FINAL EXAMINATION

1) Enumerate and explain the devolved regulatory powers of the local governments.

 Reclassification of Agricultural Lands – Under Section 20 (a) of RA 7160 states that “A city or
municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the Sanggunian after conducting public
hearings for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the
manner of their utilization or disposition…” subject to limitation prescribed in Local Government
Code of 1991.

 Enforcement of Environmental Laws – Another devolved regulatory power of local governments

is to enforce environmental laws which will protect the environment and impose appropriate
penalties for acts which endanger the environment. This is to take good care of the environment,
pollution control and control acts like small scale mining and forestry.

 Inspection of Food Products and Quarantine – As part of the LGUs concern for the welfare of its
people, they are tasked to regulate the preparation and sale of food products like meat, fish,
poultry, vegetables and fruits and dairy products for public consumption. They are mandated to
approve certain measures and adopt quarantine regulations to prevents introduction and spread
of diseases in the local market if it occurs to.

 Processing and Approval of Subdivision Plans - Subject to national law, LGUs have been
mandated to process and approve subdivision plans for residential, commercial, or industrial
purposes and other development purposes. To collect processing fees and other charges, the
proceeds of which shall accrue entirely to the municipality/city.

 Enforcement of National Building Code – Section 447 (xiv) states the power of LGUs to regulate
the numbering of residential, commercial and other buildings and Regulate activities relative to
the use of land, buildings and structures within the municipality in order to promote the general
welfare.

 Operation of Tricycles – This are subject to guidelines prescribed by the Department of

Transportation and Communications (DOTC), regulate the operation of tricycles and grant
franchises for the operation thereof within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipality/or city.

 Establishment of Cockpits – It is also a devolved regulatory function of LGus to authorize and

license the operations and maintenance of cockpits and to regulate cockfighting and breeding of
such gamecocks. Provided that existing rights should also not be prejudiced.

2) Please discuss the distinction between supervision and control in the context of local governments
of the Philippines.
Supervision in the context of Local Governments in the Philippines, refers to power of an immediate head
or superior officer to see through that those under him/her (co-workers/employees) perform their
functions mandated to them in accordance with the law. On the other hand control is the power of such
immediate head or superior officer to alter or modify what his co-worker or employee has done in the
performance of their functions and to substitute the judgement of the former in order to deliver a more
efficient service or work.

3) Define the concept of decentralization under the local government code of 1991.

Section 2 of the Local Government Code discusses the three (3) forms of decentralization;

 Devolution - transfer of power and authority from the national government to local government
units (LGUs); political and territorial

 Deconcentration - transfer of power, authority or responsibility or the discretion to plan, decide

and manage from central to local levels; administrative and sectoral

 Debureaucratization - transfer of some public functions and responsibilities, which government

may perform, to private entities or NGOs

In addition, Section 3 of RA 7160, clearly states the operative principles of decentralization, it states that;

The formulation and implementation of policies and measures on local autonomy shall be guided by the
following operative principles:

(a) There shall be an effective allocation among the different local government units of their respective
powers, functions, responsibilities, and resources;

(b) There shall be established in every local government unit an accountable, efficient, and dynamic
organizational structure and operating mechanism that will meet the priority needs and service
requirements of its communities;

(c) Subject to civil service law, rules and regulations, local officials and employees paid wholly or mainly
from local funds shall be appointed or removed, according to merit and fitness, by the appropriate
appointing authority;

(d) The vesting of duty, responsibility, and accountability in local government units shall be accompanied
with provision for reasonably adequate resources to discharge their powers and effectively carry out their
functions; hence, they shall have the power to create and broaden their own sources of revenue and the
right to a just share in national taxes and an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and
development of the national wealth within their respective areas;

(e) 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:

(f) Local government units may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services, and
resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them;

(g) The capabilities of local government units, especially the municipalities and Barangays, shall been
enhanced by providing them with opportunities to participate actively in the implementation of national
programs and projects;
(h) There shall be a continuing mechanism to enhance local autonomy not only by legislative enabling acts
but also by administrative and organizational reforms;

(i) Local government units shall share with the national government the responsibility in the management
and maintenance of ecological balance within their territorial jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of this
Code and national policies;

(j) Effective mechanisms for ensuring the accountability of local government units to their respective
constituents shall be strengthened in order to upgrade continually the quality of local leadership;

(k) The realization of local autonomy shall be facilitated through improved coordination of national
government policies and programs and extension of adequate technical and material assistance to less
developed and deserving local government units;

(l) The participation of the private sector in local governance, particularly in the delivery of basic services,
shall be encouraged to ensure the viability of local autonomy as an alternative strategy for sustainable
development; and

(m) The national government shall ensure that decentralization tributes to the continuing improvement of
the performance of local government units and the quality of community life.

4) Illustrate how a municipality can be converted into a component city. Expound on how the Cities of
Cabadbaran, Bayugan and Tandag together with thirteen (13) others were finally decided by the
Supreme Court as a regular cities of the country in 2011.

Under the law (section 450), A municipality or a cluster of Barangays may be converted into a component
city if it has an average annual income, as certified by the Department of Finance, of at least Twenty
million pesos (Php 20,000,000.00) for the last two (2) consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices,
and if it has either of the following requisites:

i. a contiguous territory of at least one hundred (100) square kilometers, as certified by the Lands
Management Bureau; or,

ii. a population of not less than one hundred fifty thousand(150,000) inhabitants, as certified by the
National Statistics Office: Provided, That, the creation thereof shall not reduce the land area,
population, and income of the original unit or units at the time of said creation to less than the
minimum requirements prescribed herein.

The cities of Cabadbaran, Bayugan and Tandag together with thirteen (13) others who were
converted to a component cities (Cityhood Laws) however, were declared unconstitutional for
violating Sections 10 and 6, Article X, and the equal protection clause. Thereafter, a number of motion
for reconsideration and resolution were filed to the Court En Banc wherein the said court received
criticism on the case for supposedly changing positions on the constitutionality of the cityhood laws. A
motion for reconsideration dated August 24, 2010 was given favorable action by the Supreme Court
thereafter on the basis of the following arguments presented:

I. The 16 Cityhood Bills do not violate Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution.

 Article X, Section 10 provides—

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.

The tenor of the ponencias of the November 18, 2008 Decision and the August 24, 2010
Resolution is that the exemption clauses in the 16 Cityhood Laws are unconstitutional
because they are not written in the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC), particularly
Section 450 thereof, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9009, which took effect on June
30, 2001, viz.—

Section 450. Requisites for Creation. –a) A municipality or a cluster of barangays may be
converted into a component city if it has a locally generated annual income, as certified by
the Department of Finance, of at least One Hundred Million Pesos (₱100,000,000.00) for at
least two (2) consecutive years based on 2000 constant prices, and if it has either of the
following requisites….

Prior to the amendment, Section 450 of the LGC required only an average annual income, as
certified by the Department of Finance, of at least ₱20,000,000.00 for the last two (2)
consecutive years, based on 1991 constant prices.

Before Senate Bill No. 2157, now R.A. No. 9009, was introduced by Senator Aquilino
Pimentel, there were 57 bills filed for conversion of 57 municipalities into component cities.
During the 11th Congress (June 1998-June 2001), 33 of these bills were enacted into law,
while 24 remained as pending bills. Among these 24 were the 16 municipalities that were
converted into component cities through the Cityhood Laws.

II. The Cityhood Laws do not violate Section 6, Article X and the equal protection clause of the
Constitution.

Both the November 18, 2008 Decision and the August 24, 2010 Resolution impress that the
Cityhood Laws violate the equal protection clause enshrined in the Constitution. Further, it
was also ruled that Section 6, Article X was violated because the Cityhood Laws infringed on
the "just share" that petitioner and petitioners-in-intervention shall receive from the
national taxes (IRA) to be automatically released to them.

Upon more profound reflection and deliberation, SC declare that there was valid
classification, and the Cityhood Laws do not violate the equal protection clause.

As the Court has ruled, the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution permits a valid
classification, provided that it: (1) rests on substantial distinctions; (2) is germane to the
purpose of the law; (3) is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) applies equally to all
members of the same class.

The petitioners argue that there is no substantial distinction between municipalities with
pending cityhood bills in the 11th Congress and municipalities that did not have pending bills,
such that the mere pendency of a cityhood bill in the 11th Congress is not a material
 difference to distinguish one municipality from another for the purpose of the income
requirement. This contention misses the point.

It should be recalled that the purpose of the enactment of R.A. No 9009 was merely to stop
the "mad rush of municipalities wanting to be converted into cities" and the apprehension
that before long the country will be a country of cities and without municipalities. It should
be pointed out that the imposition of the ₱100 million average annual income requirement
for the creation of component cities was arbitrarily made. To be sure, there was no evidence
or empirical data, such as inflation rates, to support the choice of this amount. The
imposition of a very high income requirement of ₱100 million, increased from ₱20 million,
was simply to make it extremely difficult for municipalities to become component cities. And
to highlight such arbitrariness and the absurdity of the situation created thereby, R.A. No.
9009 has, in effect, placed component cities at a higher standing than highly urbanized cities
under Section 452 of the LGC.

The justness in the act of Congress in enacting the Cityhood Laws becomes obvious, especially
considering that 33 municipalities were converted into component cities almost immediately prior to
the enactment of R.A. No. 9009. In the enactment of the Cityhood Laws, Congress merely took the 16
municipalities covered thereby from the disadvantaged position brought about by the abrupt increase
in the income requirement of R.A. No. 9009, acknowledging the "privilege" that they have already
given to those newly-converted component cities, which prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 9009,
were undeniably in the same footing or "class" as the respondent municipalities. Congress merely
recognized the capacity and readiness of respondent municipalities to become component cities of
their respective provinces.

Petitioners complain of the projects that they would not be able to pursue and the expenditures that
they would not be able to meet, but totally ignored the respondent municipalities’ obligations arising
from the contracts they have already entered into, the employees that they have already hired, and
the projects that they have already initiated and completed as component cities. Petitioners have
completely overlooked the need of respondent municipalities to become effective vehicles intending
to accelerate economic growth in the countryside. It is like the elder siblings wanting to kill the newly-
borns so that their inheritance would not be diminished.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Supreme Court finally decided the case and ruled in favor of the
constitutionality of the sixteen (16) cityhood laws and reversed and set aside the previous decisions of
the Court En Banc.

5) Elucidate on the rationalized planning system of the local government units particularly on cities
and municipalities.
Rationalized Planning System of the Local Government Units (LGU) provides the system in which LGUs
have a basis or foundation in its local planning process and structure. Which are divided into two
mandated planning documents namely:

CLUP or Comprehensive Land Used Plan – which is the long-term guide for the physical development
of the locality’s area. This serves as the framework for the management and co-management of local
territory. At the level of cities and municipalities, the CLUP serves as a framework plan, which is
enacted in the establishment of zoning ordinance (RA 1760, Sec 20c), which it serves as statutory
plans whose provisions are legally enforceable. This is divided into four policy areas which equates to
land use categories, such as:

a.) Settlement Policies

b.) Protection Land Policies
c.) Production Land Policies
d.) and Infrastructure Policies;

CDP on the otherhand or Comprehensive Development Plan – is a planning document which

consolidates all the programs and projects needed to establish and carry out the objectives and roles
of the different development sectors. The five development sectors are the following:

a.) Social Development Component

b.) Economic Development Component
c.) Physical and Infrastructure Component
d.) Environmental Management Component
e.) Admin. & Financial Development Component

These programs and projects are incorporated in the local development investment program (LDIP)
and are implemented through the annual investment program (AIP) and the annual budget. Other
programs may be picked up by the national government and still others by the private sector for
implementation.

As a summary the CLUP is the long-term guide/plan towards local territory management and
development while the CDP consists of the LGUs plans and programs for each development sectors
which are incorporated in the local development investment program. Through this a Rationalized
Planning System is develop by LGUs to guide them in managing its local territory and providing and
planning the adequate programs and plans to its concerned sectors.