Limbona vs.

Mangelin (170 SCRA 786)
Posted on June 30, 2013 by winnieclaire
Standard
.R. No. 80391, 28 February 1989

Facts: Petitioner was appointed member of the Sanguniang Pampook, Regional
Autonomous Government and was later elected Speaker of the Regional Legislative
Assembly. Congressman Datu invited petitioner in his capacity as Speaker of the
Assembly for consulations and dialogues on the recent and present political
developments and other issues affecting Regions IX and XII hopefully resulting to
chart the autonomous governments of the two regions as envisioned and may prod
the President to constitute immediately the Regional Consultative Commission as
mandated by the Commission.
Consistent with the said invitation, Petitioner addressed all Assemblymen that there
shall be no session in November as “our presence in the house committee hearing
of Congress take (sic) precedence over any pending business in batasang pampook
… .”
In defiance of Petitioner’s advice, After declaring the presence of a quorum, the
Speaker Pro-Tempore was authorized to preside in the session. On Motion to declare
the seat of the Speaker vacant, all Assemblymen in attendance voted in the
affirmative.

Issue: Is the expulsion valid? Are the so-called autonomous governments of
Mindanao, as they are now constituted, subject to the jurisdiction of the national
courts? In other words, what is the extent of self-government given to the two
autonomous governments of Region IX and XII?

Held: Firstly, We therefore order reinstatement, with the caution that should the
past acts of the petitioner indeed warrant his removal, the Assembly is enjoined,
should it still be so minded, to commence proper proceedings therefor in line with
the most elementary requirements of due process. And while it is within the
discretion of the members of the Sanggunian to punish their erring colleagues, their
acts are nonetheless subject to the moderating band of this Court in the event that
such discretion is exercised with grave abuse.
the Decree PD 168 established “internal autonomy” in the two regions “[w]ithin the
framework of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of the

on the other hand. 1618. its acts are.” with legislative and executive machinery to exercise the powers and responsibilities specified therein Now.” since in that event. Presidential Decree No. an autonomous government of the former class is. debatably beyond the domain of this Court in perhaps the same way that the internal acts. their legislative arm. that is. of the Congress of the Philippines are beyond our jurisdiction. autonomy is either decentralization of administration or decentralization of power. X. then.” “and ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national development and social progress. But if it is autonomous in the former category only. According to a constitutional author. sec.” He has no control over their acts in the sense that he can substitute their judgments with his own.] is subject alone to the decree of the organic act creating it and accepted principles on the effects and limits of “autonomy. (1987). An autonomous government that enjoys autonomy of the latter category [CONST. art. in the first place. as we noted. is made to discharge chiefly administrative services . but only to “ensure that local affairs are administered according to law. in which the central government commits an act of self-immolation. The President exercises “general supervision” over them.Philippines and its Constitution. the autonomous government is free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central authorities. decentralization of power amounts to “self-immolation.” At the same time. is autonomous in the latter sense. 15. 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.” In the second place. the autonomous government becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to its constituency. Decentralization of power. mandates that “[t]he President shall have the power of general supervision and control over Autonomous Regions. If the Sangguniang Pampook (of Region XII).” On the other hand. it relieves the central government of the burden of managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate on national concerns. the Sangguniang Pampook. say. under the supervision of the national government acting through the President (and the Department of Local Government). it comes unarguably under our jurisdiction. In that case. An examination of the very Presidential Decree creating the autonomous governments of Mindanao persuades us that they were never meant to exercise autonomy in the second sense. involves an abdication of political power in the favor of local governments units declare to be autonomous .

ISSUE: WON MMDA has the authority to open Neptune Street to public traffic as an agent of the state endowed with police power. respondent received from petitioner a notice requesting the former to open its private road. we assume jurisdiction. 1995. On the same day. Neptune Street. 1996. to public vehicular traffic starting January 2. Respondent instituted a petition for injunction against petitioner. 2000 FACTS: On December 30. It is a “body politic and corporate” – one endowed with powers as a political subdivision of the National Government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory (LGC of 1991).Hence. 2012 GR 135962 March 27. HELD: A ‘local government’ is a “political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs”. Inc. MMDA v Bel-Air Village Association. . praying for the issuance of a TRO and preliminary injunction enjoining the opening of Neptune Street and prohibiting the demolition of the perimeter wall. respondent was apprised that the perimeter separating the subdivision from Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished. Posted on November 18.

city or municipality] and its inhabitants pursuant to Sec. its proposed opening by the MMDA is illegal. Unlike the legislative bodies of the LGUs. hence.Congress did not act on 24 cityhood bills during the 11 . that possess legislative power and police power.” There is no syllable in RA 7924 that grants the MMDA police power. approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the [province. The MMDA is merely a “development authority” and not a political unit of government since it is neither an LGU or a public corporation endowed with legislative power. acting through their respective legislative councils. It is the LGUs. there is no grant of authority in RA 7924 that allows the MMDA to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of Metro Manila.Our Congress delegated police power to the LGUs in Sec. panlungsod and bayan to “enact ordinances. the MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. Congress enacted into law RA 9009 amending Section 450 of theLocal Government Code by increasing the annual income requirement for conversion of a municipalityinto a city from P20 million to P100 million to restrain the ³mad rush´ of municipalities to convert into citiessolely to secure a larger share in the Internal Revenue Allotment despite the fact that they are incapableof fiscal independence. a total of 57 municipalities had cityhood bills pending in Congress.16 of the Code and in the proper exercise of the [LGU's corporate powers] provided under the Code. let alone legislative power. but is merely appointed by the President with the rank and privileges of a cabinet member.16 of the LGC of 1991. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune Street. In sum. LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COMELECFacts: During the 12 th Congress. It empowers the sangguniang panlalawigan.Prior to its enactment. The MMDA Chairman is not an elective official.

Article X of the 1987 Constitution . Article X of the Constitution and the equalprotection clause Held: Yes. as well as for violation of the equal protection clause. Article X of the Constitution.The City of x x x shall be exempted from the incomerequirement prescribed under Republic Act No. .Petitioners filed the present petitions to declare the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional for violation of Section 10. through their respective sponsors inCongress. individual cityhood bills containing a common provision. the 12 th Congress adjourned without the Senate approvingJoint Resolution No. as follows: Exemption from Republic Act No. Issue: W hether or not the Cityhood Laws violate Section 10. 29 filed between November and December of 2006. 29. the House of Representatives adopted Joint Resolution No. 29. 9009 .During the 13 th Congress. the Cityhood Laws violate both the Constitution and the equal protection clause Ratio:Section 10.th Congress. However. ThisResolution reached the Senate. 9009.During the 12 th Congress. Petitionersalso lament that the wholesale conversion of municipalities into cities will reduce the share of existingcities in the Internal Revenue Allotment because more cities will share the same amount of internalrevenue set aside for all cities under Section 285 of the Local Government Code. 16 of the 24 municipalities mentioned in the unapproved JointResolution No.These cityhood bills lapsed into law on various dates from March to July 2007 after PresidentGloria Macapagal-Arroyo failed to sign them.

city.p rovides: No province. 1998. Congress cannot write such criteria in any other law. July 4th. including the conversion of a municipality into a city. (Emphasis supplied)The Constitution is clear. 133064 September 16 1999 FACTS: 1994. The creation of local government units must follow the criteriaestablished in the Local Government Code and not in any other law. 7720 that practically downgraded the City of Santiago from an independent component city to a component city. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA No. 7720 was approved by the people of Santiago in a plebiscite.R. RA No. or barangay shall be created. exce p t in accordance with the criteria established in the localgovernment code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in thepolitical units directly affected. No. There is only one Local Government Code. 8528 was enacted and it amended RA No. 7720 effected the conversion of the municipality of Santiago. Isabela. merged. divided. RA No. 8528 for the lack of provision to submit the law for the approval of the people of Santiago in a proper plebiscite. Respondents defended the constitutionality of RA No. into an independent component city. like the Cityhood Laws MIRANDA VS AGUIRRE Posted by kaye lee on 12:46 PM G. municipality. 8528 saying that the said act merely reclassified the City of Santiago from an independent component city into a . The Constitution requires Congress to stipulate in the Local Government Code all the criteria necessary for the creation of a city. abolished or itsboundary substantially altered. RA No.

Sec. RULING: Yes. division. 8528 gives them proper standing to strike down the law as unconstitutional. It is their right to be heard in the conversion of their city through a plebiscite to be conducted by the COMELEC. G. Afiado was the President of the Sangguniang Liga. abolition. or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units. 103328 October 19. merger. That Supreme Court has the jurisdiction over said petition because it involves not a political question but a justiciable issue. That when an amendment of the law involves creation. 1 of Art. Petitioners are directly affected in the imple-mentation of RA No. merger. 1992 . and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instru-mentality of the Government.R. 8528. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units. Miranda was the mayor of Santiago City. They also questioned the standing of petitioners to file the petition and argued that the petition raises a political question over which the Court lacks jurisdiction. Thus. No. It allegedly did not involve any “creation. denial of their right in RA No. 8528 is declared unconstitutional. VIII of the Constitution states that: the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.component city. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the petition at bar. and of which only the court could decide whether or not a law passed by the Congress is unconstitutional. RA No. a plebiscite in the political units directly affected is mandatory. together with 3 other petitioners were all residents and voters in the City of Santiago.” therefore. a plebiscite of the people of Santiago is unnecessary. division.

Matanlang. Camarines Norte. Bayan-Bayan. petitioner as Governor of Camarines Norte. Lugui. Lugui. Bayan-Bayan. respondent. Logically.." isthe plurality of political units which would participate in the plebiscite.Thus. asmandated by COMELEC.When the law states that the plebiscite shall be conducted "in the political units directly affected.Napaod.vs. It is the contention of petitioner that theplebiscite was a complete failure and that the results obtained were invalid and illegal because the plebiscite. what is contemplated by the phase "political units directly affected. and Calabasa. all in the Municipality of Labo. San Antonio. Maot. same province. Mabilo I. the COMELEC issued a resolution for the conduct of a plebiscite. ROY A. PADILLA. 7155 creates the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa in the Province of Camarines Norte to becomposed of Barangays Tulay-Na-Lupa. Thus. namely the barangays comprising he proposedMunicipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa and the remaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo. Camarines Norte. Insupport of his stand. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. should have been conducted only in the political unit or units affected. and Calabasa. seeks to set aside the plebiscite conducted throughout theMunicipality of Labo and prays that a new plebiscite be undertaken.Pursuant to said law. Mabilo I. Napaod.HON. petitioner argues that where a local unit is to be segregated from a parent unit. JR. the 12barangays comprising the new Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa namely TulayNa-Lupa. only thevoters of the unit to be segregated should be included in the plebiscite." it means thatresidents of the political entity who would be economically dislocated by the separation of a portion thereof havea right to vote in said plebiscite. those to be included in suchpolitical areas are the inhabitants of the 12 barangays of the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa as well asthose living in the parent Municipality of Labo. In his capacity as Governor of the Province of Camarines Norte. The said resolution providesthat the plebiscite shall be held in the areas or units affected. Pag-Asa. it was concluded that respondent COMELECdid not commit grave abuse of discretion in promulgating the resolution.In the plebiscite held throughout the Municipality of Labo. Maot. Matanlang. Evidently. i. Camarines Norte. San Antonio. majority of the votes cast were against the creation of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa. Benit. PagAsa.FACTS:Republic Act No. Benit. DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE . Petitioner stresses that the plebisciteshould not have included the remaining area of the mother unit of the Municipality of Labo.e. petitioner.Was the plebiscite conducted in the areas comprising the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa and theremaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo valid?Yes.

: ____________ PLATE NO. with residence address at ________________________________ hereinafter referred to as BUYER.and - ____________________. the SELLER is the absolute and registered owner of the following motor vehicle. more particularly described as follows: MODEL/MAKE : ___________________ COLOR : ________________________ BODY : _________________________ MOTOR NO. of legal age. Filipino. . : _____________________ .KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This Deed of Absolute Sale is made and entered into in Quezon City this _____ day of _________ by and between: ____________________. with residence address at ______________________________ hereinafter referred to as SELLER. : ____________________ SERIAL/CHASSIS NO. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS. Filipino. of legal age.

free from any and all liens and encumbrances whatsoever and on an “AS IS WHERE IS BASIS”. ______________________ Seller ______________________ Buyer SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: ______________________ ACKNOWLEDGMENT ______________________ . VAT Inclusive and receipt hereof is hereby acknowledged by the said SELLER. TRANSFER and CONVEY unto the BUYER.00). Philippine currency.000. willing and ready to purchase the same under the terms and conditions herein below set forth. the parties have hereunto affixed their signatures on the date and at the place first above-written. the SELLER hereby SELL. in a manner absolute and irrevocable the above-described 1 Unit of 1997 MITSUBISHI L-300 Motor Vehicle. The SELLER warrants that the Motor Vehicle is free from any liens and encumbrances and that said SELLER shall defend the title and rights of the BUYER from any claims of whatever kind or nature from third persons. for and in consideration of the sum total of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP50. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the SELLER desires to sell the aforesaid motor vehicle and the BUYER is able.CEDE.WHEREAS. NOW THEREFORE.

WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL.S. for and in Quezon City. Doc. this _______ day of _________________________ personally appeared: Name Identification Card Issued On/At ____________________ ________________ _____________ ____________________ ________________ _____________ all known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and hereby acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed. ____ Page No. No.Republic of the Philippines) Quezon City. including this page on which this acknowledgment is written refers to a DEED OF SALE of 1 Unit of 1997 MITSUBISHI L-300 and has been signed by the parties and their witnesses and sealed with my notarial seal. . a Notary Public. Metro Manila ) S. BEFORE ME. This instrument consisting of two (2) pages. ____ Book No. ____ Series of 2013.