Case Facts Issue Held

When Republic Act No. 2370 became effective, barrios may "not be created or their boundaries altered nor their names
changed" except by Act of Congress or of the corresponding provincial board "upon petition of a majority of the voters in
the areas affected" and the "recommendation of the council of the municipality or municipalities in which the proposed
The President of the Philippines issued executive orders to create thirty-three barrio is situated." This statutory denial of the presidential authority to create a new barrio implies a negation of the bigger
municipalities pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code. Public power to create municipalities, each of which consists of several barrios.
Whether the executive
funds thereby stood to be disbursed in the implementation of said executive orders.
orders are null and void,
Whereas the power to fix a common boundary, in order to avoid or settle confliicts of jurisdiction between adjoining
upon the ground that the
Suing as a private citizen and taxpayer, Vice President Emmanuel Pelaez filed a municipalities, may partake of an administrative nature — involving, as it does, the adoption of means and ways to carry
Pelaez vs Auditor General President does not have
petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction against the Auditor General. It into effect the law creating said municipalities — the authority to create municipal corporations is essentially legislative in
(33 municipalities/creation the authority to create
seeks to restrain from the respondent or any person acting in his behalf, from nature.
a legislative function) municipalities as this
passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in implementation of the executive
power has been vested
orders aforementioned.Petitioner alleges that said executive orders are null and Although Congress may delegate to another branch of the Government the power to 􀁄ll in the details in the
in the legislative
void, upon the ground that said Section 68 has been impliedly repealed by the execution, enforcement or administration of a law, it is essential that said law: (a) be complete in itself, setting forth
department.
Barrio Charter Act (RA2370) and constitutes an undue delegation of legislative therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fix a standard - the limits of which
power. are sufficiently determinate or determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his
functions.Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code, insofar as it grants to the President the power to create
municipalities, does not meet the well-settled requirements for a valid delegation of the power to fix the details in the
enforcement of a law. It does not enunciate any policy to be carried out or implemented by the President

President Estrada issued EO No. 48 establishing the “Program for Devolution

Adjustment and Equalization” to enhance the capabilities of LGUs in the discharge
Yes. The assailed provisions constitute a “withholding” of a portion of the IRA – they effectively encroach on the fiscal
of the functions and services devolved to them through the LGC.
autonomy enjoyed by LGUs and must be struck down.
The Oversight Committee passed Resolutions which were approved by Pres.
According to Art. II, Sec.25 of the Constitution, “the State shall ensure the local autonomy of local governments“.
Estrada. The guidelines formulated by the Oversight Committee required the LGUs
Consistent with the principle of local autonomy, the Constitution confines the President’s power over the LGUs to one of
to identify the projects eligible for funding under the portion of Local Government
general supervision, which has been interpreted to exclude the power of control. Local autonomy includes both
Service Equalization Fund (LGSEF) and submit the project proposals and other
administrative and fiscal autonomy.
requirements to the DILG for appraisal before the Committee serves notice to the
DBM for the subsequent release of the corresponding funds.
The entire process involving the distribution & release of the LGSEF is constitutionally impermissible. The LGSEF is part
Whether the assailed of the IRA or “just share” of the LGUs in the national taxes. Sec.6, Art.X of the Constitution mandates that the “just share”
The Governor of Batangas, petitioned to declare unconstitutional and void certain
Province of Batangas vs provisos in the GAAs of shall be automatically released to the LGUs. Since the release is automatic, the LGUs aren’t required to perform any act
provisos contained in the General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) of 1999, 2000, and
Romulo (Exec Sec) 1999, 2000, and 2001, to receive the “just share” – it shall be released to them “without need of further action“. To subject its distribution &
2001, insofar as they uniformly earmarked for each corresponding year the amount
(automatic release of and the OCD release to the vagaries of the implementing rules & regulations as sanctioned by the assailed provisos in the GAAs of
of P5billion for the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for the LGSEF & imposed
LGSEF/local autonomy resolutions infringe the 1999-2001 and the OCD Resolutions would violate this constitutional mandate.
conditions for the release thereof.
includes fiscal auto) Constitution and the
LGC of 1991. The only possible exception to the mandatory automatic release of the LGUs IRA is if the national internal revenue
Section 6, Article X of the Constitution is invoked as it mandates that the "just
collections for the current fiscal year is less than 40% of the collections of the 3rd preceding fiscal year. The exception
share" of the LGUs shall be automatically released to them. The petitioner posits
does not apply in this case.
that to subject the distribution and release of the five-billion-peso
portion of the IRA, classified as the LGSEF, to compliance by the LGUs with the
The Oversight Committee’s authority is limited to the implementation of the LGC of 1991 not to supplant or subvert the
IRR, including the mechanisms and guidelines prescribed by the Oversight
same, and neither can it exercise control over the IRA of the LGUs. Congress may amend any of the provisions of the
Committee, contravenes the explicit directive of the Constitution that the LGUs'
LGC but only through a separate law and not through appropriations laws or GAAs. Congress cannot include in a general
share in the national taxes "shall be automatically released to them."The
appropriations bill matters that should be more properly enacted in a separate legislation.
respondents advance the view that the "just share" of the LGUs shall not be
determined solely by the Local Government Code but the Congress, in case of
The value of LGUs as institutions of democracy is measured by the degree of autonomy they enjoy.
conflict, shall be the arbiter of what should be the "just share" of the LGUs in the
national taxes.
 Case Facts Issue Held

The petitioner was the punong barangay of Barangay Tacras, Narra, Palawan and
concurrently the president of the municipal liga chapter of the municipality of Narra,
Palawan. Elegio Quejano, on the other hand, was the punong barangay of a) It must be recalled that under the Constitution, the President exercises only the power of general supervision over
Barangay Rizal, Magsaysay, Palawan and concurrently the president of the LGUs. This power refers to the authority of the superior officer to see to it that the subordinate officers perform their
municipal liga chapter of the Municipality of Magsaysay, Palawan. Both aspired for functions in accordance with law. It has to be differentiated from the power of control, which refers to the authority of the
the position of executive vice president of the provincial liga chapter of the Province superior officer to alter or modify or set aside what the subordinate officers had done in the performance of their functions,
WON a Memorandum
of Palawan. Bito-onon was proclaimed as the winning candidate in the said and to substitute the judgment of the superior officer for that of the lower officers. Hence, the Supreme Court held that the
Circular issued by the
Bito-onon vs Fernandez election, but Quejano lodged a post-proclamation protest with the Board of Election memorandum circular was unconstitutional, insofar as it allows the institution of a petition for review with the courts of
DILG can set aside the
(appeal in Provincial liga Supervisors (BES) The BES rendered a decision favorable to Bito-onon. Quejano justice in a post-proclamation case. With this circular, the DILG Secretary in effect amended and modified the
Implementing
elections/power of filed a petition for review with the regional trial court, Bito-onon moved to dismiss on Implementing Guidelines adopted by the national liga. The amendment of the Implementing Guidelines is beyond the
Guidelines adopted by
supervision) the ground of lack of Jurisdiction. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and took authority of the Secretary; it already amounts to the power of control, which the President does not have over LGUs.
the Liga ng mga
cognizance of the case. While the DILG is empowered to promulgate rules, regulations, and other issuances, its authority is confined only to
Barangay.
merely monitoring the compliance by the LGUs with such rules
Bitonon contends that:
a) RTC has no jurisdiction since the 1997 General Elections Guidelines provides b) Although not an LGU, the President may still exercise power of supervision since the liga ng mga barangay is a
that appeals from the decision of BES shall be filed before the National Liga Board. government organization, being an association, federation, league or union created by law or by authority of law, whose
The DILG MMC vesting jurisdiction over RTC is void (power of supervision only) members are either appointed or elected government officials
b) La liga is not an LGU, hence not subject to presidential supervision

Mayor Rosales summoned the department heads for a conference, among whom
was the municipal engineer, Mijares (a known supporter of rival political party of
mayor Rosales). The mayor told him to resign under pain of abolition of his position.
Not wishing to antagonize the mayor, respondent informed him a week later that he Yes. The CSC interpreted its Memorandum as requiring a written and not merely a verbal request for an employee to
was "open" to the possibility of being transferred or detailed at the Provincial transfer to another office. Moreover, such request must be express and unequivocal, and cannot be merely implied or
Engineering Office. Then and there, petitioner instructed respondent to prepare his ambiguous. The request by an employee to transfer to another office must be such that he intended to surrender his
papers. Petitioner indorsed respondent to the provincial governor of Northern permanent office. Also, a transfer connotes an absolute relinquishment of an office in
Samar for consideration for the position of Assistant Provincial Engineer. Petitioner exchange for another office. Such request must be voluntary on the part of the officer concerned and not vitiated by force,
then wrote to respondent stating: the request to transfer is granted for a period of coercion, or intimidation or even deceit. Taking into consideration the entirety of the contents of the letter, and the facts
Rosales vs Mijares
thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, subject to the condition imposed by Civil and circumstances which impelled the respondent to write the same, it cannot thereby be concluded that the respondent
(municipal to provincial WON there was illegal
Service Law, rules and regulations. Meanwhile, respondent continued reporting for had voluntarily and unequivocally decided to transfer to the Office of the Provincial Engineer. In light of the demands and
engineer/limitation on termination
work at the Municipal Engineer's Office. However, the provincial governor did not threats of the petitioner, the respondent had only three options: to resign, to agree to transfer to another office, or to
mayor's power)
act on petitioner's endorsement. After the lapse of the 30 day period, petitioner remain as Municipal Engineer with the threat of the petitioner to have his position abolished hanging over his head.
again wrote to respondent, this time informing him of his separation claiming that
there was no termination but the separation became effective by operation of law The Form 212 submitted by the respondent to the Provincial Governor is not the written request envisaged in CSC
as provided under the Memorandum Circular of the CSC. Memorandum Circular No. 93-38 for the following reasons: (a) the respondent continued reporting and performing his
duties as Municipal Engineer of Catarman and receiving his salary as such; and (b) the respondent did not send any
Respondent filed a complaint for illegal termination against petitioner before the written request to the petitioner for transfer to the Office of the Provincial Engineer
CSC. CSC ruled in Mijares' favor as there was absence of a written request for
transfer and that the request was not voluntary attended by intimidation and
machination.
 Case Facts Issue Held

The City of Manila is a political body corporate and as such endowed with the faculties of municipal corporations to be
exercised by and through its city government in conformity with law, and in its proper corporate name. It may sue and be
sued, and contract and be contracted with. Its powers are twofold in character-public, 1) governmental or political and 2)
Vivencio Sto. Domingo died and was buried in North Cemetery which lot was corporate, private and proprietary. Governmental powers are those exercised in administering the powers of the state and
leased by the city to Irene Sto. Domingo (widow) for 50 years. The wife paid the full promoting the public welfare and they include the legislative, judicial, public and political. Municipal powers on the one
amount of the lease. Apart, however from the receipt, no other document embodied hand are exercised for the special benefit and advantage of the community and include those which are ministerial,
such lease over the lot. Believing that the lease was only for five years, the city private and corporate. In connection with the powers of a municipal corporation, it may acquire property in its public or
certified the lot as ready for exhumation pursuant to Administrative Order governmental capacity, and private or proprietary capacity.
prescribing guidelines in for the use and disposition of the North Cemetery.
Subsequently, the exhumation and removal of the remains of Vicencio was done. Under the foregoing considerations and in the absence of a special law, the North Cemetery is a patrimonial property of
His bones were placed in a bag and kept in the bodega of the cemetery. The lot WON the operations the City of Manila. The administration and government of the cemetery are under the City Health Officer, the order and
was also leased to another lessee. During the next all souls day, the private and functions of a public police of the cemetery, the opening of graves, niches, or tombs, the exhuming of remains, and the purification of the
City of Manila vs IAC
respondents were shocked to find out that Vicencio’s remains were removed. The cemetery are a same are under the charge and responsibility of the superintendent of the cemetery. With the acts of dominion, there is
(lease contract
cemetery told Irene to look for the bones of the husband in the bodega. governmental, or a no doubt that the North Cemetery is within the class of property which the City of Manila owns in its proprietary or private
cemetery/municipal
corporate or proprietary character.
corporations can be sued)
Aggrieved, the widow and the children brought an action for damages against the function of the City of
City of Manilla.The court ordered defendants to give plaintiffs the right to make use Manila Furthermore, there is no dispute that the burial lot was leased in favor of the private respondents. Hence, obligations
of another lot. The CA affirmed and included the award of damages in favor of the arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties. Thus a lease contract executed by the lessor
private respondents and lessee remains as the law between them. Therefore, a breach of contractual provision entitles the other party to
damages even if no penalty for such breach is prescribed in the contract.
Petitioners alleged that the North Cemetery is exclusively devoted for
public use or purpose. They conclude that since the City is a political subdivision in Under the doctrine of respondent superior, petitioner City of Manila is liable for the tortious act committed by its agents
the performance of its governmental function, it is immune from tort liability which who failed to verify and check the duration of the contract of lease. The contention of the petitioner-city that the lease is
may be caused by its public officers and subordinate employees. covered by Administrative Order No. of the City of Manila for five (5) years only beginning from June 6, 1971 is not
meritorious for the said administrative order covers new leases. When subject lot was certified on January 25, 1978 as
ready for exhumation, the lease contract for fifty (50) years was still in full force and effect.

A ‘local government’ is a “political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control
of local affairs”. It is a “body politic and corporate” – one endowed with powers as a political subdivision of the National
Government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory (LGC of 1991). Our Congress delegated
Respondent received from petitioner a notice requesting (pursuant to MMDA Law) police power to the LGUs in Sec.16 of the LGC of 1991. It empowers the LGUs to “enact ordinances, approve resolutions
the former to open its private road, Neptune Street, to public vehicular traffic. On and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the [province, city or municipality] and its inhabitants.”
the same day, respondent was apprised that the perimeter separating the
subdivision from Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished. Respondent instituted a It will be noted that the powers of the MMDA are limited to the following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation,
WON MMDA has the
petition for injunction against petitioner, praying for the issuance of a TRO and implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system and administration-
authority to open
MMDA vs Belair Village preliminary injunction enjoining the opening of Neptune Street and prohibiting the coordinative in nature. There is no syllable in teh MMDA Law that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative
Neptune Street to public
(opening of Neptune demolition of the perimeter wall. power. Unlike the legislative bodies of the LGUs, there is no grant of authority that allows the MMDA to enact ordinances
traffic as an agent of the
street/MMDA not an lgu) and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. The MMDA is merely a “development authority”
state endowed with
Petitioner MMDA claims that it has the authority to open Neptune Street to public and not a political unit of government since it is neither an LGU or a public corporation endowed with legislative power.
police power.
traffic because it is an agent of the state endowed with police power in the delivery The MMDA is a "development authority." 30 It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and
of basic services in Metro Manila. One of these basic services is traffic coordinating with the various national government agencies.
management which involves the regulation of the use of thoroughfares to insure the
safety, convenience and welfare of the general public. In sum, the MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. It is the LGUs, acting through their
respective legislative councils, that possess legislative power and police power.The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati
City did not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune Street, hence, its proposed opening by the
MMDA is illegal.
 Case Facts Issue Held

National Power Corporation,a government-owned and controlled corporation

and the agency through which the government undertakes the on-going
infrastructure and development projects throughout the country, filed two
The High Court pronounced in Makai vs Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 206 that for the proper exercise of eminent domain,
complaints for eminent domain against private respondents to expropriate certain
it is not enough that there is just compensation, there must be also be prompt payment of said just compensation. In the
specified lots situated at Lanao del Sur for the purpose of the development of
case at bar, the transaction involved is the expropriation of land for a public purpose, the payment of which is without
hydro-electric power and production of electricity.The lower court, declared that
NPC vs Angas stipulation regarding interest, and the interest awarded by the trial court is in the nature of indemnity for damages. The
the lots mentioned are validly expropriated and thereby prdes the petitioner to
(6% vs 12% interest; What is the applicable legal interest which is required to be paid on the amount of just compensation for properties expropriated is manifestly in
pay the private respondents certain sums of money as just compensation for their
eminent domain/liable for rate the form of damages for the delay in the payment thereof. Hence, since the kind of interest involved in the decision of the
lands expropriated "with legal interest thereon until fully paid. The property owners
delay) court a quo sought to be executed in this case is interest by way of damages, and not by way of earning from loans and
filed motions for execution of the judgment of the court, so that they can be paid the
the like, Article 2209 of the Civil Code shall apply. Where the transaction involved loans or forbearances of money, goods,
"unpaid balance" for their expropriated properties. One owner demanded interest at
or credits as well as
the rate of 6% per annum under Article 2209 of the Civil Code. while the other
judgments pertaining to such loans and the like, the Central Bank Circular shall apply.
owner asked for interest at the rate of 12% per annum, invoking Central Bank
Circular No. 416, which permitted interest in the absence of express agreement to
be fixed at 12%.

Petitioners JBL Reyes et al. owned a parcel of land in Tondo which are leased and
occupied as dwelling units by tenants who were paying monthly rentals of not The power of taxation is an attribute of sovereignty; in fact some consider it as the strongest of all the powers of
exceeding P300. Subsequently, the Rental Freezing Law was passed prohibiting government. Yet, for all its plenitude the power to tax is not unlimited. There are well-known restrictions; for instance, the
for one year from its effectivity, an increase in monthly rentals of dwelling units due process and the equal protection clauses of the Bill of Rights under the Constitution may be properly invoked to
where rentals do not exceed three hundred pesos (P300.00), so that the Reyeses nullify in appropriate cases a tax or revenue measure. Hence, while one U. S. Chief Justice was moved to say that as an
were precluded from raising the rents and from ejecting the tenants. The same law whether or not the essential element of sovereignty, "the power of taxation involves the power to destroy another American magistrate was
Reyes vs Almanzor also prohibited the ejectment of lessees upon expiration of the usual legal period of higher taxes quick to retort that the power to tax is not the power to destroy while this court sits" Applying these to the case at hand,
(Rental Freezing lease. Respondent City Assessor of Manila re-classified and reassessed the value arising from the the High Tribunal invalidated the challenged reclassification and reassessment, explaining that, "the due process clause
law/limitation in taxing of the subject properties based on the schedule of market values, which entailed an reassessment of the may be invoked where a taxing statute is so arbitrary that it finds no support in the Constitution. An obvious example is
power) increase in the corresponding tax rates prompting petitioners to file a Memorandum Reyes propertie where it can be shown to amount to
of Disagreement averring that the reassessments made were "excessive, were justifiable confiscation of property. That would be a clear case of an abuse of power. A new assessment was ordered to be made by
unwarranted, inequitable, confiscatory and unconstitutional" considering that the the government by using the "income approach method", to ensure that a fairer and more realistic basis of computation,
taxes imposed upon them greatly exceeded the annual income derived from their as in the case of the new tax rates to be levied on the property of the Reyes family. The other assessment method is the
properties. They argued that the income approach should have been used in "comparable sales approach wherein the prices paid in actual market transactions are taken as a uniform and credible
determining the land values instead of the comparable sales approach which the standard to use particularly in cases of mass appraisal of properties
City Assessor adopted.

According to the rules of statutory construction, where there is a conflict between a special statute that refers to a subject
The Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522, “An Ordinance
What law shall govern in general, and a general statute that refers to a subject in particular, then the latter shall prevail. In the case at bar, there
Regulating the Operation of Public Markets and Prescribing Fees for the Rentals of
the publication of tax is disagreement between Section 17 of the Revised Charter of Manila, a special law since it applies only to the City of
Bagatsing vs Ramirez Stalls and Providing Penalties for Violation thereof and for other Purposes.”
ordinance enacted by Manila, and Section 43 of the Local Tax Code, which is a general law. Section 17 of the special law refers to "ordinances"
(tax ordinance not Respondent, Federation of Manila Market Vendors, Inc were seeking the
the Municipal Board of in general, while Section 43 of the general law refers to "ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees, or other charges in
published/Charter of MNL declaration of nullity of the Ordinance for the reason that a) the publication
Manila, the Revised City particular. Hence, applying statutory construction, the latter shall govern. Since the Local Tax Code required only post-
vs Local Tax Code) requirement under the Revised Charter of the City of Manila has not been complied
Charter or the Local Tax publication for the class of ordinances adverted to
with. Petitioners Mayor Bagatsing contends that only a
Code then Ordinance No. 7522 was deemed to have duly observed the requirements of publication, and therefore
post-publication is required by the Local Tax Code.
held to have been validly promulgated.
 Case Facts Issue Held

The Ordinance No 640 was not justfied by any necessity of public interest. "Any police power must be firmly grounded on
public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist between purposes and means. The evident purpose of
Does this power to
Petitioners, theater owners, assailed the constitutionality of an ordinance passed by the ordinance is to help the burden of cost on the part of parents who have to shell out the same amount of money for the
regulate include the
the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan on which called for a reduction to ½ of the admission of their children, as they would for themselves. A reduction of the price of admission would mean
authority to interfere in
ticket price given to minors from 7-12 years old. There was a fine from 200-600 corresponding savings for the parents, however the petitioners are the ones made to bear the cost of these savings. The
the fixing of prices of
pesos or a 2-6 month imprisonment. Petitioners attack the validity and ordinance does not only make the petitioners suffer the loss of eamings but it likewise penalizes them for failure to comply
Balacuit vs CFI of Agusan admission to these
constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 on the grounds that it is ultra vires and an with it" In setting aside the measure under consideration.
(ticket price places of exhibition and
invalid exercise of police power. Petitioners contend that Ordinance No. 640 is not
regulation/interference amusement whether
within the power of' the Municipal Board to enact as provided for in Section 15(n) of While it is true that a business may be regulated, it is equally true that such regulation must be within the bounds of
with lawful business) under its general grant
Republic Act No. 523 where it states that the Muncipal board can only regulate and reason, that is, the regulatory ordinance must be reasonable, and its provisions cannot be oppressive amounting to an
of power or under the
fix license fees for theaters and not admission rates. The respondent attempts to arbitrary interference with the business or calling subject of regulation.A lawful business or calling may not, under the
general welfare clause
justify the enactment of the ordinance by invoking the general welfare clause guise of regulation, be unreasonably interfered with even by the exercise of police power. A police measure for the
as invoked by the City?
(financially burdensome for the parents). regulation of the conduct, control, and operation of a business should not encroach upon legitimate and lawful exercise by
the citizens of their property rights. The right of the owner to fix a price at which his property shall be sold or used is an
inherent attribute of the property itself and, as such, within the protection of the due process clause.

No. The questioned ordinance merely states the “objection” of the council to the saidgame. It is but a mere policy
Respondent Tony Calvento, appointed agent by the PCSO to install Terminal for
statement on the part of the local council, which is not self-executing. Nor could it serve as a valid ground to prohibit the
the operation of lotto, asked the Mayor of San Pedro, Laguna, for a mayor’s permit
operation of the lotto systemin the province of Laguna. As a policy statement expressing the local government’sobjection
to open the lotto outlet. This was denied by the Mayor on the ground that an
to the lotto, such resolution is valid. This is part of the local government’s autonomy to air its views which may be contrary
ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna was issued stating
to that of the national government’s.However, this freedom to exercise contrary views does not mean that local
the policy of the Lalawigan in condemning illegal gambling and lotto. Respondent
governmentsmay actually enact ordinances that go against laws duly enacted by Congress.
Calvento argues that the questioned resolution is, in effect, a curtailment of the
Lina vs Pano
power of the state since in the national legislature itself had already declared lotto WON the refusal of the
(prohibiting The assailed resolution could not and should not be interpreted as a measure or ordinance prohibiting the operation of
as legal and permitted its operations around the country. He also states that his issuance of mayor's
lotto/ordinance not lotto. Moreover, ordinances should not contravene statutes as municipal governments are merely agents of the national
operation of the lotto system is legal because of the authority given to him by the permit is valid
contravene with statute) government. The local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers which have been conferred on them by
PCSO, which in turn had been granted a franchise to operate the lotto by
Congress. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. This being
Congress.
the case, these councils, as delegates, cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powershigher than those of the
Petitioners contend that the assailed resolution is a valid policy declaration of the
latter. The question of whether gambling should be permitted is for Congress to determine. Since Congress has allowed
Provincial Government of Laguna of its vehement objection to the operation of lotto
the PCSO to operate lotteries which PCSO seeks to conduct in Laguna, pursuant to its legislative grant of authority, the
and all forms of gambling. It is likewise a valid exercise of police power under the
province's Sangguniang Panlalawigan cannot nullify the exercise of said authority by preventing something already
General Welfare Clause.
allowed by Congress

Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7783 entitled AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE The Ordinance is null and void. For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local
ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF BUSINESSES PROVIDING CERTAIN government unit to enact and must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the
FORMS OF AMUSEMENT, ENTERTAINMENT, SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN following substantive requirements:
THE ERMITA-MALATE AREA, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION
THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. It basically prohibited establishments (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
such as bars, karaoke bars, motels and hotels from operating in the Malate District (2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
City of Manila vs Laguio
which was notoriously viewed as a red light district harboring thrill seekers. Current (3) must not be partial or discriminatory;
(Victoria court WON the ordinance is
operators are given 3 months to wind up operations Malate Tourist Development (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
prohibited/valid exercise valid
Corporation avers that the ordinance is invalid as it includes hotels and motels in (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and
of police power)
the enumeration of places offering amusement or entertainment. MTDC reiterates (6) must not be unreasonable.
that they do not market such nor do they use women as tools for entertainment.
MTDC also avers that under the LGC, LGUs can only regulate motels but cannot The police power of the City Council, however broad and far-reaching, is subordinate to the constitutional limitations
prohibit their operation. The City reiterates that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of thereon; and is subject to the limitation that its exercise must be reasonable and for the public good. In the case at bar,
Police Power as provided as well in the LGC. The City likewise emphasized that the the enactment of the Ordinance was an invalid exercise of delegated power as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to
purpose of the law is to promote morality in the City. general laws.
 Case Facts Issue Held

As a general rule, the dismissal of an administrative case does not automatically follow the dismissal of a criminal case
involving the same parties and the same act or omission complained of. This is because the administrative case requires
only substantial or preponderance of evidence, while the criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
The petitioner mayor was the subject of three separate complaints for acts of grounds for suspension are classified into two categories, namely: (1) those related to the discharge of the functions of
lasciviousness. The offended parties requested the provincial governor to the officer concerned (neglect of duty, oppression, corruption or other forms of maladministration of office) and (2) those
immediately conduct an administrative investigation pending final determination of not so connected with said functions. Under the second category, when the crime involving moral turpitude is not linked
the criminal cases. The petitioner mayor was duly informed by the respondent with the performance of official duties, conviction by final judgment is required as a condition precedent to administrative
Palma vs Fortich governor about the administrative charge for misconduct in office, and the case was WON the charges for action.
(acts of transmitted to the sangguniang panlalawigan for proper disposition. The AOL were sufficient to
lasciviousness/ground for sanggunian resolved to place the mayor under institute the The High Court pronounced: "Misconduct in office is such as affects his duties as an officer and not only as affects his
admin case) preventive suspension, which he did not contest. The mayor asserted that under administrative case. character as a private individual. In such cases, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of
the law, acts of lasciviousness cannot be considered as misfeasan and the officer. While the charges of rape, concubinage, and acts of lasciviousness may involve moral turpitude of which a
malfeasance or misconduct in office; therefore, there cannot be a basis for the municipal official may be proceeded against, however before the provincial governor and board may act andproceed
lodging of a separate administrative case. In the meantime, all the three criminal against the municipal official, a conviction by final judgment must precede the filing by the provincial governor of the
cases against him were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. charges and trial by the provincial board.

In the case at bar, not only was a final judgment lacking, but the criminal cases against the mayor were all dismissed by
the trial court, for insufficiency of evidence. Hence, there was no sufficient ground to institute the administrative case.

There are, therefore, two modes by which a public officer who has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any
Edgar and Teresita Teves are married. In 1983, Edgar registered for the operation business, contract, or transaction may violate Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law. The first mode is if in connection with his
of a cockpit. This was renewed in 1989. By January of 1990, he turned over the pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction, the public officer intervenes or takes part in his official
management of the cockpit to Teresita. However, Edgar was also the Mayor of capacity. The second mode is when he is prohibited from having such interest by the Constitution or any law.
Valencia during 1988 to 1998. Thus, the Spouses were charged with violating Sec.
3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for Edgar’s alleged unlawful On the first mode: The Sandiganbayan found that the charge against Mayor Teves for causing the issuance of
intervention in the issuance of a business license/permit for his cockpit. 1) Whether Edgar Teves the business permit or license to operate the Valencia Cockpit and Recreation Center is "not well-founded." This it based,
can be held liable for and rightly so, on the additional finding that only the Sangguniang Bayan could have issued a permit to operate the
The Sandiganbayan convicted the spouses for possessing a pecuniary interest in intervening in his official Valencia Cockpit. Unlike in the old LGC, wherein the municipal mayor was the presiding officer of theSB, Under the LGC
the cockpit, but absolved of the charge of causing the issuance of a business capacity for the of 1991, the mayor is not so anymore and is not even a member of the SB. Hence, Mayor Teves could not have
permit/license. issuance of a business intervened or taken part in his official capacity in the issuance of a cockpit license during the material time, as alleged in
Teves vs Sandiganbayan
permit/license. the information, because he was not a member of the SB.
(sabungan/pecuniary
On a petition for review of the Sandiganbayan’s decision, the spouses argue that
interest)
they were convicted for a crime other than the offense charged (convicted under 2) Whether Edgar can On the second mode: Absent any evidence that Teves divested himself of his ownership over the cockpit, his ownership
LGC but charged with Anti Graft) violating their right to be informed of the nature be held liable for having thereof is rightly to be presumed. Only the management of the cockpit was transferred to Teresita Teves. Being the owner
and cause of the accusation against them. Also, they assert that it was not shown a proscribed pecuniary of the cockpit, his interest over it was direct. Even if the ownership of petitioner Edgar Teves over the cockpit were
that Edgar was the operator and licensee from 1989 to 1992. Finally, the existence interest in the cockpit. transferred to his wife, still he would have a direct interest thereon becaus they remained married to each other from 1983
of a conspiracy was disputed by the spouses. up to 1992, and as such their property relation can be presumed to be that of conjugal partnership of gains. Hence, his
interest in the Valencia Cockpit is direct and is, therefore,
The Sandiganbayan maintains that Edgar’s interest continued up to and beyond prohibited under Section 89(2) of the LGC of 1991
1992, as he merely turned over the management of the cockpit. The charge of
having a pecuniary interest is necessarily included in the charge of intervention in On right to be informed of the nature and case of accusation: Since the offense proved is necessarily included in the
the issuance of its business license/permit. offense charged, or the offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved. The variance doctrine thus finds
application to this case, thereby warranting the conviction of petitioner Edgar Teves for the offense proved.
 Case Facts Issue Held

Yes. Ganzon is under the impression that the Constitution has left the President mere supervisory powers, which
supposedly excludes the power of investigation, and denied her control, which allegedly embraces disciplinary authority. It
is a mistaken impression because legally, “supervision” is not incompatible with disciplinary authority. In administration
law, supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their
Rodolfo Ganzon was the then mayor of Iloilo City. 10 complaints were filed against duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them
him on grounds of misconduct and misfeasance of office. The Secretary of Local perform their duties."
Government issued several suspension orders against Ganzon based on the merits Whether or not the
Ganzon vs CA of the complaints filed against him hence Ganzon was facing about 600 days of Secretary of Local The Secretary of Local Government, as the alter ego of the president, in suspending Ganzon is exercising a valid power.
( invalid 600 day suspension. Ganzon appealed the issue to the CA and the CA affirmed the Government, as the He however overstepped by imposing a 600 day suspension. The sole objective of a suspension, as we is simply "to
suspension/supervisory suspension order by the Secretary. Ganzon asserted that the 1987 Constitution President’s alter ego, prevent the accused from hampering the normal cause of the investigation with his influence and
powers of Pres) does not authorize the President nor any of his alter ego to suspend and remove can suspend and or authority over possible witnesses" or to keep him off "the records and other evidence." It is a means, and no more, to
local officials; this is because the 1987 Constitution supports local autonomy and remove local officials. assist prosecutors in firming up a case, if any, against an erring local official. Under the LGC, it can not exceed sixty days,
strengthens the same. What was given by the present Constitution was mere which is to say that it need not be exactly sixty days long if a shorter period is otherwise
supervisory power. sufficient, and which is also to say that it ought to be lifted if prosecutors have achieved their purpose in a shorter span.
Suspension is not a penalty and is not unlike preventive imprisonment. To make him serve 600 days of
suspension, which is effectively, to suspend him out of office.It is also, in fact, to mete out punishment in spite of the fact
that the Mayor's guilt has not been proven. Worse, any absolution will be for naught because needless to say, the length
of his suspension would have, by the time he is reinstated, wiped out his tenure considerably