6 LocGov 261to319

5
a) Office of the Secretary. – The office of

LOCAL the Secretary shall consist of the
Secretary and his immediate staff; and
GOVERNMENTS
b) Office of the Undersecretaries and
Assistant Secretaries. – The Secretary
shall be assisted by two (2)
Undersecretaries, one (1) for local
government and the other for peace and
I. order, at least one (1) of whom must
INTRODUCTION: HISTORY AND belong to the career executive service,
PERSPECTIVES and three (3) career Assistant
Secretaries.
Basic Laws
1987 CONSTITUTION, Article X Section 8. Head of Department. – The head of
the Department, hereinafter referred to as the
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987, Title XII, as Secretary, shall also be the ex-officio Chairman of
amended by RA 6975 the National Police Commission and shall be
Chapter I appointed by the President subject to
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL confirmation of the Commission on Appointments.
GOVERNMENT No retired or resigned military officer or police
official may be appointed as Secretary within one
Section 4. The Department of the Interior and (1) year from the date of his retirement or
Local Government. – To carry out the policies and resignation.
purposes of this Act, the Department of Local
Government is hereby reorganized into the Section 9. General Powers, Term of Office and
Department of the Interior and Local Compensation of the Secretary. – The authority
Government, hereinafter referred to as the and responsibility for the exercise of the
Department, in accordance with the provisions of Department’s powers and functions shall be
this Act. vested in the Secretary, who shall hold office at
the pleasure of the President’s and shall receive
Section 5. Powers and Functions of the the compensation, allowanced and other
Department. – In furtherance of the objective of emoluments to which heads of departments are
this Act, the Department shall continue to entitled.
exercise the powers and functions of the
Department of Local Government in addition to Section 10. Specific Powers and Functions of the
the powers as herein provided. Secretary. – In addition to his powers and
functions as provided in Executive Order No. 262,
Section 6. Organization. – The Department shall the Secretary as Department Head shall have the
consist of the Department Proper, the existing following powers and functions:
bureaus and offices of the Department of Local a) Prepare and submit periodic reports,
Government, the National Police Commission, the including a Quarterly Anti-Crime Operations
Report and such other reports as the
Philippine Public Safety College, and the following
President and Congress may require;
bureaus: the Philippine National Police, the b) Act as Chairman and Presiding Officer of the
Bureau of Fire Protection, and the Bureau of Jail National Police Commission; and
c) Delegate authority to exercise any
Management and Penology.
substantive or administrative function to the
members of the National Police Commission
Section 7. Department Proper. – The Department or other officers of rank within the
Department.
Proper shall consist of the existing staff services
as provided for under Executive Order No. 262
and the following offices:
[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures]
[Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law]
[Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law]
[Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
6
Section 11. Regional Offices. – The Department 7160 expressly repeals BP 337 (the old LGC), said
shall establish, operate and maintain a regional RA is to take effect only on Jan. 1, 1992. As the
office in each of the administrative regions of the facts of this case arose before the effectivity of
country to implement the policies and programs RA 7160, the old LGC applies.
of the Department. Each regional office shall be
headed by a regional director to be assisted by Secretary of Health v. CA, 241 SCRA 688 (1995)
two (2) assistant regional directors: one (1) for Secretary of Health still has jurisdiction
jail management and penology and another for over the administrative complaint in question,
fire protection in addition to the present assistant despite the enactment of the Local Government
regional directors of the Department of Local Code, which Code divested the Sec. of Health of
Government. administrative jurisdiction over the health officer.
The petitioner was charged and placed under
Section 12. Relationship of the Department with suspension in 1991, before the enactment of RA
the Department of National Defense. – During a 7160, and thus, was within the administrative
period of twenty-four (24) months from the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Health.
effectivity of this Act, the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) shall continue its present role of Innovations in the law on local governments
preserving the internal and external security of introduced by the Local Government Code of
the State: Provided, That said period may be 1991
extended by the President, if he finds it • Devolution of basic services (e.g. health,
justifiable, for another period not exceeding environment, etc.) to LGUs;
twenty-four (24) months, after which, the • Increase of financial resources available
Department shall automatically take over from to LGUs;
the AFP the primary role of preserving internal • Devolution of responsibility for
security leaving to the AFP its primary role of enforcement of certain regulatory powers
preserving external security. However, even after (e.g. reclassification of agricultural
the Department has assumed primary lands);
responsibility on matters affecting internal • Legal infrastructure for participation of
security, including the suppression of insurgency, NGOs and Pos in the process of
and there are serious threats to national security governance
and public order, such as where insurgents have
gained considerable foothold in the community
thereby necessitating the employment of bigger
tactical forces and the utilization of higher caliber
armaments and better armored vehicles, the
President may, upon recommendation of the II.
peace and order council, call upon the Armed BOOK I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Forces of the Philippines to assume the primary TITLE ONE: BASIC PRINCIPLES
role and the Philippine National Police (PNP) to
play the supportive role in the area concerned. A. Policy and Application
LGC Sections 1-4
Effectivity of the Code
LGC Sections 5d, 536. Local Government, Decentralization,
Autonomy
Evardone v. Comelec, 204 SCRA 464 (1991) De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 603 (1987)
Art. XVIII, Sec. 3 of the Constitution The 1987 Constitution took effect on
provides that all existing laws not inconsistent February 2, 1987, the date of the plebiscite for
with the Constitution shall remain operative until ratification, and not on February 11, 1987, the
amended, repealed or revoked. Although RA date of the proclamation of its ratification by the

7
President. Art. XVIII, Sec. 27 of the 1987
Constitution states that it shall take effect Ganzon v. CA, 200 SCRA 271 (1991)
immediately upon its ratification by a majority of The President may still administer
the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose. administrative sanctions against local officials,
The act of ratification is the act of voting by the despite the change in the language of the 1987
people, which is the date of the plebiscite. The Constitution, wherein the phrase “as may be
canvass of votes thereafter is merely the provided by law” (referring to the authority of the
mathematical confirmation of what was done Secretary of Local Governments to discipline local
during the date of the plebiscite and the officials), a phrase contained in the previous
proclamation of the President is merely the Constitutions, was deleted. The omission only
official confirmatory declaration of the act of the underscored the LGUs autonomy from Congress
people in adopting the Constitution when they and break its “control” over the LGUs’ affairs.
cast their votes on the date of the plebiscite. Autonomy does not contemplate making
mini-states out of LGUs. It is not a
San Juan v. Civil Service Commission, 196 SCRA decentralization of power but merely a devolution
69 (1991) of national administration. It is subject to the
Where a law is capable of two “guiding star” of the legislature. Note that the
interpretations, one in favor of centralized power local autonomy is not self-executing as it is
in Malacañang and the other beneficial to local subject to the passage of a LGC, local tax law,
autonomy, the scales must be weighed in favor of among others. The Constitution even allowed
autonomy. Thus, when the Civil Service Congress to include in the LGC provisions for the
Commission interpreted the recommending power removal of local officials suggesting Congress
of the Provincial Governor in the selection of a may exercise removal powers and delegate this
Provincial Budget Officer as purely directory, it exercise to the President.
went against the constitutional provisions on local While the Constitution left the President
autonomy. The Secretary of the Department of mere supervisory powers, this does not exclude
Budget and Management must appoint only from necessarily the power of investigation or removal.
the list of qualified recommendees nominated by The power of investigation or removal is not
the Governor. If none is qualified, he must return inconsistent with the power of
the list of nominees to the Governor explaining supervision/overseeing. Thus, the argument that
why no one meets the legal requirements and ask the Constitution repealed Sec. 61 and 62 of the
for new recommendees who have the necessary LGC is untenable.
eligibilities and qualifications.
Basco v. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52 (1991)
NOTE: (fr. San Juan v. CSC) Starting from the Petitioners assail the constitutionality of
1935 Constitution, the President’s power over PD 1869, which created PAGCOR, on several
LGUs is clearly limited to general supervision grounds, among which is that it waived and
while he exercises control over executive infringed the right of the Manila City gov’t to
departments. Supervision goes no further than impose taxes and license fees. PD 1869 was
overseeing; it is the power/authority to see to it declared constitutional.
that subordinate officers perform their duties. The SC stated that Manila City, being a
Should there be failure or neglect to fulfill these mere municipal corporation, has no inherent right
duties, the superior officer may take steps to impose taxes. Its charter must plainly show an
prescribed by law to make them perform. intent to confer that power of the municipality
Control is the power of an officer to alter, modify cannot assume it. Under the 1987 Constitution,
or nullify or set aside what a subordinate had its “power to tax” must always yield to the
done in the performance of their duties and limitations provided by Congress, which has the
substitute the judgment of the former for that of inherent power. In this case, the exemption
the latter. (citing Hebron v. Reyes)

8
granted in PD 1869 can be construed as a Scope of Application
limitation of the LGU’s power. LGC Section 4 (supra)
Moreover, the power of Manila City to
impose license fees has long been revoked the Merger of Administrative Regions;
power to regulate gambling has been vested Autonomous Regions
exclusively in the National Gov’t. The principle of Abbas v. COMELEC, 179 SCRA 287 (1989)
local autonomy simply means decentralization. Petitioners sought to declare RA 6734,
As to what powers should be decentralized to providing for an organic act for the Autonomous
LGUs is a matter of policy and wisdom of Region in Muslim Mindanao, unconstitutional and
Congress (political question). to restrain the COMELEC from conducting
Lastly, LGUs have no power to tax plebiscites for the creation of the autonomous
instrumentalities of the National Gov’t. PAGCOR region, based on the ff. grounds:
is a GOCC with an original charter, performing RA 6734 violates the Constitution which
dual roles: the operation and regulation of makes the creation of the region
gambling casinos. The latter role is dependent on the outcome of the
governmental, placing it in the category of an plebiscite by making its creation
agency or instrumentality of the gov’t. absolute and automatic;
it grants the President the power to
NOTE: “Supremacy” of the National Gov’t. – A merge regions, a power not granted
political subdivision cannot regulate a federal by the Constitution
instrumentality in such a way as to prevent it RA 6734 was declared constitutional. Its
from consummating its federal responsibility or reference to the provisions of the Constitution
seriously burden it in its accomplishment of its which set forth the necessary conditions for the
objectives. creation of the autonomous region and the
inclusion of a specific provision incorporating
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp., 234 SCRA substantially the same requirements in the
255 (1994) Constitution clearly indicates that the creation of
Ordinances prohibiting the issuance of the region will take place only in accord with ff.
business permits to or canceling the permits of, the constitutional requirements:
establishments allowed to be used for the creation shall take effect when approved
operation of casinos and prohibiting the operation by a majority of the votes cast by the
of casinos in the city are not valid. These constituent units is a plebiscite;
ordinances violate PD 1869, which is a statute. only provinces and cities where a
LGUs are only agents of the National Gov’t. majority vote in favor of the organic
exercising delegated legislative powers. The act shall be included in the
delegate cannot be superior to the principal. This autonomous region, while those
basic relationship is not weakened by the policy of provinces and cities where a majority
local autonomy. Congress retains control of LGUs is not attained shall not be included;
although in a reduced degree. the single plebiscite shall be
Section 458 of the LGC cannot be relied determinative of (a) WON there shall
on to sustain the validity of the ordinances. It be an autonomous region in
only authorizes LGUs to prevent or suppress Mindanao and (b) which provinces
gambling which is not prohibited by law. A and cities shall comprise it.
reading of the entire repealing clause of the LGC As to the 2nd ground, the merger of
will show that there is no express repeal of PD administrative regions, referred to in the statute,
1869. There is also no implied repeal since this is is merely the grouping of contiguous provinces for
not favored, and because Congress recognized administrative purposes. Administrative regions
PAGCOR as a source of funding in two later are not territorial and political subdivisions like
enactments. provinces, cities and municipalities. And though

9
the power to merge administrative regions is not empted Congress from its task of enacting an
expressly provided for in the Constitution, it is a organic act and created an autonomous region in
power which has traditionally been lodged with the Cordillera. The SC held that there was no
the President to facilitate the exercise of power of preemption of Congress.
general supervision of local governments. EO merely provides for transitory
measures in anticipation of the enactment of an
NOTE: The “majority” vote required by the organic act and the creation of the region. It
Constitution for the creation of an autonomous prepares the ground for autonomy. The CAR was
region is a simple majority of votes approving the created merely for purposes of administrative
Organic Act in individual constituent units and not coordination as it consolidates and coordinates
a double majority of the votes in all constituent the delivery of services of line departments and
units put together, as well as in the individual agencies of the National Government in the areas
constituent units. covered by the administrative region. Moreover,
subsequent to the EO, Congress passed RA 6658
Chiongbian v. Orbos, 245 SCRA 253 (1995) which created the commission tasked to prepare
Pres. Aquino issued EO 429 providing for the draft of the organic act, thus strengthening
the reorganization of the administrative regions in the conclusion that the President, through the EO
Mindanao. Petitioners assail the validity of the EO did not preempt Congress.
claiming that no law authorizes the President to
pick certain cities and provinces within the Ordillo v. COMELEC, 192 SCRA 100 (1990)
existing regions, some of which did not even take The sole province of Ifugao cannot validly
part in the plebiscite, and restructure them into constitute the Cordillera Autonomous Region.
new administrative regions. The SC held said The key words in Article X, Section 15 of the
power is executive in character. Constitution, “provinces, cities, municipalities and
The creation and subsequent geographical areas,” connote that a “region” is to
reorganization of administrative regions by the be made up of more than one constituent unit.
President is pursuant to authority granted to her The term region as used in its ordinary sense
by law (RA 5435, which authorized the President means two or more provinces. Ifugao is a
to reorganize executive departments). In province by itself. To become part of a region, it
conferring the power to merge, Congress merely must join other provinces, cities, municipalities
followed the pattern set by previous legislation. and geographical areas.
The SC reiterates the Abbas doctrine that the
power to merge by the President is similar to the Badua v. Cordillera Bodong Administration, 194
power to adjust municipal boundaries which was SCRA 101 (1991)
described as “executive in nature” in the Pelaez The tribal court does not have jurisdiction
case. Thus, there is no abdication by Congress of to try a case involving a dispute over land. Due
its legislative power. to the rejection of the creation of a Cordillera
Autonomous Region, the tribal court was not
NOTE: Administrative regions are mere constituted into an indigenous or special court
groupings of contiguous provinces for under RA 6676 (providing for the creation of the
administrative purposes, not for political autonomous region). The tribal court does not
representation. possess judicial power as it is not a part of the
Philippine judicial system. Like the pangkat or
Cordillera Broad Coalition v. COA, 181 SCRA 495 conciliation panels created by the Katarungang
(1990) Pambarangay, it is an advisory and conciliatory
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of body whose primary purpose is to bring parties to
EO 220 which created the Cordillera a compromise.
Administrative Region (CAR) on the ground that,
by issuing the EO, the President virtually pre-

10
Rules of Interpretation and upgrade the quality of life for the people of
LGC Section 5 the community.
Indispensable to the policy of
Greater Balanga Development Corp. v. Balanga, decentralization under the Constitution is
239 SCRA 436 (1994) devolution. One of the devolved powers is the
The Sangguniang Bayan passed a enforcement of fishery laws. This necessarily
resolution annulling the mayor’s permit issued to includes the enactment of ordinances to
the petitioner. The petitioner contends that it has effectively carry out the fishery laws within
not violated any law or ordinance to warrant the municipal waters. To be able to effectively realize
revocation of its permit and that the issuance of these powers, provisions on LGUs should be given
the resolution was a quasi-judicial act and not the liberal interpretation and any doubt should be
mere exercise of police power. The Court found resolved in favor of devolution. Any fair and
in favor of the petitioner. reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power
The power of municipal corporations are shall be interpreted in favor of the LGU.
to be construed in strictissimi juris and any doubt
or ambiguity must be construed against the NOTES:
municipality. While the Sanggunian has the
power to regulate and prescribe conditions under • Local autonomy: power of LGUs to decide for
which the municipal license may be revoked, the themselves certain matters without need for
“anxiety, uncertainty, restiveness” among the clearance or approval by the national
stallholders as stated in the resolution cannot be government
valid grounds for revocation.
• Decentralization: devolution of national
Tano v. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 (1997) administration (not power) from the national
The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto government to the LGUs
Princesa enacted an ordinance which banned the
shipment of all live fish outside the city. Decentralization of Decentralization of
Petitioners assailed its constitutionality on the Administration Power
grounds of lack of due process, deprivation of Delegation by the Abdication of political
livelihood and undue restriction from the practice central gov’t of power in favor of LGUs
of their trade. On the other hand, public administrative powers declared to be
respondents contend that the ordinance is a valid to political subdivisions autonomous. In this
enactment under the General Welfare Clause in order to broaden the case, the autonomous
(Sec. 16) of the LGC, and pursuant to its specific base of gov’t power gov’t is free to chart its
power to protect the environment. (Limbona v. Mangelin) own destiny and shape
The SC upheld the ordinance as valid its future with
under the General Welfare Clause. In connection minimum intervention
with this, Sec. 5(c) of the LGC provides for the from central authorities
liberal interpretation of the general welfare (Limbona v. Mangelin)
provisions of the Code, to give more powers to Local government units Autonomous regions
the LGUs in accelerating economic development
• Deconcentration: flow of autonomy from the the transfer of power and authority from the
national government towards regional National Government to LGUs to enable them
agencies to perform specific functions and
responsibilities (Art. 24, IRR of the LGC)
• Devolution: act by which the national
government confers power and authority
upon the various LGUs to perform specific
functions and responsibilities (LGC, Sec. 17)

11
B. General Powers and Attributes (For creation of specific LGUs, check LGC 385-
386, 441-442, 449-450, 460-461; SEE TABLE
Creation of Local Government Units FOR SUMMARY)
1987 CONSTITUTION, Article X Sections 1, 7, 10,

11, 15, 16, 19 (supra)
LGC Sections 6-10
Province Municipality
City Barangay
Requirements LGC, Secs. 460- LGC, Secs. 441-
RA 9009 (2001) LGC, Secs. 385-386
461 442
Average annual Average anual Average annual
income, as income, as income, as certified
certified by the certified by the by the provincial
Department of Department of treasurer, of at
Finance, of not Finance, of at least
Income less than least P2,500,000.00 for
P20,000,000 P100,000,000 for the last two
based on 1991 the last 2 consecutive years
constant prices consecutive years based on 1991
based on 2000 constant prices
constant prices
2,000 inhabitants
5,000 inhabitants, in
cities and
250,000 150,000 municipalities within
Population 25,000 inhabitants
inhabitants inhabitants MM and other
metropolitan political
subdivisions or in
highly urbanized cities
contiguous contiguous contiguous territory Territory need not be
territory of at territory of at of at least 50 km2 contiguous if it
least 2,000 km2 least 100 km2 comprises 2 or more
islands
territory need requirement on requirement on

not be land area shall not land area shall not
contiguous if it apply where the apply where the
Territory comprise 2 or city proposed to municipality
more islands or be created is proposed to be
is separated by a composed of 1 or created is
chartered city or more islands; the composed of 1 or
cities which do territory need not more islands;
not contribute to be contiguous if it territory need not
the income of comprises 2 or be contiguous if it
the province more islands comprises 2 or
more islands

12
By law or by an
ordinance of the
sangguniang
panlalawigan or
panlungsod; case of
the creation of
barangays by the
sangguniang
panlalawigan, the
By an Act of By an Act of By an Act of
Manner of Creation recommendation of
Congress Congress Congress
the sangguniang
bayan concerned shall
be necessary
By an Act of
Congress, to enhance
the delivery of basic
services in the
indigenous cultural
communities
Plebiscite Approval must Approval must be Approval must be Approval must be by
(in LGUs directly be by majority of by majority of the by majority of the majority of the votes
affected) the votes cast; votes cast; except votes cast; except cast; plebiscite shall
except other- other- wise otherwise be held within such
wise provided in provided in the provided in the Act period of time as may
the Act of Act of Congress, of Congress, the be determined by the
Congress, the the plebiscite shall plebiscite shall be law or ordinance
plebiscite shall be held within 120 held within 120 creating said
be held within days from the days from the date barangay
120 days from date of its of its effectivity
the date of its effectivity
effectivity
without observing the standards prescribed
• For provinces and cities, the income by the LGC shall not be entitled to any share
requirement must be satisfied and EITHER of the taxes that are allotted to the local
population OR territory governments units under the provisions of
the Code. (Art. VI, Sec. 19; RA 9054, 2001)
• As to the income requirement, average  holding of a plebiscite to determine the
annual income shall include the income will of the majority of the voters of the
accruing to the general fund, exclusive of areas affected by the creation, division,
special funds, transfers, and non-recurring merger, or whose boundaries are being
income altered shall be observed
• The Regional Assembly of the ARMM may Division and merger of existing LGUs shall comply
prescribe standards lower than those with the same requirements prescribed for
mandated by the LGC in the creation, their creation
division, merger, abolition, or alteration of  however, such division should not reduce
the income, population, or land area of the
the boundaries of provinces, cities,
LGUs concerned to less than the minimum
municipalities, or barangay. Provinces, cities, requirements prescribed in the LGC
municipalities, or barangay created, divided,  the income classification of the original
merged, or whose boundaries are altered local government unit or units should not

13
fall below its current classification prior to Cawaling v. COMELEC, Oct. 26, 2001
such division. Petitioners question the validity of RA
8806, which created the City of Sorsogon, based
• Territory should be properly identified by on the following grounds:
metes and bounds with technical descriptions creation of Sorsogon City by merging two
municipalities violates Section 450(a)
Creation of the LGC which requires that only a
Padilla v. COMELEC, Oct 19, 1992 municipality or a cluster of barangays
It stands to reason that when the law may be converted into a component
states that the plebiscite shall be conducted “in city;
the political units directly affected,” it means that it contains two subjects: (a) the creation
the residents of the political entity who would be of the City of Sorsogon, and (b) the
economically dislocated by the separation of a abolition of the Municipalities of
portion thereof have the right to vote in said Bacon and Sorsogon, in violation of
plebiscite. What is contemplated by the phrase the “one subject, one bill” rule
“political units directly affected” is the plurality of prescribed by the Constitution.
political units which would participate in the RA 8806 is valid. The petitioner is not
plebiscite. assailing the non-compliance with the criteria set
by the Local Government Code, but the mode of
Torralba v. Sibagat, 147 SCRA 390 (1987) its creation. The phrase “A municipality or a
The petitioners challenge the cluster of barangays may be converted into a
constitutionality of BP Blg. 56, creating the component city” is not a criterion but simply one
Municipality of Sibagat. They contend that under of the modes by which a city may be created.
the 1973 Constitution, a Local Government Code The creation of an entirely new local government
must first be enacted to determine the criteria for unit through a division or merger of existing local
the creation, division, merger, abolition or government units is recognized under the
substantial alteration of the boundary of any Constitution, provided that such merger or
province, city, municipality or barrio; and since division shall comply with the requirements
there was no LGC when the said BP was passed, prescribed by the Code.
the latter could not have complied with any such As to the 2nd ground relied upon, the SC
criteria, making the BP null and void. ruled that the abolition of the corporate existence
BP Blg. 56 was upheld. The Constitution of the Municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon due
does not require that the enactment of the Local to their merger is not a subject separate and
Government Code is a condition sine qua non for distinct from the creation of Sorsogon City, but
the creation of a municipality. Before the the logical, natural and inevitable consequence of
enactment of such Code, the legislative power to the merger.
create municipal corporations remains plenary
except that said creation should be approved by Pelaez v. Auditor General, 15 SCRA 569 (1965)
the people concerned in a plebiscite called for the In 1964, the President, purporting to act
purpose. pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised
Administrative Code, issued several EOs creating
NOTE: It is a long-recognized principle that the 33 municipalities. The SC declared the EOs null
power to create a municipal corporation is and void.
essentially legislative in nature. In the absence of Whereas the power to fix a common
any constitutional limitations, a legislative body boundary, in order to avoid or settle conflicts of
may create any corporation it deems essential for jurisdiction between adjoining municipalities, may
the more efficient administration of government. partake of an administrative nature – involving
the adoption of means and ways to carry into
effect the law creating said municipalities – the

14
authority to create municipal corporations is contending that EO 353 is void for being a
essentially legislative in nature. Section 68 does usurpation of legislative powers.
not meet the standards for a valid delegation. It SC ruled that the petition was not
does not enunciate a policy nor give a sufficient seasonably brought, being filed only 30 years
standard for the exercise of the power, making after the creation of the municipality of San
such grant of authority a virtual abdication of the Andres. Granting that the EO was void, San
powers of Congress in favor of the Executive. Andres is still considered to have attained at least
Moreover, the authority to create municipal a status closely approximating that of a de facto
corporations granted by Section 68 would give corporation. The State itself recognized the
the President the power of control over local continued existence of San Andres when it
governments, which is violative of the classified it as a 5 th
class municipality. More
Constitution. importantly, Sec. 442 (d) of the LGC cured
whatever defect there was in its creation. The
De Facto Corporations said provision states that municipal districts
Malabang v. Benito, 27 SCRA 533 (1969) “organized pursuant to presidential issuances or
The Municipality of Balabagan was executive orders and which have their respective
created through an EO, which was subsequently sets of elective municipal officials holding office at
declared invalid by the Pelaez ruling. Petitioners the time of the effectivity of the Code shall
bring an action to restrain the respondent henceforth be considered as regular
municipal officials (of Balabagan) from performing municipalities.”
the functions of their offices. On the other hand,
the respondents claim that although the EO was Municipality of Candijay v. CA, 251 SCRA 695
void, Balabagan is at least a de facto corporation, (1994)
having been organized under color of a statute The Municipality of Candijay assails the
before this was declared unconstitutional, and juridical personality of the Municipality of Alicia to
that as a de facto corporation, its existence present evidence in a separate case. Candijay
cannot be collaterally attacked. claims that the EO which created Alicia is void,
The SC ruled that the Municipality of inasmuch as said EO was issued pursuant to Sec.
Balabagan is not a de facto corporation since 68 of the Revised Administrative Code which was
there can be no color of authority in an declared unconstitutional in the Pelaez ruling.
unconstitutional statute. An unconstitutional act The SC ruled that the Municipality of
confers no rights, imposes no duties, affords no Alicia is a de jure municipality, pursuant to the
protection and creates no office. However, even ruling in the San Narciso case. Not only was
if the EO was invalid, it does not mean that the Alicia created 16 years prior to the ruling in
acts done by the municipality of Balabagan in the Pelaez, but its existence was also recognized
exercise of its corporate powers are a nullity. through various governmental acts.
This is because the existence of the EO is “an
operative fact which cannot justly be ignored.” Municipality of Jimenez v. Baz, 265 SCRA 182
(1996)
Municipality of San Narciso v. Mendez, 239 SCRA The claim of the Municipality of Jimenez
11 (1994) that Sec. 442 of the LGC is invalid because it does
In 1959, EO 353 created the municipal not conform to the constitutional requirement for
district of San Andres by segregating certain the holding of plebiscites in the creation of new
barrios from the Municipality of San Narciso. municipalities will not hold. Said requirement
Fiver years later, another EO was issued, applies only to new municipalities created for the
recognizing San Andres as a 5th class first time under the Constitution and cannot be
municipality. In 1989, the Municipality of San applied to municipal corporations created before.
Narciso filed a petition for quo warranto

15
NOTE: In this case, the Court also held that the certitude the territorial jurisdiction of a local
power of provincial boards to settle boundary government unit. Thus, Congress maintained the
disputes is limited to implementing the law existing boundaries of the proposed City of Makati
creating a municipality. Thus, provincial boards but made them subject to the ultimate resolution
does not have the authority to approve by the courts in the boundary dispute between
agreements which in effect amend the boundary Makati and Taguig.
stated in the creating statute.
City of Pasig v. COMELEC, 314 SCRA 179 (1999)
Tobias v. Abalos, 239 SCRA 106 (1994) A requisite for the creation of a barangay
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of is for its territorial jurisdiction to be properly
RA 7675, which converted the Municipality of identified by metes and bounds or by more or less
Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City. The permanent natural boundaries. Because
SC dismissed the petition. territorial jurisdiction is an issue raised in the
The creation of a separate congressional pending civil case, until and unless such issue is
district for Mandaluyong is not a subject separate resolved with finality, to define the territorial
and distinct from the subject of its conversion into jurisdiction of the proposed barangays would only
a highly urbanized city but is a natural and logical be useless. The boundaries must be clear for
consequence of its conversion into a highly they define the limits of the territorial jurisdiction
urbanized city. The Constitution does not require of a LGU. It can legitimately exercise power of
the title to fully index or catalogue all the government only within the limits of its territorial
contents and minute details in the law. Moreover, jurisdiction. Beyond these limits its acts are ultra
that there is no mention of any census to show vires.
that Mandaluyong and San Juan had each
attained the minimum requirement of 250,000 Miranda v. Aguirre, 314 SCRA 603 (1999)
inhabitants to justify their separation does not RA 7720 converted the municipality of
suffice to strike down the validity of the statute. Santiago into an independent component city. It
It is not required that all laws must was ratified by people in the plebiscite.
contain all relevant data. Subsequently, RA 8528 was enacted, changing
the status of Santiago from an independent
Mariano v. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 211 (1995) component city to a component city. Petitioners
RA 7854, converting the Municipality of assail the constitutionality of RA8528, alleging
Makati into a Highly Urbanized City, is being that it does not provide for the ratification in a
assailed for not properly identifying the land area plebiscite. The SC held that there is merit in the
or territorial jurisdiction of Makati by metes and petition.
bounds, in violation of Art. X of the Constitution. The Constitution provides that no
The SC ruled that the requirement on province, city, municipality or barangay may be
metes and bounds was meant merely as a tool in created, or divided, merged, abolished, or its
the establishment of local government units. So boundaries substantially altered except in
long as the territorial jurisdiction of a city may be accordance with the criteria in the LGC and
reasonably ascertained, the intent behind the law subject to approval by a majority of the votes
(i.e., the determination of the territorial cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly
jurisdiction over which governmental powers may affected. The question is whether or not the
be exercised) has been sufficiently served. A downgrading falls within the meaning of creation,
cadastral type description is not necessary. division, merger, abolition, or substantial
alteration of boundaries.
NOTE: In this case, the Court also held that the Notice the common denominator is
existence of a boundary dispute does not per se material change in the political and economic
present an insurmountable difficulty which will rights of the LGUs directly affected as well as the
prevent Congress from defining with reasonable people therein. It is therefore but reasonable to

16
require the consent of the people to be affected Income
as part of democracy. The downgrading of Alvarez v. Guingona, 252 SCRA 695 (1996)
Santiago will result in the ff: (a) the city mayor IRAs form part of the income of LGUs. A
will be placed under the administrative LGU is a political subdivision of the State which is
supervision of the provincial governor, (b) constituted by law and possessed of substantial
resolutions and ordinances will have to be control over its own affairs. Understandably, the
reviewed by the provincial board, (c) taxes will vesting of duty, responsibility and accountability
have to be shared with the province. If RA 7720, in every LGU is accompanied with a provision for
which upgraded Santiago, had to be approved reasonably adequate resources to discharge its
through a plebiscite, there’s more reason to powers and effectively carry out its functions.
consult the people when a law substantially The funds generated from local taxes, IRAs and
diminishes their rights. national wealth utilization proceeds accrue to the
general fund of the LGU and are used to finance
Samson v. Aguirre, 315 SCRA 53 (1999) its operations subject to specified modes of
Challenge to the constitutionality of RA spending the same as provided for in the LGC and
8535 is without merit. Compliance with its implementing rules and regulations. As such,
population OR land area, in addition to income, is for purposes of budget preparation, which budget
sufficient to satisfy the requirements in the should reflect the estimates of the income of the
creation of a city. In this case, both the LGU, among others, the IRAs and the share in the
population and income requirements were met. national wealth utilization proceeds are
Thus, there is no need to consider the land area considered items of income.
of the LGU.
NOTES:
Abolition • Purpose of plebiscite: to prevent
Sarangani v. COMELEC, 334 SCRA 379 (2000) gerrymandering (i.e. the practice of creating
A barangay may officially exist on record legislative districts to favor a particular
and the fact that nobody resides in the place does candidate or party) and creation or abolition
not result in its automatic cessation as a unit of of units for purely political purposes
local government. Under the LGC, the abolition
of a LGU may be done by Congress, in the case of • Where a plebiscite was held with its principal
a province, city or municipality, or any other subject being the conversion of the
political subdivision. In the case of a barangay, municipality of Mandaluyong into a highly-
except in the Metro Manila area and in cultural urbanized city and the matter of separate
communities, it may be done by the Sangguniang district representation being merely ancillary
Panlalawigan or Sangguniang Panglungsod thereto, the SC held that the exclusion of the
concerned subject to the mandatory requirement inhabitants of San Juan (who belonged to the
of a plebiscite conducted for the purpose in the same congressional district as Mandaluyong)
political units affected. from the plebiscite was proper. (Tobias v.
Abalos)
Salva v. Makalintal, Sept. 18, 2000
The issuance of a resolution, governing • In the creation of barangays, there is no
the conduct of a plebiscite, is a ministerial duty of minimum requirement for area and income.
the COMELEC after it ascertains the issuance of
the ordinance and resolution declaring the • When the inquiry is focused on the legal
abolition of a LGU. It is a duty enjoined by law as existence of a body politic, the action is
part of the COMELEC’s administrative functions reserved to the State in a proceeding for quo
and involves no exercise of discretionary warranto or any other direct proceeding.
authority on the part of COMELEC. proceeding must be brought in the name of
the Republic of the Philippines and

17
commenced by the Sol-Gen or the fiscal of government, “from where governmental and
when directed by the President of the corporate service shall be delivered.”
Philippines
must be timely raised Political and Corporate Nature of Local
(Municipality of San Narciso v. Mendez) Government Units
LGC Sections 5d, 18
Sub-Provinces
1987 CONSTITUTION, Art XVIII Section 9. Barangay No. 24 v. Imperial, 338 SCRA 694
LGC Section 462 (2000)
A local government unit is a juridical
Griño v. COMELEC, 213 SCRA 672 (1992) person subject to the payment of docket fees
The ballots used for the plebiscite did not within the prescribed period for the perfection of
provide any space for the election of provincial an appeal. The LGU is bound by the failure of its
officials in the event that there is no conversion counsel to make such payment.
from sub-province to province, leading to the
disenfranchisement of the people of the sub- Vilas v. City of Manila, 42 Phil 953 (1911)
province. The ballots were printed in accordance Plaintiff was a creditor of the City of
with the LGC, which itself is incomplete as it only Manila as it existed before the cession of the
provides for the eventuality where the people Philippine Islands to the United States. The
would vote affirmatively for the conversion of the action was brought upon the theory that the city,
sub-province into a province, in which case the under its present charter from the Government of
President would fill up the position of governor of the Philippine Islands, was the same juristic
the newly created province through appointment. person, and liable upon the obligations of the old
The law is silent on whether the voters of the city. The City was held liable since the juristic
sub-province proposed to be converted into a identity of the corporation was not affected, and
regular province shall no longer be allowed to the present city is, in every legal sense, the
vote for the provincial officials in the election held successor of the old. As such it is entitled to the
simultaneously with the plebiscite. property and property rights of the predecessor
The law however is clear that in case of a corporation, and is also subject to all of its
negative vote, the elected officials of the sub- liabilities.
province only shall be appointed by the President.
The law did not provide that the President shall Lidasan v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 496 (1967)
also appoint provincial officials of the sub- Municipal corporations perform twin
province because, by a negative vote, the people functions. Firstly, they serve as an
of the sub-province shall continue to be instrumentality of the State in carrying out the
represented by the provincial official. functions of a government. Secondly, they act as
an agency of the community in the administration
Selection and Transfer of Local Government of local affairs. It is in the latter character that
Site they are a separate entity acting for their own
LGC Section 11 purposes and not a subdivision of the State.
Samson v. Aguirre, 315 SCRA 53 (1999) Torio v. Fontanilla, 85 SCRA 599 (1978)
The failure of RA 8535 (creating the city Municipality was sued for damages
of Novaliches) to specify the seat of government arising from a death during a town fiesta wherein
of the proposed City of Novaliches as required by a stage collapsed. The municipality invoked the
Sec. 11 (a) of the LGC is not fatal to its validity. defense that the holding of a town fiesta was an
Under Sec. 12 of the LGC, the city can still exercise of its governmental function from which
establish a seat of government after its creation. no liability can arise to answer for the negligence
While Sec. 12 speaks of the site of government of any of its agents. The councilors maintained
centers, such site can very well also be the seat

18
that they merely acted as agents of the unless specific authority is vested upon them by
municipality in carrying out the municipal Congress. One example of this authority is the
ordinance. power to close roads under Sec. 10 of the LGC
The SC ruled that the holding of a town but it should be read in consonance with
fiesta is a proprietary function, though not for established laws, like the Civil Code.
profit, for which a municipality is liable for
damages to 3rd persons ex contractu or ex delicto; NOTES:
that under the principle of respondeat superior Examples of governmental activities:
the principal is liable for the negligence of its regulations against fire, disease
agents acting within the scope of their assigned preservation of public peace
tasks; and that the municipal councilors have a maintenance of municipal prisons
personality distinct and separate from the establishment of schools, post offices, etc.
municipality, hence, as a rule they are not co-
responsible in an action for damages for tort or Examples of proprietary/corporate
negligence unless they acted in bad faith or have activities:
directly participated in the commission of the municipal waterworks
wrongful act. slaughterhouses
markets
City of Manila v. IAC, 179 SCRA 428 (1989) stables
City is sued for damages by widow for bathing establishments
the transfer of the remains of her husband from wharves
the North Cemetery to a warehouse, without ferries
giving her notice. The City was held liable. With fisheries
respect to proprietary functions, the rule is that a maintenance of parks, golf courses, cemeteries,
municipal corporation can be held liable to 3rd airports
persons ex contractu. And the superior or holding of a town fiesta
employer is liable for the acts and omissions of
their subordinates. In the absence of a special
law, the North Cemetery is a patrimonial property
of the City, created by a resolution of the
municipal board. Its administration is under the
City health officer. Furthermore, it is the City Difference Between the Political Nature and
which prescribes procedure and guidelines for the Corporate Nature of LGUs
use and disposition of burial lots. Hence with Political/Governmental Corporate/Municipal
these acts of dominion, the City owns it in its Political subdivision of Corporate entity
proprietary character. A breach of contractual national government representing
provision entitles the aggrieved party to inhabitants of its
damages. territory
Administering the powers Exercised for special
Macasiano v. Diokno, 212 SCRA 464 (1992) of state and promoting benefit and advantage
The Municipality of Parañaque passed an public welfare of the community
ordinance which closed several streets in Baclaran Includes the legislative, Includes those which
and established a flea market thereon. The SC judicial, public and are ministerial, private
declared the ordinance invalid as the disputed political and corporate
areas are public streets, and as such are outside LGU cannot be held liable Can be held liable ex
the commerce of men (CC, Art. 424) Therefore, Except: contractu or ex delicto
they may not be subject of lease or other if statute provides
contract. LGUs have no authority whatsoever to otherwise
control or regulate the use of public properties Art. 2189, CC

19
compulsion to purchase a ticket. It is a totally
General Welfare Clause voluntary act on the part of the purchaser if he
LGC Section 16 buys a ticket to such performances. How can the
(See Secs. 391, 447, 458, 468 of the LGC for the municipal authorities consider the movies an
specific powers and functions of the different attractive nuisance and yet encourage parents
sanggunians) and children to patronize them by lowering the
price of admission for children?
US v. Salaveria, 39 Phil 103 (1918)
It is a general rule that ordinances Villanueva v. Castañeda, 154 SCRA 142 (1987)
passed by virtue of the implied power found in In 1961, the municipal council of San
the general welfare clause must be reasonable, Fernando authorized some merchants to construct
consonant with the general powers and purposes permanent stalls and sell along a public street. In
of the corporation and not inconsistent with the 1982, the incumbent mayor issued a resolution
laws or policy of the State. The questioned requiring the demolition of the stalls. The
ordinance in this case, which prohibited merchants filed a petition for prohibition to
pangingue (a form of gambling), does not seem prevent the demolition. The SC dismissed the
to be unreasonable or discriminatory. Its petition.
purposes evidently are to improve the morals and The problems caused by the usurpation
stimulate the industry of the people. of the place by the merchants, such as
obstruction of traffic and deteriorated sanitation,
Viray v. Caloocan, 20 SCRA 791 (1967) are covered by the police power as delegated to
Caloocan issued an ordinance imposing the municipality under the general welfare clause.
fees on each cadaver coming from other places or Moreover, the place in question was declared to
buried in private cemeteries within the city, and be a public plaza, which is beyond the commerce
for the exhumation of a dead person. The of man and cannot be the subject of lease or any
ordinance was declared void. The Local other contractual undertaking.
Autonomy Act, which empowers cities and
municipalities to impose license fees and taxes Binay v. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508 (1991)
does not sanction the levy of a cadaver transfer The Municipality of Makati approved a
fee since the transfer and burial of the dead is not resolution providing a burial service to be taken
an occupation, business or a privilege which the out of the unappropriated funds. This resolution
city can regulate. Furthermore, the ordinance was held valid.
discriminates cadavers coming from places The police power of a municipal
outside the city and buried in private cemeteries corporation extends to all the great public needs,
in violation of the equal protection clause of the and, in a broad sense includes all legislation and
Constitution. almost every function of the municipal
government. Public purpose is not
Balacuit v. CFI, 163 SCRA 182 (1988) unconstitutional merely because it incidentally
Butuan City Board passes an ordinance benefits a limited number of persons. The drift is
requiring that the sale of tickets to movies, towards social welfare legislation geared towards
exhibitions or other performances to children state policies to provide adequate social services ,
between 7-12 years of age should be at half the promotion of general welfare and social
price. The evident purpose of the ordinance is to justice.
help ease the burden of cost on the part of
parents. The said ordinance was declared void. City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta, 122
The theater operators are merely conducting their SCRA 759 (1983)
legitimate businesses. There is nothing immoral There is no reasonable relation between
or injurious in charging the same price for both the setting aside of a portion of all private
children and adults. In fact, no person is under cemeteries for charity burial grounds of deceased

20
paupers and the promotion of health, morals, YOU CANNOT USE THE GENERAL WELFARE
good order, safety or the general welfare of the CLAUSE TO JUSTIFY AN ACT YOU ARE NOT
people. The ordinance is actually a taking SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO
without just compensation of a certain area from PERFORM.
the private cemeteries to benefit paupers who are
charges of the municipal corporation. What powers do LGUs have under the
general welfare clause of the LGC?
Patalinghug v. CA, 229 SCRA 554 (1994) • Powers expressly granted to the LGU
The declaration of an area as a • Those powers necessarily implied
commercial zone through a municipal ordinance is therefrom
an exercise of police power to promote the good • Powers necessary, appropriate, or
order and general welfare of the people in the incidental for its efficient and effective
locality. Corollary thereto, the state, in order to governance
promote the general welfare, may interfere with • Those powers which are essential to the
personal liberty, with property and with business promotion of general welfare
and occupations. Thus, persons may be • (LGC, Sec. 16)
subjected to certain kinds of restraints and
burdens in order to secure the general welfare of Other ordinances/acts deemed valid under
the state and to this fundamental aim of the general welfare clause:
government, the rights of the individual may be A municipal ordinance prescribing the zonification
subordinated. and classification of merchandise and
foodstuff sold in the public market (Ebona v.
Rural Bank of Makati Inc. vs. Municipality of Municipality of Daet)
Makati, GR 150763, July 2, 2004 A proclamation reserving certain parcels of the
The Gen Welfare Clause has 2 branches: public domain for street widening and parking
first known as the general legislative power which
space purposes (Republic v. Gonzales)
authorizes municipal councils to enact ordinances
and make regulations not repugnant to law as Condemnation and demolition of buildings found
may be necessary to carry into effect and to be in a dangerous or ruinous condition
discharge the powers and duties conferred upon it within the authority provided for by municipal
by law; second is the police power proper,
ordinances (Chua Huat v. CA)
authorizes the municipality to enact ordinances as
may be proper and necessary for the health and To constitute public use:
safety, prosperity, morals, peace, good order,  the public in general should have equal or
comfort and convenience of the municipality and common rights to use the land or facility
its inhabitants, and for the protection of their
involved on the same terms
property. Here, the ordinances imposing the
licenses and permits for any business  the number of users is not the yardstick
establishments, for purposes of regulation in determining whether property is
enacted by the municipal council of Makati falls properly reserved for public use or public
under the first branch. Also, imposition of
benefit
business tax is part of the power of taxation to
create its own sources of revenue vested upon (Republic v. Gonzales)
local governments as provided for under BP 337,
Sec 8. The implementation of these ordinances is
vested in the municipal mayor, the chief
executive, as provided for in Sec 141 of the LGC.
Hence, the mayor was clothed with authority to
form a Task Force headed by Atty. Valero to
enforce the ordinances and resolutions, hence the
latter could hardly be faulted for performing his
official duties.
NOTES:

21
Abatement of Nuisance Technology Developers v. CA, 193 SCRA 147
Under Secs. 447 and 458 of the LGC, the (1991)
Sangguniang Bayan and Sangguniang Mayor padlocked the premises of
Panlungsod have the power to regulate Technology Developers, without notice, for
activities relative to the use of land, buildings emitting particulate matters hazardous to health.
and structures within their jurisdiction in Although matters on pollution are left with the
order to promote the general welfare and for Environment Management Board, the mayor of
said purpose shall declare, prevent or abate the town has as much responsibility to protect its
any nuisance inhabitants from pollution, and by virtue of his
police power, he may deny the application for a
Estate of Francisco v. CA, 199 SCRA 595 (1991) permit to operate a business or otherwise close
Respondents cannot seek cover under the the same unless appropriate measures are taken
general welfare clause authorizing the abatement to control and/or avoid injury to the health of the
of nuisances without judicial proceedings. That residents of the community from the emissions in
tenet applies to a nuisance per se, or one which the operation of the business.
affects the immediate safety of persons and
property and may be summarily abated under the Technology Developers v. CA (Motion for
undefined law of necessity (Monteverde v. Reconsideration)
Generoso). The storage of copra is a legitimate Reconsidered, because the EMB had
business. By its nature, it cannot be said to be primary jurisdiction on all matters pertaining to
injurious to rights of property, health or comfort pollution. Its powers supersede and prevail over
of the community. If it be a nuisance per any rules and regulations which may have been
accidens it may be so proven in a hearing issued by all other government agencies and
conducted for that purpose. It is not per se a instrumentalities on the same subject. And the
nuisance warranting summary abatement without law provides that once there is a permit issued,
judicial intervention. then there is a need for a public hearing before
any permit may be revoked by the EMB. Thus,
NOTE: Secs. 447 and 458 of the LGC grant the the closure is null and void, as it is beyond the
Sangguniang Bayan and Sangguniang Panlungsod mayor’s ken and competence to review, revise,
the power to “declared, prevent or abate any reverse or set aside a permit to operate which is
nuisance.” The provisions of the Code DO NOT presumably also issued in accordance with the
make a distinction between nuisance per se and national development policy of the government.
nuisance per accidens, thus creating a
presumption that LGUs can abate all kinds of
nuisances without need of a judicial order.
However, the jurisprudence holds that LGUs can
abate extrajudicially only nuisances per se.
Basic Services and Facilities

LGC Section 17
Barangay Municipality Province City

Agricultural support Agriculture and fishery Agricultural extension and See municipality and
services extension and on-site on-site research services province
research services and and facilities; organization
facilities of farmers and fishermen’s
cooperatives
Health services Same; health centers Same, including hospitals See municipality and
and clinics and tertiary health services province

22
Social welfare services Same Same, including rebel See municipality and
returnees and evacuees, province
relief operations population
development services
General hygiene and Same See municipality and
sanitation province
Solid waste collection Solid waste disposal
system or environmental
management system
Katarungang N/A N/A N/A
pambarangay
Maintenance of roads, Roads, bridges, Similar to those for See municipality and
bridges and water supply communal irrigation, municipality province
systems artesian wells, drainage,
flood control
Infrastructure facilities Municipal buildings, See municipality and
(e.g. plaza, multi- cultural centers, public province
purpose hall) parks
Information and reading Information services, tax Upgrading and See municipality and
center and marketing modernization of tax province
information systems and information and collection
public library services
Satellite or public market Public markets, See municipality and
slaughterhouses province
Implementation of Enforcement of forestry See municipality and
community-based laws, limited to province
forestry projects community-based forestry
projects, pollution control
law, small-scale mining
law, mini-hydroelectric
projects for local purposes
School buildings See municipality and
province
Pubic cemetery See municipality and
province
Tourism facilities Tourism development and See municipality and
promotion programs province
Police, fire stations, jail Same Same
Industrial research and Same
development services
Low-cost housing and other Same
mass dwellings
Investment support Same
services
Inter-municipal Adequate
telecommunication services communication and
transportation
facilities

23
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, IMPLEMENTING LLDA charter specifically provides that it
RULES AND REGULATIONS shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits
Section 24. Devolution – a) Consistent with local for the use of all surface water for an projects or
autonomy and decentralization, the provision for activities in or affecting the said region. On the
the delivery of basic services and facilities shall other hand, the LGC has granted to the
be devolved from the National Government to municipalities the exclusive authority to grant
provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays so fishery privileges in municipal waters. The LGC
that each LGU shall be responsible for a minimum does not necessarily repeal the LLDA charter
set of services and facilities in accordance with since there is no express repeal and implied
established national policies, guidelines and repeals are not favored. Also, the power of the
standards. Municipal Government to issue fishing privileges
b) For purposes of this rule, devolution is only for revenue purposes. The power of the
shall mean the transfer of power and authority LLDA to grant permits is for the purpose of
from the National Government to LGUs to enable effectively regulating and monitoring activities in
them to perform specific functions and the lake region and is in the nature of police
responsibilities. power.
c) Any subsequent change in national
policies, guidelines and standards shall be subject Land Transportation Office v. City of Butuan, 322
to prior consultation with the LGUs. SCRA 805 (2000)
LGUs now have the power to regulate the
Plaza II vs. Cassion, GR 136809, July 27, 2004 operation of tricycles-for-hire and to grant
Butuan City government passed a franchises for the operation thereof. However,
resolution to authorize the mayor to sign a memo this power is still subject to the guidelines
of agreement with DSWD to sign a memo of prescribed by the DOTC. Moreover, the newly
agreement with DSWD to devolve DSWD units to delegated powers pertain to the franchising and
the LGU. Section 17 LGC authorizes the regulatory powers theretofore exercised by the
devolution of personnel, assets, and liabilities, LTFRB and not to the registration of motor
records of basic services, and facilities of a vehicles and issuance of licenses for the driving
national government agency to LGUs. As a thereof, which powers remain with the LTO.
consequence of devolution of national agencies,
EO 503 was enacted to ensure efficient transfer of Power to Generate Revenue
responsibilities. Under said EO, devolved LGC Section 18
personnel shall be automatically reappointed by
the local chief executive upon transfer. The chief Sources of LGU Funds:
executive also exercises command responsibility 1. Own sources of revenues
over the personnel. CSC Memo Circular 19 r Ser. 2. Taxes, fees and charges which shall accrue
1992 specifies that the positions absorbed by exclusively for their use and disposition and which
LGUs shall be automatically created upon transfer shall be retained by them;
of budgetary allocation. Thus, as local chief 3. Just share in national taxes which shall be
executive, the mayor had th authority to automatically and directly released to them
reappoint devolved personnel as in CAB. without need of any further action;
4. Equitable share in the proceeds from the
Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA, 251 utilization and development of the national wealth
SCRA 42 (1995) and resources within their respective territorial
Municipal Government of Laguna had jurisdictions including sharing the same with the
been issuing fishing privileges and fishpen inhabitants by way of direct benefits;
permits. They were issued violating the policies
adopted by the Laguna Lake Development Eminent Domain
Authority. LGC Section 19.

24
rejected. Being annexed to the complaint, said
Local Government National Government ordinance is hypothetically admitted as true so
Payment of 15% of Assessed value to take that the petition cannot be dismissed for lack of
value in order to take immediate possession cause of action (due to lack of one of the
possession requirements).
Formal offer needed No formal offer needed
There must be an Province of Camarines Sur v. CA, 222 SCR 173
ordinance (1993)
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan need not
Barangay San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor, 334 SCRA obtain DAR approval to expropriate agricultural
127 (2000) land for housing purposes. If it were otherwise,
An expropriation suit is incapable of the power of the province to expropriate would be
pecuniary estimation. It does not involve the denigrated. It is true that the local government
recovery of the sum of money. Rather, it deals exercises the power to expropriate only as
with the exercise by the government of its delegated, and that there are restrictions imposed
authority and right to take private property for by Congress, but it is complete within its limits.
public use. It should be stressed that the primary Nowhere in the LGC is it provided that DAR
consideration in an expropriation suit is whether approval is necessary for the conversion of land
the government has complied with the requisites from agricultural to non-agricultural.
of taking of private property. Hence, the courts
determine the authority of the government entity, Heirs of Ardona v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 (1983)
the necessity of the expropriation, and the At present whatever may be beneficially
observance of due process. In the main, the employed for the general welfare satisfies the
subject of an expropriation suit is the requirement of public use. Thus, the petitioner's
government’s exercise of eminent domain, a contention that the promotion of tourism is not
matter incapable of pecuniary estimation. "public use" because private concessionaires
would be allowed to maintain various facilities
Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong, 328 SCRA 137 such as restaurants, hotels, stores, etc. inside the
(2000) tourist complex is without merit. Private bus
Section 19 of the LGC requires an firms, taxicab fleets, roadside restaurants, and
ordinance, not a resolution, for the exercise of other private businesses using public streets and
eminent domain. Such ordinance is necessary to highways do not diminish in the least bit the
authorize the filing of a complaint with the proper public character of expropriations for roads and
court since, beginning at this point, the power of streets.
eminent domain is already being exercised.
Filstream International Inc. v. CA, 284 SCRA 716
NOTE: An ordinance is a law and it possesses a (1998)
general and permanent character while a Under the Urban Land and Housing Act,
resolution is merely a declaration of opinion and there is a priority in expropriation, of which the
is temporary in nature. properties of the government or any of its
subdivisions rank number one and privately
City of Cebu v. CA, 258 SCRA 175 (1996) owned properties ranked last. Also, the said Act
One of the requirements in the exercise provides that expropriation should be the last
of the power of eminent domain is that a valid alternative, giving way to other modes of
and definite offer has been previously made to acquisition like community mortgage and
the owner of the property sought to be swapping. Otherwise, there is a deprivation of
expropriated, but said offer was not accepted. In property.
this case, the ordinance enacted provided that
such offer was made to the owner but was

25
City of Manila v. Serrano, June 20, 2001 MTC had no jurisdiction over expropriation
proceedings, the doctrine of res judicata cannot
A writ of execution may be issued by a
apply in this case.
court upon the filing by the government of a
complaint for the expropriation sufficient in form NOTE: ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT OF THIS
and substance and upon deposit made by the CASE – Requisites for IMMEDIATE entry of LGU
1. Filing of complaint for expropriation sufficient
government of the amount equivalent to the
in form and substance.
assessed value of the property subject to 2. The deposit of the amount equivalent to 15%
expropriation. Upon compliance with these of the fair market value of the property to be
requirements, the issuance of the writ of expropriated based on its current tax declaration.
possession becomes ministerial.
City of Iloilo vs. Legaspi GR 154614, November
25, 2004
City of Cebu v. Apolonio, May 7, 2002 Upon compiance with the requirements
Although the general rule in determining for immediate entry (see case above), the
issuance of a writ of possession becomes
just compensation in eminent domain is the value
MINISTERIAL. NO HEARING Is required for the
of the property as of the date of the filing of the issuance of the writ.
complaint, the rule admits of an exception: The LGC did not put a time limit as to
where the SC fixed the value of the property as of when a LGU may immediately take possession of
the property. As long as the expropriation
the date it was taken and not at the date of the
proceedings have been commenced and the
commencement of the expropriation proceedings. deposit made, the LGU cannot be barred from
Finally, while Section 4, Rule 67 of the praying for the issuance of writ of possession.
Rules of Court provides that just compensation
shall be determined at the time of the filing of the
complaint for expropriation, such law cannot
prevail over the Local Government Code, which is
substantive law.
Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation, Inc.
vs. Municipality of Pasig, GR 152230, August 9,
City of Mandaluyong vs. Aguilar, 350 SCRA 2005
487(2001) A valid and definite offer to acquire the
The UDHA introduced a limitation on the property is necessary prior to the filing of the
size of the land sought to be expropriated for
complaint. Article 35 of the IRR of LGC provides
socialized housing. It exempted “small property
owners.” the requirements of a valid offer. The requisites
The elements for small property owners were not met in this case.
are: (1) Those owners of real property which
consists of residential lands with an area of not
ARTICLE 35 IRR:
more than 300 m2 in highly urbanized cities (800
in other urban cities); (2) That they do not own 1. THE offer to buy private property for public
real property other than the same. Both these use of purpose shall be in WRITING. IT shall
elements were present in CAB. specify the property sought to be acquired, the
reasons for the acquisition, and the price offered.
NOTE: The UDHA and Expropriation by LGUs—
Section 9 (which speaks of PRIORITIES 2. If the owner/s accept the offer in its entirety,
In acquisition) should be read in connection with a contract of sale shall be executed and payment
section 10 (MODES of acquisition). If land sought forthwith made.
to be expropriated is located in urban areas and
falls under the UDHA, the LGU must allege 3. If the owner/s are willing to sell their property
compliance with sections 9 and 10 for their suit to but at a price higher than that offered to them,
prosper. Otherwise, their suit is premature. the local chief executive shall call them to a
conference for the purpose of reaching an
Bardillon vs. Masili, 402 SCRA 440 (2003)
The first case of expropriation was filed in agreement on the selling price. The chairman of
the MTC but it was dismissed. A second case was the appropriation or finance committee of the
filed in the RTC. Bardillon filed a MTD on grounds sanggunian, or in his absence, any member of the
of res judicata. SC held that dismissal of the MTC sanggunian duly chosen as its representative,
case did not constitute res judicata. Since the

26
shall participate in the conference. When an approval of the DAR is no longer novel, this
agreement is reached by the parties, a contract of having been decided in the case of Province of
sale shall be drawn and executed. Camarines Sur v. CA wherein it was held that
4. The contract of sale shall be supported by the LGUs need not obtain the approval of the DAR to
following documents: convert or reclassify lands from agricultural to
a. Resolution of the sanggunian non-agricultural use.
authorizing the local chief executive to
enter into a contract of sale. The Roxas v. CA, 321 SCRA 106 (1999)
resolution shall specify the terms and The agency charged with the mandate of
conditions to be embodied in the approving or disapproving applications for
contract. conversion is the DAR.
b. Ordinance appropriating the amount
specified in the contract, and NOTES:
c. Certification of the local treasurer as • land use conversion: the act or process of
to availability of funds together with a changing the current use of a piece of
statement that such fund shall not be agricultural land into some other use as
disbursed or spent for any purpose other approved by the DAR
than to pay for the purchase of the
property involved. • reclassification: designation of intended use
of land within the territory
NOTES: here, the land is not currently used as
Requisites in the Exercise of the Power of agricultural, although it is classified as
Eminent Domain (Suguitan v. City of such
Mandaluyong):
An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative • Requisites for Reclassification of Land
council authorizing the local chief executive, ordinance passed by sangguniang bayan or
in behalf of the local government unit, to panlungsod after public hearings
exercise the power of eminent domain or conducted for the purpose
pursue expropriation proceedings over a agricultural land must either:
particular private property. cease to be economically feasible and
The power of eminent domain is exercised for sound for agricultural purposes as
public use, purpose or welfare, or for the determined by the Department of
benefit of the poor and the landless. Agriculture, or
There is payment of just compensation (based on have substantially greater economic
the fair market value at the time of the value for residential, commercial, or
taking, not at the time of payment), as industrial purposes, as determined by
required under Section 9, Art. III of the the sanggunian concerned
Constitution, and other pertinent laws. reclassification shall be limited to the
A valid and definite offer has been previously percentages of the total agricultural land
made to the owner of the property sought to area at the time of the passage of the
be expropriated, but said offer was not ordinance as prescribed by the LGC
accepted.
• Where approval by a national agency is
Reclassification of Lands required for reclassification, such approval
LGC Section 20 shall not be unreasonably withheld.
failure to act on a proper and complete
Fortich v. Corona, 298 SCRA 678 (1998) application for reclassification within 3
The issue of whether or not the power of months from receipt of the same shall be
the LGU to reclassify lands is subject to the deemed as approval thereof

27
them by the municipality, the latter, as owner,
Closure and Opening of Roads would be deprived of the full enjoyment of its
LGC Section 21 property.
Cabrera v. CA, 195 SCRA 314 (1991) Province of Zamboanga v. City of Zamboanga, 22
The provincial council is competent to SCRA 133 (1968)
determine whether or not a certain property (in If the property is owned by the
this case, a provincial road) is still necessary for municipality in its public and governmental
public use. The provincial board has, after all, the capacity, the property is public and Congress has
duty of maintaining such roads for the comfort absolute control over it; if the property is owned
and convenience of the inhabitants of the in its private or proprietary capacity, then it is
province. patrimonial and Congress has no absolute control,
in which case, the municipality cannot be
Dacanay v. Asistio, 208 SCRA 404 (1992) deprived of it without due process and payment
A public street is property for public use of just compensation.
hence, outside the commerce of man. It may not
be the subject of lease or other contract. Such Rabuco v. Villegas, 55 SCRA 656 (1974)
leases are null and void for being contrary to law. Petitioners assail the authority of the
The right of the public to use the city street may Manila Mayor to demolish their houses or eject
not be bargained away through contract. The them as tenants of a parcel of land in Malatek,
authorization given for the use of the city street citing RA 3120 as authority. The lots in question
as a vending area for stallholders who were are manifestly owned by the city in its public and
granted licenses by the City Gov’t contravenes governmental capacity and are therefore public
the general law that reserves city streets and property over which Congress has absolute
roads for public use. It may not infringe upon the control as distinguished from patrimonial property
vested right of the public to use city streets for owned by it in its private or proprietary capacity
the purpose they were intended to serve. of which it could not be deprived without due
process and without just compensation. It was
Corporate Powers not an exercise of the power of eminent domain
LGC Section 22 without just compensation but simply as a
manifestation of its right and power to deal with
NAWASA v. Dator, 21 SCRA 355 (1967) state property.
The authority of a municipality to fix and
collect rents for water supplied by its waterworks Municipal Board of Cebu City v. CTA, 12 SCRA
system is expressly granted by law. However, 645 (1964)
even without these provisions, the authority of The city constitutes a political body
the municipality to fix and collect fees from its corporate created by a special charter endowed
waterworks would be justified from its inherent with the power which pertains to a municipal
power to administer what it owns privately. The corporation. As such it is authorized to levy real
municipality enjoys the attributes of ownership estate taxes for its support. Moreover, the city
under the Civil Code, i.e. the right to use or enjoy can validly appeal the decision of the Board of
the property. NAWASA may regulate and Assessment of Appeals exempting lots from real
supervise the water plants owned and operated property tax, as no entity is more adversely
by cities and municipalities, the ownership thereof affected by such decision.
is vested in the municipality and I the operation
thereof, the municipality acts in its proprietary
capacity. If a governmental entity, like NAWASA, Authority to Negotiate and Secure Grants
were allowed to collect the fees that the LGC Section 23
consuming public pay for the water supplied to

28
Liability for Damages must have acted with an intent to serve some
LGC Section 24. outside purpose regardless of the consequences
to the municipality and in a manner inconsistent
CIVIL CODE with its interests.
Article 34. When a member of a city or municipal
police force refuses or fails to render aid or Municipality of San Fernando v. Firme, 195 SCRA
protection to any person in case of danger to life 692 (1991)
or property, such peach officer shall be primarily The municipality cannot be held liable for
the torts committed by its regular employee, who
liable for damages, and the city or municipality
was then engaged in the discharge of
shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The governmental functions. The general rule is that
civil action herein recognized shall be independent the State may not be sued except when it gives
of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance consent to be sued. Consent may be express, as
when it is embodied in a law, or implied. The
of evidence shall suffice to support such action.
standing consent of the State to be sued in case
of money claims involving liability arising from
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by Article contracts is found in Act No. 3083. There is
2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts implied consent when the government enters into
business contracts, thereby descending to the
or omissions, but also for those of persons for
level of the other contracting party, and also
whom one is responsible. when the State files a complaint, thus opening
(par. 6): The State is responsible in like itself to a counterclaim.
manner when it acts through a special agent; but NOTE: There is a distinction between suability
not when the damage has been caused by the and liability. Suability depends on the consent of
official to whom the task done properly pertains, the state to be sued, while liability depends on
in which case what is provided in Article 2176 the applicable law and the established facts.
shall be applicable. Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the
state has allowed itself to be sued. When the
Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities state does waive its sovereign immunity, it is only
shall be liable for damages for the death of, or giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can,
injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the that it is liable.
defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and other public works under City of Manila v. Teotico (1968)
their control or supervision. For a municipal corporation to be liable
under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, it is not
Mendoza v. De Leon, 33 Phil 508 (1916) necessary that the defective roads or streets
The Municipal Code confers both belong to the province, city or municipality from
governmental and business or corporate powers which responsibility is exacted. What said article
upon municipal corporations. For the exercise of requires is that the province, city or municipality
the former it is not liable to private persons. Its has either “control or supervision” over the said
liability to them for the wrongful exercise of the street or road.
latter is the same as that of a private corporation
or individual. Fernando v. CA, 208 SCRA 714 (1992)
Officers of municipalities charged with Is the respondent city guilty of
the administration of patrimonial property of a negligence for the deaths which occurred inside
municipal corporation are managing officers of the septic tank? No, according to the SC. To be
private corporations; not for mere mistakes of entitled to damages, the claimant must prove
judgment, but only when their acts are so far that the defendant’s negligence was the
opposed to the true interests of the municipality immediate and proximate cause of his injury. In
as to lead to the clear inference that no one thus this case, the claimants fault the City of Davao for
acting could have been influenced by any honest not cleaning the septic tank for 19 years.
desire to secure such interests, but that they However, the city lost no time in taking up

29
remedial measures (i.e. invitation to bid for the the city government liable. LGU can be held
liable for exemplary damages when they
re-emptying of the septic tank). It is likewise an
acted with gross negligence in performance of
undisputed fact that despite the respondent’s their duties.
failure to re-empty the septic tank since 1956,
people in the market have been using the public Municipality of San Juan vs. CA, GR 121920,
August 9, 2005
toilet for their personal necessities but they have
Ownership of roads is not controlling in
remained unscathed. determining who is liable for damages. National
roads under the control and supervision of a LGU
Guillergan v. Ganzon, 17 SCRA 257 (1966) is liable for damages suffered through accidents
due to unsafe road conditions, especially when
The operation of a market is not strictly a
there is gross negligence.
governmental function. Also, municipal
corporations may be held liable for the back pay
or wages of employees illegally separated from
the service, including those involving primarily
governmental functions, such as those of
policemen.
Intergovernmental Relations – National
Government and Local Government Units
Pilar v. Sangguniang Bayan ng Dasol, 128 SCRA
173 (1984)
Executive Supervision
Mayor held liable for vetoing resolution
1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. X, Secs. 2 and 4
increasing the salary of the Vice-Mayor. Although
(supra)
the decision of whether or not to veto involves
LGC Section 25.
the exercise of discretion, the Mayor exceeded his
authority in an arbitrary manner since there Hebron v. Reyes, 104 Phil. 175 (1958)
exists sufficient municipal funds from which the The power of suspension and removal is
salary of the Vice-Mayor could be paid and since vested in the provincial governor and the
his refusal was in contravention of the directives provincial board, as provided in the procedure laid
of the Provincial Budget Officer and the Director down in the Revised Administrative Code. This
of the Bureau of Local Government. procedure is mandatory. The President, in the
exercise of general supervision over local
NOTE: Under Art. 27 of the Civil Code, a public governments, may conduct investigations only to
servant or employee is (personally) liable for determine whether the provincial governor and
damages for his refusal or neglect to perform his the board should take such action, but it may not
official duty. deprive the governor of the power to exercise
that authority. The action of the office of the
Tuzon v. CA, 212 SCRA 739 (1992) president even exceeded the power granted to
As a rule, a public officer, whether the provincial governor in this case, since
judicial, quasi-judicial or executive, is not preventive suspension should not exceed 30
personally liable to one injured in consequence of days.
an act performed within the scope of his official
authority, and in line of his official duty. Ganzon v. CA, 200 SCRA 271 (1991)
The petitioners are under the impression
Quezon City vs. Dacara GR 150304, June 15, that the Constitution has left the President mere
2005
The provisions of Art 2189 capsulizes the supervisory powers, which supposedly excludes
responsibility of the city government relative to disciplinary authority and the power of
the maintenance of roads and bridges since it investigation. It is a mistaken impression
exercises the control and supervision over the because supervision is not incompatible with
same. Failure of the defendant to comply with the
statutory provision found in the article is disciplinary authority, and “investigating” is not
tantamount to negligence per se which renders inconsistent with “overseeing” in supervision,

30
although it is a lesser power than “altering” in may eradicate certain animal or plant
control. The Constitution did not, for the sake of species from the face of the planet;
local autonomy, intend to deprive the legislature and
or the President of all authority over municipal may call for the eviction of a particular
corporations, in particular, concerning discipline. group of people residing in the
locality where the said
Drilon v. Lim, 235 SCRA 135 (1994) project/program will be implemented
Section 187 of the LGC authorizes the
Secretary of Justice to review only the Bangus Fry Fisherfolk vs. Lanzanas GR 131442,
constitutionality or legality of the tax ordinance July 10, 2003
and, if warranted, to revoke it on either or both of Sections 26 and 27 of the LGC must be
read together. Thus, consultation is necessary
these grounds. He is not permitted to substitute
only for projects listed under Section 27.
his own judgment for the judgment of the local
government that enacted the measure. An officer
in control may order the act undone, or redone,
or may even decide to do it himself. Thus, the
NOTES:
act of the DOJ Secretary in declaring the Manila
It shall be the duty of every national agency or
Revenue Code null and void for non-compliance
GOCC authorized or involved in the planning
with the requirements of the law was not an act
and implementation of any project or
of control but of mere supervision.
program that may cause:
pollution
Consultations
climactic change
LGC Section 2(c), 26, 27
depletion of non-renewable resources
loss of crop land, rangeland or forest cover
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 521993
extinction of animal of plant species
The memorandum enjoins all officers and
employees of National Government agencies and
to consult with the LGUs, NGOs and other
offices, including Government-Owned and –
sectors concerned and explain:
Controlled Corporations, to strictly comply with
the goals and objectives of the project or
the provisions of the LGC on consultation as well
program
as the pertinent provisions of its IRR.
its impact upon the people and the
community in terms of environmental or
Lina v. Paño, Aug. 30, 2001
ecological balance
The provisions on consultation apply only
the measures that will be undertaken to
to national programs and/or projects which are to
prevent or minimize the adverse effects
implemented in a particular local community.
thereof (LGC, Sec. 26)
Moreover, Sec. 27 of the LGC should be read in
conjunction with Sec. 26 thereof. Thus, the
No project or program shall be implemented by
projects and programs mentioned in Sec. 27
government authorities unless:
should be interpreted to mean projects and
the consultations mentioned above are
programs that:
complied with; and
may cause pollution;
prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is
may bring about climactic change;
obtained (LGC, Sec. 27)
may cause the depletion of non-
renewable resources
Occupants in areas where such projects are to be
may result in the loss of crop land,
implemented shall not be evicted unless
range-land or forest cover
appropriate relocation sites have been
provided, in accordance with the Constitution.

31
Relations with Philippine National Police police forces and units, conduct audit,
LGC Section 28. and exercise other functions as may be
duly authorized by the Commission
RA 8551, Secs. 62-65
PARTICIPATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT • Grounds for suspension or withdrawal of
EXECUTIVES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE deputation:
PNP 4) frequent unauthorized absences
operational supervision and control: power to 5) abuse of authority
direct, superintend, and oversee the day-to- 6) providing material support to criminal
day functions of police investigation of crime, elements
crime prevention activities, and traffic control 7) engaging in acts inimical to national
 includes the power to direct the security or which negate the
employment and deployment of units or effectiveness of the peace and order
elements of the PNP, through the station campaign
commander, to ensure public safety and
effective maintenance of peace and order Carpio v. Executive Secretary, 206 SCRA 290
within the locality (1992)
Validity of RA 6975 was assailed on the
city and municipal mayors shall have the ground that it weakened the NAPOLCOM by
following authority over the PNP units in their limiting its power to “administrative control” over
respective jurisdictions: the PNP. Thus, “control” remained with the DILG
1) authority to choose the chief of police Secretary under whom both the NAPOLCOM and
from a list of 5 eligibles recommended by PNP were placed.
the provincial police director, preferably
from the same province, city or Andaya v. RTC, 319 SCRA 697 (1999)
municipality Under Sec. 51 of RA 6975, the mayor
2) authority to recommend to the provincial shall be deputized as representative of the
director the transfer, reassignment or NAPOLCOM in his territorial jurisdiction and as
detail of PNP members outside of their such, he shall have authority to choose the chief
respective city or town residences of police from a list of 5 eligibles recommended
3) authority to recommend from a list of by the Police Regional Director. The authority of
eligibles previously screened by the the mayor is very limited. In reality, he has no
peace and order council the appointment power of appointment; he has only the limited
of new members of the PNP to be power of selecting one from among the list of
assigned to their respective cities or recommendees. In effect, the power to appoint
municipalities without which no such the chief of police is vested in the Regional
appointments shall be attested Director.
• control and supervision of anti-gambling

operations shall be within the jurisdiction of TITLE TWO: ELECTIVE OFFICIALS
local government executives
Qualifications and Elections
• Governors and mayors, upon having been LGC Sections 39-43
elected and living qualified as such, are
automatically deputized as representatives of Members of the Sanggunian
the National Police Commission in their LGC Section 41
respective jurisdiction
 As deputized agents of the Commission,
local government executives can inspect

32
Herrera v. COMELEC, 318 SCRA 336 (1999) may be said to have waived the validity and
Under RA 7166, the basis for the division efficacy of their votes by notoriously applying
into districts shall be the number of inhabitants of their franchises or throwing away their votes in
the province concerned and not the number of which case, the eligible candidate obtaining the
listed or registered voters. next highest number of votes may be deemed
elected.
Qualifications
LGC Section 39
Salcedo v. COMELEC, 312 SCRA 447 (1999)

In order to justify the cancellation of the
certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727 (1996)
Omnibus Election Code, it is essential that the The LGC does not specify any particular
false representation mentioned therein pertains to date or time when the candidate must possess
a material matter for the sanction imposed by this citizenship, unlike the requirements for residence
provision would affect the substantive rights of a and age. An official begins to discharge his
candidate – the right to run for the elective post functions only upon his proclamation and on the
for which he filed a certificate of candidacy. day the law mandates his term of office to begin.
In this case, since Frivaldo reassumed his
Cipriano vs. COMELEC, GR 158830, August 10, citizenship of the very day the term of office
2004 began, he was therefore already qualified to be
COMELEC may not deny due course or proclaimed, to hold office and to discharge the
cancel a certificate without proper proceedings.
functions and responsibilities thereof.
To receive and acknowledge receipt of the
certificates of candidacy is a ministerial duty of
COMELEC. The COMELEC does not have Altarejos vs. COMELEC, GR 163256, November
discretion to give or not to give due course to the 10, 2004
certificate. It may not look into matters not According to Frivaldo v. COMELEC, RA
appearing on their face. 8171, being a curative statute, allows repatriation
to RETROACT to the date of the filing of one’s
Bautista vs. COMELEC, GR 154796-7, October 23, application for repatriation. Said decision also
2003 held that the citizenship requirement must be
An elective local official must not only be construed as “applying the time of proclamation
a qualified elector or qualified voter, he must of the elected official at the start of the term”.
ALSO be a registered voter.
Matugas vs. COMELEC, GR 151944, January 20,
2004
CITIZENSHIP When trying to disqualify a person from
running in office, one must follow the best
Labo v. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 297 (1992)
evidence rule and ROC regarding official
Labo was disqualified for being an alien. documents. In CAB, there was no evidence that
Neither his election nor the mere filing of the the candidate was not a Filipino citizen as
application for naturalization automatically claimed.
restores his Filipino citizenship.
The ineligibility of a candidate receiving RESIDENCY
the majority of votes does not entitle the eligible Torayno v. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 574 (2000)
candidate receiving the next highest number of Emano was the governor of Misamis
votes to be declared winner. The rule would be Oriental when he filed his candidacy for mayor of
different if the electorate, fully aware of a Cagayan de Oro City, alleging that since the
candidate’s disqualification so as to bring such provincial capitol is located in said city, he has
awareness within the realm of notoriety, would complied with the residency requirement. It must
nonetheless case the votes in favor of the be noted that Cagayan de Oro City is a highly
ineligible candidate. In such case, the electorate urbanized city whose voters cannot participate in
the provincial elections.

33
The Court stressed that the residence registered voter in the place where s/he seeks to
requirement is rooted in the desire that officials of be elected
districts or localities be acquainted with the residency, in place where s/he seeks to be
needs, difficulties, and other matters vital to the elected, for at least one (1) year immediately
common welfare of the constituents. The actual, preceding the day of the election
physical and personal presence of Emano in able to read and write Filipino or any other local
Cagayan de Oro City is substantial enough to language or dialect
show his intention to fulfill the duties of mayor age requirements:
and for the voters to evaluate his qualifications Candidates for the position of governor, vice-
for the mayorship. A very legalistic, academic governor, or member of the sangguniang
and technical approach to the residence panlalawigan, or mayor, vice-mayor or
requirement does not satisfy the rationale for the member of the sangguniang panlungsod
said requirement. of highly urbanized cities – at least 21
years of age on election day
Papandayan v. COMELEC, Apr. 16, 2002 Candidates for the position of mayor or vice-
SC decisions have applied certain tests mayor of independent component cities,
and concepts in resolving the issue of whether or component cities, or municipalities – at
not a candidate has complied with the residency least 21 years of age on election day
requirement for elective positions. The principle Candidates for the position of member of the
of animus revertendi has been used to determine sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang
whether a candidate has an “intention to return” bayan – at least 18 years of age on
to the place where he seeks to be elected. election day
Corollary to this is a determination whether there Candidates for the position of punong
has been an “abandonment” of his former barangay or member of the sangguniang
resident which signifies an intention to depart barangay – at least 18 years of age on
therefrom. election day
In some cases, the SC has held that Candidates for the sangguniang kabataan –
“domicile” and “residence” are synonymous. The at least 15 years of age but not more
term “residence,” as used in election law, imports than 18 years of age on election day (as
not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but amended under RA 9164)
also a personal presence in that place, coupled
with conduct indicative of such intention. Disqualification
“Domicile” denotes a fixed permanent residence LGC Section 40.
to which when absent, one intends to return.
In order to acquire a new domicile by RA 8295: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE
choice, there must concur: 1) residence or bodily PROCLAMATION OF A LONE CANDIDATE FOR ANY
presence in the new locality; 2) an intention to ELECTIVE OFFICE IN A SPECIAL ELECTION, AND
remain there; and, 3) an intention to abandon the FOR OTHER PURPOSES
old domicile. Section 4. Disqualification. — In addition to the
disqualifications mentioned in Sections 12 and 68
Coquilla vs. COMELEC, 385 SCRA 607 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 40 of
To waive his non resident status, one Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the
may file an immigrant visa and an immigrant Local Government Code, whenever the evidence
certificate of residence. To waive alien status, one of guilt is strong, the following persons are
can go thru naturalization disqualified to run in a special election called to fill
the vacancy in an elective office, to wit:
NOTES: a) Any elective official who has resigned from
Qualifications of Elective Local Officials his office by accepting an appointive office or
citizen of the Philippines for whatever reason which he previously

34
occupied but has caused to become vacant
due to his resignation; and (5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed
b) Any person who, directly or indirectly, to any public office in the Philippines cannot be
coerces, bribes, threatens, harasses, exercised by, or extended to, those who:
intimidates or actually causes, inflicts or a. are candidates for or are occupying
produces any violence, injury, punishment, any public office in the country of which
torture, damage, loss or disadvantage to any they are naturalized citizens; and/or
person or persons aspiring to become a b. are in active service as commissioned
candidate or that of the immediate member officers int eh armed forces of the
of his family, his honor or property that is country which they are naturalized
meant to eliminate all other potential citizens.
candidate.
MORAL TURPITUDE
Section 5. Prohibited Acts, Election Offenses and Dela Torre v. COMELEC, 258 SCRA 483 (1996)
Penalties. — Any act of coercion, bribery, threat, Fencing involves moral turpitude and
harassment, intimidation, terrorism, or actually therefore would disqualify anyone from running
causing, inflicting or producing violence, injury, for any elective local position in accordance with
punishment, torture, damage, loss or Sec. 40(a) of the LGC. The determination of
disadvantage to discourage any other person or WON fencing involves moral turpitude can be
persons from filing a certificate of candidacy in achieved from analyzing its elements. Actual
order to eliminate all other potential candidate knowledge displays the same degree of malicious
from running in a special election shall constitute deprivation of one’s rightful property as in
as an election offense. Violations of this provision robbery or theft which, by their very nature, are
shall be prosecuted and penalized in accordance crimes of moral turpitude.
with the provision of Section 264 of the Omnibus Grant of probation does not affect the
Election Code. applicability of Sec. 40 (a) of the LGC. The legal
effect of probation is only to suspend the
RA 9225: DUAL CITIZENSHIP ACT execution of the sentence. In fact, a judgment of
Sec. 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liberties. conviction in a criminal case ipso facto attains
XXX finality when the accused applies for probation,
although it is not executory pending resolution of
(2) Those seeking elective public office in the the application for probation.
Philippines shall meet the qualification for holding
such public office as required by the Consti and Magno vs. COMELEC, 390 SCRA 495 (2002)
existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the Direct Bribery involves moral turpitude
certificate of candidacy, make a personal and
Kare vs. COMELEC, GR 157526, April 28, 2004
sworn renunciation of any and all foreign Filing a MTQ the information does not
citizenship before any public officer authorized to stop a decision from attaining finality as it attacks
administer and oath. extraneous matters from the judgment. Thus
when a judgment of conviction is final, a
candidate may be disqualified.
(3) Those appointed to any public office shall
subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance tot REMOVAL BY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
eh Republic of the Philippines and its duly Malinao v. Reyes, 255 SCRA 616 (1996)
constituted authorities prior to assumption of Under Sec. 66 (b) of the LGC, the penalty
office. Provided, that they renounce their oath of of suspension cannot exceed the unexpired term
allegiance to the country where they took that of the official and any administrative disciplinary
oath. proceeding against said official is abated if in the
meantime he is re-elected because such re-
XXX election is a condonation of whatever misconduct

35
he might have committed during his previous allegiance. And so, persons with dual citizenship
term. do not fall under this disqualification.
NOTE: In order to render a decision in an
administrative case involving elected local Valles v. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543 (2000)
officials, the decision of the Sanggunian must be The fact that the candidate has dual
in writing, stating clearly the facts and the citizenship did not automatically disqualify her
reasons for such a decision. from running for a public office. For candidates
with dual citizenship, it is enough that they elect
Reyes v. COMELEC, 254 SCRA 514 (1996) Philippine citizenship upon the filing of their
As petitioner Reyes failed to appeal the certificates of candidacy, so as to terminate their
decision in the administrative case finding him status as persons with dual citizenship. The filing
guilty of the charges against him, which decision of the certificate of candidacy is sufficient to
was rendered before the end of his term, he was renounce foreign citizenship because in such
thus validly removed from office and, pursuant to certificate, one declares that s/he is a Filipino
Sec. 40 (b) of the LGC, he was disqualified from citizen and that s/he will support and defend the
running for re-election. His subsequent election Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain
into office cannot be deemed a condonation of the true faith and allegiance thereto. Such
administrative charges since he was already declaration, which is under oath, operates as an
found guilty and removed from office before the effective renunciation of foreign citizenship.
re-election. Hence, the Aguinaldo doctrine does
not apply. FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE
Rodriguez v. COMELEC, 259 SCRA 296 (1996)
Grego v. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481 (1997) For one to be considered a fugitive from
Section 40 (b) of the LGC does not apply justice, as used in the LGC, the intent to evade
retroactively. Thus, the removal of a candidate, must be the compelling factor which animates
for an administrative case, before the enactment one’s flight from a particular jurisdiction. There
of the LGC cannot be used to disqualify a can only be intent if there is knowledge by the
candidate from being proclaimed a winner. fleeing subject of an already instituted indictment
or of a promulgated judgment of conviction.
Lingating vs. COMELEC, 391 SCRA 629 (2002)
Until the admin case is final, it cannot be Other Grounds for Disqualification
used to disqualify someone. Section 40 (b) LGC is
Nolasco v. COMELEC, 275 SCRA 762 (1997)
a PERPETUAL disqualification.
Vote-buying has its criminal and electoral
DUAL CITIZENSHIP aspects. Its criminal aspect to determine the
Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630 (1999) guilt or innocence of the accused cannot be the
Dual allegiance is not equivalent to dual subject of a summary hearing. However, its
citizenship. The latter is the result of the electoral aspect to ascertain whether the offender
concurrent application of different laws of two or should be disqualified from office can be
more states, wherein a person is simultaneously determined in an administrative proceeding that
considered a national by said states. The former is summary in character.
is a situation in which a person simultaneously
Common Problems in Local Government
owes, by some positive act, loyalty to 2 or more
Elections
states. It is dual allegiance which is inimical to
Ramas v. COMELEC, 286 SCRA 189 (1998)
the national interest and shall be dealt with by
The Omnibus Election Code and other
law. The primary concern of the Constitution was
election laws do not specifically provide for
with naturalized citizens maintaining allegiance to
execution pending appeal of judgment in election
countries of origin and not dual citizens per se.
cases. However, this remedy is available in
Hence, Section 40 (d) of the LGC and Sec. 20 of
accordance with Sec. 2, Rule 39 of the ROC,
RA 7854 must be understood as referring to dual
which applies by analogy or in a suppletory

36
character and effect in the absence of any There is no substitution for independent
applicable provision. All that is required for a candidates.
valid exercise of the discretion to allow execution
pending appeal is that the immediate execution Term of Office
should be based “upon good reasons to be stated LGC Section 43.
in a special order.” TO deprive the TC of their 1987 CONSTITUTION, Article X, Section 8.
discretion to grant execution pending appeal
would bring back the ghost of the “grab-the- RA 9164 (2002) Section 2. Term of Office. — The
term of office of all barangay and sangguniang
proclamation-prolong-the-protest techniques.”
kabataan officials after the effectivity of this Act
shall be three (3) years.
Fermo v. COMELEC, 328 SCRA 52 (2000) No barangay elective official shall serve
A valid exercise of the discretion to allow for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the
same position: Provided, however, that the term
execution pending appeal in election cases
of office shall be reckoned from the 1994
requires that it should be based “upon good barangay elections. Voluntary renunciation of
reasons to be stated in a special order.” The office for any length of time shall not be
following constitute “good reasons” and a considered as an interruption in the continuity of
service for the full term for which the elective
combination of two or more of them will suffice to
official was elected.
grant execution pending appeal: (1) public
interest involved or will of the electorate, (2) the
RA 9006 (Fair Election Act) Section 14 – an
shortness of the remaining portion of the term of
elective official running for any office other than
the contested office; and (3) the length of time
the one which he is holding in a permanent
that the election contest is pending.
capacity, is NO LONGER considered ipso facto
resigned from his office upon the filing of his
Miranda v. Abaya, 311 SCRA 617 (1999)
certificate of candidacy
While there is no dispute as to whether
or not a nominee of a registered or accredited
WHAT CONSTITUTES TERM OF OFFICE?
political party may substitute for a candidate of
Borja v. COMELEC, 295 SCRA 157 (1998)
the same party who had been disqualified for any
The Constitution contemplates service by
cause, this does not include those cases where
local officials for three consecutive terms as a
the certificate of candidacy of the person to be
result of election. The term limits for elective
substituted had been denied due course and
local officials must be taken to refer to the right
cancelled under Section 78 of the Omnibus
to be elected as well as the right to serve in the
Election Code. While the law enumerate the
same elective position. Consequently, it is not
occasions where a candidate may be validly
enough that an individual has fully served three
substituted, there is no mention of the case
consecutive terms in an elective local office. He
where a candidate is excluded not only by
must also have been elected to the same position
disqualification but also by denial and cancellation
for the same number of times before the
of his certificate of candidacy.
disqualification can apply.
Recabo v. COMELEC, 308 SCRA 794 (1999)

Lonzanida v. COMELEC, 311 SCRA 602 (1999)
In the substitution of candidates which
Petitioner ran for his third term in 1995.
belong to a political party, the certificate of
Although he was declared the winner, the
nomination and acceptance should be duly signed
proclamation was ruled null and void in early
and attested to under oath by the party
1998. In the 1998 elections, he was held to be
president, chairman, secretary-general or any
eligible to run again, as there was no violation of
other party officer duly authorized in writing to do
the three-term rule. His assumption of office in
so. A political party may only field one candidate
1995 cannot be deemed to have been by reason
for a single election position.
of a valid election. Also, he did not fully serve the
1995-98 mayoral term by reason of involuntary

37
relinquishment of office as he was ordered to posit that by excepting barangay officials whose
vacate his post before the expiration of the term. “term shall be determined by law” from the
Although he served the greater portion of the general provision fixing the term of “elective local
term, the requisite is that he serve three full officials” at three years, the Constitution thereby
consecutive terms. impliedly prohibits Congress from legislating a
three-year term for such officers.
Adormeo v. COMELEC, Feb. 4, 2002 According to the SC, the Constitution did
The two conditions must concur for the not expressly prohibit Congress from fixing any
application of the three-term rule: a) that the term of office for barangay officials. It merely left
official concerned has been elected for three the determination of such term to the lawmaking
consecutive terms in the same local government body without any specific limitation or prohibition.
post and b) that he has fully served the three Thus, the 3-year term under the LGC is valid.
consecutive terms. As the petitioners were elected under the
provisions of the LGC, they are also estopped
Socrates vs. COMELEC GR 154512 NOVember 12, from questioning its validity.
2002
A 2 term mayor did not sit in office for a
Monroy vs. CA, 20 SCRA 620 (1967)
third consecutive term. However, during the
Any elective provincial, municipal or city
incumbent mayor's term, a recall election was
official running for an office other than the one
held. The former mayor won the recall election.
which he is actually holding, shall be considered
He now wishes to seek another term. SC held he
resigned from his office from the moment of the
is not violating the 3 terms rule since the time
filing of his COC. So he is resigned from the
after the end of his 2nd term until his winning a
moment of filing
recall is a disruption. He cannot be seen as
holding the same position consecutively.
Aguinaldo vs. COMELEC 308 SCRA 770 (1999)
Section 67 seeks to ensure that elective
public officials serve out their entire term of office
Latasa vs. COMELEC GR 154829, December 10,
by discouraging them from running for another
2003
public office and thereby cutting short their
The mayor of a municipality held his post
tenure by making it clear that should they fail in
for three terms. During his last term, the
their candidacy, they cannot go back to their
municipality became a city and he was declared
former position. Law deems it a “voluntary
hold-over mayor by the charter. He wanted to
renunciation.”
run for mayor of the new city. The SC did NOT
allow him to run. If he were allowed, he would
have served the same people for a term more
than what is allowed by law. Vacancies and Succession
LGC Section 44 TO 47
Mendoza vs. COMELEC GR 149736, December 17,
2002 Menzon v. Petilla, 197 SCRA 251 (1991)
This case represents the Supreme Court’s
The LGC is silent on mode of succession
panic over the effects of their earlier rulings on
the concurrence of two factors, i.e. must be when there is a temporary vacancy in the office of
elected for 3 terms and has not voluntarily the vice-governor. But it doesn’t mean that there
renounced, for the application of the 3 term limit. is no remedy. Otherwise, for the period during
Note that there is a slim margin between the
which there is not governor yet proclaimed, there
majority who support earlier rulings and a
minority who want a stricter construction of the would be delays in the delivery of basic services
term limitations. to the people. In this case, there was a vacancy
when the vice-governor automatically assumed
the governorship pending the determination of
David v. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 90 (1997) who is the local chief executive. Because of such
Petitioners Liga ng mga Barangay claim circumstances, the SC ruled that the President,
that the 5-year term under RA 6679 for barangay through the Secretary of Local Government, may
officials should apply and that the 3-year term make the temporary appointment.
provided by the LGC is unconstitutional. They

38
Gamboa v. Aguirre, 310 SCRA 867 (1999) registered voters in each district.” Thus, the
A vice-governor who is concurrently an court has no choice but to merely apply the law.
acting governor is actually a quasi-governor. For
purposes of exercising his legislative prerogatives Fariñas v. Barba, 256 SCRA 396 (1996)
and powers, he is deemed as a non-member of Who has the power to fill vacancy in the
the sanggunian for the time being. The Sangguniang Bayan caused by a member not
designation, appointment or assumption of the belonging to any political party? According to the
vice-governor as the acting governor creates a SC, it is the governor, despite the lack of
corresponding temporary vacancy in the office of specificity of Sec. 45 of the LGC. It is the same
the vice-governor during such contingency. Being manner as where the member belonged to a
the acting governor, the vice cannot continue to political party. There is no reason for supposing
simultaneously exercise the duties of the latter that those who drafted Sec. 45 intended to make
office, since the nature of the duties of the the manner of filling vacancies in sanggunians,
governor for a full-time occupant to discharge created by members who do not belong to any
them. Hence, there is an “inability” on the part of political party, different from the manner of filling
the regular presiding officer (vice-governor) to such vacancies when created by members
preside during the sanggunian sessions, which belonging to political parties. Thus, where there
calls for the election of a temporary presiding is no political party to make the nomination, the
officer as mandated by Article 49 (b) of the LGC. Sanggunian, where the vacancy occurs, must be
considered authority for making the
Docena v. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern recommendation. The appointing authority is
Samar, 198 SCRA 493 (1991) limited to the appointment of those recommended
The DILG first appointed Docena, then to the governor. The recommendation is a
Alar as member of the sanggunian to replace a condition sine qua non for the validity of the
member who passed away. The sanggunian appointment.
passed a resolution recognizing the appointment
of Alar. The SC rules in favor of Docena, as his Navarro v. CA, Mar. 28, 2001
appointment was a permanent one and therefore The reason behind the right given to a
valid for the unexpired portion of the term of the political party to nominate a replacement where a
deceased member. As Docena already accepted permanent vacancy occurs in the sanggunian is to
the appointment, it was complete and enforceable maintain the party representation as willed by the
at the time it was supposed to have been people in the election. Thus, the “last vacancy” in
“superseded” by Alar’s appointment. Docena the sanggunian as used in Sec. 45(b) of the LGC
already had security of tenure and could be refers to that created by the elevation of the
removed only for cause. member formerly occupying the next higher in
rank which in turn also had become vacant by
Victoria v. COMELEC, 229 SCRA 269 (1994) any of the causes enumerated.
Petitioner claims that the ranking of the
sanggunian members should not be based on the Miranda vs. Carreon, 401 SCRA 303 (2003)
number of votes obtained in relation to the total When the civil service law applies, it
number of registered voters, but also on the provides specific grounds for dismissing a
number of voters who actually voted. The SC government officer of employee from service,
disagrees. Although the petitioner’s manner of among which are inefficiency and incompetence.
computation is more equitable, Sec. 44 of the This presupposes that you have given the worker
LGC is clear in the determination of the ranking of enough time to evaluate his performance, so
the sanggunian members: that it should be on there must be a probationary period of 6 months.
the basis of the proportion of votes obtained by Removal due to poor performance requires that
each winning candidate to the total number of he be informed in writing of the status of his
performance not later than the 4th month of that
period with sufficient warning that failure to

39
improve his performance within the remaining What are the instances wherein a permanent
period of semester shall warrant separation from vacancy occurs? When an elective local official:
service. fills a higher vacant office
refuses to assume office
fails to qualify
Office where Who Succeeds into dies
Permanent Vacancy Office is removed from office
Occurs
Governor Vice-governor voluntarily resigns
Mayor Vice-mayor is otherwise permanently incapacitated to
Governor and vice- Highest ranking discharge the functions of his office
governor, or sanggunian member or,
Mayor and vice-mayor, in case of his permanent
Office where Who Temporarily
or inability, the second
Punong barangay highest ranking Temporary Succeeds into Office
sanggunian member Vacancy Occurs
Member of Sanggunian Person appointed by the Governor Vice-governor
Panlalawigan or President, through the
Sangguniang Executive Secretary (automatically)
Panlungsod of highly Mayor Vice-mayor (automatically)
urbanized cities and Punong barangay Highest ranking sanggunian
independent
member (automatically)
component cities
Member of Person appointed by the Local chief 1) Person designated in
Sangguniang governor executive traveling writing by the said
Panlungsod of within the country local chief executive
component cities and
but outside his → Authorization shall
the Sangguniang
Bayan territorial specify the powers
Member of the Person appointed by the jurisdiction for a and functions that
Sangguniang Barangay mayor, upon period not the designate will
recommendation of the
exceeding three (3) exercise, except
Sangguniang Barangay
concerned consecutive days the power to
Representation of the Official next in rank of appoint, suspend,
youth and the the organization or dismiss
barangay in the concerned
employees
sanggunian
2) Vice-governor, vice-
mayor or highest
• Except for the Sangguniang Barangay, only
Sangguniang Barangay
the nominee of the political party under which
member, if the local
the sanggunian member concerned had been
chief executive fails or
elected and whose elevation to the position
refuses to designate
next higher in rank created the last vacancy
→ In this case,
in the sanggunian shall be appointed in the
assumption into
manner provided. The appointee shall come
office shall be on
from the same political party.
the 4th day of
absence of the
• In case of permanent vacancy is caused by a
local chief
sanggunian member who does not belong to
executive
any political party, the local chief executive
(automatically)
shall, upon recommendation of the
sanggunian concerned, appoint a qualified
person to fill the vacancy.

40
• The person who temporarily succeeds into following the election of its members and within
office shall exercise the powers and perform 90 days thereafter, the sanggunian concerned
the duties and functions of the local chief shall adopt or update its existing rules of
executive [Sec. 46(a)] procedure. According to the SC, the LGC does
 Except the power to appoint, suspend or not mandate that no other business may be
dismiss employees transacted on the first regular session except to
 Exception to the exception: where the take up the matter of adopting or updating rules.
period of temporary incapacity exceeds All that the law requires is that “on the 1 st regular
thirty (30) working days session…the sanggunian concerned shall adopt or
update its existing rules or procedure.” Until the
When does temporary incapacity terminate? completion of the adopted or updated rules, the
• Upon submission to the appropriate rules of the previous year may be used.
sanggunian of a written declaration by the
local chief executive concerned that he has
reported back to office.
Zamora vs. Caballero, GR 147767, January 14,
• In cases where the temporary incapacity is 2004
due to legal causes, the local chief executive "Quorum" is defined as that number of
members of a body which, when legally
shall also submit the necessary documents
assembled in their proper places, will enable the
showing that said legal causes no longer body to transact its proper business or that
exist. number which makes a lawful body and gives it
power to pass upon a law or ordinance or do any
valid act. "Majority," when required to constitute
B. Local Legislation
a quorum, means the number greater than half or
LGC Sections 48-59, 188, 511
more than half of any total. The entire
membership (as in ALL) must be taken into
Ortiz v. Posadas, 55 Phil 741 (1931) account in computing the quorum of the
The affirmative vote of a majority of all sangguniang panlalawigan, A sanggunian is a
collegial body.
the members of the municipal council is required
for the passage of any ordinance, whether or not
De Los Reyes v. Sandiganbayan, 281 SCRA 631
an ordinance creating indebtedness. An
(1997)
ordinance passed by less than that majority is
The affixing of the signature of the mayor
invalid.
to a resolution is not a mere ministerial act. The
mayor has discretionary power to veto, as seen in
Casiño v. CA, 204 SCRA 449 (1991)
Sec. 109 (b) of the LGC, which outlines the veto
A requirement that at least ¾, instead of
power of the local chief executive. The
a mere majority, of all the members of the
sanggunian, however, may override the veto by a
sanggunian should vote for the passage of an
2/3 vote. Thus, the signature is not a mere
ordinance is valid. Although the general law
ministerial act, but involves the exercise of
requires only a majority, the higher requisite vote
discretion on the part of the local chief executive.
shall govern since municipal authorities are in a
better position to determine the evils sought to be
Hagonoy Market Vendor Association v.
prevented by the inclusion or incorporation of
Municipality of Hagonoy, Feb. 6, 2002
particular provisions in enacting a particular
Sec. 187 of the LGC requires that an
statute and, therefore, to pass the appropriate
appeal of a tax ordinance or revenue measure be
ordinance to attain the main object of the law.
made to the DOJ Secretary within 30 days from
the effectivity of the ordinance and even during
Malonzo v. Zamora, 311 SCRA 224 (1999)
its pendency, the effectivity of the assailed
It is alleged that an ordinance was
ordinance shall not be suspended. The period
passed without complying with Secs. 50 and 52 of
stated in this provision is mandatory since funds
the LGC requiring that on the first regular session

41
are needed for the delivery of basic services in • Local legislative power shall be exercised by
the LGU. Thus, it is essential that the validity of the sanggunian (Sec. 48, LGC).
revenue measures should not be left uncertain for
a considerable length of time. • Presiding officer (vice-governor, vice-mayor,
punong barangay) shall vote only to break a
Legislative bodies conduct public hearings tie (Sec. 49, LGC)
to allow interested parties to ventilate their views  in the event of the inability of the regular
on a proposed law or ordinance. These views, presiding officer to preside at a
however, are not binding on the legislative body sanggunian session, the members
present and constituting a quorum shall
and it is not compelled by law to adopt the same. elect from among themselves a
temporary presiding officer;
Marahomsalic v. Lim, Jan. 26, 2000 (CA case)
Ordinance authorizing then Mayor Lim to • On the first regular session following the
election of its members and within 90 days
spray paint the houses of suspected and
thereafter, the sanggunian concerned shall
convicted drug pushers was declared adopt or update its existing internal rules of
unconstitutional. Said ordinance violates the procedure. (Sec. 50, LGC)
constitutional provision on due process since it
• A majority of all the members of the
dispenses with the presumption of innocence. It
sanggunian who have been elected and
also violates the constitutional provision against qualified shall constitute a quorum to transact
degrading or inhuman punishment. official business (Sec. 53, LGC).
The well-established tests of a valid  where there is no quorum, the presiding
officer may declare a recess until such
ordinance are:
time as a quorum is constituted, or a
1) it must not contravene the majority of the members present may
Constitution or any statute; adjourn from day to day and may compel
2) it must not be unfair or oppressive; the immediate attendance of any
member absent without justifiable cause
3) it must not be partial or
by designating a member of the
discriminatory; sanggunian to be assisted by a member
4) it must not prohibit but nay regulate or members of the police force assigned
trade; in the territorial jurisdiction of the local
government unit concerned, to arrest the
5) it must be general and consistent absent member and present him at the
with public policy session
6) it must not be unreasonable  Every ordinance enacted by the
sanggunian (except the sangguniang
barangay) shall be presented to the local
chief executive. He may either:
a. approve the same, and affix his
Moday v. CA, 268 SCRA 586 (1995) signature on each and every page thereof, or
In an expropriation case, the SC issued a b. veto it and return the same with
his objections to the sanggunian,
TRO enjoining the respondent mayor from which may proceed to reconsider
constructing any building on the subject land. the same
The mayor admits to having contravened this TRO the veto shall be communicated by
by constructing some buildings, but reasons out the local chief executive
concerned to the sanggunian
that such violation was for public service-oriented within 15 days in the case of a
activities. The SC ruled that such explanation province, and 10 days in the
given by the mayor was not acceptable. The case of a city or a municipality;
otherwise, the ordinance shall be
purpose for which the buildings were used is
deemed approved as if he had
immaterial. The mayor was duty bound to obey signed it (Sec. 54, LGC)
the injunction issued by the SC. sanggunian concerned may override
the veto of the local chief
executive by 2/3 vote of all its
NOTES:
members

42
local chief executive may veto any within the 30 action is
ordinance on the ground that it is days, it may also taken
ultra vires or prejudicial to the be transmitted to
public welfare, stating his the provincial
reasons therefor in writing attorney or
local chief executive has the power to prosecutor for
veto any particular item or items examination; said
of an appropriations ordinance, atty. or prosecutor
an ordinance or resolution shall give his
adopting a local development written
plan and public investment recommendations
program, or an ordinance within 10 days
directing the payment of money from receipt of
or creating liability; in such a document
case, the veto shall not affect the Ground to ordinance or ordinance is
item or items which are not invalidate resolution is inconsistent
objected to; the item or items in ordinance beyond the power with law and
the appropriations ordinance of or conferred upon city or
the previous year corresponding resolution the Sanggunian municipal
to those vetoed, if any, shall be concerned ordinances
deemed reenacted in such case,
the local chief executive may veto an the
ordinance or resolution only once sangguniang
(Sec. 55, LGC) barangay may
adjust, amend
Ordinances enacted by the sangguniang barangay or modify the
shall, upon approval by the majority of all its ordinance
members, be signed by the punong within 30
barangay. (Sec. 54, LGC) days from
receipt from
the
sangguniang
Component City Barangay panlungsod or
or Municipality Ordinances sangguniang
Ordinances and bayan
Resolutions
Reviewed Sangguniang Sangguniang
by Panlalawigan Panlungsod or C. Judicial Intervention
Sangguniang
RULES OF COURT, Rule 63
Bayan
Furnish 3 days after 10 days after Section 4. Local Government Ordinances. – In
copies of approval of enactment of any action involving the validity of a local
ordinance ordinance or ALL government ordinance, the corresponding
or resolution ordinances
prosecutor or attorney of the local government
resolution approving the
within local devopment unit involved shall be similarly notified and
plans and public entitled to be heard. If such ordinance is alleged
investment to be unconstitutional, the Solicitor General shall
programs
also be notified and entitled to be heard.
formulated by the
local development
councils Perez v. De la Cruz, 27 SCRA 587 (1969)
Period to 30 days after 30 days after The vice-mayor, as presiding officer of
examine receipt of copies, receipt of
the sanggunian, may not vote to create a tie, and
documents after which the copies, after
ordinance or which the then vote again to break the deadlock. This is
resolution is ordinance is because the presiding officer is not a member of
presumed valid if presumed the sanggunian. Thus, he can only vote in case
no action is taken valid if no
of a tie. However, a member of the sanggunian
acting as chairman may vote as a member and as
chairman, to break the tie.

43
of cities or municipalities in Metropolitan
Manila
Homeowner’s Association of the Phil., Inc. v.
Municipal Board of City of Manila, 24 SCRA 856 • Disciplining Authority — The President, who
(1968) may act through the Executive Secretary
The failure of the Solicitor General to
appear in the lower court to defend the • Investigating Authority — DILG Secretary
may constitute an Investigating Committee in
constitutionality of an ordinance is not fatal to the
the DILG for the conduct of investigation
case. The determination of the question of WON the Disciplining Authority may, in the interest
the Sol-Gen should be required to appear “in any of the service, still constitute a Special
action involving the validity of any treaty, law, Investigating Committee in lieu of the
DILG Secretary
executive order, rule or regulation” is a matter nothing shall prevent the President from
left to the discretion of the Court pursuant to the assuming jurisdiction at any stage of the
Rules of Court. Inasmuch as the said proceedings over cases to be
requirement is not mandatory, but discretionary, preliminarily investigated by the DILG; in
such event, the same shall immediately
non-compliance therewith affected neither the be forwarded to the Special Investigating
jurisdiction of the trial court nor the validity of the Committee after it may have been
proceedings therein. constituted by the Disciplining Authority
• Grounds for administrative action (discipline,

Ortega vs. QC Government, GR 161400,
suspension, removal):
September 2, 2005 a. Disloyalty to the Republic of the
Consti provides that SC may Review, Philippines;
revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or b. Culpable violation of the Constitution;
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may c. Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in
provide, final judgments and orders of lower office, gross negligence, or dereliction of
courts cases where the validity of an ordinance is duty;
questioned. There must be a decision by an d. Commission of any offense involving
inferior court before the SC can assume moral turpitude or any offense punishable
jurisdiction. Also, SC cannot have original by at least prision mayor, which is from 6
jurisdiction over actions for declaratory relief. No years and 1 day to 12 years
factual issues should be discussed by the imprisonment;
Supreme Court e. Abuse of authority;
f. Unauthorized absence for 15 consecutive
working days in case of local chief
executives and 4 consecutive sessions in
the case of members of the sangguniang;
g. Application for, or acquisition of, foreign
citizenship or residence of the status of
D. Disciplinary Actions an immigrant of another country; and
h. Such other grounds as may be provided
LGC Sections 58, 60-68
by the Local Government Code of 1991;
Republic Act No. 6713; Republic Act No.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORER 23, as amended by AO 3019; Administrative Code of 1987;
159 (1994) and AO 66 (1999) Revised Penal Code; and all other
PRESCRIBING THE RULES AND PROCEDURES ON applicable general and special laws.
THE INVESTIGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCIPLINARY CASES • how initiated. — by any private individual or
• Coverage: administrative disciplinary charges any government officer or employee by filing
against – a sworn written complaint; it may also be
a. the governors, and members of the initiated motu proprio by the Office of the
sangguniang panlalawigan; President or any government agency duly
b. the mayors, vice mayors, and members authorized by law to ensure that LGUs act
of the sangguniang panlungsod of highly within their prescribed powers and functions
urbanized cities, independent component
cities, and component cities; and • Preventive suspension may be imposed by
c. the mayors, vice mayors, and members the Disciplining Authority in cases where the
of the sangguniang panlungsod or bayan respondent is an elective official of the
following LGUs:

44
a. provinces; candidacy of the respondent so suspended as
b. highly urbanized cities; long as he meets the qualifications required
c. independent component cities; and for the office.
d. cities and municipalities in Metropolitan When the respondent has been meted 2 or
Manila. more penalties of suspension for 2 or
more administrative offenses, such
The governor shall, upon the direct order of the penalties shall be served successively.
Disciplining Authority, preventively suspend
an elective official of a component city, who is • An elective local official may be removed
under formal administrative investigation by from office by order of the proper court or the
the Office of the President. Disciplining Authority whichever first acquires
jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other. The
No preventive suspension shall be imposed within penalty or removal from office as a result of
90 days immediately prior to any local an administrative investigation shall be
election. If the preventive suspension has considered a bar to the candidacy of the
been imposed prior to the 90-day period respondent for any elective position.
immediately preceding a local election, it
shall be deemed automatically lifted upon the
SUSPENSION
start of aforesaid period.
Espiritu v. Melgar, 206 SCRA 256 (1992)
• Preventive suspension may be imposed: The provincial governor is authorized to
at any time after the issues are joined (after preventively suspend the municipal mayor any
respondent has answered the complaint)
time after the issues have been joined and any of
when the evidence of guilt is strong and,
given the gravity of the offense, there is a the following grounds were shown to exist:
great probability that the continuance in When there is reasonable ground to
office of the respondent could influence believe that the respondent has
the witnesses or pose a threat to the
committed the act or acts
safety and integrity of the records and
other evidence complained of;
When the evidence of culpability is
Any single preventive suspension of local elective strong;
officials shall not extend beyond 60 days;
provided that, in the event that several When the gravity of the offense so
administrative cases are filed against an elective warrants; or
official, he cannot be preventively suspended for When the continuance in office of the
more than 90 days within a single year on the
same ground or grounds existing and known at respondent could influence the
the time of the first suspension. witnesses or pose a threat to the
• Upon expiration of the preventive suspension, safety and integrity of the records
the suspended elective official shall be
and other evidence.
deemed reinstated in office without prejudice
to the continuation of the proceedings against There is nothing improper in suspending
him. However, if the delay in the proceeding an officer before the charges are heard and
of the case is due to his fault, or request, before he is given an opportunity to prove his
other than the appeal duly filed, the duration
innocence. Preventive suspension is allowed so
of such delay shall not be counted in
computing the time of termination of the that respondent may not hamper the normal
case. course of the investigation through the use of his
influence and authority over possible witnesses.
• The respondent, who is preventively
When a local government official believes
suspended from office, shall receive no salary
or compensation during such suspension; that he has been wrongfully suspended, the
but, upon subsequent exoneration and proper procedure is to exhaust administrative
reinstatement, he shall be paid his full salary remedies, i.e. seek relief from the DILG Secretary
or compensation, including such emoluments
, and not to file a case in court.
accruing during such suspension.
• The penalty of suspension shall not exceed Joson v. Executive Secretary, 290 SCRA 279
the unexpired term of the respondent, or a (1998)
period of 6 months for every administrative
Administrative disciplinary proceedings
offense, nor shall said penalty be a bar to the
against local officials are governed by the LGC,

45
the IRR of the LGC, and AO 23. In all matters not against a public official, these cases should be
provided in AO 23, the ROC and the consolidated for the purpose of ordering
Administrative Code apply suppletorily. preventing suspension, instead of issuing an
An administrative complaint must be order of suspension for each case. Elective local
verified and filed with the proper government officials should be given the benefit of
office. Jurisdiction over said actions is lodged in simultaneous service of suspension.
two authorities: the Disciplining Authority (the
President, and acting on his authority, the NOTE: The ruling in this case as to simultaneous
Executive Secretary) and the Investigating service of suspension is more of an exception
Authority (the DILG Secretary, based on the than the rule, because of the following
alter-ego principle or doctrine of qualified political circumstances:
agency). The DILG Sec., however, is not the 1) Three separate orders of 60-day preventive
exclusive Investigating Authority, as the suspension were issued against Ganzon
Disciplining Authority may designate a Special 2) Another order of preventive suspension was
Investigating Committee. issued before the SC promulgated the
decision ruling that suspension should not be
issued piecemeal (Ganzon v. CA, 200 SCRA
Elective Official Where to File 271)
against whom Complaint 3) The simultaneous service of suspension will
Administrative lessen the harsh effects of whatever ill motive
Complaint is Filed may be behind the successive suspension
Provincial or city official Office of the President orders issued
Municipal official Sangguniang
Panlalawigan Flores vs. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Barangay official Sangguniang Pampanga, GR 159022, February 23, 2005
Panlungsod or LGC section 61 says that a complaint
against any elective official of a municipality
Sangguniang Bayan shall be filed before the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan whose decision may be appealed
Berces v. Guingona, 241 SCRA 539 (1995) to the Office of the President. Without filing a MR,
any other action he takes is premature, unless he
Sec. 68 of the LGC merely provides that
shows that he has a valid reason for doing so.
an “appeal shall not prevent a decision from
becoming final or executory.” As worded, there is
EFFECT OF RE-ELECTION
room to construe the provision as giving
Aguinaldo v. Santos, 212 SCRA 768 (1992)
discretion to the reviewing officials to stay the
Re-election renders the administrative
execution of the appealed decision. There is
complaint against the local official moot and
nothing to infer therefrom that the reviewing
academic. A public official cannot be removed for
official be deprived of the authority to order a
administrative misconduct committed during a
stay of the appealed order. The execution of
prior term, since the re-election to office operates
decisions pending appeal is procedural and in the
as a condonation of the officer’s previous
absence of a clear legislative intent to remove
misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to
from the reviewing officials the authority to order
remove him therefore. But this rule is applicable
a stay of execution, such authority can be
only to administrative cases, not to criminal
provided in the rules and regulations governing
cases.
the appeals of elective officials in administrative
cases.
Garcia v. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207 (1999)
The Office of the Ombudsman committed
Ganzon v. CA, 203 SCRA 399 (1991)
grave abuse of discretion when it imposed the
Piecemeal suspensions should not be
maximum period for preventive suspension even
issued. If there are several administrative cases
though it had already gathered strong evidence

46
against the accused within one month from the Suspension under RA Suspension under
suspension. Clearly, if the purpose of the 6770 the LGC
preventive suspension is to enable the Requirements: Requirements:
investigating authority to gather documents the evidence of guilt is there is reasonable
strong; and ground to believe
without intervention from the accused official, that any of the that the respondent
then such purpose was already achieved in this following circumstances has committed the
case within the first month and the maximum are present: act or acts
period imposed is excessive. the charge against the complained of;
officer or employee the evidence of
should involve culpability is strong
People v. Toledano, 323 SCRA 210 (2000) dishonesty, the gravity of the
The RPC enumerates the grounds for oppression or offense so
extinction of criminal liability, and dismissal of an grave misconduct warrants; or
or neglect in the the continuance in
administrative charge against the accused is not performance of office of the
one of them. Moreover, the re-election of the duty; respondent could
accused does not bar the removal of the accused the charges should influence the
since the ruling in the case of Aguinaldo, which warrant removal witnesses or pose a
from office; or threat to the safety
forbids the removal from office of a public official the respondent’s and integrity of the
for administrative conduct committed during a continued stay in records and other
prior term, finds no application to criminal cases office would evidence
prejudice the case
pending against said public officer.
filed against him
Maximum period of Maximum period of
Valencia vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 141336, June suspension: 6 months suspension: 60 days
29, 2004
Petition is without merit. Except where
permited, investigation of the facts should be
limited to those in the information and those
admitted by the prosecutor in determining the Constantino v. Desierto, 288 SCRA 654 (1998)
Motion to Quash. No defenses should be Test if Pending the investigation of complaints,
the information is sufficient is if the facts alleged the deputy of investigator may issue orders and
were hypothetically admitted, would it establish
provisional remedies (including preventive
the essential elements of the crime. Admin
proceedings protect public service. Criminal suspension) which are immediately executory
prosecution is the punishment of crime. subject to review by the Ombudsman.
Moreover, one of the grounds for the dismissal of
the administrative case against petitioners is the
Castillo-Co v. Barbers, 290 SCRA 717 (1998)
fact that they were reelected to office. Reelection
is a condonation since the electorate knowing the It is not only the Ombudsman, but also
facts still placed him back into public office. his Deputy, who may sign an order preventively
However, the re-election of a public official suspending officials. Also, the length of the
extinguishes only the administrative, but not the
period of suspension within the limits provided by
criminal, liability incurred by him during his
previous term of office. law and the evaluation of the strength of the
evidence both lie in the discretion of the
Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman It is immaterial that no evidence has
Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole, 251 SCRA 242 (1993) been adduced to prove that the official may
The Ombudsman and the Office of the influence possible witnesses or may tamper with
President have concurrent jurisdiction to conduct the public records. It is sufficient that there
administrative investigations over local elective exists such a possibility.
officials. The LGC did not withdraw the power of
the Ombudsman under RA 6770. Lapid v. CA, 334 SCRA 738 (2000)
Sec. 68 of the LGC applies only to
Preventive Preventive administrative decision rendered by the Office of

47
the President or the appropriate sanggunian
against elective local government officials. The Miranda vs. Sandiganbayan GR 154098, July 27,
penalty imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman 2005
upon Lapid, which is suspension without pay for The Ombudsman’s authority to
preventively suspend local elective officials for 6
one month, is not among those listed as final and
months is not limited by Sec. 63(b) of the LGC.
unappealable, hence, immediately executory. The case Garcia vs Mojica, which is relied on by
The general rule is that judgments by lower the dissent does not apply. Sec. 63 of the LGC
courts or tribunals become executory only after it does not govern preventive suspensions imposed
by the Ombudsman, which is a constitutionally
has become final and executory; execution
created office and independent from the
pending appeal being an exception. Executive branch of government. The
Ombudsman’s power of preventive suspension is
The Courts governed by The Ombudsman Act of 1989. The 6-
month period of preventive suspension was
RA 3019 indubitably within this law.
Bunye v. Escareal, 226 SCRA 332 (1993)
Sec. 13 od RA 3019 unequivocally SANDIGANBAYAN
provides that the accused public official “shall be Juan v. People, 322 SCRA 125 (2000)
suspended from office” while the criminal Unlawful and unauthorized use of
prosecution is pending in court. Such preventive government property by incumbent public officers
suspension is mandatory. constitutes fraud. Thus, the provision on
preventive suspension in RA 3019 applies to such
Rios v. Sandiganbayan, 279 SCRA 581 (1997) officers even if the alleged violations are primarily
Sec. 13 of RA 3019 makes it mandatory considered as election offenses.
for the Sandiganbayan to preventively suspend
any public officer who has been validly charged Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, 322 SCRA 329 (2000)
with a violation of RA 3019 or the RPC, or any It is the official’s grade that determines
offense involving fraud upon the government or his or her salary, and not the other way around.
public funds or property. “The court trying a case An official’s grade is not a matter of proof but a
has neither discretion nor duty to determine matter of law which the court must take judicial
whether preventive suspension is required to notice. Under Sec. 444(d) of the LGC, the
prevent the accused from using his office to municipal mayor shall receive a minimum
intimidate witnesses or frustrate his prosecution monthly compensation corresponding to Salary
or continue committing malfeasance in office.” Grade 27. Thus, the cases filed against the
This is based on the presumption that unless the petitioner are within the exclusive jurisdiction of
accused is suspended, he may frustrate his the Sandiganbayan.
prosecution of commit further acts of malfeasance
or both. Esquivel vs. Ombudsman, 389 SCRA 143 (2002)
The Ombudsman is empowered to
determine whether there exists reasonable
Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, 288 SCRA 328 (1999) ground to believe that a crime has been
The term “office” in Sec. 13 of RA 3019 committed and that the accused is probably guilty
(pertaining to mandatory preventive suspention) thereof and, thereafter, file the corresponding
information with the appropriate courts.
applies to any office which the officer might
Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over the
currently be holding and not necessarily the criminal cases against the Mayor, and his co-
particular office in relation to which the official is accused even if an official of lower rank.
charged.
The imposition of the suspension, though Barriga vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 161784-6, April
mandatory, is not automatic or self-operative. A 26, 2005
Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction
pre-condition therefor is the existence of a valid
over the crimes of malversation and illegal use of
information, determined at a pre-suspension public funds, based on the allegations of the
hearing. amended informations and RA 8294.

48
Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over Petition of a registered voter in the LGU
criminal case involving crimes/felonies in which concerned, supported by percentage of
the public office is a constituent element (without registered voters during the election in which the
office, crime cannot be committed) local official sought to be recalled was elected.
(Percentage decreases as population of people in
Inding vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 143047, July 14, area increases. Also, the supporting voters must
all sign the petition. This reverses the Angobung
2004
decision discussed below)
Even if the salary grade is lower than 27, the fact is
that the applicable law states that Sangguniang
Panlalawigan members are within the original 
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. If the law states
that a certain officer is within the jurisdiction of the Within 15 days after filing, COMELEC Must certify
SB, the fact that the officer's salary grade is below the sufficiency of the required number of
27 does not divest jurisdiction. signatures. Failure to obtain required number
automatically nullifies petition.
Rodriguez vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 141710, March

3, 2004
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense. RA Within 3 days of certification of sufficiency,
8249 provides that as long as one of the accused is COMELEC provides official with copy of petition
an official of the executive branch occupying the and causes its publication for 3 weeks (once a
position otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher week) in a national newspaper and a local
(in this case, Mayor Rodriguez), the Sandiganbayan
newspaper of general circulation. Petition must
exercises exclusive original jurisdiction. To vest
also be posted for 10 to 20 days at conspicuous
sandiganbayan with jurisdiction, public office must
be an element of the crime OR that without the
places. PROTEST SHOULD BE FILED AT THIS
public office, the crime could not have been POINT and ruled with finality 15 days after filing.
committed.

Removal
Aguinaldo v. Santos (supra) COMELEC verifies and authenticates the
signatures.
Pablico vs. Villpando 385 SCRA 601 (2002)

Local legislative bodies and/or the Office
of the President cannot validly impose the penalty COMELEC announces acceptance of candidates
of dismissal or removal from service on erring
local elective officials. It is clear from Sec. 60 of
Section 71. Election on Recall
LGCode that an elective local official may be
removed from office on the grounds enumerated • COMELEC Sets election within 30 days upon
above by order of the proper court. But completion of previous section in
remember if its appointive, they (OP) may barangay/city/municipality proceedings (45
days in case of provinces)
remove. (PLEASE NOTE THAT DANGAT DOES
NOT AGREE WITH THIS CASE.) • Officials sought to be recalled are
automatically candidates.
Recall
LGC Sections 69-75 Evardone v. COMELEC, 204 SCRA 464
Whether or not the electorate of the
RA 9244: AN ACT ELIMINATING THE
municipality has lost confidence in their
PREPARATORY RECALL ASSEMBLY AS A MODE OF
incumbent mayor is a political question. Loss of
INSTITUTING RECALL OF ELECTIVE LOCAL
confidence is the formal withdrawal by the
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AMENDING FOR THE
electorate of their trust in a person’s ability to
PURPOSE SECTIONS 70 AND 71, CHAPTER 5,
discharge his office previously bestowed on him
TITLE ONE, BOOK 1 OF RA 7160, OTHERWISE
by the same electorate.
KNOWN AS THE LGC OF 1991, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
Garcia v. COMELEC, 227 SCRA 100 (1993)
Section 70: Initiation of the Recall Process – Recall is a mode of removal of a public
official by the people before the end of his term of

49
office. The people’s prerogative to remove a As long as the election is held outside the
public official is an incident of their sovereign one-year period (from the date of assumption of
power and in the absence of Constitutional office), the preliminary proceedings to initiate a
restraint, the power is implied in all governmental recall can be held even before the end of the first
operations. Such power has been held to be year in office of a local official.
indispensable for the proper administration of
public affairs. There is nothing in the Constitution Afiado v. COMELEC, Sept. 18, 2000
that suggests that people have sole and exclusive The assumption by legal succession of
right to decide on whether to initiate a recall the elective official is a supervening event which
proceeding. What the Constitution simply renders a recall proceeding against that official
required is that the mechanisms of recall to be moot and academic. The person subject of the
chosen by Congress should be effective. Thus by recall process is a specific elective official in
enacting the LGC, the Congress deemed it wise to relation to his/her specific office.
enact alternative modes of initiating recall
elections, such as recall initiated by the NOTES:
Preparatory Recall Assembly. • What are the limitations on the holding of
recalls?
No recall shall take place within one year
from the date of assumption of office of
the official concerned
Paras v. COMELEC, 264 SCRA 49 (1996) Purpose: to provide a reasonable basis
The term “regular local election” should for judging the performance of an
be construed as referring to the election for the elective local official
office held by the local elective official sought to No recall shall take place within one year
be recalled. Thus, the upcoming SK elections immediately preceding a regular local
cannot bar the process for the recall of the election
Punong Barangay. Since a recall election is potentially
disruptive of the normal working of
Angobung v. COMELEC, 269 SCRA 245 (1997) the local government unit
The LGC provides that, while the necessitating additional expenses
initiatory recall petition may not yet contain the
signatures of at least 25% of the total no. of E. Human Resources Development
required voters, the petition must contain the LGC Sections 76-97.
names of at least 25% of the total no. of
(See Secs. 469-490 of the LGC for the
registered voters on whose behalf at least one
enumeration of local officials common to
person may sign the petition, for the meantime. municipalities, cities and provinces)
Claudio v. COMELEC, 331 SCRA 388 (2000) DISCIPLINING

Recall is a process which begins with the Macalincag v. Chang, 208 SCRA 413 (1992)
Acting Secretary of Finance has the
convening of the preparatory recall assembly of
power to preventively suspend erring municipal
the gathering of the signatures of at least 25% of treasurer for acts of dishonesty and neglect of
the registered voters of a local government unit, duty, under section 41 of the Civil Service Law.
and then proceeds to the filing of a recall Power to discipline is specifically vested under the
CSC law in heads of departments, agencies and
resolution or petition with the COMELEC. As used
instrumentalities, provinces and chartered cities
in Sec. 74 (b) of the LGC, “recall” refers to the who have original jurisdiction to investigate and
election itself by means of which the voters decide on matters involving disciplinary action.
decide whether they should retain their local Since municipal treasurer is under DOF, then
acting secretary as disciplining authority has
official or elect his replacement.
power to preventively suspend.

50
Garcia vs. Pajaro, 394 SCRA 122 (2002) Flores v. Drilon, 223 SCRA 568 (1993)
Employee of Dagupan’s City Treasurer’s Bases conversion act says that the mayor
Office was suspended by the City Treasurer of Olonggapo shall be appointed SBMA chairman
because of formal charges. SC held that City for first year of operations. SC held this violates
treasurer has authority to discipline said official. consti prohibition against appointment or
Power to discipline is specifically granted by the designation of elective officials to other
Admin code to heads of departments, agencies government posts. Appointive officials may be
and instrumentalities, provinces, and cities. allowed by law or primary functions of his position
Power to commence admin proceedings against to hold multiple offices. Elective officials are not
subordinate officer is granted by Omnibus Rules allowed, except as otherwise recognized in the
to secretary of department, head of office, head consti. Provision also encroaches on executive
of LGU, chief of agency, regional director, or power to appoint. Also, position is not ex officio.
person with sworn written complaint. City His acts as chairman were considered valid prior
treasurer may also motu proprio institute to the decision.
disciplinary proceedings against subordinate.
These rules must be reconciled with LGC, which Sangguniang Bayan of San Andres v. CA, 284
gives mayor authority to institute admin/judicial
SCRA 276 (1998)
proceedings against any official or employee of
SC held in this case that former
the city. In case of employees of city treasurer’s
Sanggunian Bayan member did not validly resign
office, mayor must file his complaint with the
but he did ABANDON his office.
treasurer’s office or with DOF.
Requisites to constitute resignation:
1. Intention to relinquish a part of the term
2. Act of relinquishment
3. Acceptance by the proper authority
NEPOTISM
Essential elements of abandonment:
Debulgado v. CSC, 237 SCRA 184 (1994) 1. Intent to abandon
Mayor not allowed to appoint wife as 2. Overt act by which the intention is to be
head of Office of General Services even if she’s carried into effect
qualified because of PROHIBITION AGAINST In this case, the last requisite for resignation was
NEPOTIC APPOINTMENTS. This is based on Sec. present, while all the elements of abandonment
59 Book 5 of Revised Admin Code (RAC). Note were present.
that this prohibition covers all appointments,
original and personnel actions (promotion, CSC’S ROLE IN APPOINTMENTS – can’t appoint
transfer, reinstatement, reemployment). but can say if qualified or unqualified. If
unqualified, can kick out of office (basis is the
CSC vs. Tinaya, GR 154898, February 16, 2005 Omnibus Implementing Rules of RAC).
also covers prohibition against nepotic
appointments. This time, the boyfriend of Grounds for RECALL of appointment:
daughter of the mayor was appointed a post. 1. Non-compliance with procedure or
When his appointment was temporary, he criteria provided in the agency’s merit
became the son-in-law. Mayor then promotion plan
recommended that his appointment become 2. Failure to pass through agency’s
permanent. This was considered nepotism and selection/promotion board
was disallowed. 3. Violation of existing collective agreement
between management and employees
APPOINTMENTS relative to promotion
Dimaandal v. COA, 291 SCRA 322 (1998) 4. Violation of other existing civil service law
Governor DESIGNATED acting assistant rules and regulations
provincial treasurer. SC held officer was not
allowed to recover compensation as assistant
Mathay v. CSC, 312 SCRA 91 (1999)
provincial treasurer because designation was not
CSC has the power to take action on all
under color of authority. Under the LGC and RAC,
appointments and other personnel actions and
provincial governor is not authorized to appoint or
that such power includes the authority to recall an
even designate a person in cases of temporary
appointment initially approved by the mayor in
absence or disability. Power resides in the
disregard of applicable provisions of the CSC
President or Secretary of Finance. (NOTE
laws. In disapproving or approving
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DESIGNATION AND
appointments, CSC only
APPOINTMENT. In designation, nadadagdagan
a. examines the conformity of the
lang yung trabaho mo, pero hindi umaakyat yung
appointment with applicable provisions of law
sweldo.)

51
b. examines WON appointee possesses 2 exceptions as to appointments by local chief
the minimum qualifications and none of the
executive
disqualifications
secretary (appointed by vice-governor or
Mathay v. CA, 320 SCRA 703 (1999) vice-mayor)
CSC has no authority to direct that an treasurer (appointed by secretary of finance)
appointment of a specific individual be made. It
can only attest to WON person chosen may fill the
F. Prohibited Interests
position. According to BP 337, the power to
appoint rests exclusively with the local chief LGC Section 89
executive and can’t be usurped by anyone else.
In CAB, city council tried to usurp power by Teves vs. Sandiganbayan GR 154182, December
enacting ordinance that provide for absorption of
17, 2004
specific persons into the system.
Teves was charged with unlawful
intervention in issuance of license to operate
De Rama v. CA, 353 SCRA 94 (2001) cockpit but was convicted of having direct
Consti prohibition on midnight financial or pecuniary interest instead. SC upheld
appointments applies only to presidential conviction, holding that VARIANCE DOCTRINE
appointments. They don’t apply to LGUs, as long applied to this case. Variance Doctrine – crime
as the appointments met all the requisites of a charged includes crime proved, convict of crime
valid appointment. Once an appointment has proved (case at bar). Also applies when crime
been made and accepted, the appointing proved includes crime charged, convict of crime
authority cannot unilaterally revoke it. But the charged.
CSC may do so if it decides that the requirements
were not met.
Elements of unlawful ELEMENTS OF
Lameyra v. Pangilinan, 322 SCRA 117 (2000) intervention: PROHIBITED
Janitor was not allowed to go to work by INTEREST
new mayor then was kicked out of office for being Accused is public officer Public Officer
AWOL. CSC and CA both approved dismissal. SC Accused has direct or He has direct or
held both were wrong. Dismissal was not shown indirect financial or indirect financial or
to be valid because of lack of notice. pecuniary interest in pecuniary interest in
any business, contract, any business, contract,
City Government of Makati City v. CSC, Feb. 6, or transaction, WON transaction
2002 prohibited by law
Clerk was dropped from rolls allegedly for He intervenes or takes He is prohibited from
going AWOL. But she was actually in prison for part in his official having such interest by
crime she didn’t commit. When she came back, capacity in connection the Consti or law
CSC held that she can go back to her position with such interest
because she was on AUTOMATIC LEAVE OF
ABSENCE while she was in prison. SC upheld
CSC ruling, stating that such rule was within the G. Practice of Profession
constitutionally delegated power of the CSC to
LGC Section 90
interpret its own rules. In this case, CSC was
merely interpreting its rule on requirement of
approved leave. Javellana v. DILG, 212 SCRA 475 (1992)
By serving as counsel for the complaining
REMOVAL
employees and assisting them to prosecute their
Pastor v. City of Pasig, May 9, 2002
claims against the city engineer, the petitioner
Pastor was removed from office without cause
when her “reassignment” to floating assignments violated the Memorandum Circular which prohibits
lasted 10 years. There was reduction in her rank, government officials from engaging in the private
status thus amounting to constructive dismissal. practice of his profession, if such practice would
represent interests adverse to the government.
NOTES:
The appointing authority is generally the Ramos v. CA, 108 SCRA 728 (1981)
disciplining authority. A municipality cannot hire private counsel
to file a suit in its behalf. The Revised
Administrative Code provides that only the

52
provincial fiscal and the municipal attorney can the province. The collaboration between the
represent a municipality in its lawsuits, except in private and provincial prosecutors does not
cases where original jurisdiction is vested in the legalize the representation by the private
SC, or where the municipality is a party adverse prosecutor.
to the provincial government or the case is
between two municipalities. The intent of Alinsug v. RTC, 225 SCRA 553 (1993)
Congress is to prohibit a municipality from A private counsel may represent
employing private counsel in its lawsuits. The municipal officials sued in their official capacities.
fact that the municipal attorney and the fiscal are The key to determine whether or not private
supposed to collaborate with a private law firm counsel may be retained lies in the nature of the
does not legalize the latter’s representation of the action and the relief sought. A public official sued
municipality. While a private prosecutor is in his official capacity may engage the services of
allowed in criminal cases, an analogous private counsel when the complaint contains
arrangement is not allowed in civil cases where a other allegation and a prayer for moral damages,
municipality is the plaintiff. which, if due from the defendants, must be
satisfied by them in their private capacity.
Mancenido v. CA, Apr. 12, 2000

Pillilla v. CA, 233 SCRA 484 (1994) In resolving whether a local government
Only the provincial fiscal and the official may secure the services of private counsel
municipal attorney can represent a province or in an action filed against him in his official
municipality in their lawsuits. This is mandatory. capacity, the nature of the action and the relief
The municipality’s authority to employ a private sought are to be considered. In view of the
lawyer is expressly limited only to situations damages sought, which if granted, could result in
where the provincial fiscal is disqualified to personal liability, respondents could not be
represent it. deemed to have been improperly represented by
For the exception to apply, the fact that private counsel.
the provincial fiscal was disqualified to handle the
municipality’s case must appear on record. Natividad v. Felix, Feb. 4, 1994
Moreover, the refusal of the provincial fiscal to Petitioner, a municipal mayor, claims that
represent the municipality is not a legal it the Ombudsman and not the Provincial
justification for employing the services of private Prosecutor which has jurisdiction to conduct the
counsel. preliminary investigation in the crime of murder
Instead of engaging the services of a charged against him. SC rules against the
special attorney, the municipal council should petitioner. It reasoned that the Ombudsman’s
request the Secretary of Justice to appoint an power to investigate is dependent on the cases
acting provincial fiscal in place of the provincial cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. For an offense
fiscal who has declined to handle and prosecute to fall under the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, the
its case in court. offense committed by the public officer must be in
relation to his office. This requirement was
Ramos v. CA, 269 SCRA 34 (1997) lacking in the case of the petitioner. Moreover,
Only the provincial fiscal, provincial even if the case falls under the jurisdiction of the
attorney and the municipal attorney should Ombudsman, such jurisdiction exercised by him is
represent a municipality in its lawsuits. Only in not exclusive but concurrent with similarly
exceptional instances may a private attorney be authorized agencies of the government.
hired by a municipality to represent it in lawsuits
and only when the municipality is an adverse
party in a case involving the provincial NOTES:
government or another municipality or city within

53
In what instances can a private lawyer LGUs shall, as much as possible, be settled
amicably.
represent the LGU?
When the municipality is an adverse party in a Article 16. Jurisdictional Responsibility. —
case involving the provincial government or Boundary disputes shall be referred for
another municipality or city within the settlement to the following:
(a) Sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang
province
bayan for disputes involving two (2) or more
Where original jurisdiction is vested with the SC barangays in the same city or municipality, as
the case may be;
Test as to when a local government official (b) Sangguniang panlalawigan, for those
involving two (2) or more municipalities
can secure the services of private counsel:
within the same province;
Nature of the action and the relief that is sought (c) Jointly, to the sanggunians of provinces
concerned, for those involving component
H. Local Boards cities or municipalities of different provinces;
or
Local School Boards (d) Jointly, to the respective sanggunians, for
LGC Sections 98-101 those involving a component city or
municipality and a highly-urbanized city; or
two (2) or more highly-urbanized cities.
COA Cebu Province vs. Province of Cebu, 371
SCRA 196 (2001) Article 17. Procedures for Settling Boundary
SEF covers the salary and benefits of Disputes. — The following procedures shall
extension classes teachers but not college govern the settlement of boundary disputes:
scholarship funds. (a) Filing of petition — The sanggunian
concerned may initiate action by filing a
Osea vs. Malaya, 375 SCRA 285 (2002) petition, in the form of a resolution, with the
Memo Circ 21 placed position of Schools sanggunian having jurisdiction over the
Division Superintendent (which is position being dispute.
fought over here) within career executive service, (b) Contents of petition — The petition shall state
and power to appoint such was transferred to the grounds, reasons or justifications
President from DECS. Prerogative to designate therefor.
appointees to particular stations was vested in (c) Documents attached to petition — The
the DECS. 99LGC applies only to appointments petition shall be accompanied by:
made by the DECS. Since this case involved (1) Duly authenticated copy of the law or
appointment by the president, 99 need not apply statute creating the LGU or any other
document showing proof of creation of
Local Health Boards the LGU;
LGC Sections 102-105 (2) Provincial, city, municipal, or barangay
map, as the case may be, duly certified
Local Development Councils by the LMB;
LGC Sections 106-115 (3) Technical description of the boundaries of
the LGUs concerned;
Local Peace and Order Council (4) Written certification of the provincial,
LGC Section 116 city, or municipal assessor, as the case
may be, as to territorial jurisdiction over
I. Autonomous Special Economic Zones the disputed area according to records in
LGC Section 117 custody;
(5) Written declarations or sworn statements
of the people residing in the disputed
area; and
J. Settlement of Boundary Disputes (6) Such other documents or information as
LGC Section 118 - 119 may be required by the sanggunian
hearing the dispute.
(d) Answer of adverse party — Upon receipt by
IRR of LGC the sanggunian concerned of the petition
Article 15. Definition and Policy. — There is a together with the required documents, the
boundary dispute when a portion or the whole of LGU or LGUs complained against shall be
the territorial area of an LGU is claimed by two or furnished copies thereof and shall be given
more LGUs. Boundary disputes between or among fifteen (15) working days within which to file
their answers.

54
(e) Hearing — Within five (5) working days after more or less permanent natural boundaries.
receipt of the answer of the adverse party,
Precisely because territorial jurisdiction is an issue
the sanggunian shall hear the case and allow
the parties concerned to present their raised in the pending boundary dispute, until and
respective evidences. unless such issue is resolved with finality, to
(f) Joint hearing — When two or more define the territorial jurisdiction of the proposed
sanggunians jointly hear a case, they may sit
barangays would only be an exercise in futility.
en banc or designate their respective
representatives. Where representatives are
designated, there shall be an equal number of J. Local Initiative and Referendum
representatives from each sanggunian. They (Based on Secs. 120-127, LGC and RA 6735: An
shall elect from among themselves a
act providing for a system of initiative and
presiding officer and a secretary. In case of
disagreement, selection shall be by drawing referendum)
lot.  Initiative: legal process whereby the
(g) Failure to settle — In the event the registered voters of a local government unit
sanggunian fails to amicably settle the may directly propose, enact, or amend any
dispute within sixty (60) days from the date ordinance
such dispute was referred thereto, it shall
issue a certification to that effect and copies  Referendum: legal process whereby the
thereof shall be furnished the parties registered voters of the local government
concerned. units may approve, amend or reject any
(h) Decision — Within sixty (60) days from the ordinance enacted by the sanggunian.
date the certification was issued, the dispute
shall be formally tried and decided by the  Who may exercise — all registered voters of
sanggunian concerned. Copies of the decision the provinces, cities, municipalities and
shall, within fifteen (15) days from the barangays
promulgation thereof, be furnished the
parties concerned, DILG, local assessor,
COMELEC, NSO, and other NGAs concerned.
 Requirements —
a. referendum or initiative affecting a
(i) Appeal — Within the time and manner
resolution or ordinance passed by the
prescribed by the Rules of Court, any party
legislative assembly of a province or city:
may elevate the decision of the sanggunian
petition must be signed by at least 10%
concerned to the proper Regional Trial Court
of the registered voters in the province or
having jurisdiction over the dispute by filing
city, of which every legislative district
therewith the appropriate pleading, stating
must be represented by at least 3% of
among others, the nature of the dispute, the
the registered voters therein; Provided,
decision of the sanggunian concerned and the
however, That if the province or city is
reasons for appealing therefrom. The
composed only of 1 legislative district,
Regional Trial Court shall decide the case
then at least each municipality in a
within one (1) year from the filing thereof.
province or each barangay in a city
Decisions on boundary disputes promulgated
should be represented by at least 3% of
jointly by two (2) or more sangguniang
the registered voters therein.
panlalawigans shall be heard by the Regional
b. referendum or initiative on an ordinance
Trial Court of the province which first took
passed in a municipality: petition must be
cognizance of the dispute.
signed by at least 10% of the registered
voters in the municipality, of which every
Article 18. Maintenance of Status Quo. —
barangay is represented by at least 3%
Pending final resolution of the dispute, the status
of the registered voters therein
of the affected area prior to the dispute shall be
c. referendum or initiative on a barangay
maintained and continued for all purposes.
resolution or ordinance: must be signed
by at least 10% of the registered voters
City of Pasig v. COMELEC, supra in said barangay
The conduct of plebiscites, to determine
whether or not a barangay is to be created,  Procedure in Local Initiative —
should be suspended or cancelled in view of a a. not less than 1,000 registered in case of
provinces and cities, 100 in case of
pending boundary dispute between two local
municipalities, and 50 in case of
governments. A requisite for the creation of a barangays, may file a petition with the
barangay is for its territorial jurisdiction to be local legislative body, respectively,
properly identified by metes and bounds or by proposing the adoption, enactment,

55
repeal, or amendment, of any law, however, that in case of barangays, the
ordinance or resolution period shall be 18 months after the approval
b. if no favorable action thereon is made by thereof
local legislative body within 30 days from
its presentation, the proponents through  Local Referendum — Any local legislative
their duly authorized and registered body may submit to the registered voters of
representative may invoke their power of autonomous region, provinces, cities,
initiative, giving notice thereof to the municipalities and barangays for the approval
local legislative body concerned or rejection, any ordinance or resolution duly
c. 2 or more propositions may be submitted enacted or approved
in an initiative
d. proponents shall have 90 days in case of  Courts are not precluded from declaring null
provinces and cities, 60 days in case of and void any proposition approved for
municipalities, and 30 days in case of violation of the Constitution or want of
barangays, from notice mentioned in capacity of the local legislative body to enact
subsection (b) hereof to collect the the said measure.
required number of signatures
e. the petition shall be signed before the
Garcia v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 279 (1994)
Election Registrar, or his designated
representative, in the presence of a A resolution is a proper subject of an
representative of the proponent, and a initiative. This is based on Sec. 32, Art. VI of the
representative of the regional assemblies Constitution, which directs Congress to provide a
and local legislative bodies concerned in a
system of initiative and referendum where the
public place in the LGU
f. if the required number of the signatures people can directly propose and enact laws or
is obtained, the COMELEC shall then set a approve or reject any act or law passed by
date for the initiative for approval of the Congress or local legislative body. An act
proposition within 60 days from the date
includes a resolution.
of certification by the COMELEC in case of
provinces and cities, 45 days in case of The LGC did not limit the coverage of
municipalities, and 30 days in case of local initiatives to ordinances alone. Sec. 120
barangays merely defines the concept of legal initiative but
does not deal with the subjects that can be taken
 Effectivity of Local Propositions — If the
proposition is approved by a majority of the up in a local initiative. The correct provision
votes cast, it shall take effect 15 days after would be Sec. 124 which does not limit the
certification by the COMELEC application of the initiatives to ordinances, but to
all subjects or matters which are within the legal
 Limitations on Local Initiatives —
a. the power of local initiative shall not be powers of the sanggunian to enact.
exercised more than once a year
b. initiative shall extend only to subjects or SBMA v. COMELEC, 262 SCRA 492 (1996)
matters which are within the legal powers
There is a difference between initiative
of the local legislative bodies to enact
c. if at any time before the initiative is held, and referendum. Initiative is the power of the
the local legislative body shall adopt in people to propose bills and laws, and to enact or
toto the proposition presented, the reject them at the polls independent of the
initiative shall be cancelled. However,
legislative assembly. Referendum is the right
those against such action may, if they so
desire, apply for initiative in the manner reserved to the people to adopt or reject any act
herein provided or measure which has been passed by a
legislative body and which in most cases would
 Limitations Upon Local Legislative Bodies —
without action on the part of electors become law.
Any proposition or ordinance or resolution
approved through the system of initiative and These law-making powers belong to the people
referendum as herein provided shall not be and the COMELEC only exercises administration
repealed, modified or amended, by the local and supervision of the process. Hence, COMELEC
legislative body concerned within 6 months
cannot control or change the substance or the
from the date therefrom, and may be
amended, modified or repealed by the local content of the legislation.
legislative body within 3 years thereafter by a
vote of 3/4 of all its members: Provided,

56
III. offenses limited to offenses limited to
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS those punishable by those punishable by
imprisonment not imprisonment not
The Barangay exceeding 30 days or a exceeding 1 year or a
LGC Sections 384-439 fine not exceeding fine not exceeding
P200 P5,000
People v. Recto, Oct. 17, 2001 No similar provision Disputes arising from
A barangay captain is a person in authority and an the workplace where
attack on him would amount to direct assault. On
the other hand, an attack on a barangay chief tanod the contending parties
who was a mere bystander (not in the performance are employed or at the
of his duties) at the time the crime was committed, institution where such
is not direct assault as he is merely an agent of a
person in authority. parties are enrolled for
study, shall be brought
David v. COMELEC (supra) in the brgy where such
workplace or institution
Alquizola v. Ocol, 313 SCRA 273 (1999) is located
Since there is no other provision that No similar provision Prescriptive periods of
treats the power of the punong barangay to offenses suspended
remove the barangay secretary or other during the pendency of
appointive barangay officials, and the duration of the mediation,
their term of office is not fixed by law, it is a conciliation or
sound rule to consider the power of removal as arbitration process
being an incident to the power to appoint. Verily,
the power of appointment is to be exercised Diu v. CA, 251 SCRA 472 (1995)
conjointly by the punong barangay and a majority Under the factual antecedents, it cannot
of all the members of the sangguniang barangay. be said that the failure of the parties to appear
Without such conjoint action, neither an before the pangkat caused any prejudice to the
appointment nor replacement can be effected. case of the respondent considering that they
already refused conciliation before the barangay
Katarungang Pambarangay chairman. Their sham insistence for a meeting
LGC Sections 399 – 422 before the pangkat was merely a ploy for further
Morata v. Go, 125 SCRA 444 (1983) delay.
The law makes no distinction whatsoever
with respect to the classes of civil disputes that Boleyley v. Villanueva, 314 SCRA 364 (1999)
should be compromised at the barangay level. To As the parties do not reside in the same
rule otherwise would defeat the intent of the law city or municipality, their dispute is excepted from
in decongesting the court dockets since a party the requirement of referral to the barangay lupon
can just increase the amount of his claim to or pangkat for conciliation or settlement prior to
escape the requirement of going through the filing with the court.
Katarungang Pambarangay.
Vercide v. Hernandez, 330 SCRA 49 (2000)
Uy v. Contreras, 237 SCRA 167 (1994) Where parties do not reside in the same
The previous law on Katarungang city or municipality or in adjoining barangays,
Pambarangay has already been revised by the there is no requirement for them to submit their
LGC and it has three significant features: dispute involving real property to the Lupong
Tagapamayapa. Although PD 1508 provides that
PD 1508 Local Government “disputes which involve real property…shall be
Code brought in the barangay where the real property
Authority over criminal Authority over criminal or any part thereof is situated,” this is simply a

57
proviso which expands the venue where barangay Marquez v. COMELEC, 313 SCRA 103 (1999)
conciliation may be held. Under RA 7808, the Omnibus Election
Code shall govern the elections of the
Heirs of Vinzons v. CA, 315 SCRA 541 (1999) Sangguniang Kabataan. Thus, election protests
Petitioners cannot rely on the barangay and quo warranto cases with respect SK elections
conciliation proceedings held in previous cases should be filed with the MeTC/MTC/MCTC.
and consider the same as compliance with the Moreover, the SK Chairman is considered a
law. barangay official.
Garvida v. Sales, 271 SCRA 767 (1997)

Sangguniang Kabataan An elective official of the Sangguniang
LGC Section 423 – 439 Kabataan should not be more than 21 years (now
18 years) of age on the day of his election. “Not
• RA 9164 (2002) amended Sec. 424 and 428 more than 21 years old” is not equivalent to “less
of the LGC by lowering the maximum age of than 22 years old.”
the members of the Katipunan ng Kabataan
and elective officials of the Sangguniang Zarate v. COMELEC, 318 SCRA 608 (1999)
Kabataan from 21 to 18 years of age. The COMELEC en banc cannot hear and
decide an election contest at the first instance.
Under the Constitution, all election cases shall be
Alunan III v. Mirasol, 276 SCRA 501 (1997) heard and decided by the COMELEC in division;
The COMELEC may delegate the control only motions for reconsideration of decisions shall
and supervision of SK elections to the DILG. be decided en banc.
There is no abdication of the functions of the
COMELEC because the DILG supervision was to be The Municipality
exercised within the framework of detailed and LGC Section 440 – 447
comprehensive rules embodied in the resolution
issued by the COMELEC. In this case, the DILG Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan, 248 SCRA 700 (1995)
Secretary exempted some local government units The municipal mayor has the authority to
from holding SK elections, pursuant to Sec. issue permits and licenses for the holding of
532(d) of the LGC. In making the determination activities for any charitable or welfare purpose,
of which LGUs to exempt, the DILG Secretary did pursuant to Sec. 444(b)(3) of the LGC.
nothing more than ascertain whether or not the
LGU had an SK election from 1988 up to the The City
effectivity of the LGC. LGC Section 448 – 458
Associated Labor Unions v. Letrondo, 237 SCRA AUTHORITY OVER OFFICERS

621 (1994) Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative v.
The election for members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Dumaguete, 155
Sangguniang Kabataan may properly be SCRA 421 (1987)
considered a “local election” within the meaning The Sangguniang Panlungsod has no
of the collective bargaining agreement. Thus, the authority to issue subpoenas and punish non-
day on which the SK elections was to be held was members for legislative contempt. The contempt
a holiday. The fact that the voters in such power of the legislature is sui generis and local
election are not qualified registered voters does legislative bodies cannot correctly claim to
not make it any less a regular local election, as possess it for the same reasons that the national
the Constitution itself provides for sectoral legislature does. The power to subpoena
representatives in Congress (i.e. women and witnesses and punish non-members for contempt
youth). may not also be implied in the delegation of

58
legislative power as such partake of a judicial grant of authority to a natural person to engage
nature. in the practice or exercise of his or her profession.
Thus, a business permit cannot, by the imposition
Dadole vs. COA, GR 125359, December 3, 2002 of conditions, be used to regulate the practice of
Dept of Budget Management can’t control a profession.
amount a city wants to give its judges as
The power to issue licenses and permits
allowance, as long as city has money to do so
necessarily includes the power to revoke,
withdraw or restrict through the imposition of
LICENSES AND PERMITS
certain conditions. However, the conditions must
Gordon v. Veridiano II, 167 SCRA 51 (1988)
be reasonable and cannot amount to an arbitrary
An application to establish a drug store
interference with the business. Moreover, the
must be filed with the Office of the Mayor and
license is a special privilege and not a contract,
must show that the applicant has complied with
such that estoppel does not apply. Thus, the fact
the existing ordinances in health and sanitation,
that the applicant acquiesced in the conditions
location or zoning, fire or building and other local
imposed in the permit does not preclude him from
requirements. On the other hand, an
challenging the said imposition as being ultra
authorization to operate issued by the FDA is a
vires.
condition precedent to the grant of a mayor’s
permit to the drug store seeking to operate within
Mathay v. Felt Foods, 311 SCRA 658 (1999)
the city. Hence, a permit issued by the mayor to
In this case, the respondent’s permit had
a drugstore not previously cleared with and
already expired. This forecloses the
licensed by the FDA will be a nullity. However,
complainant’s right to demand specific
the issuance of a mayor’s permit is not
performance under the terms of the expired
mandatory once it is shown that the FDA has
contract from the defendant. Any loss or damage
licensed the operation of the applicant.
suffered by the complainant from the alleged
The mayor has no authority to revoke a
unlawful act of the defendant under the terms
business permit for the violation of the Pharmacy
and during the existence of the expired contract
Law or the Dangerous Drugs Act. The power to
may be remedied by a claim for damages and not
approve a license includes by implication, the
by a writ of injunction to enjoin the effects of the
power to revoke it. Thus, if the FDA grants a
expiration of the contract.
license upon its finding that the applicant
drugstore has complied with the requirements of
Canet vs. Dacena, GR 155344, January 20, 2004
the general laws and the implementing
Only the Sanggunian has the power to
administrative rules and regulations, it is only for
allow cockpits, stadiums, etc. NOT the mayor of
their violation that the FDA may revoke the said
the city. In CAB, all Canet had was a resolution
license. Necessarily, the city mayor may only
saying he could operate. He needed an
revoke the permits issued for violation of the local
ordinance. Without such, he can’t compel mayor
requirements imposed.
to issue him a business license
Acebedo Optical v. CA, 329 SCRA 314 (2000)

The Province
Distinction must be made between the
LGC Section 459 – 468
grant of a license or permit to do business and
the issuance of a license to engage in the practice
Caram v. COMELEC, 225 SCRA 731 (1993)
of a particular profession. The first is usually
Petition to hold a special election, to give
granted by the local authorities and the second is
a chance to the voters of the Sub-province of
issued by the Board or Commission tasked to
Guimaras to vote for the provincial officials of the
regulate the particular profession. A business
Province of Iloilo, denied. The inhabitants of
permit authorizes the person to engage in
Guimaras already voted to have the sub-province
business or some form of commercial activity. A
converted into a province.
professional license, on the other hand, is the

59
by the barangay national assembly. The
Appointive Local Officials Common to All candidates for election as presidents of the
Municipalities, Cities and Provinces chapters have no vested right to demand that
LGC Section 469 – 490 their election be governed by the constitution and
by-laws under the old code.
Rapisora v. CSC, 228 SCRA 622 (1993)
When necessary, requirements such as Viola v. Alunan III, 277 SCRA 409 (1997)
education, experience or training may be used The Board of Directors of the liga at the
interchangeably to offset deficiencies. The national level, and not only at the chapter level,
necessity exists if the appointee’s training or are authorized by the LGC to create additional
experience is of such a level that the same would positions for each liga when deemed necessary
more than supplement the deficiency in education for the management of the chapters. That
considering the demands of the position in Congress can delegate the power to create
question. The decision as to when the conditions positions has been settled, so long as sufficient
give rise to a necessity to interchange education standard is provided.
with experience and vice-versa rests upon the
sound discretion of the appointing power. This is Bito-onon v. Fernandez , 350 SCRA 732 (2001)
a recognition of the fact that the appointing The ligas are primarily governed by the
authority is in the best position to determine the provisions of the LGC. However, their respective
needs of his department or agency and how to constitution and by-laws shall govern all other
satisfy those needs. The CSC is not empowered matters affecting the internal organization of the
to determine or change the kind or nature of the liga not otherwise provided for in the LGC,
appointment, for it is an essential discretionary provided that they shall always conform to the
power and must be performed by the officer on provisions of the Constitution and existing laws.
whom it is vested, the only condition being that Thus, the President, and his alter-ego,
the appointee should possess the minimum exercises the power of general supervision over
qualification required by law. the liga ng mga barangay. This being so, the
DILG Secretary does not have the authority to
Leagues of Local Government Units and amend and modify the guidelines promulgated by
Elective Officials the National Liga Board as such would be an
LGC Section 491 – 510 exercise of the power of control, not of mere
supervision.
Galarosa v. Valencia, 227 SCRA 728 (1993)
The incumbent presidents of the IV.
Association of Barangay Councils (ABC) are also MISCELLANEOUS AND FINAL PROVISIONS
ex-officio members of the Sangguniang Bayan.
The term of office of the ABC Presidents as Provisions for Implementation
members of the SB are co-terminous with that of LGC Section 511 – 525
the members of the sanggunian. However, they
remain ABC Presidents and can hold over as SB Transitory Provisions
members. This hold over authority of ABC
Presidents is expressly recognized by the IRR of LGC Section 526 – 533
the LGC.
Application of the Code to Local Government
Miguel v. CA, 230 SCRA 339 (1994) Units in the Autonomous Regions
The election of the first set of officers of LGC Section 526
the national and local chapters of the Liga ng mga
Barangay cannot be held unless a constitution The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
and by-laws for the Liga is adopted and ratified Abbas v. COMELEC (supra)

60
Cordillera Administrative Region

Limbona v. Mangelin, 170 SCRA 786 (1989) • There is no CAR since the organic laws, RA
The autonomous governments of 6676 and 8438, were not ratified by its
Mindanao involved in this case were created by inhabitants.
PD 1618, even before the 1987 Constitution. An
examination of the very law creating such Ordillo v. COMELEC, supra
autonomous governments expresses that they
were never meant to exercise the kind of Cordillera Broad Coalition v. COA, supra
autonomy wherein the central government
commits an act of self-immolation. In fact, PD The Metropolitan Manila Development
1618 mandates that the “President shall have the Authority
power of general supervision and control over 1987 CONSTITUTION Art. X, Sec. 11 (supra)
Autonomous Regions.”
RA 7924 (1995)
NOTE: Under Sec. 16, Art. X of the Constitution, AN ACT CREATING THE METROPOLITAN MANILA
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEFINING ITS
“The President shall exercise general supervision
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, PROVIDING FUNDS
over autonomous regions to ensure that the laws THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
are faithfully executed.”  MM, embracing the cities of Caloocan, Manila,
Mandaluyong, Makati, Pasay, Pasig, Quezon,
and Muntinlupa, and the municipalities of Las
Pandi v. CA, Apr. 11, 2002
Piñas, Malabon, Marikina, Navotas,
The passage of the LGC in 1991 did not Parañaque, Pateros, San Juan, Tagig, and
amend the ARMM Organic Act of 1989 since the Valenzuela, is hereby constituted into a
former is a general law and cannot prevail over a special development and administrative
region subject to direct supervision of the
special law like the Organic Act. Thus, the
President of the Philippines
devolved powers and functions under the 1991
LGC could not have applied to the ARMM. This is  The MMDA shall perform planning, monitoring
bolstered by Sec. 526 of the LGC, which limits the and coordinative functions, and in the process
exercise regulatory and supervisory authority
application of the LGC to autonomous regions
over the delivery of metro-wide services
created after its effectivity. within Metro Manila without diminution of the
However, through the passage of the autonomy of the local government units
Organic Act of 2001 (RA 9054), the devolved concerning purely local matters.
powers and functions under the LGC could now be
 Scope of MMDA Services. — Those services
applied to the ARMM. This means that the which have metro-wide impact and transcend
powers and functions of a Provincial Governor local political boundaries or entail huge
under the LGC are now enjoyed, as a minimum, expenditures such that it would not be viable
for said services to be provided by the
by a Provincial Governor in the ARMM. Hence,
individual LGUs comprising Metro Manila.
the Provincial Governor appoints the provincial These services shall include:
health officer if the latter’s salary comes from (a) development planning, investments
provincial funds. If the provincial health officer’s programming, and coordination and
monitoring of plan, program and project
salary comes mainly from regional funds, then
implementation.
the ARMM Local Code applies, in which case the (b) transport and traffic management,
Regional Governor is the appointing power but he provision for the mass transport system
must appoint only from among the nominees of and the institution of a system to
regulate road users, administration and
the Provincial Governor. Moreover, the Provincial
implementation of all traffic enforcement
Governor exercises supervision and control over operations, traffic engineering services
the provincial health officer because the ARMM and traffic education programs, including
Local Code has classified him as a provincial the institution of a single ticketing system
in Metro Manila
government official.
(c) solid waste disposal and management

61
(d) flood control and sewerage management bottlenecks and adopt solutions to
(e) urban renewal, zoning, and land use problems of implementation;
planning, and shelter services (e) The MMDA shall set the policies
(f) health and sanitation, urban protection concerning traffic in Metro Manila, and
and pollution control shall coordinate and regulate the
(g) public safety which includes the implementation of all programs and
formulation and implementation of projects concerning traffic management,
programs and policies to achieve public specifically pertaining to enforcement,
safety, especially preparedness for engineering and education. Upon
preventive or rescue operations during request, it shall be extended assistance
times of calamities and disasters, and and cooperation, including but not limited
coordination and mobilization of to, assignment of personnel, by all other
resources and the implementation of government agencies and offices
contingency plans for the rehabilitation concerned;
and relief operations in coordination with (f) Install and administer a single ticketing
national agencies concerned system, fix, impose and collect fines and
penalties for all kinds of violations of
Metro Manila Council — the governing board and traffic rules and regulations, whether
policy making body of the MMDA moving or non-moving in nature, and
Voting members: composed of the mayors of confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers'
the 8 cities and 9 municipalities, the licenses in the enforcement of such traffic
president of the Metro Manila Vice Mayors laws and regulations, the provisions of RA
League and the president of the Metro 4136 and PD 1605 to the contrary
Manila Councilors League notwithstanding. For this purpose, the
Non-voting members: heads of the DOTC, Authority shall enforce all traffic laws and
DPWH, DOT, DBM, HUDCC, and PNP or regulations in Metro Manila, through its
their duly authorized representatives traffic operation center, and may
headed by a chairman, who shall be deputize members of the PNP, traffic
appointed by the President enforcers of local government units, duly
shall promulgate rules and regulations and licensed security guards, or members of
set policies and standards for metro-wide non-governmental organizations to whom
application governing the delivery of may be delegated certain authority,
basic services, prescribe and collect subject to such conditions and
service and regulatory fees, and impose requirements as the Authority may
and collect fines and penalties impose; and
(g) Perform other related functions required
Functions and Powers of the MMDA to achieve the objectives of the MMDA,
(a) Formulate, coordinate and regulate the including the undertaking of delivery of
implementation of medium and long-term basic services to the local government
plans and programs for the delivery of units, when deemed necessary subject to
metro-wide services, land use and prior coordination with and consent of the
physical development within Metropolitan local government unit concerned.
Manila, consistent with national
development objectives and priorities;  Institutional Linkages of the MMDA — The
(b) Prepare, coordinate and regulate the MMDA shall, in carrying out its functions,
implementation of medium-term consult, coordinate and work closely with the
programs for metro-wide services which LGUs, the NEDA and other national
shall indicate sources and uses of funds government agencies, and accredited POs,
for priority programs and projects, and NGOs, and the private sector operating in
which shall include the packaging of Metro Manila.
projects and presentation to funding
institutions;  Implementation of the MMDA's plans,
(c) Undertake and manage on its own metro- programs, and projects shall be undertaken
wide programs and projects for the by the LGUs, the concerned national
delivery of specific services under its government agencies, the POs, NGOs and the
jurisdiction, subject to the approval of private sector and the MMDA itself where
the Council. For this purpose, MMDA can appropriate. For this purpose, the MMDA may
create appropriate project management enter into contracts, memoranda of
offices; agreement and other cooperative
(d) Coordinate and monitor the arrangements with these bodies for the
implementation of such plans, programs delivery of the required services within
and projects in Metro Manila; identify Metropolitan Manila.

62
the Constitution, since such requires the approval
 Five percent (5%) of the total annual gross
by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in
revenue of the preceding year, net of the
internal revenue allotment, of each local the political units directly affected. It is the local
government unit, shall accrue and become government units, acting through their respective
payable monthly to the MMDA by each city or legislative councils, that possess legislative and
municipality. In case of failure to remit the
police power.
said fixed contribution, the DBM shall cause
the disbursement of the same to the MMDA
chargeable against the IRA allotment of the MMDA vs. Garin, GR 130230, April 15, 2005
city or municipality concerned, the provisions MMDA can’t get licenses without an
of Section 286 of RA 7160 to the contrary ordinance
notwithstanding.
MMDA vs. Trackworks Rail Transit GR 167514,
October 25, 2005
Metropolitan Traffic Command v. Gonong, 187 Preliminary injunction properly issued
SCRA 432 (1990) since Trackworks effectively raised issue of
The removal and confiscation of license MMDA’s authority in dismantling the same.
Trackworks maintains it’s DPWH which has
plates of illegally parked vehicles is not among authority to do so and besides, they had contract
the specific penalties in PD 1605 which provides with government allowing them to put up ads
that the Metro Manila Commission shall have the along MRT.
power to impose fines and otherwise discipline
drivers and operators for violations of traffic laws.
Solicitor General v. MMA, 204 SCRA 837 (1991)

The ordinances providing for the
confiscation of drivers’ licenses is not valid. PD
1605 prohibits the removal of license plates and
the confiscation of drivers’ licenses for the alleged
traffic violations, and a municipal ordinance
cannot be contrary to law.
NOTE: Under RA 7924, the driver’s license may

now be confiscated; however, removal of the
license plates is still prohibited.
MMDA v, Bel-Air Village Association, 328 SCRA

836 (2000)
The powers of the MMDA are limited to
the following acts: formulation, coordination,
regulation, implementation, preparation,
management, monitoring, setting of policies,
installation of a system and administration. RA
7924 does not grant the MMDA police power or
legislative power. All its functions are
administrative in nature.
Clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of
government. There is no grant of authority to
enact ordinances and regulations for the general
welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis. It is
not even a “special metropolitan political
subdivision” as contemplated in Sec. 11, Art. X of


6 LocGov 261to319

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

6 LocGov 261to319

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

5

a) Office of the Secretary. – The office of

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

1987 CONSTITUTION, Article X Sections 1, 7, 10,

territory need requirement on requirement on

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

Basic Services and Facilities

Barangay Municipality Province City

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

• control and supervision of anti-gambling

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

Salcedo v. COMELEC, 312 SCRA 447 (1999)

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

Recabo v. COMELEC, 308 SCRA 794 (1999)

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

• Grounds for administrative action (discipline,

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

Claudio v. COMELEC, 331 SCRA 388 (2000) DISCIPLINING

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

Mancenido v. CA, Apr. 12, 2000

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]