Cases: PresPower/LGU Satunay 21 septemberz0m 7-360 cases: Judge Dadale v. Commission on Audit Pimentel v.Aguir, etal Province of Batangas v. Romulo ‘ACORD v. Zamora Kida. Senate of the Philipines Gov. Vilafuerte, and Prov. Of Camsur. Robredo Mandanae v. Ochoa Zabalv.Outare “udge Dadole v. Commission on Audit | Petitioners: ATC / MTC Judges Judge Dadole (GR No, 125350, December 3, 2002) in $55] petitioners as RTC and MTC judges stationed in Mandaue City received a monthly allowance of P1,260 each pursuant to the yearly appropriation ordinance BSH, was increased 10 P1500 for each ude March 25, BBB, the Department of Sudget and Management (08M) isved Local Budge Circular No. 55 (L8C 55): Provides tha the additional monthly lawances tobe given by alacal government unt should not exceed P1,000 in provinces and cies and P700 in municipalities Mandaue city Auditor, acting onthe said DBM directive, issued notices of disallowance to herein petitioners in excess of the amount autherized by LBCSS. ettioners filed withthe Office of the Cty Auditor a protest fe wae treated 2¢ 3 mation fr reconsideration ‘© endorsed tothe Commission on Audit (COA) Regional Office No.7 ‘COA Regional Office refered the said motion to their Head Office with recommendation thatthe same should be deniag ‘Denied bythe COA ~Paitoners filed the instant petition: ="L8C55 isvoid © For infringing onthe local autonomy af Mandaue City * by gicttinga uniform amount that a local government unit can disburse a5 addtional allowances 10 judges stationed therein. Issue: Whether or not the LBCis void fr infringing onthe lace utanomy Hela The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner judges. Section 459, par (2), of 84 7260, legal basis of tac, allows the grant of additional allowances to judges"when the finances ofthe cy government allow." The said provision does not auth ranted to judges setting a definite maximum limit tothe addtional allowances The finances ofa cty government may allow the grant of addtional allowances higher than P2,000 the revenues of the sad ety government exceed ite annual ewpendituresSetting a uniform amount fr the grant of addtional allowances i an in found in Section 458, par. 2), of BA 7250, riate way of enforcing the criterion ‘The DBM over-stepped its power of supervision over local government units by imposing 2 prohibition that did nat correspond with the la it sought to implement. In other words, the prohibitory nature ofthe circular had ne legal basis II] (adole v. Commission on Audit, GR No. 125350, [December 3, 2002], 441 PHIL 532-551) om RULING / HELD Ruling ofthe Court (Mandanas-Garcia Case) {L Mandamus ie an improper remedy 2. Municipal corporations and ‘heir relationship with, Congress The writ of mandamus may nat iesue to compel an afi to do anything that is not his duty to do, orthatishis duty not todo, arto obtain forthe pettioner anything te which he is mat ented by fw. = Congress cannat be compelled by writ of mandamus. The eiscretion of Congress thereon, being exclusive, isnot subject to extemal Aicection; otherwise, the delicate balance underYying our sytem af government may be unduty disturbed Municipal governments are only agents ofthe national government. Municipal corporations owe thei origin to, and derive their powers and rights, ‘wholy from the legsature This basic relationship between the national legisiature andthe local government units az not bean enfesblad by the naw provisions inthe Constitution strengthening the policy of local autonomy. The LGC provided a norm of interpretation in favor of the LGUs in its Section 5(a),t0 wit: (3) Any provision on a power of alocal government unit shall be liberally interpreted in ts favor, and in care of doubt, any question thersan shall, be resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of the lacal government Unit. Any fair and reasonable doubt 2: tothe existence ofthe power shall be interpreted in favor ofthe local government unit concerned; [Bold underscoringsupplied for emphasis] 3. The extant af local The 1987 Constitution limits Congress control over the LGUs by erdaning in ‘autonomy inthe Phiippines Section 25 of ts Article Iithat:“The State shal ensure the autonomy of local ‘governments = Certain limitations are and can be imposed by Congressinallthe forms of decentralization, for local autonomy, whether aste power or 35 to administration, isnot absolut, The LGUs ramain tobe the tenants of the wil of Congress subject ‘tothe guarantees thatthe Constitution Reef impases 4 Section 284 of the GC Section 6, Article X the 1987 Conatiution textually commands the allection to deviates fom the plain the LGUs of ajust shore in the national ates language of Section 6 of Article ~Section 6, when parsed, embodies three mandates, namely (2) the LGUs shall ofthe 1987 Constitution have ajust share inthe national taxes; (2) the just share shall be determined by low; an (3) the just share shal be automaticaly released tothe LGUs, =L6CSection 284. Allotment of Internal Revenue Totes.~ Lacal government units shall have a share in the national internal revenue taxes based on the callaction lof the third fiscal yer praceding the current fiscal year “Section 6 mentions national taxes athe source of the just shore of the LGUs. ‘hile Section 264 ordaine that the share ofthe LGUs be taken fram national Incernal revenue taxes instend = Garcia contends that Congress has exceeded its constitutional boundary by limiting ta the NIRTs the baze from which te compute the ust shore of the LOUs The Cour agree with Garcia's contention Section 284 has effectively deprived the LGUs from deriving their just shar fom other national taxes, ike the customs diies “strictly speaking, customs duties are alo taxes becauce they are exactions ‘whose proceeds become public funds “The excision of other national tace like customs duties from the bate for determining the just hare ofthe LGUs contravenes the express constitutional tdict in Section 6, Article Xthe 1987 Constitution, To read Section 6 diferently as requiring thatthe just share of LGUS in the national taxes shall be determined bylaw istantamount to the unauthorized Fevision ofthe 1987 Constution 5, Congress can validly exclude Section 284 does not authorize any exclusion or deduction from the collections ‘avesthat will constitute the ofthe NIRTS for purposes of the computation ofthe allocations to the LGUs. bare amount forthe Anent the share of the affected LGUs inthe proceeds ofthe sale and conversion ‘computation ofthe IRA only fof the former miltary bases pursuant to RA, No, 7227, the exclusion is warranted Constitutional pravsion forthe reazon that such praceads do not come from atx, fee or exaction allows such exclusion Imposed on the sale and conversion. 6.Enttlement tothe reliefs —The petitioners’ prayerfor the payment ofthe arrears ofthe LGUS' just share on sought the theory thatthe computation of the base amount had been unconstitutional ll slong cannet be granted = doctrine of operative fact * recognizes the existance of the law or executive act prior te the determination ofits unconsttutionality as an operative fac that produced consequences that ‘cannot shvaysbe erase, ignored or disregarded. *nulifies the voi Iw oF executive at but sustains its effets. It provides an exception tothe general rule that avoid or unconstitutional law produces na affect * applies only to cases where extranrdinary circumstances exit, and only when the extraordinary circumstances have met the stringent conditions that wil permit its application "the effect is prospective 7. automaticrelaate ofthe —Section 6, AricleX ofthe 1987 Constitution commands thatthe just shore ofthe Laue just share inthe LGUs in national tas shall be automaticaly released to them. National Taxes The term automatic connates something mechanical, spontaneous and perfunctory The LGUs are not required to perform any ac or thing inorder to receive theirjust share inthe national aces “Automatic releace without nae of appropriation From {L DECLARES the phrase “internal revenue” appearing in Section 284 of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and DELETES the phrase from Section 284, ‘2 ORDERS the SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; the SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF