G.R. No.

169253
PACIFICO C. VELASCO, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division) and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents
Topic: Power of Local Officials

Facts:
Philip Corpus Velasco then Mayor of the municipality of Bacarra in Ilocos Norte filed a complaint
against his predecessor regarding the purchase of a road grader. The purchase is alleged to be
anomalous.
Then on December 11 2002 the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon issued a resolution dismissing
the complaint for lack of probable cause. Then Acting Mayor Nicomedes Dela Cruz moved for
reconsideration on 2003.
The case was reviewed and the Office of Legal Affairs of the Ombudsman recommended the
filing of technical malversation against the petitioner.
The petitioner asserts that the acting mayor has no legal capacity(standing) to file a Motion for
reconsideration pertaining to an earlier resolution dismissing the complaint against him.
Issue:
Does the acting mayor has the legal capacity to file an MR or to continue the action of the
mayor?
Held:
Yes, the acting mayor has the legal capacity to file a Motion for reconsideration on behalf of the
local government. Under Section 46 of the Local Government Code, the vice-mayor
automatically assumes the powers and duties of the mayor in case of the latters temporary
absence, thus:
SEC. 46. Temporary Vacancy in the Office of the Local Chief Executive. - (a) When the
governor, city or municipal Mayor, or punong barangay is temporarily incapacitated to perform
his duties for physical or legal reasons such as, but not limited to, leave of absence, travel
abroad, and suspension from office, the vice-governor, city or municipal vice-mayor, or the
highest ranking sangguniang barangay member shall automatically exercise the powers and
perform the duties and functions of the local chief executive concerned, except the power to
appoint, suspend, or dismiss employees which can only be exercised if the period of temporary
incapacity exceeds thirty (30) working days.

In fact, Acting Mayor Dela Cruz explained that at that time he filed the motion, Mayor Philip
Velasco was "on official vacation leave and out of the country."11 It is likewise incontrovertible
that Mayor Philip Velasco instituted the complaint in his capacity as then Mayor of Bacarra,
Ilocos Norte. Petitioner premises his challenge on legal standing on the mere failure of the
complainant to state in his complaint that he was suing on behalf of the municipality. His
argument is specious. As correctly asserted by Mayor Philip Velasco in his Comment/Opposition
to the Motion to Strike, the property sought to be recovered in the complaint will revert to the
municipality and not to him
G.R. No. 188500, July 24, 2013
PROVINCE OF CAGAYAN, REPRESENTED BY HON. ALVARO T. ANTONIO, GOVERNOR,
AND ROBERT ADAP, ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICER,
Petitioners, v. JOSEPH LASAM LARA, Respondent.
Topic: Powers of Local Government
Facts:
On September 14, 2007, Lara obtained an Industrial Sand and Gravel Permit3 (ISAG Permit)
from the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), authorizing him to conduct quarrying operations in a twenty-hectare area
situated in Barangay Centro, Muncipality of Peablanca (Peablanca), Cagayan (Permit Area)
and extract and dispose of sand, gravel, and other unconsolidated materials from the Permit
Area. For the same purpose, Lara obtained an Environmental Compliance Certificate4 (ECC)
from the DENR Environmental Management Bureau (EMB).

Lara received a Stoppage Order9 dated March 13, 2008 (Stoppage Order) this time from
Cagayan Governor Alvaro T. Antonio (Gov. Antonio), directing him to stop his quarrying
operations for the following reasons: (a) the ISAG Permit was not in accordance with Republic
Act No. (RA) 7942,10 otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, and its
implementing rules and regulations; (b) Laras failure to pay sand and gravel fee under
Provincial Ordinance No. 2005-07; and (c) [Laras] failure to secure all necessary permits or
clearances from the local government unit concerned as required by the [ECC].11 Hence, Lara
filed the present action for injunction and damages with an urgent and ex-parte motion for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction before the RTC,
docketed as Civil Case No. 707.
Lara maintains that the MGB and DENR-EMB had already authorized him to extract sand and
gravel from the Permit Area, as evidenced by the ISAG Permit and ECC, thereby dispensing
with the need to secure any permit from the local government. In any case, he contends that the
only reason why he failed to secure such permits was because the local government officials
deliberately refused to process his applications without any legitimate reason whatsoever.

Issue:
Does Lara need to secure a permit from the LGU?
Held:
In order for an entity to legally undertake a quarrying business, he must first comply with all the
requirements imposed not only by the national government, but also by the local government
unit where his business is situated. Particularly, Section 138(2) of RA 716026 requires that such
entity must first secure a governors permit prior to the start of his quarrying operations,
SECTION 138. Tax on Sand, Gravel and Other Quarry Resources. x x x.
The permit to extract sand, gravel and other quarry resources shall be issued exclusively by the
provincial governor, pursuant to the ordinance of the sangguniang panlalawigan
In connection thereto, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan promulgated Provincial
Ordinance No. 2005-07, Article H, Section 2H.04 of which provides:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
SECTION 2H.04. Permit for Gravel and Sand Extraction and Quarrying. No person shall
extract ordinary stones, gravel, earth, boulders and quarry resources from public lands or from
the beds of seas, rivers, streams, creeks or other public waters unless a permit has been issued
by the Governor (or his deputy as provided herein) x x x. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
A plain reading of the afore-cited provisions clearly shows that a governors permit is a prerequisite before one can engage in a quarrying business in Cagayan. Records, however, reveal
that Lara admittedly failed to secure the same; hence, he has no right to conduct his quarrying
operations within the Permit Area.
Pimentel
VS.
Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 195770July 17, 2012
Topic: Local Autonomy
Facts:
The petioner assets the validity of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 10147 or the General
Appropriations Act (GAA) of 20111 which provides a P21 Billion budget allocation for the
Conditional Cash Transfer Program (CCTP) headed by the Department of Social Welfare &
Development (DSWD). Petitioners seek to enjoin respondents Executive Secretary Paquito N.
Ochoa and DSWD Secretary Corazon Juliano-Soliman from implementing the said program on
the ground that it amounts to a "recentralization" of government functions that have already
been devolved from the national government to the local government units.

Petitioners admit that the wisdom of adopting the CCTP as a poverty reduction strategy for the
Philippines is with the legislature. They take exception, however, to the manner by which it is
being implemented, that is, primarily through a national agency like DSWD instead of the LGUs
to which the responsibility and functions of delivering social welfare, agriculture and health care
services have been devolved pursuant to Section 17 of Republic Act No. 7160, also known as
the Local Government Code of 1991, in relation to Section 25, Article II & Section 3, Article X of
the 1987 Constitution.

Petitioners assert that giving the DSWD full control over the identification of beneficiaries and
the manner by which services are to be delivered or conditionalities are to be complied with,
instead of allocating the P21 Billion CCTP Budget directly to the LGUs that would have
enhanced its delivery of basic services, results in the "recentralization" of basic government
functions, which is contrary to the precepts of local autonomy and the avowed policy of
decentralization.
Issue:
Whether or not the 21 billion budget allocation of Conditional Cash Transfer violates Article 2,
Section 2 of Article 10, section 6 of the 1987 Philippine constitution in relation of section 17 of
the Local Government Code of 1991?
Held:
Petition is dismissed. Under the Philippine concept of local autonomy, the national government
has not completely relinquished all its powers over local governments, including autonomous
regions. Only administrative powers over local affairs are delegated to political subdivisions. The
purpose of the delegation is to make governance more directly responsive and effective at the
local levels. In turn, economic, political and social development at the smaller political units are
expected to propel social and economic growth and development. But to enable the country to
develop as a whole, the programs and policies effected locally must be integrated and
coordinated towards a common national goal. Thus, policy-setting for the entire country still lies
in the President and Congress.
Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there
must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative
one.23 Petitioners have failed to discharge the burden of proving the invalidity of the provisions
under the GAA of 2011. The allocation of a P21 billion budget for an intervention program
formulated by the national government itself but implemented in partnership with the local
government units to achieve the common national goal development and social progress can by
no means be an encroachment upon the autonomy of local governments.