ARTICLE X
Section 8. The term of office of elective local
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
GENERAL PROVISIONS
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.
Section 2. The territorial and political subdivisions
shall enjoy local autonomy.
Section 3. 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, initiative, and referendum, allocate among
the different local government units their powers,
responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the
qualifications, election, appointment and removal,
term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of
local officials, and all other matters relating to the
organization and operation of the local units.
Section 4. The President of the Philippines shall
exercise general supervision over local
governments. Provinces with respect to component
cities and municipalities, 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.
Section 5. Each local government unit shall have
the power to create its own sources of revenues
and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such
guidelines and limitations as the Congress may
provide, consistent with the basic policy of local
autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall
accrue exclusively to the local governments.
Section 6. Local government units shall have a just
share, as determined by law, in the national taxes
which shall be automatically released to them.
Section 7. 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, in the manner provided by law,
including sharing the same with the inhabitants by
way of direct benefits.
officials, except barangay officials, which shall be
determined by law, shall be three years and no
such official shall serve for more than three
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
office for any length of time shall not be considered
as an interruption in the continuity of his service for
the full term for which he was elected.
Section 9. Legislative bodies of local governments
shall have sectoral representation as may be
prescribed by law.
Section 10. No province, city, municipality, or
barangay may be created, divided, merged,
abolished, or its boundary substantially altered,
except in accordance with the criteria established in
the local government code and subject to approval
by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the
political units directly affected.
Section 11. The Congress may, by law, create
special metropolitan political subdivisions, subject
to a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10 hereof. The
component cities and municipalities shall retain
their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their
own local executive and legislative assemblies. The
jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will
thereby be created shall be limited to basic services
requiring coordination.
Section 12. Cities that are highly urbanized, as
determined by law, and component cities whose
charters prohibit their voters from voting for
provincial elective officials, shall be independent of
the province. The voters of component cities within
a province, whose charters contain no such
prohibition, shall not be deprived of their right to
vote for elective provincial officials.
Section 13. Local government units may group
themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts,
services, and resources for purposes commonly
beneficial to them in accordance with law.
Section 14. The President shall provide for
regional development councils or other similar
bodies composed of local government officials,
regional heads of departments and other
government offices, and representatives from non-
governmental organizations within the regions for
purposes of administrative decentralization to
strengthen the autonomy of the units therein and to
accelerate the economic and social growth and
development of the units in the region.
Limbona vs. Mangelin (G.R. No. 80391)
Facts: Petitioner, Sultan Alimbusar Limbona, was
elected Speaker of the Regional Legislative
Assembly or Batasang Pampook of Central
Mindanao (Assembly). On October 21, 1987
Congressman Datu Guimid Matalam, Chairman of
the Committee on Muslim Affairs of the House of
Representatives, invited petitioner in his capacity
as Speaker of the Assembly of Region XII in a
consultation/dialogue with local government
officials. Petitioner accepted the invitation and
informed the Assembly members through the
Assembly Secretary that there shall be no session
in November as his presence was needed in the
house committee hearing of Congress. However,
on November 2, 1987, the Assembly held a session
in defiance of the Limbona's advice, where he was
unseated from his position. Petitioner prays that the
session's proceedings be declared null and void
and be it declared that he was still the Speaker of
the Assembly. Pending further proceedings of the
case, the SC received a resolution from the
Assembly expressly expelling petitioner's
membership therefrom. Respondents argue that
petitioner had "filed a case before the Supreme
Court against some members of the Assembly on a
question which should have been resolved within
the confines of the Assembly," for which the
respondents now submit that the petition had
become "moot and academic" because of its
resolution.
social progress.” At the same time, it relieves the
central government of the burden of managing local
affairs and enables it to concentrate on national
concerns. The president exercises “general
supervision” over them, but only to “ensure that
local affairs are administered according to law.” He
has not control over their acts in the sense that he
can substitute their judgments with his own.
Decentralization of power, on the other hand,
involves an abdication of political power in the favor
of local government units declared to be
autonomous. In that case, the autonomous
government is free to chart its own destiny and
shape its future with minimum intervention from
central authorities.
According to the Supreme Court, an examination of
the very Presidential Decree creating the
autonomous governments of Mindanao persuades
us to believe that they were never meant to
exercise autonomy through decentralization of
power. The Presidential Decree, in the first place,
mandates that “the President shall have the power
of general supervision and control over
Autonomous Regions.” In the second place, the
Sangguniang Pampook, their legislative arm, is
made to dischage chiefly administrative services.
Thus, the SC assumes jurisdiction.

Issues: Are the so-called autonomous

governments of Mindanao 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 9 and 12?

Ruling: The autonomous governments of

Mindanao were organized in Regions 9 and 12 by
Presidential Decree No. 1618. In relation to the
central government, the Presidential Decree
provides that “the President shall have the power of
general supervision and control over the
Autonomous Regions...” Now, autonomy is either
decentralization of administration or
decentralization of power. 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,”
“and ensure their fullest development as self-reliant
communities and make them more effective
partners in the pursuit of national development and
SOLICITOR GENERAL V METROPOLITAN
MANILA AUTHORITY (1991)

Facts: In Metropolitan Traffic Command, West

Traffic District vs. Hon. Arsenio M. Gonong, the
Court held that the confiscation of the license plates
of motor vehicles for traffic violations was not
among the sanctions that could be imposed by the
Metro Manila Commission under PD 1605 and was
permitted only under the conditions laid dowm by
LOI 43 in the case of stalled vehicles obstructing
the public streets. It was there also observed that
even the confiscation of driver's licenses for traffic
violations was not directly prescribed by the decree
nor was it allowed by the decree to be imposed by
the Commission. However, petitioners alleged that
Traffic Enforces continued with the confiscation of
driver’s licenses and removal of license plates. Dir
General Cesar P. Nazareno of the PNP assured
the Court that his office had never authorized the
removal of the license plates of illegally parked
vehicles.

Later, the Metropolitan Manila Authority issued

Ordinance No. 11, authorizing itself "to detach the
license plate/tow and impound attended/
unattended/ abandoned motor vehicles illegally
parked or obstructing the flow of traffic in Metro
Manila." The Court issued a resolution requiring the
Metropolitan Manila Authority and the SolGen to
submit separate comments in light of the
contradiction between the Ordinance and the SC
ruling. The MMA defended the ordinance on the
ground that it was adopted pursuant to the power
conferred upon it by EO 32 (formulation of policies,
promulgation of resolutions). The Sol Gen
expressed the view that the ordinance was null and
void because it represented an invalid exercise of a
delegated legislative power. The flaw in the
measure was that it violated existing law,
specifically PD 1605, which does not permit, and so
impliedly prohibits, the removal of license plates
and the confiscation of driver's licenses for traffic
violations in Metropolitan Manila. He made no
mention, however, of the alleged impropriety of
examining the said ordinance in the absence of a
formal challenge to its validity.

Issue: WON Ordinance 11 is justified on the basis

of the General Welfare Clause embodied in the
LGC

Held: No. Ratio: The Court holds that there is a

valid delegation of legislative power to promulgate
such measures, it appearing that the requisites of
such delegation are present. These requisites are.
1) the completeness of the statute making the
delegation; and 2) the presence of a sufficient
standard.
The measures in question are enactments of local
governments acting only as agents of the national
legislature. Necessarily, the acts of these agents
must reflect and conform to the will of their
principal. To test the validity of such acts in the
specific case now before us, we apply the particular
requisites of a valid ordinance as laid down by the
accepted principles governing municipal
corporations. According to Elliot, a municipal
ordinance, to be valid: 1) must not contravene the
Constitution or any statute; 2) must not be unfair or
oppressive; 3) must not be partial ordiscriminatory;
4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; 5) must
not be unreasonable; and 6) must be general and
consistent with public policy.
A careful study of the Gonong decision will show
that the measures under consideration do not pass
the first criterion because they do not conform to
existing law. The pertinent law is PD 1605. PD
1605 does not allow either the removal of license
plates or the confiscation of driver's licenses for
traffic violations committed in Metropolitan Manila.
There is nothing in the following provisions of the
decree authorizing the Metropolitan Manila
Commission to impose such sanctions. In fact, the
provisions prohibit the imposition of such sanctions
in Metropolitan Manila. The Commission was
allowed to "impose fines and otherwise discipline"
traffic violators only "in such amounts and under
such penalties as are herein prescribed," that is, by
the decree itself. Nowhere is the removal of license
plates directly imposed by the decree or at least
allowed by it to be imposed by the Commission.
Notably, Section 5 thereof expressly provides that
"in case of traffic violations, the driver's license
shall not be confiscated." These restrictions are
applicable to the Metropolitan Manila Authority and
all other local political subdivisions comprising
Metropolitan Manila, including the Municipality of
Mandaluyong. `The requirement that the municipal
enactment must not violate existing law explains
itself. Local political subdivisions are able to
legislate only by virtue of a valid delegation of
legislative power from the national legislature. They
are mere agents vested with what is called the
power of subordinate legislation. As delegates of
the Congress, the local government unit cannot
contravene but must obey at all times the will of
their principal. In the case before us, the
enactments in question, which are merely local in
origin, cannot prevail against the decree, which has
the force and effect of a statute. To sustain the
ordinance would be to open the floodgates to other
ordinances amending and so violating national laws
in the guise of implementing them. Thus,
ordinances could be passed imposing additional
requirements for the issuance of marriage licenses,
to prevent bigamy; the registration of vehicles, to
minimize carnapping; the execution of contracts, to
forestall fraud; the validation of parts, to deter
imposture; the exercise of freedom of speech, to
reduce disorder; and so on. The list is endless, but
the means, even if the end be valid, would be ultra
vires. The measures in question do not merely add
to the requirement of PD 1605 but, worse, impose
sanctions the decree does not allow and in fact
actually prohibits. In so doing, the ordinances
disregard and violate and in effect partially repeal
the law. We here emphasize the ruling in the
Gonong case that PD 1605 applies only to the
Metropolitan Manila area. It is an exception to the
general authority conferred by R.A. No. 413 on the
Commissioner of Land Transportation to punish
violations of traffic rules elsewhere in the country
with the sanction therein prescribed, including
those here questioned. The Court agrees that the
challenged ordinances were enacted with the best
of motives and shares the concern of the rest of the
public for the effective reduction of traffic problems
in Metropolitan Manila through the imposition and
enforcement of more deterrent penalties upon
traffic violators. At the same time, it must also
reiterate the public misgivings over the abuses that
may attend the enforcement of such sanction in
eluding the illicit practices described in detail in the
Gonong decision. At any rate, the fact is that there
is no statutory authority for and indeed there is a
statutory prohibition against the imposition of such
penalties in the Metropolitan Manila area. Hence,
regardless of their merits, they cannot be impose
by the challenged enactments by virtue only of the
delegated legislative powers. It is for Congress to
determine, in the exercise of its own discretion,
whether or not to impose such sanctions, either
directly through a statute or by simply delegating
authority to this effect to the local governments in
Metropolitan Manila. Without such action, PD 1605
remains effective and continues prohibit the
confiscation of license plates of motor vehicles
(except under the conditions prescribed in LOI 43)
and of driver licenses as well for traffic violations in
Metropolitan Manila.