildings it already constructed as well as constructing future buildings. the SB has the capacity to promulgate a resolution pursuant to the exercise of such a right. the Municipality created 3 buildings on the subject property. 9 of the LGHC of 1983 states. convenience or benefit. Said section gives the condition “if such resolution is beyond the power conferred upon by the Sangguniang Bayan or Mayor xxx”. it is well within the power of the Municipality to exercise the right of eminent domain and thus. Moday claimed the expropriation against his property was motivated by political revenge since he did not support Mayor Bustillo’s candidacy in the previous elections. resolution or Executive Order in question in whole or in part. 153. Said Resolution was approved by then Municipal Mayor Anuncio Bustillo and transmitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.agricultural land (this is in deference to the Solicitor General’s view that the Province must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform ( DAR) regarding the plan to expropriate the lands of the San Joaquins for use as a housing project. in his petition to the SC. The establishment of a pilot center would inure to the direct benefit and advantage of the people of the Province. resolution or executive order is beyond the power conferred upon the Sangguniang bayan (SB) or the Mayor. publication requirements and public hearing) Five requisites for the exercise: . the CA ruled in favor of the San Joaquins. In the meantime. Ultimately. If that were true. and craftsmen’s would be enhanced. the same is void and thus the Municipality could not insist in pushing through with the expropriation. The province now defends its expropriation of the subject lands. “If the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) shall find that any municipal ordinance. that since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan failed to declare the Municipality’s resolution as invalid.” Undaunted. As to the issue whether the approval of the DAR (for the purpose of realizing the housing project intent of the expropriation) is needed before expropriation proceedings can continue. In the cage. farmers. Moday v. the livelihood of fisherman. Reasons: 1. then Moday’s petition would have been meritorious since the taking of private property for public use must be genuine. the expropriation here is for public purpose. 6138 –Pls-4 along the National Highway owned by Percival Moday for the site of the Bunawan Farmers Center and other Government Sports Facilities. After depositing the necessary amount in accordance with Rule 67 of the Rules of Court with the municipal treasurer. and that the expropriation was for a public purpose. the Sangguniang Bayan of Bumawan in Agusan del Sur passed Resolution No. LGC of 1983 states. resolution or Executive Order invalid in whole or in part xxx. it shall declare such ordinance. Besides. (Wow. 43-89 authorizing the Municipal Mayor to initiate the expropriation of a one (1) hectare portion of Lot No. the Court simply ruled that the same is not needed. 1989. CA 268 SCRA 586 Facts: On July 23. which tends to contribute to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community.. An appeal to the CA also proved fruitless. Sec. The action of the SP shall be final”. the records do not show that there was indeed another available property for the same purpose. Obviously. Held: Moday is wrong. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan however disapproved the resolution on the ground that the “expropriation was unnecessary considering that there are still available lots in Bunawan for the establishment of government center. exercise the right of eminent domain and institute condemnation proceedings for public use or purpose”. Moday. C) Power of Taxation (Five requisites for the exercise. On appeal. The housing project also satisfies the public purpose requirement of the Constitution. Despite Moday’s opposition and after the hearing of the merits. Upon petition by Moday. like are sort community or a housing complex.

fees or charges shall not be enacted without any prior public hearing conducted for the purpose. municipalities and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following xxx (e) taxes. 5. the latter deriving commission for every sale made for its principal. tolls for bridges or otherwise. In no case shall the collection of municipal taxes be left to any person. 7516 imposing on manufacturers. business taxes based on gross sales recorded on a graduated basis. Provided. city and municipal ordinances of revenue measures shall be published in full for 3 consecutive days in a newspaper of local circulation. City of Manila case) a. Allied Thread Co engaged the services of a sales broker. Having affected by the aforementioned Ordinance. the same may be posted in at least 2 conspicuous and accessible places. porters or producers. Public Hearing: 1. importer. Note: Compare this with Sec 133 (e) of LGC 1991. fees and charges and other impositions upon goods carried into or out of. the territorial jurisdictions of LGUs in the guise of charges of wharfage. the ordinance underwent a series of amendments. excessive. the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction. municipal funds shall be devoted exclusively to local public purpose. By means of posting of copies thereof in the local legislative hall or premises and 2 other conspicuous places within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government. Except as allowed by law. and any attempt to impose an import or export tax upon such goods in the guise of an unreasonable charge for wharfage. fees or charges on any base or subject not otherwise enumerated herein or taxed under the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NLRC).a Allied Thread Co. or other applicable laws. On June 12. or other taxes. Within 10 days after their approval. however. fees or charges in any form whatsoever upon such goods or merchandise. that the taxes. Fees and Charges ( Sec. Ker and Company Ltd. 2. City Mayor of Manila 133 SCRA 338 Facts: Allied Thread Co is engaged in the business of manufacturing of sewing thread and yarn under duly registered trademark and labels. that within 30 days after the receipt of the decision or the lapse of the 60-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal. all sales recorded by it shall be taxable by the City of Manila provided they are also located in the said City. 2974.The procedure for the approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided that any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within 30 days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within 60 days from the date of the receipt of the appeal. LGC of 1991) Local governments may exercise the power to levy taxes. By means of publication in a newspaper of general circulation. use of bridges or otherwise. Publication of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures (Sec. 1974. or b. as amended. Provided. “graduated basis” meant that “60% of all sales recorded in the principal offices of all businesses are located in the City of Manila. 3. Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances and revenue Measures. however. 188. 186. It operates its factories and maintains an office in Pasig. or passing through. the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces. In order to sell its products in Manila and other parts of the Philippines. It shall not be in the power of the municipal council to impose tax in any form. Taxation shall be just and uniform in each municipality. 1974. confiscatory or contrary to declared national policy. finally. A s used by the Ordinance. Two modes of apprising the public of a new ordinance according to Sec. that the ordinance levying such taxes. Mandatory Public Hearings (sec 187. doing business in the city of Manila. Allied Thread Co filed a petition for declaratory relief contending that Ordinance 7516 is not valid or enforceable as the same is contrary to Sec . As for the branches of businesses. cities and municipalities where there are no newspapers of local circulation. that in provinces. Rizal. 2. Provided. 2. The last amendment was approved by the Mayor on July 29. whatever upon goods and merchandize carried into the municipality.1. Provided further.” The Mayor of Manila approved said Ordinance on June 15. or out of the same. fee or charge therein. the same shall be taxable as well by said City. Provided. In less than two months. “Unless otherwise provided herein. 1. v. fees or charges shall not be unjust. being manufacturers and sales brokers. Publication Requirements: 1. 43 Local Tax Code (based on the Allied Thread v. certified true copies of all provincial. the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. Municipal revenue obtainable by taxation shall be derived from such sources only as are expressly authorized by law. however. Power to Levy Other Taxes. that such appeal do not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax.” 4. shall be void. LGC of 1991) 3. LGC of 1991) . cities.

an action to declare anything unconstitutional does not prescribe since it is reduction as absurdum). as clarified by Local Tax Regulation No 1-71. Allied Thread Co asserts that due to the series of amendments in the Ordinance 7516. the Court stresses that the constitutionality of an act of Congress will not be passed upon by the Court unless at the first opportunity that question is properly raised and presented in an appropriate case. 2. particularly where the issue of constitutionality is the very lis mota presented. This is true despite the fact that the Sanggunian has the control of records or the better means of proof regarding the alleged. and is necessary for the determination of the case. Limitations on municipal taxing power . The CA also ruled in favor of Franklin Drilon. Consequently. the Reyes Three. The power to levy an excise tax upon the performance of an act or the engaging of an occupation does not depend on the domicile of the person subject to the excise nor upon the physical location of the property and in connection with the act or occupation taxed but depend upon the place in which the act is performed or occupation engaged in – in this case. To quote said Regulation: “A local tax ordinance shall go into effect on the 15th day after approved by the local chief executive in accordance with Sec 41 of the Code. it must be enacted on or before June 15. 187 of LGC of 1991. 187 of LGC of 1991. Hence. they have the burden of proof. 1974. 1974. The City of Manila complied with the second mode of notice. and the Reyes Three are not relieved from the burden of proving their averments. Undaunted. upon the place where the respected sales transactions is perfected and consummated. Therefore. claim that notwithstanding the 30-day period imposed by the law for appeal. To hold otherwise would limit the power of the defunct Municipal Board of Manila to amend an existing ordinance as exigencies require. Moreover. Since the Reyes Three failed to rebut the presumption of validity in favor of the subject ordinances and to discharge the burden of proving that no public hearings were conducted prior to the enacted thereof. 3. in a petition for review with the SC.52 of PD 426. The reason is that the lack of a public hearing is a negative allegation essential to a petitioner cause of action.” Otherwise stated. Ordinance No 7516 was approved by the City Mayor in June 15. There is a reason why protests over tax ordinances are required to be done within certain time frames. he made the deadline (barely). While it is true that the public hearings are required to be conducted prior to the enactment of a tax ordinance. 1993. 3. (see ‘Public Hearing’ of this reviewer). The constitutionality of a statutory provision should not be entertained by the Court where it was not specifically raised below. On the validity of Sec. 2992 while the Reyes Three filed their appeal only on May 21. CA 320 SCRA 486 Facts: The Sangguniang Bayan of San Juan. dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time since the last of the 5 ordinances took effect on Oct 29. Ker and Company. the Reyes Three did not show any proof that the Sangguniang Bayan of San Juan failed to conduct the required public hearings. progress and prosperity of the people. Held: The Reyes Three are wrong: Reasons: 1. because it does not operate or maintain a branch office in Manila and that its principal office and factory are located in Pasig. Held: Allied Thread is wrong. 2. the last amendment of the ordinance was approved on July 29. The power to tax is one of the most effective instruments to raise needed revenues to finance and support the myriad activities of LGUs for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and enhancement of peace. In view hereof and considering the provisions of Art 54 of the Code regarding the accrual of taxes a local tax ordinance intended to take effect on July 1. Allied Thread claimed that it should not be covered by the said Ordinance as amended. The Court finds no real necessity in tackling the constitutionality of Sec. way past the 30-day period from the effectivity thereof for appeal as allowed by Sec 187 of the LGC of 1993. as the Reyes Three are the ones asserting the lack of a public hearing. insisted upon and adequately argued. The Court is persuaded that there was substantial compliance of the law on publication. the Court is constrained to uphold their constitutionality or legality. Rizal. any delay in tax measures would be to the detriment of the public. 1954. Also the Reyes Three ask if constitutionality of Sec. Antonio Reyes and 2 others (the Reyes Three) filed an appeal with the Department of Justice alleging the constitutionality of these tax ordinances allegedly because they were promulgated without previous public hearings thereby constituting deprivation of property without due process of law. the same Ordinance fell short of the deadline set forth by Sec 54 of PD 426 that “for an ordinance intended to take effect on July 1. Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon however.b Reyes v. Reasons: 1. 1974 should be enacted by the local chief executive not later than June 15. A municipal tax ordinance empowers an LGU to impose taxes. Metro Manila implemented 5 tax ordinances. Allied Thread also contended that the questioned Ordinance did not comply with the necessary publication requirement in a newspaper of general circulation as mandated by Sec43 of the Local Tax Code. an ordinance enacted without the requisite of public hearing is unconstitutional and thus void from the beginning ( in other words.” As mentioned earlier. The subsequent amendments did not in any way invalidate nor move the date of its effectivity. 1. 2. Allied Thread does its business through its agent. 1974. 1974. 187 can be raised for the first time on appeal.

its agencies and instrumentalities. Customs duties. the general principle against . imposes as a tax on any person. while the local government units are being strengthened and made more autonomous.A. or passing through the territorial jurisdictions of LGUs in the guise of charges for wharfage. Then. both series of 1960. as amended by Municipal Ordinance No.* Sec. cities. the constitutional objective obviously is to ensure that. Income tax. as amended. c) the resources of the national government will not be unduly disturbed. Taxes on business enterprises certified by the BOI as pioneer or non-pioneer for a period of 6 or 4 years. (2) it amounts to double taxation. and (5) section 2 of Republic Act No. respectively from the date of the registration. fees or charges on petroleum products. Pursuant to its Municipal Ordinance No.a Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. upon the authority of which it was enacted. Taxes. of P0. is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers. Taxes. namely.. Unless otherwise provided herein. except when levied on banks and other financial institutions b. the tax power must be deemed to exist although Congress may provide statutory limitations and guidelines. 110. Reasons: (1) The Second and last objections are manifestly devoid of merit. . 6180 and R. the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces. Pepsi maintains that the disputed ordinance is null and void because (1) it partakes of the nature of an important tax. v. barters or exchanges or similar transactions on goods and services except as otherwise provided herein j. as amended. Said Ordinance. except as otherwise provided herein n. LGC of 1991. which Pepsi assail as null and void and to prevent the enforcement thereof. 2264. etc.A. fees or charges of any kind on the National Government. fees or charges on agricultural and aquatic products when sold by marginal farmers or fishermen g. 122. tolls for bridges ort otherwise. and LGUs *The Basic Rule of Municipal Taxing Power Under the now prevailing Constitution. is not forbidden by the Constitution.63 from August 16 to December 31. (3) it is excessive. Taxes. and taxes. except tricycles. the legislature must still see to it that a) the taxpayer will not be overburdened or saddled with multiple and unreasonable impositions. on which the Court need not and does not express any opinion-double taxation. delegation of legislative powers. 133. Taxes. 6938 otherwise known as the Cooperative Code of the Philippines respectively o. amounts to double taxation. Taxes. land or water. charges and dues except wharfage of wharves constructed and maintained by the LGU concerned. and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: a. fees or charges on Countryside and Barangay Business Enterprise and Cooperatives duly registered under R. in general. or other taxes.250. Held: Pepsi’s contentions are partly tenable. m. tonnage dues and all other kinds of custom fees. and charges and other impositions upon goods carried into. Common Limitations on the Taxing Power of LGUs.926. h. registration of fees of vehicles and wharfages on wharves. independently of whether or not the tax in question. gifts. (4) it is highly unjust and discriminatory. inheritance. Taxes. Documentary stamp tax c. association. Taxes on estates. where there is neither a grant nor a prohibition by statute. or out of. except as otherwise provided therein d. Province of Laguna) 2. Indeed. as part thereof. Tax on gross receipts of transportation contractors and persons engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight by hire and common carriers by air. fees. uniform. e. the fundamental law did not intend the delegation to be absolute and unconditional. The basic rationale for the current rule is to safeguard the viability and self-sufficiency of local government units by directly granting them general and broad tax powers. Percentage on VAT sales. except as provided in this Code k. i. the injunction against double taxation found in the Constitution of the United States. fees or other charges actually exported. 1961. municipalities. in consequence of the theory of separation of powers is subject to one wellestablished exception. and just (MERALCO v. Taxes paid on premiums by way of reinsurance or retrocession l. fees or charges for the registration of motor vehicles and for the issuance of all kinds of licenses or permits for the driving thereof.40 from January 1 to July 30. Excise taxes on articles enumerated under the NIRC. fees in any form whatsoever upon such goods and merchandise f. legacies and other acquisitions mortis causa. Nevertheless. legislative powers may be delegated to local government to which said theory does not apply in respect of matters of local concern. City of Butuan 24 SCRA 789 Facts: Pepsi Cola seeks to recover the taxes paid by it to the City of Butuan and collected by the letter.10 per case of 24 bottles of Pepsi-Cola and Pepsi paid under protest the amount of P4. oppressive and confiscatory. and d) local taxation will be fair. 1960 and the amount of P9. The Philippines has not adopted. again. when considered in relation to the sales tax prescribed by Acts of Congress. b) each local government unit will have its fair share of available resources.

which was granted by the trial court on May 13. referred the same to the Court of Appeals. creeks and other public waters within its territorial jurisdiction. Extracted from public lands or from bed of seas. sand. which ruled that declaratory relief was improper. 2. assessed private respondent Republic Cement corporation (hereafter Republic Cement) O2. the Province of Bulacan issued a warrant of levy against Republic Cement. allegedly because a breach of the ordinance had been committed by Republic Cement. gravel. basalt.0042 per bottle is manifestly too small to be excessive.(2) The third objection is. a consignee of agent shall mean any person. Believing that the province. The intention to limit the application of the ordinance to soft drinks and carbonated drinks brought into city from outside thereof becomes apparent. 122. tuff and rock phosphate. 1994. (3) The first and the fourth objection merit. earth and other quarry resources. the Provincial Treasurer of Bulacan. in a letter dated November 11. since only sales by “agents of consignee” of outside dealers would be subject to tax. gravel. which is beyond defendant’s authority to impose by express provision of law. denied by the Provincial Treasurer on January 17.524.364. On July 11. CA 299 SCRA 442 Facts: on June 26. association. 1993. The tax of “P0. granite. Negotiations between Republic Cement and the province resulted in an agreement and modus vivendi on December 12. in a resolution dated July 27. and hence. Held: (1) The decision of the CA must be sustained.” As a consequence. the tax is imposed only upon ”any agent and/or consignee of any person.00. known as “an Ordinance Enacting the Revenue Code of the Bulacan Province. But not limited to marble. in exchange for the lifting of the warrant of levy.13 for extracting limestone. however.” As defined in section 3-A of Ordinance no. earth and other quarry resources extracted from public land because it is (2) . regardless of the volume of their sales.10 per case of 24 bottles. 1994. sand. Furthermore. must be one engaged in the business outside the City. partnership. b Province of Bulacan v. The Court. or confiscatory. either retail or wholesale. untenable. cities. unless they are agents and/or consignee of another dealer. streams. 1994. violative of the uniformity required by the Constitution and the law thereof. Need we say more? It is true that under Sec. volcanic cinders. earth and other quarry resources. 1994. Thus an LGU may not ordinarily impose taxes on stones. The province filed a motion to dismiss Republic Cement’s petition. In the interim. 1993. Republic Cement and the Province Agreed to limit the issue for resolution by the Court of Appeals to the question as to whether or not the provincial government could pursuant to Section 21of Provincial Ordinance No. 50% of the tax assessed by petitioner. municipalities and barangays shall not extend to the levy of exercise taxes on articles enumerated under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). The CA ruled that the Province had no authority to issue Ordinance No. who.” of soft drinks of carbonated drinks in the production and sale of which plaintiff is engaged or less than P0. Sales by local dealers. in the very nature of things. However an LGU can still impose a tax on stones. Reasons: Ordinance No. earth and other quarry resources. 133 (h). 1993. 3. 158 of the LGC of 1991 which states: “The province may levy and collect not more than ten percent (10%) of fair market value in the locality per cubic meter of ordinary stones.262. whereby Republic Cement Agreed to pay under protest P1. serious consideration. 1992. 1994. the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bulacan passed Provincial Ordinance No. Republic Cement formally contested the same on December 23. as amended. 3. such. company or corporation engaged in selling… soft drinks or carbonated drinks. shale and silica from several parcels of private land in the province during the third quarter of 1992 until the second quarter of 1993. likewise. hence this appeals to the SC. would be exempt from the disputed tax.692. 3 is based on Sec. extracted from private lands. 122. There is hereby levied and collected a tax of 10% of the fair market value in the locality per cubic meter of ordinary stones. regardless of origin. partnership. Section 151 of the NIRC. 21.” Pursuant thereto. Republic Cement consequently filed a petition for declaratory relief with the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan on February 14. As amended by Ordinance no. 3. and even if the same exceeded those made by said agents or consignee of producers or merchants established outside the City of Butuan. lakes. gravel. the tax partakes of the nature of an import duty.” Which was to take effect on July 1. sand. as discriminatory.000 cases of hard liquors or soft drinks every month for resale. 1992. The tax in question would still be invalid. not acting for or on behalf of other merchants. company or corporation who acts in the place of another by authority from him or one entrusted with the business of another or to whom is consigned or shipped no less than 1. Viewed from this angle. allegedly because of its unpaid tax liabilities. association. The same was however. merchants engaged in the sale of soft drinks of carbonated drinks. Imposition of Tax. sand. Republic Cement filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking to reverse the trial court’s dismissal of their petition. oppressive. whether extracted from public or private land. the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces. rivers. Section 21 of the ordinance provides as follows: Sec. on the basis of above-said ordinance. as defined under the National Internal Revenue Code. had no authority to impose taxes o quarry resources extracted from private lands. by the way levies excise taxes on all quarry resources. as the same are already taxed under the National Internal Revenue Code. are not subjected to the tax.

b) The charter of the City of Manila is subject to control by congress. and 3 other lawyers. Since the time of its creation. Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) because among others. public versus private.D. No. 771 and was vested exclusively on the National Government. (3) The states have no power by taxation or otherwise. Other Illustrative Cases: 3. sec 5 of the 1987 Constitution which says. it can also provide for exemption or even take back the power. 3. impede. Held: The Basco four contentions are all unmeritorious Reasons: 1) Any petitioner assailing the constitionality of the law must realize that said law is armed with the presumption of constitionality. The court answered that. has the power of control over Local. the Chairman on the committee of Laws of the City Council of Manila. to operate and to regulate gambling casinos. agencies and instrumentalities in accordance with Section 14 of its charter. 3. All its stocks are owned by the National Government: it has dual role. fees and charges shall exclusively to the local government. and accelerating the development of the means of transportation and communication in the country.D 1869 which states that LGUs cannot impose on PAGCOR taxes on any kind (except for the 5% franchise tax) Said provision. And if Congress can grant the City of Manila the power to tax certain matters. impeded or subjected to control by a mere Local Government. Its power to tax therefore must always yield to a legislative act which is superior having been passed upon by the state itself which has the inherent power to tax. a) The City of Manila being a Mere municipal corporation has no inherent right to impose taxes. As early as 1975.… and such other Airports as may be established in the province of Cebu. “Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own source of revenue and to levy taxes. consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy. With this in mind. Such taxes.” The power of local government to “impose taxes and fees” is always subject to “limitations” which Congress may provide by law. promote and develop international and domestic air traffic in the Central Visayas and Mindanao regions as a means of making the regions centers of international trade and tourism. management and supervision of the Mactan International Airport in the province of Cebu and the Lahug Airport in Cebu City. they claim is a violation of local autonomy it waives the City of Manilas right to impose taxes and license fees. mere creatures of the state can defeat National policies thru extermination of what local authorities may perceive to be undesirable activities or enterprise using the power to tax as “a tool for regulation. Otherwise. petitioner MCIAA enjoyed the privilege of exemption from payment of realty taxes imposed by the National Government or any of its political subdivisions. 6958 mandated to “principally undertake to economical. the Charter or statute must plainly show am intent to confer that power or the municipality cannot assume it. 13 par. .” (4) The Basco Four cannot also invoke Article X. therefore. a Basco v. b Mactan Cebu Int’l Airport v. PAGCOR is a government owned or controlled corporation with an original charter. This doctrine emanates from the “supremacy” of the National Government over local governments. The latter role is governmental. Marcos Facts: Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) was created by virtue of Republic Act No. which places it in the category of an agency or instrumentality of the Government. It should be stressed that “municipal corporation are mere creatures of Congress” which has the power to “create and abolish municipal corporation” due to its legislative powers” Congress. But again it only says “Public” The Province of Bulacan cannot tax Republic Cement because it’s extracting minerals from “private” lands. (the Basco Four) filed a petition seeking to annul the Phil. fees. c) The City of Manila’s power to impose licenses fees on gambling has long been revoked. It is also mandated to a) encourage. PAGCOR 197 SCRA 52 Facts: Atty. and b) upgrade the service and facilities of the airports and to formulate internationally acceptable standards of accommodation and service. and other charges subject to such guidelines and limitation as the congress may provide. the law has intruded into the local government’s right to impose local taxes and license fees in contravention of the constitutionally enshrined principle of the local autonomy. PAGCOR should be and actually is exempt from local taxes. Being an instrumentality of the Government. its operation might be burdened. Humberto Basco. which is recognized by law and 2) for the same reason stated in the immediately preceding paragraph. 2 of P.expressly empowered to do so under the LGU. 2) The Basco Four assailed Sec. Don’t forget. Thus. Otherwise. licenses or permits” was withdrawn by P. 1) It waived the Manila City government’s right to impose taxes and license fees. PD 1869. the power of local government to regulate gambling thru the grant of “franchise. efficient and effective control. the petitioner has the burden of proof to show that the law he wishes to assail is unconstitutional. burden or in any manner control the operation of constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the federal government. to retard.

MCIAA relies on Sec. thus MCIAA is not spared from real property taxes. it is performing a governmental function as well (read the first paragraph above again). cities. The tax imposed upon MCIAA concerns real property taxes. legislative and juridical) as opposed to the forms of local governments. For its defense. 4) The ultimate fact remains that Sec 193 of the LGC of 1991 has repealed the tax exemption privilege enjoyed by MCIAA as stated in Sec. The city of Cebu claimed that MCIAA cannot rely on Sec. Reasons: 1) Basco v. or GOCC or a local government or a distinct unit therein d) Instrumentality – any agency of the National Government. the various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines. c MERALCO v Province of Laguna 306 SCRA 750 Facts: On various dates.2).g. b) National Government – the entire machinery of the central government (executive. meaning. are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this code. including government-owned or controlled corporations. c) Agency – any of the various units of the Government. all lands owned by existing airports belonging to the Republic of the Philippines in Cebu are transferred to the MCIAA. 14 of its charter. which stated that local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the National Government and that PAGCOR. Unless otherwise provided in this code. because under MCIAA’s charter. To better understand this situation. any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to. tax exemptions or incentive granted to. Rosa. including a department. Sec 133 (o) is also qualified by the phrase. MCIAA is not spared from property taxes. municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government. thus. including. usually though a charter e. “Sec. non-stock. 193. 2) Then there is the curious Sec 234 which states. on Oct. Canluan and Cabuyao. NOTE: the “Republic of the Philippines” is not the same as “National Government” (Wow!). “Exemptions from Real Property Tax. and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions. 1994. not integrated within the department framework. there was an absolute conveyance of ownership to MCIAA. 3) While MCIAA is correct in invoking Sec 133 (o) above which disallows LGUs to tax the National Government. chartered institutions and GOCCs 3.However. cooperatives duly registered under RA No. its agencies and instrumentalities. are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code x x x Sec. MCIAA claims that like PAGCOR. 133 (o) of the LGC which says “unless otherwise provided herein (in this Code). vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law. Exemptions from Real Property taxes. On 19 January 1983. by virtue of existing laws then effect.” (in this code). fees or charges of any kind on the National Government. Biñan. regulatory agencies. it is performing both proprietary and government functions. to a taxable person x x x except as provided herein. bureau. it should be exempt from taxation by the City of Cebu. except local water districts. Thus MCIAA is also subject to Sec 234 and for reasons mentioned in no. 11. and LGUs. MERALCO was likewise granted a . any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to. This policy is consistent with the State’s policy to ensure genuine and meaningful autonomy to LGUs. “unless otherwise provided herein. issued resolution through their respective municipal councils granting franchise in favor of petitioner Manila Electric Company (“MERALCO”) for the supply of electric light. PAGCOR was decided before the enactment of the LGC of 1991.its tax exemption privilege has been withdrawn by Sections 193 and 234 of the LGC as follows. whether natural or juridical. including. and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following x x x (o) Taxes. 6938. the city of Cebu claimed started demanding payment on parcels of land belonging to MCIAA. 14 of its charter because. Certain municipalities of the Province of Laguna. Held: MCIAA is wrong. or presently enjoyed by all persons whether natural or juridical. let’s have a rundown of some boring definitions: a) Republic of the Philippines – synonymous with “Government of the Republic of the Philippines”. “Can MCIAA claim that is parcels of land are basically owned by the Republic of the Philippines in Cebu thus lands are exempt from real property tax? The court answered no. the provincial city. for reconsideration or otherwise. endowed with some if not all corporate powers. or presently enjoyed by all persons. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof had been granted. administering special funds. Sta. its agencies and instrumentalities. 234. whether natural or juridical. PAGCOR. Luisiana. municipalities. x x x except as provided herein. The Republic of the Philippines is no longer the owner of the lands in question. save as the contrary appears from the context.as MCIAA is a GOCC. including government – owned or controlled corporation. MCIAA relies on the ruling of Basco v. office instrumentality. and enjoying operational autonomy. the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces. including government-owned or controlled corporations. San Pedro. the corporate government entity through which the function of government are exercised throughout the Philippines. whether pertaining to the autonomous regions. It thus finds no application in this case because the arguments here rely heavily on said LGC. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privilege. heat and power within their concerned areas. or presently enjoyed by all persons. are herby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this code. and LGUs.

01-92. A franchise partakes the nature of a grant which is beyond the purview of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. modified or amended P. La Union which was undertaking a cement road construction around its Supermarket and other municipal projects. Reyes. heat and power shall be two per cent (2%) of their gross receipt received from the sale of electric current and from transactions incident to the generation. Beinvenido V. On 12 September 1991. Code of 1991.D.D. otherwise known as the “Local Government. is explicit that no franchise for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except under the condition that such privilege shall be subject to amended. alternation or repeal by Congress as and when the common good so requires. nevertheless. Reasons: 1) Indicative of the legislative intent to carry out the Constitutional mandate of vesting broad tax powers to local government units. the Court has held the phrase “in lieu of all taxes” has to give way to the peremptory language of the Local Government Code specifically providing for the withdrawal of such exemptions. effective 01 January 1993. sheds its cloak of authority and waives its governmental immunity. are those agreed to by the taxing authority in contracts. the Municipality of San Fernando represent by its incumbent Municipal Mayor Lorenzo L. vs. 1968. distribution and sale of electric current. 1 enacted by it which reads. of the 1987 Constitution. (Note the italicized sentence) MERALCO now contents that 1) the phrase “shall be in lieu of all taxes x x x in sec 1 of P. section 11. needed sufficient gravel and sand from their source. contravened the provisions of Section 1 of P. Such franchise tax x x x shall any provision of the Local Tax Code or any other law to the contrary notwithstanding. decrees. 534. 01-92. Truly. Romana 149 SCRA 27 Facts: The Municipality of San Fernando. however. or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. distribution and sale of electric current. city charters. 3.. Contractual tax exemptions. Indeed. acting in its private capacity.franchise by the National Electrification Administration to operate an electric light and power service in the Municipality of Calamba. occupation or calling or enjoying any privilege hereunder enumerated the following municipal license and/or fees x x x “ On March 18. income and privilege of generation. tax exemptions of this kind may not be revoked without impairing the obligations of contracts. in the real sense of the term and where the non-impairment clause of the Constitution can rightly. The lower court granted said petition. Held: All contentions by MERALCO are incorrect. 551 prevents the province of Laguna from imposing franchise taxes on it 2) whether the ordinance is violative of the non-impairment clause and 3) whether the LGC of 1991 has repealed. “All general and special laws.D. La Union but its trucks sent to the latter municipality to haul said road construction materials were allegedly charged unreasonable fees per truck load. privileged. fees and charges. This is also supported by Section 137 which states. contented that the imposition of a franchise tax under Section 2. respondent Provincial Treasurer sent a demand letter to MERALCO for the corresponding tax payment. Laguna. . praying that the Municipality of Luna be immediately enjoined from preventing San Fernando’s its from obtaining road construction from Luna. proclamation and administrative regulation. Republic Act No. Sta. Al. which declares. imposing a tax on business enjoying a franchise. not too infrequently. partnership or corporation engaged in any business. subject to the limitations expressed therein. 551.. the province may impose a tax on business enjoying a franchise x x x and also by Sec. be invoked. Dacanay filed a complaint for injunction with Writ of preliminary Injunction at the Court of First Instance of La Union against the Municipality of Luna and its officials and authorized agents. insofar as it concerned MERALCO. 551 which read: “Any provision of law or local ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding. be in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatever nature imposed by any national or local authority on earnings.” was enacted to take effect on 01 January 1992. the repealing clause. Pursuant to the provisions of the Code. 7160. the franchise tax payable by all grantees of franchises to generate. La Union and from levying unreasonable and after trial to make the injunction permanent. distribute and sell electric current for light. etc.” 3) While the court has. respondent province enacted Laguna Provincial Ordinance No. lawfully entered into by them under enabling laws in which the government. such as those contained in special government bonds or debentures. these exemptions.” 2) In the recent case of the City Government of San Pablo. d Municipality of San Fernando v. MERALCO. and that “upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code all exemptions except only as provided therein can no longer be invoked by MERALCO to disclaim liability for the local tax. Hon. executive orders. the Local Government Code has effectively withdrawn under Section 193 thereof. Said fees charged by Luna were based on Section 1 of Ordinance No. like its precursor provisions in the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions. enjoying local government units expressed therein own sources of revenue and to levy taxes. are not to be confused with tax exemptions granted under franchise. “There shall be collected from any person. et. however. acts. tax exemptions or incentives therefore enjoyed by certain entities.09 of Laguna Provincial Ordinance No. the Municipality of Luna. On the basis of the above ordinance. referred to tax exemptions contained in special franchises as being in the nature of contracts and a part of the inducement for carrying on the franchise. et al. These contractual tax exemptions. Article XII. “Notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law. consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. receipt. are far from being strictly contractual in nature.

Except as otherwise provided in this Code. it could pay the license fees prescribe by Ordinance No. 280. can the municipality of Luna tax the municipality of San Fernando? 3. located in Pasig. 3) The said amount had been added by the plaintiff to the selling price of the liquor sold by it and passed to the consumers. 3358 is a license fee for the privilege of engaging in the sale of liquor a calling in which it is obviously not anyone or anybody may freely engage. Inc. This is precisely the case with the ordinances involved in the case at bar.1 and impose the license fees in question. contends that for permit issued to it granting proper authority to conduct or engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages or liquors” Tabacalera is subject to pay the license prescribed by Ordinance No. 4) The said amount had been already expended by the defendant City for public improvement and essential services of the City government. 3301. Sand and gravel fee. The reason is that this issue in the case at is governed by President Decree No. this not being in violation of the rule against double taxation. On the other hand. and now reads: Sand and gravel tax.00 under the three ordinance mentioned heretofore is overpayment made by mistake and therefore refundable. 3. In a dated 18 March 1994. rivers. The permit to extract the materials shall be issued by the Direction of Mines or his duly authorized representative and the extraction thereof shall be governed by regulations issued by the Director of Mines.00 allegedly overpaid by it as on its wholesale and retail sales of liquor for the period from the third quarter of 1954 to the second quarter of 1957. such mistake was one of law and impose from the plaintiff neglect of duty. The province may levy and collect a tax of not exceeding seventy-five centavos per cubic meter of ordinary stones. Metro Manila. City of Manila and its Treasurer. gravel earth and other materials selected from lakes. and 3816 that even assuming that Tabacalera is not subject to the payment of the sales taxes prescribed by the said three ordinances as regards its liquor sales. What if we decide this case using the LGC of 1991? Was San Fernando forming a governmental or proprietary function in constructing roads? In either case. Specific limitations on power. streams.The main issue in this case is whether the Municipality of Luna has the authority to pass Ordinance No. there is no question that the authority impose the license fees in dispute. 231. 3634. but then was an old case. petitioners Ty and MVR Picture Tube . municipalities and Barrios) which took effect on July 1. the Municipal Assessor of Pasig sent a notice of assessment concerning certain real properties owned by Alejandro B Ty located in Pasig. the benefits of which are enjoyed and being enjoyed by the plaintiff. The municipality where the materials extracted shall share in the proceeds of the tax herein authorized at a rate of not more than thirty per cent thereof as may be determined by the Provincial Board. The city. The LGC wasn’t even used as legal basis in the decision. it is not entitled to the refund for the following reasons: 1) the said amount was paid by the plaintiff voluntarily and without protest: 2) If at all the alleged overpayment was made by mistake. and other public waters within the jurisdiction of the province. but for a surprising reason.208. f Ty v. sand. Tabacalera’s action for refund is based on the theory tat. the municipality shall not levy the following: (a) Taxes. The province may levy and collect a fee of not exceeding twenty-five centavos per cubic meter of ordinary stones. lakes. creeks and other public waters within the jurisdiction of the province. and 3816. enacting a Local Tax Code (for Provinces. A similar notice for the same reason was also sent to MVR Picture Tube. streams. NOTE: This is a lousy case. inclusive. on the other hand. “SEC 22. based on these of facts alone. properly belongs to the province concerned and not to the Municipality of Luna which is specifically prohibited under Section 22 of same Code “from levying fees and charges that the province or city is authorized to levy in this Code. 3634. Municipality of San Fernando cannot extract sand and gravel from the Municipality of Luna without the corresponding taxes or fees that may be imposed by the province of La Union. e Compania General de Tabacos v. 1973. Marcelino Sarmiento also hereinafter referred to as the city the sum of P15. considering that the sale of liquor indiscriminately may endanger public health and morals. Cities. What is collected under Ordinance No. 3301. 3358. “On the other hand. aside from the sales taxes imposed by Ordinances Nos. sand. Under the above-quoted provisions of the Local Tax Code. and 3816. It is already settled on this connection that both a license fee and a tax may be imposed on the same business or occupation for selling the same article. in connection with its liquor sales. the sales paid by the amounting ton sum of P 15. The Code provides: “SEC 10. Metro Manila. creeks. 2258 but not the municipal sales taxes imposed Ordinances Nos. Held: The answer is No. what the three ordinances mentioned herefore impose is a tax for revenue purposes based on the sales made of the same article or merchandise. fees and charges that the province or city is authorized to levy in this Code x x x” Section 10 of aforesaid decree was later amended by Presidential Decree No. Held: Tabacalera’s contentions are untenable. gravel earth and other materials extracted from public and private lands of the government or from the beds of seas. City of Manila 8 SCRA 367 Facts: Compania General Tabacos de Filipinas (Tabacalera for short) filed this action in the court of First Instance of Manila to recover from appellants. and since it already paid the license fees aforesaid. under Ordinances Nos. Trampe 250 SCRA 500 Facts: On 06 January 1994. 3634. 426 dated March 1974.

Parañaque.” The question now is. who will prepared the schedule of Fair Market Values: the guys under P. Ty and Company now contends that 1)the Court gravely erred in holding that Presidential decree No. It is obvious that harmony in these provisions is not only possible. Acting alone. or is the schedule of Values prepared by a group of assessors as mandated by P. The Schedule of Value that will serve as the basis for the appraisal and assessment for taxation purposes of real properties located within the Metropolitan Area. the real question is: Does the municipal. legal? (With all due respect to the good Justice. and the implementing rules and regulations thereof issued by the Secretary of Finance. in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Presidential Decree No.D. Ty and Company on 29 March 1994 filed with the RTC of the National Capital Judicial Region. “Preparation of Schedules of Value before any general revision of property assessments is made as provided in this Code. Shall be prepared jointly by the City Assessors of the Districts created under Section one hereof. as amended.D. 921. For purposes of effective fiscal management. The judge denied said petition. Malabon. This is based on the rationale that the will of the legislature cannot be overturned by judicial function of construction and interpretation.” The second is Section 9 of P. Marikina. Before any general revision of property assessment is made pursuant to the provisions of this Title. Pateros and Taguig Manila. there shall be prepared for the province or a schedule of Market Value for the different classes of real property therein situated in such form and detail as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of Finance. Pasig. city and the municipal assessors of the municipalities within the Metropolitan Manila Area for the different classes of real property situated in their respective local government units for enactment by ordinance of the sanggunian concerned x x x. the Real Property Tax Code which states.D. Did the former impliedly repeal the latter then? The court answered no. but in fact desirable. 921? Obviously.Inc. 921. Las Piñas.A. necessary and consistent with the legislative intent and policy.A 7160 the Court erred in not declaring the confiscatory and oppressive nature of the assessments as illegal ab initio and unconstitutional constituting a deprivation of property without due process of law and the Court erred in declaring that Ty and company failed to exhaust administrative remedies provided the law by not paying tax although under protest instead (Sec. (Ty and Company) through counsel “requested the Municipal Assessor to consider the subject assessments. “Preparation of Schedule of Fair Market Values. otherwise known as the Real Property Tax Code. are the increased real state taxes imposed by and collected by the Municipality of Pasig. Branch 163. 464.D. Mandaluyong and San Juan Caloocan City. Makati. as amended. there shall be prepared a schedule of fair market values by the provincial. Also. we have to examine certain 3 laws. which states. Quezon City. as much as possible. same P. Courts cannot take the place of Congress in repealing statutes. The third is Sec.D. To put it in words justice Panganiban. “Preparation of Schedule of Value for Real Property within the Metropolitan Area.” The second is Section 9 of P. Their function is to try to harmonize. who loves to ask a question before writing his decisions. with the City Assessor of Manila acting as Chairman. otherwise known as the Real Property Tax Code.A. 212 of the LGC. were expressly repealed by R. 921 which states. Reasons: 1) To resolve Ty and Company’s first contention. I t is a basic rule of statutory construction that repeals by implication are not favored. seeming conflicts in the laws and resolve doubts in favor of their validity and co-existence. we have 2 conflicting laws here). effective from the year 1994. “Division of Metropolitan Manila into Local Treasury and Assessment Districts.. Muntinlupa. in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Presidential Decree No. we have Section 1. LGC). An implied repeal will not be allowed unless it is convincingly and unambiguously demonstrated that the two laws are so clearly repugnant and patently inconsistent that they cannot co-exist. presided over by Judge Aurelio Trampe. and the implementing rules and regulations thereof issued by the Secretary of Finance. Caloocan City and Pasay City shall be the respective Centers of the aforesaid Treasury and Assessment Districts. The first is R. 1991 which states. including its implementing rules and regulations. Navotas and Valenzuela Pasay City.” Not satisfied. Metropolitan Manila is hereby divided into the following Local Treasury and Assessment Districts: First District Second District Third District Fourth District Manila Quezon City. have the authority to prepare the Schedule of Values real property as mandated by R. as follows: . 921 which states.D. 15 of P. provincial city assessor [as the case may be]. By reading together and harmonizing these two provisions.D. a Petition for Prohibition with prayer for a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction to declare null and void the new tax assessment and to enjoin the collection of real estate taxes based on said assessments. 464. we arrive at the following steps in the preparation of the said schedule. Held: Ty and Company’s petition is meritorious. “Preparation of Schedule of Values that will serve as the basis for the appraisal and assessment for taxation purposes of real properties located within the Metropolitan Area shall be prepared jointly by the City Assessors of the Districts created under Section one hereof. 464. with the City Assessors of Manila acting as Chairman. 7160. 252. 921 of the guys under LGC of 1991? It should be noted that the LGC did not expressly repeal P.

pursuant to an ordinance permanently or temporarily close or open any local road. (b) When necessary. pursuant to Sec. park or square within its jurisdictions. Ty and company are not merely questioning the amounts of increase in the tax. 212. R. 21. or articles of commerce may be sold and dispensed to the general public.D. Provided however. (b) No such way or place or any part thereof shall be permanently closed “without making provisions for the maintenance of public safety therein. administrative remedies must first be exhausted before resort to judicial action can prosper. projects or such other justifiable reasons as public welfare may require. they are questioning the very authority and power of the assessor. acting solely and independently. Sunday. but not limited to change in land use. Authority to Close or Open. such ordinance must be approved by at least 2/3 of all members of the sanggunian. merchandise. and when necessary. Therefore. commodities. No freedom park shall be closed permanently without provision for its transfer or relocation to a new site (c) No such way or place or any part thereof shall be permanently closed without making provisions for the maintenance of a public system therein (d) A property permanently withdrawn from public use may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to property may be lawfully used or conveyed.D. alley. * Art 44. in accordance with Sec. alley. that no national or local road. that they should evolve “a progressive revenue raising program that will not unduly burden the taxpayers. 2) Although as a rule. 7160. public rallies. (c) Any national or local road. alley. the Local Treasury and Assessment District shall meet per Sec. acting solely and increase in the tax. park or square shall be temporarily closed for athletic. establishment of infrastructure facilities. to impose the assessment and of the treasurer to collect the tax. Mandaluyong and San Juan. Marikina. taking into account the preamble of said P. 43-45. park or square shall be effected unless there exists a compelling reason or sufficient justification therefore such as. temporarily close and regulate the use of an any local street road thoroughfare or any other public place where shopping malls. (d) Any city. Permanent Closure.D. IRR) * Sec. an adequate substitute for the public facility that is subject to closure shall be provided. by harmonizing the conflicting provisions of P. telecommunications and waterworks projects. (e) (The ordinance authorizing permanent closure must be approved by at least 2/3 of all members of the Sanggunian. Public hearings shall first be conducted before any ordinance . agricultural or industrial fairs. an adequate substitute for the public facility that is subject to closure provided. that in the case of permanent closure. they are questioning the very authority and power of the assessor. 3) Finally the court will not pass upon the constitutionality of the law if the controversy can be settled on other grounds.A. municipality or barangay may by a duly enacted ordinance. through an ordinance permanently or temporarily close or open any road. Art. 21. In this meeting. (a) No permanent closure of any local road. like in this case. 252 (Payment under protest). street. D) Power to Open and Close Roads (Sec. there is a well-settled exception in cases where the controversy does not involve question of fact but of la. that district shall be composed of the assessors in Quezon City. Closure and Opening of Roads (a) An LGU may. cultural or civic activities not officially sponsored. foodstuffs. Provided however. 9 P.D. 1 of said P. or fiesta celebrations. park or square may be temporarily closed during an actual emergency. park or square falling within its jurisdiction: provided however.” c) The schedule jointly agreed upon by the assessors shall they be published in a newspaper of general circulation and submitted to the sanggunian concerned for enactment by ordinance.a) The assessors in each municipality or city in the Metropolitan Manila area shall prepare his/her proposed schedule of values. LGC. there is no reason for Ty and company to exhaust the administrative remedies provided for in the LGC. 212 R. An LGU may. A property thus permanently withdrawn from public use may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the LGU concerned may be lawfully used or conveyed . alley. the different assessors shall compare their individual assessments. 921 and the LGC. or an undertaking of public works and highways. 921. In the instant case. Pasig . That no freedom park shall be closed permanently without provision for its transfer or relocation to a new site. recognized or approved by the LGU concerned. the duration of which shall be specified by the local chief executive concerned in a written order. flea or night markets or shopping areas may be established and where goods. namely Sec 226 (appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals) and Sec. b) Then. 7160. discuss and thereafter jointly agree and produce a schedule of values for their districts. alley.A. per Sec. * Art 43.

or articles of commerce may be sold and dispensed to the general public (5) No national or local road. d. cultural. municipal.-width portion of Lapu-lapu street into an alley (lousy resolution…). 132-61. foodstuff. commodities. and (4) it has caused perpetual danger. Any national of local road. Antonio Favis bought a parcel of land from the Assumption Convent. 3. park or square is enacted. Favis protested the lease because it reduced the width of Lapu-lapu Street. thoroughfare. Lapu-lapu street is connected at one end to two lots: a) Lot 2-E-3-B-3-B-1. Lot 2-E-3-B-3-B-1 – this lot is owned by Assumption and is located southwest of Favis’ land. or public place where shopping malls. or barangay hall of LGU and within the vicinity of the street or park proposed to be closed. but at its connecting point with Lot 2-E-3-B-3-B-1. On April 30. for a period as may be determined necessary for the safety. The objection is only of forms. Temporary Closure. . (3) it made the area around it very dangerous in case of fire. or undertakings of pubic works and high ways. (2) it became impossible for his big trucks and trailers to turn around. or shopping areas may be established and where goods. Unsatisfied with the City’s response. or square may be temporarily closed during actual emergency or fiesta celebrations. agricultural or industrial fairs. The City approved the renewal of the lease thru Resolution No. City of Baguio 27 SCRA 1060 Facts: This case took place in Baguio City. alley. Generally. public rallies. Favis Commenced suit to annul the lease contract for the reasons mentioned above and also because of the following: 1) the power to close streets should be effected thru an ordinance and not thru a resolution. it’s only 2.1 Favis v. Reasons: 1) The embattled resolutions are just as good as ordinances.authorizing permanent closure of any local roads. The shell Oil Company leased this lot in 1947 for its use as a service station. alley. converting the remaining 5 m. reducing the latter’s width to only 5 meters. road. This land is surrounded by the following areas (go get a pen and paper and draw a map of this land to better understand this case): 1. alley. Lapu-lapu Street – this street is a portion of the Baguio Market Subdivision. * Art. Lapu-lapu Street is 8 m. security. and 3) the city council of Baguio and municipal bodies in general. have no inherent right to vacate or withdraw a street from public use. Sunday market.5 m. merchandise. not of substance. annoyance. Inc. Held: Favis contentions are unmeritorious. Notices of such hearings and copies of the proposed ordinance shall be posted for a minimum of 3 consecutive weeks in conspicuous places in the provincial capitol. in width. or square shall be temporarily closed for athletic. this lot was donated to the City because it was the site for a proposed road. 2. health or welfare of the public or when such closure is necessary to facilitate completion of the projects or activities (4) An LGU may temporarily close and regulate the use of any local street. or in the city. 2) the City failed to give notice to owners of contiguous properties whose rights might be affected. Factors to consider in vacating a street a) Topography of the property surrounding the street in the light of ingress and egress to other streets b) Relationship of the street in the road system throughout the subdivision c) Problem posed by the ‘dead end’ of the street d) Width of the street e) Cost of rebuilding and maintaining the street as contrasted to its ultimate value to all of the property in the vicinity f) Inconvenience of those visiting the subdivision g) Whether the closing of the street would cut off any property owners from access to a street. for a period as may be determined to be necessary and reasonable (3) When public works projects or activities are being undertaken. the duration of which shall be specified by the local chief executive concerned in a written order as follows: (1) During fiestas for a period not exceeding 9 days (2) During agricultural or industrial fairs or expositions. Lot 25 – this lot is located in the northern portion of Baguio Market Subdivision and is right beside Fernandez’s lot. 10 years later. flea or night market. telecommunications and waterworks projects. or civic activities not officially sponsored. park. recognized or approved by the LGU. a public street. in width. a big tract of land registered in the name of the City. 45. 1957. the City approved Resolution 215-61. This donated road is Favis’ only means of ingress and egress to Lapu-lapu Street. and b) a lot owned by Olmina Fernandez. irreparable loss and damage not only to the public in general but especially to Favis himself. thus there must be a specific grant by the legislative body to the city or municipality concerned. Shell leased Lot 25 again and a portion of Lapu-lapu Street as well. In response. park. either in whole or in part. thus (1) his entrance and exit to and from his property has become very difficult.

1969. Other illustrative cases: d. Francisco Dacanay. 4. 4) Favis’ private rights were not invaded. if he still has reasonable access to the general system of streets. that it is for the closure of a public road and not for a contract of barter or exchange. Lapu-lapu street does not abut his parcel of land. Mayor Asistio did not carry out the order of the RTC. 3) While Favis is correct that municipal bodies have no inherent right to close a public street. when no longer intended for public use or for public service. 2. On Dec. 2246 of the revised Administration Code. still the City Charter does authorize Baguio City to close public roads in its discretion absent a plain case of abuse. A new road was built which traversed the land of Remedios Bagadiong and several others similarly affected.Dacanay v. who had advocated the demolition of the said stalls. . is the pertinent law from which Resolution 158 derives its authority.2) Notice is not needed because the City Charter requires notice only when the ordinance in question also calls for an assessment regarding a project to be implemented. thru the City Engineer. for the plain and simple reason that public roads cannot be the object of leases and thus cannot be bargain away thru contracts. It stands to reason then.” Note: The power to open or close roads is expressly provided for in Art. Bruno Cabrera. That the 2 meter middle road to be used for flea market/vending area shall be marked distinctly. and not merely in degree. in black and white ink. and that the 2 meters on both sides of the road shall be used by pedestrians.1. 19. series of 1990. control over public roads lies with Congress. d. shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State. But to warrant recovery in any such case the property owner must show that the situation is such that he has sustained special damages differing in from those sustained by kind. Cabrera insists. 1990. has been replaced by Mayor Asistio. d. Reasons: 1) Resolution 158 states. Diokno 212 SCRA 464 Facts: On June 13. Bagadiong and friends were given portions of the old road as compensation for the properties they lost as a result of the construction of the new road. did not like the idea of the old road being gone. Moreover. 412 of the Civil Code. the public generally. 2) The barter or exchange is legal ‘coz it’s in accordance with Sec. 2. even though his property does not abut on the closed section. the Provincial Board of Catanduanes passed Resolution 158 authorizing the closure of the old road leading to the Capitol City of Catanduanes. 20. One man. 3. such as barter or exchange. which states: “Property of public dominion. Faithfulness in public trust is presumed. IRR of the LGC. 1990. That the afore-named streets are not used for vehicular traffic. the RTC of Caloocan City ruled that the streets were of public dominion and ordered the demolition of said stalls. The circumstances in some cases may be such as to give a right to damages to a property owner. Cabrera v. That the use of the vending areas shall be temporary and shall be closed once the reclaimed areas are developed and donated by the Public Estate Authority. which allowed certain city and municipal public streets and roads to be sites for many vendors applied for licenses to conduct such activities in said streets. not necessary. to remove the said stalls. Paranaque for the establishment there of a flea market. Will the petition prosper? Held: Yes. The general rule is that one whose property does not abut on the closed section of a street has no right to compensation for the closing or vacation of the street. In this case. That the time during which the vending area is to be used shall be clearly designated. which authorized the closure of 5 streets located at Baclaran. Asistio 208 SCRA 404 Facts: Way back in January 5. 90. the municipality of Paranaque passed Ordinance no. not with the Provincial Board.2. and that the majority of the residents do not oppose the establishment of the flea market/vending areas thereon. On July 20.3. CA 195 SCRA 314 Facts: On Sept. the Metropolitan Manila Authority approved the said ordinance but subject to the following conditions: 1. But Mayor Martinez. RA 5185 Sec 11 (a) (An Ant Granting Further Local Autonomy to Local Governments). Public roads should serve the purpose for which they were built: for public use as arteries of travel for vehicles and pedestrians. or fraud or collision. Public interest is served thru 1) savings from cost of road maintenance. Annulment of Resolutions and Documents with Damages” alleging that the old road in question was a public road owned by the Province of Catanduanes in its governmental capacity and was thus beyond the commerce of man. Macasiano v. and 2) gaining by the City of some income thru leasing. no assessment was called for and was in fact. 43. He filed a complaint for “Restoration of Public Road and/or Abatement of Nuisance. 1987. 1979. 1991. a concerned citizen and a resident along Heroes del ’96 street. for humanitarian reasons. filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Mayor. in relation to Sec. the Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC) enacted MMC Ordinance 7902. that said road cannot be the subject of private contracts. Held: Cabrera is wrong.

90which authorized the lease and use of public thoroughfares as site for flea markets is not valid because it is on legal basis. Metro Manila has always been plagued by traffic. Subsequently. Zodiac. park or square. a service cooperative. on Sept. 2) Following the argument of the # 1 above. the gates owned by BAVA at Jupiter and Orbit were ordered demolished. under certain reasonable conditions and restrictions. 4) BAVA cannot hide behind the non-impairment clause on the ground that is constitutionally guaranteed. Also. Distance of Rizal on the condition. Levy Macasiano. The reason is that it is not absolute. that its major thoroughfares connecting to public streets and highways shall be opened to public traffic. Borces Street. safety or security. particularly in the areas along the public streets adjacent to Bel-Air Village. otherwise the market stalls would be dismantled. of which summary abatement. through its head acting pursuant to resolution of its sanggunian and in accordance with existing law and the provisions of this Code. Jupiter. the property becomes patrimonial property of the LGU concerned and may thus be subject to ordinary contracts. Cebu City (10 years from now. A local Government unit may likewise. the owner thereof shall not be entitled to compensation. These conditions were evidenced by a deed of donation executed between Ayala and Bel-Air. states any barangay.” In this case. the demolition of the gates is justified under Art. Ayala Corporation donated Jupiter and Orbit Streets to Bel-Air on the condition that. The studies revealed that the subdivision plan of Bel-Air was approved by the Court of First. Its states that: “Closure of roads. A property thus withdrawn form public use may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the local unit concerned might be lawfully used or conveyed. Was he correct? Held: Yes. city or provincial road.” Note the italicized phrase “and in accordance with existing law and the provisions of this Code. Art. This is all assuming if the public are still open to vehicular traffic and are thus still devoted to public use. Orbit and Pasco de Roxas streets. Reasons: 1) The Municipality of Paranaque did not follow Sec. The Court is of the opinion that the Mayor did not act unreasonably nor was the opening of the gates unjustified. 424 of the Civil Code is relevant. 3) Bel-Air Village Association’s (BAVA) articles of incorporation recognized Jupiter Street as a mere boundary to the southwest – thus it cannot be said to be for the exclusive benefit of Bel-Air residents. Mayor Nemesio Yabut of Makati ordered that studies be made on ways on how to alleviate the traffic problem. the council passed another resolution authorizing the Acting City Mayor to sell the street . on the other hand. ”The power to close roads by LGUs is still subject to existing law.4. entered the picture. during that time.Cebu Oxygen v. BAVA has the burden of showing that the seizure of the gates is unjustified because police power can be exercised without provision for just compensation. He wrote Palanyag a letter demanding the latter to discontinue the flea market. since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police power. 1968. IAC 176 SCRA 719 Facts: As far back in 1977. d. 2) The opening of the streets was justified by public necessity and the exercise of the police power. Macasiano’s beef was that Ordinance No. it was deemed necessary by the Municipality of Makati in the interest of the general public to open to traffic Amapola. Mabolo. Neptune. Mayor Yabut justified the opening of the streets on the following grounds: 1) Some time ago. Makati. the general public shall always be open to the general public. The legality of Ordinance 90. as decreed under Art. may be carried out by the Mayor. In fact. street. Chapter 11. 701 of the Civil Code. among others.5. In this light. Mercedes. cannot be sustained. No such way or any part of thereof shall be close without indemnifying any person prejudiced thereby. Who is correct: the Mayor or BAVA? Held: The Mayor is correct. 436 of the Civil Code. under the circumstances. Accordingly. d. Brg. it goes to show that Paranaque did not follow condition as imposed by the MMA for Ordinance 90 tie be valid. would this name really matter?).Palanyag Kilusang Bayan for Service. Gen. BAVA. municipal. the gates could even be considered public nuisances. for the reasons mentioned above. As a result. alley. It essentially says that if public property is withdrawn from public use. PNP Superintendent of the Metropolitan Traffic Command. then entered into a contract with Paranaque for the construction and operation of market stalls in the said streets. to the letter. Some months later. president of BAVA. BAVA claims the demolition of the gates abovementioned was a deprivation of property without process of law or expropriation without just compensation. 23. For this reason. Sangalang v. unless he can show that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified. the City Council of Cebu passed a resolution declaring the abovementioned street to be abandoned. “When any property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of health. Bercilles 66 SCRA 481 Facts: The subject of the dispute is a portion of M. never agreed to the opening of the said streets 2) BAVA has always kept the streets voluntarily open anyway Moreover. contended: 1) Rufino Santos. 10. One day. LGC 1983.

To exercise such other powers as are granted to corporations. Now this land owned by the Colomidas has for its ingress and egress to the National Road a camino vecinal (barrio road). Provided further.Pilapil v. 22. Liloan. 4. modify. Would the SC uphold the CA ruling? Held: No. The engineer said that while that zoning map of Poblacion. or change their existing corporate seals. d. on the other hand. Poblacion. notes. municipal or barangay hall. closure or establishment of the camino vecinal is the sole prerogative of the Municipality of Liloan under the LGU of 1983. IRR. In its infinite wisdom. 22. the SC said that it didn’t matter what opinion the Colomidas or the engineer gave regarding the existence of the camino vecinal. shall have the following powers: 1. To have and use a corporate seal. However. 46. Inc. *Article 46. subject to the limitations provided in this Code and other applicable laws. that newly established LGUs or those without corporate seals may create their own corporate seals which shall be registered with the DILG. no contract may be entered into by the local chief executive in behalf of the LGU without prior authorization by the sanggunian concerned. Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of Liloan. E) Corporate Powers (Sec. IRR) * Sec. LGC. should be undisturbed. which was the root of all their problems. The CA upheld that trial court. Art. A) Every LGU. 2. relied on old-timers as witnesses – witnesses such as Florentino Pepito. LGUs may close roads or streets under the authority of the LGU of 1991. Liloan made reference to a camino vecinal. who attested to the existence of the Camino vecinal and its availability to the general public since practically time immemorial. A legible copy of such contrast shall be posted at a conspicuous place in the province capitol or the city. LGC. CA 216 SCRA 33 Facts: This case spanned for a period of 6 years only to reach an unexpected. LGC.(which was actually a parcel of land) thru a public bidding. *Municipality Liability A. on the other hand. The question now is whether the City of Cebu is empowered to close a city road or street. The Pilapil denied the existence of the camino vecinal. the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Cebu filed a motion to dismiss the application on the ground that it is a public road intended for public use and thus was outside the commerce of man. claims against municipalities include all obligations upon all municipal contracts and upon all outstanding bonds. presented himself as witness (which was lousy) as well as Engineer Epifanio Jordan.6. both governmental and proprietary. this camino vecinal transverses the property of the Pilapil. General Rule Municipal liabilities arise from various sources in the conduct of municipal affairs. as a corporate. said reference was but a mere proposal of its existence to the Sangguniang Bayan of Liloan. Cebu. the husband. then bought the said parcel of land. charter of no charter). for the simple reason that the City Charter of Cebu authorizes the same (Note that today. can’t you see? And it’s beyond dispute that the abandonment. However. The trial court ruled in favor of the Colomidas because the zoning map used as evidence by the Pilapil did not specifically indicate that the amino vecinal was indeed merely “proposed” since other roads and streets were classified as such. basically because it said that findings of facts by the trial court. The Colomidas. Spouses Colomida. To have continuous succession in its corporate name. bought a parcel of land located also in Bahak. b) LGUs may continue using. that may change of corporate seal shall also be registered as provided herein. these claims are demands for payments for . 22. What really mattered is the zoning plan (the Urban Land Use Plan) as finally approved by the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Liloan. The SC rebuked the parties for not having resorted to a pre-trial conference which would have prevented the dragging of a trivial case for six years. To enter into contracts. Strictly. tragic conclusion for the spouses Colomida. Broadly. The zoning plan showed that the camino vecinal was declared closed. To sue and be sued. CLOSED! It’s so crystal clear. subject to the limitations provided in this Code and other laws. 3. Note: It’s exactly the same as Sec. To acquire and convey real or personal property 5. Spouses Pilapil own a parcel of land in Bahak. and warrants issued by them. Corporate Powers. c) Unless otherwise provided in this Code. Socrates Pilapil. as a general rule. however. and 6. when Cebu Oxygen tried to have its land registered. Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. Held: Yes. d) LGUs shall enjoy full local autonomy to the exercise of their proprietary functions and in the management of their economic enterprises. Provided.

New Civil Code – “Provinces. on the other hand. in a letter to Finance Secretary Cesar Virata. Ana public market. 1958. is a national road not under the control and supervision of Dagupan. City of Manila v. A customer in a store has every right to presume that the owner will comply with his duty to keep his premises safe for customers. Sec. Burgos were. Burgos Avenue. The Sta. It is submitted that it is actually the Ministry . NOTE: It is not necessary for the LGU to have ownership over the public work in question. 30(g) of the Local Tax Code says that public markets shall be under the immediate supervision. B. bridges. Moreover. public buildings. 4 of the City Charter (RA 409) should prevail over Art. Teotico filed an action for damages (actual and moral damages) against the City of Manila. The negligence of the City of Manila is the proximate cause of the injury suffered. The City denied liability contending that Sec. Ana Market at that time was under the administration of the AIC by virtue of a management and Operating Contract it had with the City of Manila. city or municipality has either control or supervision over said street or road. 2189 is decisive. causing her right leg to be fractured.. at about 8 p. the upper left thigh… oh my goodness. She was hospitalized and also as a result. 2189 governs liability due to defective streets in particular. Is the City of Manila indeed not liable? Held: The City of Manila is liable. since the injury took place in a public building. 3) Jimenez could not be held for negligence. Teotico was hospitalized and the anti-tetanus injections administered to him caused allergic eruptions which required further medical treatment. a court interpreter. mere control and supervision is sufficient. Genaro Teotico was at the corner of the Old Luneta and P. or demands asserting the tort liability of the municipality. where the deadly manhole was located. streets. waiting for a jeepney to take him downtown. Ulep’s tone of voice). and other public works their control and supervision. 2189 of the Civil Code because the former is a special law intended exclusively for the City of Manila. Reasons: 1) Again. Mayor Raymond Bagatsing admitted this fact of supervision and control. was proven to have been negligent in not providing a cover for the said opening. conclusion on his left thigh. After 5 minutes. suffered loss of income and moral damages. e. Jimenez.articles. went to that market to buy bagoong despite the rains. whereas the Civil Code is a general law applicable to the entire Philippines. 2189 requires that the LGU must retain supervision and control over the public work in question for it to be held liable. City of Manila 150 SCRA 510 Facts: Bernardino Jimenez was the unlucky said who fell in an uncovered opening o the ground located within the premises of the Sta. therefore. Guilatco v. Since the presentation action is based upon the detective condition of a road. every injury imaginable! (Use Atty.2.1. furnished or services rendered to a municipality in the conduct of its affairs. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of or injuries suffered by any person by reason of the defective conditions of roads. At that time. As provided by law a) Article 2189. Under Art. Jimenez sued the Asiatic Integrated Corporation (AIC) and the City of Manila for his misfortune. Held: Sec. for his part. and took a few steps he fell inside an uncovered and unlighted manhole on P. What said Article requires is that the province. The owner of the market. under RA 409. Also. SCRA 267 Facts: On Jan. the market was flooded with ankle-deep rainwater which prevented the opening form being seen. The City of Manila is therefore liable to Teotico for damages. Burgos Avenue. Guilatco sued the City of Dagupan. The City replied that Perez Boulevard. Jimenez v. As he stepped down from the curb to board the jeepney. was about to board a tricycle at a sidewalk located at Perez Boulevard when she accidentally fell into a manhole located in said side walk. said Art. Manila. Teotico 22. Even if P. e. a national highway.3. Ana Market. 27. 2189 comes into play. this circumstance would not necessarily detract from its “control of supervision” by the City of Manila. Teotico sustained a lacerated wound in his left eyelid. The evidence showed that the Management and Operating Contract explicitly stated that the City of Manila retained supervision and control over the Sta.m. He sustained an injury due to a rusty 4-inch nail which pierced his left leg. it is not necessary for the liability therein established to attach that the defective roads or streets belong to the province. city or municipality from which responsibility is exacted. Art. Art. The trial court held the AIC responsible but absolved the City of Manila. he managed to hail a jeepney that came along to a stop. 2) Also. 2189. administration and control of the City Treasurer.” Cases: e. City of Dagupan 171 SCRA 382 Facts: Florentina Guilatco. Exceptions 1. 4 of RA 409 refers to liability arising from negligence in general regardless of the object thereof whereas Art.

the spouses Elizalde were driving a jeep thru Telomes Bridge when suddenly. therefore. the liability of the city to the petitioner under article 2198 of the City Code is clear. the court gave this arguments: “Alfredo G. 2189. as Ex-Officio City Engineer of the Bureau of Public Works. Civil Code “The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable was only for one’s own acts or omission. 1) The allegations in the complaint clearly state that he was being sued in his official capacity as City Engineer. e. Is the City of Dagupan liable? Held: Yes. public buildings. 2) There was no showing that there was bad faith or malice which would warrant Dumlao personally liable in connection with the discharge of his duties. P100. then we must trust the wisdom of the omniscience SC). in case of his death or incapacity.4. Dumlao was sued in his personal capacity. they are detailed with the City of Dagupan and hence receive instruction and supervision from the city through the City Engineer.of Public Highways that has control and supervision thru the Highway Engineer. they came upon a huge hole about 1 meter in diameter and 8 feet deep at the south end of the bridge. and other public works pertaining to the City Engineer is coursed through Maintenance Foeman and a Maintenance Engineer. b) Article 2180. Although these last two officials are employees of the National Government. Specifically. The heirs of the Elizaldes included in defendants in its complaint the City of Davao and Samuel Dumlao. so long as they remain in their custody. about 11:30 p. Is he correct? Held: Yes. Reasons: 1) We again apply Art. “The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. The questions now are: 1) May the province be held liable? 2) Does the doctrine of respondent superior apply? Held: The answers to both questions are given below (obviously): . the mother. P200. “The father and. Palafox v. 28.00 from the Bureau of Public Works and P500. “The State is responsible in like manner when it acts thru a special agent but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. thus the Ministry of Public Highways should be held liable. City Engineer).m. respectively. CA 114 SCRA 247 Facts: These events took place in Dagupan City. and.. 3) The best that could be imputed to him is an act of culpable neglect. last but not the least. 2) The City of Dagupan argued that the supervision and control over Perez Boulevard belongs more to his function as ex-officio Highway Engineer. “The responsibility treated of in this article cease when the persons herein mentioned proved that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages. receives the following monthly compensation: P1. The Elizaldes died as a result of the incident. Dumlao argued that he cannot be held liable is his personal capacity.66 from Dagupan City. “Lastly.00 by virtue of P>D 1096. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. the City Engineer. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. e.810. inefficiency and gross negligence in the performance of his official duties. as Ex-Officio Highway Engineer.5. I can’t understand it. “Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. no doubt that the City Engineer exercises control or supervision over the public works in question. Province of Ilocos Norte 102 Phil. teachers or head of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. There is . Why? Read on. The Elizaldes managed to avoid the boulders but instead slammed into a truck owned by Hermanos de Yap and driven by Dulcesimo Ducoy.00 from the Ministry of Public Highways. is also the City Engineer of Dagupan (malas naman namin. The truck came from the opposite direction on the wrong lane. in his official capacity as City Engineer of Dagupan. The accident occurred while the chauffer was working at the highway construction. Tangco. does the City of Dagupan have control and supervision over Perez Boulevard in order for it to be held liable? The answer is yes. On Feb. Hence. as Building Official for Dagupan City. But the bigger question is . However. This function of supervision over streets. who by mere coincidence. 1964.” (Duh? What kind of explanation is that? Personally. Dumlao v. 1186 Facts: Palafox filed a suit to recover damages from the provincial government for the death of his son caused by the negligence of a regular chauffer of the provincial government. but if the SC says the City of Dagupan is liable. in which caused what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.

4) Finally. one of which was for a zarzuela program. The reason for the exemption is the government does not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or agents whom it employs. This principle applies both to the national and municipal governments. driven by Alfredo Bislig. Express consent may be embodied in a general law or a special law. difficulties and losses subversive of the public interest. as the construction and maintenance of roads. that is to say. . applies only where the government is engaged in proprietary or business functions. It is an elementary principle that a corporation has a personality. a regular employee of said municipality. Can they be held liable? Held: The Municipality of Malasiqui is liable and the individual members of the Municipal Council are not liable. Municipality of San Fernando. 2) The doctrine of respondeat superior or corporate liability for the negligence or tort of its officers. 3083. The family and heirs of Fontanilla filed a complaint against the Municipality of Malasiqui. Liability for torts if engaged in proprietary function Cases: 1. the latter must be not upon whom properly devolved the duty of driving the truck on that occasion. When engaged in government functions. 2. along with several other passengers in a jeepney they were riding in. The municipality invokes non-suability of the State. La Union. Torio v. the municipal council is not responsible. The heirs included in its complaint the municipality and the dump trucks driver. he must be a participant in the wrongful act. According to 2282 of the revised Administrative Code. The resolution created on Executive Committee which would oversee the operations of the town fiesta. With respect to proprietary functions. Consent is implied when the government enters into business contracts. who has at the rear of the stage. as opposed to the maintenance of public schools and jails. a privately owned graved and sand trucks and a dump truck owned by the Municipality of San Fernando. Is it correct? Held: Yes.) 3) Under the doctrine of respondent superior (see first paragraph of Art. The standing consent of the State to be sued in case of money claims involving liability arising from contracts is found in Act No. which is a private undertaking. which are for the public service. since that would involve in all its operations endless embarrassments. Fontanilla 85S CRA 599 Facts: The Municipal Council of Malasiqui.. The evidence proved that the committee overseeing the construction of the stage failed to build a strong enough to insure the safety of zarzuela participants. The Executive Committee in turn had a sub-committee in charge of building 2 stages. The same analogy can be applied to the maintenance of parks. separate and distinct from its officers. 2. La Union v. Thus. 1959. Fontanilla. the municipality can be held liable for the death of Fontanilla if a) the municipality was performing a proprietary function at that time and b) negligence can be attributed to the municipality’s officers. municipalities are authorized to hold fiesta. To make an officer of a corporation liable for the negligence of the corporation there must have been upon his part such a breach of duty as contributed to or helped to bring about. A special law may be passed to enable a person to sue the government for an alleged quasi – delict. 2180). died after collision involving said jeepney. While the zarzuela was going on the stage where the play was set collapsed. employees or agents performing the proprietary function. The Municipality stands on the same footing as an ordinary private corporation with the municipal council acting as its board of directors. The province is liable. the fiesta is proprietary in nature. was pinned underneath and died the following day. the doctrine does not apply. but it is not their duty to conduct such. and also when the State files a complaint thus opening itself to a counterclaim. Consent takes the form of express of implied consent. directors. (The key word then is duty. Reasons: 1) The basic rule to be first followed is that a municipal corporation cannot be held liable for an injury caused in the course of performance of a governmental function. 1) The general rule is that the State may not be sued except when it gives consent to be sued.1) To attach liability to the State for the negligence of its officer or employee. Firing 195 SCRA 692 Facts: Laurence Banino. the settled rule is that a municipal corporation can be held liable upon contracts and in torts. 2) The next question to be answered is that whether the fiesta above-quota was performed by the municipality in the exercise of its governmental or proprietary function. or persons composing it and the latter are not as a rule co-responsible in an action for damages for tort or negligence culpa aquillana committed by the corporation’s employees of agents unless there is a showing of bad faith or gross or wanton negligence on their part. thereby descending to the level of the other contracting party. Pangasinan passed a resolution celebrating a town fiesta for 3 days on January. Vicente Fontanilla was one of the actors of the zarzuela. the Municipal Council and the individual members of the Municipal Council. Sr. the injury. Fontanilla was entitled to ensure that he would be exposed to danger on that occasion.

The period of the lease is from June 6. are agencies of the State when they are engaged in governmental functions and therefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit. the claimant cannot recover. city and municipal governments harmless from all claims. 5. Section 13 states: “Warranty in Favor of the National and Local Government. 1978. the regularity of the performance of official duty is presumed pursuant to Section 3 (m) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court. 7678. Read RA 7678 – DIGITEL Franchise The title states: Republic Act no. * Section 24. according to her. provincial. Will the suit prosper? . 4. caused by the installation and operation of the telecommunications systems of the grantee. operates and maintains telecommunications systems throughout the Philippines and for other purposes. The circumstance that a State is suable does not necessarily mean that it is liable. demands or actions arising out of accidents or injuries. of claiming the wrong set of bones was high. provided that the municipal corporations are authorized to enter into said contracts by their charter. it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove. 4. City of Manila v. It has already been remarked that municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue and be sued. if it can. 1971. We rule that the driver of the dump truck was performing duties or tasks pertaining to his office. The risk. the State merely gives the claimant the right to show that the defendant is not acting in its governmental capacity when the injury was committed or that the case comes under exceptions recognized by law. 2001. Adding to their dismay was that the remains of her husband was callously dumped in a warehouse of a cemetery were thousands of other sacks of bones were kept. which provided for a uniform procedure and guidelines in the processing of documents pertaining to and for the use and disposition of burial lots and plots within the North Cemetery. When the state does waive its sovereign immunity.” 3. that the defendant is liable. Hence. the driver of the dump truck of the municipality insists that “he was on his way to Naguilian River to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of San Fernando’s municipal streets. A distinction should first be made between suability and liability. like provinces and cities. “Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued. Irene’s husband died and was buried in said lot on June 6. 1975. In permitting such entities to be sued.Municipal corporations for example. 1971 to June 6. LGC. 3. according to their interpretation in good faith of AO No. the test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driver. Fontanilla. 1994: An Act granting the Digital Telecommunications Philippines. Irene and her family were shocked. they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that they were acting in a propriety capacity. it can never be held allowing itself to be sued. Domingo. As emphasized in the case of Torio vs. In the case at bar. ordered the lot exhumed on January 25. liability on the applicable law and the established facts. The authorities of the North cemetery however. they are subject to suit even in the performance of such functions because their charter provided that they can sue and be sued. 2. Irene filed a claim for damages against the city.” * Liability for Contract Municipal corporations are liable on contracts entered into in their behalf by their authorized agents acting within the scope of their authority. Failing this. Incorporated. Nevertheless. acting in behalf of the municipality is performing governmental of propriety functions. Liability for damages LGU’s and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury or damage to property. Naturally. About the issue of whether or not the municipality is liable for the torts committed by its employee. Nevertheless. JAC 179 SCRA 423 Facts: The City of Manila leased a lot of the North Cemetery to Irene Sto. whether to property or to persons.” In the absence of any evidence to the contrary. a franchise to install. the distinction of powers becomes important for purposes of determining the liability of the municipality for the acts of its agents which result in an injury to third persons. etc. February 17. The grantee shall hold the national. on the other hand. accounts.

To make the long story short. Barangay Caloocan. However. Inciong. Inciong v. * Doctrine of Implied Municipal Liability (Contra personal liability) To hold a municipal corporation for benefits received under an implied contract: a. 1904. So the Provincial Treasurer of Batangas scheduled for the sale of the sugar refinery thru a public auction. public waters. the City of Manila may acquire property in its public or governmental capacity. Atty. 3. the useless facts. PHILSUCOM. promenades. and private or propriety capacity. the City is liable for the negligent acts of its agents in failing to verify the duration of the lease above. obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between them. all other property is patrimonial without prejudice to the provisions of special laws. municipal streets. thru Atty. the hiring was not approved by the Solicitor General and concurred in by COA. In the meantime. Hence. Inciong eked out a compromise agreement for both warring parties so everybody went home happy except for Atty. dated April 2. there is therefore no doubt that the North Cemetery is within the class of property which the City of Manila owns in its propriety of private character. however. In the absence of special law. Is that correct? Held: Our companero must be paid. In connection with its powers as a municipal corporation. and public works for public service paid for by said provisions. 377.Held: Yes. PHILSUCOM failed to pay the real state taxes due on said sugar refinery. Balayan.quoted. a breach of contractual provision entitles the other party to damages even of no penalty for such breach is prescribed in the contract.5 is unavailing because said AO covers only new leases. In other words. Domingo. With its acts of dominion. Reasons: 1. Domingo 211 SCRA 139 Facts: This case basically concerns the implied liability of a municipal corporation in paying the fees of an attorney it hired. b. fountains.P. It is necessary to show that the implied contract be within the contractual powers of the corporation and that the officers who entered into contract were fully authorized. It seemed that the request of the Barangay Captain of Caloocan for petitioner’s legal assistance was not taken up nor approved by the Sangguniang Barangay nor was there any showing that it was approved by the Solicitor General and concurred in by COA as required under COA Circular No. . Furthermore. But first. was granted a restraining order maintaining the status quo. By virtue if this and the doctrine of respondent superior. the North Cemetery is a patrimonial property of the City of Manila. nor was there any appropriation therefore. The agents’ reliance in AO No. there is no dispute that the burial was leased in favor of the Sto. The Philippines Sugar Commission (PHILSUCOM) owned a sugar refinery at Barangay Caloocan. We don’t want to see a kindred spirit get unpaid or else we lawyers will have to go on strike. which was created by resolution of the Municipal Board of August 27. Also it seemed that the hiring of petitioner by the Punong Barangay did not carry with it the approval of the Sangguniang Barangay as required under Section 91 (1-1) of the B. Ceferino Inciong. 86 – 255. 1986. city streets. 2. cities or municipalities. Barangay Caloocan doesn’t want to pay Atty. It should also be noted that the Charter of Manila states that it may sue and be sued. Therefore. the squares. intervened in the case as it had 10% property tax share to be collected form PHILSUCOM. The NCC divides such properties into property for public use as provincial roads. It must be further shown that the benefits were voluntarily accepted under such circumstances as will indicate that payment was intended by the parties or that justice and equity would require the payment of compensation. reasons: 1. Batangas. 1. 1903 and January 7. Inciong.

The province of Cebu City however refused to give him even one centavo. Garcia entitled to? Held: The province must pay Atty. 3. 1989 of the Regional Trial Court.75 pesos. the rightful share of Barangay Caloocan should be 359. To deny Atty. When Governor Espina finally heard of the donation. c. this exception is implied. taking advantage of Governor Rene Espina’s absence (he was away on an official business trip [ows?]} donated 210 lots or 380 hectares of provincial patrimonial land to Cebu City. but for some reason. Garcia and 2? If so how much is Atty. As correctly stated by the Office of the Solicitor General. this case concerns the implied liability of a municipal corporation in paying the fees of an attorney hired – but the attorney ended up with only a pittance. Should the province pay Atty. Garcia but he is entitled only to quantum merit. Reasons: 1. The employment by Barangay Caloocan of petitioner as its counsel. considering that the amount was based on the peso . no matter how strict or harsh. The Trial court awarded attorney’s fees based on quantum merit. The respondent COA Chairman states that PHILSUCOM paid the amount of 7.944. Out of this amount. This simply means that every rule. Nevertheless. Pablo Garcia. The argument that the hiring of private lawyers by a province must first gain the approval of the Provincial Board is absurd. Atty. 5447. he was no longer counsel when the parties settled for a compromise agreement.dollar rates of 1979).944. First of all. as his counsel. The decision of the RTC directing Barangay Caloocan to pay attorney’s fees to petitioner has become final and executory and is binding upon Barangay Caloocan.38 pesos should be made the basis therefore. must have an exception. (Where anything is granted generally. b. 5447. 3 of the Local Autonomy Law is clear that only the provincial fiscal and municipal attorney can represent a province or municipality in its lawsuits. “WHEREFORE. This allocation is erroneous because pursuant to Republic Act No. is binding on Barangay Caloocan as it took no prompt measure to repudiate petitioner’s employment.38 pesos only. the service of the Provincial Fiscal has already been engaged 2. 1683 of the RAC and Sec. the Municipal Treasurer allocated to Barangay Caloocan as its share the amount of 719. They said Sec. Ceferino Inciong in an amount equivalent to 10% of 359.887. Ceferino Inciong is not proper in the light of the following considerations: a. The Chairman prayed that in the event the Court orders the payment of attorney’s fees to petitioner this amount of 359. Barangay Caloocan should only share from the basic tax which is 50% of what PHILSUCOM paid because the other half should go to the Special Education Fund. City mayor Sergio Osmena and the dumb provincial officials responsible for the donation. Here. JAC 147 SCRA 447 Facts: Again. Governor Espina hired Atty. even if allegedly unauthorized by the Sangguniang Barangay. 1964 when the Vice – Governor and the Provincial Board of Cebu. 51 pesos to the Municipal Treasurer under the Amnesty Compromise Agreement. . This happened in Feb. equity comes into play. the petition is GRANTED and respondent is ordered to direct the payment of attorney’ fees to petitioner Atty. Garcia toiled for 8 years on the case. Province of Cebu v.994. More importantly. On appeal. si non aliquid sit contra jus fasque.988. Atty. COA Circular No.38 pesos. Ibi quid generaliter conceditur. 4.199. 86 – 255 cannot diminish the substantive right of petitioner to recover attorney’s fees under the final and executory decision dated August 9. The defendants in the case were Cebu City. The Court replied in a booming voice. the position of respondent Chairman of the COA disallowing payment of attorney’s fees to petitioner Atty. inest haee exception. he filed a case to declare the donation void for being illegal and immoral. Garcia claims he is entitled to fees worth 30% of the worth of the properties or 36 million pesos (a staggering amount.2.” 2. The questions now are 1. Garcia compensation for his professional services would amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. There was a time when Cebu City almost became the owner of practically the whole of the Province of Cebu. if the province of Cebu were to hire a private lawyers (such as when the provincial fiscal is disqualified) the Provincial Board must pass a resolution to allow such a move. a private lawyer. Under the said Republic Act No. the IAC awarded 5% worth of properties. that nothing shall be contrary to law and right).

His authority to appear for and represent petitioner in litigation. Sabillano – the municipal mayor was held personally liable for dismissing a police corporal who possessed the necessary civil service eligibility. not only because the dismissal was arbitrary but also because the mayor refuse to reinstate him in defiance of an order of the Commissioner of Civil Service to reinstate. the Municipal Council of Kalayaan instead of opposing or at least protesting Laganapan’s summary dismissal of his position. Rama vs. He gets only 30. Pablo P. the Municipal Council of Kalayaan. or damages to dismissed municipal employees. Laguna abolished the appropriation for the salary of the chief of police of Kalayaan. No charges were filed. the latter will be bound where it has knowledge of the fact that it is being represented by an attorney in a particular litigation and takes no prompt measure to repudiate the assumed authority. Garcia is entitled only to quantum merit. he was summarily dismissed from his position by respondent Mayor Elpidio Asedillo of Kalayaan. The Court finds no merit in the mayor’s contention that. it will be presumed on appeal that counsel was properly authorized to file the complaint and appear for his client. Laganapan v.000 pesos. after the summary dismissal of Laganapan by Asedillo. More importantly. Respondent Epifanio Ragotero was appointed acting chief of police of Kalayaan. even abolished the . Reasons: 1. it’s so stupid for the Provincial Board to pass a resolution grant the hiring of a private lawyer who would litigate against them. an attorney is presumed to be acting under authority of the litigant whom he purports to represent. Nemenzo vs. to the exclusion of the municipality Salcedo vs. it is of record that. the dismissal being done without justifiable cause and without any administrative investigation. Laguna on the same day in place of the petitioner. member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Court of Appeals – the municipal mayor was held liable for the back salaries of the Chief of Police he had dismissed. * Instances where the municipal mayor was held liable for back salaries of. not having been questioned in the lower court. his services could be terminated with or without cause at the pleasure of the appointing officer. While it may be true that Laganapan was holding a provisional appointment at the time of his dismissal. Laguna. he was not a temporary official who could be dismissed at any time. Laganapan thus filed a complaint against Mayor Asedillo and the Municipality of Kalayaan for reinstatement and payment of back wages. since the appointments extended to Laganapan as chief of police of Kalayaan. May Laganapan be reinstated? Is the Municipality also liable? Held: The municipality is liable but Laganapan cannot be reinstated. provincial auditor. Garcia to continue as counsel and in joining him in the suit led the counsel to believe his services were still necessary. The legal maxim which we can use as a basis for this situation is “Nemo tenetur ad impossibile” (The law obliges no one to perform an impossibility) 3. However. Laguna.the governor. Laguna on the ground that his appointment was provisional and that he has no civil service eligibility. provincial treasurer and provincial engineer were ordered to pay jointly and severally in their individual and personal capacity damages to some 200 employees of the province of Cebu who were eased out from their positions because of their party affiliations. Furthermore. 4. were all provisional in nature. Laganapan was summarily dismissed without any semblance of compliance with due process. Atty. His provisional appointment could only be terminated thirty (30) days after receipt by the appointing officer of a list of eligible form the Civil Services Commission. Here no such certification was received by Mayor Asedillo thirty (30) days prior to his dismissal of Laganapan. * Instance where the municipality was also held liable along with municipal mayor 3. no nothing. Until the contrary is clearly shown. vice – governor. Court of Appeals. Asedillo 154 SCRA 377 Facts: Solano Laganapan was appointed Chief of Police. The Provincial Board may just not pass such a resolution.by the Provincial Board. Such acquiescence in the employment of an attorney as occurred in this case is tantamount to ratification. Subsequently. He simply was not counsel when the compromise agreement was made. and not permanent. The act of the successor provincial board and provincial officials in allowing Atty. no notice or hearing was made. Even where an attorney is employed by an unauthorized person to represent a client.

6. as to make said municipality equally liable as the mayor for the reinstatement of Laganapan and for the payment of his back salaries. 25 of this reviewer • Distinction between an Ordinance and a Resolution An ordinance prescribes a permanent rule of conduct government. Civil Service Examination for Messenger and Skilled laborer in 1928. but in his capacity as mayor. For acting arbitrarily and without legal justification in terminating the services of petitioner and refusing to reinstate him as Chief of Police. His claim to eligibility came from the U. The lone issue in this instant action is whether the respondent mayor can legally terminate Salcedo’s services notwithstanding the attestation of the latter’s appointment as permanent by the Commissioner of Civil Service. Legislative Powers * Requisites of a valid ordinance 1. The respondent mayor persistently ignored the order of reinstatement given by the Commissioner of Civil Service. His reinstatement is not feasible. Since then Salcedo has discharged the functions of his office An administrative complaint for misconduct and serious irregularities was later filed against Salcedo. recently enacted at that time. Considering his eligibility appropriate to the position of Chief of Police. The Mayor however really hated the guy. the mayor must be held personally liable for the back salaries of Salcedo. IRR. 2. CA 81 SCRA 408 Facts: Arsenio Salcedo was appointed Chief of Police of Candelaria. 4. Civil Service Examination he took in 1928 when the Philippines was still a U. Held: The mayor cannot terminate Salcedo’s services. 3. The reason is that even though he did not take the required examination either under the Old or New Civil Service Law. Venancio Dia wanted him kicked out right away so he terminated the services of the poor guy. Although the Commissioner found him guilty of conduct unbecoming of a police officer.appropriation for the salary of the Chief of Police of Kalayaan – Laguna. MMA. whereas a resolution is of temporary character only *Article 107. in certain provinces including Laguna. He refused to have Salcedo reinstated. p. PD 482. 7. he was nevertheless reinstated and was given a fine and a warning instead. The Court considers this act of the Municipal Council as an approval or confirmation of the act of respondent Mayor in summarily dismissing Laganapan. Salcedo v. He defied the directive of a superior body with final authority on the matter which is the mayor's duty to comply. 5.S.S based test.S Colony. The following rules shall govern the enactment of ordinances and resolutions: . The basis of the termination was erroneous and illegal. fair and general Must not prohibit. Records show that Salcedo then held civil service eligibility. since Salcedo didn’t possess the appropriate eligibility for the position of Chief of Police (his civil service eligibility arose form a U. Laganapan cannot be reinstated. Ordinances and Resolutions. 2. Quezon. The CA agrees with the mayor. Must not contravene the constitution or statute Must not be oppressive Must not impartial. the Commissioner of Civil Service validated the same and attested the appointment of Salcedo as permanent. The Mayor and the municipality are instead liable for payment of back salaries. remember?) Salcedo appealed to the Commissioner of Civil Service. 4. but may regulate trade Must not contravene common right Must be consistent with public Must not be unreasonable NOTE: See also Solicitor General V. having passed the U. calls for the appointment of a permanent Chief of Police (known as Station Commander). S. that wasn't his fault. It seemed however that the mayor of Candelaria. except for the time Salcedo was suspended. Salcedo cannot be required to take the examination again after his eligibility had already been declared permanent by the Commission. Finally it should be noted that Asedillo was sued not personally.

The provincial board of Negros Occidental approved Res. 7. Each approved ordinance or resolution shall be stamped with the seal of the sanggunian and recorded in a book kept for the purpose. is that the issue concerns a resolution passed by a municipal corporation and therefore does . IRR. LGC As we go along this reviewer. The municipal council of Talisay made an ocular inspection of the place and declared that there was no reason for opening it to vehicular traffic (note that Treyes is a member of the municipal council). 8. The secretary to the sanggunian of the province. may be presented and considered by the body at the same meeting without need of suspending the rules. No ordinance or resolution shall be considered on second reading in any regular meeting unless it has been reported out by the proper committee to which it was referred or certified as urgent by the local chief executive. Mascunana v. Any legislative matter duly certified by the local chief executive as urgent whether or not it is included in the calendar of business. the CFI explained. On this piece of land were squatters and their houses. The reason. The two requested the municipal mayor of Talisay. the sanggunian shall record the ayes and nays. except that it need not go through a third reading for its final consideration unless decided otherwise by a majority of the sanggunian members.. The two claimed that this piece of land was actually part of the extension of Burgos Street. One of the squatters was an influential councilor named Leon Treyes. of any resolution or motion. They wanted the street opened because it was a property of public dominion and if the same was not possible. “What the hell they were thinking?. 2. No. every proposed ordinance shall be accompanied by a brief explanatory note contain the justification for its approval. shall require the affirmative vote of all the sanggunian members for its passage. city or municipality shall prepare copies of the proposed ordinance or resolution in the form it was passed on second reading and shall distribute to each sanggunian member a copy thereof. 4. articles of such jaw . there being a quorum. 3. except that a measure certified by the local chief execute as urgent may be submitted for final voting immediately after debate or amendment during the second reading. and at the request of any members. The municipal council thus passed Resolution no. Proposed ordinances and resolutions shall begin writing and shall contain an assigned number. The CFI however dismissed their complaint summarily in a minute resolution. then they should have been indemnified for damages under Sec. Upon passage of all ordinances and resolution directing the payment of money or creating liability. A debate resulted on whether the land had been used as street or has it been withdrawn form public. 59 thru its res. an enacting or ordaining clause and the date of its proposed effectivity.” But then. Matters relating to propriety functions and to private concerns shall be enacted in a resolution. Negros Occidental that the land in question be cleared of squatters so that the public can make use of that portion of Burgos Street. *Article 108 – 144. 2246 of the RAC since their properties were adjacent near the questioned land. No ordinance or resolution passed by the sanggunian in a regular or special session duly called for the purpose shall be valid unless approved by majority of the members present. 1035 Mascunana and Veldeflor filed a complaint with the VCFI of Negros Occidental questioning the validity of the two resolutions. we'll ferret out the cream from the crap – which articles deserve to be read again and again and which should be considered stinker. In addition. 5. A resolution shall be enacted in the same manner prescribed for an ordinance. It shall be signed by the author or authors and submitted to the secretary to the sanggunian who shall report the same to the sanggunian at the next meeting. this is just probably the author talking lazy. a title or caption.1. Angel Mascunana and Angeles Veldeflor lived near a piece of land which was the subject of controversy of this case. NO. 59 ordering the said land closed. Any ordinance or resolution authorizing or directing the payment of money or creating liability. while those temporary characters shall be passed in the form of resolutions. 1.. so go read the codal instead. 6. Provincial Board of Negros Occidental 79 SCRA 339 Facts: The case doesn’t really teach mush -if anything at all – about the coordinates and resolution but anyway. Legislative actions in a general and permanent character shall be enacted in the form of ordinances.dropping ineptitude that the hapless law student has no recourse but to shake her head and mutter.

except as otherwise provided under the Constitution and special statutes. 2246 of the RAC. 3. 2. Mayor Pablo Magtajas. on the other hand are not lightly presumed in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing of such intention. Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. The SP shall review the ordinances authorizing annual or supplemental appropriations of component cities and municipalities in the same manner and within the same period prescribe for the review of other ordinances of the LGU. 64. V. The rule in legal hermeneutics is that statues should not be pit against each other but instead. announce plans of opening one in Cagayan de Oro City. 2. Section 1. one of the petitioners. the pertinent rule to be followed in this case. Should the CFI pass on the merits of the case of Mascunana and Veldeflor? Held: Yes. the LGC of 1991 modified the charter of the PAGCOR as the LGC of 1991 was a later enactment of Congress. the ordinance were an expression of the police power under the General Welfare Clause. If the governor and the sangguniang panlalawigan failed to act on said executive order within 30 days form receipt thereof.D. IRR. listen and give appropriate counsel to local officials and inhabitants. The repealing clause of LGC of 1991 did not expressly repeal PD 1869. later enactments after the LGC of 1991 recognize the existence of PD 1869. 59. refers only to an ordinance and not a resolution. inform the officials and inhabitants of component cites and municipalities of general laws and ordinances which .. 48 of the LGC clearly refers only to prohibit gambling and other games of chance. suppress and impose appropriate penalties for gambling and other prohibited games of chance (Art. The governor shall visit component cities and municipalities of the province at least once every 6 months to fully understand their problems and conditions. There was no sufficient indication of an implied repeal of PD 1869. IRR) Article 59. subject to the concurrence of the sangguniang panlalawigan. It must be remembered that a municipal ordinance to be valid. Art. 1869. The reaction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of said city was swift: it passed 2 ordinances preventing the operation of casinos in its territory. 4. Mascunana.. Pryce Properties July 20. the Sangguniang Panlungsod have the power to enact ordinances to prevent. Magtajas v. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS (ART. said the ordinances were valid because 1. drunk with the success because it was able to open casinos in several cites. In fact. Highly urbanize cites and independent component cities shall be independent of the province. Casinos are not prohibited because they are expressly allowed by P. General supervision of the province over component cites and municipalities. Implied repeal.equal (idiotic?) branch of government. and 3.'s action is not an action for declaratory relief but an ordinary action for the enforcement of Sec. 468. shall exercise supervisory authority over component cities and municipalities within its territorial jurisdiction to ensure that they act within the scope of their prescribed powers and function. The scope of the supervision by the province over component cites and municipalities shall include but not limited to the following: 1. The reason is that municipal governments are mere agents of the state. The governor shall review executive order issued by the mayor of the component city or municipality. Also. the same shall be deemed consistent with law and therefore valid. The sangguniang panlalawigan shall review all approved city or municipal ordinance and resolution approving the development plans and public investment programs formulated by the city or municipal development councils. The LGC of 1991. every effort by the courts must be made to harmonize them. the law creating PAGCOR. et. a. Is Magtajas correct? Held: No. The issue on whether the complaint involved an ordinance or a resolution is irrelevant. The province.not need to be resolved thru an action for declaratory relief. 1994 Facts: This case is interesting because local autonomy was defeated unwittingly perhaps by the same statute granting it. A trial court's order dismissing a complaint or petitions is appealable like a final judgment. thru its governor. As a becoming respect to a co . 3. LGC. 1991). PAGCOR. 2. al. 2. must among others not contravene the constitution or any statute. Reasons: 1. b. The ordinances in question cannot contravene PD 1839.

b. forest and other resources of the province. With PNP: 3. gravel and other quantity resources within its component city and municipality and the barangay where said resources are extracted. maintenance. The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly over provinces. Joint ventures and cooperative programs and undertakings d. thru the province with respect to component cities and municipalities and the city and municipalities with respect to barangays. IRR. highly urbanized cities and independent component cities.especially concern them and conduct visits and inspections to the end that the governance of the province shall improve the quality of life of the inhabitants. 6. programs. * Article 62. National Agencies and offices with the project implementation functions shall coordinate with one another and with the LGU's concerned in the discharge of these functions. Adopt adequate measure to safeguard and conserve land. cooperative. 7. 5. projects and activities of LGUs: a. operation. technical or other forms of assistance to the LGU. The President may. Local special bodies. 25. and and appointed officials of the province d Call conventions. the President shall exercise general supervision over LGU's to ensure that their acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. NGOs and the private sector to make them active partners in the pursuit of local autonomy. With People's and Non – Governmental Organizations (Sec. Formulate peace and order plan of the province in coordination with mayors of component cities and municipalities and the National Police Commission. Consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy. Preferential treatment for cooperatives development and g. c. Delivery of basic services and facilities c. b. for information and guidance. direct the appropriate national agency provide financial. They shall ensure the participation of LGU's both in the planning and implementation of the said projects. Coordinate efforts of component cites and municipalities in the national or regional palaro or sports development activities. National agencies and offices including government – owned or controlled corporations with field under or branches in a province. Financing. Such assistance shall be extended at extra cost to the LGU concerned d. 25-36. municipality and barangay in the manner prescribed in Rule XXXI of these Rules. city or municipality shall furnish the local chief executive concerned. Financial and other forms of assistance e. non – governmental organizations and the private sector LGU's shall promote the establishment and operation of people's organizations. Role of people's organizations. The proceeds of the basic real property tax. NGO's and the private sector shall be directly involved in the following plans. conferences or meetings of any elective and component cities and municipalities. marine. sale or redemption of property acquired at a public auction shall be shared by the province. upon request of the LGU concerned. . National supervision over local governments a. LGC) Sec. including interest thereon and proceeds form the use. seminars. For this purposes. mineral. The governor shall coordinate plans of the province in coordination with mayors of cites and municipalities as well as NGO's concerned to: a. Preferential treatment for organizations and cooperatives of marginalized fishermen f. and management of infrastructure projects * 1. leas or disposition. With component cites and municipalities: 4. The province shall share its collections form the tax on sand. b. c. monthly reports including duly certified budgetary allocations and expenditures. in coordination with mayors of component cities and municipalities. Between the national government and the local governments: 2. people's organization.

Assistance to people's and non – governmental organizations . thru appropriate ordinances. Sec. equipment. and jail management personnel assigned in their respective jurisdictions shall be governed by the provisions of RA 6975. Sec. Prior consultations required (JGRC) Sec. the municipal government may secure the opinion of the provincial legal officer and in the absence of the latter. In support of such undertakings. agriculture. Sec 36. Sec 31. the local chief executive concerned shall ensure that such EO's are within the powers granted by law and in conformity with provincial. 28. Powers of local chief executives over the units of the Philippine National Police The extent of operational management and control of local chief executives over the police force. diversity. the LGU's involved may. the rules and regulations issued are pursuant thereto. upon approval by the sanggunian concerned after a public hearing for the purpose. Review of executive orders a. The city municipal mayor shall review all EO's promulgated by the punong barangay within his jurisdiction. 35. group themselves. consolidate. b. 29. thru the governor. or coordinate their efforts. that of the provincial prosecutor on any legal question affecting the municipality Sec 32. and other king of property and appoint or assign personnel under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the participating local units thru Memoranda of Agreement. Provincial relations with component cites and municipalities The province. shall ensure that every component cities and municipality within its territorial jurisdiction acts within the scope of its prescribed powers and functions. as the case may be. Sec. Submission of municipal question to the provincial legal officer or prosecutor In the absence of municipal legal officer. fire protection unit. city or municipal ordinances. Copies of such orders shall be forward to the governor or the city or municipal mayor.Sec. real estate. Sec 33. capability – building and livelihood projects. the governor shall review executive orders promulgated by the component city or municipal mayor within his jurisdiction. If the governor or city or municipal mayor fails to act on said EO's within 30 days of submission. Sec. City and municipal supervision over their respective barangays The city or municipality. spur industrialization. within 3 days from their issuance. Except as otherwise provided under the Constitutions and special statues. and top develop local enterprises designed to improve productivity and income. the same shall be deemed consistent with law and therefore valid. In all instances of review. otherwise known as the “DILG Act of 1990”. 30. 26. services and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them. 27. contribute lands. promote ecological balance and enhance the economic and social well – being of the people. Linkages with people's and non – governmental organizations LGU's may enter into joint ventures and such other cooperative agreements with people's and non – governmental organizations to engage in the delivery of basic services. Duty of national government agencies in the maintenance of ecological balance (just go and read the code or JGRC) Sec. Cooperative undertakings among LGU's LGUs' may. Role of people's and non – governmental organizations LGU's shall promote the establishment and operation of people's and non – governmental organization to become active partners in the pursuit of local autonomy. thru the city or municipal mayor concerned shall exercise general supervision after component barangay to ensure that said barangays act within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. Highly urbanized cities and independent component cities shall be independent of the province. 34.

Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even during official hours of work only on occasion of emergency. No elective or appointive local official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure Unless otherwise allowed by law or primary functions of his position. double or indirect compensation unless specifically authorized by law. Practice of profession. Section 94. a. or cultural projects to be implemented within its jurisdiction. Engage in any business transaction with the LGU in which he is an official or employee or over which he has the power of supervision or with any of its authorized boards. including government – owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) or their subsidiaries. Article 177. Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the LGU of which he is an official 4. agency or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party 2. Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered additional or double or indirect compensation. Purchase any real estate or other property forfeited in favor of an LGU for unpaid taxes or assessment or by virtues of a legal process at the instance of the said LGU 4. environmental. and . Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein and LGU or any office. without the consent of Congress. c. any present. officials. Provided. It shall be unlawful for any local government official or employee whether directly or indirectly. socially – oriented. All governors. or title of any kind form any foreign government. 179. that the official do not derive any monetary income profession. LGC Article 179. 2. out of the resources of the LGU to such person or firm. b. Provided. Same as Section 90. agents or attorneys where money is to be paid. directly or indirectly. or property or any other thing of value is to be transferred. Except for losing candidates in barangay elections. emoluments. provide assistance. Hold such interests in any cockpit or other games licensed by LGU 3. nor accept. Practice of Profession a. or teach in schools except during session hours. 94. engage in any occupation. no candidate who lost in any elections shall within 1 year after such election be appointed to any office in the Government or any GOCC or in any of the subsidiaries Section 95. to: 1. IRR) Section 90. Sanggunian officials may practice their professions. Be a surety for any person contracting or doing business with an LGU for which a surety is acquired. that sanggunian members who are also members of the Bar shall not: 1. financial or otherwise to such people's and non – governmental organizations for economic . IRR Prohibited business and pecuniary interest. Art 177. b.An LGU may thru its local chief executive and with the concurrence of the sanggunian concerned. Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an official or employee of the national or local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office 3. Appointment of elective and appointive local officials: candidates who lost in an election a. no elective or appointive local official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision or agency. 94. Additional or double compensation No elective or appointive local official or employee shall receive additional. REQUIREMENTS AND PROHIBITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL LOCAL OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES (Sec 90. IRR. or instrumentality thereof. office. city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives. Use property and personnel of the Government except when the sanggunian member concerned is defending the interest of the Government.

thru associate commissioner. Qualification and Election 1. the constitutional provision allows Assemblyman to appear only when the court handling their case exercise appellate jurisdiction. it is because of all the professions. 12 dated June 30. Held: Javellana is wrong. in those instances where the law allows it. right?) nor this pleading which revealed his name to be “Manuel Sison” be tainted with deception since it was a mistake of Sison's part and he consistently tried to correct the same by pointing it out in court. Negros Occidental. The LGC and DLG Memorandum Circular No. Sison replied that the SEC. 1988 Circulars passed by the SC and administrative agencies are a bit more difficult to research. 3. Noriega v. DILG 212 SCRA 475 Facts: Attorney Edwin Javellana was a city councilor of Bago City. Estanislao Fernandez was also an Assemblyman (from where. the same therefore did not constitute practice of law since he did not receive pecuniary benefit (Note that this case took place before the advent of the Cayetano v Monsod ruling).5. Noriega said that Sison violated the prohibition on government employees’ form practicing their professions. His contention that Section 90 of the LGC of 1991 and DLG Memorandum Circular No. There is simply no evidence that the interchanges his name for a fraudulent purpose (the guy's entitled to use a nickname like everybody else. COMELEC 257 SCRA 727 . All other prohibitions governing the conduct of national public officers relating to prohibited business and pecuniary interest so provided in RA 6713. 11 Article VIII of the 1973 Charter which states that: “No member of the National Assembly shall appear as counsel before any court inferior to a court without appellate jurisdiction. engage in any occupation or teach in school except during session hours”. 90. 90-81 violate Article VII. Frivaldo v. and other rules and regulations shall also be applicable to local government officials and employees. Reasons: 1. The records show they appeared as counsel for cases which were exercised by the CFIs in their original jurisdiction. Sison 125 SCRA 293 Facts: The name of the guy here is Emmanuel Sison. Section 90 explicitly provides that sanggunian members “may practice their professions.. It applies to all provincial and municipal officials in the professions or engaged in any occupation. The case against him seemed more like an instrument of harassment Noriega since the latter once lost to Sison in a SEC case. 1. an attorney who works as a Hearing Officer for the SEC. Javellana v.81 simply prescribes rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflict of interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their profession. He was accused of engaging in the practice of law without securing authority form the Regional Director of the Department of Local Government. Villegas v. only the Supreme Court may promulgate rules and regulations for the practice of law. Both were accused of violating Sec. Section 90 of the LGC does not discriminate against the lawyers and doctors. held himself out to the public as “Atty. obviously a fellow city official. Legazpi 113 SCRA 39 Facts: Raul Villegas was an Assemblyman of the Batasang Pambansa form the province of Cebu. Manuel Sison” and under such a gross misrepresentation of his name handled a case for a close family friend. 2. Did they violate the constitutional prohibition? Held: Yes. otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public officials and Employees. Held: Sison's appearance as counsel as cited was an isolated case. according to Article VIII Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution. Javellana contends that the 2 ordinances and Sec. Only Appellate jurisdiction is permitted because the office of the Assemblyman carry so much influence and prestige that they might unduly influence upon the administration of justice. Section 5 of the Constitution is completely off tangent. He also attacked the said laws for being discriminatory for they ganged upon lawyers and doctors when other similar professions like teachers and morticians were not affected. but that's not important). Read SC Circular No. They're probably not that important anyway – probably. Stated positively. We place emphasize on the name here coz the complainant Hermino Noriega made such a big deal out of it Noriega claimed that Sison. authorized him to allow as counsel for such and that he did it for free. He also filed a case against the City Engineer. the case doesn't say. ELECTIVE OFFICIALS A. the practice of law is more likely than other to relate to or affect the area of public service 2. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law. 90 of the LGC of 1991 which served as the basis of the charges against him were unconstitutional because. Possess or use any public property of an LGU for private purposes b. If there are some prohibitions that apply particularly to lawyers.

The spirit of the law is as much a part of what is was written (wow). is the prevailing rule. however. acquire citizenship later.Facts: The dissenting opinion by Justice Davide here is both prophetic and ironic because he spoke that sovereignty cannot be fragmentized because such fragment cannot be treated as a whole. Frivaldo filed his certificate of candidacy for governor on March 20. he necessarily must have taken the Filipino oath of allegiance several times as well. La Union. disqualified her from further acting as LULECO director by authority of Sec. 21 of PD 269 which says. wronged). NEA 169 SCRA 507 Facts: Natividad Salomon was a Director for the La Union Electric Corporation (LULECO). and 2. Frivaldo filed a petition claiming that on June 30. Moreover since he ran for governor several times prior to 1995. the eventual second placer. To allow Frivaldo as governor just because the popular will of the electorate should not be frustrated – but setting aside the rule of law in the process – would be anarchy. In short. a principle in international law).” which is lousy. He does not actually have to vote (Ang layo! The issue is citizenship. The COMELEC ruled in favor of Lee but since Frivaldo moved for reconsideration. it is clear then that PD 725 was intended to be retroactive. Under Sec. The COMELEC thus proclaimed Frivaldo as winner. The registration requirement of a candidate moreover. not Frivaldo. fortunately or otherwise. is only for the purpose of registering him as a voter in the area or territory he seeks to govern. vice – governor. 1995. his candidacy continued. the COMELEC acting on Lee's petition. Therefore. Permanent Vacancies * Sec 44. he must have therefore possessed Filipino citizenship in order to become a registered voter. to prevent prejudice to Frivaldo by letting him remain stateless for a substantial period of time while in the meantime being deprived of his rights. Lee contends: 1. Admittedly. In Frivaldo's cause he was stateless at the time he took his Filipino oath of allegiance since in his comment. Salomon v. 2. the spirit of the law would be undermined – that incumbents of elective offices be prevented form exerting political influence and pressure on the management of the cooperative.” (Section 21 PD No. shall be ineligible to become officers and/or directors of any (electric cooperative). the day he filed his application for such and not just on June 30. 269). the alleged repatriation of Frivaldo cannot be retroactive.” Salomon simply argued that she is not an elective officer but an appointive officer as the facts above show. 1995. he has long renounced his American citizenship (a self serving statement). 1995 (day of Lee's proclamation). Permanent vacancies in the office of the governor. The alleged repatriation of Frivaldo can be retroactive. he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen after his August 17. “Elective officers of the government. 1995. Raul Lee. Is this the way we treat our precious citizenship?) 2. Naguilan. that Frivaldo's disqualification due to his lack of citizenship is a continuing condition and rendered him ineligible to run for governor. who decides who is and who is not her nationals. B. Is she therefore exempt form the prohibition? Held: No. mayor and vice mayor. A week later. Davide was talking about the rule that the popular will of the people (of Sorsogon) in electing Juan Frivaldo as governor should not be frustrated since he garnered the most votes. The Court is saying. . Frivaldo eventually topped the elections but on June 30. The issue of being a registered voter was merely raised to bolster the claim that the qualification of citizenship is a continuing one and thus cannot be acquired at a later time. proclaimed Lee as governor. there was the objection that since a candidate must have been a registered voter beforehand. Davide said (How ironic that it was Davide himself who swore in GMA as President during EDSA II) The majority opinion however. The National Electrification Administration. there is no showing that a candidate for an electoral position must be a Filipino citizen at any particular date and time. Reasons: 1. Article IV of the LULECO's by – laws which runs: “No persons shall be eligible to become or to remain a board member of the cooperative who holds an elective office in the government above the level of a barangay captain. Frivaldo's repatriation retracted to Aug 17. Yet Frivaldo won under a cloud of doubt because he may not have legally reacquired his citizenship in time for the elections. 1994 petition for repatriation has been granted. PD 725 declares that repatriation creates a “new right” in order to cure a defect in the existing naturalization law. Held: Lee is wrong (or maybe. is for the purpose of registering him as a voter in the area or requirement of a candidate moreover. Vacancies and succession 1. “Run now. The Court gave an explanation – that the qualification of citizenship for a registered voter and that for a candidate are separate. The legal provision is also incorporated in section 3. not voting. Because she was also a Barangay Captain of Natividad. except barrio captain and councilors. 39 of the LGC of 1991. the Minister of Local Government of La Union appointed her as a member of the sangguniang Panlalawigan of La Union. 1994. which is another indication of renunciation of his American citizenship (Davide countered that it is the US. filed a petition with the COMELEC to disqualify Frivaldo because he was not yet a Filipino citizen at the time.

When the incumbent local chief executive is traveling within the country but outside his territorial jurisdiction for period not exceeding 3 consecutive days. or vice – mayor as the case may be. subject to the limitation provided in subsection (C) hereof. If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor. In case the permanent vacancy in the representation of the youth and barangay in the sanggunian. When the governor city or municipal mayor or punong barangay is temporarily incapacitated to perform his duties for physical or legal reasons such as but not limited to. only the nominee of the political party under which the sangguniang member concerned had been elected and whose elevation to the position next higher in rank created the last vacancy in the sanggunian shall be appointed in the same manner herein provided. refuses to assume office. ranking in the sanggunian shall be determined on the basis of the proportion of votes obtained by each winning candidate to the total number of registered voters in each district in the immediately preceding local election. he may designate in writing an officer-in-charge of the said office. c. as the case may be. suspension from office. the highest ranking sangguniang barangay member or.a. the second highest ranking sanggunian member shall become the punong barangay. Said temporary incapacity shall terminate upon submission to the appropriate sanggunian of a written declaration by the local chief executive concerned that he has to return back to office. said vacancy shall be filled automatically by the official next in rank by the organization concerned 2. The governor. city or municipal vice-mayor or the highest ranking sangguniang barangay member shall automatically exercise the powers and perform the duties of the local chief executive concerned except the power to appoint. in the case of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Sanggunian Panlungsod of highly urbanized cites and independent component cities. . The successors as defined herein shall serve only the unexpired portions of their predecessors. The city or municipal mayor. suspend. in the case of his permanent inability. the vice-governor. that the local chief executive concerned fails or refuses to issue such authorization. fails to qualify. Such authorization shall specifies the powers and functions that the local official concerned shall exercise in the absence of the local chief executive except the power to appoint. The appointee shall come form the same political party as that of the sangguniang member who caused the vacancy and shall serve the unexpired term of the vacant office. or the highest ranking sangguniang barangay member. in case of the sangguniang panlungsod of component cites and the sangguniang bayan 3. in case of the sangguniang barangay. In cases where the temporary incapacity is due to legal causes the local chief executive concerned shall also submit necessary documents that said legal causes no longer exist. the vice governor or vice mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor. Except for the sangguniang barangay. suspend. vice – governor. For purposes of this chapter. In the event. thru the Executive Secretary. upon recommendation of the sangguniang bayan concerned b. Temporary Vacancies * Section 46 Temporary vacancies in the office of the local chief executive a. c. leave of absence. is removed from office. dies. A tie between or among the highest ranking sangguniang members shall be resolved by the drawing of lots d. Subsequent vacancies in the said office shall be filled automatically by other sangguniang members according to their ranking as defined therein. or is otherwise permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office. For purposes of succession as provided in this chapter. mayor. however. The President. a permanent vacancy arises when an elective local official fills a higher vacant office. the vice-governor. or dismiss employees which can only be exercised if the period of the temporary incapacity exceeds for 30 working days b. 2. Permanent vacancies in the sanggunian a. c. In the appointment herein mentioned a nomination and a certificate of membership of the appointee from the highest official of the political party concerned are conditions sine qua non and any appointment without such nomination shall be null and void and shall be a ground for administrative action against the official thereof. duties and function of the said office on the 4 th day of absence of the said local chief executive. Permanent vacancies in the sanggunian where automatic successions provided above do not apply shall be filled by appointment in the manner provided: 1. travel abroad. shall have the right to assume powers. If a permanent vacancy occurred in the office of the punong barangay. * Sec 45. or dismiss employees d. If a permanent vacancy occurs on the office of the governor. voluntarily resigns. b. the city or municipal vice-mayor.

other than the vice-governor. By the sanggunian concerned. mayors and vice-mayors of component cities 3. it can be readily seen that the office of the vice-governor was left vacant when the duly elected vice-governor Leopoldo Petilla was appointed acting governor. In the eyes of the law. By the city or the municipal mayor. And granting that such vacancy legally exists. As a result. Jaime Panis and Bella Veloso. Second. still the next in rank rule is not mandatory – it nearly gives preferential treatment. Still. the secretary of local government appointed vice-governor Leopoldo Petilla as acting governor of the province of Leyte. there is no vacancy in the office of the vice-governor cause no law recognizes its existence. Two candidates for the appointive position cropped up. that said position could only be filled up through promotion. the city or municipal vice-mayor. In a scenario there is a vacancy when there is no person lawfully authorized to assume and exercise at present the duties of the office. in case of municipal mayor. The DILG shall be furnished copies of the letters of the resignation letters of elective local officials together with the action taken by the authorities concerned c.e. Resignation * Article 82 IRR. existing civil service rules and established jurisprudence because the seniority and next in rank rules were disregarded. as the case may be. By the President. Panis loved to crow about his seniority status and thought he would be chosen for the position. in the case of sanggunian members: and 4. after some serious debate on the legality of Menson's appointment. On July 7. the power to appoint lies within the discretion of the local chief executive vested with the power. The secretary of local government thus appointed Aurelio Menson. Petilla 197 SCRA 251 Facts: For a time. Menson v. Was there really a vacancy? Is Menson entitled to the emoluments? Held: 1. Their reasoning: legally speaking. poor Menson was not paid emoluments attached to his office as vice-governor. There is no vacancy whenever the office is occupied by a legally qualified incumbent. 3. the sangguniang panlalawigan issued a resolution holding invalid the appointment of Menson as vice-governor. the province of Leyte had not proclaimed any governor. Assuming however. The position being fought was newly created. Now the position of vice-guy was vacant. a senior member of sangguniang panlalawigan as vice-governor. 2. This provision shall not apply to sanggunian members who are subject to recall elections or to cases where existing laws prescribed of acting upon such resignations. Ultimately. However. 1. One day. 1988. Civil Service Commission 229 SCRA 589 Facts: The Cebu City Medical Center (CCMC) is a government hospital of Cebu City. the office to which he was elected was left barren of a legally qualified person to exercise the duties of the vice-governor . Menzon did serve for more than a year as vice-governor. in the case of barangay officials b. Resignation a. Held: Panis is wrong. 1989. the law on public officers is clear on the matter. the highest sangguniang barangay member. 2. By the governor. First. Except as provided above the local chief executive in no case authorized any local official to assume the powers. independent component cities and municipalities within the Metro Manila and other metropolitan political subdivisions as may be created by law. provided that appointee possesses the minimum requirements provided by law. Resignation of elective local officials shall be deemed effective only upon acceptance of the following authorities: 1. The resignation shall be deemed accepted if not acted upon by the authority concerned within 15 days from receipt thereof d. the next rank rule applies only in cases of promotion. even if granting that Veloso was originally an outsider as she came from the private sector. Besides. it will not prohibit her employment as long as she has her civil service eligibility. in the case of governor and vice-governor. the law does not authorize secretary of local government to have an appointment thereto. So on February 16. municipal vice-mayors. Menson was appointed precisely to avoid such scenario. Applying the definition of vacancy in this case. mayors and vice-mayors of highly urbanized cities. Everything would have been fine except for one thing: the LGC of 1983 does not provide for succession of the office of the vice-governor (even the LGC of 1991 as well). duties and functions. Irrevocable resignations by sanggunian members shall be deemed accepted upon presentation before an open session of the sanggunian concerned and duly entered in its records. Panis now claims that the appointment of Veloso was made in violation of law. a new office in said hospital was created by virtue by a valid reorganization – the Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration. the city mayor appointed Veloso. Panis v.

And. As between the President who has supervision over local government as provided by law and the members of the board who are junior to the vice-governor. This argument has no merit. in the absence of any contrary provision in the local government code and in the best interest of public service. b. there must be: a. the election for president of the Federation of the Association of Barangay Councils (ABC) was for the municipality.” To constitute a complete and operative resignation from public office. . the election for president of FABC above quoted. Antonio however. never questioned Aquino as his replacement. It is an expression of the incumbent in some form expressed or implied or the intention to surrender renounce and relinquish the office and the acceptance by competent and lawful authority. Thanks to the LGC of 1983. saying he resigned from the Sangguniang Bayan a long time ago. etc. CA 284 SCRA 276 Facts: Augusto Antonio was a barangay captain of Sapang Palay. Resignation as the “Act of giving up or the act of an officer by which he declines his office and renounces the further right to use it.2. Antonio replied that the third requirement for his valid resignation – acceptance by the president or his alter ego was missing. Abandonment of an office has been defined as the voluntary relinquishment of an office by the holder with the intention of terminating his possession and control thereof. al. In view of the foregoing. Admittedly. the SC has no problem ruling in favor of the president. even granting that the President. Menson's right to be paid the salary attached to the office of the vice-governor is indubitable. However. the majority rules through their chosen few. if his resignation was valid he did not resign as ABC president – and said position still carries with it the benefit of being an ex-officio member of the Sangguniang Bayan. contend that the provincial board is the correct appointing power. San Andres. This guy later became president of the Association of Barangay Councils or ABC. While it is true that the LGC is silent as to who shall accept the resignation of a Sanggunian Bayan member. 4. Antonio however. Held: Antonio did not effectively resign but he did abandon his post. Catanduanes in March 1989. Necessarily. which was once declared void. the DILG secretary. designated him as a temporary member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The following clearly manifest the intention of private respondent to abandon his position: 1. was found to unqualified for membership in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan so he got promptly kicked-out. his position also entitles him to be a member of the sangguniang bayan of the Municipality of San Andres. was reversed by the SC. an act of relinquishment. until the law provides otherwise. may be hampered. The Sangguniang Bayan refused to take him back. an acceptance by the proper authority. in recognition of Antonio as a power hungry politician. Meanwhile. 3. acting through the secretary of local government. The Sangguniang Bayan countered that he either did one of two things – resignation or abandonment of his old post. his prolonged failure to initiate any act to re assume his post in the Sangguniang Bayan after the Supreme Court had nullified his designation to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. As a result. and c. The last one is required by reason of Article 238 of the Revised Penal Code. the SC saw no-cogent reason why the procedure thus outlined by the two laws may not be similarly applied in the present case. 3. both laws deal only with the filling of vacancies in appointive positions. Reasons: 1. possesses no power to appoint the petitioner. abandoned his post. jurisprudence has held that in the absence of statutory provisions as to whom resignations shall be submitted. A year passed. The president or his alter ego is the appointing person in this case and there was no evidence that either of them have received Antonio's resignation. In a republican form of government. Antonio tendered his resignation from the sangguniang bayan (but not as ABC president) and would later on serve the sangguniang panlalawigan for 2 years. It may be noted under commonwealth act no. The SC explained that the vacancy must always be filled. Some time afterwards. the ABC vice-president took his place. Antonio did not effectively resign because the third element is missing. at the very least. Catanduanes v. Moreover. in case of any vacancy that may occur. the management of governmental affairs. Petilla et. FABC was for the province was declared void for lack of quorum so the provincial council was forced to reorganize. Nenito Aquino. Sangguniang Bayan of San Andres. the President is empowered to make temporary appointments in certain public offices. 2. an intention to relinquish a part of the term. Also. Antonio now wants his old job back as ABC president. there will be a consequent delay in the delivery of basic services to the people of Leyte if the governor or the vice-governor is missing” 3. his failure to object to the appointment of Aquino as his replacement in the Sangguniang Bayan. 2. in this wise: “A vacancy creates an anomalous situation and finds no approbation under the law for it deprives the constituents of the right of the representation and governance in their own local government. the petitioner is de facto officer entitled to compensation. Then Antonio heard that Aquino resigned from the presidency of the ABC. 588 and the revised administrative code of 1987. the appointing person or body shall receive the resignation. 4. and if one of them is incapacitated or absent. his failure to perform his function as member of the Sangguniang Bayan. his failure to collect the corresponding remuneration for the position.

the following overt acts demonstrate that he had affected his intention 1. and Marcelo Aguirre and Juan Araneta as Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP). city or municipality or barangay as the case maybe. all elective municipal officers in the district and in cases where sangguniang panlungsod members are elected by district. can be found. he designated vice governor as acting governor. district and municipality which shall be composed of the following: 1.. 2. his receipt of the remuneration for such post. the following. his right thereto is not self – executory. provincial and municipal officials shall be validly initiated through a resolution adopted by a majority of all the preparatory recall assembly concerned during its session called for the purpose. There shall be a preparatory recall assembly in every province. city. some SP members resented and even filed a case in court to prohibit him from doing so. However. The court even declared Gamboa as “temporarily legally incapacitated to preside over the sessions of the SP during the period that he is the acting governor. * Sec 70 Initiation of the recall process a. tried to preside over SP sessions. IRR) * Sec 69. Gamboa Jr. Romeo Gamboa as vice governor. the law necessarily excludes. LGC. cannot preside. who remained ABC president. An acting give smells like a governor. the SP members present and constituting a quorum shall elect a temporary presiding officer form among themselves (Sec 49b. LGC and Art 154 – 162. A written petition for recall duly signed before the election registrar or his rep and in the absence of rep of the petitioner and a rep of the official sought to be recalled and in a public lace in the province. Aguirre Jr. What Antonio could have done in order to be able to re assume his post after Aquino's resignation was to seek a reappointment form the President of the secretary of local government. vice – mayors and sanggunian members of the municipalities and component cities 2. 310 SCRA 867 Facts: In the 1995 elections. But when vice governor Gamboa. under the LGC of 1991. The COMELEC or its duly . his letter of resignation from the Sangguniang Bayan. A majority of all the preparatory recall assembly members may convene in session in a public place initiate a recall proceeding against any elective official in the LGU concerned. Antonio cannot claim an absolute right to the office which. Legislative district level. 4. Provincial level. c. if you'll look at the composition of the SP. For all other purposes however. Before he left. recall of any elective provincial. Recall may be initiated by a preparatory recall assembly or by the registered voters of the LGU to which the local elective official to such recall belongs. All the mayors. b. no presence of the governor. Now. city. 3. v. In such case. Antonio. d.” Was the trial court correct? Held: Yes. claims the legal right to be a member of the Sangguniang Bayan by virtue of Section 146 of BP Blg 337. since the vice governor. LGC) C. What the law enumerates. 1. By whom exercised. Gamboa still remains as vice governor. The power of recall for loss of confidence shall be exercised by regular voters of an LGU to which the local elective official subject to such recall belongs. Recall of city. By his own actuations. While it was true that Antonio was designated as member of the Sanggunian Panlalawigan – meaning his appointment there was merely to discharge duties in addition to his regular responsibilities as a Sanggunian Bayan Members – still his express and implied acts clearly indicate hi abandonment of the latter.On the other hand. or municipal or barangay official may also be validly initiated on petition of at least 25% of the total number of registered voters in the LGU concerned during the election which the local official sought to be recalled was elected. he technically had given up his SP membership notwithstanding him being still vice governor. who was now acting governor as well. Keep this in mind later on. Lastly. Since Gamboa became acting governor. his faithful discharge of his duties and functions as member of said Sanggunian and 4. all elective barangay officials in the district and 4. the vice governor shall also be the officer of the SP. Municipal level. for the law itself requires another positive act an appointment by the President or the secretary of local government per EO 342. So the vice governor became acting governor. he is deemed to have relinquished. All punong barangay and sangguniang barangay members in the municipality. Recall(See 69-75. we have the following winners from Negros Occidental: Rafael Coscolluela as governor. City level: all punong barangay and sangguniang barangay members in the city 3. By large. The governor went away on an official trip abroad. In case where sangguniang panlalawigan members are elected by district. since the LGC of 1991 is clear that the composition of the SP should not have even the slightest hint of governor's presence – not even his smell. shall be filed with the COMELEC thru its office of the LGU concerned. his assumption of office as member of said Sanggunian Panlalawigan 3.

but with addition of “Who may be recalled” (see below) 1. IRR Who may be recalled. 2. The requisites probably are: a. Requisites If there's such a thing as requisites of a recall. vice mayors and Sangguniang Bayan members of the 12 municipalities of Bataan however convened and constitute themselves into a Preparatory Recall Assembly to initiate the recall of Garcia. b. Procedure for recall See Section 70. Some mayors. which is a political question 4. An elective local official may be the subject of a recall election only once during the term of his office or loss of confidence. * Sec 75. Any elective provincial. municipal or barangay official may be recalled for loss of confidence in the manner prescribed in this rule provided that no recall may be instituted against said elective local official who have been the subject of a previous recall election held during the same term of office. *Sec 73 Prohibition form resignation. and b. *Sec 71 Election on recall. Who may be recalled Art 155. shall be entitled to be voted upon. Initiation. For this purpose. Election • 2. COMELEC 227 SCRA 100 Facts: Enrique Garcia was elected Governor of Bataan in the 1992 elections. the COMELEC or its duly authorize rep shall announce the acceptance of candidates to the position and thereafter prepare a list of candidates which shall include the name of the official sought to be recalled. confidence in him is thereby affirmed and he shall continue in office. Exactly the same as above. The elective local official sought to be recalled shall not be allowed to resign while the recall process is in progress. supra 6. city. which shall be not later than 30 days after the filing of the resolution or petition for recall in the case of the barangay. 3.authorized rep shall cause the publication of the petition in a public and conspicuous place for a period of not less than 10 days nor more than 20 days for the purpose of ratifying the authenticity and genuineness of the petition and the required percentage of voters. Upon the lapse of the aforesaid period. The recall of an elective local official shall be effective only upon the secretion and proclamation of a successor in the person of the candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast during the election on recall. either thru direct action by the people or thru a preparatory recall assembly. there shall be included in the annual General Appropriation Act a Contingency fund at the disposal of the COMELEC for the conduct of recall elections. Expenses incidental to recall elections. Grounds for recalls Loss of confidence. The official officials sought to be recalled shall automatically be considered as a duly registered candidate or candidates to pertinent positions and like other candidates. or municipal officials and 45 days in the case of provincial officials. When recall may not be held See Section 74. city. Upon filing of a valid resolution or petition for recall with the appropriate local office of the COMELEC. Effectivity of recall See Section 72. Garcia v. the Commission or its duly recognized rep shall set the date of the election on recall. IRR. supra • 1. All expenses incidental to recall elections shall be borne by the COMELEC. it's probably found buried in Section 69 and 70 of the LGC of 1991. No recall shall take place within 1 year from the date of the official's assumption to office of 1 year immediately preceding a regular local election. * Art 154 – 162. Should the official sought to be recalled receive the highest number of votes. LGC of 1991 5. *Sec 74 Limitations on recall a. *Sec 72 effectivity of recall. The PRA's first resolution calling for the recall of Garcia was however shot down by the SC because it was found that the backers of the PRA sent only selective notices to local .

Held: The initiation of recall must fail. Garcia now assails the constitutionality of Section 70 of the LGC of 1991. 1) Its true tat the LGC of 1991 has yet to be passed. 1 year immediately preceding a regular election as managed by SEC. when taken together as a whole.74(b). Held: Garcia is wrong reasons: 1) All powers are subject to abuse anyway. but that’s not important. LGC of 1991. but for a different reason. In effect a small group can easily negate the power of the vast electorate to initiate recall (therefore. is intended for elective positions with minimum terms of 4 years. The reason for using PRA as a mode for initiating recall is because admittedly. Alexander Apelado and friends filed a petition for the recall of Evardone. However. 2) The PRA is merely a step in the recall process. 2. it’s far easy get majority of the PRA to initiate a recall proceeding. rather than the letter of the law. The PRA thus cured this defect in their second resolution. 1996. However Para’s delaying tactics worked. The power to initiate becomes meaningless if another body is authorized to do it for the electorate. initiating recall thru direct action by the people is difficult and expensive. Since such a code wasn’t passed at the time. His rival. which allows a preparatory recall assembly to initiate a recall of an elective official. Paras managed to delay the holding of the recall elections 3 times (note that the term of a Punong Barangay is for 3 years only). 3) the right to initiate recall rests with the people itself. The recall it self still has to be submitted to the people for affirmation thru an election. The next regular elections concerning the barangay office concerned is merely 7 moths away. What congress should have done is to reduce the minimum 25% requirement down to 15 or 20% (which is good idea). 4. What Everdone complaining about is that the COMELEC cannot formulate rules and regulations governing the procedure of recall elections because according to the 1987 Constitution. Para’s still merges as the winner (Moral lesson: Wag mo ng patulan ang SK elections 3 taon lang naman natiis yan eh). Evardone v. Pangilinan won in the recount . Recall is no longer possible by virtue of same election 74(b). Congress is supposed to pass a new local government code which would provide for the procedure in recall elections. determines it’s contents. Held: A Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) election is not a regular local election. Mercado v. the LGC of 1983 (BP 337) was still in force in hat time as can be shown in the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission where the effectiveness of BP 337 was expressly recognized. the good justice is doubtful of the republican system of the government). The PRA is not the recall itself. There was some ballyhoo regarding a TRO issued by the SC retraining Apelado and friends from proceeding of the signing of the petition. 4) Davide’s dissent: the power to initiate recall includes the power not to initiate. The third attempt at a recall election was slated for January 13. Ibaan Batangas during the 1992 elections. Danilo Paras won as Punong Barangay in the 1994 barangay elections of Pula. Paras gleefully noted that the recall action was barred by representation as no recall shall take place. 2) However. the SC promulgated this decision in 1991. Crisanto Pangilinan.officials most likely sympathetic to their cause. Paras v. To deny power because it can be abused by the grantee is to render government powerless and no people need a toothless government. This is the reason behind the presumption that public officials are actually performing their duties in good faith. filed a protest with the Board of Elections Supervisors (BES) on the ground that some votes. BP 337 disallows the holding of recall elections one year immediately preceding a regular local election. the initiation for recall must fail because there’s no procedure in existence to follow anyway. COMELEC 204 SCRA 464 Facts: The guys here calling for a recall of an elective official failed because they initiated the recall a bit too late. 2 years later. Garcia says that it’s highly possible that the dominant political party in government can use a recall as a tool in ousting their incumbent opponents. Felipe Evardone won as mayor of municipality of Sulat. COMELEC 264 SCRA 49 Facts: Pati SK elections ba naman pinatulan ng recall. Cabanatuan City. The COMELEC approved the signing of the said petition for recall. Eastern Samar in the 1988 election. at least within the contest of Section 74 because said Section 74. Para’s interpretation of the statute is too literal and absurd. The spirit. were invalidated by the Board of Election Tellers (BET) Chairman without insulting his fellow members. Board of Elections Supervisors of Ibaan. The 1992 elections was only 7 months away. 3) The PRA is also initiation of recall by the people themselves. A petition for his recall as Punong Barangay was filed by the registered voters of the barangay. It’s not hard to see that in reality. BP 337 authorizes the COMELEC to supervise and control recall elections and promulgate the necessary rules and regulations. 2) the RPA is not reflective of the people’s will. Batangas 243 SCRA 422 Facts: Jose Mercado was proclaimed SK chairman of Barangay Mabalor. thus it cannot be said to be reflective of the people’s will. 3. Scared. although done indirectly through their representatives.

121. 2499 of the COMELEC did not vest in the RTC jurisdiction to try SK elections. may file a petition with the sanggunian concerned proposing the adoption. 5. enact. c) The proposition shall be numbered serially from Roman numeral I. 133-153. 1999. because of the word “recall” in said section should be interpreted not only to mean a recall election alone. Claudio however complained that what his opponents did was contrary to section 74 of the LGC 1991. repeal or amendment of an ordinance. has legal authority to take cognizance of the SK election protest. it is clear that the initiation of recall proceedings is not prohibited within the 1 year period provided. 120-127. The COMELEC or its designated representative shall extend assistance in the formulation of the proposition. it would be wrong to assume that such assemblies will always eventuate in a recall election. 100 in case of municipalities. may invoke their power of initiative giving notice thereof to the sanggunian concerned.000 registered voters in case of provinces and cities. several barangay chairs gathered to discuss the filing of a petition for recall against Mayor Claudio and the Convening of the PRA. 2499 was null and void in the first place because SK elections are governed by the Omnibus Election Code and not by some numb resolution passed without legal basis by the COMELEC. Reasons: 1) The word recall in Section 74(b) refers to the recall election and not the preliminary proceedings to recall. Therefore. The RTC dismissed Mercado’s complaint saying that Resolution No. Art. 3) The election period is not included in the phrase “regular local election. is a power which exercised by the registered voters of an LGU. To the contrary. the proponents. *Sec. Such an interpretation must be rejected because it would devitalize the right of recall which is designed to make LGU’s more responsive and accountable D. Held: Claudio is wrong. Procedure in local initiative.” Claudio’s interpretation would severely limit the period during which a recall election may be held. Local initiatives defined. municipalities and barangays. Mercado then argued at the SC that Res. Local initiative is the legal process whereby the registered voters of an LGU may directly propose. . Section 74 speaks of limitations on “recall” which. *Sec. He said the ground created by Pangilinan was in the nature of an election protest properly cognizable by the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court (as mandated by Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code) and not by some never heard BES. The power of local initiative and the referendum may be exercised by all registered voters of the provinces. 122. as a creation of COMELEC Res. but is also intended to include the convening of the PRA and the filling by it of a recall resolution. In May. It took only less than 2 weeks for the members of the PRA to obtain a majority vote for the passing of a resolution calling for said recall. thru their duly authorized representatives. 120. Reasons: 1) The SK election is not an election involving elective barangay officials within the context of the Omnibus Election Code and the Constitution. No. and 50 in case of barangays. COMELEC 311 SCRA 388 Facts: Jovito Claudio won as mayor of Pasay City in the 1998 elections. Indeed. Local Initiative and Referendum (Sec. Since the voters do not exercise such right except in an election. the BES. cities. SK elections are not governed by the Omnibus Election Code. less than a year later. The position of SK chairman is not include as one of the elective members of the Sangguniang Barangay (which consist of the punong barangay and 7 regular sangguniang barangay members). a body created by the COMELEC thru its Resolution No. Claudio v. If Claudio’s interpretation is correct. 2499. then his enemies may have indeed violated the statutory prohibition that “no recall shall take place within 1 year from the date of the official’s assumption to office” since the PRA did indeed convene less than a year from Claudio’s assumption into office. 2499. Therefore.Mercado assailed in the authority of the BES act on the protest filed by his rival. 2) Article 203 of the IRR of the LGC 1991 states that SK elections shall be governed by the rules promulgated by the COMELEC. or amend any ordinance. a) Not less than 1. according to section 69. they may result in the expression of confidence in incumbent. 2) Another reason why the initiation of recall proceedings is not prohibited within the 1 year period provided in 74(b) is that to hold the otherwise would be to unduly restrict the constitutional right of speech and of assembly of its members. LGC. Held: Mercado is mistaken. An SK chairman is at best merely an ex-officer member of Sangguniang Barangay. Claudio also argued that the phrase “regular local election” in said Section 74(b) includes the election period for that regular election and not only the date of such election. b) If no favorable action is taken thereon by the sanggunian concerned within 30 days from its presentation. No. enactment. IRR) *Sec. Who may exercise.

that in case of barangays. 1. modified. g) Upon the lapse of the period herein provided. and the SC made COMELEC pay by dumping tons of legal basis providing that resolutions can also be the subject of local initiatives thus making the case as written unnecessarily long. Garcia resorted to the power of initiative under the LGC of 1991. or repealed within 3 years thereafter by a vote of ¾ of its members: Provided. NOTE: Articles 133-153. IRR. after which the result thereof shall be certified and proclaimed by the COMELEC. 10 wherein agreed to the inclusion of the municipality of Morong as part of the Subic Special Economic Zone in accordance with RA 7227 Enrique Garcia (who’s this guy? His name keeps popping out of nowhere) and friends filed a petition with the SB to annul the said resolution. Authority of courts. Limitations of local initiative. which basically states the number of signature required. Effectively of local propositions. 45 days in the case of municipalities. from notice mentioned in subsection (b) hereof to collect the required number of signatures. Limitations upon sanggunian. The COMELEC however denied the petition for local initiative on the ground that under the LGC of 1991m the subject of local initiative refers only to an ordinance and not a solution. and 30 days in the case of barangays. or his designated rep. The COMELEC shall certify and proclaim the results of the said referendum. thru its office in the LGU concerned for their approve within 60 days from the date of certification by the COMELEC. we should take note of Art. 2) In a municipality – at least 10% of registered voters therein. e) Proponents shall have 90 days in the case of provinces and cities. COMELEC 237 SCRA 279 Facts: The Sangguniang Bayan (SB) ng Morong. 1) In a province or city – at least 10% of the registered voters therein. The initiative shall then be heard on the date set. 125.d) 2 or more propositions may be submitted in an initiative. *Sec. Some reasons are: 1) Sec. the sanggunian concerned adopts in to the proposition presented and the local chief executive approves the same. of sanggunian concerned. IRR are roughly the same Section 120-127 above. However. *Sec. 123. those against such action may. in the presence of the representative of the proponent and a rep. . one of them being initiative on local legislation which included. a) The power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than once a year. If the proposition is approved by a majority of a vote cast. *Sec. resolution. 3) In a barangay – 10% of registered voters therein. However. or amended by the sanggunian concerned within 6 months from the date approval thereof and may be amended. The local referendum shall be held under the direction and control of the COMELEC within the 60 days in case of provinces and cities. 45 days in case of municipalities and 30 days in the case of barangays. as the case may be. and 30 days in the case of barangays. the COMELEC. 60 days in the case of municipalities. amend or reject any ordinance enacted by the sanggunian. with each legislative district represented by at least 3 % of the registered voters therein. b) Initiative shall extend only to subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of the sanggunian to enact. if they so desire. among others. c) If at any time before the initiative is held. When their petition went unheeded. 127. with each barangay represented by at least 3% of registered voters therein. as provided in subsection (g) hereof. f) The petition shall be singed before the election registrar. modified. 145. 32 of Article VI of the Constitution says that initiative and referendum is a system wherein the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law. Stations for collecting signatures must be established in as many places as may be warranted. the period shall be 18 moths after the approval thereof. Garcia v. 124. *Sec. in a public place in the LGU. apply for initiative in the manner herein provided. Any proposition or ordinance adopted thru the system of initiative and referendum as herein provided shall not be repealed. Local referendum defined. it shall take effect 15 days after certification by the COMELEC as if affirmative action thereon had been position is considered defeated. 126. Bataan passed Resolution No. *Sec. the initiative shall be canceled. Local referendum is the legal process whereby the registered voters of the LGUs may approve. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent or preclude the power courts from declaring null and void any proposition approved pursuant to this Chapter for the violation of the Constitution or want of capacity of the sanggunian concerned to enact the said measure. The word “act” makes it clear that resolutions are also included initiatives. Is the COMELEC correct? Held: No. 2) RA 6735 defines 3 system of initiative.

gross negligence or dereliction of duty. unless a flagrant abuse of the exercise of that power is shown. 2) Culpable violation of the Constitution. filed a resolution granting executive clemency to the governor by reducing his sentence to that portion had already served. in the case of the local chief executive and 4 consecutive sessions in the case of members of the sanggunian panlalawigan. 60 Grounds for disciplinary action. or acquisition of. RA 6713. oppression. or d. Oriental Mindoro. Thereafter. Llamas v. RAC of 1987. Disciplinary Action (Art. did not provide for interest and security). Espiritu v.3) In the LGC itself. IRR above). or the disciplinary authority whichever first acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion if the other. he was charged with executing a loan agreement with a non-stock and a non-profit organization headed by the governor himself as chairman wherein said agreement was grossly inimical to the interest of the Provincial Government (because the loan. he was charged by the vise governor Rodolfo Llamas of violating RA 3019.” Definitely. believe me” way of introducing a complaint) while the latter was delivering a public speech. among others. RPC and all other applicable general and special laws. When the continuance in office of the respondent could influences the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity if the records and other evidence. The Department of Local Government Secretary Oscar Orbos. However the DLG secretary. So. 1. 1. reprimanded. after reviewing the governor’s case. c. Reasons: 1) The provincial governor of Oriental Mindoro is authorized by the law to preventively suspend the municipal mayor of Naujan at anytime after the issues had been joined and any of the following grounds were shown to exist: a. public policy and a becoming regard for the principle of separations of powers demand that the action of said officer or body should be left undisturbed. the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act Specifically. . After evaluating the complaint. of this article by order of the proper court. When the evidence of the culpability is strong. 4) Commission of any offense including moral amplitude or an offense punishable by at least prison mayor which is from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment. abuse of authority. and 8) such other grounds as may be provided by the Code. b. (LGC of 1893). charging him with grave misconduct. (Same as Article 124. a) An elective local official may be censured. 60. Section 124 says. “Initiatives shall extend only to subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of the Sanggunian to enact. the RTC of Oriental Mindoro issued a writ of preliminary injunction preventing the governor’s order of suspension. Garing practically threw the revised penal code at him). the vise governor took over as acting governor. the usual “I’m innocent. Orbos 202 SCRA 844 Facts: Mariano Un Ocampo III was the incumbent governor of the province of Tarlac in 1989. 5) Abuse Authority 6) Unauthorized absence of 15 consecutive working days. 124. 3) Dishonesty. sanggunian panlungsod. Melgar 206 SCRA 256 Facts: A certain Ramir Garing filed a complaint against Mayor Nelson Melgar of Naujan. the office or body that is invested with the power of removal or suspension should be the sole judge of the necessity and the sufficiency of the cause. IRR) *Article 124. Was the injunction proper? Held: No. Grounds for Disciplinary Action. suspended or removed from office after due notice and hearing on the following grounds: 1) Disloyalty to the republic of the Philippines. sangguniang bayan and sangguniang barangay. culpable violation if the Constitution (no kidding. the scopes of Sanggunian’s powers include resolutions which make them covered under initiatives. misconduct in office. in the spirit of Christmas perhaps. The vise governors now question the legality of issuing executive clemency or pardon to the administrative case when the same should apply only to criminal cases. When there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained of. 2. 7) Application for. When the gravity of the offense so warrants. E. 2) As a general rule. LGC) *Sec. The governor filed a motion for reconsideration. Grounds for Suspension and Removal (Sec. Upon petition by the mayor. foreign citizenship or residence or the status of an immigrant of another country. Garing claimed the mayor punched and kick him willfully unlawfully and feloniously (you know. b) An elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated in paragraph a. Governor Benjamin Espiritu had the mayor preventively suspended for 60 days. slapped a 90 days suspension (not preventive suspension) on the hapless governor. oppression.

The reason is that the electorate clearly forgiven him for the administrative misconduct he committed during the last term. 3 disqualification cases were filed against him on the ground he was removed from office. suspend or remove elective officials under the grounds provided by law. 17. 137. 1986. This is the rule along with the theory that each term is separate from other terms. Pending the disposition of the case however. Yulo himself admitted that private respondent’s services were terminated pursuant to the reorganization and approval of the new staffing pattern of Calamba on November 3. if such appointment is made within the period of 1 year from February 25. The 1987 Constitution makes no distinction as to criminal or administrative cases. such declaration by the said Committee destroys whatever argument Yulo tried to build using the Freedom Constitution as a basis.” Held: The argument is devoid of merit. 4. the dismissed employees ought to and must be reinstated. 1986. To grant pardons to release private obligations prevent or destroy civil rights is plain abuse. The basis municipality for the termination was reorganization and the approval of a new starting pattern. it is undeniable that private respondent’s employment with the municipality was a lawfully terminated. Held: Since Aguinaldo was re-elected as governor. On his narration of facts. The CSC affirmed the MSFB’s decision. NOTE: Under the qualified agency doctrine. The phrase “after conviction of final judgment” does not make explicit reference to criminal cases fact.Held: Llamas is incorrect. he was allowed to run and won a landslide victory. The Merits System Protection Board (MSFB) of the CSC handled the case of the 43 employees. the Constitution does not allow pardon in impeachment cases. In the meantime. the MSFB found no sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the dismissed employees (the charges against them were “questionable integrity” as insinuated by Yulo) and ordered the reinstatement of some 28 of them (which was reduced further to 21 due to the death and/or reemployment of some of them) and payment of their back wages. At first. Yulo v. It may be reiterated here that the main reason why the then inter-Agency Review Committee refused to take cognizance of the instant case was because Mamplata et al were not removed pursuant to Executive Order No. Yulo was just as unsympathetic as Elasigue regarding the plight of the dismissed employees. The foregoing rule. More importantly. under Art. CSC 219 SCRA 470 Facts: Back in November 24. Santos ordered Aguinaldo’s removal from of Pending criminal charges of disloyalty to the republic. the later-Agency Review Committee created under the Freedom Constitution reviewed the case of the said employees. 17 is palpably an afterthought. Yulo now tried a different tack: that the termination of employment of the said employees was justified under a transitory provision of the Freedom Constitution which states. On this score alone. the Department of Local Government Secretary Luis Santos found Aguinaldo’s guilty of disloyalty to the Republic and of culpable violation of the Constitution. Aguinaldo v. Aguinaldo filed certificate of candidacy for governor again. however. Illegal removal of career civil service employees in violation of their Constitutional right to security of tenure will not be condoned under the guise of reorganization. and that the reelection to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s misconduct to the extent of cutting of the right to remove him therefore. That the Constitution does not make a same exemption to the administrative cases shows that executive clemency can be granted in administrative cases. Santos 212 SCRA 768 Facts: Rodolfo Aguinaldo was elected governor of Cagayan in 1988. Yulo’s argument to the effect that respondents were separated from the service by virtue of the Freedom Constitution or Executive Order No. . “All elective and appointive officials under the 1973 Constitution shall continue to office until otherwise provided by the proclamation or executive order or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of their successors. 1986. Laguna terminated the services of Teofilio Mamplata and 43 other employees of said municipality. Two years later. alter egos of the President have the power to discipline. Section 43 of PD 807 also recognizes executive clemency in administrative cases “in meritorious case by commutation or removal” Padilla’s Dissent: the spirit and intent of pardons is to afford relief from the enforcement of the criminal which imposes penalty and which appears unduly harsh. RPC were also lodged against him: Aguinaldo questioned the legality of his removal with the SC. finds no application to criminal cases pending against petitioner for acts he may have committed during the failed coup. Officer-In-Charged Apolonio Elasigue of the municipality of Calamba. the pending administration case against regarding his removal from office was rendered moot and academic. Elasigue last in the mayoralty race to Jesus Miguel Yulo. 3. Still. after due no hearing. However.

b) preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined. The findings of facts and conclusions of the COMELEC. Particularly. absent and any determination of irregularity in the election returns. finding the respondent Deputy Sheriff Humberto Basco of the City Court of Manila guilty of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to reinstatement to any position in the national or local government. 52. d) Any abuse of the exercise of the power of preventive suspension shall be penalized as abuse of authority. He ran for councilor 3 times – in 1988. The dispositive portion of the decision is important in this case so its given special mention: “Wherefore. *Sec. LGC. Art. Grego v. His second and third campaigns as councilor was however mired by disqualification lawsuits from left and right as his sins from 1981 came back to haunt him. if the respondent is an elective official of a barangay. Procedure (Sec. PD 807 (now Sec. 84. COMELEC 274 SCRA 461 Facts: Back in October 31. Administrative discipline. 127. if the respondent Is an elective official of a province. 40(b) of the LGC of 1991 which states that persons running for any elective office are disqualified if they were previously removed from office as a result if an administrative case. including its agencies and instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations. *Sec. he cannot be preventively suspended for more than 90 days within the single year on the same ground or grounds existing and known at the time of the first suspension. abuse of discretion. Reasons: 1) The LGC of 1991 cannot be applied retroactively. 84. 2) By the governor. He is not therefore barred from seeking public office. that in the event that several administrative cases are filed against and elective official. 3) The 1981 SC decision uses the word “reinstatement” (see above). 85. which shall be terminated within 120 days from the time he as formally notified of the case against him. the suspended elected official shall be deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against him. However. Te result of such administrative investigations shall be reported to the CSC. 2) The suspension of the proclamation of a winning candidate on the ground of a pending disqualification case lies within the discretion of the COMELEC according to its evaluation of the evidence (Section 6. neglect. One of them come from Sec.5. Investigation and adjudication of administrative complaints against appointive local officials and employees as well as their suspension and removal shall be in accordance in the civil service law and rules and order pertinent laws. 3) By the mayor. 3. Preventive suspension of appointive local officials and employees. his third campaign for councilor ran into some serious legal obstacle. Salary of respondent pending suspension. since no provision allows for it. when the evidence of guilt is strong. if the delay in the proceedings of the case is due to his fault. 1981. Another was that his proclamation as councilor for the third time was allegedly void because his disqualification case was still pending. Lastly. 2. Basco misgivings happened way back in 1981 long before the inception of the LGC. Basco is not seeking to get reappointed but to get elected and re-elected. a) Preventive Suspension may be imposed: 1) By the president. and given the gravity of the offense. 1992 and 1995 – in the City of Manila and won each time. IRR) Read also section 42. Preventive Suspension. The respondent official preventively suspended from office shall receive salary or compensation including such emoluments accruing during such suspension. RAC of 1987) *Section 63. Will Humberto “Lucky” Basco overcome the odds and win? Held: Yes. 85-87. that any single preventive suspension of local elective officials shall not extend beyond 60 days: provided further. LGC) *Sec. Preventive Suspension (Section 63-64. it seemed that the SC decision from 1981 forever barred him from seeking public office. . Rules and regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission defined reinstatement as the reappointment of a person who was previously separated from the service x x x. if the respondent is an elective official of a component city or municipality. there is great probability that the continuance in the office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence: provided. it is a mandatory ministerial duty of the Board of Canvassers to count the votes and declare the result. the duration of such delay shall not be counted in computing the time of termination of the case. must be generally respected and even given finality. RA 6646). Obviously. 64. Humberto Basco was removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff by the SC itself after a finding of serious misconduct in an administrative case filed against him. highly urbanized or independent component city. Besides. or request. c) Upon expiration of the preventive suspension. absence of a showing of grave.” But this guy doesn’t give up in the face of adversity. other than the appeal duly filed.

RAC of 1987. and (3) the interest of the city under the administrative cases be filed against Mayo Garcia. negligent or the petition of the respondent. of reprimand and other wise disciplined subordinate officials and employees under his jurisdiction. Administrative investigation.A 7160 of the ombudsman law (R. b) Upon expiration of the preventive suspension. oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty. If the penalty imposed is suspension without pay for not more than 30 days. Assuming that the ombudsman properly took cognizance of the case. is the preventive suspension of the petitioner based on “strong evidence” as required by law? Held: The answers are: 1. Garcia cannot anymore be held administratively liable for an act committed during a previous term. 4 days later national elections were held and Mayor Garcia won reelection contract. Zuellig. the local chide executive may impose the penalty of removal from service. chapter 6). administrative investigation may be conducted by a person or committee duly authorized by the local chief executive. 63. 1999. the period of delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided. the LGC R. LGC *Sec 52. The deputy Ombudsman handled Garcia’s case and recommended 6 moths preventive suspension against the latter – the maximum imposable under RA 6770. the respondent shall be automatically reinstated in the service: provided. especially with regards to the stipulation deemed prejudicial to the city has already occurred during the mayor’s previous term. *Sec. the time of the delay shall not be counted in the computing of the period of the suspension herein provided. which shall decide the case within 30 days from receipt thereof. Except other wise provided by the law. in the other hand. Cebu city mayor Alvin Garcia signed a contract with F. negligence or request of the respondent.E.a) the local chief executives may preventively suspend for a period not exceeding 60 days any subordinate official or employee under his authority pending investigation if the charged against such officials or employee involves dishonesty. took effect on September 1998. particularly considering that the amount was fixed in dollars and was payable in pesos. I. what law should apply to the investigation being conducted by him. or if there is reason to believe that the respondent is guilty of the charges which would warrant his removal from the service. On march. When the administrative case against the officer or employee under preventive suspension is not finally decided by the disciplining authority within the period of 90 days after the date of suspension of the respondent who is not a presidential appointee. 87. It hardly matters that the benefits of the contract are to be delivered during Garcia’s current term. Garcia now raises the following issues: 1. Lifting of preventive suspension pending administrative investigation (Book V. thus exposing the city government to the risk attendance to a fluctuating exchange rate. news reports came out that the said purchase of asphalt was anomalous investigation but the special prosecution officer of the office of the Ombudsman revealed that (1) the contract for supply of asphalt to Cebu city was designed to favor F. What is the effect of the reelection of the petitioner on the investigation of acts done before his reelection? Did the Ombudsman for Visayas gravely abuse his discretion in conducting the investigation of petitioner and ordering his preventive suspension? 2. *Sec. suspension for not more than 1 year without any fine in an amount not exceeding 6 months salary.86. pending investigation. (2) the amount quoted on the contract was too expensive compared for the amount for which asphalt may be bought from local suppliers such as Shell and Petron. Said person or employee shall conduct hearings on the cases brought against appointive local officials and employees and submit their findings and recommendations in the local chief executive concerned within 15 days from the conclusion of the hearings.A 6770)? Was the procedure in the law properly observed? 3. if the penalty imposed by the disciplining authority suspension or dismissal. Disciplinary charges. the decision shall be appealable to the CSC. Mojica 314 SCRA 207 Facts: On May 7. The administrative cases herein mentioned shall be decided within 90 days from the time the respondent is formally notified by the charges. that when the delay in disposition of the case is due to the fault. The meeting of minds to the contract.E. Subtitle A on CSC. Garcia v. IRR. In any LGU. *Article 127. 1988. Exactly the same as Sec. demotion in tank. the suspended official or employee shall be automatically reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation of the administrative proceedings against him until its termination. If the delay in the proceeding of the case is due to the fault. Assuming further that the ombudsman has jurisdiction. the Ombudsman Law. Zuellig for the supply of asphalt to the city. Kinds of preventive suspension (with regards to civil service employees who are charged with offense punishable with suspension or removal) (revised administrative code of 1987) 1) Preventive suspension. . 2) Preventive suspension pending appeal.

3. its own initiative. The ombudsman derives his authority to assume jurisdiction over Garcia’s case under the constitution and RA 6670. Held: Preventive suspension of indefinite duration is rejected by the Constitution as it raises. but her suspension was decreed as indefinite. a public school principal of Malabon Municipal High School. These survivors however. Gonzaga v. Garcia v. The LGC of 1991 applies to elective officials and employees but. although they are not participating in the strike. The order preventively suspending Garcia is deemed too harsh and should be shortened to the period he has already served. questions of denial of due process and equal protection of the law. However. Sec. the reason being that the preventive suspension of civil service employees charge with dishonesty. the rule is that every law has in its favor the presumption of validity. they are entitled to back salaries for the period they were preventively suspended pending appeal.” even if later the charges are dismissed so as to justify the payment of salaries to the employee concerned. thirdly. Later in they were found guilty as charged and their penalties ranged from dismissal to 6 moths suspension. it can now be said that the purpose in preventively suspending Garcia has already been achieved since actual documentary evidence has already been discovered. The rule is that a person charged under RA3019 or PD 807 serve a maximum of 90 days preventive suspension only. was charged with malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan. Here. However. remains entitled to the Constitutional presumption of innocence as his culpability must still be established.However. oppression or grave misconduct. a person under preventive suspension. Laguio. be considered “unjustified. at the very least. the ombudsman did not commit the grave abuse of discretion. Nicanor Margallo and 3 other teachers were able to survive the carnage of dismissals. especially in a criminal action. to investigate Garcia. For this . RA 6670 must prevail. the basis for such a declaration must be clearly established. as empowered by the constitution. Should they? Held: The survivors are not entitled to back salaries for the period they were preventively suspended pending investigation. it is possible to obtain one’s back salaries for the period she was preventively suspended pending investigation. Either law can apply to Garcia’s case but since the ombudsman decided. There is no violation of the LGC of 1991 because RA 6670 is a special law distinct from that of the LGC and therefore. and b) The suspension is unjustified. In that case. decided to investigate his case on its own initiative (Article XI. 2. Since they were also preventively suspended pending appeal of their cases and were later declared exonerated. 3. the actual documentary evidence was obtained after the mayor had already been preventively suspended. a special law independent and distinct from the LGC can be applied to them instead. The Sandiganbayan preventively suspended Gonzaga under RA 3019. The 1987 Revised Administrative Code applies to appointive officials and employees. with the CSC. CA 306 SCRA 287 Facts: this area is an offshoot from the 1991 case of Manila Public School Teachers v. and managed to get lighter penalties of reprimands instead (in effect they were exonerated of the graver charges filed against them). Reasons: 1) Actually. 2. preventive suspension is not a penalty. 2 requisites must concur to make this possible: a) The employee must be found innocent of the charges which cause his suspension. However. many teachers were fired because of their participation in a strike which was declared by the SC to be illegal. did not report during the same. preventive suspension is justifiable for as long as its continuance is for a reasonable length of time. It is one of those sacrifices which holding the public office requires for the public good. NOTE: duration of preventive suspension under the following laws: 1) LGC of 1991 – maximum of 60 days 2) RA 6670 (Ombudsman Law) – maximum of 6 moths 3) RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) – maximum of 90 days. The survivors appealed with the Merit System and Protection Board (MSPB) and later on. The DECS secretary preventively suspended the survivors for 90 days. secondly. And the power of the ombudsman to preventively suspend an official subject to its administrative investigation is expressly provided by RA 6670 as well. of applicable. the second element is lacking. The survivors now want to obtain the salaries during the period for which they were preventively suspended. 13 1987 Constitution). It was Garcia’s misfortune that the office of the ombudsman. The news reports describing in detail Garcia’s misdeeds constituted strong evidence to preventively suspend Garcia. or neglect of duty is authorized by the CSC. Considering that the purpose of preventing suspension is to enable the investigating authority to gather documents without intervention from petitioner. in other words. therefore. administrative complaints filed under RA 6670 must be treated under its provisions and not with that of the LGC. and that to declare a law unconstitutional. they claim to be entitled to back salaries for that period of time as well. It cannot. Sandiganbayan 201 SCRA 417 Facts: Corazon Gonzaga. the ombudsman law. However.

RAC 1987) states that respondent shall be considered as under preventive suspension during the pungency of the appeal in the event he wins. IRR) *Art. it is limited to 90 days unless the delay in the conclusion of the investigation is due to the employee concerned. Thus. Armed goons accompanied the governor. 131. in the case of decisions of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of component cities and the Sangguniang bayan. charging the governor with the grave misconduct and abuse of authority. S 47 (4) (Book V. c) The penalty of suspension shall not exceed the unexpired term of the respondent or a period of 6 months for every administrative offense. Sangguniang Panlungsod of highly urbanized cities and independent component cities. On the other hand. *Art. 1992 figured prominently in this case its entirety if you want to know more about AO 24 (as if you would) One fine morning in September 12. Indeed to sustain the government’s theory would be to make the administrative decision not only executor but final executor. instead of filing his answer. and to require the attendance of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence in his favor thru the compulsory process of subpoena or subpoena duce’s locum. After that period. S. The respondent shall be accorded full opportunity to appear and defend himself in person or by counsel. even if the investigation is finished. the period of his suspension becomes part of the final penalty of suspension or dismissal. within 30 days from receipt thereof. Right of respondent. The governor threatened the SP members because they refused to support governor’s plan to obtain a loan of 150M from the PNB. Joson v. 1. 129.5 provides that in the event the executed judgment is reversed. The fact is that S. . the governor asked for 3 extensions of 30 days to file his answer.47 (2) and (4) are similar to the execution of judgment pending appeal under Rule 39. and 2) The office of the president. They filed a complaint with the office of the president (OP). The SP members did not take the governor’s threat sitting down. if he is not exonerated. 17. a) The investigation of the case shall be terminated within 90 days from the start thereof. 130. to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. may be appealed to the following: 1) The Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Decisions in administrative cases may. Unreasonable failure to complete the investigation after same period of 90 days by the person or persons assigned to investigate shall be a ground for disciplinary action. b) Within 30 days after the end of the investigation. the law provides that the employee shall be automatically reinstated. 129. Right of the Respondent (Art. 2) An employee is entitled to back salaries during the preventive suspension pending appeal. the recommended resolution shall be considered the decision. 4. It must be remembered that preventive suspension pending investigation is not a penalty but only a means of enabling the disciplining authority to conduct an unhampered investigation. Governor Joson was requested to file an answer. It explains in sordid detail what happens during an administrative investigation AO 24 dated Dec. the Office of the president or the Sanggunian concerned shall render a decision stating clearly and distinctly the facts and reasons for such decisions. and the sangguniang bayan of municipalities within MMA. Chapter 6. there shall be restitution or reparation of damages of equity and justice may require. 131. In case of failure of the Sanggunian concerned to render a decision on the resolution recommended on the investigation within 30 days after the end of the investigation. filed instead Motion to Dismiss. 5.5 of the Rules of Court Rule 39 S. IRR. he should be reinstated with full pay for the period of the suspension. Instead. IRR. Executive Secretary slapped him with a 60 day preventive suspension. 1996.reason. Hence. IRR) *Art. preventive suspension pending appeal is actually punitive although it is in effect subsequently considered illegal if respondent is exonerated and the administrative decision finding him guilty is reversed. d) The penalty of removal from office shall be considered a bar to the candidacy of the respondent for any elective position. Administrative appeals. On the other hand. When 3 months pass and Joson. Investigation and decision. Copies of decision shall be immediately furnished the respondent and all interested parties. Administrative Investigation and Appeals (Art. if his conviction is affirmed. the SP of Nueva Ecija was about to start their routine session when Governor Eduardo Joson barged into their session hall. in case of decisions of Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Decisions of the office of the president shall be final executory. nor shall said penalty be a bar to the candidacy of the respondent so suspended as long as he meets the qualifications required for the office. Tones 290 SCRA 179 Facts: This is a long boring case. It would be unjust to deprive him of his pay as the result of the immediate execution of the decision against him and continue to do so even after it is shown that he is innocent of the charges for which he was suspended. It is precisely because the respondents are penalized before his sentence is confirmed that he should be paid as salaries in the event he is exonerated.

Message Center and former CDO of Telecom filed a complaint for dishonesty thru falsification (multiple) of official documents against Maria Lupo. 1 Read AO No. a barangay secretary and a barangay treasurer. the AAB started hearing her case without the benefit of a formal investigation. Administrative Action Board 190 SCRA 69 Facts: Fructuso Arroyo. December 17. The rights of the respondent must be respected (Art. The procedure of requiring position papers in lieu of a hearing in administrative cases is expressly allowed with respect to appointive officials but not to those elected. the telecom investigator conducted an informal fact-finding inquiry. KATARUNGAN PAMBARANGAY LAW Read sections 399 to 420. The case was resolved using position papers submitted by both parties. 1992 VII.Governor Joson then filed a motion to conduct formal investigation as mandated by the LGC and AO 23. Also. The CSC thru its Merit System Board ordered the case to be remanded back to the telecom office for further investigation after which the administrative action board (AAB) was to hear the merits of the case thru a trial. Chief Officials and Officers a) There shall be in each barangay a PB. thus the official must be accorded his rights under the law in order that the people who elected him into office will not be unduly deprived of his services. 7 SB members. Joson now claims he cannot be denied of his right to a formal investigation granted under AO 21. Here. F. Read RA 6770 – the Ombudsman Act of 1989 Read the case of Garcia v. in order to best see how the Ombudsman Act was applied in an actual case G. A. March 10. the DOTC secretary immediately slapped her with a 1 year suspension based only a mere informal inquiry. 121. IRR). The Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communication however. thus the resolution finding him guilty should be declared null and void. 2. The rules on the removal and suspension of elective local officials are more stringent because the official has only a limited term of office. (Not e: the following information on the KBL and the League of Local Government Units were lifted from the Political Law Reviewer by Nachura). AO 23 does not give the investigating authority (which is the DILG Secretary by specific mandate of AO 23) the discretion to determine whether a formal investigation should be conducted. (see p. LGC. the SK chairman. Complaints against employees belonging to the CSC system is governed by PD 807 says that a formal complaint that should first be filed after which the respondent must be given the option to submit her self to a formal investigation if her answer to the complaint is found to be unsatisfactory. denied the governor’s motion. Mojica (see p. who committed said transgression in her capacity as Chief of Personnel if Telecom. the OIC/CDO. Lupo v. 1992 Read the case Joson v. Another reason why Joson’s right to a formal investigation cannot be denied is because he is an elective official. Held: Lupo is correct. the department investigating his case. Lupo appealed to the CSC. The cardinal primary rights of due to process in administrative hearings must always be observed. 71) preferably in its entirely. He came out with a memorandum recommending that Lupo be sternly warned and that a repeat of such offense will merit her graver penalties. the secretary filed a resolution slipping6 Lupo with 1 year suspension and suspending her from promotion for a period of 1 year. examined the memorandum. Region V. 2 Read AO No. __ of AO 23 states that only the parties to the case have the right to decide whether they desire a formal investigation. There shall also be in every barangay a lupong tagapamayapa. The SB may from community . 23. The Barangay 1. the DILG found the governor guilty as charged and imposed a 6 months suspension without pay on him. not only was Lupo is given a chance to submit her self to a formal investigation. Lupo now complains she was not accorded procedural due process because no formal charge has been filed against her and that the investigation conducted by the telecom investigation was not a formal investigation but a mere fact-fact finding inquiry. In its resolution. 69) preferably in it’s entirely. rejection of Joson’s right to a formal investigation is denial of procedural due process Sec. Torres. 129. Proceedings before the DILG thus continued without the benefit of a formal investigation. Suspension and removal will shorten this term of office. The DILG. Lupo must not be denied her right to a formal and full blown administrative proceeding. Based on said memorandum. in order to best see how AO 23 was applied in an actual case. Is he correct? Held: Yes. The AAB however proceeded with the trial of the case without waiting for the investigation to commence. G.

Uy sought to dismiss the 2 criminal cases on the ground that since the complaint involved a crime where the penalty is at best arresto menor. The Province. 4. The lupon shall be constituted every 3 years. It shall meet at least twice a year to hear and discuss a semestral report of the SB concerning its activities and finances as well as problems affecting the barangay. There shall be an organization of all the pederasyon ng mga SK i) In municipalities. He may not be therefore prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms. 426 RA 7160 b) Katipunan ng mga Kabataan: Shall be composed of citizens of the Philippines actually residing in the barangay for at least 6 months. consisting 3 members who shall be chosen by the parties to the dispute from the list of members of the lupon. b) Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo. or upon written petition of at least 1/20 of its members. SB members. 152 SCRA 113.P. Read Sec. Read Sec. Katarungang Pambarangay a) Lupong Tagapamayapa. The Barangay Assembly There shall be a barangay assembly composed of all person who are actual residents of the barangay for at least 6 months 15 years of age over citizens of the Philippines and duly registered in the list of barangay assembly members. the PB. There is here by created in each barangay a LT composed of the PB as chairman and 10 to 20 members. effects of settlement and arbitration award. Read Sec. procedure. Salonga. Read Sec. 337).A 7160 3. a) Powers of the barangay assembly. There shall be every barangay a SK to be composed of chairman 7 members. the same should have been first filed with the Lupong Tagapamayapa of the proper . pangmetropolitang pederasyon. arbitration. 1) For purposes of the RPC. In People v. c) Subject matter of amicable settlement. pambansang pederasyon B. the same shall be determined by lots drawn by the lupon chairman. Read Sec. who are duly registered in the list of the SK or in the official barangay list in the custody of the barangay secretary. Monton (1998). 1) Powers and functions. dispute brought before the lupon a conciliation panel to be known as the pangkat ng tagapagkasundo. shall be deemed agents persons in authority in Milo v. conciliation. it was held that the barangay chairman is entitled to posses and carry firearm within the territorial jurisdiction of the barangay (Sec. The City. Atayde and her employee. (ii) meet regularly once a month to provide a forum for exchange of ideas among its members and the members to share with one another their observations and experiences in effecting speedy resolution of disputes and. RA 7160 1. panlalawigang pederasyon iv) In special metropolitan political subdivisions. while other barangay officials and members who may be designated by law or ordinance and charged with the maintenance of public order. (iii) exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law or ordinance. the pambansang pederasyon ii) in cities. 1) Powers of the Lupon (i) exercise administrative supervision over the conciliation panels. 440-447 RA 7160 C. v) On the national level. 459. the barangay chairman is a public officer who may be charged with arbitrary detention. lupong tagapamayapa in each barangay shall be deemed as persons in authority in the jurisdiction. protection and security of life and property.brigades and create such other positions or officers as may be deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of barangay government. panlungsod na pederasyon iii) In provinces. There shall constituted for each. 2. 448-548 RA 7160 D. He shall meet once every 3 months or at the call of the SK chairman. The Municipality. 398. Atayde later filed 2 criminal cases for minor injuries against Uy with the MTC. c) Pederasyon ng mga SK. B. Contreras 237 SCRA 167 Facts: Felicidad Uy and Susanna Atayde got involved in a catfight (nagsasabunutan) involving a dispute over a sublease. and any barangay member who come to the all of persons authority.468. Winnie Javier sustained minor injuries as a result. R. Sangguniang Kabataan a) Creation. Uy v. a secretary and a treasurer. 88(3). composition. who are 15 but not more than 21 years of age. Should the parties fail to agree on the pangkat membership. An official who during his term of office shall have passed the age of 21 shall be allowed to serve the remaining position for the term for which he was elected. or the maintenance of a desirable and balanced environment.

articulating and crystallizing issues affecting municipal government administration. League of Cities. The SC has held in many cases that while the referral of a case to the lupong tagapamayapa is a condition precedent for the filing of a complaint in court. Diu v. by himself fail to resolve the parties differences still is not denied that the parties met the office of the barangay chairman for possible settlement. claimed that Jose’s allegations were false and were only meant to evade the requirements of PD 1508 for barangay conciliation. Was the denial proper? Held: No. has been laid to rest. solutions thereto. Even though there was a failure to constitute a pangkat should the barangay chairman. 496-498 C. The efforts of the barangay chairman.55 incurred in 1988. Quezon City filed an ejectment case against lessee Quintin Felizardo in the MTC of Olongapo city. League of provinces. The CA however ruled once more for Pagba agreeing with the latter that there was no substantial compliance with the procedure outlined in Katarungang Barangay Law because of the failure by the barangay chairman to constitute a pangkat to resolve the parties’ differences. however Pagba twice failed to appear. Obviously. and for ventilating. it committed a mere error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. 2. The spouses Diu brought the matter to the barangay chairman for resolution. Liga ng mga Barangay . League and federation of Local Elective Officials. The MTC ruled in favor of Pagba. The MTC ruled that it could act on the complaint field by Jose and later on rendered a decision in favor of Jose. To indulge the Pagbas in their stratagem will not only result in a circuitous procedure but will necessarily entail undue and further delay injustice.862. thru proper and legal means. non-compliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction which the court has already acquired over the subject matter and over the person of the defendant. Although no pangkat was formed. CA 233 SCRA 220 Facts: Nemesio Jose as owner-lessor of a house and lot located in Bajac-bajac. Was the CA correct in its contention? Held: No. this is the game plan of the Pagbas. it is undeniable that there was substantial compliance with presidential decree No. 502-203 E. Felizardo. in his answer. Galarosa v. it cannot be said that the failure of the parties to appear before the pangkat caused any prejudice to the case for private respondents considering that they already refused conciliation before the barangay chairman. The barangay chairman thus gave the go signal for Diu’s to file their case with the MTC. therefore. articulating and crystallizing issues affecting barangay government administration and securing. Held: When MTC ruled that it could act on the complaint for ejectment filed by the private respondent even without prior barangay conciliation proceedings. solutions thereto. Felizardo v.Organization of all barangays for the primary purpose of determining the representation of the liga in the sanggunians. thru proper and legal means. Read Sec. Uy managed to seasonably file her motion to dismiss based upon a valid ground. 508-510 I. She cannot therefore be said to have waived her right to avail of the KB to resolve their dispute. 1508 which does not require strict technical compliance with its procedural requirements. Read Sec. however proved futile as no agreement was reached. From the foregoing facts. only to bring the case all over again through the hierarchy of courts and ultimately back to us for decision on the merits. This is inevitable if this court should dismiss the complaint and require the parties to meet before the pangkat. Such primary substantive issue. League of Municipalities. CA 251 SCRA 472 Facts: Patricia Pagba owed spouses Diu a debt worth P7. 3. B.barangay (which should have actually been Katarungang Barangay). For. Valencia 227 SCRA 728 . The RTC reversed deciding the case on the merits. 491-495. The MTC judge however denied the motion to dismiss. 499-501 D. Read Sec. Felizardo thus filed a petition for certiorari questioning the jurisdiction of the MTC. Read Sec. but private respondents would wish to keep the case alive merely on a conjured procedural issue invoking their supposed right to confrontation before the pangkat. Read Sec. LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY A. the SC believes that there was substantial compliance with the law. and securing. Organized for the primary purpose of ventilating. they did not at all assail the propriety or correctness of judgment of the RTC holding them liable to petitioners for the sum of money involved. Under the factual antecedents. when the Pagbas appealed to respondent court.

which says: “Ex officio membership in sanggunians. no law which prohibits Galarosa from holding over as a member of the sangguniang bayan. Alquisola Sr. when the new LGC of 1991 finally took effect. However. Iligan City. shall serve as ex-officio members of the sangguniang barangay. 181-188. Is Lasay correct? Held: Yes. thereby a new set of officers have to be appointed by the President of the Philippines. They shall serve as such only during their term of office as presidents of the liga chapters which in no case shall be beyond the term of office of the SC” Raul Galarosa is a president of the Katipunang Bayan of the municipality of Sorsogon. Local special bodies. The hold-over rule must be applied. sangguniang panlungsod.Facts: Basically the main issue here is only how to properly interpret Section 494 of the LGC 1991. LOCAL SPECIAL BODIES (ART. 337 automatically became the liga ng mga barangay under the LGC and then the president of the ABC automatically became the president of the liga whose term as ex-officio member of the first sangguniang bayan un the 1987 constitution is coterminous with that of the other regular members if the SB on until 30 June. since by necessity. they are now at the mercy of the new punong barangay who also possess the power of appointment. prepared and issued by the Oversight Committee upon specific mandate of section 533 of the LGC. The power of appointment is discretionary and thus implies that the power to remove is also inherent in the former. causing an interruption in the public service. The LGC of 1991 does not explicitly provide that upon his effectivity the katipunan ng mga barangay under B.P Blg. The rest of the articles describe the compositions and functions of each local special body. since the punong barangay who appointed the respondents has already stepped down from office. barangay secretary utility workers who were appointed under the term of a previous punong barangay. aforementioned IRR. IRR) *Article 181 names the different local special bodies. city and provincial levels. 6636. On the contrary. Lasay claimed that the new LGC of 1991 provided for the liga ng mga barangay. respectively. nevertheless abolished the katipunan ng mga barangay. because to the rule other wise would lead to a vacancy in the office. The barangay treasurer and his similarly situated friendly friends pointed out that section 389 of the LGC requires that the approval by a majority of the sangguniang barangay members is needed before the punong barangay can exercise his power of replacing them. expressly recognizes and grants that hold-over authority to ABC presidents. The reason is that they were merely appointed to their posts by punong barangay. Once the punong barangay has already appointed his choice officials however. v. 2. however. which. including the component cities and municipalities of metropolitan manila. VIII. from the province down. There shall be organized in the LGU concerned the following local special bodies (every LGU. However. the (old) LGC of 1983 or BP 337 grants Galarosa the right to serve as ex-officio member of the sangguniang bayan. section 389 should then be applied in the sense that said officials cannot be removed by the punong barangay who appointed them without the approval of the sanggunian barangay. Held: It should be noted that the barangay officials who were dismissed are not provided with a definite of office under the LGC. Ocol 343 SCRA 273 Facts: Ramon Arquizola won the position of punong barangay of barangay Tubod. The duly elected presidents of the liga ng mga barangay at the municipal. Like the LGC of 1991. He then terminated the services of the barangay treasurer. shall have this local special bodies the PLEB however shall be governed by RA 6975) (a) Local Development Council (b) Local Prequalification. It would be absurd to give section 389 an interpretation which would render impotent the power of a newly elected punong barangay to choose his barangay officials. sangguniang panlalawigan. 1992 pursuant to section 494 of the LGC in relation to section 2 Article XVIII of the 1987 constitution 20 and section 5 of RA No. although admittedly was structurally and functionally the same as katipunan ng mga barangay. the new punong barangay may choose to remove the incumbent appointive barangay officials in order to make way for his choice of new barangay officials. There is. Bids and Awards Committee (c) Local Scholl Boards (d) Local Health Board (e) Local Peace and Order Council (f) People Law Enforcement Boards . *Article 181. Only Article 181 will be reproduced here. absent such explicitness and considering (1) that the opening clause of section 491 is expressed in the 1991 and (2) that section 494 speaks of “duly elected presidents of the liga” thereby clearly implying as election after the organization of the liga. Rodolfo Lasay filed a case against Galarosa in his capacity as taxpayer questioning the right of Galarosa to remain as an ex-officio member of the sangguniang bayan. the conclusion to be drawn is that the legislature never intended that section 494 would apply to the incumbent presidents of the katipunang bayan.

evaluation of bids. proposals. c) Local School Boards (sec. 37. municipal or barangay level shall assist the responding sanggunian in setting the direction of economic and social development. RDIP and supporting technical assistance programs shall be submitted directly to the office of the president for review and evaluation of their consistency with the MTPDP and the MTPIP/MTTAP. 1991 . propose to sanggunian concerned. May 17. 3) serve as advisory committee on educational matters. 2) serve as advisory committee to sanggunian on local appropriations for public health purposes. 1) sec. programming.Sec. city and municipality. bidding.1) EO 463. 1. LGC) – Creation. measures. d. . 1985 Eh? d) Local Health Board (sec. 3) consistent with DOH standards. and budgeting activities. operation and maintenance of health agencies funded by local governments.Sec. on the other hand is entitled “REORGANIZING THE PEACE AND ORDER COUNCIL” . and coordinating development efforts within its territorial jurisdiction. programming and budgeting system (SPPBS) namely: The Medium – term Philippine development plan (MTPDP). and b) Regional Development Investment Program (RDIP) and regional technical assistance program which shall be included in the Medium Term Public Investment Program (MTPIP) and the Medium Term Technical Assistance Program (MTTAP). For the purpose. b) To coordinate and monitor peace and order plans. . The regional planning and development board of the autonomous regional government shall prepare: a) Regional Development Plan (RDP) consistent with the national development policies. 21. in accordance with the criteria set by the DECS. Each LGU shall have comprehensive multi-sector development plan to be instituted by its development council and approved by its sanggunian. (The LHB do the following: 1) Consistent with DOH rules. December 9. The ARG may choose to reorganize the LDC through regional legislation. LGC) – There shall is hereby created a local prequalification. city/municipal) shall be maintained the strengthened in order to ensure continuity in the development planning process. the annual school budget. EO292 . a. . The ARG shall be guided by the synchronized planning. goals. the annual supplementary needs for the operation and maintenance of public high schools in the LGU concerned. bids and awards committee in every province. e) Local Peace and Order Councils (Section 116. 102. LGC) – Creation and Composition. The RDP. thrusts and strategies that would effectively respond to peace and order problems. 106. 21. composition and function. in other words. 2) authorize the LGU treasurer to disburse funds pursuant to budget. which shall be primarily responsible for the conduct of prequalification of contractors. 2) RA 7640. May 31. 2. objectives and priorities embodied in the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP). The peace and Order Council the national level shall be responsible for the following functions: a) To prepare and recommended for the approval of the President.Sec. school officials. 4) recommended changer in name of public schools within its assigned territorial jurisdiction. and the recommendation of awards concerning local infrastructure projects x x x. the development council at the provincial.Sec.Entitled “Establishing the relationship between the Regional Planning and Development Board of the Autonomous Regional Government (of Muslim Mindanao) and the national economic and development authority (NEDA) board” . etc. LGC) – Basically. Responsibility of the National Peace and Order Council. the local peace and order councils will have the same composition and functions as prescribed in EO 309. etc. 5) act as an consultant on appointment of division superintendent. (The LSBs do the following: 1) determine. c) To perform such other duties and functions as the President may direct. LGC). city. 1962 a) RA 7640. 1) LOI 1462. projects and operation of Civilian Volunteer SelfDefense Organizations such as other counter-insurgency programs and activities. district supervisor. IX on Health basically states that DOH shall review and for the establishment.Entitled “INSTITUTING THE “ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987” -Sec. the medium term technical assistance program (MTTAP) and the regional development investment program (RDIP) in its planning. December 9. The Local Development Council (provincial. Sec. 1962 b) Local PABC (sec. create committees which shall advise local health agencies on matters such as personnel selection and promotion. EO09. 98.a) LDC (sec.) c. 2. Chapter 5. 5. a.

as a consequence of the raids. d) Perform all other functions assigned by law. their Station Commander. or the National Peace and Order Council. apparently upon the direction of Supt. they alleged that their transfer from the Baguio City Police Station to other stations and their being dropped from the rolls wore irregularly and illegally made.The National Police Commission shall establish rules regarding the graduated penalties which may be imposed by the PLEB. In the second complaint. according to respondent policemen. b) To monitor the implementation of peace and order programs projects at the provincial. through counsel that cases of this nature are not within the competence and jurisdiction of public respondent PLEB since it involves an internal organizational matter of the PNP. The respondent policemen answered. although Supt.Is created only by the sangguniang panlungsod/bayan and found only in cities and municipalities. f. as well as persona accosted. First. literal meaning. Lastly. Camilo S. Florencio D. they do not cease to become citizens of the Philippines despite the uniform they wear. nowhere in the PNP’s enabling act does it grant the PLEB jurisdiction to try any of the PNP’s members. It is doubtful that a civilian body can better police the ranks of policemen. In the first complaint.. twice castigated them for conducting said raids and ordered the release of the cash and paraphernalia seized. Are the PLEB and NAPOLCOM correct? Held: No. Fianza contended. PLEB 243 SCRA 165 Facts: Several policemen filed two separate complaints against two of their superiors with the People’s Law Enforcement Board. Cordoviz was not under the command of Supt. The Regional. or if in absence thereof. July Cordoviz was guilty of grave threats against them in connection with the issue regarding the first case. Section 43. that although they are policemen. as defined under the PLEB rules. instigated by or made in retaliation to the raids they conducted on jueteng operations in Baguio. Duties and Functions of Sub-National Councils. Statutory construction will tell you that words of a statute are to be given their plain. the complaint is not a citizen’s complaint because.2. While the policemen are indeed citizens. any college graduate or principal of central elementary school .1.There must be 1 PLEB for every municipality and 1 in every legislative district of the city . Second. The National Police Commission affirmed the PLEB’s stand. The PLEB ruled that they have jurisdiction over the case. the respondent policemen contend that Supt. The orders issued by Supt. 3 respected members of the community. 3. f) People’s Law Enforcement Board f. Dugayen. here petitioner. c) Make periodic assessments of the prevailing peace and order situation in their respective areas of responsibility and submit a report thereon with recommendations to the Chairman of the National Peace and Order Council. The policemen claim that Supt. a citizen’s complaint is one filed by a private citizen against a member of the PNP for the redress of injury. 1 barangay captain (any). at least 1 who is member of the Bar. . Provincial and City/Municipal Peace and Order Council shall have the following duties and functions: a) Formulate plans and recommended such measures which will improve or enhance peace and order and public safety in their respective areas of responsibility. Dugayen.PLEB decisions are final and executory . however. Fianza. . city or municipal levels and the operation of Civilian Volunteer Self-Defense Organizations and such as other counter-insurgency programs and activities. the President.Sec. Fianza v.Procedure in PLEB shall be summary in nature . damage or disturbance cause by the latter’s illegal or irregular acts. Fianza. that cannot be certainly be said to be private citizens in their ordinary meaning. were. RA 6975 – Some features: .Composed of 1 sanggunian member (any). internal disciplinary matters within the PNP are best solved by the members of the PNP themselves as they are the best position to understand the standard of conduct within its organization.

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.