1. Province of Batangas v.

Romulo

The LGC is a substantive law. The Congress may not amend it via appropriation laws or GAAs. It
must be done in a separate law.

2. Film Development Council of the Philippines vs. City of Cebu et al

Taxes levied by LGUs shall accrue exclusively to the LGU. To earmark the income for the LGU is
repugnant to LGUs Fiscal Autonomy (power of LGUs to apportion their resources in line with
their priorities).

3. City of Pasig vs. Commission on Elections

A boundary dispute presents a prejudicial question to a plebiscite and thus must be resolved
prior to the conduct of any plebiscite.

4. Sarangani vs. COMELEC (1992)

GR: LGU may be abolished when its: Income, Population, or Land Area (IPL) has been
irreversibly reduced to less than the minimum standards prescribed for its creation, as certified
by the national agencies mentioned (Sec. 9, R.A. 7160).

EXP: A barangay may officially exist on record and the fact that nobody resides in the place does
not result in its automatic cessation as a unit of local government (Sarangani vs. COMELEC).

5. Padilla vs. Commission on Elections

When a municipality is split into two, all the barangays of the original municipality must vote.
The plebiscite electorate includes those who will be economically dislocated and based on
plurality of units.

6. Tobias vs. Abalos

A charter need not mention the population census (total process of finding out the number of
people who live in the country and the structure of the society. Determining the number of
taxable adults).

7. Samson vs. Aguirre

Failure to state the seat of government in the charter is not fatal. The LGU can still establish
such after its creation.

8. Binay vs. Domingo (1991)

Police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal corporations.

Before a municipal corporation may exercise such power, there must be a valid delegation of
such power by the legislature which is the repository of the inherent powers of the State.

Municipal governments exercise police power under the general welfare clause.

9. Tatel vs. Municipality of Virac

In the exercise of police power, an LGU can:

Regulate activities relative to the use of land, buildings and structures within the city in order to
promote the general welfare and for said purpose shall: (vi) Regulate the establishment and
provide for the inspection of steam boilers or any heating device in buildings and the storage of
inflammable and highly combustible materials within the city

10. Republic vs. Gonzales (1991) - G.R. Nos. 45338-39. July 31, 1991

The widening of street and parking space redounds to public benefit for its long-term benefits,
notwithstanding the number of its users or beneficiaries.

11. Republic of the Philippines v. Provincial Government of Palawan

The Local Government Code does not define the term "territorial jurisdiction."

Local Government Code uniformly requires that the territorial jurisdiction of these government
units be "properly identified by metes and bounds.

LGU's territorial jurisdiction as pertaining to a physical location or area as identified by its

boundaries.

A local government’s territorial jurisdiction cannot extend beyond the boundaries set by its
organic law.

12. Macasiano v. Diokno

Roads and streets which are available to the public in general and ordinarily used for vehicular
traffic are still considered public property devoted to public use. In such case, the local
government has no power to use it for another purpose or to dispose of or lease it to private
persons. It is beyond the commerce of men.
 13. Frivaldo v. COMELEC (1989)

Allegiance at all times: Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must be
possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or assumption of office but during
the officer's entire tenure.

14. Frivaldo v. COMELEC (1996)

The citizenship requirement in the LGC is to be possessed by the elective official, at the latest,
as of the time he is proclaimed and at the start of the term of office to which he has been
elected.

Reason: The qualifications in the LGC refer to that of “Elective” officials (and not of
“Candidates”).

Repatriation under PD 825 is valid and effective and retroacts to the date of the application.

Decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship cannot govern a person's future
status with finality.

15. COQUILLA v. COMELEC

The term “residence” under Section 39(a) of the LGC of 1991 is to be understood not in its
common acceptation as referring to “dwelling” or “habitation”, but rather to “domicile” or
“legal residence” that is, the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent
home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to
return and remain (animus manendi).

Domicile (GENERAL): Jalover v. de la Pena

a. Intention to reside in a fixed place
b. Personal presence in that place
c. Conduct indicative of such intention

Domicile and residence are synonymous (Pundaodaya v. COMELEC)

Transfer of residence due to occupation is not deemed to have lost his original
residence (Asistio v. Aguirre)

Naturalization in a foreign country may result in an abandonment of origin of domicile in the

Philippines.

Frequent visit to origin of domicile is not considered as waiver of such abandonment.

16. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC (February 2013)

There are 3 requisites for a person to acquire a new domicile by choice:
a. residence or bodily presence in the new locality;
b. an intention to remain there;
c. an intention to abandon the old domicile.

These circumstances must be established by clear and positive proof. In the absence of clear
and positive proof based on these criteria, the residence or origin should be deemed to
continue.

JALOSJOS v. COMELEC (June 2013)

COMELEC's duty to cancel motu proprio the candidate's CoC, notwithstanding the absence of
any petition initiating a quasi-judicial proceeding for the resolution of the same is based on a
final conviction is subsumed under its mandate to enforce and administer all laws relating to
the conduct of elections.

A void COC cannot produce any legal effect. Thus, the votes cast in favor of the ineligible
candidate are not considered at all in determining the winner of an election.

JALOSJOS v. COMELEC (April 2012)

A candidate is not required to have a house in a community to establish his residence or

domicile in a particular place. It is sufficient that he should live there even if it be in a rented
house or in the house of a friend or relative.

JALOSJOS v. COMELEC (June 2012)

Final judgment by the COMELEC of the resolution of appeal on dismissal of the disqualification
has as yet to be done, before SC can take cognizance.

17. TEVES v. COMELEC

There are two modes by which a public officer who has a direct or indirect financial or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction may violate Section 3(h) of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: 1st mode is if in connection with his/her pecuniary interest in
any business, contract or transaction, the public officer intervenes or takes part in his/her
official capacity. 2nd mode is when he/she is prohibited from having such interest by the
Constitution or any law.

PGC v. IAC: The municipal mayor has the power to "grant licenses and permits in
accordance with existing laws and municipal ordinances and revoke them for violation
of the conditions upon which they have been granted," and the Sangguniang Bayan is
authorized to "regulate cockpits, cockfighting and the keeping or training of gamecocks,
subject to existing guidelines promulgated by the Philippine Gamefowl Commission."
Violation of Section 3(h), R.A. (R.A.) No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for
possessing pecuniary or financial interest in a cockpit, which is prohibited under Section 89(2)
of the LGC by ownership of a cockpit is not a crime involving moral turpitude.

Petitioner was convicted under the second mode for having pecuniary or financial interest in a
cockpit which is prohibited under Sec. 89(2) of the Local Government Code of 1991.

18. Caasi v. CA

Green card is a proof that one is a permanent resident of the US.

Green card holder must have "waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a
foreign country."

The waiver of his green card should be manifested by some act or acts independent of and
done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in this country.

Without such prior waiver, he was "disqualified to run for any elective office."

19. Jalover v. Osmena

Property ownership is not among the qualifications required of candidates for local election. It
is enough that he should livein the locality, even in a rented house or that of a friend or relative.

Ratio: To rule otherwise, would imply that only the landed can establish compliance with the
residency requirement.

20. Moreno v Comelec

Probationer is not even disqualified from running for a public office because the accessory
penalty of suspension from public office is put on hold for the duration of the probation.

The period within which a person is under probation cannot be equated with service of the
sentence adjudged.

21. Maquiling v. Comelec

Intervention may be allowed in proceedings for disqualification even after election if there has
yet been no final judgment rendered (on the disqualification case).

Intervention of a rival candidate in a disqualification case is proper when there has not yet been
any proclamation of the winner.
The use of foreign passport after renouncing oneʼs foreign citizenship is a positive and voluntary
act of representation as to oneʼs nationality and citizenship

It does not divest Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation but it recants the Oath of
Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an elective position.

The citizenship requirement for elective public office is a continuing one.

Citizenship must be possessed not just at the time of the renunciation of the foreign citizenship
but continuously.

The popular vote does not cure the ineligibility of a candidate.

The ballot cannot override the constitutional and statutory requirements for qualifications and
disqualifications of candidates.

The votes cast in favor of eligible and legitimate candidates form part of that voice and must
also be respected.

22. Socrates v. COMELEC

A recall election mid-way in a term following the third consecutive term is a subsequent
election but not an immediate re-election after the third term.

After three consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot seek immediate reelection for a
fourth term.

The prohibited election refers to the next regular election for the same office following the end
of the third consecutive term.

Any subsequent election, like a recall election, is no longer covered by the prohibition.

23. Montebon on v. Comelec

Assumption of office by succession is an interruption.

Two conditions for the application of the disqualification must concur: 1) that the official
concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post;
and 2) that he has FULLY served three consecutive terms.

Succession by law to a vacated government office is characteristically not voluntary. It is

therefore more compulsory and obligatory rather than voluntary.
Succession in local government office is by operation of law and as such, it is an involuntary
severance from office.

24. Aldovino v. Comelec

Preventive suspension does not constitute interruption of term.

Suspended official is barred from performing the functions of his office and does not receive
salary in the meanwhile, but does not vacate and lose title to his office.

25. City of Barangay v. Philippine Shell Petroleum Corporation

The Water Code: In order for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be: A) within the
corporate powers of the concerned LGU to enact, but must B) also be passed in accordance
with the procedure prescribed by law.

Moreover, substantively, the ordinance (i) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
(ii) must not be unfair or oppressive; (iii) must not be partial or discriminatory; (iv) must not
prohibit, but may regulate trade; (v) must be general and consistent with public policy; and (vi)
must not be unreasonable

A. Within the corporate powers of the LGU

B. Procedurally valid
C. Substantive valid

26. Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals

Condonation doctrine was abandoned. It is a complete extinguishment of liability not based on

neither the Constitution or a law.

Section 40 (b) of the Local Government Code states that those removed from office as a result
of an administrative case shall be disqualified from running for any elective local position.

In the same sense, Section 52 (a) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service provides that the penalty of dismissal from service carries the accessory penalty of
perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

27. The Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay Don Mariano Marcos, et al. v. Martinez

Section 60 of the Local Government Code conferred upon the courts the power to remove
elective local officials from office. Not upon the Sandigan Bayan. Reason: Intended as a check
against partisan activity.

Removal is warranted = recta RTC; if not, Sandiganbayan may assume.

 28. Galeos v. People of the Philippines

SECTION 79. Limitation on Appointments. – No person shall be appointed in the career service
of the local government if he is related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity
to the appointing or recommending authority.

Rivera was his cousin-in-law because the mother of Rivera’s wife is the sister of Ong’s mother.

Disclosure of relationship to the appointing power in the local government units simply aims to
ensure strict enforcement of the prohibition against nepotism.

Nepotism is one pernicious evil impeding the civil service and the efficiency of its personnel. In
Debulgado, we stressed that "[T]the basic purpose or objective of the prohibition against
nepotism also strongly indicates that the prohibition was intended to be a comprehensive one."

The 3 requirements of 171(4) were met:

•A narration of untruthful facts in a public document – The SALN is a public document

• A legal obligation to be truthful – the SALN law as well as other laws governing the
eligibility for a position in the government require it.
• The fact be absolutely untruthful – They were absolutely relatives

Mere issuance of appointment in favor of a relative within the third degree of consanguinity or
affinity is sufficient to constitute a violation of the law.

The nepotism rule covers all kinds of appointments except consultants.

29. Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corporation

SECTION 130. (d) The revenue collected pursuant to the provisions of this Code shall inure
solely to the benefit of, and be subject to the disposition by, the local government unit levying
the tax, fee, charge or other imposition unless otherwise specifically provided herein.