CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION  Local governments as municipal corporations
a) Local governments are essentially municipal
The different meanings and concepts of “Local
Government”
 Distribution of powers to Local Government as
limitation to political authority
 The idea of distributing governmental powers is
one of the basic and minimum characteristics of
the concept of the rule of law. Horizontal and
vertical distribution prevents over-centration of
powers on one branch or agency of the
government and is another way of limiting
political authority.
 By horizontal distribution of government powers,
the powers of government are distributed among
the three (3) branches of national government,
namely: legislative, executive, and judicial. In the
US and the Philippines, there is complete
separation of powers between the three branches.
 By vertical distribution of government powers,
the powers of government are distributed among
two (2) levels of government. At the upper level
is the national government and the lower level
are the local governments.
 Local governments as political and territorial
subdivisions of the State
 In MMDA vs Bel-air Village, local government
is defined as a “political subdivision of a nation
or state which is constituted by law and has a
substantial control of local affairs.”
 Local Government Unit is also defined in Section
15 of the Local Government Code of 1991 as
“body politic and corporate endowed with
powers to be exercised by it in conformity with
law.”
 Local government are subordinate entities,
having no inherent powers and moust look up to
the higher governmental level for delegation of
authority.
corporations. As such, it is a body politic and
corporate constituted by the incorporation of the
inhabitants of a city or town for the purpose of
local government thereof.
b) Municipal corporations are established by law as
agent of the state to assist in the civil government
of the country and chiefly to regulate and
administer the local internal affairs of the city,
town, or district incorporated.
c) As a result of this concept of local governments
as municipal corporations, the “corporation” is
therefore legally considered distinct from its
members.
Structures and System of Philippine Local
Government
 Creation
 Although the LGC of 1991 provides for a
devolution of powers, the Philippines remains a
unitary state. The national government, by law,
creates, merges, or abolishes local government
units, endows them with powers within their
jurisdiction, and determines national-local
relations.
 Tiers of Local Government
 In the Philippines, there are several levels of
local authority. The province is the intermediate
unit, providing supervision to the municipalities
and component cities under it, and performing
services for national government.
 The Unitary System of Government
1. In a Unitary System of Government, municipal
governments are only agents of the national
government. Local councils exercise only
delegated legislative powers conferred upon them
by Congress as the national lawmaking body.
The delegate cannot be superior to the principal
or exercise powers higher than those of the latter.
 Since ours is still a unitary form of government,
not a federal state, any for form of autonomy
 granted to local governements will necessarily be
limited and confined within the extent allowed by
the central authority
Chapter 4: Local Governments and Unions
or Federations of Local Governments in the
Philippines
Local Units and Autonomous Regions:
Local govt. units should be created by law. The
constitution does not create local government
units but merely ensures that no law can
abolish barangays.
2. Barangay – the basic political unit. It is
the primary and implementing unit of
government policies, plans, forums. It is
where the views of the people may be
expressed and considered. It is also
where disputes may be amicably settled.
3. Municipality – consists of a group of
barangays. Its purpose is the
consideration and delivery of basic,
regular, and direct services / effective
governance.
4. City – consists of more urbanized and
developed barangays. Its purpose is the
coordination and delivery of basic,
regular, and direct services / effective
governance.
5. Province – composed of a cluster of
municipalities and component cities. It
serves as a dynamic mechanism for
developmental processes. It governs the
LGUs under its jurisdiction.
Regular LGUs: provinces, cities,
municipalities, and barangays.
Autonomous Regions: Muslim Mindanao
and the cordilleras.
Classification of Cities:
6. Highly Urbanized – they have an income
of at least 50 million pesos
7. Independent Component Cities – their
charter prohibits the city’s inhabitants
from voting for provincial elective
officials / to be voted as provincial
elective officials
8. Component Cities – all other cities
Special Metropolitan Political Subdivisions:
9. Can be created by congress through law
subject to plebiscite
10. Component cities / municipalities regain
basic autonomy and are entitled to their
own local executives and legislative
assemblies.
11. Their jurisdiction only includes basic
services. They cannot exercise local
political powers.
Loose Federations:
12. These are formed when LGUs group
themselves and coordinate their efforts,
services, and resources for purposes
beneficial to them
13. May be created through ordinances
enacted by the LGUs
14. Not considered a new corporate body
Regional Development Councils:
15. Composed of local government officials,
regional heads of departments and govt.
offices. Includes NGO representatives to
strengthen autonomy of the LGU and
accelerate economic growth.
16. Established by president, no need for
authorization from congress.
CASES:
 Abella vs. COMELEC
Facts:
17. Silvestre Dela Cruz filed a petition with
the COMELEC to disqualify Larrazabal
from running as governor of Leyte
18. Dela Cruz claimed that Larrazabal wasn’t
truthful regarding her residence, and
that she lied in her Certificate of
Candidacy. He also claimed that she was
a resident of Ormoc.
19. The petition was granted but Larrazabal
was already governor.
Issue:
20. WON or not the person with the 2nd
highest votes can become governor if
the current governor ends up
disqualified
Held:
21. No. They cannot. Larrazabal was
presumed to be a bonafide candidate at
the time of the election and the people
voted for her. The person with the
second highest votes still lost the
election.
 Metro Manila Development Authority
(MMDA) vs. Bel-Air Village:
Facts:
22. MMDA, a government agency tasked
with delivering basic services in Manila,
sent Bel-Air a notice requesting that the
latter open Neptune Street to public
vehicles
23. Bel-Air refused and filed an injunction.
However, Bel-Air lost.
24. However, on appeal the court ruled that
MMDA had no authority to order the
opening of the street (which was inside
a private subdivision)
Issue:
25. WON MMDA had the authority to open
up Neptune Street
Held:
26. No. The MMDA only has the following
powers: formulation, coordination,
regulation, implementation,
preparation, management, monitoring,
setting of policies, installation of a
system and administration. They do not
have legislative powers. The powers
granted in their charter are limited, and
their primary function is merely to help
organize the transportation system.
Chapter 5: The Local Government Code of
1991
Constitutional Mandate:
 The 1987 constitution mandates
congress to enact a local government
code that shall provide for a more
responsive and accountable LGU
structure through decentralization.
 This paradigm shift results from the
realization that genuine development
comes from strengthening local
autonomy.
Scope:
 All provinces, cities, municipalities,
barangays, political subdivisions.
Officials, offices and agencies of the local
government.
 Applies to autonomous regions until
they come up with their own local
government code.
 Existing tax ordinances remain in force
 All general and special laws, acts,
charters, decrees, and executive orders
that were inconsistent with the code
were repealed or modified accordingly.
Rules of Interpretation:
 Provisions on the powers of LGUs should
be interpreted liberally in the LGU’s
favor. In case of doubts, it should be
resolved in favor of the devolution of
powers
 Tax ordinances or revenue measures
should be interpreted strictly against the
LGU. It should favor the tax payer.
HOWEVER when it comes to tax
exemptions, it should be interpreted
against the person claiming it.
 General welfare provisions should be
interpreted in favor of the LGU.
  Rights and obligations arising from -The constitution specifically requires that a
contracts should be governed by the plebiscite should be held in order to lawfully
original terms. create a municipal corporation

 If no legal provisions or jurisprudence is

available, the controversy shall be
governed by the customs and traditions
of the place.
CHAPTER 6: CREATION, CONVERSION,
DIVISION, MERGER, SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE
OF BOUNDARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
UNITS AND ABOLITION
Political Subdivisions
 COMPLIANCE with CRITERIA on
INCOME, LAND AREA and POPULATION
Income- it must be sufficient to provide for all
essential government facilties, services and
special functions commensurate with the size of
population.
Population- it shall be determined as the total
number of inhabitatants within the territorial
jurisdiction.

Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution Land Area- it must be contiguos, unless
provides: comprises 2 or more islands; properly
indentified by metes and sufficient to provide
“No province, city, municipality, or barangay for basic services.
may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or
its boundary substantially altered, except in
accordance with the criteria established in the  Specific Requirements
local government code and subject to approval
by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in LGU Income Population Land Area
the political units directly affected.” Barangay none 2,000- none
5,000
Creation and Conversion Municipality P2.5M ave. For 2 25,000 50 sq.kmm.
consecutive Except if an
preceding years island
 General Requirements Component P100M in the case 150,000 100 sq.km.
City of conversion of a
 LAW municipality or a
cluster of
barangays into a
-by law enacted by Congress in the case of a
city per R.A 9009
provonce, city, municipality, or any other (6/30/’01)
politiical subdivision Highly P50M latest 200,000 Not anymore
Urbanized City annual income stated in law
-by ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Province P20M ave. annual 250,000 2,000sq.km
income (contiguous)
Panlalawigan or Sangguniang Panlungsod in
the case of a barangay located within its
Merger and Division
territorial jursidiction
- The division and merger of existing LGU’s shall
comply with the same requirements prescribed
 PLEBISCITE
for their creation provided that such division
shall not reduce the income, population, or land
area of the LGU’s to less than the minimum
requirements.
- When two or more municipal corporations are
consolidated under one government, the old
corporations become extinct in most instances.
Substantial Change of Boundaries
- No substantial alteration of boundaries shall
take effect unless approved by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose
in the political unit or units directly affected.
CASES:
 League of Cities of the Philippines vs.
COMELEC
Facts:
 During the 11th Congress, 57 bills
seeking the conversion of municipalities
into component cities were filed before
the House of Representatives.
 However, Congress acted only on 33
bills. During the 12th Congress, R.A. No.
9009 became effective revising Section
450 of the Local Government Code. It
increased the income requirement to
qualify for conversion into a city from
P20 million annual income to P100
million locally-generated income.
 In the 13th Congress, 16 of the 24
municipalities filed, through their
respective sponsors, individual cityhood
bills.
 Each of the cityhood bills contained a
common provision exempting the
particular municipality from the 100
million income requirement imposed by
R.A. No. 9009.
Issue:
 Are the cityhood laws converting 16
municipalities into cities constitutional?
Held:
 The 16 Cityhood Laws are constitutional.
The Court stressed that Congress clearly
intended that the local government
units covered by the Cityhood Laws be
exempted from the coverage of RA
9009. The Court reiterated that while
RA 9009 was being deliberated upon,
the Congress was well aware of the
pendency of conversion bills of several
municipalities, including those covered
by the Cityhood Laws.
 Miranda vs Aguirre
Facts:
 1994, RA No. 7720 effected the
conversion of the municipality of
Santiago, Isabela, into an independent
component city. July 4th, RA No. 7720
was approved by the people of Santiago
in a plebiscite.
 1998, RA No. 8528 was enacted and it
amended RA No. 7720 that practically
downgraded the City of Santiago from
an independent component city to a
component city.
 Petitioners assail the constitutionality of
RA No. 8528 for the lack of provision to
submit the law for the approval of the
people of Santiago in a proper
plebiscite.
Held:
 When an amendment of the law
involves creation, merger, division,
abolition or substantial alteration of
boundaries of local government units, a
plebiscite in the political units directly
affected is mandatory.
  Navarro vs. Executive Secretary
Facts:
 The President of the Republic approved
into law (R.A.) No. 9355 (An Act Creating
the Province of Dinagat Islands).
 Then the COMELEC conducted the
mandatory plebiscite for the ratification
of the creation of the province under
the (LGC).
 November 10, 2006, petitioners filed
before this Court a petition for certiorari
and prohibition challenging the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9355. The
Court dismissed the petition on
technical grounds. Their motion for
reconsideration was also denied.
Held:
 The Congress, recognizing the capacity
and viability of Dinagat to become a full-
fledged province, enacted R.A. No. 9355,
following the exemption from the land
area requirement, which, with respect
to the creation of provinces, can be
found as an express provision in the
LGC-IRR.
CHAPTER 7: DE JURE and DE FACTO
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
De Jure
-If its creation perfectly complies with all
the requirements of an incorporation, a
municipal corporation is considered de jure.
De Facto
-Not all requirements are complied with
provided certain elements are present:
 Valid law authorizing incorporation;
 Attempt in good faith to organize it;
 Colorable compliance with law; and
 Assumption of corporate powers.
CASES:
 Pelaez vs. Auditor General
- the Supreme Court denied the President the
power to create local government units
because the creation of LGU’s is essentially
legislative.
 Sultan Osop Camid vs. Office of the
Pres.
-the Supreme Court confirmed that municipal
corporations may exist by prescription where its
is shown that the community has claimed and
exercised corporate functions, with the
knowledge of the legislature and without
interruption and objection.
 Municipality of Jimenez Case
-Sincaban was considered to ahve attained de
facto status at the time of 1987 Constitution
took effect and was not subject to plebiscite
requirement. This requirement applies only to
new municipalities created for the first time
under the Constitution.
CHAPTER 8: POWER RELATIONS WITH
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, SUPREME COURT,
PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS; INTER-
GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND
HIERARCHICAL RELATIONS AMONG LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNITS
LGUs and National Government in General:
LGUs are agents of the State
 Municipal governments are only agents
of the national government
 Local councils exercise only delegated
legislative powers conferred to them by
Congress as the national lawmaking
body
Magtajas vs Pryce Properties
  PAGCOR expanded its operations to
CDO. It was met with various protests
and demonstrations by civic
organizations and religious elements.
 Petitioners contended that PAGCOR’s
operations is violative of City Ordinance
No. 3353 prohibiting the use of buildings
for the operation of a casino and
Ordinance No. 3375-93 prohibiting the
operation of casinos.
 Respondents invoke PD 1869 which
created PAGCOR to help regulate all
games of chance, including casinos on
land and sea within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Philippines.
 ISSUE: WON the City Ordinances are
valid
 HELD: No. Cagayan de Oro, like other
political subdivisions, is empowered to
enact ordinances as expressed in Sec 16
of LGC. However, there is a requirement
that an ordinance should not
contravene with a statute. Municipal
govts are only agents of the national
government. The delegate cannot be
superior to the principal or exercise
powers higher than those of the latter.
 Casino gambling is authorized by PD
1869. This decree has the status of a
statute that cannot be amended or
nullified by a mere ordinance.
LGUs and the Supreme Court: LGUs’ acts are
subject to Judicial Review
Acts of LGUs are within the scope of judicial
review, under Art 8 Sec 4(2), 1987 Constitution,
 The SC has jurisdiction over all cases
involving the constitutionality of a
treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law, which shall be heard
by the Supreme Court en banc, and all
other cases which under the Rules of
Court are required to be heard en banc,
including those involving the
constitutionality, application, or
operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions,
ordinances, and other regulations
LGUs and the President: President exercises
General Supervision
 President shall exercise general
supervision over local governments, to
ensure that their acts are within the
scope of their prescribed powers and
functions.
 National agencies and offices with
project implementation functions shall
coordinate with one another and with
the LGUs concerned in the discharge of
these functions
Drilon v Lim
 Then Secretary of Justice Drilon declared
Ordinance No 7794 null and void for
non-compliance with the procedure in
the enactment of tax ordinance and for
containing certain provisions contrary to
law and public policy.
 This power to revoke is provided in Sec
287 of the LGC which authorizes the
Secretary of Justice to review the
constitutionality or legality of the tax
ordinance, and of warranted, to revoke
it on either or both of these grounds.
 ISSUE: WON Sec 187 of the LGC is
constitutional
 HELD: Yes. When a Sec of Justice alters
or modifies or sets a tax ordinance, he is
not also permitted to substitute his own
judgement for the judgment of the local
government that enacted the measure.
Sec Drilon did set aside the ordinance,
but he did not replace it with his own
version of what the code should be. He
did not exercise an act of control but
only supervision.
Does the President’s power of general
supervision extend to the liga ng mga
barangay, which is not a local government
unit?
-Yes. The liga ng mga barangay is an association,
federation, league or union created by law or by
authority of law, whose members are either
appointed or elected government officials.
 The Liga is an aggroupment of barangays
which are in turn represented by their
punong barangays.
 (Eos) of LCE of Component LGU
LGUs and Congress: LGUs derive their
existence and powers from Congress
 No province, city, municipality or
barangay may be created, divided,
merged, abolished, or its boundary
substantially altered, except in
accordance with the criteria established
in the Local Government Code and
subject to approval by a majority of
votes cast ina plebiscite in the political
units directly affected.
Mother LGU and Component LGU: Mother LGU
reviews acts of component LGU
d) In general
 The President of the Philippines shall
exercise general supervision over local
governments.
 This is to ensure that the acts of their
component units are within the scope of
their prescribed powers and functions
e) Provincial relations with Component
Cities and Municipalities
 The province, through the governor,
shall ensure that every component city
and municipality within its territorial
jurisdiction acts within the scope of its
prescribed powers and functions.
 Highly urbanized cities and independent
component cities shall be independent
of the province
f) City and Municipal relations with
Component Barangays
 The city or municipality, through the city
or municipal Mayor concerned, shall
exercise general supervision over
component barangays to ensure that
said barangays act within the scope of
their prescribed powers and functions
Two types of reviews by a Mother LGU of acts
of Component LGU:
 Executive: Local Chief Executive (LCE) of
Mother LGU reviews Executive Orders
 The governor shall review all executive
orders promulgated by the component
city or municipal Mayor within his
jurisdiction (shall be forwarded to the
governor 3 days after issuance)
 The LCE concerned shall ensure that
such executive orders are within the
powers granted by law and in
conformity with provincial, city or
municipal ordinances.
 If there is inaction on the part of the
governor or the city or municipal mayor,
the EO shall be deemed valid.
 Legislative: Sanggunian of Mother LGU
reviews Ordinances of Sanggunian and
EOs of LCE of Component LGU
2.1 Component City and Municipal
Ordinances and Resolutions
 Within 3 days after approval, the
secretary to the sanggunian panlungsod
or sangguniang bayan shall forward to
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for
review, copies of approved ordinances
and resolutions made by the local
development councils.
 Within 30 days after receipt of copies,
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan shall
examine the documents or transmit
them to the provincial attorney, or if
there is none, to the provincial atty for
prompt execution
 The provincial atty shall inform the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of his
comments and recommendations
 If the Sangguniang Panlalawigan finds
that such an ordinance or resolution is
beyond the power conferred upon the
 Sangguniang Panlungsod or
Sangguniang Bayan concerned, it can
declare such ordinance as invalid
 Inaction by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan within 30 days from
submission = ordinance presumed valid
◦ Barangay Ordinances
 Within 10 days from its enactment, the
sangguniang barangay shall furnish
copies of all barangay ordinances to the
Sangguniang Panlungsod or sangguniang
bayan concerned for review as to
whether the ordinance is consistent
with law and city or municipal ordinance
 Inaction by Sangguniang Panlungsod or
Sangguniang bayan within 30 days from
submission = ordinance deemed valid
 If Sangguniang Panlungsod or Bayan
finds the barangay ordinances
inconsistent with law, it shall return the
same with its comments and
recommendations to the sangguniang
barangay concerned for adjustment,
amendment or modification
LGUs and National Agencies and Offices (with
project implementation functions): Prior
consultation and approval before
implementation
 No project or program shall be
implemented by government authorities
unless the consultations mentioned in
Sections 2(c) and 26 of LGC are complied
with, and prior approval of the
sanggunian concerned is obtained,
provided that occupants in areas where
such projects are to be implemented
shall not be evicted unless appropriate
relocation sites have been provided, in
accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution.
 The requirement of prior consultations
found in Sec 2(c) and 27 of the LGC
apply only to national programs and/or
projects that are to be implemented to a
particular or local community
 Since Lotto is neither a program nor a
project of the national government, but
of a charitable institution, the PCSO, the
provision on prior consultation will not
apply.
LGUs and National Agencies, offices and GOCCs
(with field units in the LGU): Monthly
Reportorial Requirement for Information and
Guidance
 National agencies and offices including
GOCCs with field units or branches in a
province, city, or municipality shall
furnish the local chief executive
concerned, for his information and
guidance, monthly reports including
duly certified budgetary allocations and
expenditures.
LGUs and National Agencies, offices and
GOCCs(with environmental programs):
Consultation
 It shall be the duty of every national
agency or GOCC authorizing or involved
in the planning and implementation of
any project or program that may cause
pollution, climatic change, depletion of
non-renewable resources, loss of crop
land, rangeland or forest cover, and
extinction of plant or animal species, to
consult with the LGUs, NGOs and other
sectors concerned and to explain the
goals and objectives of the program, its
impact upon the people and the
measures that will be undertaken to
prevent or minimize the adverse effects
thereof (Sec 26 of LGC)
LGUs and the PNP, Fire Protection Unit and Jail
Management Personnel: Operational
Supervision and Control by LGU
Andaya vs RTC
  There was a vacancy in the position of
chief of police in Cebu. The regional
director of the Cebu police Andaya
submitted a list of 5 eligible appointed
to the position to the Mayor of Cebu
 However, the mayor refused to appoint
one because he wanted a certain
Sarmiento, who was not on the list due
to being disqualified.
 ISSUE: WON the mayor can require the
Regional Director to include the mayor’s
protégé in the list?
 HELD: No. The mayor has only the
power to choose from the list. It is the
prerogative of the regional director of
the police to choose the eligible person
who should be included in the list
without intervention from local
executives (Sec 51 of R.A 6975)
LGUs and NGOs: LGUs shall support, and may
give assistance to, NGOs
LGUs shall promote the establishment amd
operation of people’s and NGOs to become
active partners in the pursuit of local autonomy
CHAPTER 9: LOCAL TAXATION AND RELATED
POWERS AND PRIVILEGES
Power to Create Sources of Revenues and to
Levy Taxes, Fees and Charges
 Local Taxation Power
Under the 1987 Constitution, each LGU has the
power to create its own sources of revenues
and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to
such guidelines and limitations as the Congress
may provode, consistent with the basic policy of
local autonomy.
 This is only a general power to tax. Their
special power to tax is subject to the
guidelines and limitations as Congress
may provide
 The delegation to tax is not absolute and
unconditional; the legislature must see
to it that:
 The taxpayer will not be overburdened
or saddled with multiple and
unreasonable impositions
 Each LGU will have its fair share of
available resources
 The resources of the national
government will not be unduly
disturbed
 Local taxation will be fair, uniform and
just
Basco v PAGCOR
 P.D 1869, which exempts PAGCOR from
“paying any tax of any kind or form,
income or otherwise , as well as fees,
charges or levies of whatever nature,
whether National or Local” was
questioned by the Manila City
government and it allegedly waives the
latter’s right to impose taxes and license
fees, violating its constitutionally
enshrined principle of local autonomy
(Sec 5, Art X 1987 Constitution)
 ISSUE: Does the Local Government of
Manila have the power to impose taxes
on PAGCOR?
 HELD: The power of an LGU to impose
taxes and fees is always subject to
limitations which Congress may provide
by law
 Municipal corporations have no
inherent power to tax and their power
to tax must always yield to a legislative
act for they are mere creatures of
Congress wherein the latter has the
power to create and abolish municipal
corporation due to its general powers
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) v Marcos
  The SC took a different path compared
to the previous case (Basco v PAGCOR)
on the same issue
 MCIAA was created by virtue of R.A
6958, mandated to principally
undertake the economical, efficient, and
effective control, management, and
supervision of the MIA and Lahug
Airport
 Since its time of creation, MCIAA
enjoyed the privilege of tax exemption
of realty taxes in accordance with Sec 14
of its charter.
 However, The Office of the Treasurer of
the City of Cebu, demanded payment
from realty taxes from MCIAA.
 MCIAA objected to the demand and
asserted that it is an instrumentality of
the government performing
governmental functions, citing Sec 133
of the LGC.
 ISSUE: WON MCIAA is a taxable person
 HELD: Taxation is the rule and
exemption is the exception. MCIAA’s
exemption from payment of taxes is
withdrawn by virtue of Sections 193 and
234 of the LGC. Statutes granting tax
exemptions shall be strictly construed
against the taxpayer and liberally
construed in favor of the taxing
authority.
 MCIAA cannot claim that it was never a
“taxable person” under its Charter. It
was only exempted from payment of
realty taxes.
 practicable on the taxpayer’s ability
Manila International Airport Authority v CA
 SC reverted to the Basco doctrine
 The MIAA operates the NAIA Complex in
Parañaque City under EO 903.
 On March 1997, the Office of the
Government Corporate Counsel issued
Opinion No. 061 to the effect that the
LGC withdrew the exemption from real
estate tax granted to MIAA under Sec 21
of its Charter. Thus, MIAA paid real
estate taxes already due.
 OGCC clarified that the LGC requires
persons exempt from real estate tax to
show proof that MIAA is exempt from
real estate tax.
 MIAA then pointed out that it is exempt
from real estate tax
 ISSUE: WON airport lands and buildings
of MIAA are exempt from real estate
tax?
 HELD: Yes. Because:
(1) MIAA is not a GOCC but an
instrumentality of the National
Government and thus exempt from local
taxation, and
(2) second, the real properties of MIAA
are owned by the Republic of the
Philippines and thus exempt from real
estate tax.
 Construction of Local Taxation
 Local tax measures, being in derogation
of property rights must also be
construed strictly against the local
government unit enacting it and liberally
in favor of the taxpayer in case of doubt
 The principle of “Taxation is the rule and
exemption is the exception” still applies
 Fundamental Principle in Local Taxation
 Taxation shall be uniform in each LGU
 Taxes, fees charges and other
impositions shall:
◦ Be equitable and based as far as
to pay
◦ Be levied and collected only for
public purposes
◦ Not be unjust, excessive, oppressive,
or confiscatory
◦ Not be contrary to law, public policy,
national economic policy, or in
restraint of trade;
  The collection of local taxes, fees and
charges and other impositions shall in
no case be left to any private person
 The revenue collected pursuant to the
provisions of the Code shall inure solely
to the benefit of and be subject to
disposition by, the LGU levying the tax,
fee or other imposition unless otherwise
specified
 Each LGU shall, as far as practicable,
evolve a progressive system of taxation
 Taxing Authority
The power to impose a tax, fee, or charge to
generate revenue under the Code shall be
exercised by the sanggunian of the LGU
concerned through an appropriate ordinance.
Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers:
Unless otherwise provided in the code, the
exercise of the taxing powers of provinces,
cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not
extend to the levy of the following.
 Income tax, except when levied on
banks and other financial institutions
 Documentary stamp tax
 Taxes on estates, inheritance, gifts,
legacies, and other acquisitions in mortis
causa, except as otherwise provided by
the code.
 Custom duties, registration fees of
vessel and wharfage on wharves,
tonnage dues, and all other kinds of
customs fees, charges and dues except
when wharfage on wharves constructed
and maintained by the LGU concerned
 Taxes, fees and charges and other
impositions upon goods carried into or
out of, or passing through the territorial
jurisdiction of the LGU in the guise of
charges for wharfage, tolls for bridges or
otherwise, or other taxes, fees, or
charges in any form whatsoever upon
such goods or chandies.
 Taxes, fees or charges on agricultural
and aquatic products when sold by
marginal farmers or fishermen
 Taxes on business enterprises certified
by the Board of Investments as pioneer
or non-pioneer for a period of 6 and 4
years from the date of registration
 Excise taxes on articles enumerated
under the National Internal Revenue
Code, as amended, and taxes, fees or
charges on petroleum products
 Percentages or VAT on sales, barters or
exchanges or similar transactions on
goods or services except as otherwise
provided
 Taxes on gross receipts of transportation
contractors and persons engaged in the
transportation of passengers or freight
by hire and common carriers by air,
land, or water.
 Taxes on premiums paid by way of
reinsurance or retrocession
 Taxes, fees or charges for the
registration of motor vehicles and for
the issuance of all kinds of licenses or
permits for the driving thereof
 Taxes and fees or other charges on
Philippine products actually exported,
except as otherwise provided in the
code
 Taxes, fees or other charges on the
countryside and barangay business
enterprises and cooperatives duly
registered under R.A. No. 6810 and R.A.
No. 6938.
  Taxes, fees, or charges of any kind on
the National Government, its agencies
and instrumentalities, and local
government units
The taxing powers of LGUs shall not extend to
the levy of any kind of tax on the national
government, its agencies, or its
instrumentalities.
Section 133 states that the common limitations
on taxing powers prevails over section 193
which grants the LGU’s with taxing powers, so
the limitations prevail.
Just Share in the National Taxes:
Procedural Matters Affecting Tax Ordinances
and Measures:
A) Public Hearing – a mandatory
requirement
B) Questions on Constitutionality or
Legality of the Tax Ordinance – may be
raised on appeal 30 days from the
effectivity thereof. The Secretary of
Justice shall then render a decision 60
Amount of Shares:
days from the date of receipt. The
I) Under the code, the LGU shall have a
appeal shall not have the effect of
suspending the effectivity
C) Publication and Public Dissemination –
Within 10 days of the approval, certified
true copies of tax ordinances must be
published in full for three consecutive
days in a newspaper of local circulation,
or be posted for 2 days in a conspicuous
and publicly accessible place
D) Enforcement of Void or Suspended Tax
Measure – sufficient ground for
disciplinary action against the local
officials responsible for it
E) Tax Rate Adjustment – LGUs can adjust
them but not more than once every 5
years
F) Tax Exemption Privileges – may be
granted by LGUs through ordinances
that were approved. HOWEVER, under
the code unless otherwise provided, tax
exemptions – except those for local
water districts, cooperatives registered
under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-
profit hospitals and educational
institutions – were withdrawn upon the
code’s effectivity
Despite this, congress may enact a law
restoring such exemptions or privileges.
G) LGUs have a just share to national taxes.
Their share is determined by law and
shall be automatically released to them.
The LGUs’ shares shall be released to
them on a quarterly basis.
H) The national government cannot
withhold part of this share for any
purpose.
share based on the collection of the
third fiscal year proceeding the current
fiscal year as follows:
 30% on the first year
 35% on the second year
 40% on the third year
In case of an unmanageable deficit, the
president is authorized upon
recommendation of the Secretary of
Finance to adjust the allotments.
HOWEVER, it cannot fall below 30% of
the taxes collected during the third fiscal
year.
J) Before the president may interfere in
local matters there must be:
 Unmanaged public sector deficit
  Consultations with the officers of the
senate and house of reps / the
presidents of various local leagues
 The corresponding recommendation of
the secretaries of the department of
finance, interior and local govt, and
budges and management
Allocation of Shares:
K) Provinces – 23 %
L) Cities – 23 %
M) Municipalities – 34 %
N) Barangays - 20 %
The share of each province, city, and
municipality shall be determined by this
formula.
O) Population – 50 %
P) Land Area – 25 %
Q) Equal Sharing – 25 %
Share of each barangay with a population
not less than 100 shall not be less than
80,000 pesos per annum chargeable against
the 20% share of the barangay from the
internal revenue allotment, and the balance
to be allocated. This is the formula:
R) On the first year:
Population – 40 %
Equal sharing – 60 %
S) On the second year:
a. Population – 50%
b. Equal Sharing – 50%
T) On the third year and thereafter
a. Population – 60%
b. Equal Sharing – 40%
Chapter 10 - LOCAL POLICE POWER
Police Power
27. It is the inherent power of the State
to regulate conduct for the promotion of
general welfare. It has been described
To ensure that the shares benefit the
local community, each LGU shall
appropriate AT LEAST 20% of their
annual budget to developmental
projects.
Equitable Share in the Proceeds of the
Utilization and Development of the National
Wealth Within their Respective Areas:
U) Before the code PNOC didn’t have to
give the LGUs anything, now they pay
millions of pesos to the LGUs.
V) LGUs are entitled to 40% of the gross
collection derived by the national
government from the preceding fiscal
year from mining taxes, royalties,
forestry and fishery charges and etc.
W) LGUs have a share from government
agencies or government cooperatives
engaged in the development of national
wealth.
X) The proceeds from the shares of LGUs
from the utilization and development of
national wealth shall be appropriated by
their respective sanggunian to finance
local development, but 80% derived
from the utilization of hydrothermal,
geothermal, and other sources of energy
shall be applied to lower the cost of
electricity in the LGU
Y) LGUs are empowered to create their
own sources of revenue and they also
have the authority to dispose of real or
personal property held by them in their
proprietary capacity to apply their
resources and assets for productive,
developmental, or welfare purposes.
as the least limitable of the inherent
powers of the State.
28. Based on the ancient doctrine -
salus populi est suprema lex (the
welfare of the people is the supreme
law.
29. In Rubi vs Provincial Board of
 Mindoro (39 Phil. 660), the SC stated
that: “The police power of the State is a
power co-extensive with self protection,
and is not inaptly termed the ‘law
overruling necessity.’
30. Invariably described as “the most
essential, insistent, and illimitable of
powers” and “in a sense , the greatest
and most powerful attribute of
government”
31. The exercise of police power may
be judicially inquired into and corrected
only if it is capricious, whimsical, unjust
or unreasonable, there having been
denial of due process or a violation of
any other applicable constitutional
guarantee.
32. Thus, the state in order to promote
general welfare, may interfere with
personal liberty, with property, and with
business and occupations.
Police Power in Municipal
Corporations
 Police power is essentially
legislative in character and is inherently
vested in Congress of the Philippines.
 It is inherent in the State, but not in
municipal corporations. Before a
municipal corporation may exercise
such power, there must be a valid
delegation of power by the Legislature
which may be through express
delegation or inferred by the mere fact
of creation of the municipal corporation.
Delegation through Local
Government Code
 In matters that are deemed within
the competence of local governments to
handle, Congress delegates this power
to local governments under the Local
Government Code, through Section 16
thereof, the General Welfare Clause.
 This clause provides that “every
local government unit shall exercise the
powers expressly granted, those
necessarily implied therefrom, as well as
powers necessary, appropriate, or
incidental for its efficient and effective
governance, and those which are
essential to the promotion of general
welfare….” (See Sec. 16 of LGC)
 It is general rule that the
ordinances passed by virtue of the
implied power found in the general
welfare clause must be reasonable,
consonant with the general powers and
purposes of the corporation, and not
inconsistent with the laws or policy of
the State.
 Being Legislative in character, local
police power is exercised by the
Sanggunian of the local government
through the enactment of the
appropriate ordinances.
Requisites for Valid Exercise of Local
Police Power
For an ordinance to be valid, it
must not only be within the corporate
powers of the municipality to enact but
must also be passed according to the
procedure prescribed by law, and must be
in consonance with certain well
established and basic principles of a
substantive nature.
These principles require that a municipal
ordinance:
 Must not contravene the
Constitution or any statute,
 Must not be unfair or oppressive
 Must not be partial or
discriminatory
 Must be general and consistent
with public policy
 Must not be unreasonable
As with the State, the local
government may be considered as having
properly exercised its police power only if
the following requisites are met:
 The interests of public generally, as
distinguished from those of particular
class, require the interference of the
 State, and
 There must be concurrence of a lawful
subject and lawful method.
In Lim vs Pacquing, the national
government contended that Manila
Ordinance No. 7065 which purported to
grant Associated Development
Corporation (ADC), a franchise to conduct
jai alai operations is void and ultra vires.
The SC upheld national government’s
contention stating that jai alai is not a
mere economic activity which the law
seeks to regulate but is essentially
gambling so that whether it should be
permitted and, if so, under what
conditions primarily for the lawmaking
authority to determine, taking into
account national and local interests. SC
added that police power of the State (not
of local government) is paramount.
In Balacuit vs CFI of Agusan de
Norte, SC agreed with the
petitioners(theater owners) that
Ordinance No. 640 of Butuan City is ultra
vires and an invalid exercise of police
power. The said ordinance penalized any
person engaged in the business of selling
admission tickets to any movie or other
public exhibitions, games, contests, or
other performances who would require
children between 7 and 12 yrs of age to
pay full payment for admission tickets
intended for adults (they should only
charge one-half of the value of the said
tickets). The Court can see that the
ordinance is clearly unreasonable if not
unduly oppressive upon the business of
petitioners.
In De la Cruz vs. Paras, the Supreme
Court ruled that municipal corporations
cannot prohibit the operation of night
clubs. They may be regulated, but not
prevented from carrying on their
business.
In Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel
Operations Association Inc. vs. City
Mayor of Manila, SC affirmed the
validity of a mere regulatory ordinance
that required the owner, manager,
keeper, or duly authorized representative
of a hotel, motel, or lodging house to
refrain from entertaining or accepting any
guest or customer without his filling up
the prescribed form in the lobby open to
public view at all times in his presence.
In White Light Corporation vs City of
Manila, SC nullified the Manila City
Ordinance as “overbreadth” prohibiting
hotels, motels, pension houses, and
similar establishments from offering a
short-time admission, as well as pro-rated
or “wash up” rates to minimize or
eliminate the use of covered
establishments for illicit sex, prostitution,
drug use and alike.
Interpretation of the General Welfare
Clause
Section 5 (c) of the LGC explicitly
mandates that the general welfare
provisions of the LGC shall be liberally
interpreted to give more powers to the
local government units in accelerating
economic development and upgrading the
quality of life for the people of the
community.
In Zoomzat, Inc. vs People, the SC
court ruled that under the general welfare
clause, the LGU can regulate operation of
cable television but only when it
encroaches on public properties, such as
the use of public streets, rights of ways,
the founding structures and the parceling
of large regions. Beyond these
parameters, its acts such as the grand of
the franchise to Spacelink, would be ultra
vires.
In Tan vs Perena, the SC acknowledged
the ability of the national government to
implement police power measures that
affect the subjects of municipal
government, especially if the subjects of
the regulation is a condition of universal
character irrespective of territorial
jurisdictions. Cockfighting is one of such
conditions.
Territorial Limitations
It has been held that the municipality may
Chapter 11 - LOCAL EMINENT DOMAIN
POWER
Eminent Domain
33. The right or power of a sovereign
state to appropriate private property to
particular uses to promote public
welfare. It is an indispensable attribute
of sovereignty; a power grounded in the
primary duty of government to serve the
common need and advance the general
welfare.
34. This power is essentially legislative
in nature. It is firmly settled but may be
validly delegated to local government
units, other public entities and public
utilities, although the scope of this
delegated legislative power is
necessarily narrower than that of the
delegating authority and may only be
exercised in strict compliance with the
terms of the delegating law.
35. However, the right of expropriation
is not an inherent power in a municipal
corporation, and before it can be
exercised, some law must exist
conferring the power upon it.
When the courts come to determine the
question, they must not only find
(a) that a law or authority exists for the
exercise of the right of eminent domain,
but
(b) also the right or authority is being
exercised in accordance with the law.
Specific requirements for local
eminent domain (Sec 19 of LGC)
 It is exercised through its chief
executive and acting pursuant to an
exercise police power in the protection of
the territory to insure cleanliness, and
prevent any business and conduct likely
to corrupt the fountain of water supply for
the city.
ordinance;
 It is for public use, or purpose, or
welfare for the benefit of the poor and
the landless;
 Payments of just compensation,
pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution and pertinent laws; and
 A valid and definite offer has been
previously made to the owner, and
such offer was not accepted.
 Exercised through its chief
executive and acting pursuant to
an ordinance
In Municipality of Paranaque vs V.M.
Realty Corporation, the SC ruled that
the LGC of 1991, which was the law
already applicable, specifically requires
“ordinance,” such that a mere
“resolution” will not suffice. The court said
that there is a difference between an
ordinance and a resolution in that the
former has the force and effect of laws
while the latter is merely an expression of
the sentiment of the local legislative
body.
2. For public use, or purpose, or
welfare for the benefit of the poor
and the landless
This concept of “public use,” was limited
to the uses that are readily available to
any member of the community like in the
case of a public road, bridge, or public
plaza. However, this concept had been
expanded to mean “promotion of general
welfare.”
The following shall be considered as
public use, purpose or welfare
(Implementing Rules of the Local
Government Code):
 Socialized housing;
 Construction or extension of roads,
streets, sidewalks, viaducts, bridges,
ferries, levees, wharves, or piers;
 Construction or improvement of public
buildings;
 Establishment of parks, playgrounds,
or plazas;
 Establishment of market places;
 Construction of artesian wells or water
supply systems;
 Establishment of cemeteries or
crematories;
 Establishment of drainage systems,
cesspools, or sewerage systems;
 Construction of irrigation canals or
dams;
 Establishment of nurseries, health
centers, or hospitals;
 Establishment of abattoirs; and
 Building of research, breeding, or
dispersal centers for animals
In Lourdes de la Paz Masikip vs. City
of Pasig, where the taking by the State
of private property is done for the benefit
of a small community which seeks to have
its own sports and recreational facility,
not withstanding that there is such a
recreational facility only a short distance
away, cannot be considered to be for
public use.
3. Payments of just compensation
(Sec 9 Art II of the 1987 Constitution)
“Just Compensation” is described as a full
and fair equivalent of the property taken
from the private owner by the
expropriator. This is to indemnify the
owner for the loss he has sustained as a
result of the expropriation.
 Where only a portion of the private
property is expropriated, the owner is
entitled to a just compensation on the
basis of the fair market value of the
property plus consequential benefits.
The concept of “fair market value” also
presupposes that it shall be paid within a
reasonable time or it is no fair market
value at all.
 The SC interpreted the requirement
that payment of just compensation
should be made within a reasonable
time means that the expropriator must
pay the property owner just
compensation within five (5) years from
the finality of the judgement in the
expropriation case.
In Republic vs. Lim, the SC mandated
that “the landowner is entitled to recover
possession of the property expropriated if
the government fails to fully pay just
compensation to the owner within a periof
of five (5) years from the finality of the
judgement in expropriation proceeding.
4. A valid and definite offer has been
previously made to the owner, and
such offer was not accepted.
 As required, the Local Government
must first make an offer (must be in
writing) to buy the private property
before it can legally initiate an
expropriation proceeding so that if the
owner of the property agrees to sell it,
the local govt need not expropriate the
property.
 It shall specify the property sought
to be acquired, the reasons for
acquisition and the price offered.
 If the owner/owners accept the
offer in its entirety, a contract of sale
shall be executed and payment
forthwith made.
 If the owner/owners are willing to
sell their property but at a price higher
that that offered to them, the local chief
executed shall call them to the
conference for the purpose of reaching
an agreement on the selling price.
 If the LGU fails to acquire a private
property for public use, purpose, or
welfare through purchase, LGU may
expropriate property through a
resolution of the Sanggunian
authorizing its chief executive to initiate
expropriation proceedings.
 The Local chief executive shall cause
 the provincial, city, or municipal
attorney concerned or, in his absence,
the provincial or city prosecutor, to file
expropriation proceedings in the proper
court in accordance with the Rules of
Court and other pertinent laws.
 The LGU may immediately take position
of the property upon the filing of
expropriation proceedings and upon
making a deposit with the proper court
of at least 15% of the fair market value
of the property based on the current
tax declaration of the property to the
expropriated.
For expropriation of for purposes of urban
land reform and housing (RA 7279 Urban
Development Housing Act of 1992), read
Sec. 9 and 10.
CHAPTER 12 – POWER TO RECLASSIFY
LANDS
A city or municipality may, through an
ordinance passed by the sanggunian after
conducting public hearing for that purpose,
authorize the reclassification of agricultural
lands and provide for the manner of their
utilization or disposition--
1) when the land ceases to be
economically feasible and sound for
agricultural purposes as determined by
the Department of Agriculture, or
2) where the land shall have substantially
greater economic value for residential,
commercial, or industrial purposes, as
determined by the sanggunian
concerned.
However, such reclassification shall be limited
to the following percentage of the total
agricultural land area at the time of the passage
of the ordinance:
1) For highly urbanized and independent
component cities, fifteen percent;
2) For component cities and first to third
class municipalities, ten percent;
3) For fourth to sixth class municipalities,
five percent.
The President may, when public interest so
requires and upon the recommendation of the
National Economic and Development Authority,
authorize a city or municipality to reclassify
lands in excess of the limits set forth above.
Nicolas Laynesa v. Uy
 The SC ruled that despite the
reclassification of an agricultural land to
non-agricultural land by a local
government unit, the DARAB still retains
jurisdiction over a complaint filed by a
tenant of the land in question for
threatened ejectment and redemption.
 The local government units need not
obtain the approval of the DAR to
convert or reclassify lands from
agricultural to non-agricultural use.
CHAPTER 13 – CLOSURE OF ROAD, ALLEY,
PARK OR SQUARE
A local government unit may, pursuant to an
ordinance, permanently or temporarily close or
open any local or national road, alley, park, or
square falling within its jurisdiction. However, it
is submitted that such power shall be deemed
implied in the General Welfare power of every
local government unit.
Permanent Closure
 The ordinance authorizing it must be
approved by at least 2/3 of all the
members of the sanggunian concerned,
and when necessary, an adequate
substitute for the public facility that is
subject to closure is provided.
 No such way or place or any part thereof
shall be permanently closed without
making provisions for the maintenance
of public safety therein.
  No park shall be closed permanently
without provision for its transfer or
relocation to a new site.
 No permanent closure of any local road,
street, alley, park, or square shall be
affected unless there exists a compelling
reason or sufficient justification thereof
such as, but not limited to:
 change in land use
 establishment of infrastructure
facilities
 projects
 or such other justifiable reasons as
public welfare may require.
 athletic, cultural, or civic activities not
Macasiano v. Diokno
 aside from the requirement of due
process which should be complied with
before closing a road, street or park, the
closure should be for the sole purpose
of withdrawing the road or other public
property from public use when
circumstances show that such property
is no longer intended or necessary for
public use or public service.
Cebu Oxygen and Acetelyne Co. v. Berciles
 The City Council of Cebu through a
resolution declared a terminal road as
an abandoned road and authorized its
sale through a public bidding.
 The SC held that the City of Cebu is
empowered to close a city street and to
vacate or withdraw the same from
public use.
LGC of 1991: “a property thus permanently
withdrawn from public use may be used or
conveyed for any purpose for which other real
property belonging to the locla government
unit concerned may be lawfully used or
conveyed.”
Temporary Closure
 Any national or local road, alley, park, or
square may be temporarily closed
during:
 an actual emergency or fiesta
celebrations
 public rallies or agricultural and
industrial fairs
 undertaking of public works and
highways, telecommunications, and
waterworks projects
 The duration of which shall be specified
by the local chief executive concerned in
a written order.
 In case of fiesta celebration, the closure
should not exceed 9 days.
 No national or local road, alley, park, or
square shall be temporarily closed for
officially sponsored, recognized, or
approved by the local government unit
concerned.
 Any city, municipality, or barangay may,
by a duly enacted ordinance,
temporarily close or regulate the use of
any local street, road, thoroughfare, or
any public place where shopping malls,
Sunday flea or night markets or
shopping areas may be established and
where goods, merchandise, foodstuffs,
commodities, or articles of commerce
may be sold and dispensed to the
general public.
No Just Compensation in general
 The closure of a road, alley, park or
square presupposes an exercise of
police power. Hence, for any loss or
inconvenience caused to a property
owner is a “damnum absque injuria”
(damage without injury) thus, no
compensation.
Sangalang v. IAC
 When any property is condemned or
seized by competent authority in the
interest of health, safety or security, the
owner thereof shall not be entitled to
compensation.
Power to close road, etc., discretionary to LGU
 The local legislative body has the
competence to determine whether or
not a certain property is still necessary
for public use.
 Such discretion will not be ordinarily be
controlled or interfered with by the
courts.
Pilapil v. CA
 The establishment, closure or
abandonment of the camino vecinal was
found to be the sole prerogative of the
Municipality.
CHAPTER 14 – CORPORATE POWERS
The Local Government Code mandates that
every local government unit, as a corporation,
shall have the following powers: (Section 22,
LGC).
1. To have continuous succession in its
corporate name;
2. To sue and be sued;
3. To have and use a corporate seal;
4. To acquire and convey real or personal
property;
5. To enter into contracts; and
6. To exercise such other powers as are
granted to corporations, subject to the
limitations provided in this Code and
other laws.
1. To have continuous succession in its
corporate name
 In order to be able to act as a juridical
entity and exercise such corporate
powers granted to a local government, it
must first have a corporate name.
 Under the Code, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan may, in consulation with
the Philippine Historical Institute,
change the name of component cities and
municipalities, upon the
recommendation of the Sanggunian
concerned, provided that the same shall
be effective only upon ratification in a
plebiscite conducted for the purpose in
the political unit directly affected.
 A change of name will not dissolve nor
destroy the identity of the municipal
corporation, nor affect its rights,
privileges or liabilities.
 It is prohibited to use the names of living
persons except for justifiable reasons.
 The term “corporate” signifies that a
local government unit has “distinct and
separate personality.”
 Local government units may only be
held liable for acts of its officers only
when they acted “by authority” annd “in
conformity with the requirements of the
law”. Otherwise, the officers will be held
personally liable.
2. To sue and be sued
 While it is not an inherent power of
municipal corporations, this power is
vested in the local government units not
only by the LGC of 1991, but also in the
charters creating them.
 This explicit grant of the power to sue
and be sued is one form of an express
consent on the part of the State to be
sued.
 Suability vs. Liability
 Suability depends on the consent of
the state to be sued, liability on the
applicable law, and the established
facts. The fact that the state is suable
does not mean that it is liable. It can
never be held liable if it does not first
consent to be sued.
 Liability is not conceded by the
mere fact that the state has allowed
itself to be sued. When the state does
waive its sovereign immunity, it is
only giving the plaintiff the chance to
prove, if it can, that the defendants is
liable.
 As a rule, the local government unit sues
through its local chief executive and as
authorized by the Sanggunian.
City Council of Cebu v. Cuizon
  The City of Cebu sued through its
councilors in a “representative suit” and
as “taxpayers”, in order to declare null
and void a contract which was executed
by defendant city mayor purportedly in
behalf of the city without valid authority
and which had been expressly declared
by the Auditor-General to be null and
void ab initio.
 This case is considered peculiar because
the local chief executive, the Mayor of
Cebu City, could not have represented
the local government unit as he was in
fact the defendant in that case.
Ramos v. Court of Appeals
 Under the Revised Administrative Code,
only provincial fiscal and the municipal
attorney can represent a province or
municipality in their lawsuits. It is only
when the government lawyer is clearly
disqualified to handle the case that the
local government unit may hire private
lawyers.
Alinsug v. RTC Br. 58, San Carlos City,
Negros Occidental
 The 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.
3. To have and use a corporate seal
 Local government units may continue
using. Modifying, or changing their
existing corporate seal. It should be
registered with the Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG).
4. To acquire and convey real or personal
property
 The corporate personality of the local
government unit allows it to acquire and
convey real and personal properties.
 A municipal corporation may acquire
property in its public or government
powers and private or propriety capacity.
4.1 Public and Patrimonial Properties
 The property of provinces, cities, and
municipalities is divided into property
for public use and patrimonial
property.(Art. 423, NCC)
 Local government units hold properties
in their:
a. government capacity as for properties
for public use; and
b. propriety capacity as for properties
deemed patrimonial.
 Property for public use in the provinces,
cities, and municipalities:(art. 424, NCC)
 provincial roads
 city streets
 municipal streets
 the squares
 fountains
 public waters
 promenades
 public works for public services
 All other property possessed by any of
them is patrimonial and shall be
governed by the New Civil Code,
without prejudice to the provisions of
special laws.
 If the property is owned by the
municipality in its public and
governmental capacity, the property is
public and Congress has absolute control
over it. But if the property is owned in its
private or proprietary capacity, then it is
patrimonial and Congress has no
absolute control.
 The manner by which it was acquired
and the kind of fund used in acquiring
the property may serve as guide to
identify whether the property is public or
matrimonial.
Knowing whether the property of the local
government unit is held in its governmental or
proprietary capacity is important in the
following areas of concern:
g) Property for public use is under the
control of Congress because the lgu in
this instance is merely a political agent
of the State/Natioanal Government.
 h) Property for public use cannot be the
subject of a contract as it is beyond the
commerce of man.
i) Public property cannot be acquired by
prescription against the state.
j) Public property cannot be the subject of
attachment and execution.
k) Public property cannot be burdened by
any voluntary easement.
Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs City of
Zamboanga (conflict between special law and
NCC, former prevails)
properties of a municipal
corporation, of which a province is one. The
principle itself is simple: If the property is
owned by the municipality (meaning municipal
corporation) in its public and governmental
capacity, the property is
public and Congress has absolute control over it.
But if the property is owned in its private or
proprietary capacity, then it is patrimonial and
Congress has no absolute control. The
municipality cannot be deprived of it without
due process and payment of just compensation
Art. 424 NCC: ...All other property possessed by
any of them is
patrimonial and shall be governed by this Code,
without prejudice to the provisions of special
laws. Law of Municipal Corporations
can be considered as “special laws”. Hence, the
classification of municipal property devoted for
distinctly governmental purposes as public
should prevail over the Civil Code classification
in this particular case
Rabuco v. Villegas
Facts:
The constitutionality of RA No. 3120 was
assailed by the city officials of the City of
Manila contending that the conversion of the
lots in Malate area into disposable and alienable
lands of the state and placing its administration
and disposal to the LTA to be subdivided into
lots and selling it to bona fide occupants thereof
in installments constitutes a deprivation of the
City of Manila of its property by providing for
its sale without the payment of just
compensation.
Issue:
Whether or not the properties in dispute may be
disposed without paying just compensation to
the City of Manila?
Held:
The court held that the assailed RA 3120 is
constitutional. The lots in question are owned by
the City of Manila in its public and
governmental capacity and are therefore public
property over which Congress has absolute
control as distinguished from patrimonial
property owned by it which cannot be deprived
from the City without just compensation and
without due process. RA 3120 expressly
provides that the properties are reserved for the
purpose of communal property and ordered its
conversion into disposable and alienable lands
of the state to be sold to its bona fide occupants.
It has been an established doctrine that the state
reserves its rights to classify its property under
its legislative prerogative and the court cannot
interfere on such power of the state.
Villanueva v. Castaneda (Very important case
guys)
Facts:
municipal council of San Fernando adopted
Resolution No. 218 authorizing 24 members of
Fernandino United Merchants and Traders
Association to construct permanent stalls and
sell in the subject property within the vicinity of
the public market. CFI issued writ of
preliminary injunction to prevent the
construction of stalls.
While the case was pending, the municipal
council adopted Resolution No. 29 which
declared the subject area as a parking place and
as the public plaza of the municipality. CFI
decided Civil Case No. 2040 and held that the
subject land was public in nature and was
beyond the commerce of man. The preliminary
injunction was made permanent.
Petitioners argued that they had right to occupy
the area by virtue of lease contracts entered into
with the municipal government, and later, by
virtue of space allocations made in their favor
for which they paid daily fees. The municipality
denied that they entered into said agreements. It
argued that even if the leases were valid, the
same could be terminated at will because rent
was collected daily.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the vendors had the right to
occupy and make use of the property.
HELD:
No. A public plaza is beyond the commerce of
man and so cannot be the subject of lease or any
other contractual undertaking. The town plaza
cannot be used for the construction of market
stalls, specially of residences, and that such
structures constitute a nuisance subject to
abatement according to law. Town plazas are
properties of public dominion, to be devoted to
public use and to be made available to the public
in general. They are outside the common of man
and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the
municipality to private parties.
Even assuming a valid lease of the property in
dispute, the resolution could have effectively
terminated the agreement for it is settled that the
police power cannot be surrendered or bargained
away through the medium of a contract.
Dacanay v. Asistio
ISSUE
May public streets be leased or licensed to
market stallholders by virtue of a city ordinance
or resolution of Metropolitan Manila
Commission?
HELD: NO
1. A public street is property for public use
hence outside the commerce of man. Being
outside the commerce of man, it may not be the
subject of lease or other contract
2. The vested right of the public to use city
streets for the purpose they were intended to
serve such as for traveling
3. Any executive order or city resolution cannot
change the nature of the public street because it
is going to be contrary to the general law
Viuda de tantoco v. Municipal Council of
Iloilo(very important too)
 NOTE: properties for public use held
in municipal corps. Are not subject to
levy and execution
FACTSThe widow of Tan Toco sued the
municipal council of Iloilo for the two strips of
land which the municipality of Iloilo had
appropriated for widening said street. On
account of lack of funds the municipality of
Iloilo was unable to pay the said judgment,
wherefore plaintiff had a writ of execution issue
against the property of the said municipality, by
virtue of which the sheriff attached two auto
trucks, one police patrol automobile, the police
stations on Mabini street, and in Molo and
Mandurriao and the concrete structures, with the
corresponding lots.
ISSUE
Whether the Municipal properties can be
executed in lieu of the unsatisfied obligation?
HELD
No, property for public use of the State is not
within the commerce of man and, consequently,
is unalienable and not subject to prescription.
Likewise, property for public use of the
municipality is not within the commerce of man
so long as it is used by the public and,
consequently, said property is also inalienable.
The rule is that property held for public uses,
such as public buildings, streets, squares, parks,
promenades, wharves landing places, fire
engines, hose and hose carriages, engine houses,
public markets, hospitals, cemeteries, and
generally everything held for governmental
purposes, is not subject to levy and sale under
execution against such corporation.
Municipality of Paoay vs Manaois
Issue:
May the fishery or municipal waters of the town  QUESTION:Who may acquire such
of Paoay or its usufruct may be levied upon and lands after being reclaimed?
subject to execution? How about the revenue or
income derived from the renting of these fishery Chavez vs PEA and Amari Coastal Bay dev.
lots? Corp. (Amari case)- important case
(take note of the comparison of this case to the
Held: Ponce case (Ponce et. al. Vs City of Cebu et.
No, properties for public use held by municipal al)
corporation are not subject to levy and Amari case Ponce Case
execution. The reason= held in trust for the
ISSUE: WON private corp. Admit that submerged lands
people. HOWEVER, revenue or income coming (Amari) can lawfully acquire still belong to the national
from the renting of these fishery lots is certainly submerged and reclaimed gov. And inalienable except
subject to execution. These are profitable, it is a submerged lands in Manila agricultural lands (sec 2, art.
sort of sideline, so that even without it the bay? XII constitution)
municipality may still continue functioning and HELD: --Cebu city ordinance merely
perform its essential duties as such municipal Submerged lands, like waters granted Essel Inc. An
corporations. (sea or bay) above them are “irrevocable option to
inalienable. This is also true to purchase the forshore lands
City of Angeles vs CA FORESHORE lands. Any sale AFTER reclamation, it did
ISSUE of submerged or forshore lands not actually sell the still to
is void being contrary to the be reclaimed foreshore lands.
Whether a subdivision owner/developer is
constitution. --Option to purchase referred
legally bound under Presidential Decree No. --Here, the bulk of lands to RECLAIMED lands, not
1216 to donate to the city or municipality the subject of the ammended joint foreshore lands which are
“open space” allocated exclusively for parks, venture agreement (JVA) are inalienable.
playground and recreational use STILL SUBMERGED lands, --Reclaimed lands are no
HELD: therefore unalienable. longer foreshore or
YES. it is no longer optional on the part --According to the JVA, PEA submereged and may qualify
of the subdivision owner/developer to donate the conveyed to Amari the as alienable public
open space for parks and playgrounds; rather submerged lands even before agricultural lands.
there is now a legal obligation to donate the their actual reclamation.
same.
These are non-alienable public lands, and Illegal- There is an immediate legal-ONLY an irrevocable
non-buildable. No portion of the parks andplay transfer to the join venture. option to purchase of
grounds donated thereafter shall be converted to Amari’s right to own the foreshore lands once actually
any other purpose or purposes. submerged land is reclaimed
PD 1216: open space- an area reserved IMMEDIATELY effective
upon approval of the
exclusively for parks,playgrounds, recreational
ammended JVA, not merely an
uses, schools, roads, places of worship, option to be exercised in the
hospitals, health centers, barangay centers and future if reclamation is actually
other similar facilities and amenities realized.
Same Amari case: Court reiterated the need for
4. 2. Submerged Lands, foreshore lands, and PUBLIC BIDDING (sec. 379, LGC 1991)
reclaimed lands  Who will reclassify the land? DENR
 Generally: they belong to the state’s
inalienable natural resources. Constitutional Ban on acquisition of alienable
 Exception: after being reclaimed, in pub. Lands and pub. Corp; End-user
accordance with the law, they cease to be government agency doctrine
public properties and may be disposed as
patrimonial properties.
  LGU is a pub. Corp. And is qualified
under the constitution to hold alienable
or even inalienable lands of public
domain.
PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY vs CA
- The Iloilo [F]ishing [P]ort [Complex/IFPC]
constructed by the State for public use and/or
public service falls within the term “port” in the
aforecited provision which can’t be subject for
execution/sale. Whether there are improvements
in the fishing port complex that should not be
construed to be embraced within the term ‘port’.
Any doubt on whether the entire IFPC may be
levied upon to satisfy the tax delinquency should
be resolved against the City of Iloilo.
The NFPC cannot be sold at public auction in
satisfaction of the tax delinquency. The land on
which the NFPC property sits is a reclaimed
land, which belongs to the State. In Chavez v.
Public Estates Authority, the Court declared that
reclaimed lands are lands of the public domain
and cannot, without Congressional fiat, be
subject of a sale, public or private.
5. To enter into contracts
 can enter into contracts
 must be respected by congress thus any
obligations arising out of municipal
contracts CANNOT be impaired by
congress.
 HOW? Local chief executive +
sangunian’s approval + posting
◦ SECTION 22, LGC
▪ unless otherwise provided by this
code, NO contract may be
entered into by the local chief
executive in behalf of LGU
without prior authorization of the
SANGGUNIAN concerned.
▪ Legible copy of such must be
posted at a conspicuous place in
the provincial capitol, city of
brgy. Hall.
5.1 Requisites for valid LGU contract
-conditions for a local chief executive may enter
into a contract in behalf of LGU: PSPACFPG
(Papa is SuPer ACtive For the
President’sGovernor)
Z) LGU must have the POWER to enter
into the particular contract (note: LGU’s
cannot enter into contracts on extracting
natural resources, it is the national
government);
AA) Prior authorization by the
SANGGNIAN concerned and legible
copy of such must be POSTED at a
conspicuous place in the provincial
capitol, city of brgy. Hall.(sec. 22c, LGC);
BB) If contract involves expenditure
of public funds there should be
ACTUAL APPROPRIATION and
CERTIFICATE OF AVAILABILITY
OF FUNDS by the treasurer of LGU
(Secs. 46 and 47, chapter subtitle B, Book V,
1987 admin, code);
CC) Conform with FORMAL
requisites of written contracts prescribed
by law;
DD) If province is a party conveying
real property, it must be approved by the
PRESIDENT (sec 2068 revided admin code).
If a municipality is a party conveying
real property or any interest or creating
lien, must be approved by GOVERNOR
(sec 2196 revided admin code).
Note: statutes requiring pub. Bidding apply to contracts
already executed in complience with law if such
ammendments ALTER orig cont.
5.2 Prior authorization by Sanggunian
QUISUMBING, et al. vs GARCIA, et
al.
(very important case)
Facts: COA conducted a financial audit
on the Province of Cebu and found out
that several contracts were not supported
with a Sangguniang Panlalawigan
resolution authorizing the Provincial
Governor to enter into a contract, as
required under Section 221 of R.A. No.
7160. Gov Garcia sought reconsideration
of this findings. However, without waiting
for its resolution, filed an action for
declaratory relief with the RTC. Gov
claimed that the no prior authorization is
required because the expenditures
incurred are already authorized by the
appropriation ordinances of the previous
year which are deemed re-enacted. RTC
ruled that no prior authorization is
required.
HELD:
1. Reenacted- ONLY for salary and wages
2. Not reenacted- appropriation ordinance
describing new projects in generic terms
such as infrastructure, inter municipal
water words, drainage etc. It NEEDS
sanggunian’s approval.
5.3 EFFECTS OF COMPLIANCE of the
Requisites
Question (note: this might come out sa
exam) :
 Distinguish Ratification from
Authorization.
Ratification (after) presumes that
there is already an authorization
(before).
 Effects: (refer to 5.1 Requisites for
valid LGU contract)
Entered without Effect/Ratification
compliance
with:
A and C -Ultra Vires (acting or done beyond
requisites one's legal power or authority) and
null and void.
-Cannot be ratified.
B and D -Defective BUT can be ratified
requisites expressly or impliedly
-DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL will not apply
to void contracts when LGU already
received benefits because it will only
validate the void contract.
-DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED MUNICIPAL
LIABILITY apply to transactions without
contracts BUT could have been valid had
one been entered to to the extent of the
benefit received.
Vergara vs Ombudsman: (important
case)
FACTS:
The City Government of Calamba (Calamba City),
through Mayor Lajara, entered into the following
agreements: MOA, Deed of Sale, Deed of Real
Estate Mortgage and Deed of Assignment of Internal
Revenue Allotment (IRA).
The above documents were subsequently endorsed
to the City Council. Petitioner, however, alleged that
all these documents were not ratified by the City
Council, a fact duly noted by the Commission on
Audit.
Respondents justified the absence of ratification by
the City Council of the MOA, Deed of Sale, Deed of
Mortgage, and Deed of Assignment. They cited
Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160) which
spoke of prior authority and not ratification.
Respondents pointed out that petitioner did not
deny the fact that Mayor Lajara was given prior
authority to negotiate and sign the subject
contracts. In fact, it was petitioner who made the
motion to enact Resolution No. 280.
ISSUE: Whether all the documents pertaining to
the purchase of the lots should bear the ratification
by the City Council of Calamba.
HELD:
Clearly, when the local chief executive
enters into contracts, the law speaks of
prior authorization or authority from
the Sangguniang Panlungsod and not
ratification. It cannot be denied that the
City Council issued Resolution No. 280
authorizing Mayor Lajara to purchase the
subject lots.
ratification by the City Council is not a condition sine
qua non for Mayor Lajara to enter into contracts.
With the resolution issued by the Sangguniang
Panlungsod, it cannot be said that there was evident
bad faith in purchasing the subject lots.
Power to Negotiate and Secure
Grants
SECTION 23, LCG
GENERAL RULE:
Local executive may, upon AUTHORITY of
sanggunian negotiate and secure financial
grants and donations in kind, in support of
services and facilities given in sec. 17,
LGC from local and foreign assistance
agencies WITHOUT necessity of securing
clearance or approval from any
department, agency, or office of the
national government or from any higher
LGU.
EXCEPTION:
projects finance by such grants or
assistance with national security
implications shall be approved by the
national agency concerned PROVIDED
that when national agency FAILS to act on
request for approval within 30 days from
receipt, it is deemed approved.
Local chief executive, within 30 days upon
signing of such grant agreement of deed
of donation, report the nature, amount,
and terms of such assistance to both
houses of congress and the President.
CHAPTER 15: LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES
Liability for Defective public works
 Article 2189, NCC “Provinces, cities and
municipalities shall be liable for
damages for death of, or injuries
suffered by, any person by reason of the
defective condition of the roads, streets,
bridges, public buildings and other
public works under their control and
supervision.
◦ requires only CONTROL and
SUPERVISION for liability to arise
regardless of ownership.
◦ Specific on defects on road...etc.
 Art. 471, rules and Regulations
Implementing LGC “ extent of liability
shall be governed by the provisisons of
the civil code on quasi delict”.
Cases (okay, here comes the manholes :)
Jimenez vs City of Manila
A victim fell in an uncovered opening in a public
market managed by Asiatic Integrated corp.
Respondent City of Manila maintains that it
cannot be held liable for the injuries sustained
by the petitioner because under the
Management and Operating Contract, Asiatic
Integrated Corporation assumed all
responsibility for damages which may be
suffered by third persons for... any cause attri-
butable to it.
However Article 2189 of the Civil Code which
governs liability due to "defective streets,...
public buildings and other public works"
requires only that the province, city or
municipality has either "control or supervision"
over the public building in question. There is no
question that the Sta. Ana Public Market,
despite the Management and Operating
Contract between respondent City and Asiatic
Integrated Corporation remained under the
control of the former. In fact it employed a
market master to take direct supervision and
control to check the safety of the place.
Guilatco vs City of Dagupan
Facts: Florentina Guilatco was about to board a
tricycle at a sidewalk located at Perez Blvd. (a
national road) when she accidentally fell into an
open manhole resulting in her hospitalization
and continuing difficulty in locomotion. City of
Dagupan denied liability on the ground that the
manhole was located on a national road, which
was not under the control or supervision of the
City of Dagupan.
ISSUE:
Whether the City of Dagupan is liable to Guilatco.
HELD:
Yes, the City of Dagupan is liable. For Article 2189
to apply, it is not necessary for the defective road or
street to belong to the province, city or
municipality. The article only requires that either
control or supervision is exercised over the
defective road or street.
Here, control or supervision is provided for in the
charter of Dagupan and is exercised through the City
Engineer, whose duties include the care and custody
of the public system of waterworks and sewers.
Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila Vs. CA
Municipal liability for injuries caused by failure to
regulate drilling and excavation attaches weather it
be in a national or municipal road so long as it is
within the latter’s jurisdiction.
LIABILITY for Torts
If LGU is engaged in governmental functions, it is
not liable for such damages but if it is engaged in
proprietary functions, it is liable.
Cases:
Municipality of San Fernando La Union vs Firme -
this case was decided in Feb. 1989 when LGC was
not yet effective (take note of the difference of this
case to the case of Sps. Jayme vs Apostol)
The test of liability of the municipality depends on
whether or not the driver acting in behalf of the
municipality is performing governmental or
proprietary functions. Municipal corporations are
suable because their charters grant them the
competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they
are generally not liable for torts committed by them
in the discharge of governmental functions and can
be held answerable only if it can be shown that they
were acting in a proprietary capacity. In permitting
such entities to be sued, the State merely gives the
claimant the right to show that the defendant was
not acting in its governmental capacity when the
injury was committed or that the case comes under
the exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the
claimant cannot recover.
NOTE HOWEVER that under section 24, LGC, LGU
and their official are liable are NOT EXEMPT from
liability for death or injury to persons or damage to
property
Sps. Jayme vs Apostol
Liability of LGU under art. 2180 of the NCC is clear
that the obligation imposed in 2176 is demandable
not only for ones acts and omissions but also for
those whom he is responsible.
Torio vs Funtanilla
Municipal council of Malasiqui ordered the
construction of wooden stage for the town fiesta
however it collapsed causing serious physical
injuries to the participants.
Held: Municipality is liable for holding a fiesta is a
proprietary function not for general welfare. The
councilors were however absolved for they can be
likened to members of the board of directors in
private corp. having a distinct personality since
celebration of fiesta is not a government function.
They are not liable for damages for negligence of an
agent and the employees of government unless
there is a showing of bad faith or gross negligence.
City of Manila vs IAC
in the absence of special law, North cemetery is a
patrimonial property of the city of Manila. The
administration and government of the cemetery
were under the city health officer and the order and
police of the cemetery, opening graves etc. were
under the superintendent of the cemetery. City is
therefore liable for the tortuous acts of its
employees under the principle of respondeat
superior.
Liability for Contracts:
 LGU’s 2 fold power:
1. public, governmental or political-
▪ administering power of the
state and promoting public
welfare
▪ including: legislative, judicial,
public and political functions.
2. corporate, private and proprietary-
▪ for special benefit and
advantage of the community.
▪ Including: ministerial, private
and corporate
1. Doctrine of Implied Municipal Liability
  municipality may be obligated upon an
implied contract to pay the reasonable
value of benefits accepted or appropriated
by it as to which it has general power to
contract.
 Apply to all cases where money and
property is receive under general law
 principles rests on the theory that the
obligation implied by law to pay does not
originate in unlawful contract but arises
from considerations outside it.
Province of Cebu vs IAC
by reaping benefits out of the contract, city of Cebu
is estopped from questioning its validity
2. Doctrine of Estoppel, not applicable to VOID
contracts
limitation of no. 1. It cannot be applied to mun.
corp. to validate a contract which corp. has no
power to make or which it is not authorized to do
so.
-Otherwise, it will allow the Mun. to do acts
indirectly what it cannot do directly. (San Diego vs
Mun. of Naujan)
Liability for Illegal Dismissal of Employees
-an illegally dismissed employee who is later
reinstated is entitled to back wages and other
monetary benefits at the time of dismissal to
reinstatement.
BUT who will be liable? The LGU or the officer who
effected it?
1. Municipal liability
Municipality of Jasaan vs Gentallan
permanent appointee to the position, Gentallan is
entitled to security of tenure and benefits. So who
should be liable for damages? Since no finding of
malice or bad faith which attended illegal dismissal
and refusal to reinstate Gentallan by her superior
officers, latter can’t be accountable for back salaries
so municipal government was ordered to disburse
funds to answer to such.
HOWEVER, if the LGU approved or permitted the
illegal act of the officials in removing its employees,
it may be held jointly and severally with the pub.
Official (Laganapan vs Asedillo).
2. Enforcement of Monetary Judgment
2.1. remedy- levy on patrimonial property of the
government (Municipality of Paoay vs Manaois)
2.2. But is the LGU do not have patrimonial
properties- Remedy file petition for mandamus to
compel it to pay to satisfy judgment (Mun of Makati
vs CA)
2.3. file money claim with Comm. Of Audit (COA)
--- HOWEVER, the money of LGU in the bank
CANNOT be GARNISHED if it came from PUBLIC
FUNDS. Such is exempted (Mun. of Makati vs CA)
3. Personal Liability of Officials
General rule: they can be held liable for acts claimed
to be in connection to their official duty where they
acted ultra vires or there is bad faith (Chavez vs SB)
Rama vs CA
gov, v-gov, members of sanggunian, prov. Auditor,
treasurer and engineer- solidarily liable for damages
to some 200 employees of prov. Of Cebu who were
eased out because of party affiliations.
Correa vs CFI Bulacan
Gen: LGU is liable for the acts of its officers acting
within the scope of their authority
Exception: a pub. Officer who commits tort or act in
excess of beyond his scope of duty is not protected
by his office and is like to a private individual.
In JONES vs LOVING- However, legislative officers
are not personally liable for the adoption of
ordinances. They are exempt for passing such within
their authority, nor their motives be inquired.
Chapter 16: Elective Officials
I. Qualifications
a. For LGU Officials
1.) Citizen of the Philippines
 Need not be a natural
born citizen at the time of
the election
  Naturalized officials are
allowed to run provided
they surrender their
other citizenship
2. Registered Voter in the barangay,
municipality, city or province (For a
member of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, panlunsod or bayan- the
District where he intends to be elected)
3.) Resident therein for at least 1 year
immediately preceeding the day of the
election
4.) Able to Read and write Filipino or any
other local language or dialect
b. For Gov, VG/Member of the s.
panlalawigan/Mayor or VM for s. panlungod
5.) At least 23 years of age on election
day
c. For M or VM of independent component
cities/municipalities
6.) At least 21 years of age on ED
d. For members of the s. panlungsod/s.bayan
7.) At least 18 years on ED
e. For Punong Barangay/ member of s.
barangay
8.) At least 18 years on ED
f. For S. Kabataan
9.) at least 15 y/o but not more than 21
(or 24) on ED
Frivaldo v COMELEC
“Philippines citizenship is an indispensable
requirement for holding an elective public
office, and the purpose of such qualification is
none other than to ensure that no alien shall
govern our people and our country or a unit of
territory thereof.”
 Definition for “at the time of election” =
on the day of the proclamation
 It is immaterial WON you were not a
Filipino during the filing of the
candidacy, but what matters is that you
are a Filipino at the time of election
 Therefore, Frivaldo is not considered as
a Filipino citizen because although he
did lose his naturalized American
citizenship, such forfeiture did not have
the effect of automatically restoring his
citizenship in the PH that he had
renounced. Qualifications for public
office are continuing requirements and
must be posessesd not only at the time
of appointment or election or
assumption of office but during the
officer’s entire tenure.
Romualdez-Marcos v COMELEC
Residence- one’s permanent or temporary
place of abode
Domicile- the fixed place of abode where one
has an intention on returning
 A person can only have a single
domicile, unless for various reasons, he
successfully abandons his domicile in
favor of another domicile of choice
 Rationale for the requirement: To give
the candidates the opportunity to be
familiar with the needs, difficulties,
aspirations, potentials for growth and all
matters vital to the welfare of their
constituents
Ruling: Therefore, Imelda was qualified to
run for the reason that Leyte is her domicile
even tho she claims to have more than 1
residence
Torayno v COMELEC
3 Classifications of Domicile (BLC)
1. Domicile by Birth
2. Domicile by Law
3. Domicile by Choice
Ruling: residence is required because electives
are needed to be familiar with the issues
surrounding that specific place. Thus, Emano
was allowed to run, satisfying the 1 year
requirement for having an ancestral home in
CDO.
II. Disqualifications
LGC. Sec. 40
1. Those sentenced by Final Judgment for an
offense involving moral turpitude or for an
offense punishable by 1 year or more of
imprisonment
 Moral Turpitude- everything which is
done contrary to justice, modesty or
good morals.
 Moreno v COMELEC
When an officer is under probation (for
the commission of a crime), it does not
mean that he is disqualified from office
because probation suspends his
sentence. Furthermore, probation will
restore all civil rights lost because of
conviction
 Therefore, Moreno’s probation
granted him the right to run for
public office because Probation
law provides that the final
discharge of the probationer
shall operate to restore to him all
civil rights lost or suspended as a
result of his convuction and to
fully discharge his liability for any
fine imposed as to the offense
2. Those removed from office as a result for an
Administrative case
3. Those convicted by final judgment for
violating the Oath of allegiance to the republic
4. Those with Dual citizenship
 Rule: Dual Citizenship is not a ground for
disqualification, HOWEVER, dual
allegiance is.
 Mercado v Manzano
Dual Citizenship- a person is considered
to be a national of a country because of
an involuntary decision
Dual Allegiance- it is the voluntary
decision to be a national of a country
5. Fugitives from justice in a criminal or non-
political case here or abroad
 Marquez v COMELEC
“Fugitive from justice” refers to:
- a person fleeing from conviction to
avoid punishment, or;
- a person, who after being charged,
flees to avoid prosecution
6. Permanent residents in a foreign country of
those who have acquired the right to reside
abroad and continue to avail of the same right
 Acquistion of residence abroad = positive
act of abandonment
 Caasi v COMELEC
Rule: any person who is not a permanent
resident or an immigrant to a foreign
country shall not be qualified to run for any
elective office UNLESS the person has
waived his status as a permanent resident
or immigrant of a foreign country.
 Although the LGC does not mention
the word “immigrant”, it is
understood to mean a permanent
resident in foreign country or those
who have acquired the right to
reside abroad
 Rationale: the law reserves the
privilege for its citizens who have
cast their loyalty to the republic
without mental reservation
7. The Insane of feeble-minded
Chp. 17: Disciplinary Actions of Public
Officials
I. Sources
1. Local Government Code of 1991
2. RA 3019
3. Code of Ethics
4. Revised Penal Code
5. 1987 Constitution
6. The Ombudsman Law
7. The Sandiganbayan Law
8. Plunder Law
II. Grounds for Disciplinary Action
(DOA-DOA-CU)
1. Disloyalty to the Republic of the PH
2. Comission of an Offense involving moral
turpitude or of an offense punishable by at least
prision mayor
3. Abuse of authority
4. Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office,
gross negligence or dereliction of duty
5. Other grounds provided by law
6. Application for, or acquisition of, foreign
citizenship or resident or immigrant status
7. Culpable violation of the constitution
8. Unauthorized absence for 15 consective
working days, EXCEPT in the case of members
of the sangguniang
Ombudsman v Rodriguez
Ruling: Elective officials can only be removed by
the courts because the court, being an
unelected entity, is free from any political
intervention. The Local Government Code is the
basis, and the Ombudsman has the jurisdiction
Pablico v Villapardo
Ruling: the sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction
to prosecute erring local elective officers
III. Preventive Suspension
Objective: (PA)
1. To Prevent the accused from hampering the
normal course of the investigation with his
influence and authority over possible witnesses
or to keep him off the records and other
evidence
2. To Assist prosecutors in firming up a case
against erring local officials.
Imposed by: (PGM)
 The President- if the respondent
is an elective of a province,
highly urbanized or an
independent component city
 The Governor- if respondent is
an elective official of a
component city or municipality
 The Mayor- if the respondent is
an elective offial of the barangay
Requisites of Preventive Suspension:
Joson III v CA
 After the issues are joined (when
the complaint has been
answered and there are no
longer any substantial
preliminary issues)
 When the evidence of guilt is
strong
 Great probability that the
continuance in office of the
respondent could influence the
witness or pose a threat to the
safety and integrity of the
records and other evidences
Rule: PS shall not extend beyond 60 days
Rule: PS shall not extend beyond 90 days within
a single year on the same ground if several
administrative cases are filed against an erring
local official
Rule: The respondent official preventively
suspended from office shall receive no salary or
compensation during such suspension
Except: he shall be paid full salary or
compensation upon exoneration and
reinstatement
IV. Penalty: Effects
1. The investigation of the case shall be
terminated within 90 days from the start
thereof. Within 30 days after the end of the
investigation, the Office of the President or the
sangguniang concerned shall render a decision
in writing stating clearly and distinctly the facts
and the reasons for such decision. Copies of
said decision shall immediately be furnished to
the respondent and all interested parties.
2. The penalty of suspension shall not eceed the
unexpired term of the respondent or a period
of 6 months for every administrative offense,
nor shall said penalty be a bar to the candidacy
of the respondent so suspended as long as he
meets the qualification required for the office.
3. The penalty of removal from office as a result
of an administrative investigation shall be
considered a bar to the candidacy of the
respondent for any elective position.
V. Administrative Appeals
Decisions in administrative cases may, within 30
days from receipt thereof, be appealed to the
ff:
1. The S. Panlalawigan- of decisions from
the S. Panlulungod of component cities
and S. Bayan
 2. Office of the Pres- of decisions from
the S. Panlalawigan and Panlungod of
highly urbanized cities and independent
component cities. Decisions from the
Office of the President shall be final and
executory

Rule: an appeal shall not prevent a decision

from becoming final and executory.
VI. The Aguinaldo Doctrine
A public official cannot be removed for
administrative conduct committed during a
prior term.
Rationale: a candidate’s re-election signifies a
condonation of the offenses committed during
his prior term because the public now knows of
his character and life, hence the reason why
they elected him.
Carpio-Morales v CA & Binay
Overturned the Aguinaldo Doctrine for the
reason that the same has no legal basis;
election is not a mode of condoming
administrative offenses. The decision was based
from the Pascual Doctrine (US Jurisprudence)
VII. Removal of Local Elective
The office of the President is without any power to
remove elected officials, since such power is
exclusively vested in the proper courts.