It is the relationship of the corporation to NOTE: Provided that such agencies are
the state. If it was created by the State as further categorized by Department of
its own agency to help it in carrying out its Budget, CSC, and COA for purposes of the
governmental functions, it is public. exercise and discharge of their respective
Otherwise, it is private. powers, functions and responsibilities (Sec.
2 (13) of E.O. No. 292 Administrative Code
of 1987).
Q: Sec. 461 of the LGC provides that No plebiscite is required for the
before a province could be created, it apportionment or reapportionment of
must comply with the 2000-km land legislative districts. A legislative district
area requirement. Art. 9(2) of the is not a political subdivision through
LGC-IRR, however, exempts the which functions of government are
creation of provinces with more than carried out. It can more appropriately be
one island from the said land area described as a representative unit that
requirement. Thus, Dinagat Province merely delineates the areas occupied by
consisting of more than one island, the people who will choose a
with a total land area of 802.12 sq. representative in their national affairs. A
km, and has an average annual plebiscite is required only for the
income of P 82 M as certified by the creation, division, merger, or abolition
Bureau of Local Government Finance of local government units (Bagabuyo v.
was created through a law pursuant COMELEC, G.R. No. 176970, December 8,
to the exception expressly provided 2008).
in the said LGC-IRR provision. Is the
creation of Dinagat Province valid? Q: The Municipality of Dagupan was
converted into the City of Dagupan by
A: YES. When the exemption was virtue of Act No. 170. However, before
expressly provided in Art. 9(2) of the LGC- the government of the city was
IRR, the inclusion was intended to correct organized, the government of the
the congressional oversight in Sec. 461 of Municipality of Dagupan continued to
the LGC and to reflect the true legislative act as a municipality. Are the acts of
intent, which is to allow an exception to the municipality considered to be acts
the land area requirement in cases of non- of the city?
NOTE: It is the duty of the President to
A: NO. After Act No. 170 which created the declare a city as highly urbanized after it
City of Dagupan took effect and before the shall have met the minimum
organization of the government of the City requirements, upon proper application and
of Dagupan, the political subdivision which ratification in a plebiscite by qualified
comprises the territory of the Municipality voters therein (Sec. 453, LGC). The
of Dagupan continued to act as a provision makes it ministerial for the
municipality because the government of President, upon proper application, to
the city had not yet been organized and declare a component city as highly
the other officers thereof appointed or urbanized once the minimum
elected. The conversion of that requirements, which are based on
municipality into a city did not make ipso certifiable and measurable indices under
facto the acts of the elected officials of the Sec. 452 of LGC, are satisfied. The
said municipality the acts of the City of mandatory language shall used in the
Dagupan because the latter can only act as provision leaves the President with no
a city through the city officers designated room for discretion (Ibid.).
by law after they have been appointed or
elected and have qualified. In the Requirements for division and
meantime or during the period of merger of LGUs
transition, the Municipality had to function
temporarily as such; otherwise there would 1. It shall not reduce the income,
be chaos or no government at all within the population or land area of the LGU/s
boundaries of the territory. The status of concerned to less than minimum
the Municipality may be likened to that of a requirements prescribed;
public officer who cannot abandon his 2. Income classification of the original
office although the successor had already LGU/s shall not fall below its current
been appointed, and has to continue income classification prior to division
his/her office whatever length of time the (Sec.8, LGC);
interregnum, until the successor qualifies 3. Plebiscite be held in LGUs affected
or takes possession of the office (Mejia v. (Sec.10, LGC);
Balolong, G.R. No. L-1925, September 16, 4. Assets and liabilities of the
1948). municipality/ies affected by such
organization or creation of a new
Q: Is the conversion of a component municipality shall be equitably
city to a highly urbanized city distributed between the LGUs
considered within the ambit of affected and new LGU (Sec. 1 (3), RA
creation, division, merger, 688).
abolition or substantial alteration
of boundaries under Sec. 10, Art. NOTE: When a municipal district of other
X of the Constitution? territorial divisions is converted or fused
into a municipality all property rights
A: YES. While conversion to an HUC is not vested in original territorial organization
explicitly provided in Sec. 10, Art. X of the shall become vested in the government of
Constitution, the Court nevertheless the municipality (Sec. 1 (4), RA 688).
observes that the conversion of a
component city into an HUC is a Abolition of LGU
substantial alteration of boundaries.
LGUs may be abolished by:
Substantial alteration of boundaries 1. Congress In case of provinces,
involves and necessarily entails a change city, municipality, or any other political
in the geographical configuration of LGU subdivision.
or units. However, the phrase 2. Sangguniang Panlalawigan or
boundaries should not be limited to the Sangguniang Panglungsod In case
mere physical one, referring to the metes of a barangay
and bounds of the LGU, but also to its
political boundaries. It also connotes a XPN: Metropolitan Manila area
modification of the demarcation lines and in cultural communities.
between political subdivisions, where the
LGUs exercise of corporate power ends LGUs may be abolished when its income,
and that of the other begins. And as a population, or land area has been
qualifier, the alteration must be irreversibly reduced to less than the
substantial for it to be within the ambit minimum standards prescribed for its
of the constitutional provision (Umali v. creation, as certified by the national
COMELEC, G.R. No. 203974, April 22, agencies in Sec. 17 to Congress or to the
2014). sanggunian concerned. The law or
ordinance abolishing a LGU shall specify
the province, city, municipality, or
barangay with which the LGU sought to be reviewed by the Provincial Board; taxes
be abolished will be incorporated or collected by the city will have to be shared
merged (Sec. 9, LGC). with the province; and there would be a
reduction in their IRA. Thus, the changes
Required vote on creation, division, are substantial.
merger, abolition, or substantial
alteration of boundaries of LGUs When RA 7720 upgraded the status of XYZ
City from a municipality to an independent
Majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite component city, it required the approval of
called for the purpose in the political unit its people through a plebiscite called for
or units directly affected. that purpose because the consent of the
people serves as a checking mechanism to
NOTE: Said plebiscite shall be conducted any exercise of legislative power. Hence,
by the COMELEC within one hundred there is no reason why the same should
twenty (120) days from the date of not be done when RA 8528 downgrades
effectivity of the law or ordinance the status of their city. The rules cover all
effecting such action, unless said law or conversions, whether upward or downward
ordinance fixes another date (Sec. 10, so long as the result is a material change
LGC). in the LGU directly affected (Miranda v.
Aguirre, G.R. No. 133064, September 16,
A barangay may officially exist on record 1999).
and the fact that nobody resides in the
place does not result in its automatic Q: BP Blg. 885 was enacted creating a
cessation as a unit of local government. new province in the island of Negros
to be known as the Province of
Under the LGC of 1991, the abolition of Negros del Norte. Pursuant to such,
an LGU may be done by Congress in the the COMELEC conducted a plebiscite.
case of a province, city, municipality, or Petitioners opposed this and
any other political subdivision. In the case contended that BP Blg. 885 is
of a barangay, except in Metropolitan unconstitutional and is not in
Manila area and in cultural complete accord with the LGC
communities, it may be done by because the voters of the parent
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan or province of Negros Occidental, other
Sangguniang Panglungsod concerned than those living within the territory
subject to the mandatory requirement of the new province of Negros del
of a plebiscite conducted for the purpose Norte, were not included in the
in the political units affected (Sarangani plebiscite. Are the petitioners
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135927, June 26, correct?
2000).
A: YES. The Constitution provides that
Q: Through a plebiscite, RA 7720 took whenever a province is created, divided or
effect and converted Municipality XYZ merged and there is substantial alteration
to an independent component city. RA of the boundaries, the approval of a
8528 was later enacted and amended majority of votes in the plebiscite in the
RA 7720 that downgraded XYZ from unit or units affected must first be
an independent component city to a obtained. The creation of the proposed
component city without the approval new province of Negros del Norte will
of the people of XYZ in a plebiscite. Is necessarily result in the division and
a plebiscite required when a local alteration of the existing boundaries of
government unit is downgraded? Negros Occidental (parent province). Plain
and simple logic will demonstrate that two
A: YES. Sec. 10, Art. X of the Constitution political units would be affected. The first
calls for the people of the LGU directly would be the parent province of Negros
affected to vote in a plebiscite whenever Occidental because its boundaries would
there is a material change in their rights be substantially altered. The other
and responsibilities. affected entity would be composed of
those in the area subtracted from the
They may call the downgrading of XYZ to mother province to constitute the
a component city as a mere transition but proposed province of Negros del Norte
they cannot blink away from the fact that (Tan v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 73155, July 11,
the transition will radically change its 1986).
physical and political configuration as the
rights and responsibilities of its people. As Q: Prior to R.A. 7675 which converts
such, the city mayor will be placed under the Municipality of Mandaluyong into
the administrative supervision of the a Highly Urbanized City, the
provincial governor; the resolutions and municipalities of Mandaluyong and
ordinances of the city council will have to San Juan belonged to only one
legislative district. After the law was 5, 1991).
passed, the people of Mandaluyong
approved of the conversion of the Forms of Local Autonomy:
Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Decentralization of Administration and
highly urbanized city. The turnout at Decentralization of Power
the plebiscite was only 14.41% of the
voting population. Nevertheless, DECENTRALIZATIO DECENTRALIZATIO
there were many who voted "yes" N OF N OF POWER
than those who voted "no." By virtue ADMINISTRATION
of these results, RA. 7675 was The central Involves abdication,
deemed ratified and in effect. Should government merely by the national
the people of San Juan participate in delegates government, of
the plebiscite on whether to convert administrative political power in
Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized powers to political favor of LGUs
city? subdivisions in order declared to be
to broaden the base autonomous. The
A: NO. The principal subject involved in of the government autonomous
the plebiscite was the conversion of power, and government
Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city. incidentally making becomes
The matter of separate district LGUs more accountable not to
representation was only ancillary thereto. responsive and the central
Thus, the inhabitants of San Juan were accountable. authorities but to its
properly excluded from the said plebiscite constituency
as they had nothing to do with the change It relieves the central (Limbona v.
of status of neighboring Mandaluyong government of the Mangelin, G.R. No .
(Tobias et al. v. Abalos, G.R. No. L-114783, burden of managing 80391, February 28,
December 8, 1994). local affairs and 1989).
enables it to
NOTE: When an inquiry is focused on the concentrate on
legal existence of a body politic, the action national concerns.
is reserved to the State in a proceeding for
quo warranto, which must be timely filed, Scope of Delegated Power
or any other direct proceeding which must
be brought in the name of the Republic Under the Philippine concept of local
(Municipality of San Narciso v. Mendez, autonomy, only administrative powers
G.R. No. 103702, December 6, 1994). over local affairs are delegated to
political subdivisions. In turn, economic,
PRINCIPLES OF LOCAL AUTONOMY political and social developments at the
smaller political units are expected to
Principle of Local Autonomy propel social and economic growth and
development. But to enable the country
Local autonomy means a more responsive to develop as a whole, the programs and
and accountable local government policies effected locally must be
structure instituted through a system of integrated and coordinated towards a
decentralization. Autonomy does not common national goal (Pimentel Jr. v.
contemplate making mini-states out of Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000).
local government units, as in the federal
governments of the USA. Autonomy, in Decentralization
the constitutional sense, is subject to the
guiding star, though not control, of the Decentralization is a decision by the
legislature, albeit the legislative central government authorizing its
responsibility under the Constitution and subordinates, whether geographically or
as the supervision clause itself suggest, functionally defined, to exercise authority
is to wean local government units from in certain areas. It involves decision-
over-dependence on the central making by sub-national units. It is typically
government. delegated power, wherein a larger
government chooses to delegate certain
Autonomy, however, is not meant to end authority to more local governments
the relation of partnership and (Disomangcop v. Secretary of Public Works
interdependence between the central and Highways, G.R. No. 149848, November
administration and local government 25, 2004).
units. Local governments, under the
Constitution, are subject to regulation,
however limited, and for no other purpose
than precisely, albeit paradoxically, to
enhance self-government (Ganzon v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93252, August
Forms of Decentralization: NOTE: The LGC did not fully devolve the
Deconcentration and Devolution enforcement of the small-scale mining law
to the provincial government, as its
DECONCENTRATION DEVOLUTION enforcement is subject to the supervision,
It is administrative in It connotes political control and review of the DENR, which is
nature and involves decentralization, or in charge, subject to law and higher
the transfer of the transfer of authority, of carrying out the State's
functions or the powers, constitutional mandate to control and
delegation of responsibilities, and supervise the exploration, development,
authority and resources for the utilization of the country's natural
responsibility from the performance of resource (League of Provinces of the
national office to the certain functions Philippines v. DENR, G.R. 175368, April,
regional and local from the central 11, 2013).
office. government to the
local government Q: Before the passage of RA. 7160,
This is also referred to units. This is a more the task of delivering basic social
as administrative liberal form of services was dispensed by the
decentralization. decentralization national government through the
since there is actual DSWD. Upon the promulgation and
transfer of powers implementation of the LGC, some of
and responsibilities. the functions of the DSWD were
transferred to the LGUs. Mayor Plaza
It aims to grant II signed a MOA for the Devolution of
greater autonomy to the DSWD to the City of Butuan.
local government DSWDs services, personnel, assets
units in cognizance and liabilities, and technical support
of their right to self- systems were transferred to its city
government, to counterpart. By virtue of the MOA,
make them self- Mayor Plaza issued EO. 06-92
reliant, and to reconstituting the City Social
improve their Services Development Office
administrative and (CSSDO), devolving or adding thereto
technical capabilities 19 national DSWD employees, its
(Disomangcop v. office was transferred from the
Secretary of Public original CSSDO building to the DSWD
Works and building.
Highways, G.R. No.
149848, November Aida, Lorna and Fe refused to
25, 2004). recognize Joaquin as their new head
and to report at the DSWD building.
Consequences of Devolution They contended that the issuance of
EO. 06-92 by Mayor Plaza and the
1. The devolution shall include the designation of Joaquin as Officer-in-
transfer to the LGU the records, charge of the CSSDO are illegal.
equipment, and other assets and Despite Mayor Plazas series of
personnel of national agencies and orders to Aida, Lorna and Fe to report
offices corresponding to the devolved for work at the DSWD building, they
powers, functions, and responsibilities. failed to do so.
2. Personnel of said national agencies or
offices shall be absorbed by the LGUs Is Mayor Plaza empowered to issue
to which they belong or in whose areas EO. 06-92 in order to give effect to
they are assigned to the extent that it the devolution and have authority
is administratively viable. over Aida, Lorna and Fe?
Tests when police power is invoked as NOTE: The issuance of permits and
the rationale for the valid passage of licenses is a function of the local chief
an ordinance executive.
A: NO. Police power is essentially A: NO. It has long been settled that the
regulatory in nature and the power to State may not, under the guise of police
issue license or grant business permits, if power, permanently divest owners of the
for a regulatory purpose, is within the beneficial use of their property solely to
ambit of this power. This power preserve or enhance the aesthetic
necessarily includes the power to revoke appearance of the community. Compelling
and to impose conditions. However, the the respondents to construct their fence in
power to grant or issue licenses or accordance with the assailed ordinance is,
business permits must always be thus, a clear encroachment on their right
exercised in accordance with law, with to property, which necessarily includes
utmost observance of the rights of all their right to decide how best to protect
concerned to due process and equal their property (Fernando v. St.
protection of the law. What is sought by Scholastica's College, G.R. No. 161107,
Acebedo from the City Mayor is a permit to March 12, 2013).
engage in the business of running an
optical shop. It does not purport to seek a Q: Can the City Mayor of Manila
license to engage in the practice of validly take custody of several
optometry. A business permit is issued women of ill repute and deport them
primarily to regulate the conduct of as laborers without knowledge and
business and the City Mayor cannot, consent to the said deportation?
through the issuance of such permit,
regulate the practice of a profession. Such A: NO. One can search in vain for any
a function is within the exclusive domain law, order, or regulation, which even hints
of the administrative agency specifically at the right of the Mayor of the city of
empowered by law to supervise the Manila or the chief of police of that city to
profession, in this case the Professional force citizens of the Philippine
Regulations Commission and the Board of Islands and these women despite their
Examiners in Optometry (Acebedo Optical being in a sense lepers of society are
Company Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. nevertheless not chattels but Philippine
100152, March 31, 2000). citizens protected by the same
constitutional guaranties as are other
NOTE: However, certain professions may citizens to change their domicile from
be affected by the exercise of police Manila to another locality (Villavicencio v.
power. An ordinance in Manila was held Lukban, G.R. No. L-14639, March 25,
not to regulate the practice of massage, 1919).
much less restrict the practice of such
profession. Instead, the end sought to be Q: May an LGU require customers to
obtained was to prevent the commission fill out a prescribed form stating
of immorality under the practice of personal information such as name,
gender, nationality, age, address and all their hospitality girls tested for the
occupation before they could be AIDS virus. Both disco pub owners and
admitted to a motel, hotel, or lodging the hospitality girls assailed the
house? validity of the ordinance for being
violative of their constitutional rights
A: YES. The Ordinance was enacted to privacy and to freely choose a
precisely to minimize certain practices calling or business. Is the ordinance
hurtful to public morals such as the valid? Explain. (2010 bar question)
increase in the rate of prostitution,
adultery and fornication in Manila A: YES. The ordinance is a valid exercise
traceable in great part to the existence of of police power. The right to privacy yields
motels, which "provide a necessary to certain paramount rights of the public
atmosphere for clandestine entry, and defers to the exercise of police power.
presence and exit" and thus become the The ordinance is not prohibiting the disco
"ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill- pub owners and the hospitality girls from
seekers". Precisely it was intended to curb pursuing their calling or business but is
the opportunity for the immoral or merely regulating it (Social Justice Society
legitimate use to which such premises v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No.
could be and are being devoted (Ermita- 157870, November 3, 2008).
Malate Hotel and Motel Operations
Association v. City Mayor of Manila, G.R. This ordinance is a valid exercise of police
No. L-24693, July 31, 1967). power, because its purpose is to safeguard
public health (Beltran v. Secretary of
Q: Mayor Lim signed into law, City Health, G.R. No. 133640, November 25,
Ordinance 7774, which prohibits 2005).
short time admission in hotels,
motels, lodging houses, pension NOTE: Municipal corporations cannot
houses and similar establishments in prohibit the operation of night clubs. They
the City of Manila to protect public may be regulated, but not prevented from
morals. Pursuant to the above policy, carrying on their business (Dela Cruz v.
short-time admission and rate, wash- Paras, G.R. Nos. L-42571-72, July 25, 1983).
up rate or other similarly concocted
terms, are hereby prohibited in Q: The Quezon City Council issued
hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, Ordinance 2904 which requires the
pension houses and similar construction of arcades for
establishments in the City of Manila. commercial buildings to be
Petitioners argued that the Ordinance constructed in zones designated as
is unconstitutional and void since it business zones in the zoning plan of
violates the right to privacy and the Quezon City, along EDSA. However, at
freedom of movement; it is an invalid the time the ordinance was passed
exercise of police power; and it is an there was yet no building code passed
unreasonable and oppressive by the legislature. Thus, the
interference in their business. Is the regulation of the construction of the
ordinance valid? buildings are left to the discretion of
the LGUs. Under this ordinance, the
A: NO. Individual rights may be city council required that the arcade is
adversely affected only to the extent that to be created, in a way, that building
may fairly be required by the legitimate owners are not allowed to construct
demands of public interest or public his wall up to the edge of the property
welfare. However well-intentioned the line, thereby creating a space under
Ordinance may be, it is in effect an the first floor. In effect, instead of
arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the using the property for their own
rights of the establishments as well as purposes, property owners relinquish
their patrons. The Ordinance needlessly the use of the space as an arcade for
restrains the operation of the businesses pedestrians.
of the petitioners as well as restricting the
rights of their patrons without sufficient Subsequently, Justice Gancayo sought
justification. The Ordinance rashly equates to be exempted from the application
wash rates and renting out a room more of the ordinance, which the City
than twice a day with immorality without Council responded favorably in his
accommodating innocuous intentions favor.
(White Light Corp., v. City of Manila, G.R.
No. 122846, January 20, 2009). MMDA then sent a notice of
demolition to Justice Gancayco,
Q: The Sangguniang Panlungsod of alleging that a portion of his building
Pasay City passed an ordinance violates the National Building Code in
requiring all disco pub owners to have relation to the ordinance. Is the
Ordinance a valid exercise of police 149 would be meaningless and absurd if
power in regulating the use of made applicable only to the Santolan
property in a business zone? pumping station and not to that part of
the Mariquina River immediately above it
A: YES. In the exercise of police power, and from which the pumping station draws
property rights of individuals may be water for the use of the inhabitants of the
subject to restraints and burdens in order City of Manila (Rivera v. Campbell, G.R.
to fulfill the objectives of the government. No. L-11119, March 23, 1916).
Property rights must bow down to the
primacy of police power because it must Q: The Sanggunian of Cagayan De Oro
yield to the general welfare. It is clear that enacted Ordinance No. 3353
the objective of the ordinance were the prohibiting the issuance of business
health and safety of the city and its permits and cancelling existing
inhabitants. At the time he ordinance was business permits for the operation of
passed, there was no national building casinos; and Ordinance No. 3375-93,
code, thus there was no law which prohibits prohibiting the operation of a casino.
the city council from regulating the Z assailed the validity of the
construction of buildings, arcades and ordinances on the ground that both
sidewalks in their jurisdiction (Gancayco v. violated P.D. 1869 which permits the
City Government of Quezon City, G.R. No. operation of casinos, centralized and
177807, October 11, 2011). regulated by PAGCOR. The
Sanggunian, however, contended that
Q: Rivera was found washing her pursuant to the LGC, they have the
clothing near the Santolan pumping police power to prohibit the
station near Boso-Boso dam. Riveras operations of casinos for the general
act of washing clothing interfered welfare. Was there a valid exercise
with the purity of the water which of police power?
was supplied to Manila by the
Santolan pumping station. She was A: NO. PD 1869 creating the PAGCOR
charged with violation of Sec. 4(f) of expressly authorized it to centralize and
Ordinance No. 149 which prohibited regulate all games of chance including
washing of garments in the waters of casinos. This has not been amended by
any river or water course. Manilas the LGC which empowers LGUs to prevent
municipal board adopted the same or suppress only those forms of gambling
section by virtue of the Acts of the prohibited by law. Casino gambling is,
Philippine Commission and was however, authorized under PD 1869. This
authorized to purify the source of decree has the status of a statute that
water supply as well as the drainage cannot be annulled or amended by a mere
area of such water supply. Rivera ordinance. PAGCOR can set up casinos
contented that the municipal court of with or without the consent of the host
the City of Manila and the Court of local government (Magtajas v. Pryce
First Instance of the City of Manila Properties and PAGCOR, G.R. No. 111097,
had no jurisdiction to try her for the July 20, 1994).
crime committed. Does the CFI of
Manila have jurisdiction over the EMINENT DOMAIN
offense, considering that the washing
of clothes was in the Mariquina River? Eminent Domain
A: YES. Boundaries usually mark the limit Local government units have no inherent
for the exercise of the police powers by power of eminent domain. Local
the municipality. However, in certain governments can exercise such power
instances the performance of police only when expressly authorized by the
functions, the preservation of public health Legislature. By virtue of the Local
and acquisition of territory for water Government Code, Congress conferred
supply the municipality is granted police upon local government units the power to
power beyond its boundaries. The expropriate (Masikip v. City of Pasig, G.R.
Santolan pumping station is a part of the No. 136349, January 23, 2006).
public water supply of Manila with water
taken from that part of the Mariquina However, while the power of eminent may
River, in the waters of which Rivera be validly delegated to LGUs, the exercise
washed clothes. Public water supply is not of such power by the delegated entities is
limited to water supply owned and not absolute. The scope of such delegated
controlled by a municipal corporation, but power is narrower than that of the
should be construed as meaning a supply delegating authority and may be exercised
of water for public and domestic use, only when authorized by Congress, subject
furnished or to be furnished from water to its control and the restraints imposed
works. The provisions of the Ordinance No. through the law conferring the power.
Strictly speaking, the power of eminent
domain delegated to an LGU is in reality 1. Filling of a complaint for expropriation
not eminent but inferior. The national which is sufficient in form and
legislature is still the principal of the LGUs, substance
and the latter cannot go against the 2. Deposit of the amount equivalent to
principals will or modify the same (Beluso fifteen percent (15%) of the fair
v. Municipality of Panay, G.R. No. 153974, market value of the property to be
August 7, 2006). expropriated based on its current tax
declaration.
NOTE: LGUs may, through its local chief
executive and acting pursuant to an NOTE: Upon compliance, the issuance of
ordinance, exercise power of eminent writ of possession becomes ministerial
domain for public use, or purpose, or (City of Iloilo v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 154614,
welfare for the benefit of the poor and the November 25, 2004).
landless, upon payment of just
compensation (Sec. 19, LGC). Phases of expropriation proceedings
Q: NAPOCOR undertook the Agus A: NO. The power to regulate does not
River Hydroelectric Power Plant include the power to prohibit. A fortiori,
Project to generate electricity for the power to regulate does not include the
Mindanao. The project included the power to confiscate. The ordinance in
construction of several underground question not only confiscates but also
tunnels to be used in diverting the prohibits the operation of a memorial park
water flow from the Agus River to the cemetery. There is no reasonable relation
hydroelectric plants. Merry, Pippin between the setting aside of at least 6% of
and Sam belatedly discovered that the total area of a private cemeteries for
one of the underground tunnels of charity burial grounds of deceased
NAPOCOR traversed their land. The paupers and the promotion of health,
said underground tunnel had been morals, good order, safety, or the general
constructed without their knowledge welfare of the people.
and consent.
Section 9 of the assailed Ordinance is not
Merry, Pippin and Sam now seek for a mere police regulation but an outright
recovery of the property and damages confiscation. It is not an exercise of police
because according to them, the power but eminent domain. It deprives a
presence of the tunnel deprived them person of his private property without due
of the agricultural, commercial, process of law and without payment of
industrial, and residential value of just compensation. Instead of building or
their land. Moreover, according to maintaining a public cemetery for this
Merry, Pippin and Sam their land had purpose, the city passes the burden to
also become an unsafe place for private cemeteries. Police power does not
habitation because of the loud sound involve the taking or confiscation of
of the water rushing through the property with the exception of few cases
tunnel and the constant shaking of where there is a necessity to confiscate
the ground. private property in order to destroy it for
the purpose of protecting the peace and
Does the construction of the tunnel order and of promoting the general
constitute taking of land which welfare (Quezon City v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-
entitles Merry, Pippin and Sam to just 34915, June 24, 1983).
compensation?
Q: The municipal council of Baao,
A: YES. There was full taking on the part Camarines Sur, passed an ordinance
of NAPOCOR, notwithstanding that the providing that any person who will
owners were not completely and actually construct or repair a building should
dispossessed. Taking of private property before doing such, obtain a written
for public use, to be compensable, need permit from the Municipal Mayor and
not be an actual physical taking or if said building destroys the view of
appropriation. Compensable taking the Public Plaza or occupies any
includes destruction, restriction, public property, it shall be removed
diminution, or interruption of the rights of at the expense of the owner of the
ownership or of the common and building or house. X filed a written
necessary use and enjoyment of the request for a permit to construct a
property in a lawful manner, lessening or building on a parcel of land adjacent
destroying its value (NAPOCOR v. Hrs. of to their gasoline station. The request
Macabangkit Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828, was denied because the proposed
August 24, 2011). building would destroy the view or
beauty of the public plaza. X
proceeded with the construction of
Q: Petitioner Himlayang Pilipino filed the building without a permit
a petition to annul an ordinance because his former house was
which provides that at least 6% of the destroyed by a typhoon. X was
total area of every private cemetery charged and convicted of violating
shall be set aside for charity burial the Ordinance for having constructed
grounds of deceased paupers. a building that destroys the view of
Petitioner alleged that the ordinance the public plaza without a mayors
is an invalid exercise of the power of permit. Is the ordinance valid?
eminent domain as they were not
paid just compensation. The City A: NO. The ordinance is unreasonable and
government of Quezon City, however, oppressive, in that it operates to
argued that the ordinance is an permanently deprive appellants of the
exercise of police power, hence, just right to use their own property; hence, it
oversteps the bounds of police power, and fee and to comply with existing
amounts to a taking of appellants ordinances governing the issuance of
property without just compensation. But building permits. The engineer
while property may be regulated in the declined to issue the permit as
interest of the general welfare and, in its according to the Urban Commissions
pursuit, the State may prohibit structures Adopted Plan for the Sta. Ana, the
offensive to sight, the State may not, streets will be widened to the
under the guise of police power, respective widths of 22-m. and 10 m
permanently divest owners of the and will affect the proposed building.
beneficial use of their property and Was the engineer correct in not
practically confiscate them solely to issuing the permit?
preserve or assure the aesthetic
appearance of the community. To legally A: NO. The refusal of the city engineer to
achieve that result, the municipality must issue a building permit to private
give the owners just compensation and an landowners constitutes eminent domain
opportunity to be heard. The Ordinance when there is no law or ordinance
was beyond the authority of said requiring private land owners to conform
municipality to enact, and is therefore null to the proposed widening of the street
and void (People v. Fajardo, G.R No. L- approved by the Urban Commission.
12172, August 29, 1958). Where the City has not expropriated the
strip of land affected by the proposed
Q: The Philippine Tourism Authority widening of the street, inasmuch as there
sought the expropriation of 282 is no legislative authority to establish a
hectares of rolling land situated in building line, the denial of this permit
Barangay Alubog and Babag, Cebu would amount to taking of private
City, under an express authority to property for public use under the power of
acquire by purchase or by any other eminent domain without following the
means any private land within the procedure prescribed for the exercise of
tourism zone. Petitioner contended such power. The city engineer required to
that the taking was not for public use issue the building permit upon payment of
and that there is no specific the fees (Hipolito v. City of Manila, G.R No.
constitutional provision authorizing L-3887, August 21, 1950).
the taking of private property for
tourism purposes. Is the contention TAXING POWER
valid?
Nature of the power of taxation of
A: NO. Expropriation by the PTA under PD LGUs
564 of land owned by the local
government for promotion of tourism is a The power to tax is primarily vested in the
valid exercise of the States power of Congress; however, in our jurisdiction, it
eminent domain. The concept of public may be exercised by local legislative
use is not limited to traditional purposes. bodies, no longer merely by virtue of a
Here, as elsewhere, the idea that public valid delegation as before, but pursuant to
use is strictly limited to clear cases of direct authority conferred by Section 5,
use by the public has been discarded. Article V of the 1987 Constitution. The
The States power of eminent domain exercise of the power may be subject to
extends to the expropriation of land for such guidelines and limitations as the
tourism purposes although this specific Congress may provide which, however,
objective is not expressed in the must be consistent with the basic policy of
Constitution. The policy objectives of the local autonomy (Mactan Cebu
framers can be expressed only in general International Airport Authority v. Marcos,
terms such as social justice, local G.R. No. 120082, September 11, 1996).
autonomy, conservation and development
of the national patrimony public interest, Rationale for local taxation
and general welfare, among others (Heirs
of Ardona v. Reyes, G.R. No. G.R No. L- The power of taxation is an essential and
60549, October 26, 1983). inherent attribute of sovereignty. It is a
power that is purely legislative and which
Q: Sps. Hipolito are the registered the central legislative body cannot
owners of a parcel of land in Santa delegate to either executive or judicial
Ana, Manila. They applied for department without infringing upon the
permission to erect a strong-material theory of separation of powers. The
residential building on the lot. For exception, however, lies in the case of
more than forty days, the city municipal corporations, to which said
engineer took no action. Wherefore, theory does not apply. Legislative powers
Hipolito wrote him a letter may be delegated to legislative
manifesting his readiness to pay the governments in respect of matters of local
concern. This is sanctioned by immemorial Constitutional Commissions and local
practice. By necessary implication, governments. The automatic release
legislative power to create political provision found in the Constitution means
corporations for purposes of local self- these local governments units cannot be
government carries with it the power to required to perform any act to receive the
confer on such local government agencies just share accruing to them from the
the power to tax (Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. national coffers (Civil Service Commission
v. Municipality of Tanauan, G.R. No. L- v. Department of Budget and
31156, February 27, 1976). Management, G.R. No. 158791, July 22,
2005).
ARMMs taxing power
Q: The President, through AO
The ARMM has the legislative power to 372, ordered the withholding of
create sources of revenues within its 10% of the LGUs' IRA "pending the
territorial jurisdiction and subject to the assessment and evaluation by the
provisions of the 1987 Constitution and Development Budget Coordinating
national laws (Sec. 20(2), Art. X, 1987 Committee of the emerging fiscal
Constitution). situation" in the country. Is the AO
valid?
Power to tax by ordinary LGUs v.
Power to tax by Autonomous Regions A: NO. A basic feature of local fiscal
autonomy is the automatic release of the
LGUS LGUS INSIDE shares of LGUs in the
OUTSIDE AUTONOMOUS national internal revenue. This is
AUTONOMOUS REGIONS (I.E. mandated by no less than the
REGIONS ARMM) Constitution. The LGC specifies further
Basis of Taxing Power that the release shall be made directly to
Sec. 5, Art. X, 1987 Sec. 20(b), Art. X, the LGU concerned within five days
Constitution 1987 Constitution after every quarter of the year and shall
Governing guidelines and limitations not be subject to any lien or holdback that
may be imposed by the national
LGC of 1991 Respective Organic
government for whatever purpose. As a
Act
rule, the term "shall" is a word of
command that must be given a
NOTE: Unlike Sec. 5, Art. X, Sec. 20, Art. X
compulsory meaning. The provision is,
of the 1987 Constitution is not self-
therefore, imperative (Pimentel Jr. v.
executing. It merely authorizes
Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000).
Congress to pass the Organic Act of
the autonomous regions which shall
Main sources of revenues of LGUs
provide for legislative powers to levy
taxes upon their inhabitants.
1. Taxes, fees, and charges (Sec. 5,
Art. X, 1987 Constitution).
Local Fiscal Autonomy
2. Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) -
Just share in the national taxes which
Fiscal autonomy means that local
shall be automatically released to
governments have the power to create
them (Sec. 6, Art. X, 1987
their own sources of revenue in addition to
Constitution).
their equitable share in the national taxes
released by the national government, as
NOTE: The current sharing is 40%
well as the power to allocate their
local and 60% national. The share
resources in accordance with their own
cannot be reduced except if there is
priorities. It extends to the preparation of
unmanageable public sector deficit.
their budgets, and local officials in turn
have to work within the constraints
3. Equitable share in the proceeds of the
thereof. They are not formulated at the
utilization and development of the
national level and imposed on local
national wealth within their areas
governments, whether they are relevant
(Sec. 7, Art. X, 1987 Constitution).
to local needs and resources or not.
Further, a basic feature of local fiscal
Principles governing exercise of
autonomy is the constitutionally mandated
taxing and revenue-sharing powers
automatic release of the shares of local
of LGUs
governments in the national internal
revenue (Province of Batangas v. Romulo,
1. Taxation shall be uniform in
G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004).
each LGU
2. Taxes, fees, charges and other
NOTE: A no report, no release policy
impositions shall be equitable and
may not be validly enforced against offices
based as far as practicable on the
vested with fiscal autonomy such as
taxpayers ability to pay; it shall be and to avoid duplication in the use of
levied and collected only for public fiscal and physical resources.
purpose; it must not be unjust, 9. Local budgets shall operationalize
excessive, oppressive, or approved local development plans;
confiscatory; it must not be 10. LGUs shall ensure that their
contrary to law, public policy, respective budgets incorporate the
national economic policy, or restraint of requirements of their component
trade; units and provide for equitable
3. The collection of local taxes, fees, allocation of resources among these
charges and other impositions shall component units;
in no case be let to any private 11. National planning shall be based on
person. local planning to ensure that the
4. The revenue collected shall inure needs and aspirations of the people
solely to the benefit of, and be as articulated by the LGUs in their
subject to disposition by, the local respective local development plans
government unit, unless are considered in the formulation of
specifically provided therein. budgets of national line agencies or
5. Each local government unit shall, as offices;
far as practicable, evolve a 12. Fiscal responsibility shall be shared by
progressive system of taxation (Sec. all those exercising authority over the
130, LGC). financial affairs, transactions and
operations of LGUs; and
Principles governing financial 13. The LGU shall endeavor to have a
affairs, transactions and operations balanced budget in each fiscal year of
of LGUs operation (Sec. 305, LGC).
Under Sec. 49(b), (i)n the event of the REGULAR SPECIAL SESSIONS
inability of the regular presiding officer to SESSIONS
preside at the sanggunian session, the By resolution on the When public interest
members present and constituting a 1st day of the session so demands, special
quorum shall elect from among immediately session may be
themselves a temporary presiding officer. following the election called for by the
(Gamboa v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 134213, July of its members chief executive or by
20, 1999). a majority vote
members of
Quorum in the sanggunian sanggunian
COMPONENY
CITIES AND BARANGAY
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES
ORDINANCES OR
RESOLUTIONS
Who reviews
Sanggunang Panlalawigan
Sangguniang Panglungsod LOCAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
or Sangguniang Bayan
When copies of ordinance or Local initiative v. Referendum
resolutions be forwarded
Within 3 days after Within 10 days INITIATIVE REFERENDUM
approval after its enactment The legal process The legal process
Period to examine whereby the whereby the
registered voters of registered voters of
LGU may directly the LGU may
propose, enact or approve, amend or
amend any reject any ordinance
ordinance (Sec. 120 enacted by the
LGC). sanggunian (Sec.
126 RA. 7160).
GR: Municipalities are not liable for torts 1. In the absence of proof that the
committed by them in the discharge of property was acquired through
governmental functions. corporate or private funds, the
presumption is that it came from the
XPN: They are liable only if it can be State upon the creation of the
shown that they were acting in a municipality and, thus, is
proprietary capacity. governmental or public property
(Salas v. Jarencio, G.R. No. L-29788,
NOTE: In permitting such entities to be August 30, 1972; Rabuco v.
sued, the State merely gives the claimant Villegas, G.R. No. L-24661, February
the right to show that the defendant was 28, 1974).
not acting in its governmental capacity 2. Town plazas are properties of public
when the injury was committed or that the dominion; they may be occupied
case comes under the exceptions temporarily, but only for the duration
recognized by law. Failing this, the claimant of an emergency (Espiritu v.
cannot recover (Mun. of San Fernando, La Municipal Council of Pozorrubio,
Union v. Firme, G.R. No. L-52179, April 8, Pangasinan, G.R. No. L-11014, January
1991). 21, 1958).
3. Public plazas are beyond the
TO ACQUIRE AND SELL PROPERTY commerce of man, and cannot be the
subject of lease or other contractual
Property held in trust by LGUs as undertaking. And, even assuming the
agents of the State existence of a valid lease of the public
plaza or part thereof, the municipal
Properties of municipalities not acquired resolution effectively terminated the
by its own funds in its private capacity agreement, for it is settled that
are public property held in trust for the the police power cannot be
State. Regardless of the source or surrendered or bargained away
classification of land in the possession through the medium of a
of a municipality, except those acquired contract (Villanueva v. Castaneda,
with its own funds in its private or G.R. No. L-61311, September 21,
corporate capacity, such property is 1987).
held in trust for the State for the benefit 4. Public streets or thoroughfares are
of its inhabitants, whether it be for property for public use, outside the
government or proprietary purposes. It commerce of man, and may not be
holds such lands subject to the the subject of lease or other
paramount power of the legislature to contracts (Dacanay v. Asistio, G.R. No.
dispose of the same, for after all it owes 93654, May 6, 1992).
its creation to it as an agent for the
performance of a part of it public work, Documents to support the contract
the municipality being but a subdivision of sale entered into by the LGU
or instrumentality thereof for the
purposes of local administration (Salas 1. Resolution of the sanggunian
v. Jarencio, G.R. No. L-29788, August 30, authorizing the local chief executive
1972). to enter into a contract of sale. The
resolution shall specify the terms and
Properties that can be alienated by conditions to be embodied in the
LGUs contract.
2. Ordinance appropriating the amount
Only properties owned in its private or specified in the contract.
proprietary capacity (Province of 3. Certification of the local
Zamboanga del Norte v. City of treasurer as to availability of funds
Zamboanga, G.R. No. L-24440, March 28, together with a statement that such
1968). fund shall not be disbursed or spent for
any purpose other than to pay for the
Art. 424 of the Civil Code lays down purchase of the property involved
the basic principle that properties of (Jesus is Lord Christian School
public dominion devoted to public use Foundation, Inc. v. Mun. of Pasig,
G.R. No. 152230, August 9, 2005).
NOTE: There can be no hard and fast rule Absence should be reasonably construed
for purposes of determining the true to mean effective absence, that is, one
nature of an undertaking or function of a that renders the officer concerned
municipality; the surrounding powerless, for the time being, to discharge
circumstances of a particular case are to the powers and prerogatives of his/her
be considered and will be decisive. The office. There is no vacancy whenever the
basic element, however beneficial to the office is occupied by a legally qualified
public the undertaking may be, is that it is incumbent. A sensu contrario, there is a
governmental in essence; otherwise the vacancy when there is no person lawfully
function becomes private or proprietary in authorized to assume and exercise at
character (Ibid.). present the duties of the office (Gamboa,
Jr. v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 134213, July 20,
Q: X was elected as Vice Mayor of 1999).
Dasol, Pangasinan. The Sangguniang
Bayan adopted Resolution No. 1 which Classes of vacancies in the elective
increased the salaries of the Mayor post
and Municipal Treasurer to P18,636
and P16,044 per annum respectively. PERMANENT TEMPORARY
However, the Resolution did not VACANCY VACANCY
provide for an increase in salary of Arises when an Arises when an
the Vice Mayor despite the fact that elected local official: elected official is
such position is entitled to an annual 1. Fills a higher temporarily
salary of P16,044. X questioned the vacant office incapacitated to
failure of the Sangguniang Bayan to 2. Refuses to perform his duties
appropriate an amount for the assume office due to legal or
payment of his salary. The 3. Fails to qualify physical reason such
Sangguniang Bayan increased his 4. Dies as:
salary and enacted a Resolution No. 2 5. Removed from 1. Physical sickness
appropriating an amount as payment office 2. Leave of absence
of the unpaid salaries. However, the 6. Voluntarily 3. Travel abroad or
Resolution was vetoed by the resigns 4. Suspension from
respondent mayor. Can X avail of 7. Permanently office (Sec. 46,
damages due to the failure of the incapacitated to LGC)
respondents to pay him his lawful discharge the
salary? functions of his
office (Sec. 44,
A: YES. The Mayor alone should be held LGC)
liable and responsible and not the whole
Sanggunian Bayan. Respondent Mayor Filling of vacancy
vetoed the Resolution without just cause.
While "to veto or not to veto involves the 1. Automatic succession
exercise of discretion" as contended by 2. By appointment (Sec. 45, LGC).
respondents, respondent Mayor, however,
exceeded his authority in an arbitrary Rules of succession in case of
manner when he vetoed the resolution permanent vacancies
since there are sufficient municipal funds
from which the salary of the petitioner A. In case of permanent vacancy in:
could be paid. 1. Office of the Governor: Vice-
Governor
Respondent Mayors refusal, neglect or 2. Office of the Mayor: Vice-Mayor
omission in complying with the directives 3. Office of the Vice Governor or
of the Provincial Budget Officer and the Vice-Mayor: highest ranking
Sanggunian member or in case of sangguniang panlungsod of
his permanent inability, the component cities and the
second highest ranking sangguniang bayan concerned
Sanggunian member successor (Sec. 45 (a)(2), LGC).
should have come from the same 3. The city or municipal mayor shall
political party appoint the recommendee of the
sangguniang barangay concerned
NOTE: The highest-ranking (Sec. 45 (a)(3), LGC).
municipal councilors succession to
the office of vice-mayor cannot be Hold-over status
considered a voluntary
In case of failure of elections involving
renunciation of his office as barangay officials, the incumbent officials
councilor, since it occurred by shall remain in office in a hold-over
operation of law (Montebon v. capacity pursuant to R.A. 9164 (Adap v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 180444, April COMELEC, G.R. No. 161984, February 21,
8, 2008). 2007).
4. Office of the Punong Barangay:
the highest ranking sanggunian The last vacancy in the Sanggunian
barangay member or, in case of his
permanent inability, the second It refers to the vacancy created by the
highest ranking sanggunian elevation of the member formerly
member successor may or may occupying the next higher in rank, which
not have come from the same in turn also had become vacant by any of
political party the causes enumerated.
1. Any elective local official may be The term of office of Barangay and
the subject of a recall election only Sangguniang Kabataan elective officials,
once during his term of office for loss of by virtue of RA 9164, is three (3) years.
confidence; and
2. No recall shall take place within one NOTE: The objective of imposing the
(1) year from the date of the officials three-term limit rule is to avoid the evil of
assumption to office or one (1) year a single person accumulating excess
immediately preceding a regular power over a particular territorial
election (Sec. 74, LGC). jurisdiction as a result of a prolonged stay
in the same office.
NOTE: The one-year time bar will not
apply where the local official sought to For a three term rule to apply, the local
be recalled is a mayor and the official must have fully served the term
approaching election is a barangay and been elected through regular
election (Angobung v. COMELEC, G.R. No. election.
126576, March 5, 1997).
Term limit of Barangay officials
Q: Sec. 74 of the LGC provides that
no recall shall take place within one The term of office of barangay officials was
year immediately preceding a regular fixed at
local election. What does the term three years under RA 9164. (19 March
regular local election, as used in 2002)
this section, mean? Further, Sec.43 (b) provides that "no
local elective official shall serve for more
A: Referring to an election where the than three (3) consecutive terms in the
office held by the local elective official same position. The Court interpreted
sought to be recalled is to be actually thissection referring to all local elective
contested and filled by the electorate officials without exclusions or exceptions
(Paras v. Comelec, G.R. No. 123169, (COMELEC v. Cruz, G.R. No. 186616,
November 4, 1996). November 20, 2009).