Local Government Code Reviewer based on Atty Fragante’s Syllabus General Powers and Attributes of LGU Matalin Coconut

Co. vs Municipal Council of Malabang , Lanao Del Sur, GR No. L-28138, August 13, 1986 In an action for declaratory relief assailing the validity of a municipal tax ordinance, the court, in deciding that the ordinance is void, is authorized to require a refund oftaxes paid there under without the necessity of converting the proceeding into an ordinary action there having been no alleged violation yet. A fixed tax denominatd as a “police inspection fee” of P0.30 per sack of cassava starch shipped out of the municipality is VOID where it is not for public purpose, just and uniform because the police do nothing but count the number of cassava sacks shipped out. Inspection fee should not be excessive and confiscatory

The power to regulate as an exercise of police power does not include the power to impose fees for revenue purposes. Fees for purely regulatory purposes must be no more sufficient to cover the actual cost of inspection and examination as nearly as the same can be estimated. Magtajas vs Pryce Properties, Inc, GR No. 111097, July 20, 1994 • • • • • • • Tests of a valid ordinance – to be valid, it must conform to the following substantive requirements It must not contravene the Constitution or any statute. It must not be unfair or oppressive. It must not be partial or discriminatory. It must not prohibit but regulate trade. It must not be unreasonable. It must be general and consistent with public policy. MNEMONIC: CUP PUG

The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is obvious as municipal governments are ONLY AGENTS of the national government and that the delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. Implied repeals – it is a familiar rule that implied repeals are not lightly presumed in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing of such intention. A contravention of a law is not necessarily a contravention of the constitution.

Tatel vs Municipality of Virac, GR No. 40243, March 11, 1992 Municipal corporations are agencies of the State for the promotion and maintenance of local self-government and as such are endowed with police power in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared objects of their creation. Role of a local agency unit and tests of a valid ordinance was discussed here as well.

City of Cebu vs CA, GR No. 109173, July 5, 1996

August 10. 208 SCRA 404 The right of the public to use the city streets may not be bargained away through a contract. Local government is a political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs. 1992 Properties of the local government which are devoted to public service are deemed public and are under the absolute control of Congress. Bel-Air Village Association. Why? Because it is presumed that they are knowledgeable and expertise in the enforcement of laws and regulations entrusted to their jurisdiction. It is prohibited for a government official to engage in private practice of his profession IF such practice would represent interests adverse to the government. 328 SCRA 836 • • • • • Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. exercise the power of eminent domain x x x provided. based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property. Police power is lodged primarily in Congress which may delegate the power to the President and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or LGU. 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. Jr. Provided. Gr No. Erwin Javellana vs DILG.A Local Government Unit may. Executive Order may not infringe upon vested right of the public to use city streets for the purpose they were intended to serve. Dacanay vs Asistio. further – LGU may immediately take possession of the property upon filing of the expropriation proceedings AND upon making a deposity with the propert court of at least 15% of the fair market value of the property to be expropriated. 102549 Court accords great respect to the decisions and/or actions of administrative authorities. however – a valid and definite offer has been made previously to the owner. Properties of public dominion devoted to public use and made available to the public in general are outside the commerce of men and cannot be disposed of or leased by the LGU to private persons. however. Inc. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) vs. This delegation is known as the general welfare clause. Macasiano vs. Police power is delegated to LGU. that the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and efinite offer has been previously made to the owner and as such offer was not accepted. Diokno.. LGUs exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies. 97764. o Sangguniang Panlalawigan -> Provincial government o Sangguniang Panlungsod -> City government o Sangguniang Bayan -> Municipal government o Sangguniang Barangay -> Barangay . finally – Such amount shall be determined by the proper court. through its Chief Executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance. Section 19. Eminent Domain General Rule: Upon payment of just compensation Provided. Provided. • • • • RA 7160. GR No.

Nothing was found in RA 7924 which grants the MMDA police power. have an average annual income of at least Twenty Million Pesos for the last two (2) consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices. the national government deems it wise and proper to permit it. 7 Availment of such resources is effectuated through the vesting in every local government unit of (1) the right to create and broaden its own source of revenue. approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of their jurisdiction and its inhabitants and in the proper exercise of corporate powers of the same. what the national legislature expressly allows by law. . With its broadened powers and increased responsibilities. among others. Stated otherwise. is thereby deconcentrated. however. It is true that for a municipality to be converted into a component city.5 Power which used to be highly centralized in Manila. Chus. the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna. (2) the right to be allocated a just share in national taxes. vs Benilda Estate Corporation – A cause of action is defined as an act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. Art X. 6 The test of the sufficiency of the facts found in a petition as constituting a cause of action is whether or not. the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer thereof. a provincial board may not disallow by ordinance or resolution. A Local Government Unit is a political subdivision of the State which is constituted by law and possessed of substantial control over its own affairs. MMDA is not a LGU or public corporation endowed with legislative power. the vesting of duty. but not intended. responsibilities and resources.2 Resolution of the controversy regarding compliance by the Municipality of Santiago with the aforecited income requirement hinges on a correlative and contextual explication of the meaning of internal revenue allotments (IRAs) vis-a-vis the notion of income of a local government unit and the principles of local autonomy and decentralization underlying the institutionalization and intensified empowerment of the local government system. we hold that petitioners’ asseverations are untenable because Internal Revenue Allotments form part of the income of Local Government Units. MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. within its territorial boundaries. 4 the local government unit is autonomous in the sense that it is given more powers. such share being in the form of internal revenue allotments (IRAs). responsibility and accountability in every local government unit is accompanied with a provision for reasonably adequate resources to discharge its powers and effectively carry out its functions.3Remaining to be an intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation. In our system of government. entail more expenses. and (3) the right to be given its equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth. cannot issue a resolution or an ordinance that would seek to prohibit permits. More extensive operations. o Unlike MMC.7 Alvarez vs Guingona – In this regard. admitting the facts alleged. o The creation of special metropolitan political subdivision requires the approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in political units directly affected. authority. Understandably. to be an imperium in imperio. Sr. a local government unit must now operate on a much wider scale. let alone legislative power.6 The practical side to development through a decentralized local government system certainly concerns the matter of financial resources. in turn. Hence. While lotto is clearly a game of chance. if any. It is not even a ‘special metropolitan political subdivision’ as contemplated in Constitution. the power of local government units to legislate and enact ordinances and resolutions is merely a delegated power coming from Congress. MMDA is not a political unit of government unlike with Metro Manila Council which has the power to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation of MMDA’s functions. Sec 11. 8. it must. o Lina vs Dizon Pano (GR 129093) – This statute remains valid today. but appointed by the President with rank and privileges of a cabinet member.• • • Above legislative bodies has the power to enact ordinances.1 Such income must be duly certified by the Department of Finance. a local government unit. o The Chairman of MMDS is not even an official elected by the people. such as lotto. enabling especially the peripheral local government units to develop not only at their own pace and discretion but also with their oWn resources and assets.

[48] Consequently. or an Act of the Philippine Legislature. and (4) essential to the promotion of the general welfare of their inhabitants. 3. on the hands of the regulatory body lies the ample discretion in the choice of such rational processes as might be appropriate to the solution of its highly complicated and technical problems. thedecentralization of government authority Batangas CATV Inc vs CA (GR 138810) – Under cover of the General Welfare Clause as provided in this section. cast in more technical language. because it is but a decent respect to the wisdom. Province of Cebu vs IAC – The doctrine of implied municipal liability has been said to apply to all cases where money or other property of a party is received under such circumstances that the general law. Rate fixing involves a series of technical operations. to toil in order to dispel apprehensions and doubt. is in a better position than the LGU. as well as a solemn duty. It must be clarified that the constitutional guarantee of local autonomy in the Constitution [Art. 46) The grant of regulatory power to the NTC is easily understandable. and not inconsistent with the laws or policy of the State.18 Municipal Liability 1. the CAR was created primarily to coordinate the planning and implementation of programs and services in the covered areas. Thus. 178056) – we should not be restricted by technical rules of procedure at the expense of the transcendental interest of justice and equity. Speaking for the Court in the leading case of United States vs. Therefore. the power to sue and be sued. and the patriotism of the legislative body by which any law is passed to presume in favor of its validity until the contrary is shown beyond reasonable doubt. p. (2) necessarily implied from the power that is expressly granted. Torio vs Fontanilla – Municipality is liable if it performs in proprietary functions (i. the case must be so clear to be free from doubt. . it is nobler rather for this Court of last resort. Neither is it vested with the powers that are normally granted to public corporations. cities and municipalities. The complexities that characterize this new technology demand that it be regulated by a specialized agency. (3) necessary. holding a town fiesta) and therefore liable to third persons under the law of contracts or torts. It does not have a separate juridical personality. appropriate or incidental for its efficient and effective governance. Considering that the CATV industry is so technical a field. To doubt the constitutionality of a law is to resolve the doubt in favor of its validity. CATV system is not a mere local concern.Cordillera Broad Coalition vs CA (GR 79956) – the CAR is not a public corporation or a territorial and political subdivision. as vanguard of truth. To justify a court in pronouncing a legislative act unconstitutional. a specialized agency. even at the expense of errors in judgment. unlike provinces.[37] Justice Moreland said: “An ordinance enacted by virtue of the general welfare clause is valid. partial. Palafox vs Province of Ilocos Norte – Municipality is not liable if it performs governmental functions except if there is a law permitting it. or is unreasonable. As stated earlier.g. the power to own and dispose of property. 177499. 2. Paraz. While it is true that litigation must end.[38] we laid the general rule “that ordinances passed by virtue of the implied power found in the general welfare clause must be reasonable. sec. the integrity. to regulate it. consonant with the general powers and purposes of the corporation. or in derogation of common right. discriminating. Local Government Units can perform just about any power that will benefit their constituencies. (Pimentel. and they should never declare a statute void. or unless it is against public policy. or a provision of a state constitution to be in contravention of the Constitution x x x.” League of Cities of the Philippines vs COMELEC (GR 176951. local government units can exercise powers that are: (1) expressly granted. in their judgment. e. in no doubtful case will the judiciary pronounce a legislative act to be contrary to the constitution. and the conflict of the statute with the constitution must be irreconcilable.e. and approach constitutional questions with great deliberation. etc. beyond reasonable doubt. oppressive. as the following pronouncement of this Court instructs: The right and power of judicial tribunals to declare whether enactments of the legislature exceed the constitutional limitations and are invalid has always been considered a grave responsibility. unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the Philippine Islands. 2] refers to the administrative autonomy of local government units or. This is particularly true in the area of rate-fixing.” In De la Cruz vs. X. The Local Government Code of 1991. The courts invariably give the most careful consideration to questions involving the interpretation and application of the Constitution. exercising their power in this respect with the greatest possible caution and even reluctance. unless its invalidity is. the power to create its own sources of revenue. Abendan. we believe that the NTC.

since the nature of the duties of the provincial Governor call for a full-time occupant to discharge them. Vacancies and Succession 1. In the case before the Commission. it is to be presumed that the law-making body intended right and justice to prevail. 17 it has the authority to settle or compromise suits. he must also have been elected to the same position for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply. the Court treats domicile and residence as synonymous terms. the Vice-Governor cannot continue to simultaneously exercise the duties of the latter office. Osmena vs COA (GR 98355) – Quantum Meruit is based on justice and equity. The compromise agreement was submitted to its legislative council. Disqualifications. Cebu City has the power to sue and be sued. Consequently. Law allows a private counsel to be hired by a municipality only when the municipality is an adverse party in a case involving the provincial government or another municipality or city within the province.” not of candidates. 4. 18 as well as the obligation to pay just and valid claims against it. Rodriguez vs COMELEC (GR 120099) – Art. Farinas vs Barba (GR 116763) – Where there is no political party to make a nomination. must be considered the appropriate authority for making the recommendation. 5. such succession into office is not counted as one (1) term for purposes of the computation of the three-term limitation under the Constitution and the Local Government Code. frustration or opposition to public policy. Frivaldo vs COMELEC (257 SCRA 727) – the Local Government Code speaks of “Qualifications” of “ELECTIVE OFFICIALS. Consequently. respondent Capco was not elected to the position of Mayor in the January 18. by analogy to vacancies created in the Sangguniang Barangay whose members are by law prohibited from having any party affiliation. It made no reference to succession to an office to which he was not elected. The courts may not speculate as to the probable intent of the legislature apart from the words 3. the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Gamboa Jr. Osmena vs COA (GR 110045) – That the City of Cebu complied with the relevant formalities contemplated by law can hardly be doubted. The term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective position. In such a case. which imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place. to compensate a property or benefit received if restitution is equitable and if such action involves no violation. Neither may it be disputed that since. coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.” 4. 19 Such is not only consistent with but also appears to be the clear rationale of the new Code wherein the policy of performing dual functions in both offices has already been abandoned.00 to the de la Cerna family.” 3. 73. which approved it conformably with its established rules and procedure. He succeeded to such office by operation of law and served for the unexpired term of his predecessor.independent of express contract implies an obligation upon the municipality to do justice with respect to the same. it is not enough that an individual has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office. 1988 local elections. thus: “(t)he term “residence” as used in the election law is synonymous with “domicile”. (e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad.000. Ramos vs CA (GR 99425) – Private attorneys cannot represent a province or municipality in lawsuits. Qualifications & Election of Elective Local Officials 1. where the vacancy occurs. the Sanggunian. the three-term limitation refers to the term of office for which the local official was elected. vs Aguirre (GR 134213) – Being the Acting Governor. In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws. 2. To repeat. particularly the stipulation for the payment of P30. Victoria vs COMELEC (GR 109005) – The ranking in the Sanggunian shall be determined on the basis of the proportion of the votes obtained by each winning candidate of the total number of registered voters who actually voted. the creation of a temporary vacancy in the office of the . Only accountable public officers may act for and in behalf of public entities and that public funds should not be expanded to hire private lawyers. the Court has no recourse but to merely apply the law. vs COMELEC (GR 133495) – In both the Constitution and the Local Government Code. as a municipal corporation. Borja Jr. Romualdez vs RTC (GR 104960) – In election cases. — The following persons shall be disqualified from running for any elective local position. (Emphasis supplied). 2. Fugitive from justice refers to a person who has been convicted by final judgment. 6.

We may add that sound public policy dictates it. a public official may be liable in his personal capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. and however laudable the purpose of the construction in question. Disciplinary Actions 1. should be borne by the officials of the City Angeles who ordered and directed such construction. Such a rule is not only founded on the theory that an official’s reelection expresses the sovereign will of the electorate to forgive or condone any act or omission constituting a ground for administrative discipline which was committed during his previous term. said public officials acted beyond the scope of their authority and jurisdiction and with evident bad faith. and the reimbursement of the public funds expended in the construction thereof.I In theory. SJS vs Atienza. To rule otherwise would open the floodgates to exacerbating endless partisan contests between the reelected official and his political enemies. necessity of the taking and the public use character or the purpose of the taking. 8027 was enacted right after the Philippines. Local Legislation 1. as noted by the trial court 21. Hon. and that the reelection to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. 23 has ruled that the necessity of exercising eminent domain must be genuine and of a public character. and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the statute. hence. 5450 in connection with the negotiated contract entered into on 6 March 1992 with RYU Construction for additional rehabilitation work at the Tabaco Public Market.P. This is so because public officials cannot be subject to disciplinary action for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term. His second term may thus be devoted to defending himself in the said cases to the detriment of public service. Moday vs CA (GR 107916) – The limitations on the power of eminent domain are that the use must be public. alleged to have been committed during his previous term. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. 20 Indisputably. The objective of the ordinance is to protect the residents of Manila from the catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of a terrorist attack 25 on the Pandacan Terminals. Prevailing jurisprudence 22 holding that public officials are . No reason exists why such a protective measure should be delayed. along with the rest of the world. However. The City of Angeles. Magtajas vs Pryce Properties Inc (GR 111097) – The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is obvious. taking cognizance of such issues as the adequacy of compensation. compensation must be made and due process of law must be observed. Salalima et al vs Guingona (GR 11589-92) – We agree with the petitioners that Governor Salalima could no longer be held administratively liable in O. this Court cannot and will not countenance an outright and continuing violation of the laws of the land. This Court has time and again ruled that public officials are not immune from damages in their personal capacities arising from acts done in bad faith. Jr. Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. 22 The Supreme Court. Nor could the petitioners be held administratively liable in O. It is a heresy to suggest that the local government units can undo the acts of Congress. who may not stop to hound the former during his new term with administrative cases for acts. the cost of such demolition. 3. Jesus Cornago and the Cortes and Reyna Law Firm.P. they could not be held personally liable without first giving them their day in court. (GR 156052) – Ordinance No. Otherwise stated. 2001 attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. 24 Government may not capriciously choose what private property should be taken. the petitioners mayor and members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Angeles City were sued only in their official capacities. apply to criminal acts which the reelected official may have committed during his previous term. 5469 for the execution in November 1989 of the retainer contract with Atty. however. This doctrine of forgiveness or condonation cannot. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking body. from which they have derived their power in the first place. Case No. Case No. 1. 2. witnessed the horror of the September 11. Antonio Abad Santos vs CA (GR 97882) – But the end never justifies the means.Governor creates a corresponding temporary vacancy in the office of the Vice-Governor whenever the latter acts as Governor by virtue of such temporary vacancy. especially when committed by public officials. The underlying theory is that each term is separate from other terms.

his friends. knows that Section 69 (d) of the Local Government Code plainly provides that recall is validly initiated by a petition of 25% of the total number of registered voters. Tobias vs Hon. Recall 1. and seeing the recall election to its ultimate end. But the petition does not bear the names of all these other citizens of Tumauini who have reportedly also become anxious to oust petitioner from the post of mayor. is not only violative of statutory law but also tainted with an attempt to go around the law. together with many others in Tumauini.personally liable for damages arising from illegal acts done in bad faith are premised on said officials having been sued both in their official and personal capacities. we agree with the observation of the Solicitor General that the statutory conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city with a population of not less than two hundred fifty thousand indubitably ordains compliance with the “one city-one representative” proviso in the Constitution: . Private respondent who is a lawyer. simple they may be were formulated. Deliberations were conducted on the main issue. Notwithstanding such awareness. which was that of petitioner’s recall. While the people are vested with the power to recall their elected officials. if such practice would represent interests adverse to the government. even entertained any displeasure in the performance of the official sought to be recalled. Attendees constitute the majority of all the members of the Preparatory Assembly. Neither did it demand a specific procedure. But the same cannot be said of all the other people whom private respondent claims to have sentiments similar to hers. confronting the official sought to be recalled. their sentiments were expressed through their votes signified by their signatures and thumbmarks affixed to the Resolution. judgment against City Engineer Divinagracia would actually be a judgment against the City Government. More importantly. countenance a circumvention of the explicit 25% minimum voter requirement in the initiation of the recall process. The members were given the opportunity to articulate on their resolve about the matter. 2. the petitioner violated Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 (in relation to Section 7[b-2] of RA 6713) prohibiting a government official from engaging in the private practice of his profession. as we shall later on establish. Rules of procedure. There is no doubt that private respondent is truly earnest in her cause. The law on recall did not prescribe an elaborate proceeding. Hence. lost confidence in the leadership of petitioner. of which petitioner Javellana is a councilman. his family. Human Resources and Development 1. We can not and must not. Isabela. their real employer. private respondent proceeded to file the petition for recall with only herself as the filer and initiator. The complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Javiero and Catapang against City Engineer Divinagracia is in effect a complaint against the City Government of Bago City. including rising above anonymity. in a public place and that the resolution resulting from such assembly be adopted by a majority of all the PRA members. 1. Javellana vs DILG (GR 102549) – In the first place. this court is confronted with a procedure that is unabashedly repugnant to the applicable law and no less such to the spirit underlying that law. Benjamin Abalos (GR 114783) – Anent the first issue. complaints against public officers and employees relating or incidental to the performance of their duties are necessarily impressed with public interest for by express constitutional mandate. which amounts to inviting and courting the public which may have not. By serving as counsel for the complaining employees and assisting them to prosecute their claims against City Engineer Divinagracia. Malonzo vs COMELEC (GR 127066) – The Minutes of the session of the Preparatory Assembly indicated that there was a session held. attended by a majority of all the members of the preparatory recall assembly. Angabung vs COMELEC (GR 126576) – In the instant case. the same power is accompanied by the concomitant responsibility to see through all the consequences of the exercise of such power. No proof was adduced by Petitioner to substantiate his claim that the signatures appearing thereon represented a cause other than that of adopting the resolution. under any and all circumstances. She claims in her petition that she has. and the very fact that she affixed her name in the petition shows that she claims responsibility for the seeming affront to petitioner’s continuance in office. What is fundamental is compliance with the provision that there should be a session called for the purpose of initiating recall proceedings. and his supporters. The procedure of allowing just one person to file the initiatory recall petition and then setting a date for the signing of the petition. in the first place. a public office is a public trust.

Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand. shall have at least one representative” (Article VI. it is in compliance with the aforestated constitutional mandate that the creation of a separate congressional district for the City of Mandaluyong is decreed under Article VIII.. Section 5(3). No. Section 49 of R. or each province. .A. Constitution). Hence. . . 7675.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful