TITLE NINE.

- OTHER PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

CHAPTER 1. - Settlement of Boundary Disputes

SECTION 118. Jurisdictional Responsibility for Settlement of Boundary Dispute. - Boundary disputes between and
among local government units shall, as much as possible, be settled amicably. To this end:

(a) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more Barangays in the same city or municipality shall be referred for
settlement to the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang bayan concerned.

(b) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more municipalities within the same province shall be referred for
settlement to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan concerned.

(c) Boundary disputes involving municipalities or component cities of different provinces shall be jointly referred for
settlement to the Sanggunians of the provinces concerned.

(d) Boundary disputes involving a component city or municipality on the one hand and a highly urbanized city on the
other, or two (2) or more highly urbanized cities, shall be jointly referred for settlement to the respective Sanggunians
of the parties.

(e) In the event the Sanggunian fails to effect an amicable settlement within sixty (60) days from the date the dispute
was referred thereto, it shall issue a certification to that effect. Thereafter, the dispute shall be formally tried by the
Sanggunian concerned which shall decide the issue within sixty (60) days from the date of the certification referred to
above.

This pertains to the jurisdictional responsibility for settlement of boundary.

With respect to boundary dispute, when you say dispute it means at least 2 local government units are claiming the
same boundary.

If the boundary dispute involves 2 or more barangays where do we file?

It should be refered to the sanggunian panlungsod or bayan.
 2 component barangay of a city it should be referred to the sangguniang panlungsod.
 If Municipality then sangguniang bayan.
 2 or more municipalities within the same province, you go to sangguning panlalawigan
 Involving municipalities and component cities of different provinces shall be jointly referred to the sanggunian of the
provinces concerned.
E.g. assuming Cebu and Bohol are beside each other. Dispute should be refered to the sangguniang panlalawigan of
Bohol and sangguniang panlalawigan of Cebu. (Joint Referral)
 Component of a municipality and the other party is a highly urbanized city or 2 or more highly urbanized city shall be
jointly referred to their respective sanggunian.

What was asked in the bar with regard to independent component city? Where do we file (since this is not indicated
in Section 118)?
So you apply remedial law. If no jurisdiction is specifically provided for, court of general jurisdiction (RTC) will take
cognizance.

First. Settlement/Mediation. There will be an amicable settlement (60 days from the date the dispute was referred
thereto) where the 2 disputing local government units. In the event that no settlement is reached by the 2 parties, that
is the time to formally try the dispute.
Second. Issuance of certification to the effect that no amicable settlement was reached. Such certification will be the
basis for formal trial.
Third. Formal Trial
Fourth. Losing party is granted 15 days to appeal the decision and RTC has 1 year to decide the same.
Section 50. Internal Discipline

SECTION 50. Internal Rules of Procedure. - (a) On the first regular session following the election of its members and
within ninety (90) days thereafter, the Sanggunian concerned shall adopt or update its existing rules of procedure.

(b) The rules of procedure shall provide for the following:

(1) The organization of the Sanggunian and the election of its officers as well as the creation of standing committees
which shall include, but shall not be limited to, the committees on appropriations, women and family, human rights,
youth and sports development, environmental protection, and cooperatives; the general jurisdiction of each
committee; and the election of the chairman and members of each committee;

(2) The order and calendar of business for each session;

(3) The legislative process;

(4) The parliamentary procedures which include the conduct of members during sessions;

(5) The discipline of members for disorderly behavior and absences without justifiable cause for four (4) consecutive
sessions, for which they may be censured, reprimanded, or excluded from the session, suspended for not more than
sixty (60) days, or expelled: Provided, That the penalty of suspension or expulsion shall require the concurrence of at
least two-thirds (2/3) vote of all the Sanggunian members: Provided, further, That a member convicted by final
judgment to imprisonment of at least one (1) year for any crime involving moral turpitude shall be automatically
expelled from the Sanggunian; and

(6) Such other rules as the Sanggunian may adopt.

This pertains the authority of the members of sanggunian to discipline their own members. Like congress.

2 Grouds:
1. disorderly behavior; and
2. unauthorized absences for 4 consecutive sessions.

NOTE: These 2 grounds are exclusive. They CANNOT expand this. They CANNOT make an agreement the IRP to include
additional grounds. However, DILG has issued an opinion regarding the expulsion of a member, interpreting what
EXPUSION means, which is ... not a removal or dismissal from service.

Disciplinary Actions Against Local Elective Officials

Jurisdiction over administrative cases against local elective officials or erring local elective officials is lodged into 2
authorities:
1. Disciplining authority
- Cannot be delegated. (Kung kinsa ang gib utang sa congress nga mu discipline, siya gyud)
2. Investigating authority
- Can be delegated by the disciplining authority. Like in senate, they have their Senate … Committee. Then we also
have the investigating committee, the sanggunian.

With respect to the disciplining authority, the President authorized the DILG to conduct investigation. But the
recommendation of the investigator is binding to the disciplinary authority. Like what happened to the case of Mayor
Rama before. The investigator recommended that he had not committed fault but the secretary decided otherwise. That
is why the President, through the DILG Secretary, implemented the suspension of Mike Rama last election.

LGC 1991 Summary

 Elective Local Disciplining Authority Preventive Penalty Administrative Appeals
Officials (ELO) (DA) Suspension (PS) Maximum 6
mos.
Provincial Elective President President Suspension R43
Official
City Elective Official President HUC/ICC – Pres. Suspension R43
CC – Gov.
Mun Elective Official Sang. Panlalawigan Gov. Suspension President
Brgy. Elective Official Sang. Mayor Suspension Mun/CC – Sang.
Bayan/Panlungsod Panlalawigan
HUC/ICC – Pres.
SK Elective Official -ob- - Removal -
(RA 10742)

Can the president issue preventive suspension order to provincial elective officials? Yes.

For how many days? 6o days for a single case but it there are several administrative charges in one year, maximum 90
days.

Section 63 was adopted in the case of Guanzon in Olongapo , during the time of Secretary Luis Santos of DILG. Our
secretary that was LDP while Guanzon is non-LDP member.

There we 10 administrative charges against Mayor Guanzon. So what DILG did to implement the penalties, after 60 days,
another preventive suspension is implemented. Until the mayor filed for certiorari for grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the DILG Secretary.

SC sustained the position of the mayor.

This case is the reason for the adoption in Section 63 of the LGC the provision stating “That in the event that several
administrative cases are filed against an elective official, he cannot be preventively suspended for more than ninety (90)
days within a single year on the same ground or grounds existing and known at the time of the first suspension.”

Under Section 63, what are the conditions for the issuance of preventive suspension?
1. Issues are joint
- This means that respondent has filed his answer, unless ther is a waiver in his part, preventive suspension may
be issued.
2. Evidence of guilt is strong
3. Gravity of the offense, there is
4. Great probability that the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to
the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence.

Preventive Suspension Issued by the SILG Preventive Suspension Issued by the Ombudsman
(under RA 6770)
- answer is not a requirement.
For as long as there is a complaint and evidence of guilt is
strong and the charges filed against the respondent, if he
is guilty, would warrant the penalty of dismissal. (Case of
Brarangay Ermita)

What is the maximum penalty that a president can issue in an administrative case? Maximum of 6 mos. but it should
not exceed the unexpired term.
What if the end of term is June 30 but the suspension as penalty was May for a reelected official, can he continue?
No, if the basis if the LGC but if the basis is the Onbudsman Act then he can continue. He merely has to take his oath and
suspension continues. (Case of Dalaguete Mayor Cesante) He took his oath on June 30 but his suspension continued
until January.

NOTE: Suspension, Administrative appeal under the LGC there is no express provision. So, you apply the Rule 42 and 43
of the Rules of Court.

City Elective Officials disciplining authority. President (though DILG as a delegated authority)

Preventive suspension for HUC/ICC. President (Through DILG as a delegated authority)

Component City. Governor

NOTE: All city officials, the disciplining authority is the president, regardless of classification (HUC/ICC/CC). But with
regard to the implementation of the preventive suspension order, iya nang suguon si Governor.

Implementation of a Preventive Suspension Order – is a ministerial duty. The governor cannot refuse to implement.

Municipality – the disciplining authority is the Provincial Court.

Who will implement the preventive suspension issued by the sangguniang panlalawigan? Governor

Barangay official disciplining authority. Sangguning Bayan/Panglungsod as the case may be.

Who will Implement? The Mayor

What if the implementing officer does not implement the order? Obstruction of justice. (Administrative case)

If the preventive suspension is issued against the wife of sibling of the implementing officer who refuses to
implement the same. Anti-graft case

SK official (new Law RA 10742)

Preventive suspension. No express provision under Law RA 10742

Penalty. Suspension and Removal, but the maximum penalty is removal.

Administrative appeal. None. (Because appeal is a statutory right, if there is no law allowing it then there can be no
remedy of appeal.)

Pablco v. Villapando July 31, 2002

Sangguniang Baranagy of Don Mariano Marcos, Municipality of Bayombong Province of Nueva Viscaya v. Punong
Barangay Severino Martinez March 3, 2008
Under the IRR of the LGC Article 124(sic 125) provide that Sangguniang Bayan/Panglunsod can terminate barangay
elective officials. But this IRR implementing the last paragraph of Section 60 which provide that “only prober courts have
the authority to terminate”

SC in this case declared that Sec. 124 of the IRR is an invalid implementation of Section 60.

NOTE: Proper court is the RTC

NOTE: Rules and regulations implementing a law should not contradict or expound the enabling law.

Ombudsman v. Rodrigues
SC held that aside from courts, the Ombudsman can order dismissal.

In other words, Sangguning Bayan, Panlungsod, Panlalawigan and the President cannot order the dismissal of elected
officials. Only the Courts and the Ombudsman can order the dismissal.

NOTE: The inconsistencies of Sections 67, 68 and 62(or 61). Decision of the Sangguniang Bayan is final and executory.
Decision of the President is final and executory.

What is Section 68? Execution pending appeal. So we apply statutory construction, the later provision shall prevail.
Hence, you can appeal although it is executory but it is not yet final. Administrative appeal or motion for reconsideration
will not hold the execution of the decision.

Under the law, who will implement the decision? LGC is silent. So, the discretion will be with the disciplining body
whom they will chose to implement the decision.

Can they order the mayor to implement the decision? Yes.

What if he refuses to implement? Obstruction of justice in administrative case. This is within the power of the
disciplining authority.

Can they order the DILG to implement their order? No (dili pwede suguon sa anak (local government) ang
amahan(national government). They can request for a clearance from the secretary to have the DILG officer in their area
to implement the decision but it is not likely that he will allow the same.

Preventive Suspension
- source: LGC
 Appointive – 60 days
 Elective – 60/90 days as the case may be.
- Ombudsman Act – 6 months
- Civil Service – 90 days
- Sandiganbayan in the Anti-Graft (RA 301) Note – silent. But in one case they adopted the duration of the civil service.

Mandatory preventive suspension

- motion for reconsideration is not allowed. But before the issuance of the mandatory preventive suspension there must
be a hearing just to determine whether or not the complaint filed is valid. We are talking about criminal case wherein
the Ombudsman is the prosecutor.

Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan, what is the salary grade? 27 and above.

But take note of the new law, RA 10660: even if your salary grade is 27 and above, if your complaint failed to allege that
there was damage to the government then it is not within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It is within the
jurisdiction of the regular courts (RTC).

Or even if there is an allegation that there is damage to the government, but the amount does not exceed 1M the
jurisdiction is still with the RTC.
So as a rule:
SG 27 and above – Sandiganbayan
No damage to the government – RTC
Damage less than 1M – RTC
Civil Service only applies to appointed officials.

Ombudsman, what is the coverage? All elective and appointive except for impeachable officers, members of the
judiciary and members of the congress.
- the can investigate the exempted officials but they have disciplining power over the same.

LGC only elective except this provision wherein the disciplining authority is the Local Chief Executive as the appointing
authority. But with respect to the members/employees of the Sangguniang Bayan or the office of the V. Mayor, it is the
V. Mayor who will discipline.

Mayor of Central Visayas v. Judge Dadule (not sure sa title)

He was suspended by the Ombudsman for 6 months. Judge Dadule contended that this is an inappropriate penalty. It
should be 60 days because he is an elective official under the LGC which is a later law. (Ombudsman Act 1989, LGC 1991)
My preventive suspension should be 60 days, not 6 months.

SC said no. Because in the repealing clause of LGC 1991 there is no mention of 1989 Act and implied repeal is not
recognized under our jurisdiction. These laws are independent of each other.

NOTE: Whoever take cognizance over the case first will exclude the other jurisdiction.

Preventive suspension. No preventive suspension shall be implemented 90 days before the election.

NOTE: If the preventive suspension falls within the 90 days prohibition, it shall automatically be lifted.

NOTE: within 90 days no investigation is allowed.

What if the investigation is done and only the implementation is left to be done, can they render the decision within
the 90 days? As a rule NO, because of the omnibus election code. No suspension within the election period.

GR: No suspension within the election period.

EX: Prior clearance or permit.
EXX: Violation of Anti-Graft Law, no prior clearance (automatic).

NOTE: Under the Omnibus Election Code only suspension is prohibited, NOT dismissal.

Aguinaldo/Condonation/Forgiveness Doctrine

Binay Case, November 10, 2015

SC held that Aguinaldo doctrine has been abandoned prospectively.

Ombudsman filed a motion for clarification for the exact reckoning point for the abandonment.

SC did not answer the Ombudsman. Upon the finality of the decision (April 12, 2016) Ombudsman Conchita Morales
made her own notes. So, all pending administrative cases, regardless of period, no more Aguinaldo doctrine.

But when such cases reach the CA, they are not honored by the CA. So, the Ombudsman still has pending cases.

Pascual case
- where Aguinaldo doctrine in the Philippines started. Based on American jurisprudence.

Aguinaldo v. Santos
Aguinaldo was a governor of Tuguigarao.
Binay case
- Aguinaldo doctrine has been abandoned due to lack of basis. However, they used the Constitutional provision of Article
XI Section 1.

NOTE: Aguinaldo doctrine is in US laws but it has no legal basis in Philippine laws.

In one case the Ombudsman said, if the mayor committed a wrongful act in 2007, but was elected as V. mayor in 2010
(abandonment in the case is 2015). Do we apply Aguinaldo doctrine here?
Ombudsman said that doctrine should not be applied because it is a different position.

SC held that doctrine should apply because it is the same electorate.

NOTE: Aguinaldo doctrine is not applicable to appointive office.

NOTE: Aguinaldo doctrine can only be applied if you admit that you are at fault.

If the case has the same facts but happened after 2015. Do we still apply the Aguinaldo doctrine?
Yes, as long as the crime was committed before 2015. (This case is still pending in the CA)

In the case of Gongon the crime was committed in 2010 but was re-elected in 2016.

In Sunny Osmeña case, the crime was committed in 2014, abandoned in 2015 and re-elected in 2016 as mayor.

Ombudsman said it will not apply.

CA held that Aguinaldo Doctrine applies as long as the act was committed prior to 2015.

Still pending in the SC.