LOCAL GOV‘T LAW (Municipal Corp. Law) DAY 1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES What is a corporation?

- an artificial being created by operation of law, having the right of succession and the powers, attributes and properties expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence. What are the reasons for creating a corporation? - Limited Liability from the business perspective. Having a corporation will therefore mean that there is another entity separate from the owners. If you talk about a private corporation, then you have a separate juridical entity called that corporation and you also have the personality of the owners and stockholders and therefore, having said that, then we can talk of limited liability because transactions entered into by the corporation will only affect the corporation. If the corporation gets sued because of its inability to pay then the other party to the contract cannot go after the incorporators or stockholders because it is basic in the corporation law that a corporation has a separate and distinct personality as that of the incorporators or stockholders. That if the president for example, acts on his own, purchases a property, does not pay, the other party, cannot go after the assets of the corporation to answer the liability of the president because he acted on his own and not as a representative of the corporation. If the mayor now slaps somebody and that victim sues the mayor and gets a monetary award from the court, that victim cannot go after the assets of Cebu City to answer for the judgement, the mayor will be held personally liable. If the mayor enters into a contract without the authorization from the sanggunian, and the mayor does not pay, the other party cannot go after the city of cebu. - For convenience, when you have a separate and juridical entity, then it can perform acts with legal effects already because it has personality. It can act rather with legal effects, it can enter into transactions/contracts such as contracts that allow a particular construction company to deliver or to build certain infrastructures. What are the kinds of corporation in general? (1) Public: Organized for the government of a portion of the State. One created by the State either by general or special act for purposes of expediency in administration of local government or rendering service in the public interest. (2) Private: Formed primarily for private purpose, benefit, aim or end. Private Corporation -those formed for some private purpose, benefit, aim or end. DEFINITION Public Corporation -one created by the State either by general or special act for purposes of administration of local government or rendering service in the public interest. -established for purposes connected with the administration of civil or local governments -creations of the State either by general or special act -through a charter 1

-through incorporating it through a general law (corp. code), the process is you go to the bank and deposit certain sum of money for capitalization and the bank would make a certification of such deposit and you go and fill up a form, the articles of incorporation, and you go the SEC to issue a certificate of incorporation. -constitute a voluntary agreement by and among its members

by congress -barangays may be created by law or ordinance

NATURE

-involuntary consequence of legislation

What are the kinds/classes of public corporation? Quasi-public Corporations -created as agencies of the State for narrow and limited purposes without the powers and liabilities of selfgoverning corporations. -actually a private corporation, given a franchise, its function is to deliver basic services or supply of public want such as water, electricity, etc. Ex. PCSO, public utilities like MCWD Municipal Corporations/Local Government -body politic and corporate constituted by the incorporation of the inhabitants for purposes of local government thereof. -established by law partly as an agency of the State to assist in the civil government of the country, but chiefly to regulate and administer the local or internal affairs of the city, town or district which is incorporated. -political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs Ex. LGU

LOCAL GOVERNMENT – political subdivisions of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs. Eg. Province (under the 1987 Constitution, local governments are not only called political subdivisions but territorial subdivisions as well) 1987 Constitution Art. 10 SECTION 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided. CONCEPTS: 1) Municipal corporation – abstract; something that has a set of officers, represents stateholders in entering into transactions, agent of the national government 2) Political subdivision – every time the LGU performs a governmental function then it is functioning as a political subdivision, meaning as an agent of the state 3) Territorial subdivision – for purposes of regulation of activities, regulation of certain forms of gambling, police power, expropriation

-created for private aim, gain, or benefits of its members

PURPOSE OF CREATION

-created by the will of the incorporators with the recognizance of the State.

CREATORS

…let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2

An LGU is to be created, it does not exist on its own. Precisely created by law, an artificial being.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ELEMENTS: (1) Legal creation - This refers to the law creating it; (2) Corporate name - It is the name by which the public corporation is known. The sangguniang panlalawigan may, in. consultation with the Philippine Historical Institute, change the name of component cities and municipalities, upon the recommendation of the sanggunian concerned; provided that the same shall be effective only upon ratification in a plebiscite conducted for the purpose in the political unit directly affected [Sec. 13, R.A. 7160].

The other concern is satisfaction of an award for monetary claim, you have a plaintiff who file a case against the city of cebu as defendant, gets a favourable award in the amount of 10M for the payment of just compensation because the city of cebu took his private property, the sheriff would now proceed to the bank and wondering if the funds in the account are for governmental or proprietary. In Property, the real property of and LGU may be held governmental or proprietary capacity. The LGU for example has a parcel of land and the national government uses it for offices of national government agencies. The legal concerns here are for example you are the mayor, there is deprivation of property, the beneficial use, then just compensation. You should ask just compensation from the national government, but the question is would you get it. We try to distinguish it now if that property is held in its governmental capacity then the LGU as agent of the national government, must have been holding the property in trust of the principal, so why would it receive just compensation. And then if it is a property held in its proprietary capacity then it is not part of the state, it is as if it is a private corporation so when it is deprive of property, it should receive just compensation. Dual Functions, cont‘d… IMPORTANCE OF KNOWING THESE DUAL FUNCTIONS OF LGU: - liability for damages - garnishment of funds - liability of LGU - control of congress over LGU

(3) Inhabitants - This refers to the people
residing in it or comprising it; and

(4) Territory - This refers to the area wherein
which the inhabitants are residing including the land, water, space and air space.

DUAL NATURE AND FUNCTIONS OF LGU 1. Governmental – public; political; administering the powers of the state and promoting the public welfare Ex. Regulatory ordinances, Police power, eminent domain, taxation, delegations 2. Proprietary – private; corporate; exercised for the special benefit and advantage of the community. Ex. Maintenance, beautification of public plazas, locality, markets

WHAT IS THE LEGAL RELEVANCE OF CHARACTERIZING A PARTICULAR FUNCTION OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT AS EITHER PUBLIC/GOVERMENTAL OR PRIVATE/PROPRIETARY? If a LGU performs a governmental function, then it is acting as a political subdivision/agent of the state then it is part of that state and being so it can enjoy the sovereign privileges of the state. Whereas if it is performing a proprietary function, a corporate entity as a representative of the inhabitants, and the inhabitants are not immune from suit. The idea of state immunity is not that the state cannot be sued but the state cannot be sued without its consent. There are various forms of consent, one is express consent, as when the law provides that that particular entity can be sued and if you look at the charter of all LGU, you will there a section that that LGU can sue and be sued, and that is an express consent, but even if you don‘t see that in every charter of the LGU, it doesn‘t matter because Jan. 1, 1992 which is the LGU code of 1991, sec. 2 already declares that every LGU has the power to sue and be sued. We can go to the other area of concern after suability which is liability in the area of for example negligence, or tortious acts, like for example the driver of the city of Cebu under the influence of liquor then hits and kills the pedestrian, the heirs will have to claim for redress, the question is who should be the one to be held liable. Would you find it relevant to distinguish between a contract that is entered into by the City of Cebu hiring for example the services of entertainers to appear before a program and a contract entered into between a contractor and the city of cebu for the construction of road; would you say that in the first situation the city of cebu should be held liable because it is a private contract and in the public contract, It‘s not liable? 2

Section 15. Political and Corporate Nature of Local Government Units. - Every local government unit created or recognized under this Code is a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law. As such, it shall exercise powers as a political subdivision of the national government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory. - Even without this principle, it will still apply because this is the principle since time immemorial.

BARA LIDASAN V COMELEC *On June 18, 1966, Chief Executive signed into law House Bill (HB) 1247, now known as Republic Act (RA) 4790 “An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur”The new municipality of Dianaton, Lanao del Sur includes: Kapatagan, Bongabong, Aipang, Dagowan, Bakikis, Bungabung, Losain, Matimos, and Magolatung. It also includes: barrios of Togaig and Madalum (both situated in Buldon, Cotabato) and barrios of Bayanga, Langkong, Sarakan, Kat-bo, Digakapan, Magabo, Tangabao, Tiongko, Colodan, and Kabamawakan (all situated in Parang, Cotabato) Bara Lidasan, resident and taxpayer of the detached portion of Parang, Cotabato affected by the implementaion of RA 4790, questions the constitutionality of RA 4790. SC: on 1966, there are still lesser population compared to now. With 9 barangays, it‘s hard to imagine that it can exist as a self-sufficient political community. Remember, and LGU is not only a political subdivision of the state because if it is only a political subdivision of the state, it can always ask funding from the national government, but it is not. It cannot deliver basic services with only 9 barangays. - Municipal corporations perform twin functions. Firstly. They serve as an instrumentality of the State in carrying out the functions of government.

…let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2

Secondly. They act as an agency of the community in the administration of local affairs. It is in the latter character that they are a separate entity acting for their 13 own purposes and not a subdivision of the State.

DAY 2 ANSWER OF ASSIGNMENT BY ATTY. LARGO: LEGAL CONCERNS:

SURIGAO ELECTRIC CO., INC V MUNICIPALITY OF SURIGAO - There‘s a law that provides for a requirement that if they operate for a public utility, you need to get a certificate of public convenience however in the same law it provided for certain entities that are exempt from getting a certificate of public convenience, and that public service law mentions of instrumentalities of public government as exempt from getting a certificate public convenience if it opts to operate a public utility. Surigao Electric Co., complained because the municipality operated an electric company without a certificate of public convenience. The question now is the idea of instrumentality of the national government, does it include a local government unit, because it was argued the meaning of instrumentality should be those agencies pertaining to the national government and since it is local, it is not part. - Because of the first function of the LGU, that is, it serves as an agency of the State, and LGU can therefore be considered an instrumentality of the National Government. - SC said: Government affairs do not lose their governmental character by being delegated to the municipal governments. Nor does the fact that such duties are performed by officers of the municipality which, for convenience, the state allows the municipality to select, change their character. - Even if the local government caters to the needs of the inhabitants, it‘s a fact that is also a political subdivision, it is also an agent of the national government, so it is both a corporate entity and a political subdivision and being a political subdivision then it can qualify as an instrumentality of the national government. The SC ruled that there was no need for a certificate of public convenience.

- What would happen to the ordinances? - Contracts, if the LGU was made to pay in that contract, can the people get the funds back? Because it was illegally disburse? Because it was disbursed by a nongovernment entity? - Taxes, for 40 years, it must have collected real property taxes, will you not get the taxes back? - Suppliers, will they get back the supplies delivered to the LGU? What if they have not been paid? Can you still make the LGU liable? - Local officials have been elected and acted as such for 40 years, what would happen to their salaries? Where they entitled, assuming this would be declared unconstitutional. - The bottomline is, the buenavista 2 may have been defectively created and it acted as a lawfully created municipal corporation, and it acted as if it was lawfully created and therefore entered into transactions, exercised powers, collected taxes, it passed ordinances, police power, eminent domain, you want to get it back because it was expropriated by a non-governmental entity which should not exercise the power in the first place. - de facto or not? De jure? QUESTIONS YOU SHOULD BE ASKING: - Was there a plebiscite, how was it done? - There are principles of law applicable to those created before and after the 1987 constitution? - Was the validity of the municipal corporation here involve when questioned to check if it was assailed properly or improperly? - When was this created? Because if this was created before 1965 when Pelaez V Auditor General was decided by the SC, because that was already settled there, I want to know if it was assailed, because it‘s relevant to know whether that municipal corporation was questioned or not, whether a decision has been rendered declaring it invalidly created or not. - I want to know if this was enacted before the 1987 Constitution, let us say 1942 plus 40, 1982, so before 1987 constitution, I remember in one of the cases, it was said that if it was illegally created, like those municipal corporation created by executive order which according to SC in Pelaez v Auditor general, invalid because the creation of municipal corporation is a legislative function and not an executive function, although there was colourable compliance, because president Macapagal had some sort of a basin in creating municipal corporation in section 16 of the … code, so there was at least some sort of an attempt in good faith to organize it, it was not as if it was created without utterly legal basis. I want to know that because in the 1987 constitution was ratified by the people, and ordinance was annexed to the 1987 constitution, which happen to list down LGU that constituted the first set of legislative districts in that general apportionment of legislative districts. And you would be asking that question because a de facto municipal corporation, it can actually be rendered de jure through for example ratification recognition by the State as when even mentioned by the Constitution, in fact in 1 case, through congress, state has ratified, recognized a defective municipal corporation like in the LGC of 1991, in section 442 D, you should have asked that question. If it was created before 1987, was it included in the list? Otherwise, the state had ratified, recognized an invalidly created, assuming this can be assailed as invalidly created. Probably it‘s not even de facto, it‘s de jure. And

SOURCES OF POWER: GENERAL: 1. 1987 Constitution (article X sec. 5, 6, 7 sources of revenues) 2. LGC of 1991 (RA 7160) Consolidation of past local government laws) 3. Other statutes or acts not inconsistent with the foregoing

PROBLEM: A community of people in the northern part of Cebu had always wanted to have their own local government unit. Apparently, these people were considered minority in Cebu as their predecessors were mainly from the province of Bohol. Claiming that they have unique culture and tradition different from most Cebuanos, they lobbied in Congress for the enactment of a law for the creation of a new municipality to be called Buenavista 2. Although lacking in population requirement, they were able to convince congress to pass a law creating the new municipality. Local officials were then elected and acted as such for forty years. Buenavista 2 had then entered into contracts and transactions with various persons. 1)What are the areas of concern; What are the legal aspects of this problem? 2)What are the questions that you should be asking about this problem? 3)Why will you be asking those questions? 3

…let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2

O. acts of that entity will be respected and will be recognized as valid and binding by the State as if it is a de jure public corp. its creation can no longer be questioned. effectivity of the LGC of 1991. Long exercise of corporate powers without question from any quarter was not enough to silence the state. then that becomes a collateral attack. Otherwise. meaning that is the purpose or nature of the proceeding. Auditor General case invalidated certain EOs issued by the President creating municipalities because the power to create LGU is essentially legislative. However. NEVERTHELESS. (Fordham). will be recognized by the law as a municipal corporation de facto. attempt in good faith to organize it DOCTRINE OF DE FACTO CORPORATION . like the Municipallity of Sinacaban. The preliminary issue concerns the legal existence of Sinacaban. the corporation cannot be said to exist de jure. assumption of corporate powers MUNICIPALITY OF JIMENEZ V BAS. were deemed regular municipal corporations. the same factors are present so as to confer on Sinacaban the status of at least a de facto municipal EFFECTS OF A DE FACTO CORPORATION STATUS . if it does not exist in law because it has not complied with the law then it may have only existed in fact DE FACTO CORPORATION ELEMENTS: a. The principal basis for the view that Sinacaban was not validly created as a municipal corporation is the ruling in Pelaez v. as the case might be. it should be free to challenge local departures from that policy. organized as part of a municipal circuit court and considered part of a legislative district in the Constitution apportioning the seats in the House of Representatives. if it‘s de facto then it can be questioned through a direct proceeding – where the nature of the proceeding is in this case to assail the validity of the existence of the municipal corporation. Auditor General that the creation of municipal corporations is essentially a legislative matter and therefore the President was without power to create by executive order the Municipality of Sinacaban.Where at least a de facto municipal corporation.Is there a difference between de jure and de facto municipal corporation in so far as there effects of their acts are concerned? BASIS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF DE FACTO CORPORATION . to effectuate a policy in that area. THE STATE MAY RECOGNIZE A DE FACTO CORPORATION AND RENDER IT DE JURE . [10] Municipality of San Narciso. or any other purpose. perfectly created. it cannot. (1996) . but you brought up the issue on invalidity of the municipal corporation. which. 7160). Sinacaban‘s existence was questioned. colourable compliance with law d. 258 in 1949 and since then had been exercising the powers of an LGU. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . . lawfully created 2) DE FACTO – where there is colourable compliance with the requisites of a de jure municipal corporation. no. (operative fact doctrine) . sec. 442 D of the Local Government Code was considered as curative law.. the acts of that entity are not recognized as valid by the State. was created by executive order of the President before the ruling in Pelaez v. (Fordham) . excluding EO 258 .A. the legal existence of a local unit either on the ground that there was no authority in law for its existence or that were the irregularities in its organization.It also underlies the theory that local units may exist by prescription. proceeding is otherwise. JR. Above all.First. it was held that whatever doubt there might be as to the de jure character of the municipality must be deemed to have been put to rest by the local Government Code of 1991 (R. (2) the fact that following the ruling in Pelaez no quo warranto suit was filed to question the validity of the executive order creating such municipality.‖ Here. If the nature or purpose of the 4 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.in 1965. . The ruling [9] this case has been reiterated in a number of in cases later decided. those created in the past continued to exercise governmental powers as long as it has proof of continued exercise of governmental powers while defectively created and continued to exist. we have since held that where a municipality created as such by executive order is later impliedly recognized and its acts are accorded legal validity. Auditor general: (1) the fact that for nearly 30 years the validity of the creation of the municipality had never been challenged. BUT LONG USE OF CORPORATE POWER DOES NOT SILENCE THE STATE -The state controls the objects and methods of creation of local units and. (Fordham) KINDS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION: 1) DE JURE – created with all the elements of a municipal corporation being present.in 1990.SC: First. exists by law. wherever through the failure to comply with the constitutional or statutory requirements. c.another thing in January 1992. §442 (d) of which provides that ―municipal districts organized pursuant to presidential issuances or executive orders and which have their respective sets of elective officials holding office at the time of the effectivity of this Code shall henceforth be considered as regular municipalities. the organization of the people of a given territory as such a corporation under a color of delegated authority. (Fordham) .Defective incorporation may be obviated and a de facto unit rendered de jure by subsequent legislative recognition or validation. this Court considered the following factors as having validated the creation of a municipal corporation. valid law authorizing incorporation b.The basis for this doctrine is a very strong public policy supporting the security of units of local government and the conduct of their business against attack grounded upon collateral inquiry into the legality of their organization. it might still attack directly.Where there is no municipal corporation at all (even a de facto one). and (3) the fact that the municipality was later classified as a fifth class municipality. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. then it has standing to bring a claim in the Provincial Board. Pelaez V. Sr.where there is authority in law for a municipal corporation. followed by a user in good faith of the government powers incidental thereto. If Sinacaban legally exist.The municipality of Sinacaban was created through E. Quezon v. In Mendez. . in quo warranto or other appropriate proceedings.

in the establishment of Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the country. SR. petitioner municipality had acquired a vested right to seek the nullification of Executive Order No. Created in 1949. Moreover following the ruling in Municipality of san Narciso. 537. that R. §16 of the Rules of Court. dated 13 June 1978. Pelaez v.It became a fifth class municipality in 1965 . It cannot. Section 31 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 7160 may have converted theMunicipality of San Andres into a de facto municipality. 1515. Mendez. after more than five years as a municipal district. Granting the Executive Order No. the Municipality of San Andres had been in existence for more than six years when. a quo warranto suit against a corporation for forfeiture of its charter must be commenced within five (5) years from the time the act complained of was done or committed.in 1965. XI. Sinacaban is constituted part of municipal circuit for purposes of the establishment of Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the country. be applied to municipal corporations created before. 33. the peculiar circumstances obtaining in this case hardly could offer a choice other than to consider the Municipality of San Andres to have at least attained a status uniquely of its own closely approximating. Blg.San Andres‘ existence was questioned in 1989. Petitioners' theory might perhaps be a point to consider had the case been seasonably brought. Sinacaban had attained de facto status at the time the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2.SC: San Andres became de jure by subsequent recognition because it was included in the ordinance (appendix) to the 1987 constitution apportioning the 5 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Yet the validity of E. certain governmental acts all pointed to the State's recognition of the continued existence of the Municipality of San Andres. would succeed. the Municipality of San Andres has been considered to be one of the twelve (12) municipalities composing the Third District of the province of Quezon. Palaez V Auditor General case invalidated some EO (excluding EO 353) of the President creating some municipalities. §442(d) is invalid. if not indeed with greatest imperativeness. 20 Public interest demands it. Conventional wisdom cannot allow it to be otherwise. 1973. 353 but it was not to be the case. On the contrary. . 1987. as previously explained. Existing municipal district organized pursuant to presidential issuances or executive orders and which have their respective set of elective municipal officials holding office at the time of the effectivity of the Code shall henceforth be considered as regular municipalities. 1965. however. and any attempt to apply Section 442 of Republic Act 7160 to the petition would perforce be violative of due process and the equal protection clause of the Constitution. No. 174 classified the Municipality of San Andres as a fifth class municipality after having surpassed the income requirement laid out in Republic Act No. The ruling could have sounded the call for a similar declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 129. Indeed Sinacaban has attained de jure status by virtue of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution. This contention will not bear analysis. §3 of the previous Constitution which took effect on January 17. must a quo warranto proceeding assailing the lawful authority of a political subdivision be timely raised. Sinacaban had been in existence for sixteen years when Pelaez v. Cdpr At the present time. Its action is in accordance with the local Government Code of 1983. even if made. issued by this Court pursuant to Presidential Decree No. apportioning legislative districts throughout the country. therefore. This provision states: Municipalities existing as of the date of the effectivity of this Code shall continue to exist and operate as such. such as the municipality of Sinacaban in the case at bar. if not in fact attaining. since it does not conform to the constitutional and statutory requirements for the holding [11] of plebiscites in the creation of new municipalities. It is doubtful whether such a pretext. or on 05 June 1989. the Municipality of San Andres had been covered by the 10th Municipal Circuit Court of San FranciscoSan Andres for the province of Quezon. 1978 of this Court. that the municipality of San Narciso finally decided to challenge the legality of the executive order. Sr. On the contrary. 13-90 of the Provincial Board. Quezon v. 353 creating the municipal district of San Andres was issued on 20 August 1959 but it was only after almost thirty (30) years. Thus. Actually. contend that since the petition for quo warranto had been filed prior to the passage of said law. 353. 19 so also. The power to create political subdivisions is a function of the MUN. OF SAN NARCISO V MENDEZ. Auditor General was promulgated. Jimenez had earlier recognized Sinacaban in 1950 by entering into an agreement with it regarding their common boundary." No pretension of unconstitutionality per se of Section 442(d) of the Local Government Code is preferred. Auditor General was decided on December 24. it was only 40 years later that its existence was questioned and only because it had laid claim to an area that apparently is desired for its revenue. and later the Municipality. appended to the 1987 Constitution. 1989 and Resolution No. 353 was a complete nullity for being the result of an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. which considered Sinacaban part of the Second District of Misamis Occidental. Equally significant is Section 442(d) of the Local Government Code to the effect that municipal districts "organized pursuant to presidential issuances or executive orders and which have their respective sets of elective municipal officials holding office at the time of the effectivity of (the) Code shall henceforth be considered as regular municipalities. 33 dated June 13.P.A. of San Andres. constituted as municipal circuits. Under Administrative order no. . . 258 creating it had never been questioned. Under this administrative order. the Municipal District. Since. §442(d) of the Local Government Code of 1991 must be deemed to have cured any defect in the creation of Sinacaban. otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.. In the meantime. The agreement was embodied in Resolution no. seats of the house of representative (as one of the 12 rd municipalities composing the 3 district of Quezon) While petitioners would grant that the enactment of Republic Act No. the requirement of plebiscite was originally contained in Art. 353. as reiterated by §31 of the judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (B. it is not subject to the plebiscite requirement. Jimenez properly brought to the RTC for review the decision of October 11. 7160. No. the State and even the municipality of Jimenez itself have recognized Sinacaban‘s corporate existence. For its part. on 24 December 1965.O. that of a de facto municipal corporation. Second. In the same manner that the failure of a public officer to question his ouster or the right of another to hold a position within one-year period can abrogate an action belatedly filed. began and continued to exercise the powers and authority of a duly created local government unit. §79 of which provides that I case no settlement of boundary disputes is made the dispute should be elevated to the RTC of the province. all doubts on the de jure standing of the municipality must be dispelled.corporation in the sense that its legal existence has been recognized and acquiesced publicly and officially. however. Jimenez claims. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . Created in 1959 by virtue of Executive Order No. certain municipalities that comprised the municipal circuits organized underAdministrative Order No.Executive Order No. This requirement applies only to new municipalities created for the first time under the Constitution. 129). This fact must be underscored because under Rule 66. they.Municipality of San Andres was created in 1959 through EO 353 . Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. Executive Order No. Under the Ordinance (adopted on 15 October 1986) apportioning the seats of the House of Representatives. 77 of the Provincial Board of Misamis Occidental.

The power to create political subdivisions is a function of the legislature. if not in fact attaining. 174 classified the Municipality of San Andres as a fifth class municipality after having surpassed the income requirement laid out in Republic Act No. they. Conventional wisdom cannot allow it to be otherwise. and any attempt to apply Section 442 of Republic Act 7160 to the petition would perforce be violative of due process and the equal protection clause of the Constitution. 1515. the Municipality of Alicia should benefit from the effects of Section 442 D of the LGC of 1991 which was declared in Narciso as curative law aimed at giving validity to acts done that would have been invalid under existing laws have been complied. Public interest demands it. that of a de facto municipal corporation. "At the present time. Pelaez vs. Mendez. Petitioner contended that Exec. 4which will be found very instructive in the case at bench. or ten years ahead of the municipality of San Andres. would succeed. and was therefore declared unconstitutional. It appears that. must a quo warranto proceeding assailing the lawful authority of a political subdivision be timely raised. as in Narciso Case. Inasmuch as respondent municipality of Alicia is similarly situated as the municipality of San Andres. issued by this court pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 353. Auditor Generalwas promulgated. MUN. Curative laws. For instance. It is doubtful whether such a pretext. And various governmental acts throughout the years all indicate the State's recognition and acknowledgment of the existence thereof. per this Court's ruling in Pelaez vs. OF CANDIJAY V CA (1995) . 3 In this regard. 353 was a complete nullity for being the result of an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. the Municipalityof San Andres had been covered by the 10th Municipal Circuit Court of San Francisco-San Andres for the province of Quezon." Respondent municipality's situation in the instant case is strikingly similar to that of the municipality of San Andres. In the same manner that the failure of a public officer to question his ouster or the right of another to hold a position within a one-year period can abrogate an action belatedly file. on which said Executive Order was based. On the contrary. the Municipal district. 7160 [Local Government Code of 1991] may have converted the Municipality of San Andres into a de facto municipality. even if made. appended to the 1987 Constitution. Section 31 of Batas Pambansa Blg. began and continued to exercise the powers and authority of a duly created local government unit. under the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution. otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Therein we stated: "While petitioners would grant that the enactment of Republic Act No.Same Ruling in Jimenez and Narciso cases.In addition. Congress did just that when it has incorporated Section 442(d) in the Code. Existing municipal districts organized pursuant to presidential issuances or executive orders and which …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. "Petitioner's theory might perhaps be a point to consider had the case been seasonably brought. so also. Order No. de jure municipality. the Municipality of Alicia was covered by the 7th Municipal Circuit Court of AliciaMabini for the province of Bohol. 353 but it was not to be the case. and should henceforth be considered as a regular. The ruling could have sounded the call for a similar declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. petitioner municipality had acquired a vested right to seek the nullification of Executive Order No. 129. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . Under this administrative order. after presentation of its evidence. certain municipalities that comprised the municipal circuits organized under Administrative Order No. under Administrative Order No. Congress did just that when it has incorporated Section 442(d) in the Code. "All considered. the Municipality of San Andres had been in existence for more than six years when. On the second issue. Executive Order No.. of Executive Order No. contend that since the petition for quo warranto had been filed prior to the passage of said law. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. 537. that the municipality of San Narciso finally decided to challenge the legality of the executive order. 353. comment and reply. Respondent municipality of Alicia was created by virtue of Executive Order No. Equally significant is Section 442(d) of the Local Government Code to the effect that municipal districts "organized pursuant to presidential issuances or executive orders and which have their respective sets of elective municipal officials holding office at the time of the effectivity of (the) Code shall henceforth be considered as regular municipalities." are validly accepted in this jurisdiction. 265 in 1949. on 24 December 1965. or on 05 June 1989. the Municipality of San Andres has been considered to be one of the twelve (12) municipalities composing the Third District of the province of Quezon. this Court is not persuaded to grant due course to the petition. 353 creating the municipal district of San Andres was issued on 20 August 1959 but it was onlyafter almost thirty (30) years. "Granting that Executive Order No. and aimed at giving "validity to acts done that would have been complied with. Executive Order No. constituted as municipal circuits. LGC: Municipalities existing as of the date of the effectivity of this Code shall continue to exist and operate as such. the peculiar circumstances obtaining in this case hardly could offer a choice other than to consider the Municipality of San Andres to have at least attained a status uniquely of its own closely approximating. Under the Ordinance (adopted on 15 October 1986) apportioning the seats of the House of Representatives. certain governmental acts all pointed to the State's recognition of the continued existence of the Municipality of San Andres." No pretension of unconstitutionality per se of Section 442(d) of the Local Government Code is proffered. Quezon vs. 1949 creating respondent municipality is null and void ab initio. if not indeed with greatest imperativeness. herein petitioner asked the trial court to bar respondent municipality from presenting its evidence on the ground that it had no juridical personality.legislature. 33. and later the Municipalityof San Andres. and therefore had been in existence for all of sixteen years when Pelaez vs. constituted an undue delegation of legislative powers to the President of the Philippines. subject to the usual qualification against impairment of vested rights. After deliberating on the petition. it should likewise benefit from the effects of Section 442(d) of the Local Government Code. dated 13 June 1978. after more than five years as a municipal district. 265 issued by President Quirino on September 16. the de jure status of the Municipality of San Andres in the province of Quezon must now be conceded. In the meantime. Auditor General. Created in 1959 by virtue 6 SECTION 442 (D). . in the establishment of Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the country. we noted that petitioner commenced its collateral attack on the juridical personality of respondent municipality on 19 January 1984 (or some thirty five years after respondent municipality first came into existence in 1949) during the proceedings in the court a quo. Thus. all doubts on the de jure standing of the municipality must be dispelled. which in essence are retrospective. 33 above-mentioned. we call to mind the ruling of this Court in Municipality of San Narciso. Sr. however. inasmuch as Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code. Likewise. the Municipality of Alicia is one of twenty municipalities comprising the Third District of Bohol. Auditor General was promulgated.

CONFEDERATION . This was the case before the Local Gov‘t code of 1991 took effect. Some looser confederations are similar to intergovernmental organizations. Andong does not have the certification from DILG as such 3.in modern political terms is a permanent union of political units for common action in [1] relation to other units. and that by virtue of this the central government exercises sovereignty over the whole territory as of right. or a common currency). The nature of the relationship among the states constituting a confederation varies considerably. the central government. Although political power in unitary states may be delegated throughdevolution to local government by statute. It is often part of the philosophy of a unitary state that. the relationship between the member states. which was one of the qualifications for a provincial accountant. Only those that can prove continued exercise of corporate powers can be covered. on the other hand. states are in some sense sovereign. Thus federations are often established voluntarily from 'below' whereas devolution grants self-government from 'above'.‖ Petitioner admits that Andong has never elected its municipal officers at all. foreign affairs. the SC being not a trier of facts Section 442(d) of the Local Government Code requires that in order that the municipality created by executive order may receive recognition. the principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply means ‗decentralization‘. Section 442(d) of the LGC does not sanction the recognition of just any municipality.Y and Z for the position of Provincial Accountant. The great majority of states in the world have a unitary system of government. In a federation. FEDERAL . However. [2] unrelated meaning. subnational units are created and abolished and their powers may be broadened and narrowed. Incidentally.is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government. confederation is used to describe a type of organization which consolidates authority from other autonomous (or semi-autonomous) bodies. insofar as certain powers are reserved to them that may not be exercised by the central government. In a non-political context. In a federation the component 7 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. while tighter confederations may resemble federations. A federal system of government is one that divides the powers of government between the national (federal) government and state and local governments. B. it may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail their powers. A unitary state is sometimes one with only a single.Lina V Pano – Ours is still a unitary form of government. the central government remains supreme. not a federal state. In a federation. centralised. Likewise. UNITARY – unitary state is a state governed as one single unit in which the central government is supreme and any administrative divisions (subnational units) exercise only powers that their central government chooses to delegate. the law creating it is voided because of defects. by the central government. The difference between a federation and this kind of unitary state is that in a unitary state the autonomous status of self-governing regions exists by the sufferance of the central government. For example: both the federal and state governments have the power to tax. national tier of government. in a unitary state self-governing regions are often created through a process of devolution.SC: 1. regardless of the actual status of any of its parts. Only the federal government can declare war. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . a CPA. Suppose that one year after Masigla was constituted as a municipality. It does not make local governments sovereign within the state or an imperium in imperio‖. In the appointment of a provincial accountant. a federation is more than a mere loose alliance of independent states. 2. Usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution. with the central government being required to provide support for all members. While it is common for a federation to be brought into being by agreement between a number of formally independent states. the word confederation has an additional. The Constitution of the United States established the federal system. local governments had already been given ‗local autonomy‘. Besides. they must ―have their respective set of elective municipal officials holding office at the time of the effectivity of the Local Government Code. sovereignty is often regarded as residing notionally in the component states. each level of government has sovereignty in some areas and shares powers in other areas. Will that invalidate the acts of the municipality and officers? ASS: Even during the 1973 consti. In Canada. are typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the latter. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEM . When a Governer submitted a list of nominees. any form of autonomy granted to local governments will necessarily be limited and confined within the extent allowed by the central authority. or as being shared between these states and the central government. as well as the division of power between them and the central government. Under federalism. The Secretary of DBM appointed instead W. However. Unitary states are contrasted with federal states (federations): In a unitary state. the secretary of the department of Budget and Management appoints from among the list of nominess the Governor would submit to the DBM. Being so.Vertical Classification of Phil. the self-governing status of the component states. and may be unilaterally revoked. and the distribution of powers among them is highly variable. unitary states often also include one or more selfgoverning regions.have their respective set of elective municipal officials holding office at the time of the effectivity of this Code shall henceforth be considered as regular municipalities. its entire territory [citation needed] a single sovereign entity constitutes or nation-state . Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. none of the nominess was a CPA. Examples include sports confederations or confederations of pan-European trades unions. also known as federalism. confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues (such as defense. "Confederation" refers to the SULTAN OSOP CAMID V OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT . namely X. What are the legal aspects of the case? DAY 3 OVERVIEW OF THE PHIL. where a formerly centralised state agrees to grant autonomy to a region that was previously entirely subordinate. Local System: Unitary (as distinguished from Federal) . DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT APPLICABLE IN INVALIDLY CREATED LGU 2004 BAR EXAM VII.

and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. (2) Creation of sources of revenues. 8 DECENTRALIZATION . In that case. Aguirre Under the Philippine concept of local autonomy. on the other hand. then the LGU cannot exercise that power. .The process of decentralization shall proceed from the National government to the local government units. ZOOMZAT.Art. LOCAL AUTONOMY Limbona V Mangelin: Now. the national government has not completely relinquished all its powers over local government units including autonomous regions. municipalities.involves the abdication of political power in favor of local government units declared to be autonomous. SECTION 15 (CONSTI).process of (or the event of) establishing or joining the Canadian federal state. and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage. (8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage.Sec. the autonomous government becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to its constituency. 10. DEVOLUTION …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. AND DECONCENTRATION . involves an abdication of political power in favor of local governments units declared to be autonomous. and property relations. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . the autonomous government is free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central authorities. Only administrative powers over local affairs are delegated to political subdivisions and still policy set in with president and congress. SECTION 20. authority. since in that even. 205 provides that only the NTC could grant certificates of authority to cable television ooperators. the autonomous government becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to its constituency.Executive Order No. SECTION 16. decentralization of power amounts to a constitutional author. Autonomous Region ART. the autonomous government is free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central authorities. and (9) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region. has this power been granted to the Local Government Units and fourthly. 2. responsibilities and resources. Toward this end. . has there been a law that granted that power to the Local government entities. V PEOPLE . LOCAL AUTONOMY. responsibilities. the State shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces. and tourism development. (6) Economic. (3) Ancestral domain and natural resources. family. make local governments more responsive and accountable and ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national development and social progress. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. The process of decentralization shall proceed from the national government to the local government units. (4) Personal. INC. .Decentralization of power.It is clear that in the absence of constitutional or legislative authorization. ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS OR POLITICAL POWERS? What is the kind of decentralization adopted or practiced in the Phils? Pimentel V. Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national laws. decentralization of power amounts to self-immolation. Whatever authority the LGUs had before. social. In that case. If none. authority. has this power been granted to the LGU concerned and of course the Local Government Code. The President shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. has this power been granted. DECENTRALIZATION OF POWER . LGC (a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals. (7) Educational policies. municipalities have no power to grant franchises. autonomy is either decentralization of administration or decentralization of power. According to a constitutional author.A system whereby local government units shall be given more powers.There is no law specifically authorizing the LGUs to grant franchises to operated CATV system. Notes: First you should look at the constitution. 2 LGC) . 2 sec 25 (Consti) The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments. cities. the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over: (1) Administrative organization. LIMBONA CASE . sec. DECENTRALIZATION.Art. 2 (Consti) The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy. X. Next you look at the charter. DECENTRALIZATION OF ADMINISTRATION – it involves the delegation of administrative powers to political subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and in the process. DEVOLUTION. (5) Regional urban and rural planning development. (Sec. Decentralization accounts for selfimmolation since in that event. the same had been withdrawn when President Marcos issued PD 1512. economic and social structures. and resources. .

it shall include the transfer to local government units the records. At present. LAGUNA LAKE DEV‘T AUTHORITY . now. the law clearly specifying the procedure by which such disciplinary action would be taken.this basic relationship between the national legislature and the local government units has not been enfeebled by the new provisions in the Constitution strengthening the policy of local autonomy. we establish the system called decentralization.ULTRA VIRES. however. functions. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. — The 1935 Constitution had no specific article on local autonomy. . and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.the process of transferring authority and power to the appropriate regional offices or field offices of national agencies of offices whose major functions are not devolved to local government units. The DBM may appoint only from the list of qualified recommendees nominated by the Governor. . 6. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . The power to grant still includes the power to withhold or recall. and responsibilities. Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. 1935 Constitution) the Constitution clearly limited the executive power over local governments to "general supervision . or offices. 11. There is infrastructure protection. The power to create still includes the. . exercise general supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law. But of course since there is devolution. Congress retains control of the local government units although in significantly reduced degree now than under our previous Constitutions. (Ibid. the lease limitable and the most demanding of all State powers including the power of taxation. .' It would follow then. the scales must be weighed in favor of autonomy. 31 which states: "Sec. one in favor of centralized power in Malacanang and the other beneficial to local autonomy." (Sec. city colleges.The power of the Authority to grant permits for fishpens. which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it. still the principal of local government units.0 — The DBM reserves the right to fill up any existing vacancy where none of the nominees of the local chief executive meet the prescribed requirements" is ultra vires and is. any form of autonomy granted to local governments will necessarily be limited and confined within the extent allowed by the central authority. Although the Dept. (97 Phil. the national legislature is. DECONCENTRATION . accordingly.. Article VII. like the direct conferment on the local government units of the power to tax (Sec. . 147-148) Control. X). 143 [1955]).The affirmation that the Philippines is still a Unitary government and the guarantee that LGUs shall enjoy local autonomy create a tension… MAGTAJAS CASE: . security of tenure. equipment. PRESIDENTIAL CONTROL DISTINGUISHED FROM SUPERVISION.to attain local autonomy. he must return the list of nominees to the Governor explaining why no one meets the legal requirements and ask for new recommendees who have the necessary eligibilities and qualifications. one in favor of centralized power in Malacañang and the other beneficial to local autonomy. instead of the national government giving salary. pp. which is actualized through the process called devolution.The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statue is obvious. It does partake of the nature of police power which is the most pervasive. set aside. the scales must be weighed in favor of autonomy. Ours is still a unitary form of government. as may be provided by law.supervision goes no further than overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. Silvosa. If none is qualified. 'means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate had done in the performance of their duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. . CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. By and large. we have local colleges. according to the present Chief Justice. Being so. Local chief executive directly appoints the local accountant and other positions. Where a law is capable of two interpretations. to go back to the Hebron opinion. RIGHT RESERVING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT TO FILL UP VACANCIES. bureaus. LOCAL AUTONOMY. 5. in distinguishing between presidential control and supervision "The President shall have control of all the executive departments.When the CSC interpreted the recommending power of the Provincial Governor as purely directory. However. . it is the Local Government. In return. TENSION . Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national law making body. of Finance still makes the appointment to the local treasurer yet all other positions is directly appointed by the local chief executive. which cannot now be withdrawn by mere statute.Notes: 1992 EO 543 issued by President Aquino providing for the infrastructure for devolution.We have to obey the clear mandate on local autonomy. (sec. there are some notable innovations in the Constitution. — The right given by Local Budget Circular No. fishcages and other aqua culture structures is for the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoring activities in the Laguna de Bay region. WHERE THE LAW IS CAPABLE OF TWO INTERPRETATIONS. Art. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. not a federal state." The President controls the executive departments. 528 LGC) Local Autonomy – degree of self-determination exercised by LGU vis-à-vis the central government. True. 17 (4)(e)] . etc. the charter of the Authority which embodies a valid exercise of police power should prevail over the Local SAN JUAN CASE 9 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Accordingly. on the other hand. He has no such power over local governments. we are given fiscal autonomy also to be able to respond to the devolution process. that the President had to abide by the then provisions of the Revised Administrative Code on suspension and removal of municipal officials. THE LATTER PREVAILS. ONE IN FAVOR OF CENTRALIZED POWER IN MALACAÑANG AND THE OTHER BENEFICIAL TO LOCAL AUTONOMY. power to destroy. — Where a law is capable of two interpretations. He has only supervision and that supervision is both general and circumscribed by statute. it includes the funds.the act by which the National government confers power and authority upon various local governments units to perform specific functions and responsibilities [sec. In Mondano v. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. and other assets and personnel of national agencies and offices corresponding to the devolved powers. there being no power of control that he could rightfully exercise. local day care centers. it went against the letter and spirit of the constitutional provisions on local autonomy. Without meaning to detract from that policy. Syllabus: STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION.

QUERY: A highly urbanized city is independent of the province where it is geographically located. it only involves the process of conversion which means it does not require congressional act. may the province set aside an ordinance of a city that is geographically situated in the province? What about the EO of the mayor of that city. abolish barangays. general in its terms. income matters (P50M for the last 2 years). create special metropolitan political subdivisions. The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will hereby be created shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination. its residents cannot run for provincial posts and cannot as well vote for provincial candidates. as determined by law. ABELLA V COMELEC . is a general law. income does not matter. as certified by the city treasurer. 452 . is not repealed by a subsequent statute. cities. and component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials. KINDS OF CITIES Component City . 11 (Consti) The Congress may. Thus. but its residents can still run for provincial post and can vote for provincial candidate? How was this possible? Section 1 does not create local government units. even if the charter of Ormoc city mentions of prohibitions to vote. from voting for any provincial elective official. by law. unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest. and barangays. sec. something to do with the charter in relation to whether or not the voters can vote for provincial candidates. municipalities. from running for and the second. barangays Autonomous Regions: Muslim Mindanao. provisions and application."the phrase 'shall not be qualified and entitled to vote in the election of the provincial governor and the members of the provincial board of the Province of Leyte' connotes two prohibitions — one. Hence. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. Cities that are highly urbanized. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.000) inhabitants as certified by the National Statistics Office. it has to be concluded that the charter of the Authority should prevail over the Local Government Code of 1991. may they be set aside by the Governor? May the resident of that city run for governer? ART. (b) Cities which do not meet above requirements shall be considered component cities of the province in which …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. A special law cannot be repealed. RULE. CONFLICT BETWEEN A GENERAL LAW AND A SPECIAL LAW. The special law is to be taken as an exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. Ordinances inactive is reviewed by the Province. the special statute should prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general statute. 7160. You are asked about the extent of the powers of a province over a city which is geographically situated in the same province. although the terms of the general law are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special law. Independent Component City – independent in the sense that the charter prohibits the voters from voting for provincial elective posts = outside the supervisory power of province (Abella v Comelec). shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective provincial officials. entails application on the part of the city and submit that to the office of the president orders the conversion. if the city becomes highly urbanized.Art. It only constitutionally ensures the existence of these territorial and political units in our structure (Bernas)." Special LGU: Special Metropolitan Political Subdivision – Art. APPLICATION IN CASE AT BAR. It is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. — It has to be conceded that the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority constitutes a special law. Consequently. Republic Act No. municipalities. Is the law unconstitutional? Why or why not? TERRITORIAL AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS: Regular LGU: Provinces. It is a well settled rule in this jurisdiction that "a special statute. The voters of component cities within a province. X. Mandaue City of Cebu is a highly urbanized City. it shall include the idea of prohibition to run also for provincial elective posts. for example. Cordilleras .inhabitants can vote for provincial candidates and can run for provincial elective posts = under the supervisory power of the province. X. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 QUESTIONS: 10 . the Local Government Code of 1991. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. effect must be given to all enactments of the legislature. X. Sec. This is because implied repeals are not favored and as much as possible. shall be independent of the province.00) based on 1991 constant prices. whose charters contain no such prohibition. Highly urbanized City – independent from province by reason of status = outside the supervisory power of the province. CAN THERE BE A HIGHLY URBANIZED CITY THAT STILL VOTES FOR PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS? TAGALOG TERMS: CITY – Sangguniang Panglungsod MUNICIPALITY – Sangguniang Bayan PROVINCE – Sangguniang Panlalawigan SEC. subject to a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10 hereof.000. a law cannot. amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere implication. The component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executives and legislative assemblies. and within the latest annual income of at least Fifty Million Pesos (P50. Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute.SECTION 12 (CONSTI).Government Code of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de Bay. BAR EXAM: A law was passed calling for the abolition of barangays. provided for a particular case or class of cases.HIGLY URBANIZED CITY a) Cities with a minimum population of two hundred thousand (200. shall be classified as highly urbanized cities. How will you respond? In particular. 1 (Constitution) The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces. cities.000.

Upon approval by the Sanggunian concerned. CONSTITUTION – LGU may group themselves their efforts. X.The Court held that the MMDA does not have the capacity to exercise police power. However. or coordinate their efforts. MMDA V BEL-AIR . Police power is primarily lodged in the National Legislature. and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them in accordance with law. allocate among the different local government units their powers. it does not have a personality. qualified voters of independent component cities shall be governed by their respective charters. and provide for the qualifications. services and resource for purposes commonly beneficial to them in accordance with the law. Sec. evaluating and identifying and later on implementing regional developments in the locality usually sponsored by the national government. consolidate. appointment and removal. LGC) LGC Section 33. In support of such undertakings. the MMDA cannot exercise police power because it cannot be delegated to them. and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS . It is not even a special metropolitan political subdivision because a plebiscite is needed and it is still to be created by congress as found in Sec.Mandatory contents of the Code: o o o o o Responsive and accountable structure System of decentralization Mechanisms of recall. . Cooperative Undertakings Among Local Government Units. upon approval by the sanggunian concerned after a public hearing conducted for the purpose. nongovernmental organizations and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area. powers and functions and duties of local officials. 33. SPECIAL METROPOLITAN POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS . services. initiative and referendum Allocation of powers. . .To be established by the President and does not need authorization from congress . Qualified voters of cities who acquired the right to vote for elective provincial officials prior to the classification of said cities as highly-urbanized after the ratification of the Constitution and before the effectivity of this Code. assessing. regional heads of departments and other government offices and representatives of NGOs within the region. It cannot act as if it is a ‗person‘ who can act with juridical effects.Local tax code (PD 201) . . municipalities.Constitutionally mandated (Art. and referendum.jurisdiction is limited to basic services requiring coordination. salaries.The Real Property Tax Code (PD 464) 1. of elective officials DAY 4 LOOSE FEDERATION SEC. 7924 does not empower the MMDA to enact ordinances. Through Ordinances . Unless otherwise provided in the Constitution or this Code. 3. contribute funds and assets through MOA (Sec. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. term. Therefore. X of Constitution. Petitioner herein is a development authority and not a political government unit.3 readings 2.the LGC of 1983 (BP 337) . ART. and other political subdivisions created by law …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.Local government units may. equipment. contribute funds. . the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . Consti) CONSTI ART. as amended.the component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executives and legislative assemblies .The resultant consolidation would not be a new corporate body. . There is no syllable in the said act that grants MMDA police power. etc.We need that for purposes of coordinating. and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units.they are geographically located.The code shall apply to: provinces. 11 SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE CODE . Republic Act No. and therefore. initiative. services. X.created by congress and requires plebiscite .Barangay Justice Law (PD 1508) . . Section 3. group themselves. cities. approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the inhabitants of Manila. on the participation of voters in provincial elections.MMDA is not a local government unit. X.Identifies possible projects in the region to be funded by the national government. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall. THE LGC OF 1991 . It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with various national government agencies. and other kinds of property and appoint or assign personnel under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the participating local units through Memoranda of Agreement. HOW? SOURCES OF THE CODE . If a component city is located within the boundaries of two (2) or more provinces. and resources. such city shall be considered a component of the province of which it used to be a municipality. (Vested Right theory) through appropriate ordinances. elections. It is not a legislative unit of the government. real estate. responsibilities. barangays. 11 art.composed of local government officials. election. people‘s organizations. shall continue to exercise such right. after lawful hearing. police power may be delegated to government units. responsibilities and functions of LGUs Qualifications. the local government units involved may. 13. (c) Qualified voters of highly urbanized cities shall remain excluded from voting for elective provincial officials.What are consolidated are not corporate personalities but only efforts.

Where no law or jurisprudence applies. it has to be concluded that the charter 12 CREATION. customs or traditions in the locality may be applied to resolve controversies. — We hold that the provisions of Republic Act No. is a general law. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . The repeal of laws should be made clear and expressed. obviously. Eos. or in violation of. the special statute should prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general statute. Devolution of powers. 529 LGC . tax ordinances are construed strictly against the LGU and liberally in favor of taxpayer. decrees.All general and special laws. which involved the Dinagat Island. although the terms of the general law are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special law. Beginning of Corporate Existence GENERAL REQUIREMENTS .LGC applies until AR has its own code. amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere implication. if not abolish. (vs. Thus. What about provinces. the Laguna Lake Development Authority. 534 (f) LGC . What about those LGUs supposedly belonging to an autonomous region? Yes this will apply until the autonomous region has its own organic act. Thus. provided for a particular case or class of cases. residual power doctrine) . proclamations. 4850. It is a well settled rule in this jurisdiction that "a special statute. In the case of Navarro vs. cities. and General Welfare ordinances. and it can also apply to officials and offices in the national government in so far as they are mentioned in the Code.Note: Implied Repeal is not favoured (LLDA case) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF BOUNDARY A. the NSO.. Republic Act No. when it reached the SC.Compliance with criteria on income. — This Court holds that Section 149 of Republic Act No. However. DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY EXPRESS PROVISION CATEGORICALLY REPEALING THE CHARTER OF THE LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. is not repealed by a subsequent statute. 7160 do not necessarily repeal the aforementioned laws creating the LagunaLake Development Authority and granting the latter water rights authority over Laguna de Bay and the lake region. the result of the study was not certified by the office itself. they invited some officers of the NSO to join them in that study. RULE. as amended. MERGER. and admin regulations (or parts thereof) that are inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Code are repealed or modified accordingly sec. Regular Political Subdivisions B. 4850 and its amendments. …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. 7160. Removal from the Authorityof the aforesaid licensing authority will render nugatory its avowed purpose of protecting and developing the LagunaLake Region. the Local Government Code of 1991. It was not honored because the requirement according to the Code is the population must have been certified by the NSO. Land and/or Population Income is constant in the creation of cities. It has to be conceded that there was no intent on the part of the legislature to repeal Republic Act No. the Local Government Code of 1991 had never intended to do. EFFECTIVITY OF LGC . acts.But. 7160. A special law cannot be repealed. Republic Act No. The special law is to be taken as an exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion.January 1. the abrogation of this power would render useless its reason for being and will in effect denigrate. provisions and application. RULES OF INTERPRETATION . municipalities and barangays in the Autonomous Regions (ARs)? . And so. CONFLICT BETWEEN A GENERAL LAW AND A SPECIAL LAW. APPLICATION IN CASE AT BAR. (tax exemption – interpreted against the one claiming for tax exemption and liberally in favor of the government) . effect must be given to all enactments of the legislature. Otherwise stated. otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991. The Local Government Code of 1991 does not contain any express provision which categorically expressly repeal the charter of the Authority. Executive Secretary Ermita (2010). LLDA HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF FISHERY PRIVILEGES IN LAGUNA DE BAY TO THE EXCLUSION OF MUNICIPALITIES SITUATED THEREIN AND THE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE SUCH POWERS AS ARE BY ITS CHARTER VESTED ON IT. Autonomous Region C.In case of doubt as to existence of power. has not repealed the provisions of the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority. It is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute. barangays and other political subdivisions. resolved in favor of LGU.Plebiscite . unless amended by the Sanggunian or inconsistent with or inconsistent with. the provisions of this Code. the Authority has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the enjoyment of fishery privileges in Laguna de Bay to the exclusion of municipalities situated therein and the authority to exercise such powers as are by its charter vested on it. 7160. municipalities. POLITICAL LAW. city charters. LEAGUE OF CITIES CASES. LOCAL GOVERNMENT. cities. they argue that they have complied with the population requirement because when the Province of Surigao conducted a survey of the population. 1992 . It is not sufficient that the NSO officials participated in the determination of the population compliance. sec. . it will apply to provinces. unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest. REPUBLIC ACT NO. DIVISION. CONVERSION.Liberal interpretation in favor of LGU.It shall also apply to officials and offices of the national government as provided by the Code. municipalities and provinces but not in the case of barangays. Special Metropolitan Political Subdivisions D. This is because implied repeals are not favored and as much as possible.Effects of Effectivity: (1) All tax ordinances of revenue measures of LGUs enacted before the LGC of 1991 shall continue to be in force and effect after the effectivity of the LGC. of the Authority should prevail over the Local Government Code of 1991.law . This. general in its terms. — It has to be conceded that the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority constitutes a special law. ABOLITION.

abolished or its boundary substantially altered. . . city. Actually. reversed and set aside the 24 august 2010 resolution of SC. X. 450 of the LGC pertaining to conversion from a municipality to a city. LEAGUE OF CITIES (FEB. as they in fact use said law as an argument for the alleged unconstitutionality of the cityhood law.because it is not anymore in accordance with the LGC. approved 33 bills only . Unsay relevance? Duna pay pending nga bill when this law took effect. . 1998. Question: What does the Constitution say about creation of LGUs? Sec. So kita sila pending man ni since 2001. .Granted the motion of League of Cities of the Philippines and reinstated its November 18. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. 21. 10. 2010) . The 12th Congress adjourned without approving the resolution. a resolution was passed by the lower house indicating the 16 bills should be exempt from the requirement established by RA 9009. it says if we create a LGU. 2011. these municipalities could not comply with the requirement. Wala man japon na class until ni adjourn ang 12th Congress in 2004. albeit this code is the ideal repository to ensure. Gi push na sad nila nga mahimo na jud nga laws ag pending nga bills. Let's continue the ruling of the Court. with exception provision. municipality. except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code.. Congress can not write such criteria in any other law like the cityhood laws. . divided. or barangay shall be created. 2008 LEAGE OF CITIES CASE REVERSED ON DEC.. 10 says. before this was decided by the SC. Nahuman ang 11th Congress. COMELEC case. The argument was. modesty aside (hmmm). the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . Nahimo na silang laws.No other law. merged.i. and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected. it's hard to get a copy of RA 9009 in e-lib because apparently the e-lib only listed laws that have been signed by the President. it violated this one (asa?). Ni pass sila og resolution nga iexempt. Ni ingon ang LGC. 2011) The first League of Cities vs. X of the 1987 constitution… . Art. gi exempt sila sa 100M income requirement. Legal issues: . LEAGUE OF CITIES (AUG... . provision in the constitution? Sec. as much as possible. the element of uniformity. A subsequent law that it is exempt is considered unconstitutional precisely because of this mandate. enact an amendatory law.Petitioners‘ theory that Congress must provide the criteria solely in the LGC and not in any other law strikes the Court as illogical. Unya kadtong RA 9009 is an amendatory law to Sec. Then came the supervening event that is the effectivity of RA 9009. effectively decreased the already codified indicators. the passage of amendatory laws is no different from the enactment of laws. Ni complain ang League of Cities kay mo reduce naman ang Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) so natural reklamo sila. But the SC said. in 2007. Congress can even. Wala ni ingon nga invalid because it did not comply with RA 9009. divided. 10.12 Congress (2001-2004) – RA 9009 (2001) increased income requirement from P20M to P100M annually.These criteria need not be embodied in the Local Government Code. Going back: It is unconstitutional.SEC. city. after making a codification.) will nullify the 16 cityhood laws when it was first decided. Apparently. At the end of the day. abolished or its boundaries substantially altered except in accordance with criteria established with the LGC. in enacting the exempting law/s. 2008 decision declaring the 16 cityhood as unconstitutional. it should be in accordance with the criteria set-forth by no other law than the LGC. So the thinking of the SC at that time was. During the 12th Congress2001 to 2004. ART.the creation is unconstitutional. nga 100M (ang income) each of you 100M. in the first League of Cities case.it is startling however that petitioners do not question the constitutionality of RA 9009. All these 16 bills. nondiscriminatory criteria found solely in the Local Government Code. Bisan dili ka comply sa income and there was this law in 2001. wala lang ma approve.period of 2001 to 2004. gi re-draft nila ang pending bills and placed there the exemption. (dili nalang jud). adding to the existing layers of indicators earlier codified. Then came RA 9009 which increased the income to 100M. So duna pa nabilin and few more others applied for cityhood during the 11th Congress so wala na converted tanan. The clear intent of the Constitution is to insure that the creation of cities and other political units must follow the same uniform. that increased the income requirement from 20M to 100M. not even the charter of the city. as amended by RA 9009. APRIL 12. can govern such creation.period 1998 to 2001. The creation of local government units must follow the criteria established in the Local Government Code and not in any other law. 24. The only way to nullify a law is when it contravenes the Constitution. Question: Unsa may relevance adtong 16 laws nga dunay exemption? Can Congress do that? Congress can create a LGU in the same manner that it also enacted the LGC and therefore it can make and provide such exemption with the thinking of course that creation is a legislative function. there were 33 pending bills for creation of cities. Congress. (emphasis added) th th th . The creation of LGUs must follow the criteria established by the LGC and not in any other law and there is only one LGC. 10. conversion from municipalities into cities. Any derogation or deviation from the criteria prescribed in the Local Government Code violates Section 10. 15. So ang gihimo nila. wala pa gihapon ma approve.Facts: .2001.11 Congress (1998-2001) – 57 bills pending conversion from municipalities to cities. through executive inaction which increased the minimum income requirement from 20M to 100M.' In 13 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. The League of Cities complained because there were apparently.Decided on the basic of SC‘s reasoning in the 21 Dec 2009 ruling that congress‘ intent to exempt the 16 cities from the operation of RA 9009 should be respected. Then came the 13th Congress.The amendatory RA 9009 upped the already codified income requirement from P20M to P100M. RA 9009. a LGU can only be created in accordance with the criteria established in the LGC. NO. 16 of them. Then came the 12th Congress.e.. RA 9009 form part of the LGC and the Constitution says. 2009 .Granted the MR of the 16 cities.13 Congress (2004-2007) – 16 of the 24 bills were approved and became laws.the constitution is clear. Dili man ka maka ingong nga ang law is invalid if it contravenes with another law. in the words of Pimentel. Art. there were only about 24 that were approved as cities. merged. no province. This became a law.Are the 16 Cityhood laws unconstitutional in the light of the ff. the cityhood laws specifically exempting a particular political subdivision from the criteria earlier mentioned. Kakuha mo sa thinking class? (blink*blink) Logical. indiscriminate application for cityhood. LEAGUE OF CITIES V COMELEC 2008 . we made a prediction that the SC (dili na lang nako ipadayon. just as efficaciously as it may reduce the same. Article X of the Constitution. municipality or barangay shall be created. No province. ' the Constitution is clear. During the 11th Congress.

Art. It did not act on bills converting 24 other municipalities into th cities. 2011 resolution is the fourth ruling since the High Court first resolved the Cityhood case in 2008. are material in determining the ―just share‖ of local government units (LGUs) in national taxes. The SC (voting 7-6) granted the motions for reconsideration of the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP).‖ the Court said. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. The SC (voting 6-5) ruled that the exemptions in the City Laws is unconstitutional because sec. 2009) NOTE: The November 18. Dili na tanan should be in the Code lang. League of Cities of the Philippines v. Dili man pud pwede mo ingon nga once a law is passed. individual cityhood bills. 2010) February 15. 7-5 vote.‖ It stressed that while all the criteria for the creation of cities must be embodied exclusively in the Local Government Code. 450 of the LGC. Congress undeniably gave these cities all the considerations that justice and fair play demanded.A. the assailed Cityhood Laws provided an exemption from the increased income requirement for the creation of cities under sec. ―The Cityhood Laws violate sec. 2008 decision declaring unconstitutional the Cityhood Laws or Republic Acts (RAs) converting 16 municipalities into cities. The tie-vote on the second motion for reconsideration is not the same as a tie-vote on the main decision where there is no prior decision. The SC denied the first Motion for Reconsideration. To impose on them the much higher income requirement after what they have gone through would appear to be indeed unfair. No.Congress exceeded and abused its law-making power. League of Cities of the Philippines v. April 28. 178056. GR No. The SC En Banc. 2011Ruling Yes! It‘s final. the Court reiterated its November 18. The Court further held that ―limiting the exemption only to the 16 municipalities violates the requirement that the classification must apply to all similarly situated. It increased the income requirement to qualify for conversion into a city from P20 million annual income to P100 million th locally-generated income. X of the Constitution which expressly provides that ―no city…shall be created…except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code. 2008 ruling already became final and executory and was recorded in the SC‘s Book of Entries of Judgments on May 21. The Court stressed that respondent LGUs were qualified cityhood applicants before the enactment of RA 9009. COMELEC. GR No. Comelec GR No. April 12.A.League of Cities of the Philippines v. 2009 Ruling No. Are the cityhood laws converting 16 municipalities into cities constitutional? SUGGESTED ANSWER: November 18. Comelec. but have also complied with the requirements of the [Local Government Code] LGC prescribed prior to its amendment by RA No. The February 15. 2011 Ruling Yes.‖ the Court held. December 21. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . 177499. denied a second motion for reconsideration. it can not be therefore amended by subsequent laws for Congress possesses plenary power. X of the Constitution requires that such exemption must be written into the LGC and not into any other laws. this Court should do no less by stamping its imprimatur to the clear and unmistakable legislative intent and by duly recognizing the certain collective wisdom of Congress. and RA 9009 would not have any retroactive effect insofar as the cityhood bills are concerned. 176951. However. Although ang reasoning sa 2008 League of Cities case was. Art. August 24. 2009. League of Cities of the Philippines v. Pero gi usab pag 2009. ―Undeniably. et al. 9009. but not its property as such. as well as the prior majority en banc Resolution of 31 March 2009 denying reconsideration. Please find time to analyze the case. 2008 decision and declared as constitutional the Cityhood Laws or Republic Acts (RAs) converting 16 municipalities into cities. 178056. Each of the cityhood bills contained a common provision exempting the particular municipality from the 100 million income requirement imposed by R. as worded the exemption provision found in the Cityhood Laws. it added. then RA 9009 embodying the new and increased income criterion would in a way also suffer the vice of unconstitutionality.‖ (GR No. 2008 Ruling No. Comelec. December 21.‖ ―The criteria. must be strictly followed because such criteria prescribed by law. as prescribed in sec. and reinstated its November 18. through their respective sponsors. League of Cities of the Philippines v. the laws are constitutional. petitioner's theory that Congress must provide the criteria solely in the LGC and not in any other law strikes the court as illogical. (GR No. 2008 ruling that the Cityhood Laws violate sec. The SC (voting 6-4) reversed its November 18.” (League of Cities of the Philippines v. The conversion of a municipality into a city will only affect its status as a political unit. the 6-6 vote did not overrule the prior majority en banc Decision of 18 November 2008. It said that based on Congress‘ deliberations and clear legislative intent was that the then pending cityhood bills would be outside the pale of the minimum income requirement of PhP100 million that Senate Bill No. that is part of the criteria that is embodied in a different law. No. would still be unconstitutional for violation of the equal protection clause. In the 13 Congress. 2008) March 31.) August 24. In the latest resolution. not just the Code. R. Hence. COMELEC. the imperatives of fairness dictate that they should be given a legal remedy by which they should be allowed to prove that they have all the necessary qualifications for city status using the criteria set forth under the LGC of 1991 prior to its amendment by RA 9009. 16 of the 24 municipalities filed. It may be embodied in other laws. by a split vote (6-6). November 18. GR No. During the 12 Congress. 10. 9009. Clearly. 6. 450 of the LGC. X of the Constitution because they prevent a fair and just distribution of the national taxes to local government units. 57 bills seeking the conversion of municipalities into component cities were filed before the House of Representatives. logical. 2009 Ruling Yes. For if we pursue the contention with logical conclusion. the reason why the Constitution requires that the criteria should only be in the LGC and that all LGUs when created shall comply with the criteria in a single law is for purposes of uniformity. Art. The Court held that the favorable treatment accorded the sixteen municipalities 14 th by the cityhood laws rests on substantial distinction.‖ the SC said. 2159 proposes. 177499. rendering the challenged Cityhood Laws void for being violative of the Constitution.December 21. 2010 Ruling No. …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. So when this 16 cityhood laws provided for the exemption. 2009. COMELEC. Congress acted only on 33 bills. ―The unconstitutionality of the Cityhood Laws lies in the fact that Congress provided an exemption contrary to the express language of the Constitution…. 176951. During the 11 Congress. The 16 Cityhood Laws are constitutional. Although dili pud kaayo xa sensible. ―We should not ever lose sight of the fact that the 16 cities covered by the Cityhood Laws not only had conversion bills pending during the 11th Congress. Comelec. 9009 became effective revising Section 450 of the Local Government Code. Municipalities with the same income as the 16 respondent municipalities cannot convert into cities. GR No. but it doesn't make sense because that would also violate the principle that Congress as a plenary power. Justice Velasco said these criteria did not deem embodied in the LGC. ―Thus. this criteria. League of Cities of the Philippines v. 2009 Ruling No. even if it were written in Section 450 of the Local Government Code. while the 16 respondent municipalities can. 10. 176951.logically correct sad iyang thinking coz it said.

barangays.The Court stressed that Congress clearly intended that the local government units covered by the Cityhood Laws be exempted from the coverage of RA 9009. the House readopted Joint Resolution No.What is meant by units affected? .” The Court held that the imposition of the income requirement of P100 million from local sources under RA 9009 was arbitrary.In what sense affected? Reduction in territory. The question about this may not be about associated state but maybe just a test if you know for a fact that the different territorial and political subdivisions are mandated or at least assured by the Constitution.. That is your case of Province of North Cotabato vs. income. 385) PLEBISCITE REQUIREMENT: QUESTIONS: . if by SP.A barangay may be created. no less than the Constitution enumerates the territorial and political subdivisions n the Philippines. The other affected entity would be composed of those in the area subtracted from the mother province to constitute the proposed province of Negros del Norte. ―While the Constitution mandates that the creation of local government units must comply with the criteria laid down in the LGC. the SB shall recommend (Sec. 2001. Cities. the recommendation of the sangguniang bayan concerned shall be necessary. and other political subdivision: . There are so may issues actually involved in this case. GRP that I mentioned last Saturday.By ORDINANCE but does not prohibit creation by LAW (Q: need not be enacted by congress?) under Sec. . LGC) [question? Including PDs] 2. which imposes a higher income requirement of PhP100 million for the creation of cities. 2001 from the coverage of Republic Act No. without exception. The creation of the proposed new province of Negros del Norte will necessarily result in the division and alteration of the existing boundaries of Negros Occidental. "Plain and simple logic will demonstrate that two political units would be affected. Thereby. when the 12th Congress was incipient. Barangays and the Autonomous Regions of Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. I see no ambiguity in the Constitutional …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.by LAW to be enacted by Congress (sec. 29 entitled Joint Resolution to Exempt Certain Municipalities Embodied in Bills Filed in Congress before June 30. merged. 9009. In the case of the creation of barangays by the sangguniang panlalawigan. city. the bills were also unanimously approved. from the coverage of RA No. the conversion bills of respondents were individually filed in the Lower House and were all unanimously and favorably voted upon. RA 9009. Under Art. 1 during the 12th Congress. and the autonomous regions of Muslim Mindanao and the Cordileras. ―The Court reiterated that while RA 9009 was being deliberated upon.. which are the provinces. the House of Representatives adopted Joint Resolution No. REGULAR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS MANNER OF creation and conversion: 1.PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO V GRP (2008) . and. 29 as Joint Resolution No. or its boundary substantially altered. countryside development." ". municipality. And you will be asked if the law is not unconstitutional. By reason of the clear legislative intent to exempt the municipalities covered by the conversion bills pending during the 11th Congress. and forwarded the same for approval to the Senate. this inhabitants in the mother province will be affected and therefore they should participate in the plebiscite. Even so.when the Constitution speaks of "the unit or units affected" it means all of the people of the municipality if the municipality is to be divided such as in the case at bar or of the people of two or more municipalities if there be a merger. divided. not to mention of course unconstitutional. and the concomitant national growth. you only have to deal with the propriety of having an associated state given that we are in a unitary set-up or system of government. not to mention of course that having a state within a state is a clear violation of the principle of sovereignty cannot be divided. the Senate failed to act on the said Joint Resolution. Eventually. decided in 2008. not by repeal but by way of the express exemptions being embodied in the exemption clauses. divided or merged and there is substantial alteration of the boundaries. Manner of Creation. to have an entity that is not so recognized by the Constitution itself. population. Municipalities. it cannot be justified to insist that the Constitution must have to yield to every amendment to the LGC despite such amendment imminently producing effects contrary to the original thrusts of the LGC to promote autonomy. by law or by an ordinance of the sangguniang panlalawigan or panlungsod. but for purposes of Local Government Law. However. the following are the only recognized political subdivisions in the Philippines: Provinces.How is it different from the manner of creating autonomous regions? CAN AN ASSOCIATED STATE (2009 BAR) BE ESTABLISHED IN THE PHILIPPINES? . "the approval of a majority of votes in the plebiscite in the unit or units affected" must first be obtained. So it will just be easy for you if you know of course the codal provisions. GRP. Also. So it is 15 TAN V COMELEC (1986): Whether the creation a new province should include the participation of the residents of the mother province for the plebiscite to conform to the constitutionality requirement? In interpreting the above provision. X. abolished. cities. 6. the Congress was well aware of the pendency of conversion bills of several municipalities. the LCG. by necessity. the Supreme Court held that whenever a province is created. When forwarded to the Senate. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. which again failed to prove it. . The first would be the parent province of Negros Occidental because its boundaries would be substantially altered.The concept of an associated state is not sanctioned by the Constitution. including those covered by the Cityhood Laws. To that extent. For Barangay: . 385. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . and given that under Article 10. For province. This is the case of Province of North Cotabato vs. subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to be conducted by the COMELEC in the local government unit or units directly affected within such period of time as may be determined by the law or ordinance creating said barangay.‖ possible that the examiner will simply come up with a problem where it is stated there that a law had been passed abolishing barangays.Who shall participate? . So it is unthinkable. It pointed out that RA 9009 took effect on June 30. municipalities. were amended. The acts of both Chambers of Congress show that the exemption clauses ultimately incorporated in the Cityhood Laws are but the express articulations of the clear legislative intent to exempt the respondents. decentralization. 9009.

or 2) separated by chartered cities or cities which do not contribute to the income of province (for province and cities) sec. So. NSO.000. The 30 western barangays. Executive Secretary from your memory. unless 1) 2 or more islands.000 but 5. No minimum requirement 2. So these are the reasons: economic dislocation(?).000 for Metro Manila and highly urbanized cities 25. That. Executive Secretary is not doctrinal so remove the doctrine in Paredes vs.000. or (ii) a population of not less than two hundred fifty thousand (250. That was declared illegal because the LGC of 1991 does not mention of any exception as to the land area requirement.must be contiguous. 7. these units will be affected. POPULATION.000) square kilometers. Hence. 9 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991. Why? Because the political units where they are residents will be affected. the Cebu del Sur will compose of municipalities and component cities from Talisay to Santander.000 sq.tanan because apparently these are new provinces. feeling left out of economic initiatives. (a) A province may be created if it has an average annual income. LAND AREA (C/O DENR) Sec. OF FINANCE) 2.000 or COMMON STANDARDS FOR COMPLIANCE OF CRITERIA: LAND AREA: . 1986 has no legal effect for being a patent nullity. and so the mother province will be included in the plebiscite. Granting the Masigla‘s proponents succeed to secure a law in their favor. 30 west of Madako River and 50 east thereof. Section 461. would a plebiscite be necessary or not? If it is necessary.5 million P100 million 50 sq. Province of Cebu into Cebu del Sur and Cebu del Norte. of course.000 or Land area Barangay No minimum requirement No minimum requirement Municipality Component City Highly Urbanized City Province P2. which states that the land area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands.lesser income now because of lesser area and of lesser economic activities.000 P20 million 250. LGC Note: the criteria call for questions of facts. population. Madako is a municipality composed of 80 barangays. In what sense? Number one. which residents will participate? The residents of ALL municipalities and component cities. P50 million 200. INCOME (C/O DEPT. as certified by the Department of Finance. (b) The territory need not be contiguous if it comprise two (2) or more islands or is separated by a chartered CRITERIA FOR CREATION AND CONVERSION: 1. 885 is hereby declared unconstitutional. and also enjoy presumption of regularity being acts of government agencies. as well as the appointment of the officials thereof are also declared null and void. SPECIFIC CRITERIA: BARANGAYS: POPULATION MUNICIPALITIES: INCOME. POPULATION (C/O NSO) 3. If you are to divide.comply with area requirement. AND LAND AREA Component Cities: INCOME. the SC said nowhere in the LGC is the said provision stated or implied. Question.provision. the Supreme Court pronounced that the plebscite held on January 3. 7 LGC NAVARRO V ERMITA 2010 PAR. wish to constitute themselves into new and separated town to be called Masigla. To that extent. and reduction of territory. and the Cebu del Norte will be composed of component cities and municipalities going up to the north.00) based on 1991 constant prices and either of the following requisites: (i) a contiguous territory of at least two thousand (2. POPULATION. there will be economic dislocation (?) .km 100 sq. Province of Sugbo and of course the mother Province of Cebu. Batas Pambansa Blg. The proclamation of the new province of Negros del Norte. Correct! What if this is the situation – the supposed Cebu del Norte will now be called Cebu and the supposed Cebu del Sur will be given a different name say Sugbo. So if you look at this case. Will that matter? No. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . and DENR deserve great respect. for example. findings of facts by the DOF. Requisites for Creation. 2 OF ART. as certified by the Lands Management Bureau. who should vote or participate in the plebiscite? . 2004 BAR EXAM VII. of not less than Twenty million pesos (P20. which municipalities and component cities will participate in the plebiscite? Sayon ra Sir . Findings of facts by administrative agencies are binding and conclusive upon courts unless there is grave abuse of discretion or clear mistake of facts. "WHEREFORE. A. and 150.000. OR LAND AREA Highly Urbanized Cities: INCOME AND POPULATION 16 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us." Consequently. PROVINCE: INCOME AND POPULATION OR LAND AREA TABULARIZATION OF SPECIFIC REQUIRMENTS: LGU Created Income Population 2.000) inhabitants as certified by the National Statistics Office: Provided. unless and island. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus.km. if not finality. and income of the original unit or units at the time of said creation to less than the minimum requirements prescribed herein. the creation thereof shall not reduce the land area.km. Then there will be reduction in territory. The ruling in Paredes vs.

Thus. If you are asked a question: for purposes of complying the income requirement. considering that RA 9009 is an amendatory law to the LGC of 1991? REVERSED IN APRIL 12. then IRA is not locally generated because that is a national income only given or released automatically to the LGU. The IRAS regularly and automatically accrue to the local treasury without need of any further action on the part of the local government unit.the number of kilometers from north to west.SC. requirement if you are an island? The IRR says there should be an exception. they are covered by RA 9009. the west or other side or part of the territory of a particular local government unit. if it is a case of creation of a local government unit which happens to be for example a new province. Carpio‘s Dissent that the majority opinion will allow the creation of a province with only 1 unit (say a municipality) instead of various component LGUs. ISSUE: Whether or not the IRA forms part in the computation of income of LGUs. you add IRA as forming part of the annual income. ordinances and acts of the LGU even extend outside of its territorial jurisdiction on matters that affect for example water supply. Boundary should be properly identified by metes and bounds (sec. enacted on June 30. the requirement of territory is at least 2000 square kilometers. happens only if it is a case of municipality converted into a city or a cluster of barangays to form into a city. especially that is an exception. That is my opinion there. which the source is found in other LGU. requirement is substantially complied with. Section 450 (c ): ―Average Annual Income‖ shall include the income accruing to the general fund. Guingona be applicable still or no? So you are saying that RA 9009 changed the doctrine in Alvarez vs. recurring item of income. 9009? What is the effect of RA 9009 to this doctrine made in Alvarez vs. Ermita. exclusive of special funds. Guingona? Okay. trust funds. 7) (why?) powers of the LGU can only be exercised within his territorial jurisdiction. dili nalang ko mag expect makatubag mo. its instrumentalities and government owned or controlled corporations. how should the income of LGU be computed or determined? How do you respond to that question. annual income = income accruing to the general fund (regular).Few exceptions. km. RA 9009 applies only to conversion from municipality to a city. exclusive of special funds. Otherwise. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . (c) The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund. There is no basis to classify the same as special fund of transfer. since IRAs have a technical definition and meaning all its own as used in the Local Government Code that unequivocally makes it distinct from special funds of transfers referred to when the Code speaks of ―funding support from the national government. transfers and non recurring income. If it is a province. in a statute we know for a fact that the implementing rule cannot provide for such. Nachura. So the negation therefore if you are going to talk about Alvarez vs.‖ But now. Because province is not covered by RA 9009. in the case of conversion of a municipality into a city or a cluster of barangays to be informed into a new city. and non-recuriing income. Guingona that IRA should not anymore be included in the computation of income because it says locally generated? Ave. What about boundary? Section 7 of the LGC requires that the boundary shall be properly identified by metes and bounds . trust funds. locally generated income only and IRA is excluded. have you read the R. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. Section 306 (i): ―Income‖ is defined as all revenues and receipts collected or received forming the gross accretions of funds of the LGU. will Alvarez vs. 450 of the Code. The idea is to raise the income requirement from 20 million to 10 million. then I submit that it is not covered by RA 9009. . Where if it is not so provided. IRAs are no longer included in the computation of the annual income for purposes of complying with the income requirement. 2011! . HELD: YES. Mao ra nah? Did it mention about IRA? So if you look at the case of Aquino III vs. and where lies the north. and (2) creation of a city from a cluster of barangays. you PARTICIPATE… The caveat is that RA 9009 is limited in its application. So take note that the coverage of RA 9009 that increases the income requirement from 20 million to 100 million applies only to (1) conversion from a municipality into a city. COMELEC (2010). IRAs are items of income because they form part of the gross accretion of the funds of the LGU. Guingona.Note of J. then we apply Alvarez vs. then the income requirement should be up to 100 million. INCLUDE IRA? ALVAREZ V GUINGONA… .A. In all other situations. . They constitute income which the local government can invariably rely upon as the source of much needed funds. Is it possible to dispense with the 2000 sq. So if you are to give an answer to that question.city or cities which do not contribute to the income of the province. exclusive of special funds. Guingona – IRA should still be included. In those cases. 2001 and amending Sec.‖ So if that is locally generated income. that is already declared null and void because it is already an expansion of a law or a statute. but then again according to Navarro vs. Therefore. through J. 17 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. ruled that congress intended to apply the exemption on land area requirements enjoyed by municipalities and cities which have islands as territories to the Province (Province of Dinagat).However. So municipality converted into a city or a cluster of barangays to form a city. and also a new municipality is not covered by RA 9009. Income refers to locally generated income. transfers and non-recurring income. RA 9009. and the IRA shall not be included. transfers. The RA 9009 mentions of it as ―locally generated income. It does not apply to all creation of LGUs. In those cases. IRAs are a regular. Have you read RA 9009? Kung wa mo kabasa og RA 9009. (extraterritorial jurisdiction) With technical descriptions? See: Mariano V Comelec – the true test is whether or not the description of boundary will cause territorial confusion.

Of course the charter of the municipality described the metes and bounds of that municipality. duly approved and endorsed by the mayor) to be submitted to the office of the president with proofs of compliance with income and population requirements. That should be automatically be highlyurbanized city because under the Code HUC only requires 50 million. The SC did not continue however but the implication of that is if the group of people therefore. So that is by way of collateral challenge 'coz that is mentioned only by a defendant in an answer questioning the status of Andong. 50 million for high-urbanized cities. of course. for example Andong would like to expropriate a parcel of land and therefore files a complaint for expropriation before the RTC and make the private owner the defendant of course.bill of local application to be submitted to House of Representatives. when you take the bar exam and you have memorized the Civil Code. 2. COMELEC. It was clarified in this case of Aquino III vs.collateral attack is not allowed in questioning the existence of the municipal corp is applicable only if the municipal corp is at least a de facto municipal corp. there was a technical description of the property. If I am not mistaken.This requirement was tested in Mariano vs. RESOLUTION by the interested unit (by the SP. In some instances. COMELEC. population and land. Attachment of supporting documents to the petition consisting of certificates of DOF. 9-11 IRR B. that is not what the law requires – that the officials of the NSO will be there present during the study. 100 million naman. a particular community. The Congress therefore was not trying to preempt the result of the boundary dispute. PAKSIT dayon!!! Si Mayol pa ang paisturya-on. PETITION by the prospective units in a form of resolution 2. MUN. According to the SC. the province doesn‘t have to comply with all three criteria – income. According to the SC. Enactment of Law by congress . you only need 20 million plus EITHER of territory OR population.CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS: should not reduce the (1) land area. Because you should remember that the State reserved the right to question the validity of the creation of the LGU. muingon na dayon ka ug ―dalia na palihug be kay gadali ko!‖ Lain akong version ana. No question had been asked about specific requirements like 20 million. population. then there will be no territorial confusion. LGC) HOW TO CHALLENGE EXISTENSE OF LGU . I think in the case of Dinagat. . Plebiscite (after law takes effect) ART. Plebiscite DAY 5 DIVISION AND MERGER . and income to less than the minimum requirements under the Code. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 .REQUIREMENTS: same as conversion and creation . the then municipality of Mandaluyong was involved also in a boundary dispute with a neighboring municipality. 8. then the defendant can question the status of Andong because Andong is not be considered even as a de facto municipal corp. it does not matter even if there was no technical description because the true test is whether or not the description of boundary will cause territorial confusion. We are referring to the technical description that is also required in the territory of a particular local government unit. but when a law was passed creating the city. Although the population as submitted during the hearing in the Congress reached 300 000 plus inhabitants. the law failed to state the metes and bounds. maghimo ug problem ang examiner unya kupya-on ra ang facts sa Aquino III and it will be asked whether it has complied with the requirement. That is an interesting observation. PROCEDURE IN CREATION AND CONVERSION. Comments on the petition by the Sanggunian of the mother unit to be submitted to congress. Unya malibog ta kay kung ordinary city. ―Ma‘am wala naba kayong ibang questions diyan?‖ 1. According to the SC. 5. NSO. In the law creating the municipality. When it was converted into a city. conversely. It clearly said that the territory of the city of Mandaluyong shall be that territory so specified in the law creating the municipality of Mandaluyong. (Sec. CREATION: AQUINO III V COMELEC (2010) . Declaration of conversion by president 3. it failed to comply with the territory and the population. What is required is a certification. like province for example. Simple ra kayo. there was no technical description. And if that is the only objective of the law for requiring technical description and it will be accomplished by the statement that the territory of the City of Mandaluyong shall be that territory described in the law creating the municipality.Proper party and nature of challenge: as a rule. population requirement is not an indispensable requirement but merely an alternative addition to the indispensable income requirement. inig dawat sa papel. Apart. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. this involved the then municipality of Mandaluyong. COMELEC case. and LMB (DENR) 4. could not even be classified or categorized as a de facto municipal corp and therefore it is obvious that it is not a de facto municipal corp then. 3. from also saying that it was excusable on the part of Congress for not specifying with precision the technical description there because that LGU was then involved in a boundary dispute. A. So the SC did not agree that they have complied with the requirement because of that. OF MALABANG V BENITO . So if in the earlier case like this case of Andong.Then I mentioned about the three criteria that almost always income is an indispensable requirement. But who knows it might be asked in the bar exam now because of this Aquino III vs. CONVERSION FROM COMPONENT CITY TO HUC 1. If you are to create a province. Now if you are going to create a city that should already be a highly-urbanized city because there is a requirement now under RA 9009. it is allowed to question the existence of an alleged municipal corp if it is not even a de facto municipal corp. I hope you will agree with me. But when a law was created establishing the city. But that was just based on a study by the provincial government accompanied by officials of the NSO.QUO WARRANTO 18 SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION OF BOUNDARIES …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. is the State and it should be in a direct action. and (2) income classification of the original LGU (mother unit) affected.

municipality. Plebiscite Requirement. law + plebiscite) . except that the criteria on income and population are not factors to consider.) . Oct. municipalities. The law or ordinance abolishing a local government unit shall specify the province. the Court finds that the COMELEC had exerted efforts to investigate the facts and verified that there were no public or private buildings in the said place. its corporate existence shall commence upon the election and qualification of its chief executive and a majority of the …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. AUTONOMOUS REGION MANNER OF CREATION: law. 10. ex. Said plebiscite shall be conducted by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of effectivity of the law or ordinance effecting such action. A barangay may officially exist on record and the fact that nobody resides in the place does not result in its automatic cessation as a unit of local government. Under the Local Government Code of 1991. municipality. and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage. Ordillo V Comelec SARANGANI V COMELEC 2000 (obiter dictum) . and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. or barangay with which the local government unit sought to be abolished will be incorporated or merged. [DILG Opinion No. population. (Sec. Abolition of Local Government Units. Date for ARMM elections can only be set by congress. or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units shall take effect unless approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose in the political unit or units directly affected. Hence. . the ARMM elections should be included among the elections to be synchronized as it is a local election based on the wording and structure of the Constitution (Kida V Senate. Distinguish the manner of creation between regular political subdivisions and AR Regular LGU: majority of Total votes of all units Vs. 17 Series of 2006] Read: Abbas V Comelec. hence its conclusion that there were no inhabitants. Beginning of Corporate Existence. effectivity of law) creating the LGU. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . 15 art. LGC) Note: irreversible reduction to less than the minimum standards only offers a ground for abolition.Read Kida V Senate ruling DIFFERENT MERGERS/COMBINATIONS INVOLVING LGUS . 2011) . It is not impossible for a certain barangay not to actually have inhabitants considering that people migrate. 14.the feasible option is for the president to appoint OIC. population. Which LGU shall form part of AR . economic and social structures.No creation. the abolition of a local government unit (LGU) may be done by Congress in the case of a province. ARs: majority of the votes in each unit ABOLITION GROUND: When its income. regional offices of the national government ex. But.When a new local government unit is created. DILG 7.REQUIREMENTS: Same as creation and conversion. merger. traditionally because part and essential of ‗supervisory power‘) Ex. it may be done by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan or Sangguniang Panglungsod concerned subject to the mandatory requirement of a plebiscite conducted for the purpose in the political units affected. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces. unless said law or ordinance fixes another date.merger of LGU to constitute the AR (legislative. if the public officer is serving the office under a term. as the case may be. or land area has been irreversible reduce to less than the minimum standards as certified by the national agencies concerned.instances when hold-over is not allowed: 1) express prohibition for hold-over. (supra. . 1987 Consti: 19 BEGINNING OF CORPORATE EXISTENSE UNDER THE LGC OF 1991 1) As fixed by the law or ordinance (usually.merger of ADM.term of office of all LGU officials is 3 years. Section 9. If there were no inhabitants.merger of LGU (legislative. or the registered voters may have left the place. meaning at the end of your term. not by the Comelec. 2) implied prohibition. REGIONS (executive. you have to step down. except in Metropolitan Manila area and in cultural communities. or land area has been irreversibly reduced to less than the minimum standards prescribed for its creation under Book III of this Code. LGC Section 14. 9. In the case of a barangay. 18. law + plebiscite) . Determine will of people whether to create AR 2.only those with majority votes provided more than 1 . division.Upon review of the records. law + plebiscite) . . there can be no registered voters. a further act (law or ordinance) is still required to effect abolition. . ARMM ELECTIONS ‗LOCAL‘ Although called regional elections.only 2 kinds of election in our system. a fortiori. .) . as certified by the national agencies mentioned in Section 7 hereof to Congress or to the sangguniang concerned. abolition. 3 term limit except for barangay officials.Sec. or 2) Election and Qualifications of Chief Executive and majority of Sanggunian members (when not fixed by law or ordinance) Sec. city.SMPS consisting of LGU (legislative. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. city. national and local No Hold-over for ARMM officials (supra.A local government unit may be abolished when its income. plebiscite Dual Purpose of Plebiscite: 1. the alteration of the boundaries should not also reduce the minimum requirements on land area. DENR 7 etc. cities. Section 10. or any other political subdivision.

finally. nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them. When he alters or modifies or sets aside a tax ordinance. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. 187 of the LGC. a highly urbanized city. fee. That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax. Secretary Drilon did set aside the Manila Revenue Code.members of its sanggunian. Secretary Drilon did precisely this. ordinances. As we see it. 16 (Constitution) . unless some other time is fixed therefor by the law or ordinance creating it. Form and Filing of Administrative Complaints. That within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal. 4 (Art. (b) A complaint against any elective official of a municipality shall be filed before the sangguniang panlalawigan whose decision may be appealed to the Office of the President. shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. . and so performed an act not of control but of mere supervision.LGUs are agent of the State Read Magtajas V Pryce ruling DRILON V LIM .A verified complaint against any erring local elective official shall be prepared as follows: (a) A complaint against any elective official of a province. and no more nor less than this. He did not say that in his judgment it was a bad law. 2) unconstitutional. however.General Supervision – essentially means that the president shall ensure that laws are faithfully executed and that LGU acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. 2. He has no judgment on this matter except to see to it that the rules are followed. That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal: Provided. that was an act not of control but of mere supervision. 4 (Constitution) and Sec. .SC: Section 187 authorizes the Secretary of Justice to review only the constitutionality or legality of the tax ordinance and.President exercise ‗General Supervision‘ over LGUs . but he himself does not lay down such rules. further. HUC. not anymore true. application. 25 (LGC) and autonomous regions under Sec. Section 187.The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided. allows the secretary of justice to set aside revenue ordinances of local government units on grounds of 1) illegal.Sec. and (c) A complaint against any elective barangay official shall be filed before the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned whose decision shall be final and executory. In the opinion of the Court. orders. and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc. He may not prescribe his own manner for the doing of the act. SUPERVISION V CONTROL . Mandatory Public Hearings. LGC) Section 61. Direct: Provinces. or charge levied therein: Provided. proclamations. instructions. he is not also permitted to substitute his own judgment for the judgment of the local government that enacted the measure. international or executive agreement. 4 (2) of Article VIII of the Constitution: All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty. 455 (xii) and 465 (xii)) for Review.LGUs‘ acts are subject to Judicial Review Both Ordinary judicial review and Expanded Certiorari jurisdiction (Expanded Judicial Review) Sec. Indirect: Component Cities. but he did not replace it with his own version of what the Code should be. ‗upon election‘ – upon a valid proclamation Note: Mejia case (1948): LGU begins to exist upon the ‗effectivity of the law‘ creating it. and ICC include: 1. he may order the work done or re-done but only to conform to the prescribed rules. Independent Component Cities 2.The supervisor or superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are followed. That public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof: Provided. Municipalities (because through the Province to which these belong) and Barangay (through the Municipalities or cities which it belongs) . or law. He did not pronounce the ordinance unwise or unreasonable as a basis for its annulment. . Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax. an independent component city or component city shall be filed before the Office of the President. 61.Sec. 25 of the LGC recognize 2 levels of supervision that the President exercises Direct or Indirect. If the rules are not observed. POWER RELATIONS INVOLVING LGUS LGUS AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENT . under Sec. NATIONAL LIGA NG BARANGAY V PAREDES (2004) 20 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. or operation of presidential decrees. that is. LGC) and impose preventive suspension (60 days for single offense. All he did in reviewing the said measure was determine if the petitioners were performing their functions is accordance with law. Power of the President to discipline local officials of provinces and cities (Sec. to revoke it on either or both of these grounds. Provincial Governor/HUC Mayor is mandated to furnish the President copies of his/her EOs within 72 hours from issuance (Sec.Some manifestations of Direct Supervision over Provinces. 90 days maximum) during the pendency of an administrative case against them (Sec. IV. X) of the Constitution and Sec. LGUS AND PRESIDENT . and other regulations. It was questioned by city mayor of manila . Ordinances and Revenue Measures.The president shall exercise ‗general supervision‘ over local government units. if warranted. which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc. LGUs AND SUPREME COURT . including those involving the constitutionality. 63. 1. the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . with the prescribed procedure for the enactment of tax ordinances and the grant of powers to the city government under the Local Government Code. What he found only was that it was illegal. HUC.

. . The first section of Article VII of the Constitution. and that is the establishment of a single. In short. PNP – local. they enjoy all the powers and discharge all the functions of regular municipal councilors. national security." This means that the President of the Philippines is the Executive of the Government of the Philippines. Executive. by their very nature.The exceptional character of VCommander-in-Chief powers dictate that theyVare exercised by one president Springing from the well-entrenched constitutional precept of One President is the notion that there are certain acts which. one commander-in-chief GANZON V CA (1991) . If the civil authorities are not functioning. One of these acts or prerogatives is the bundle of Commander-in-Chief powers to which the "calling-out" DAY 6 AMPATUAN V PUNO (read ruling) DILG Secretary did not take over control of the powers of the ARMM. not plural. sanggunian members cannot pass ordinances. civil authorities or organs of the government can no longer function. Adiong. assumed the office by operation of law under the rules of succession by the LGC. is not incompatible with supervisory powers. ordinary police work on which the operational control and supervision is vested upon the local chief executive AFP – on matters of national defense. of RA 9054. In this case of Ampatuan. the DILG went beyond its ‗general supervision‘ power when it nullified the results of the Liga elections and promulgated DILG memorandum Circular No. Acting ARMM Vice-Governor. instead of ordinance because there‘s no more sanggunian. 32 it has already been established that there is one repository of executive powers. As such. martial law is declared if in the particular condition. In turn. but it cannot lay down such rules itself. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. If the National Liga Board and its officers had violated Liga rules. robbery. it is granted to the President and no one else. as well as what became known as the calling-out powers under Section 7. . may only be performed by the president as the Head of the State. as in the federal governments of the United States of America (or Brazil or Germany).The DILG (as alter ego of the President) can exercise general supervision over the Liga ng mga barangays. JAMAR KULAYAN V TAN II. Article VII of the Constitution speaks of executive power. the DILG should have ordered the Liga to conduct another election in accordance with the Liga's own rules. where he laid down the supplemental guidelines for the 1997 synchronized elections of the provincial and metropolitan chapters and for the election of the national chapter of the Liga ng mga Barangay. in fact. although Jefferson is said to have compared municipal corporations euphemistically to 26 "small republics. for the sake of local autonomy. 34 Corollarily.As the entity exercising supervision over the Liga ng mga Barangay.Only the President is vestedVwith calling-out powers. the mayor for example must have been singled out of his office. Article VI. intend. Think about it and ask the question whether it amounts to control because it is now the president who orders and pass rules to run the LG. of the legislature. the most that the DILG could do was review the acts of the incumbent officers of the Liga in the conduct of the elections to determine if they committed any violation of the Liga's Constitution and By-laws and its implementing rules. The Liga is an aggregation of barangays which are in turn represented therein by their respective punong barangays. concerning discipline. petitioner Sahali-Generale.Autonomy. with unelected Liga officers. 2009 pursuant to the rule on succession found in Article 21 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. dealing with the Executive Department. to deprive the legislature of all authority over municipal corporations. there is one purpose which is crystal-clear and is readily visible without the projection of judicial searchlight. even temporarily. common crimes such as murder. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . The representatives of the Liga sit in an ex officio capacity at the municipal. Acting Governor Adiong named the then Speaker of the ARMM Regional Assembly. nor does it have the discretion to modify or replace them. SC some sort of made a reasoning that there was no control because there was no take over because after Ampatuan was arrested. city and provincialsanggunians. at the same time serving as the mechanism for the bottom-to-top approach of development. In this particular case. the Liga is the vehicle through which the barangayparticipates in the enactment of ordinances and formulation of policies at all the legislative local levels higher than thesangguniang barangay. metropolitan andnational chapter elections. etc. the DILG‘s authority over the Liga is limited to seeing to it that the rules are followed. Like the local government units. but not in obeisance to DILG-dictated guidelines. who is authorized to exercise emergency powers as provided under Section 23. If the LG is overthrown. after all. It does not involve substitution of judgment. of the Constitution. to solve a domestic problem. territorial integrity. as theVcommander-in-chief of the Republic i. is subject to the guiding star. in the constitutional sense. This means that when Section 1. the DILG Secretary did not take over the administration or operations of the ARMM. you need the president to call out the AFP *when public safety requires it (in the declaration of martial law) – grounds for martial law are invasion. in particular. does not. Secretary of Interior. After law enforcement agents took the Governer of ARMM into custody for alleged complicity in the Maguindanao massacre.But. in hisponencia in Villena: With reference to the Executive Department of the government. that‘s when the president should declare martial law. the ARMM Vice-Governor. though not control. Thus.The constitution did not however. Neither had the DILG the authority to remove the incumbent officers of the Liga and replace them. begins with the enunciation of the principle that "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the Philippines. as the case may be. . Justice Mendoza said ‗under pain of arrest‘ if you don‘t comply. 33 As emphasized by Justice Jose P." Autonomy. the Liga ng mga Barangay is not subject to control by the Chief Executive or his alter ego.One executive. the Vice Governor. and no other. and that is the President of the Republic. .The power or the authority to discipline LG officials. as Executive. precisely because the president may ‗issue orders‘ so that the LG can continue to function. scheduled dates for the new provincial. either ground must be when public safety requires it. As early as Villena v. Laurel. kidnapping. city councilors or provincial board members. assumed the vacated post on December 10. it is only the President. domestic concerns. VII. albeit the legislative responsibility under the Constitution and as the "supervision clause" itself suggest-is to wean local government units from over-dependence on the central government. contemplate making mini-states out of local government units. Section 12. rebellion. so the president can order that there should be fixing of curfew. as thought of by the experts. and appointed respondent Rayos as president of LigaCaloocan Chapter. ii. Article VII thereof. it‘s just telling you to follow the law. 97193 dated 11 August 1997.

consequently. The Congress. fees. which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. The Congress. certain taxable objects. fees and charges. however. If a law is passed withdrawing all conferment of specific powers to tax to the effect that LGU cannot anymore impose tax. upon payment of just compensation. is his power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and proclaim martial law .A local government unit may. there the private property owner.MAGTAJAS case . Sec 18. when the public safety requires it. or purpose or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless. if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. The issue here is the power to expropriate. and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide. Such taxes. but if you take away 1 specific power to tax. Upon the initiative of the President. That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner. consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. the relevant question therefore is does the municipal board or the sangguniang bayan have the power to expropriate. in the same manner. that cannot be done because that will violate sec. Art.Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities. if not in session. is balanced only by the legislative act of Congress.LGUs derive existence and powers from Congress *So when we talk about local powers. however. As noted in Villena. . fees. thus) the act of the LGU and CONGRESS . further. therefore. . may revoke such proclamation or suspension. *SC held that the power to tax is not inherent in the LGU. the ‗general power to tax‘ of LGUs is not conferred by law but guaranteed by the Constitution. pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided. suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress. invasion or rebellion.The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary. within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension. such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof. exercise the power of eminent domain for public use. That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided. So what the provincial board did was to reject and set aside the ordinance. authorize the President. successfully convinced the members of the sannguniang board to oppose the expropriation. Such.Mother LGU reviews acts of component LGU . the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court. as embodied in the second paragraph of Section 23. 35 Article 7. for example franchise tax. finally. for instance. Article 6 of the Constitution: aIETCA Article 6. X (Constitution). LGU can now impose taxes. through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance. Art. 38 and fees shall accrue to the LGU. And so the ordinance was passed. the calling-out powers. for a period not exceeding sixty days. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . 5. to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy.powers constitutes a portion. 37 By constitutional fiat. the Congress may. 36 The power to declare a state of martial law is subject to the Supreme Court's authority to review the factual basis thereof. and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments. so these are local taxes. provisional tax. franchise tax. 19 of the LGC of 1991. it confers LGU specific powers to tax. . based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property. "(t)here are certain constitutional powers and prerogatives of the Chief Executive of the Nation which must be exercised by him in person and no amount of approval or ratification will validate the exercise of any of those powers by any other person. In case of invasion or rebellion. X had been introduced. try to raise the expropriation. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. if it‘s a sangguniang bayan it goes to the sangguniang panlalawigan or the provincial board. Art. the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. under sec. Bernas made an interpretation that it is not conferment of power. extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress. (ergo. community tax. is bestowed upon the President alone. That. which is of lesser gravity than the power to declare martial law. he may. convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. we will be talking about taxation. the authority of the reviewing sangguniang is only to see to it the act of the component LGU is within the prescribed powers and functions. 5. amusement tax. Was the act of the sangguniang panlalawigan valid? Answer: As can be gleaned from the facts given. Does this mean that the power to tax of the LGU is inherent? The question is relevant because you want to know the extent of the power of congress to control the power to tax because if it is not inherent and therefore delegated and so you can say that that power may be taken away from the LGU. on the other hand. congress however cannot absolutely bar or prohibit all LGU from exercising power to tax. that the LG can collect like real property tax. however under the 1987 constitution. Eminent Domain. that being the case. in fact he tried to influence the member of the sangguniang bayan not to pass the ordinance in the first place but he failed. for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe. it is just a guarantee of the general power to tax but the specific power to tax is still of statutory origin and therefore delegated. SECTION 5. transfer tax. Only the ‗specific power to tax‘ is statutory and subject to ‗guidelines and limitations‘ as congress may provide. by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session. MOTHER LGU AND COMPONENT LGU . etc… so when it enumerated certain local taxes. as enumerated these are of statutory origin which means while congress confers specific power to tax and therefore congress can take it back. that can be done. by law. he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. inherent? These powers are merely delegated power. The next step is that the ordinance goes to the reviewing mother sangguniang. . police power and eminent domain. *BAR EXAM question: A municipality. The President's Emergency Powers. it is not therefor outside the powers and function. voting jointly. charges and fees and that these taxes 22 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. (whether or not ultra vires). the Congress may.In times of war or other national emergency. X. Are these powers delegated. if you say it is inherent then congress cannot take that away. shall. and cities and municipalities with respect to component barangays ‗shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. 5. If you look at the LGC of 1991. passed and ordinace authorizing the mayor to initiate expropriation proceedings against a private property but the property owner. transaction. . Sec 23(2). Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes. LGU have the power to expropriate.Under Sec. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. they are not therefore inherent powers but a question had been asked when sec. and such offer was not accepted: Provided.

resolutions as a rule do not get reviewed except: Sec. LGC) Sec. if any.000 maximum. finds the barangay ordinances inconsistent with law or city or municipal ordinances. within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. LGUS AND NATIONAL AGENCIES (WITH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION FUNCTIONS) . the item or items in the appropriations ordinance of the previous year corresponding to those vetoed. and SP (City or Municipality) reviews ordinances of Barangays Sec. Section 27. nongovernmental and people's organizations. and other sectors concerned and explain the goals and objectives of the project or program. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus.It shall be the duty of every national agency or government-owned or controlled corporation authorizing or involved in the planning and implementation of any project or program that may cause pollution. the veto shall not affect the item or items which are not objected to. the idea of this one is to respect priorities of a particular locality so that before a project gets implemented in the locality. Section 26. its impact upon the people and the community in terms of environmental or ecological balance. Ultra Vires (sec. as the case may be. 2 (c) and 26 of the LGC and prior approval of the Sanggunian concerned obtained. 56 is within the prescribe powers and functions if you are talking about the sangguniang panlalawigan reviewing the acts of component LGU. 2 (c) It is likewise the policy of the State to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic consultations with appropriate local government units. (c) The local chief executive may veto an ordinance or resolution only once. If by Sangguniang Panglunsod/Bayan 1.Prior Consultation Before Implementation No project or program shall be implemented by government authorities unless consultations in Sec. Examples Sec. 56 (C). stating his reasons therefor in writing. LGC: Mother sanggunian reviews ordinances. except the punong barangay. or modification. The sanggunian may override the veto of the local chief executive concerned by two-thirds (2/3) vote of all its members. the national government agency must have already complied with the requirement of consultation and prior approval of the Sanggunian. rangeland. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological Balance. return the same with its comments and recommendations to the sangguniang barangay concerned for adjustment. to consult with the local government units. But if panglunsod or bayan. Consistent with city/municipality. *The wording of sec. .GROUNDS: If by Sangguniang Panlalawigan: 1. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . otherwise. the sanggunian concerned shall. LGC) (c) If the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan. 56. LGC) Veto Power of the Local Chief Executive. loss of crop land. and the measures that will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects thereof. Prejudicial to public welfare (Sec. * Ordinances copying Statutes may lessen its impact especially if there is penal clause. shall have the power to veto any particular item or items of an appropriations ordinance. in which case. LGC: Provincial Governors review the EOs of component city and municipal Mayors. it shall declare such ordinance or resolution invalid in whole or in part. ordinances get reviewed. an ordinance or resolution adopting a local development plan and public investment program. 57. sangguniang panlungsod. Consistent with law 2. the point is if you are a sangguniang panglungsod the penalty that you can impose is only limited to P5. Ultra Vires 2. 458. or sanggunian bayan on the ground that it is ultra vires or prejudicial to the public welfare. climatic change.No project or program shall be implemented by government authorities unless the consultations mentioned in Sections 2 (c) and 26 hereof are complied with. - (a) The local chief executive may veto any ordinance of LINA V PANO the sanggunian panlalawigan. The sangguniang panlalawigan shall enter its action in the minutes and shall advise the corresponding city or municipal authorities of the action it has taken. amendment. 27. nongovernmental organizations. the effectivity of the barangay ordinance is suspended until such time as the revision called for is effected. (sec. LGC: SP (Province) reviews ordinances and resolutions approving plans and programs of Local Development Councils of component cities and municipalities. Prior Consultations Required. 30. provided that occupants affected shall be given relocation site.GROUNDS: 1. 55. (b) The local chief executive. EO of component cities MOTHER SANGGUNIAN‘S REVIEW POWER . City and Municipal Mayors review the EOs of Punong Barangays *take note. thereby making the ordinance effective even without the approval of the local chief executive concerned. depletion of non-renewable resources. and other concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions. in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. LGC) 2009 Bar (c) If the sangguniang panlalawigan finds that such an ordinance or resolution is beyond the power conferred upon the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned. 447. and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained: Provided. . 23 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. The vetoed item or items shall not take effect unless the sanggunian overrides the veto in the manner herein provided. and extinction of animal or plant species. shall be deemed reenacted. 57. or an ordinance directing the payment of money or creating liability. *It speaks of Local Autonomy.sangguniang panlalawigan is improper because it set aside an exercise that is well within the power of the Sangguniang Bayan. or forest cover. Ordinances (Sec. In such a case. That occupants in areas where such projects are to be implemented shall not be evicted unless appropriate relocation sites have been provided. 468 a 1 I. the term used is ‗not within prescribed powers or functions… COMPARE WITH VETO POWER OF LOCAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE .

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. mosques. fees. Unless otherwise provided in this Code. and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments. . Article X) or IRA Local government units shall have a just share. Hence. Section 234. for consideration or otherwise. Fire protection Unit and Jail Management Personnel: Operational Supervision and Control by LGU *No control over appointments in the case of ANDAYA V RTC .As deputy of the Commission. or presently enjoyed by all persons.With NGO‘s: LGUs shall support and may give assistance to NGO LGC Section 34. 5. No. X. Such taxes. National government like DPWH. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide. 7. whereas if the charter is enacted after the effectivity of the LGC. then the tax exemption is withdrawn. Will that institution be held liable to pay? Sec. capability-building and livelihood projects. provide assistance. any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to. Article X) V. to such people's and non-governmental organizations for economic. churches. including all government-owned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. whether natural or juridical. SOURCES OF REVENUES 1. 234 (LGC) Section 193. Actually. Except as provided herein. . and other agencies with project implementation function. fees. POWER .With environmental programs: Consultation . including government-owned or controlled corporations.Local government units shall promote the establishment and operation of people's and non-governmental organizations to become active partners in the pursuit of local autonomy. through its local chief executive and with the concurrence of the sanggunian concerned. It was argued that PAGCOR could not operate Lotto without asking for consent of the Sanggunian and conduct consultation.Delivery of Services and Facilities . to a taxable person. 27 is not applicable to PAGCOR because it is a GOCC.With PNP. he has no power of appointment. Taxes. and to develop local enterprises designed to improve productivity and income. consti) Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes. diversity agriculture. whether natural or juridical. and Charges (sec. No. and enhance the economic and social well-being of the people.A local government unit may. are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. and (e) Machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection. In reality. then came the city treasurer assessing that agency to pay real property tax. 2.in this case. Assistance to People's and Nongovernmental Organizations. it is exempted for being the later intent of congress. Role of People's and Nongovernmental Organizations. (b) Charitable institutions. or presently enjoyed by. financial or otherwise. except local water districts. it is not part of the national government.A.SC: Section 27 in relation to Sec.local power of taxation . .local eminent domain . . Equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas (Sec. or cultural projects to be implemented within its territorial jurisdiction.local police power . (d) All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as provided for under R. it involved operation of Lotto which was authorized by PAGCOR which is a government owned and controlled corporation. Moreover. . (c) All machineries and equipment that are actually.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 has been granted. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 .With field units in the LGU: Consultation . Just share in the national taxes (Sec. 26 as applicable only to national government agencies with project implementation function to the exclusion therefore of government owned or controlled corporations. According to SC sec. *If charter was enacted before the effectivity of LGC. . environmental. the mayor cannot require the petitioner to include the mayor‘s protégé in the list of 5 eligibles to be recommended by the Regional Police Director to the mayor. it is the prerogative of the Regional Police Director to name the 5 eligibles from a pool of eligible officers without interference from local executives.. 193.A. directly. he has only the limited power of selecting one from among the list of 5 eligibles to be named the chief of police. non-profit or religious cemeteries and all lands. and exclusively used for religious. it is exempt from real property tax. promote ecological balance. LGUS AND OTHER AGENCIES/OFFICES . the power to appoint the chief of police of Cebu City is vested in the Regional Director. spur rural industrialization. buildings. tax exemptions or incentives granted to. all persons. parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto. LGC Section 35. . and improvements actually. in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them. national government is different as defined by law. it has its own charter. 6938. 6938. cooperatives duly registered under R. Linkages with People's and Nongovernmental Organizations. the authority of the mayor is very limited. 3. Fees. sociallyoriented. Art. non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions. 6. directly and exclusively used by local water districts and government owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power.Closure and Opening of roads LOCAL POWER OF TAXATION *Question: When a government agency or an institution in its charter.Reclassification of lands 24 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. as determined by law.Local government units may enter into joint ventures and such other cooperative arrangements with people's and non-governmental organizations to engage in the delivery of certain basic services. charitable or educational purposes. LGC Section 36.

. (vi) registered cooperatives. property used exclusively for the educational activities of the foundation. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. . like local government units. fees and charges as they are distinct in concepts. ancillary permits such as electrical permit. including government-owned and controlled corporations. (b) character exemptions. directly and exclusively used for educational purposes. 6055. it may be exercised by local legislative bodies. may be further required before a building permit may be issued. Accordingly. Exempted from real property taxes on the basis of their character are: (i) charitable institutions.Exempted from the payment of building permit fees are: (1) public buildings and (2) traditional indigenous family dwellings. directly and exclusively used for educational purposes.A. Exempted from real property taxes on the basis of the actual. Since building permit fees are not charges on property. The government does not want the LGU to unwisely spend their moneys so what Ramos require is to retain 10% of the IRA. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . i.SC distinguished taxes. in order to ensure that local programs. this does not rule out any manner of national government intervention by way of supervision. No.A. (Pimentel V Aguirre. alter. While there is no allegation or proof that petitioner leases the land to its present occupants. A "charge" is broadly defined as the "price of. (iii) a city. 5 ANGELES UNIV. and (iii) nonprofit or religious cemeteries. . as rents or fees against persons or property. It is in this case where the SC explained the rationale behind it and it mentioned of idea of local fiscal autonomy. (v) a barangay. Note that the "other charges" mentioned in Sec. still there is no compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirement that said real property is actually. If the purpose is primarily to raise revenue. under the constitution. 23 That "charges" in its ordinary meaning appears to be a general term which could cover a specific "fee" does not support petitioner's position that building permit fees are among those "other charges" from which it was expressly exempted. the scope thereof or its limitations. they are not impositions from which petitioner is exempt. enacted pursuant to Section 3. DAY 7 TAXES. That a building permit fee is a regulatory imposition is highlighted by the fact that in processing an application for a building permit. Exemptions from real property taxes on the basis of ownership are real properties owned by: (i) the Republic. These exemptions are based on the ownership.Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas. no longer merely by virtue of a valid delegation as before." Building permit fees are not impositions on property but on the activity subject of government regulation. then it will be deemed a tax even though the measure results in some form of regulation. buildings and structures. you have to be careful about what has been enjoyed and granted. FEES AND CHARGES MCIAA V MARCOS (read ruling. renovate or demolish 25 . clearances from various government authorities exercising and enforcing regulatory functions affecting buildings/structures. petitioner's claim for exemption rests solely on its interpretation of the term "other charges imposed by the National Government" in the tax exemption clause of R. 234 PROVIDES FOR THE EXEMPTION FROM THE PAYMENT OF REAL PROPERTY TAX. SC declared the AR as unconstitutional because the IRA should be automatically released. revenue is generated. what are the 3 main sources of revenues of local government units? (2%) Sec. environmental health. 193) Art. in our jurisdictions. In distinguishing tax and regulation as a form of police power. — Section 234 of the LGC provides for the exemptions from payment of real property taxes and withdraws previous exemptions therefrom granted to natural and juridical persons. or rate for. 7 LOCAL FISCAL AUTONOMY . mosques. the CA did not err in ruling that petitioner is likewise not entitled to a refund of the real property tax it paid under protest. charges refers to pecuniary liability. effect of sec. 5. provides for the exercise by local government units of their power to tax. character.A. . Thus: (a) Ownership Exemptions. Section 133 of the LGC prescribes the common limitations on the taxing powers of local government . electrical and mechanical safety as well as with other rules and regulations implementing the National Building Code. however. The LGC. as well as the power to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities.MAYBE EXERCISED BY THE LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODIES. something. And as can be gleaned from the implementing rules and regulations of the National Building Code. On the other hand. direct and exclusive use to which they are …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. sanitary and sewerage. the determining factor is the purpose of the implemented measure. 1999 BAR B. Article X of the Constitution. (iv) a municipality. BASIS THEREOF. if the purpose is primarily to regulate. Article X of the Constitution. (ii) a province. the same. sanitary permit and zoning clearance must also be secured and the corresponding fees paid before a building permit may be issued. fiscal and otherwise. 24Thus. 6. . structural design. it should not therefore be subject to withholding lien as already founded in the LGC of 1991 and in fact it should be released automatically to the local treasurer.But. are consistent with national goals. parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto." 22 As used in the Local Government Code of 1991 (R. X sec. in the manner provided by law. FOUNDATION V CITY OF ANGELES . 6055 is qualified by the words "imposed by the Government on all . Under the latter. and use of the property. The respondents correctly assessed the land for real property taxes for the taxable period during which the land is not being devoted solely to petitioner's educational activities. including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits. (ii) houses and temples of prayer like churches.e. lines and grades. even though incidentally." while the word "fee" pertains to a "charge fixed by law for services of public officers or for use of a privilege under control of government. While it may be argued that the fees relate to particular properties. 8 of R. . SEC. — The power to tax is primarily vested in the Congress. the exercise of the power may be subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide which. 2000) *Sometime in 1997 issued an AR during the height of Asian financial crisis and one way of responding to it was to manage well domestic funds. No. they are actually imposed on certain activities the owner may conduct either to build such structures or to repair. and the exemptions from taxation. the Building Official shall see to it that the applicant satisfies and conforms with approved standard requirements on zoning and land use. while fee means a charge fixed by law or ordinance for the regulation or inspection of a business or activity. but pursuant to direct authority conferred by Section 5. (c) Usage exemptions.Local Fiscal Autonomy: Local governments 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. No.Petitioner failed to discharge its burden to prove that its real property is actually. 7160). however. then it is deemed a regulation and an exercise of the police power of the state. except as provided therein. 21 Not being expressly included in the enumeration of structures to which the building permit fees do not apply. must be consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

. as a non-stock government corporation is exempted from any form of taxation under P. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . MIAA is merely holding title to the Airport Lands and Buildings in trust for the Republic. exemptions from real property taxes granted to natural or juridical persons. directly and exclusively used by local water districts or by government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power. without need of any further action.GSIS. and limitations thereof. it can also provide for exemptions or even take back the power. No. A government instrumentality falls under sec 133(o) of the LGC which limits the taxing powers of LGUs. the land area occupied by hangars that MIAA leases to private corporations is subject to real estate tax. The Court views this subsequent piece of legislation as an express and real intention on the part of Congress to once again remove from the LGCs delegated taxing power. . and the exemptions from taxations. Chapter 12. (a) The share of each local government unit shall be released. character. and (iii) all machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection. . city. All other exemptions previously granted to natural or juridical persons including government-owned or controlled corporations are withdrawn upon effectivity of the Code. CITY OF ILOILO V SMART (2009) . cont‘d . Even with the enactment of Local Government Code in 1991. all machinery and equipment for pollution control and environmental protection may not be taxed by local governments. 2. JUST SHARE IN THE NATIONAL TAXES ART. buildings and improvements which are actually. 5 on the fiscal position of municipal corporation? Sec. directly and exclusively used for religious. 7633 was enacted subsequent to the LGC. it necessarily follows that its exemption from such tax granted it in Section 14 of its charter. (2000) Sec. QUEZON CITY V BAYANTEL. Other Exemptions Withdrawn. However. providing the exercise of local government units (LGUs) of their power to tax.The uncertainty in the ―in lieu of all taxes‖ clause in R. PAGCOR being an instrumentality of the National Government is therefore exempt from' local taxes. however. either by virtue of ownership. (b) Nothing in this Chapter shall be understood to diminish the share of local government units under existing laws. MHC has the responsibility of paying the accrued taxes and in case of non-payment.D. x x x The power of local governments to impose taxes and fees is always subject to limitations which Congress may provide by law x x x Local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the National Government. (ii) all machineries and equipment actually. known as RA 7160.MIAA is not a GOCC but a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently government functions. including government-owned or controlled corporations. upon the effectivity of the LGC. Any claim to the contrary can only be justified if MCIAA can show that the parcels of land in question. Rep. charitable or educational purposes.the power to tax is primarily vested in the congress.The last paragraph of Section 234 unequivocally withdrew. . What it does is to confer municipal corporations a general power to levy taxes and otherwise create sources of revenue. no longer merely be virtue of a valid delegation as before. MHC.MIAA is a Mere Trustee of the Republic.devoted are: (i) all lands. directly to the provincial. . In such a case. 18. the scope 26 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.5 does not change the doctrine that municipal corporations do not possess inherent powers of taxation.A.R. Section 48.(same reasoning was applied in Digital Telecom 2007case) . No. and which shall not be subject to any lien or holdback that may be imposed by the national government for whatever purpose. To help provide a healthy environment in the midst of the modernization of the country. Automatic Release of Shares. It is not clear whether the ―in lieu of all taxes‖ provision in the franchise of SMART would include exemption from local or national taxation. 7294 on whether SMART is exempted from both local and national franchise tax must be construed strictly against SMART which claims the exemption. as the case may be. undoubtedly. but pursuant to direct authority conferred by Sec. 4 of A. through means the sale at public auction of the leased property. No. directly and exclusively used in the pursuit of its franchise. on a quarterly basis within five (5) days after the end of each quarter. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. and the petitioner is. 372 which mandates that Pending the assessment GSIS V CITY TREASURER OF MANILA . Act No. all of Bayantel‘s properties that are actually.1146. 284-288. a government-owned corporation. 5.what is the effect of Sec. due to the beneficial use of the Katigbak property as it is being leased to MHC. The LGC recognize that the LGUs‘ cannot tax the national government. MIAA has granted the beneficial use of such land area for a consideration to a taxable person and therefore such land area is subject to real estate tax. .Portions of the Airport Lands and Buildings that MIAA leases to private entities are not exempt from real estate tax. PIMENTEL V AGUIREE. 1992 – after the effectivity of the LGC – Section 193 will therefore not apply in this case. NO.Admittedly. if Congress can grant a municipal corporation the power to tax certain matters. No 7294 does not expressly provide what kind of taxes SMART is exempted from. are any one of those enumerated in Section 234. The taxes due on the said property are valid due for it being leased to a taxable entity. Article X of the constitution. . the tax exempted status of GSIS was restored through the enactment of RA 8291 that gives the full taxexempted status of GSIS. Book I of the Administrative Code allows instrumentalities like MIAA to hold title to real properties owned by the Republic. LGC of 1991 Section 286. 6958. or use of the property. SMART‘s claim for exemption from local business and franchise taxes based on Section 9 of its franchise is therefore unfounded. LGC of 1991 Sec.As SMART‘s franchise was made effective on March 27. municipal or barangay treasurer. GR. it may be exercised by local legislative bodies. in our jurisdiction. O. which delegated the power to tax. which are real property. MIAA V CA . X SEC. Moreover.A. the airport lands and buildings of MIAA are owned by the republic is not taxable pursuant to Sec 234 (a) of the LGC. R. BASCO V PAGCOR . has been withdrawn.A.Congress has the power of control over local governments. except as provided in the said section. 6 Sec. For example.

not unfair or oppressive (also a constitutional reqt. as well as powers necessary. or fines. not unreasonable (also a constitutional reqt) See Balaquit case where an ordinance penalized movie houses that charged full payment for admission of children between 7-12) Don‘t forget Lawful subject and lawful means! *Lawful means – method employed will be considered lawful if it is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose of the law. not for LGU.shall not subject to any lien or hold back that may be imposed by the national government for whatever purpose.16. because in the exercise of Police Power there is no taking of property here and the payment of just compensation. as when it is not reasonably necessary. although under sec. to grant franchises for operation of jai-alai. Why? Because according to the Court the LGU was not without recourse in solving congestion. OF VIRAC: 1. of course. LGC of 1991 Amount of Share of Local Government Units. rather than order the non-operation of existing terminals and deprive them of their right to property without payment of just compensation. private properties without payment of Just compensation. promote full employment among their residents. However there was a law that actually provided that it is not within the power of the LGU to grant franchises for the operation of Jai-Alai but is for the National Government. SEC.) 4. where the LGU insisted that it has the authority to grant franchises for the Operation of JaiAlai. improve public morals. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions. LOCAL POLICE POWER . * Just so as you will have an idea on how on the sharing of IRAs (how it is allocated: provinces (23%). and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. of the requirements of valid delegation of legislative power) see. and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. how to answer that question. police power is still under the control of Congress in all its respects. 5 of the code. the general welfare provision shall be liberally construed to give more powers to the LGU. Hence. A basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the automatic release of the shares of LGUs in the national internal revenue. Article 10 of the Constitution. Ordinances like that cant also be considered as valid. 2. Indeed it was implemented by the LGU but at the same time it ordered through the ordinance that existing terminals inside the city cannot operate as terminals. 6. appropriate. It was an exercise of Local Police Power. It could have 1. The provincial Governor of Bataan requested the DBM to release its IRA of P100M for the current budget year. not prohibit. According to the court while the objective was for the promotion of the general welfare and therefore the subject was lawful. So if the LGU regulates the Operation of the Jai-Alai through the issuance of franchises then it contravenes the policy of the National Government.Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted. the amount equivalent to 10% of the internal revenue allotment to local government units shall be withheld . Is this requirement valid? *No. municipalities (34%). * Lawful subject – the act or activity must be something that affects the public. the General Appropriations Act provided that the IRA may be released only if the province meets certain conditions as determined by an oversight council created by the President. or charges. fees.cannot be upheld. It could have widened roads for example or if not create some more roads to ease the traffic. As observed it caused traffic and congestion to the city. 2007 BAR EXAM VIII. but only regulate lawful trade (dela cruz v paras where an ordinance prohibited the operation of night clubs) 5. and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. This is mandated by the Constitution and the Local Government Code. have a share of forty percent (40%) of the gross collection derived by the national government from the preceding fiscal year from mining taxes. among other things. 27 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Lim V Pacquing where it was found out the national policy was for national government. royalties. And so the affective owners of these terminals filed a case in court questioning that ordinance. . saying that it took their properties. LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL. including related surcharges. those necessarily implied therefrom. Section 4 which orders the withholding of 10% of the LGU‘s IRA clearly contravenes the Constitution and the law. consistent with public policy (bec.Basically a delegated power both in its general and specific sense. The objective of which was to promote general welfare which was to ease the traffic in the city.Local government units shall. the preservation and enrichment of culture. we did not take your property. interests.and evaluation by the Development Budget Coordinating Committee of the emerging fiscal situation. V JAC LINER (2005) * In Lucena City there were certain terminals (about 2 or 3 terminals) that have been in operation within the interior part of the City.Definition of automatic release . local government units shall ensure and support. it is a violation of the IRA. cities (23%). The solution was to have a terminal and make it a central terminal outside the city. barangays (20%). the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . joint venture or production sharing agreement in the utilization and development of the national wealth within their territorial jurisdiction. Another application of Lawful means requirement.The general welfare clause: Sec. promote health and safety. LGU can only regulate but not grant franchise for operation of jai-alai. and from its share in any co-production. REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY OF LOCAL POLICE POWER TATEL V MUN. or incidental for its efficient and effective governance. However. . enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology. the means employed by the LGC was not reasonably necessary. must not contravene the Constitution and statute. not partial or discriminatory (also a constitutional reqt. That is a clear violation of Section 6. and such other taxes. unlike in taxation power where the general power to tax is constitutionally guaranteed. Implemented strictly traffic rules 2. It is overbreadth if it does not comply with lawful means or lawful methods. forestry and fishery charges. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. You know. Then of course the LGU argued. in addition to the internal revenue allotment. maintain peace and order. EQUITABLE SHARE IN THE PROCEEDS OF UTILIZATION OF WEALTH IN THE LOCALITY. 290. enhance economic prosperity and social justice.) 3. * In Lim vs Paquing. This case also applied the concept of overbreadth in police power measures. LGC of 1991 . encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities. . INC.

bec. 7065.Zoning ordinance is a police measure *A zoning ordinance primarily is pass to regulate use of property and therefore it is mandating the property use in the locality. there are 28 LOCAL EMINENT DOMAIN GENERAL REQT: . the means employed is to prohibit the wash-up rate. Even if it was perfectly alright to annotate that it should remain for residential use only. Mutuc. Less intrusive measures such as curbing the proliferation of prostitutes and drug dealers through active police work would be more effective in easing the situation. Manila Ordinance No. selling or using. It promotes general welfare. not merely a doubtful or argumentative contradiction. motels and other similar establishments have encouraged the strength of prostitution. So an ordinance was passed in Manila. This means that the license or permit issued by the City of Manila to operate wager or betting activity. And now or at that time it was used for commercial purpose.Taking . we have laws against drugs and prostitution so you have to mobilize the police force and apply strictly the laws or heightened police work rather than sacrifice property rights of hotel/motels. *Remember the rules in interpretation? Liberal interpretation in favor of devolution. like ex. These measures would have minimal intrusion on the businesses of the petitioners and other legitimate merchants. and 2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. .. So the idea is the least intrusive means should be employed. 409 (Revised Charter of Manila) with respect to wagers and betting was the power "to license. The purpose of the ordinance is to minimize prostitution and drug deals.Public use …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.Lacking a concurrence of these requisites. In short. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. other ways by which that purpose is to be accomplish. . As held in Morfe v. . not the power "to franchise". The owner which was just beside the building which was the seller who was just beside the building complained because in the certificate of title it was annotated that it should only be used for residential purpose. as distinguished from those of a particular class. even if well-founded. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . And so the buyer started to build a commercial building. liberty or property is affected. Otherwise stated. for even under the guise of protecting the public interest. LIM V. Therefore. the exercise of police power is subject to judicial review when life. require the interference of the State. require an interference with private rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private rights. is void and ultra vires. as distinguished from those of a particular class.Necessity (nation v local) . parties to a contract who may be affected by zoning ordinances cannot invoke the constitutional right against impairment of obligations and contracts because in constitutional law. It must appear that the interests of the public generally. the short time admission and tolerated or wash-up rates for abbreviated stays. a reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment. there can be no finding of unconstitutionality. which purported to grant Associated Development Corporation (ADC) a franchise to conduct jai-alai operations. .Therefore.As with the State.Private property . Not only that in this case another concern was drug pushing. So would the strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations penalizing prostitution and drug use. ORTIGAS & CO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP . Then second. it is hard to imagine having a residence in the middle of industries. such as jai-alai. there must be a lawful concurrence of a lawful subject and lawful means. local ordinances and local police measure are also presumed constitutional (Tano V Socrates). the seller also invoked non-impairment clause of the constitution and you know of course the ruling of the Court there. prohibiting this kind of accommodation.A. Where doubt exists. that the property could only be used for residential purposes. the local government may be considered as having properly exercised its police power only if the following requisites are met: 1) the interests of the public generally. Local Gov‘t Units and in favor of general welfare power/police power of gov‘t. IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES IN POLICE POWER Just like statutes. so too are ordinances.it prevails over contractual obligations . It must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. would not amount to something meaningful unless the holder of the license or permit was also franchised by the National Government to so operate. permit or regulate". 240 SCRA 649 What Congress delegated to the City of Manila in R. the conflict with the Constitution must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. the police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights. there must be clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. In the privacy of hotel rooms there will be of course prostitution or the commission of crimes specifically drug pushing. WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION V CITY OF MANILA *Apparently it was the reason why this short time accommodation by hotels. the Zoning Ordinance is a Police Measure and thus it should prevail over contractual obligations. at the time of sale the land had been classified in the zoning ordinance as residential.The behavior which the Ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact already prohibited and could in fact be diminished simply by applying existing laws. Hence. personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. *In this case. And then when the buyer invoked the zoning ordinance. Is it reasonably necessary? Does it prohibit drug deals? Yes.More importantly. a property having sold to the buyer with annotation on the title. TANO V SOCRATES (1997) As laws enjoy presumption of constitutionality (except laws restricting freedom of expression). But later on the Zoning ordinance was changed and amended and the area where that property was situated had already been considered commercial. To doubt is to sustain. then is the method use by the government the least intrusive? The SC said. without it. police power prevails over nonimpairment clause.That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with another constitutional requisite for the legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police power measure. . PACQUING. but the question is. is it the only means available for the government to accomplish the purpose? If the answer is No.

whether or not a local government unit can expropriate a property devoted to public use. the court will not inquire into the necessity or propriety of the taking. and has given them discretion as to when the power is to be called into exercise and to what extent. apparently there is none and so a LGU cannot expropriate a private property that is already devoted to public. this petition. they must only find (a) that a law or authority exists for the exercise of the right of eminent domain. not a resolution. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Masikip was dismissed by the rial court on the ground that there was genuine necessity to expropriate the property. beginning at this point. Section 19 of the Code requires an ordinance. as compared to instances when it is directly exercised by the national [24] legislature. for the exercise of the power of eminent domain. may directly determine the necessity for appropriating private property for a particular improvement or public use. the courts have adopted a more censorious attitude in resolving questions involving the proper exercise of this delegated power by local bodies. The courts have the obligation to determine whether the following requisites have been complied with by the local government unit concerned: 1. Upon on the other hand. or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.calr 2. the same filed an appeal. An examination of the applicable law will show that an ordinance is necessary to authorize the filing of a complaint with the proper court since. finds that neither of these conditions exists or that either one of them fails. When a municipal corporation attempts to expropriate private property and an objection is made thereto by the owner. upon trial. so City of Pasig filed with the trial court a complaint for expropriation. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . This was in January 1994. but [25] said offer was not accepted. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use. A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. 4. In that 1998 case we held that:miso We are not convinced by petitioner's insistence that the terms "resolution" and "ordinance" are synonymous. An ordinance possesses a general and permanent character.Just compensation . the purpose must be public. Masikip refused. Realty Corporation regarding the distinction between an ordinance and a resolution. What about LGU? It can only be done if there is a law authorizing it. 2000) Despite the existence of this legislative grant in favor of local governments. but a resolution is temporary in nature. There is payment of just compensation. in this jurisdiction. the land must be private. as required under Section 9. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. in providing for the exercise the power of eminent domain. Similarly. which dismissed petition for lack of merit. In fact. the courts have ample authority. but (b) also that the right or authority is being exercised in accordance with the law. when the legislature has delegated the power of eminent domain to municipal or public service corporation or other tribunals or bodies. An ordinance is a law. the two are enacted differently -a third reading is necessary for an ordinance. in behalf of the local government unit. CITY OF MANILA V CHINESE COMMUNITY OF MANILA (1919) *Plaintiff sought to expropriate a part of a private cemetery devoted for public use to make an extension of Rizal Avenue. adjoining and adjacent lots were offered to the city free of charge for the planned public improvement. 3. We cannot uphold respondent's contention that an ordinance is needed only to appropriate funds after the court has determined the amount of just compensation. HEIRS OF ALBERTO SUGUITAN V CITY OF MANDALUYONG (GR 135087. in contravention of the first requisite. and. concerning the question on whether or not the purpose of the expropriation is for some public use. and to hear proof upon an issue properly presented. but not for a resolution. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated.Due process assailed that they have the right to exercise the power of eminent domain and that the courts have no right to inquire and determine the necessity of the expropriation.. required! DE LA PAZ MASIKIP V CITY OF PASIG (2006) * Lourdes Dela Paz Masikip is the registered owner of a parcel of land. Thus. it is well settled that the utility of the proposed improvement.M. 1994. GENUINE NECESSITY. So a cemetery that is open to the public is a private property but devoted to public use.‖ Petitioner protested. which the City of Pasig sought to expropriate a portion thereof for the ―sports development and recreational activities‖ of the residents of Barangay Caniogan. V. purpose or welfare. *It was also argued that chinese cemetery was already offered and made available to the public. and other pertinent laws. certainly it cannot be contended that the right is being exercised in accordance with law. to make inquiry. Plaintiff herein 29 …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. The lower court ruled that the said public improvement was not necessary on the particular-strip of land in question. the expediency of constructing it. the City of Mandaluyong seeks to exercise the power of eminent domain over petitioners' property by means of a resolution. are all questions exclusively for the legislature to determine. Case was elevated to the Court of Appeals. On March 23. We reiterate our ruling in Municipality [26] of Parañaque v. it is still the duty of the courts to determine whether the power of eminent domain[23] being is exercised in accordance with the delegating law. Hence. In the present case. Additionally. MARCH 14. The right of expropriation is not an inherent power in a municipal corporation. We are of the opinion that the power of the court is not limited to that question. the suitableness of the location selected and the consequent necessity of taking the land selected for its site. to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property . the legislature. but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. so the issue was. the extent of the public necessity for its construction. Moreover. unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggunian members. In the present case there are two conditions imposed upon the authority conceded to the City of Manila: First. When the courts come to determine the question. and before it can exercise the right some law must exist conferring the power upon it. Defendants contend that expropriation is not necessary because it will disturb the remains of the dead. City of Pasig sought again to expropriate said portion of land for the alleged purpose that it was ―in line with the program of the Municipal Government to provide land opportunities to deserving poor sectors of our community. and the courts have no power to interfere. or to substitute their own views for theseof the representatives of the people. In such a case. The law in this case is clear and free from ambiguity. and it may select the exact location of the improvement. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive. Article III of the Constitution. second. If the court. may it be expropriated? If Congress no problem because this is an exercise of plenary power. the power of eminent domain is already being exercised.

…let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. the former is only an opinion of a law-making body. A resolution would only need 2 readings. That one should be strictly distinguish from the other. The Code requires an ordinance and a resolution can‘t be a substitute. which provides that a resolution authorizes a Local Government Unit to exercise eminent domain. That. the CHARACTER OF PERMANENCE. The Ordinance of Course has the force and effect of a law. the Court defines what constitutes genuine necessity for Public use. An ordinance will always require 3 readings. And then here‘s the declaration by the Court. A resolution is not an ordinance. Because during trial it was found out they will only develop the property after expropriation. The LGC specifically requires ordinance. exercise the power of eminent domain for public use. in behalf of the local government unit. it is permanent in nature unless it is repealed or modified. Genuine necessity must be present before or at least during the expropriation. notwithstanding that there is a recreational facility a short distance away. The ordinance must therefore specify the private property which will be the subject of the expropriation. (dela paz masikip case. such taking cannot be considered to be for public use. Petitioner also relies on the Implementing Rules. That is for specific and temporary concern for a specific contract. RA 7160 prevails over the Implementing Rules. Somebody mentioned of Permanence. Is there a difference? Substance: effect of a law v sentiment of local council. On the 2nd reading it would be alright to approve it in the plenary right away.Where the taking is done for the benefit of a small community which seeks to have its own sports and recreational facility. Moreover according to the court. . how do you distinguish and how many? Can you give differences? If the answer is yes. notwithstanding that there is such a recreational facility only a short distance away. . the necessity of the taking 3. That is again a legal requirement. Petitioner cites a previous case wherein a resolution gave authority to exercise eminent domain. there are legal and procedural requirements therefore it is important. Councilor Labella is contemplating of passing a resolution condemning the tirades of Mayweather Jr. to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property. But if it is an Ordinance there should be a 3rd reading. The case cited by Petitioner involves BP 337. Like when you authorize a mayor via resolution to enter into a contract. 2. for public use.A local government unit may. in fact that is also a general requirement. pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided.Under Section 19. 3 readings v 2 readings Res judicata does not apply to bar the State or its agents to expropriate private property (no res judicata to the right. hence mere resolution will not suffice. according to the Court that can‘t be done. It should be over a particular private property. Very much like the bills in Congress. For future use. finally. *That is an obvious requirement. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. and such offer was not accepted: Provided. the latter is a law. Of course authorizing a chief executive over a private property. the taking of the land.Determination of whether or not the expropriating authority has the authority to expropriate and whether or not the expropriation is for public use. the adequacy of the compensation 2. amended or set aside. how many? 1. Against Manny Paquiao. which was the previous Local Government Code. Public Use. 19 LGC Eminent Domain. 1st reading is the announcement of the resolution and referred to a committee. * Petitioner sought to exercise its power of eminent domain based on a resolution by the municipal council. purpose or welfare. * The SC said that were the taking is done for the benefit in the hopes of the community who seeks to have its own sports and recreational facility. which is obviously no longer in effect. That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided. the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court. Usually it addresses a specific and temporary concern. And you know of course the idea of public use it had already been expanded. such taking cannot be considered for Public use. of the present Local Government Code (RA 7160). upon payment of just compensation. they will not become laws unless and until they passed 3 readings whether on separate days or not. the public use character of the purpose of the taking. It‘s not anymore the traditional concept of Public use where anyone can avail of the expropriation. or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.) that is merely temporary. further. MUNICIPALITY OF PARANAQUE V VM REALTY 30 2. And so according to the court since they are not the same in nature. ND ST SPECIFIC REQTS LOCAL EMINENT DOMAIN SEC. based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property. the former being the law itself and the latter only an administrative rule which cannot amend the former. the ascertainment of the necessity must precede or at least contemporaneous or must accompany and not follow. however. through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance. as when only the legal requirements were not previously complied with) WHAT MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE COURTS Judicial review of the exercise of eminent domain is limited to the following areas of concerns: 1. You cannot say that it will be treated in the future. or purpose or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless. These are procedural and legal requirements. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . 2 STAGES IN EXPROPPRIATION PROCEEDINGS: 1 STAGE: Necessity . it is stated as the first requisite that LGUs can exercise its power of eminent domain if there is an ordinance enacted by its legislative body enabling the municipal chief executive. an ordinance is enacted by the Local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive. If you pass a resolution congratulating ( Manny Paquiao ta but wla man fight si Manny. JESUS IS LORD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL V CITY OF PASIG 1. Once that is determined: 2 STAGE: Payment of Compensation – adequacy of compensation is a justiceable question. While a resolution is of temporary character.. That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner. They can‘t just pass an ordinance in general terms where the Local chief executive is hereby authorize to expropriate whatever private land it would deemed proper for expropriation. The court defines what constitutes a genuine necessity for public use. citing bernas) RESOLUTION VS ORDINANCE If you are to distinguish an ordinance from a resolution.

It is now similar to the concept of Police Power. After the lapse of such period it is sufficient. Will you consider that not for public use? Yes if you are going to use the traditional concept of not for public use. 1998 (IN RE: EXPROPRIATION FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING) 5. JANUARY 23. The chairman of the appropriation or finance committee of the sanggunian. there is payment of just compensation CITY OF CEBU V DEDAMO While sec. That is how it is being done. * in general if you are to look at sec 4of rule 67 in relation to jurisprudence involving expropriation. a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated. Even if subsequently the court declares that another owns legitimately the property. *Nat‘l government does not require to first make an offer before it can expropriate unlike and LGU. – Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order: a) Those owned by the Government or any of its subdivisions. how will we know that it was not accepted? You have to be creative with your offer. 10. the property had been the subject of a legal battle. whichever came first) V LGC at the time taking. REPUBLIC V LIM (2005) The landowner is entitled to recover possession of the property expropriated if the government fails to fully pay just compensation to the owner within a period of 5 years from the finality of the judgment in an expropriation proceeding. Priorities in the Acquisition of Land. Will not the Rules of Court prevail over the code? SC said the rule of the SC cannot prevail over RA 7160 because it is substantive law. or in his absence. such rule cannot prevail over RA 7160. (2) Ordinance appropriating the amount specified in the contract. When an agreement is reached by the parties. but said offer was not accepted. c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands. The reason is because the code is specific. FILSTREAM INTERNATIONAL. MEANING OF VALID AND DEFINITE OFFER Article 35 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code provides: ARTICLE 35. and f) Privately-owned lands.like a park or a road. whichever came first. INC. or agencies. and Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been acquired. You will say therefore as an example that ― we appreciate that you will respond to this letter within a period of 30 days. e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement of Sites and Services or BLISS sites which have not yet been acquired. (b) If the owner or owners accept the offer in its entirety. Diba you learned that the just compensation of the property shall be determined at the time of either the taking or the filing of the complaint. It is expected of a law to make it more affordable on the part of the LGU. rule 67 (time of filing of complaint or taking. and the price offered. the local chief executive shall call them to a conference for the purpose of reaching an agreement on the selling 31 Section 9. the right to a fair and just compensation is a substantive right and that procedural rules should not diminish substantive rights. a contract of sale shall be executed and payment forthwith made. Where on-site development is found more practicable and advantageous to the beneficiaries. Priorities in the acquisition of land shall be complied with as mandated by RA 7279. It is enough that the offer was made to the registered owner as found in its certificate of title. RA 7279) RA 7279 4. The resolution shall specify the terms and conditions to be embodied in the contract. (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) meaning private lands should be last in the selection of land! (sec. (d) The contract of sale shall be supported by the following documents: (1) Resolution of the sanggunian authorizing the local chief executive to enter into a contract of sale. the priorities …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. 3. 9 of RA 7279) 6. But that rule is not applicable if it is the LGU expropriating because the code in Section 19 is specific that the just compensation should be determined at the time of taking. And in the issue of the reckoning point in determining the just compensation. time of taking whichever came first). V CA AND CITY OF MANILA. including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. Expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted (Sec. That is the general rule. (c) If the owner or owners are willing to sell their property but at a price higher than that offered to them. An precisely ownership has not been finally determined. a contract of sale shall be drawn and executed. which are the traditional concept of public use. it says that at the time of taking. Sec. any member of the sanggunian duly chosen as its representative. instrumentalities. Zonal Improvement Program sites. The rules of court is a procedural law. Again that rule that you have learned that the just compensation should be based on the value of the property at the time of either the taking or the filing of the complaint whichever came first does not apply if it is expropriation done by the LGU. question what if. Offer to Buy and Contract of Sale. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . Only few families will be benefited and will qualify. – (a) The offer to buy private property for public use or purpose shall be in writing. GR 125218. general Welfare. Your failure to do so will constrained the City of Cebu to consider that our offer had been rejected. It shall specify the property sought to be acquired. You really don‘t need to wait for a letter which expressly rejects the offer. This is the justification why LGU‘s can expropriate for low cost housing projects. What if the owner did not respond. Practically it is not something that is available to anyone but only to the beneficiaries. d) Those within the declared Areas for Priority Development. 4. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. b) Alienable lands of the public domain. shall participate in the conference. 4 of rule 67 of the ROC provides that just compensation shall be determined at the time of the filling of the complaint for expropriation (or. and (3) Certification of the local treasurer as to availability of funds together with a statement that such fund shall not be disbursed or spent for any purpose other than to pay for the purchase of the property involved. in one SC ruling the SC has said that it is enough that the LGU makes an offer to the Registered owner. * PREVIOUSLY MADE TO THE OWNER. the reasons for its acquisition. price. And of course without need of further discussion it must NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. Now public use has a modern concept. which is substantive law. Mao man toh ang barato kay appreciating man ang value sa property.

Because a LGU can expropriate properties for other uses and not just for low cost housing projects. Again this is peculiar only to Low Cost Housing Projects. parcels of land owned by small property owners shall be exempted for purposes of this Act: Provided. involving the property in V. community mortgage. There are now 2 requirements according to the court. negotiated purchase. which is common on the provinces. if im not mistaken. The LGU‘s have many properties. It will be the land that will be land-swapped to the owner but if it is refused then we can do nothing. land assembly or consolidation. Abandoned lands. It might find that it has a property it already owns but it is not suitable for low cost housing project. The local government units shall give budgetary priority to on-site development of government lands. (have you heard about the modus operandi of Local government officials in the provinces? (Our lolo and lola na nahabilin in tawn walay kalinutan. It reached the CA and the expropriation was declared illegal and irregular. If its LGU it‘s only 15% and it‘s not the actual fair market value. as found in the complaint. PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR V CA The LGC does not require that LGU must first secure the approval of the Dept. donation to the Government. the owner of the private property objected to the immediate possession because. The court said. we will do that after because there is no requirement in the code that says that the issue of the public use must be settled first before the LGU can obtain immediate possession of the property. determination of public use is legislative. that it was low cost housing projects. There is a pending case in the SC. Philstream case still. My point is that all these must be stated in the complaint. or by the National Housing Authority primarily through negotiated purchase: Provided. Those are the 2 requirements if the LGU wants to immediately possess the property subject to expropriation. expropriation should only be resorted when other modes of acquisition has been exhausted. not executive (eg. 9 of RA 7279. Phil Stream Added 2 more Requirements.The modes of acquiring lands for purposes of this Act shall include. Neither does the CARL provide that the power of the LGU to expropriate agricultural lands is subject to the control of DAR. the author and perfecter of our faith… Heb 12:2 . land banking. among others. just the fair market value appearing at the current tax declaration.) but usually in the low cost housing projects no one would donate in that big area so that is where land swapping is very common. * There was simply a problem involving low cost housing project. 1. Because aside from the 4 requirements found in sec 19 of the LGC as interpreted in the Philippine Christian School Case. For the purpose of socialized housing.mentioned in this section shall not apply. Private properties or private lands should be last in the selection. specifically sec 9 and sec 10 thereof. Even if the complaint alleges those requirement. government-owned and foreclosed properties shall be acquired by the local government units. shall be reverted and escheated to the State in a proceeding analogous to the procedure laid down in Rule 91 of the Rules of Court. Modes of Land Acquisition. ANUNCIACION VDA DE OUANO V REPUBLIC If the genuine public necessity--the very reason or condition as it were--allowing. the property owner has the option of getting back the property if the government 1) has not accomplish the public purpose for which it was expropriated or 2) devoted the property to another public purpose. as herein defined. the 32 allegation is not sufficient. mahibong nlng ka ngano dagahan mani laing tao mo agi na ngadtokilid sa among babae? Gi-donate naman gud na namo dodong. the LGU must still be able to prove the allegations in court. the issue of public use and purpose should be settled first. the LGU has the burden of proving that the foregoing requirements have been complied with and that all reasonable efforts have been exhausted. *When the municipality of Mekawayan. Important Rules. If you expropriate a property for a particular purpose and you change your mind and use it for another public purpose. then it should resort to that method first before expropriating the property. land swapping. at the first instance. the filing of the complaint sufficient in form and substance and the deposit in the court of at least 15% of the FMV base on the current. BLISS projects. the expropriation of a private land ceases or disappears. that will be filed in court because all these constitutes an action for the complaint of expropriation. RA 7279 Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992. and expropriation: Provided. Human ig balik nimo didto. Why? Because when it was established that it was really for. What are the other modes of acquiring the property? Donation. Besides. That expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted. That abandoned property. The private owner can claim that there was no genuine necessity of the expropriation and that it was not for public purpose. The burden of proof is with the LGU. further. If the LGU can acquire the private land not by purchase but by land swapping. But in case. joint-venture agreement. duolon ug papirmahon dayon ug Deed of Donation. Provided. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus. wanted to mmediately possess the property. . Rama. you have to file another expropriation proceeding. such as Land Swapping (maoy g awayan tawn allegedly between Mayor Mike and Gov Gwen). however. Thru DAR). In case of the National government expropriating you learned that it is 100% of the (fair market) value if the government wants to immediately take possession of the property. Secondly. …let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Failure to do that would make the complaint and the cause of action defective. Those requirements are complied with then the LGU can have immediate possession of the property. That where expropriation is resorted to. Section 10. the City of Cebu failed to establish that it had complied with sec. FRANCIA VS MUNICIPALITY OF MEKAWAYAN IMMEDIATE POSSESSION BY GOV. of Agrarian Reform (Dar) for conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural before they can institute expropriation proceeding. finally. owned by the Aznars that was expropriated by the City of Cebu many years ago. Mangutana ka if dunay bay gbayad? Of course wala kay donation. the government must first use or acquire other properties enumerated in section 9 before the resort to acquisition of private properties. That qualified beneficiaries who are actual occupants of the land shall be given the right of first refusal. It‘s 100% deposit. Requires that first private lands should be last in the selection in the acquisition of properties for the purposes of Low cost housing projects. You go to sec 9 you would see there: idle lands of the government that had not been used. according to the owner.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful