Right: Local Government triumph; Left: NGA/GOCCs won the case

Cases:
- Telecommunications power: LGU cannot give a franchise for
telecommunications or cable TV because that is a power not
devolved to LGUs rather it remains with the National
Telecommunications Commission
- Compliance with the building code: responsibility of LGU

When the law does not impose a limitation on the discretionary power of
LGUs then NGAs cannot impose such limitation, otherwise, it will amount
to control and will violate the local autonomy of local government units

How do we resolve conflicts between LGUs and others?

- Fundamental rule: follow the law
o when the law is clear, then follow the law. Whether the
issue is national in character or local in character then
follow the law.
- Absent a law: follow the rules enumerated above.

o NATIONAL DIMENSION RULE ! Rule in favor of NGAs:

▪ if there’s a mandate; charter of the GOCC even if

it’s prior to the enactment of the 1991 LGC; if
particular issue cuts the boundaries of several
LGUs, etc.

o LOCAL DIMENSION RULE ! Rule in favor of LGU:

▪ purely local issue, express repeal; SC adopted the

principle of subsidiarity (Local governments are in
a best position to address local concerns) etc.
 • LGUs don’t have inherent power they have broad powers
General welfare clause: it is the delegation (not devolution) because it is
• Local Autonomy gives them broad powers
a state power in statutory form

• Source of powers: either CONSTITUTION, STATUTES and - Police power is not a constitutional power like eminent domain
respective CHARTERS and this power is sourced from the state and delegated to LGUs

How do we interpret LGU powers: Reason for delegation: dual agency role/ capacity of LGUS

- Follow the rules of interpretation when the law is ambiguous 1. Agents of the state

- LIBERAL in favor of local government when you talk about
devolution, fiscal autonomy
- Before, police power is construed in favor of local governments.
Now because of the 2016 case, together with taxation and
eminent domain, it is now STRICTLY construed against the LGUs
2. Agents of the people
Hierarchy: between economic benefits and right to life, security and
safety, the latter takes precedence
Requirements which must concur: lawful subject and lawful method
- LGUs cannot issue driver’s license because that power remains
- It is easier to comply with lawful subject rather than lawful method
with the LTO

Section 16 of LGC is a long provision that can be broken down into 2 - LGUs cannot issue franchises for all public utility vehicles
braches
because under the LGC what has been devolved is only
regulation of tricycles

1. General legislative branch: those powers expressly mentioned in - LGUs cannot regulate or tax jueteng because jueteng is a
the law. What LGUs does is just to apply what the la provides prohibited activity

2. Police power proper: Not expressly mandate but in order to

promote public welfare, public safety etc. then LGUs can impose
this power

o Example: Power to impose curfew

- LGUs without just compensation cannot prohibit the operation or
establishment of massage parlors etc. in a particular area or
directed to convert their business, to close down, or to relocate
without just compensation—must be done through EMINENT
DOMAIN
No.22- private people can benefit from the taking and therefore a valid
exercise of police power. Similar to the Ermita Malate Case, it can only be
done if with just compensation.

- Warehouse or a gas station can’t be considered a nuisance per se

hence, a court intervention is required for them to be demolished.
They cannot be summarily demolished or destroyed by a local
government unit
- Zoning ordinance is a recognized police power exercise. - Demolition and eviction without judicial order will only be allowed
under the aforementioned mentioned circumstances

- Curfew, depends on the limitation on the constitutional powers of Eminent Domain:

juveniles.
- While it requires an executive action on the part of the Mayor/
o It should provide for the least restrictive means to achieve Governor/ Punong Barangay—filing the expropriation case, SC
the interest; provide adequate exceptions
said in 2016 that it is essentially LEGISLATIVE

o If you look at the Quezon City ordinance , it talks about - taking of private property or properties owned by local
the rights of the students, for school, church, legitimate governments in their proprietary capacity as distinguished from
non school, or non church, civic activities, political LGU properties in their governmental capacity (example: city hall)

activities, political rallies and peaceful assemblies

o Compared to Navotas and Manila ordinances—it does not Compensable taking:

protect those mentioned - Compared to police power, in Eminent domain, somebody else
will benefit (either the government or a private entity) after the
taking

- If no one else will benefit from the property or can no longer be

used because it was destroyed, then that will not be a
compensable taking

Genuine public necessity:

- No necessity if the owner is willing to sell or if there is a nearby
facility like a sports facility in the next barangay

Enabling Instrument: must be an ORDINANCE form not just a resolution

How: Enactment of the ordinance must precede the filing of the Role of the province:
expropriation case
- in reviewing an eminent domain ordinance enacted by a
component municipality or city, it cannot change the choice of the
Jurisdiction: Regardless of the amount, the budget, RTC has jurisdiction property or cannot say that the municipality should have chosen a
over this power because it does not refer to the amount but by the power different property because that would go to the wisdom of the
exercised by the LGU hence it is incapable of pecuniary estimation
exercise of the power; it will go into a question of fact, not just a
There must be promp payment question of law because the extent of the supervising unit will be
to determine only questions of law, not questions of fact.

- Cannot say that the choice of property is whimsical because it will

be an intrusion to the wisdom of the local government unit

RTC:

- Questions of fact

- determination of just compensation

When no limits this power then a national government cannot limit

that power
- case in point: approval of DAR/DA is not needed before an LGU can
expropriate an agricultural land because there is no limitation under
any law
Main difference between these four is
• Fiscal autonomy came from the source of Local Autonomy.

• Local autonomy includes both administrative and fiscal

1. change in ownership- there is only change in ownership in autonomy.

eminent domain
• Also Section 5 (Article X) that says other source of revenues

• Fiscal autonomy of LG is diff from Constitutional Commissions

Reclassification is a special form of zoning. When you talk about • When LG FA it talks about source of money and how the LG will
reclassification you're changing agricultural land to non-agricultural land use these funds and again like FA there’s no absolutes

because zoning talks about any change.

o LG cannot use it for private purpose (true even for other
Government Agencies)

Of the 3, Conversion is by a national government agency (DAR) while all o 4th bullet important:

the three are local government powers. ▪ Fiscal autonomy does not leave LGUs with
unbridled discretion in the disbursement of
public funds. They remain accountable to their
constituency; City has fiscal responsibility to
ensure that barangay funds would not be released
to a person without proper authority
• National gov’t cannot limit LG Fiscal Acts, absent a statute
• The power to tax is constitutional power

o Eminent Domain

• Classic example would be the losses depending the financial o Police Power

capacity of a local government, here comes theThe DBM says 5k o Power to reclassify

for judges – clearly this undermines the of LGs expressly given to • However this power is not absolute, congress can impose
them which is unlimited by law limitation

o However the power of congress is not absolute

o The limitation imposed by the congress should not be

insconsitent with Local Autonomy

Important to distinguish fee from tax

• Tax – to create profit and raise revenue

• Fee – is to regulate

• In this case it is important, whether the amount is correct:

o For fees: it is limited by the cost, if exceeds actual cost,

then it can be considered as tax
• Important to make distinguishment because of relief
o DOJ: DOJ to appeal tax ordinance NOT a fee ordinance
o COURT: if you want to question a fee
• Want to question tax ordinance – exhaust administrative remedy
unless SC will allow you to by pass the exhaustion
o Example of exhaustion is ure question of law go to SC.

• According to Constitution, Article X Sec. 5 and LGC:

Government can impose taxes not in the LGC provided there is
notice and hearing provided not confiscatory and not levied by
any other agency.

• It (Power to tax) is inclusive

o i.e. social housing tax

• The Local Government has share in the national tax, but not the
other way

• Local revenues shall exclusively earmarked to local government.

• Another important point are tax exemptions as to:

o Government Agencies

o Public Utilities
Here is a chart telling that whether a particular entity is liable to tax or be
exempt from paying tax

1. Got exemption prior LGC, no longer exempt

Got exemption AFTER LGC, then u are exempted

2. You are a GI, nature of entity, GOCC you are liable, However
property outside commerce of men

a. Ports; Sea ports and airports

The SC said the prohibition on the imposition of products includes both.

What Navotas tried to do then was to impose a tax on the petroleum

business not on the value of the sale.
Internal revenue allotment by the name itself implies only a share of We can divide the sources of local governments into 2:

local government in BIR collection

1. source from the Constitution which cannot be removed by

There’s a pending case now in the SC which says that our LGs have been Congress through ordinary legislation; and,

duly deprived of their rightful share because the Consti does not make 2. those given by law which can be revoked and repealed.
any distinction between income tax and tariffs and customs.

*The way the law is written now it talks about a 40 percent share of all
LGUs for the collection of BIR 3 years preceeding

and the 40 percent is fixed. But, subject to compliance with the

requirements set forth in the LGC it can be reduced up to 30%

Congress through the GAA cannot withhold because that would be a

rider that would violate fiscal autonomy and again under the Consti, the
release of this share is automatic it should not be subject to any
condition, lien, or encumbrance. 
The Constitution does not say local governments have the power to
legislate, but we can infer this power from the constitution.
the substance and in the procedure.
The Consti said that there should be sectoral representatives in local
legislative bodies and that presupposes that local legislation is recognized
by the Constitution itself
The term subordinate legislation can be applied to other admin agencies
because all rules and local ordinances must not be inconsistent with
the Constitution, statutes, and their respective charters.
Local government units today cannot also issue subpoenas because
In a recent case (2017) one local government unit created another
legislative body without calling it the Sanggunian, but conferring upon it
some legislative powers. The SC said local legislation only took 2 ways
by the Sanggunian and by the people themselves through initiative and
referendum
Like laws there are certain presumptions that are rebuttable. In terms of
Local government Sanggunian, local legislative councils do 3 readings in
one day because there is no such prohibition.
However like all admin. Agencies, the Sanggunian absent a provision of
law, cannot cite a person in contempt.
these power have not been given to them
Sanggunians or local legislative bodies exercise principally legislative
powers. Some would argue that they also exercise quasi-judicial power
because the higher sanggunian has the power to impose administrative
sanctions against erring officials belonging to the supervised or lower
local government unit
Again they can only hold session, conduct business while in session. It's
either regular or in a special session.
it is important to note when an enabling instrument should be in
ordinance form or resolution form. more importantly because of the last
column. all ordinances are subject to the veto authority of the local chief
executive except the punong barangay and all ordinances are subject to
review by the higher supervising entity. when there is a law which gives
that supervising authority the power to review, in the case of resolutions,
not all. only resolutions which adopts the local development plan or
public investment program. it can either be in ordinance form, or
resolution form, and subject to the review authority by the higher. Every
time there is an appropriation, it must be an ordinance, every time there
is a governmental power, it must be an ordinance.
Expropriation or reclassification, we have Supreme Court cases,
because the law is clear, it says ordinance, then it must be in ordinance
form. should it be in ordinance form or resolution form where the
sangunian authorizes the mayor to sign a contract, if you recall, before,
the mayor, or the punong barangay, or governor signs a contract, there
must be prior authorization, or absent a prior authorization, it can be
ratified either expressed or implied. the authorization, must it come in
ordinance form or resolution form? a lot of local government units, their
practice is just resolution, but in a 2013 case, the sc said it must be in
an ordinance, however, in 2015 that same case was dismissed by the
sc because of a technicality so clearly the 2013 case technically, no
longer exists, because that case was dismissed. so every time i give
advice to a local government unit, i say, maybe the prudent practice
would be, ordinance.
there 2 tests for a valid ordinance, again, the formal test, and the
substantive test. in a lot of cases, in terms of determining what can be
enacted by local governments, their criteria is couched in the negative.
not contradict the constitution, not be inconsistent, not discriminate, etc.
The operative fact rule means prior to the determination if a particular
ordinance is invalid, either by the court or the higher, then that ordinance
takes effect, however in one instance, and this is the national
telecommunications commission case, wherein the province of Batangas
issued a franchise for cable tv operator. Supreme Court said that was
void from the beginning. No rights were conferred to the private sector
proponent, but as a general rule, until declared illegal by the court or by
the higher supervising unit, then that particular ordinance becomes
effective.
Again, to date there are only 2 agencies the national government that
have been given the power by congress to review and declare illegal
certain ordinances. Tax Ordinances [again not fees] by the DOJ and to
Appropriations Ordinances by the Department of Budget and
Management. Again, when the DOJ or the DBM review, it’s only a
question of law. Is it within the powers of the LGU to enact? It cannot be a
question of fact. The DBM cannot say this is prejudicial to the public
welfare. The DOJ cannot say that the ordinance is excessive, confiscatory,
discriminatory. 
Accountability - There are two types of accountability. Either the Juridical
Person which is the LGU or the National Person which is the Public
Servant. Notwithstanding a law, a mayor cannot be the head of any
other government entity. This was the case of SBMA president.
According to the SBMA act, the mayor of Olongapo city shall concurrently
be the SBMA head. Supreme Court said, no. Because one - that is not ex
officio. And similar to the Funa v. Agra case. Okay. 
Re-election once upon a time - during my time, If you have a pending
admin case and you're re-elected, that amounts to forgiveness. The last
person who benefitted from that was former mayor Binay. Now, whether
you have pending case, whether its criminal or administrative, election
would not save you. 

Mayor dies - vice mayor becomes the mayor not just in an acting
capacity. Senior councilor becomes the vice mayor. And the senior
councilor if ever he/she is a member of a party, there may be a substitute
to fill up the vacancy will come from that party. 

Temporary absence of the local chief executive, regardless of the length of

stay even if for one day but if its abroad, the vice mayor becomes the
acting local chief executive because if it’s within the Philippines not more
than 3 days, the mayor can designate and OIC which could be the
administrator. Normally when you see that, that shows that the vice mayor
and the mayor are not in good terms. 

Two authorities - this is important. Can the DILG by itself, suspend a

mayor?  The DILG can only investigate because the disciplining authority
would be if it’s a HUC - the president. Or the Executive secretary acting
by authority by the president. So, the two authorities - one who actually
disciplines and the other one investigates and recommends.
Term of office, when a municipality is converted to a city - the city has a
distinct personality from that municipality. However, for purposes of
determining whether or not that official has exceeded the 3 terms, then it
is effectively a continuation. By the way this discussion is relevant from
election law. Sorry. 

Mayor dies, what happens? Vice Mayor becomes the Mayor. Alam niyo in
this particular instance, napaka-swerte ni Vice Mayor. Why? Because that
Vice Mayor, that term now that he's the Mayor will not be considered a
term as Mayor. Why? Because he was not elected as Mayor. That would
also not be considered as term of Vice Mayor because, he did not fully
serve the 3 year term as mayor. That particular case, it was neither a term
as Mayor nor as Vice Mayor. Because according to the Supreme Court - in
order for it to be considered a term, you must have been elected to that
position and you must have fully served the term which is contrary to what
I learned in law school. Because even if you serve the term for one day, ah
sorry. 1 Day Tenure, you're still serving the term because the term is fixed
by law. By the way that rule is still a good rule for members of congress.
Again when you talk about serving the whole term and term here means
tenure then that only applies to local officials. So its a full term even if you
take a vacation, because involuntary renunciation does not break the What’s the difference between suspension and preventive suspension?
term. It's not a full term if their succession you won in the recall election,
you won in the election protest, because you did not fully serve the term. Suspension is a penalty. Meaning there must have been a proceeding, and
By the way if you're suspended or placed under preventive suspension normally it’s summary.
because once upon a time, people would say "have yourself placed under Preventive suspension is an administrative sanction prior to the final
preventive suspension so that it could bot be considered a term, so you determination of your palpability. In order to protect the witnesses and the
can run eventually every election". Maybe have a break for a month. But documents, you can be placed under preventive suspension. Let me just go
again the Supreme Court has said no to that rule.  through the preventive suspension.

Who can place a local government official, an elected official, under

preventive suspension?

One, the higher supervising local chief executive, and two, the ombudsman.
The requirements are not the same. While the requirements for being placed
under preventive suspension by the higher local chief executive would be
there must be joinder of issues meaning an answer or responsive reading
has been done. The exception to that would be, despite the repeated
demands you don’t find your answer. You can now be placed under
preventive suspension. But for the ombudsman, there is no such requirement
of joinder. You can be placed under preventive suspension even the minute
after the complaint has been done, theoretically speaking.
 • Here are some cases, for example, if you are under preventive
suspension, the Mayor cannot fully function as Mayor. That would
be use Usurpation.

• Unwarranted benefits, the Civil Service has confirmed the

dismissal of an employee, yet that employee continues to be paid
by the mayor, then that would be giving unwarranted benefits--
which is a violation of the anti graft and corrupt pratices act.

▪ When we talk about personal liability, it talks about violation of these • Illegal dismissal: when is the Mayor liable, when is the local
laws by an elective official. government liable? If the dismissal is capricious, whimsical,
arbitrary and the LGU through the Sanggunian did not participate
in the dismissal, then the Mayor is PERSONALLY liable.

• Council participates (directly/indirectly) then the LGU is liable; it

becomes corporate liability

• (12) is the case of former VM Yabut conducted traffic in Makati,

ginulpi ‘yung foreigner. SC said, local officials should not be
onion-skinned.
• Here are the rights of an accused.
o If you are placed under Preventive Suspension, according to an
• Rights of an elective official, whether criminal or administrative old case, you must file an appeal with DILG, following the rule on
case, are the same as an accused. exhaustion, UNLESS you are able to justify non-compliance with
this rule.

o Like any other admin agency, the quantum of proof is

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
Again, liability refers to the liability of the natural person (public servant) or If you want to question an ordinance because it is in the exercise of the
liability of the public office (LGU).
legislative power of the Sanggunian, you don’t file a Certiorari, you file a
When will the LGU be held liabile? DECLARATORY RELIEF.
1. If it is the mandate of the LGU

2. The Sanggunian authorizes.

Atty. Agra: “If I become a Mayor (which will never happen), I’d like all
my acts to be ratified by the Sanggunian—that will be my defense to
make the LGU liable, not me.”