You are on page 1of 5

G.R. No. 93252 August 5, 1991 RODOLFO T. GANZON, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS T. SANTOS, respondents. G.R. No.

93746 August 5,1991 MARY ANN RIVERA ARTIEDA, petitioner, vs. HON. LUIS SANTOS, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Local Government, NICANOR M. PATRICIO, in his capacity as Chief, Legal Service of the Department of Local Government and SALVADOR CABALUNA JR., respondents. G.R. No. 95245 August 5,1991 RODOLFO T. GANZON, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS T. SANTOS, in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Local Government, respondents.

Topic: Local Autonomy- Not Self-executing provisions Facts: 1. A series of administrative complaints, ten in number, were filed before the Department of Local Government against Mayor Rodolfo T. Ganzon by various city officials sometime in 1988 on various charges, among them, abuse of authority, oppression, grave misconduct, etc. 2. Finding probable grounds, the Secretary Santos of the Department of Local Government Luis T. Santos issued successive suspensions. 3. Ganzon then instituted an action for prohibition against the secretary in the RTC of Iloilo City where he succeeded in obtaining a writ of preliminary injunction. 4. Ganzon also instituted actions for prohibition before the Court of Appeals but were both dismissed. 5. Thus, this petition for review with the argument that the respondent Secretary is devoid, in any event, of any authority to suspend and remove local officials as the 1987 Constitution no longer allows the President to exercise said power. Issue: 1. W/N the Secretary of Local Government, as the President’s alter ego, can suspend and or remove local officials. Held: 1. Yes a. SUMMARY OF RATIO: i. Ganzon is under the impression that the Constitution has left the President mere supervisory powers, which supposedly excludes the power of investigation, and denied her control, which allegedly embraces disciplinary authority. It is a mistaken impression because legally, “supervision” is not incompatible with disciplinary authority. The SC had occasion to discuss the scope and extent of the power of supervision by the President over local government officials in contrast to the power of control given to him over executive officials of our government wherein it was emphasized that the two terms, control and supervision, are two different things which differ one from the other in meaning and extent. “In administration law supervision means

the charter did not intend to divest the legislature of its right or the President of her prerogative as conferred by existing legislation to provide administrative sanctions against local officials. that finds support in the debates of the Constitutional Commission. c. Sec.overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. in deleting the phrase "as may be provided by law" intend to divest the President of the power to investigate. b. 10. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities. and/or remove local officials? (2) Has the Constitution repealed Sections 62 and 63 of the Local Government Code? (3) What is the significance of the change in the constitutional language?It is the considered opinion of the Court that notwithstanding the change in the constitutional language. as the alter ego of the president. It is the petitioners' argument that the 1987 Constitution no longer allows the President. by deleting the phrase as may be provided by law to strip the President of the power of control over local governments. as the Court understands it. The issue.” But from this pronouncement it cannot be reasonably inferred that the power of supervision of the President over local government officials does not include the power of investigation when in his opinion the good of the public service so requires. to strengthen self-rule by local government units and second. The Secretary of Local Government. as the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions did. It is our opinion that the omission (of "as may be provided by law") signifies nothing more than to underscore local governments' . the Constitution is meant. means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify of set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. It modifies a counterpart provision appearing in the 1935 Constitution: 1. to exercise the power of suspension and/or removal over local officials. suspend. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments. 4. discipline. 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. Control. in suspending Ganzon is exercising a valid power. so they contend. It is a view. Sec. exercise general supervision over all Local governments as may be provided by law. He however overstepped by imposing a 600 day suspension. on the other hand. ii. consists of three questions: (1) Did the 1987 Constitution. The President shall have control of all the executive departments. ii. and take care that the laws be faithfully executed. first. According to both petitioners. 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. i. or offices. bureaus.

and as the existing Local Government Code has done." "Supervision" . which suggest that Congress may exercise removal powers. "Control" has been defined as "the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for test of the latter. powers and functions and duties of local officials. as in the federal governments of the United States of America (or Brazil or Germany). and measures designed to realize autonomy at the local level. the Constitution contains no prohibition. concerning discipline. is subject to the guiding star. in the constitutional sense. Sec. and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units. the passage of a local government code. Autonomy does not. It is a mistaken impression because legally. initiative. The Constitution did not. which supposedly excludes the power of investigation. as observed by the Court of Appeals. that the Charter allows Congress to include in the local government code provisions for removal of local officials. though not control. in particular. e. allocate among the different local government units their powers. for the sake of local autonomy. which allegedly embraces disciplinary authority. the objective of the framers to strengthen local autonomy by severing congressional control of its affairs. election. d. It is noteworthy that under the Charter. although Jefferson is said to have compared municipal corporations euphemistically to "small republics. albeit the legislative responsibility under the Constitution and as the "supervision clause" itself suggest-is to wean local government units from overdependence on the central government. and referendum. after all. "supervision" is not incompatible with disciplinary authority h. among other things. and a national representation law. f. intend. The deletion of "as may be provided by law" was meant to stress. appointment and removal.autonomy from congress and to break Congress' "control" over local government affairs. to deprive the legislature of all authority over municipal corporations. responsibilities and resources. delegate its exercise to the President i. contemplate making mini-states out of local government units. however. salaries. income distribution legislation. "local autonomy" is not instantly self-executing. the Constitution places the local government under the general supervision of the Executive. 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. term. It is also noteworthy that in spite of autonomy. and provide for the qualifications. and denied her control." Autonomy. The petitioners are under the impression that the Constitution has left the President mere supervisory powers. sub silencio. 3. The Constitution did nothing more. g. of the legislature. It is noteworthy finally. and insofar as existing legislation authorizes the President (through the Secretary of Local Government) to proceed against local officials administratively. however. but subject to. like the power of local legislation. a local tax law.

" a rule we reiterated in Hebron.neither Lacson nor Hebron nor Monda no categorically banned the Chief Executive from exercising acts of disciplinary authority because she did not exercise control powers. or otherwise. ." The Constitution as we observed. 37. autonomy is either decentralization of . Batas Blg. local autonomy means "a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization. In Lacson. As we said. As we held. decentralization means devolution of national administration but not power to the local levels. We have indeed held that in spite of the approval of the Charter. Auditor General. however. is not meant to end the relation of partnership and inter-dependence between the central administration and local government units.on the other hand means "overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. and Mondano v. As the Constitution itself declares. The Court believes that the deliberations are by themselves inconclusive. although it is a lesser power than "altering". . Commissioner Blas Ople would not. The Court does not believe that the petitioners can rightfully point to the debates of the Constitutional Commission to defeat the President's powers. Batas Blg. "investigating" is not inconsistent with "overseeing". under the Constitution. we stated that the President "may not . however limited. and Mondano. Lacson v. k. Thus: i." However. Local governments. Pelaez v. this Court said that the President enjoyed no control powers but only supervision "as may be provided by law. are subject to regulation. Roque. The impression is apparently exacerbated by the Court's pronouncements in at least three cases. however. suspend an elective official of a regular municipality or take any disciplinary action against him. albeit paradoxically. Silvosa. to "liberate the local governments from the imperialism of Manila. Now. The Court is consequently reluctant to say that the new Constitution has repealed the Local Government Code. a fourth one. does nothing more than to break up the monopoly of the national government over the affairs of local governments and as put by political adherents." Autonomy. Reyes. j. to user in a regime of federalism. i. and for no other purpose than precisely. because although Commissioner Jose Nolledo would exclude the power of removal from the President. "supervision" and "removal" are not incompatible terms and one may stand with the other notwithstanding the stronger expression of local autonomy under the new Charter. to enhance selfgovernment. Hebron v. In Pelaez. The Charter has not taken such a radical step. and possibly. l. but because no law allowed her to exercise disciplinary authority. As we observed in one case. except on appeal from a decision of the corresponding provincial board. 337 is still in force and effect.

Held: it was NOT proper b. a longer suspension is unjust and unreasonable. As we held. the autonomous government becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to its constituency 2." He has no control over their acts in the sense that he can substitute their judgments with his own. the accused (the respondent) enjoys a presumption of innocence unless and until found guilty. but only to "ensure that local affairs are administered according to law. In that case. involves an abdication of political power in the favor of local governments units declared to be autonomous. the autonomous government is free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central authorities. Suspension finally is temporary and as the Local Government Code provides. According to a constitutional author. nothing less than tyranny." and "ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national development and social progress. decentralization of power amounts to "self-immolation. In both cases. Other issues: on Suspension of 60days a.administration or decentralization of power." since in that event." At the same time. c. and we might add. There is decentralization of administration when the central government delegates administrative powers to political subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and in the process to make local governments "more responsive and accountable. it may be imposed for no more than sixty days. Decentralization of power. it relieves the central government of the burden of managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate on national concerns. ii. The President exercises "general supervision" over them. . on the other hand. Suspension is not a penalty and is not unlike preventive imprisonment in which the accused is held to insure his presence at the trial.