Guico, Ramon Carlo C. 2D Prof. Atty.

Anicia Concepcion-
Marquez

Using as reference Sec. 1 to Sec 28 of the Local Government Code of 1991,

answer the following questions:

1. Explain the rationale of the Local Government Code of 1991 in granting

local autonomy to local government units.

The rationale of the Local Government Code of 1991 in granting local autonomy to
its local government units (LGUs) is basically to enable them to establish a certain
level of independence from the central/national government and create a “more
responsive and an accountable government structure”. Through local autonomy, the
LGUs would have more power over the development of its local communities and
economy.
However, local autonomy does not mean that it separates the hand of the central
government over the former. It is more of an “oversight” concept. The local
government, even though it enjoys autonomy, is still subject to regulation under the
Constitution. (Ganzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93252, August 5, 1991)

2. Cite two (2) examples of situations which will require the enforcement of
Sec. 2, par. c of the Code.

Under Sec. 2, Par. C of the Local Government Code of the Philippines, it is

likewise the policy of the State to require all national agencies and offices to conduct
periodic consultations with appropriate local government units, non-governmental
and people's organizations, and other concerned sectors of the community before
any project or program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions.

(1) One of the situations that can be used as an example of the given provisions is
the distribution of free school supplies and laptops to the local public elementary
and high school students and teachers during this COVID pandemic. Since face-
to-face classes are not possible during this time, online and virtual classes are
the methods used by the schools to educate its students. Through the
coordination of the Department of Education, the local government would give
out such supplies and gadgets would be distributed evenly to the locale’s
respective schoolteachers and students.

(2) Another example concerning the same provision would be the construction of
streets, roads, bridges and such. The Department of Public Works and
Highways, through coordination from the local government/s the projects would
affect, would discuss the matters regarding the construction of such.
3. Was the creation of the Cordillera Administrative Region under EO 220
valid? Cite the grounds given by the Supreme Court in Cordillera Broad
Coalition v. COA, 181 SCRA 495 (1990)

YES. The creation of the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) under Executive
Order No. 220 is deemed valid. The Cordillera Administrative Region, or CAR, was
created by the law in order to establish the maintenance of the social and economic
growth in the said region and consequently, prepare the subsequent creation of an
autonomy in the Cordilleras. The CAR was created in order to create and implement
programs and services in the region through its local autonomy and by its local
government.

The Supreme Court cited the following grounds:

1. Firstly, the CAR is not a public corporation or a territorial and political subdivision.
It does not have a separate juridical personality, unlike provinces, cities and
municipalities. Neither is it vested with the powers that are normally granted to
public corporations, e.g. the power to sue and be sued, the power to own and
dispose of property, the power to create its own sources of revenue, etc. As
stated earlier, the CAR was created primarily to coordinate the planning and
implementation of programs and services in the covered areas.
2. Considering the control and supervision exercised by the President over the CAR
and the offices created under E.O. No. 220, and considering further the
indispensable participation of the line departments of the National Government,
the CAR may be considered more than anything else as a regional coordinating
agency of the National Government, similar to the regional development councils
which the President may create under the Constitution [Art. X, sec. 14]. These
councils are "composed of local government officials, regional heads of
departments and other government offices, and representatives from non-
governmental organizations within the region 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.

4. Acting on the report submitted by the Department of Interior and Local

Government (DILG) that the community along the shoreline of Mantug river
bank may well be constituted as a separate and independent municipality,
President Duterte issued an Executive Order creating the Municipality of
Mantug. Is the creation valid? Why or why not?

NO. The said issued Executive Order creating the Municipality of Mantug is
invalid. Under Sec. 6 of the Local Government Code, A local government unit
may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundaries substantially
 altered either by law enacted by Congress in the case of a province, city,
municipality, or any other political subdivision, or by ordinance passed by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan or Sangguniang Panlungsod concerned in the case
of a Barangay located within its territorial jurisdiction, subject to such limitations
and requirements
Prescribed in this Code.

Simply put, a municipality can only be created though a law passed by the
legislative body. In the case at bar, President Duterte issued an Executive Order
to create Mantug. However, such is invalid because an EO is regarded as an
exercise of power by the executive branch.

5. The Mayor of Mabalasik City allowed the City Engineering Office to lease
the stretch of Legaspi Street to flea market vendors every Saturday from
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Can the validity of the Mayor’s action be
challenged? Explain.

YES. The validity of the Mayor’s action may be challenged. Under Sec. 17 (j) of
the Local Government Code, “To ensure the active participation of the private
sector in local governance, local government units may, by ordinance, sell,
lease,
encumber, or otherwise dispose of public economic enterprises owned by them
in their proprietary capacity. Costs may also be charged for the delivery of basic
services or facilities enumerated in this Section.”

In the case at bar, the act of Mayor Mabalasik City to allow the City Engineering
Office to lease the stretch of Legaspi Street to flea market vendors every
Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. may still merit a valid challenged even
though there is an ordinance concerning such present.

6. May an LGU take a private property for the construction of a project?

Discuss the regal requirements under Local Government Code of 1991.

YES. The Local Government Unit, or the LGU, may take a private property for
the construction of a project under its power of eminent domain. Sec. 19 of the
Local Government Code posits that A local government unit may, through its
chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of
eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor
and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions
of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of
eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been
previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted.
 Provided, further, That the local government unit may immediately take
possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and
upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of
the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the
property to be
expropriated: Provided, finally, That, the amount to be paid for the expropriated
property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value
at the time of the taking of the property.

In conclusion, an LGU may lawfully take a private property through its exercising
its power of eminent domain. However, such taking would be used for the
betterment of public and be paid with just and fair compensation.

7. May the City Mayor of Manila accept financial aid from a foreign country in
this time of the pandemic? Is prior clearance or authorization from the
DILG or Office of the President necessary? Explain. Cite legal basis.

YES. The City Mayor of Manila accept financial aid from a foreign country in this
time of the pandemic. Furthermore, prior clearance or authorization from the DILG or
Office of the President is not necessary.

Under Sec. 23 of the Local Government Code, Local chief executives may, upon
authority of the Sanggunian, negotiate and secure financial grants or donations in
kind, in support of the basic services or facilities enumerated under Section 17
hereof, from local and foreign assistance agencies without necessity of securing
clearance or approval therefor from any department, agency, or office of the national
government or from any higher local government unit: Provided, That projects
financed by such grants or assistance with national security implications shall be
approved by the national agency concerned.
The financial aid may be accepted so as long as it is in harmony and is authorized
by the Sanggunian.

8. What is the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency. Make a case digest of

Dadole v. COA, 393 SCRA 262 (2002)

The Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency, also known as the alter ego doctrine,
essentially postulates that the heads of the various executive departments are the
alter egos of the President, and, thus, the actions taken by such heads in the
performance of their official duties are deemed the acts of the President unless the
President himself should disapprove such acts. This doctrine is in recognition of the
fact that in our presidential form of government, all executive organizations are
adjuncts of a single Chief Executive; that the heads of the Executive Departments
are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive; and that the multiple executive
functions of the President as the Chief Executive are performed through the
Executive Departments. The doctrine has been adopted here out of practical
necessity, considering that the President cannot be expected to personally perform
the multifarious functions of the executive office.

DADOLE V. COA
393 SCRA 262 (2002)
FACTS:
Petitioners RTC Judges Dadole et. al., and MTC judges Temistocles et. al.,
stationed in Mandaue City received a monthly allowance of P1,260 each
pursuant to the yearly appropriation ordinance. Eventually, in 1991, it was
increased to P1,500 for each judge. However, the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) then issued Local Budget Circular No. 55 which provides
that the additional monthly allowances to be given by a local government unit
should not exceed P1,000 in provinces and cities and P700 in municipalities.
Acting on the said DBM directive, the Mandaue City Auditor issued notices of
disallowance to herein petitioners in excess of the amount authorized by LBC 55.
Thus, petitioners filed with the Office of the City Auditor a protest. However, it
was treated as a motion for reconsideration and was endorsed to the
Commission on Audit Regional Office. In turn, the COA Regional Office referred
the said motion to their Head Office with recommendation that the same should
be denied. Accordingly, it was denied by the COA. Hence, petitioners filed the
instant petition. They argued, among others, that LBC 55 is void for infringing on
the local autonomy of Mandaue City by dictating a uniform amount that a local
government unit can disburse as additional allowances to judges stationed
therein.
ISSUE:
Whether or not LBC 55 is void for infringing the local autonomy of Mandaue City?

RULING:

Yes. Although the Constitution guarantees autonomy to local government units,

the exercise of local autonomy remains subject to the power of control by
Congress and the power of supervision by the President.

Section 4 of Article X of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that: "Sec. 4.

The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local
governments. . . . " Under Section 458, of RA 7160, the law that supposedly
 serves as the legal basis of LBC 55, allows the grant of additional allowances to
judges "when the finances of the city government allow." The said provision does
not authorize setting a definite maximum limit to the additional allowances
granted to judges. Thus, this Court need not belabor the point that the finances of
a city government may allow the grant of additional allowances higher than
P1,000 if the revenues of the said city government exceed its annual
expenditures. Setting a uniform amount for the grant of additional allowances is
an inappropriate way of enforcing the criterion found in Section 458, par. (a)(l)
(xi), of RA 7160.

The DBM over-stepped its power of supervision over local government units by
imposing a prohibition that did not correspond with the law it sought to
implement. In other words, the prohibitory nature of the circular had no legal
basis. The President can only interfere in the affairs and activities of a local
government unit if he or she finds that the latter has acted contrary to law. This is
the scope of the President's supervisory powers over local government units.
Hence, the President or any of his or her alter egos cannot interfere in local
affairs as long as the concerned local government unit acts within the parameters
of the law and the Constitution. Any directive therefore by the President or any of
his or her alter egos seeking to alter the wisdom of a law-conforming judgment
on local affairs of a local government unit is a patent nullity because it violates
the principle of local autonomy and separation of powers of the executive and
legislative departments in governing municipal corporations.

9. Distinguish: power of initiative, referendum and recall which the registered

voters in an LGU may exercise.

Power of Initiative – Under Sec. 120 of the LGC, Local initiative is the legal process
whereby the registered voters of a local government unit may directly propose,
enact, or amend any ordinance. The power of local initiative and referendum may be
exercised by all registered voters of the provinces, cities, municipalities, and
Barangays.

Power of Referendum – Under Sec. 126 of the LGC, Local referendum is the legal
process whereby the registered voters of the local government units may approve,
amend or reject any ordinance enacted by the Sanggunian. The local referendum
shall be held under the control and direction of the Comelec within sixty (60) days in
case of provinces and cities, forty-five (45) days in case of municipalities and thirty
(30) days in case of 58 Barangays. The Comelec shall certify and proclaim the
results of the said referendum.
Power of Recall – Under Sec. 69 of the LGC, The power of recall for loss of
confidence shall be exercised by the registered voters of a local government unit to
which the local elective official subject to such recall belongs. All expenses incident
to recall elections shall be borne by the Comelec. For this purpose, there shall be
included in the annual General Appropriations Act a contingency fund at the disposal
of the Comelec for the conduct of recall elections.

All expenses incident to recall elections shall be borne by the Comelec. For this
purpose, there shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act a
contingency fund at the disposal of the Comelec for the conduct of recall elections.

10. Mayor Vico Sotto of Pasig consults you as to whether or not a tax
ordinance passed by the City Council still needs to be reviewed by the
secretary of Finance. Explain your legal basis.

NO. A tax ordinance passed by the City Council does not warrant a need to be
reviewed by the Secretary of Finance.

Under Sec. 129 of the Local Government Code, Each local government unit shall
exercise its power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and
charges subject to the provisions herein, consistent with the basic policy of local
autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local
government units.

Under Sec. 187 of the Local Government Code, The procedure for approval of local
tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of
this Code: Provided, That public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to
the enactment 90 thereof: Provided, further, That any question on the
constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on
appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice
who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the
appeal: Provided, however, That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending
the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee, or
charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days after receipt of
the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice
acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a
court of competent jurisdiction.

In the case at bar, as stated under the procedure in passing such tax ordinance
does not warrant any need for review by the Secretary of Finance.