PELAEZ VS AUDITOR GENERAL

G.R. No. L-23825 15 SCRA 569 December 24, 1965

EMMANUEL PELAEZ, petitioner,

vs.

THE AUDITOR GENERAL, respondent.

Facts:

The President of the Philippines, purporting to act pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised Administrative
Code, issued Executive Orders Nos. 93 to 121, 124 and 126 to 129; creating thirty-three (33)
municipalities enumerated in the margin. Petitioner Emmanuel Pelaez, as Vice President of the
Philippines and as taxpayer, instituted the present special civil action, for a writ of prohibition with
preliminary injunction, against the Auditor General, to restrain him, as well as his representatives and
agents, from passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in implementation of said executive orders
and/or any disbursement by said municipalities.

Petitioner alleges that said executive orders are null and void, upon the ground that said Section 68 has
been impliedly repealed by Republic Act No. 2370 effective January 1, 1960 and constitutes an undue
delegation of legislative power. The third paragraph of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 2370, reads:
“Barrios shall not be created or their boundaries altered nor their names changed except under the
provisions of this Act or by Act of Congress.”

Issues:

Whether or not Section 68 of Revised Administrative Code constitutes an undue delegation of legislative
power.

Discussions:

Section 10 (1) of Article VII of our fundamental law ordains:

The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, or offices, exercise general
supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law, and take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.

The power of control under this provision implies the right of the President to interfere in the exercise of
such discretion as may be vested by law in the officers of the executive departments, bureaus, or offices
of the national government, as well as to act in lieu of such officers. This power is denied by the
Constitution to the Executive, insofar as local governments are concerned. With respect to the latter,
the fundamental law permits him to wield no more authority than that of checking whether said local
governments or the officers thereof perform their duties as provided by statutory enactments. Hence,
the President cannot interfere with local governments, so long as the same or its officers act within the
scope of their authority.

Rulings:

Yes. It did entail an undue delegation of legislative powers. The alleged power of the President to create
municipal corporations would necessarily connote the exercise by him of an authority even greater than
that of control which he has over the executive departments, bureaus or offices. In other words, Section
68 of the Revised Administrative Code does not merely fail to comply with the constitutional mandate.
Instead of giving the President less power over local governments than that vested in him over the
executive departments, bureaus or offices, it reverses the process and does the exact opposite, by
conferring upon him more power over municipal corporations than that which he has over said
executive departments, bureaus or offices.

Mariano vs COMELEC, GR No. 118627, 07 March 1995

FACTS:

Juanito Mariano, a resident of Makati, along with residents of Taguig suing as taxpayers, assail Sections
2, 51 and 52 of R.A. No. 7854 (“An Act Converting the Municipality of Makati into a Highly Urbanized City
to be known as the City of Makati”). Another petition which contends the unconstitutionality of R.A. No.
7854 was also filed by John H. Osmena as a senator, taxpayer and concerned citizen.

ISSUES:

Whether Section 2 of R.A. No. 7854 delineated the land areas of the proposed city of Makati violating
sections 7 and 450 of the Local Government Code on specifying metes and bounds with technical
descriptions

Whether Section 51, Article X of R.A. No. 7854 collides with Section 8, Article X and Section 7, Article VI
of the Constitution stressing that they new city’s acquisition of a new corporate existence will allow the
incumbent mayor to extend his term to more than two executive terms as allowed by the Constitution

Whether the addition of another legislative district in Makati is unconstitutional as the reapportionment
cannot be made by a special law

HELD/RULING:
Section 2 of R.A. No. 7854 states that:

Sec. 2. The City of Makati. — The Municipality of Makati shall be converted into a highly urbanized city
to be known as the City of Makati, hereinafter referred to as the City, which shall comprise the present
territory of the Municipality of Makati in Metropolitan Manila Area over which it has jurisdiction
bounded on the northeast by Pasig River and beyond by the City of Mandaluyong and the Municipality
of Pasig; on the southeast by the municipalities of Pateros and Taguig; on the southwest by the City of
Pasay and the Municipality of Taguig; and, on the northwest, by the City of Manila.

Emphasis has been provided in the provision under dispute. Said delineation did not change even by an
inch the land area previously covered by Makati as a municipality. It must be noted that the
requirement of metes and bounds was meant merely as a tool in the establishment of LGUs. It is not an
end in itself.

Furthermore, at the time of consideration or R.A. No. 7854, the territorial dispute between the
municipalities of Makati and Taguig over Fort Bonifacio was under court litigation. Out of becoming a
sense of respect to co-equal department of government, legislators felt that the dispute should be left
to the courts to decide.

Section 51 of R.A. No. 7854 provides that:

Sec. 51. Officials of the City of Makati. — The represent elective officials of the Municipality of Makati
shall continue as the officials of the City of Makati and shall exercise their powers and functions until
such time that a new election is held and the duly elected officials shall have already qualified and
assume their offices: Provided, The new city will acquire a new corporate existence. The appointive
officials and employees of the City shall likewise continues exercising their functions and duties and they
shall be automatically absorbed by the city government of the City of Makati.

Section 8, Article X and section 7, Article VI of the Constitution provide the following:

Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local 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.

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years which
shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their
election.

No Member of the House of Representatives 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.

This challenge on the controversy cannot be entertained as the premise on the issue is on the
occurrence of many contingent events. Considering that these events may or may not happen,
petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy.
Moreover, only Mariano among the petitioners is a resident of Taguig and are not the proper parties to
raise this abstract issue.

Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution clearly provides that the Congress may be comprised of not
more than two hundred fifty members, unless otherwise provided by law. As thus worded, the
Constitution did not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law, other than a
general reapportionment of the law.