VII.

Principle of Presidential Power of Control and General Supervision

1. Tondo Med. Center Emp. Assn. vs. CA, 527 SCRA 748 *
2. Banda vs. Ermita, 618 SCRA 448 *
3. Chavez vs. NHA, 530 SCRA 241 see full text
4. Biraogo vs. PTC, 637 SCRA 78 see lazy digest
5. Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora, 360 SCRA 726 *
6. Domingo v Zamora, 2/6/03 see lazy digest
7. Bito-onon vs. Fernandez, 350 SCRA 732 see full text

Memorandum Circular No. 97-193 was issued by the DILG Secretary pursuant to the power of
general supervision of the President over all local government units which was delegated to the
DILG Secretary by virtue of Administrative Order No. 267 dated February 18, 1992.13 The President's
power of general supervision over local government units is conferred upon him by the Constitution.
Memorandum Circular No. 97-193 was issued by the DILG Secretary pursuant to the power of
general supervision of the President over all local government units which was delegated to the
DILG Secretary by virtue of Administrative Order No. 267 dated February 18, 1992.13 The President's
power of general supervision over local government units is conferred upon him by the Constitution.

Having in mind the foregoing principles, we rule that Memorandum Circular No. 97-193 of the DILG
insofar as it authorizes the filing a Petition for Review of the decision of the BES with the regular
courts in a post proclamation electoral protest is of doubtful constitutionality.

We agree with both the petitioner and the Solicitor General that in authorizing the filing of the petition
for review of the decision of the BES with the regular courts, the DILG Secretary in effect amended
and modified the GUIDELINES promulgated by the National Liga Board and adopted by the LIGA
which provides that the decision of the BES shall be subject to review by the National Liga Board.

The amendment of the GUIDELINES is more than an exercise of the power of supervision but
is an exercise of the power of control, which the President does not have over the LIGA.
Although the DILG is given the power to prescribe rules, regulations and other issuances, the
Administrative Code limits its authority to merely "monitoring compliance" by local government units
of such issuances.27 To monitor means "to watch, observe or check" and is compatible with the
power of supervision of the DILG Secretary over local governments, which is limited to checking
whether the local government unit concerned or the officers thereof perform their duties as per
statutory enactments.28 Besides, any doubt as to the power of the DILG Secretary to interfere with
local affairs should be resolved in favor of the greater autonomy of the local government.29

The public respondent judge therefore committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in not dismissing the respondent's Petition for Review for failure to exhaust all
administrative remedies and for lack of jurisdiction.

8. David vs. Judge Paredes, 439 SCRA 130

At bottom, the present petition inquires into the essential nature of the Liga ng mga Barangay and
questions the extent of the power of Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG), as alter ego of the President. More immediately, the petition disputes the validity of the
appointment of the DILG as the interim caretaker of the Liga ng mga Barangay.

In Section 4, Article X of the Constitution applicable to the Liga ng mga Barangay? Otherwise put, is
the Liga legally susceptible to DILG suspension?

This question was resolved in Bito-Onon v. Fernandez,90 where the Court ruled that the President’s
power of the general supervision, as exercised therein by the DILG Secretary as his alter ego,
extends to the Liga ng mga Barangay.

When the respondent judge eventually appointed the DILG as interim caretaker to manage and
administer the affairs of the Liga, she effectively removed the management from the
National Liga Board and vested control of theLiga on the DILG. Even a cursory glance at the DILG’s
prayer for appointment as interim caretaker of the Liga "tomanage and administer the affairs of
the Liga, until such time that the new set of National Liga officers shall have been duly elected and
assumed office" reveals that what the DILG wanted was to take control over the Liga. Even if said
"caretakership" was contemplated to last for a limited time, or only until a new set of officers assume
office, the fact remains that it was a conferment of control in derogation of the Constitution.

With his Department already appointed as interim caretaker of the Liga, Secretary Barbers nullified
the results of theLiga elections and promulgated DILG Memorandum Circular No. 97-193 dated 11
August 1997, 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; scheduled dates for the new provincial, metropolitan and national chapter elections;
and appointed respondent Rayos as president of Liga-Caloocan Chapter.

These acts of the DILG went beyond the sphere of general supervision and constituted direct
interference with the political affairs, not only of the Liga, but more importantly, of the barangay as an
institution. The election of Ligaofficers is part of the Liga’s internal organization, for which the latter
has already provided guidelines. In succession, the DILG assumed stewardship and jurisdiction over
the Liga affairs, issued supplemental guidelines for the election, and nullified the effects of the Liga-
conducted elections. Clearly, what the DILG wielded was the power of control which even the
President does not have.

Furthermore, the DILG assumed control when it appointed respondent Rayos as president of
the Liga-Caloocan Chapter prior to the newly scheduled general Liga elections, although petitioner
David’s term had not yet expired. The DILG substituted its choice, who was Rayos, over the choice
of majority of the punong barangay of Caloocan, who was the incumbent President, petitioner David.
The latter was elected and had in fact been sitting as an ex-officio member of the sangguniang
panlungsod in accordance with the Liga Constitution and By-Laws. Yet, the DILG extended the
appointment to respondent Rayos although it was aware that the position was the subject of a quo
warranto proceeding instituted by Rayos himself, thereby preempting the outcome of that case. It
was bad enough that the DILG assumed the power of control, it was worse when it made use of the
power with evident bias and partiality.

As the entity exercising supervision over the Liga ng mga Barangay, the DILG’s authority
over the Liga is limited to seeing to it that the rules are followed, but it cannot lay down such
rules itself, nor does it have the discretion to modify or replace them. In this particular case,
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 theLiga’s
Constitution and By-laws and its implementing rules. If the National Liga Board and its
officers had violatedLiga rules, the DILG should have ordered the Liga to conduct another
election in accordance with the Liga’s own rules, but not in obeisance to DILG-dictated
guidelines. Neither had the DILG the authority to remove the incumbent officers of
the Liga and replace them, even temporarily, with unelected Liga officers.

Like the local government units, the Liga ng mga Barangay is not subject to control by the
Chief Executive or hisalter ego.

VIII. Review of Admin Decisions

1. Bautista vs. Araneta, 326 SCRA 234 see full text

2. Samson vs. Ombudsman, 439 SCRA 325 see full text
Petitioner Moises S. Samson, on behalf of unidentified complainants, charged private respondents Dr. Leonito L.
Catarroja and Norma Sanchez, Chiefs of the Quezon City Health Sanitation and Food and Drugs Divisions,
respectively, with violation of paragraphs (b), (e) and (h) of Section 3 of RA 3019.

Public respondent, through Graft Investigation Officer Lamberto G. Sagum, issued a joint resolution dismissing the
cases filed, The public respondent, in its August 26, 1994 order, approved by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Villa on
September 9, 1994,[6] denied petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration of the joint resolution with respect to the
dismissal of OMB-0-93-0920.

Hence, this petition imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent for dismissing OMB-0-93-
0920, a supposedly prima facie graft case against private respondents.

Furthermore, the calibration of evidence to asses whether a prima facie graft case exists against private respondents is
a question of fact. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, more so in the consideration of the extraordinary writ
of certiorari where neither questions of fact nor law are entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

Finally, mandamus will not lie in the absence of any of the following grounds: [a] that the court, officer, board, or
person against whom the action is taken, unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from office, trust, or station, or [b] that such court, officer, board or person has unlawfully
excluded the petitioner from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled. Mandamus will lie to
compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty but not to compel the performance of a discretionary duty requiring
the exercise of judgment, as in this case.

3. Araullo v Aquino - don't discuss

4. San Sebastian College v Labor Congres of the Ph – don’t discuss
5. Proj Engr Bernaldo vs. OMB, 562 SCRA 60
6. Alexandra Condo. Corp. vs. LLDA, 599 SCRA 455
7. Lacson vs. PEA, 5/30/11

next meeting

8. Chua vs. Ang, 598 SCRA 232

9. ERB vs. CA, 357 SCRA 30
10. Gatchalian Talents Pool vs. Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406
 11. NIA Coordtr Ocampo vs. Ombudsman, 322 SCRA 22
12. Floria vs. Sunga, 368 SCRA 551
13. OMB v BAC Chair de Sahagun of Intramuros
14. Dr. Melendres, Exec. Dir. of Lung Center of Phil. vs. PAGC, 8/15/12
15. Exec. Judge Loyao vs. Clerk of Court Caube, 402 SCRA 33
16. Ombudsman vs. Dep. Dir. Andutan, 07/27/11
17. Cashier Pagano of Benguet v. Nazarro, 09/21/07
18. Llamas v Es. Orbos & Gov Ocampo of Tarlac
19. Salumbides vs. OMB, 4/23/10
20. Carpio-Morales vs. CA, GR 217126-27, 11/10/15
21. OMB v Mayor Vergara of Cabanatuan City (2017)
22. Crebello v OMB (2019)
23. OMB v Vergara. Dec 6, 2017
24. Giron v Ochoa (2017)
25. CSC vs. Dacoycoy, 306 SCRA 426
26. OMB vs. City Treasurer Samaniego, 564 SCRA 569

IX. Important Administrative Offices

A. PNP
B. AFP
C. OSG
D. OMB
E. PCGG
F. COA
G. BSP
H. PAGCOR
I. DAR
J. LTO and LTFRB

Group Report

1. Submit a written report.

2. Present report to class.

Coverage:

1. Basis of Creation
2. Primary Functions and Powers
3. Important SC Cases and/or Doctrines