LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: CREATION, MERGER, ABOLITION AND POWERS

CREATION, MERGER AND ABOLITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Tan v Sec 3, Art

COMELEC This case was prompted by the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 885, An Act XI, Consti
(Alampay. Creating a New Province in the Island of Negros to be known as the Province of
1986) Negros del Norte, effective Dec. 3, 1985. (Cities of Silay, Cadiz and San Carlos and Sec 197,
the municipalities of Calatrava, Taboso, Escalante, Sagay, Manapla, Victorias, E.R. LGC
Magalona, and Salvador Benedicto. Note:
Pursuant to and in implementation of this law, the COMELEC scheduled a memoriz
plebiscite for January 3, 1986. Petitioners opposed, filing a case for Prohibition e
and contending that the B.P. 885 is unconstitutional and not in complete accord Sec 461,
with the Local Government Code because: LGC (req
(1) The voters of the parent province of Negros Occidental, other than those living for
within the territory of the new province of Negros del Norte, were not included in creating
the plebiscite province)
(2) The area which would comprise the new provinc of Negros del Norte would
only be about 2,856.56 sq. km., which is lesser than the minimum area prescribed
by the governing statute
WON BP 885 (act creating Province of Negros del Norte from Negros Occidental)
and the plebiscite held excluding Negros Occidental voters that are not
contemplated to be part of the new province comply with constitutional
requirements.

H: BP 885 unconstitutional, it did not comply with constitutional and local

government code requirements. The territory covered by the new province fell
short of the standard and not all the units affected were included in the plebiscite
as required by the Constitution. All the units of the mother unit from which the
new province will be created constitute “units affected” and all of them, whether
or not they will be included in the new province should be included in the
plebiscite.

SC: Constitution (Sec 3, Art X) requirements:

No province, city, municipality, or barrio may be created, merged, or abolished
except:
1. in accordance with criteria established by the LGC
2. subject to approval by a majority of votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units
affected.

UNITS AFFECTED = units that will form the new province + other units of the
mother unit from which the new province will come from;
TERRITORY = land mass (does not include territorial waters)

LGC requirements (Sec 197 Requisites for Creation)

REQUISITES FOR CREATING A PROVINCE
1. Territory = at least 3,500 sq/m
2. Population = At least 500, 000
3. Average estimated income for the last 3 consecutive years, certified by Ministry
of Finance = at least Php 10M
4. NOT reduce income of mother province/s at the time of creation to less than
minimum requirements under this section
5. Territory need not be contiguous if it comprises 2 or more islands
Torralba vs. Facts: BP 56, creating the Municipality of Sibagat, Province of Agusan del Sur, is Secs, 6, 7,
Mun. of being challenged as violative of Section 3 Article XI of the 1973 Constitution. 10, LGC
Sibagat (1987) Petitioners are residents and taxpayers of Butuan City, with petitioner, Clementino

Page 1 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020
 Torralba, being a member of the Sangguniang Panglunsod of the same City.
Respondent municipal officers are the local public officials of the new
Municipality. According to the petitioners, the Local Government Code must first
be enacted to determine the criteria for the creation, division, merger, abolition,
or substantial alteration of the boundary of any provinkce, city, municipality, or
barrio; and that since no Local Government Code had as yet been enacted as of
the date BP 56 was passed, that statute could not have possibly complied with any
criteria when respondent Municipality was created, hence, it is null and void.

WON BP 56, passed before the enactment of the Local Government Code (LGC),
creating Municipality of Sibagat in Agusan del Sur invalid for violating Sec 3, Art XI
of the 1973 Consti w/c states that the creation of a municipality must be in
accordance with the criteria established in the LGC.

Held: VALID. LGC not a condition sine qua non for creation of municipality. Valid
exercise of legislative power of Batasang Pambansa at the time. Plebiscite
conducted with “all affected areas” within time specified in the law.
The absence of the Local Government Code at the time of its enactment did not
curtail nor was it intended to cripple legislative competence to create municipal
corporations. Section 3, Article XI of the 1973 Constitution does not proscribe nor
prohibit the modification of territorial and political subdivisions before the
enactment of the LGC.

Notes: 3 REQUISITES in creating Local Government Units

1. Law/ordinance (Sec 6)
2. Indicators of viability (Sec 7)
3. Plebiscite (Sec 10)

METRO MANILA COMMISSION

Gemiliano Facts: - PD 824 or an act creating the Metropolitan Manila, was enacted to Sec 25
Lopez, Jr. vs. establish and administer program and provide services common to" the cities of (National
Hon. Comelec Manila, Quezon, Pasay, and Caloocan as well as thirteen municipalities in the Supervisi
(1985) surrounding area. This is in response to the sharp growth in the population of on of
Manila and the proliferation of commercial firms and industries, which resulted to over
the ever-increasing inability of the separate local governments to cope with the LGUs)
ensuing serious problems. Metro Manila shall be administered by the
Commission.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of PD 824. They rely on this provision: "No
province, city, municipality, or barrio may be created, divided, merged, abolished,
or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria
established in the local government code, and subject to the approval by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected." The Local
Government Code was not enacted until 1983.

WON PD 824 (creating Metropolitan Manila enacted to establish and administer

programs in the area) is unconstitutional because it was enacted before the LGC
was passed and it created a new political subdivision. WON the provision giving
the President the power of direct supervision and control over officials of the
Metropolitan Commission is void for giving the President the power of control
over a local government unit or a Commission which functions as a local
government unit.

H: Valid law. The constitution at the time already recognized the existence of the
Metropolitan Manila. The President is only given the power of general
supervision.

Page 2 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020
 DOCTRINE: The President only has the power of general supervision over LGUs.

Gemiliano
Lopez, Jr. vs.
Hon. MMC
PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
Alvarez v RA 7330 converted the Municipality of Santiago Isabela into an independent Sec 24,
Guingona component city. Art VI
(1996) WON Internal Revenue Allotments (IRAs) are to be computed in average annual Consti
income of a municipality for purposes of meeting Sec 450 LGC requirements for (bills of
conversion into an independent component city. local
WON RA 7720 violated the Sec 24, Art VI Constitutional provision when a similar applicati
bill was at the senate when it was passed in Congress. on
Held: IRA to be included in average annual income of municipalities. RA 7330 should
originated from Congress filing by the Senate of a substitute bill does not originate
contravene the constitutional for as long as the Senate does not act on it until it from
receives the House bill w/c is what happened in the case at bar. Every law has a HOR)
presumption of constitutionality and the petitioners failed to overcome this
presumption. Sec 450
LGC
DOCTRINE/S (ave
IRA. An LGU is a political subdivision of the government constituted by law with annual
substantial control over its own affairs. The vesting of duty and accountability in income
every LGU is accompanied with a provision for reasonably adequate resources to PhP20M
effectively carry out its functions. This is affected through vesting LGUs with for last 2
1. Right to create and broaden its own source of revenue (Sec 5, Art X, consecuti
Consti) ve yrs)
2. Right to be allocated w/ just share in national taxes = Internal Revenue
Allotments (IRA) (Sec 6, Art X) Sec 5, 6,
3. Right to be given its equitable share in the proceeds and utilization and 7 Art X ,
development of the national wealth within their respective areas (Sec 8) Consti

INCOME (based on the LGC) is all revenues and receipts collected or received
forming the gross accretion of funds of the LGU. IRAs are income because they
regularly and automatically accrue to the local treasury and form part of the LGU
funds.

PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. Every law has the presumption of

constitutionality. For a law to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear
and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful equivocal one.
The grounds for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt. There must
be a clear and established basis to declare a law unconstitutional in order for a
petition to nullify it to succeed.
GOVERNMENTAL POWERS/FUNCTIONS
Municipality FACTS: On December 16, 1965, a collision occurred involving a passenger jeepney Sec 3, Art
of San driven by Balagot and owned by the Estate of Macario Nieveras, a gravel and sand XVI
Fernando v. truck driven by Jose Manandeg and owned by Tanquilino Velasquez and a dump (doctrine
Firme (1991) truck of the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union and driven by Alfredo Bislig. of non-
Several passengers of the jeepney including Laureano Baniña Sr. died as a result of suability
the injuries they sustained and 4 others suffered varying degrees of physical of state)
injuries.
The heirs of Baniña Sr. filed a complaint for damages against the Estate of
Nieveras and Balagot. However, the aforesaid defendants filed a Third Party
Complaint against the petitioner and the driver of a dump truck of petitioner. The
case was transferred to branch presided by Judge Firme. The heirs of Baniña Sr.
amended the complaint wherein the petitioner and its regular employee Bislig
Page 3 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020
 were impleaded as defendants. Judge Firme in its decision rendered the
Municipality of San Fernando and Bislig jointly and severally liable to pa funeral
expenses, lot expected earnings, moral damages and attorney’s fees.
The dump truck driven by Bislig, Municipality of San Fernando driver, who was on
his way to get materials for the repair of municipal streets collided with a jeepney
killing and injuring several passengers. WON the Municipality of San Fernando
may be liable for a tort committed by its employee.

Held: NO. A municipality cannot be held liable for a tort committed by its
employee engaged in the discharge of governmental functions. The state may not
be sued without its consent (Sec 3, Art XVI Consti) and therefore may not be held
liable without its consent.

SC: The TEST OF LIABILITY of a municipal corporation (MC) depends on WON the
driver, acting in behalf of the municipality, was performing governmental or
proprietary functions (Torio v Fontanilla). When an MC is acting in its
GOVERNMENTAL CAPACITY performing governmental functions, its officers and
agents, in such capacity, are performing PUBLIC SERVICE and are therefore
GOVERNMENT AGENTS and the MC may not be held liable. When the MC is acting
in its PROPRIETARY or CORPORATE CAPACITY it exercises a proprietary right
arising from its existence as a legal person and not as a public agency and may be
held liable.
PROPRIETARY POWERS/FUNCTIONS
City of Manila Facts: Vivencio Sto. Domingo, Sr. died and was buried in North Cemetery which Art 423,
v IAC (1989) lot was leased by the city to Irene Sto. Domingo for the period from June 6, 1971 NCC
to June 6, 2021. The wife paid the full amount of the lease. Apart, however from
the receipt, no other document embodied such lease over the lot. Believing that
the lease was only for five years, the city certified the lot as ready for exhumation.
On the basis of the certification, Joseph Helmuth authorized the
exhumation and removal of the remains of Vicencio. His bones were placed in a
bag and kept in the bodega of the cemetery. The lot was also leased to another
lessee. During the next all souls day, the private respondents were shocked to find
out that Vicencio’s remains were removed. The cemetery told Irene to look for the
bones of the husband in the bodega.
Aggrieved, the widow and the children brought an action for damages
against the City of Manila; Evangeline Suva of the City Health Office; Sergio
Mallari, officer-in-charge of the North Cemetery; and Joseph Helmuth, the latter's
predecessor as officer-in-charge of the said burial grounds owned and operated by
the City Government of Manila. The court ordered defendants to give plaintiffs
the right to make use of another lot. The CA affirmed and included the award of
damages in favor of the private respondents.
City of Manila exhumed and stuck widow’s husband’s remains in cemetery bodega
before her 50-year term of lease on the North Cemetery lot was over. Misplaced
dead body, san ka.

WON operation of public cemetery is a governmental or proprietary function of

the City of Manila. WON the city is liable for damages.

Held: Operation of cemetery is a proprietary function and the city is liable for
damages.

SC: POWERS OF A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

GOVERNMENTAL POWERS – exercised in administering the powers of the state
and promoting public welfare, these include legislative, judicial, public, and
political powers.
MUNICIPAL POWERS – exercised for the special advantage and benefit of the

Page 4 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020
 community including those that are ministerial, private and corporate.

2 TYPES OF MUNICIPAL CORP PROPERTIES (Art 423, NCC)

1. FOR PUBLIC USE – provincial roads, city streets, squares, fountains, public
waters, promenades, and public works for public service paid for by the municipal
corp
2. PATRIMONIAL PROPERTIES – all other properties without prejudice to special
laws

Since cemeteries aren’t under the properties for public use as enumerated and
since em ployees (city health officer – administration; cemetery superintendent –
order, exhuming, purification etc) of the municipal government exercise acts of
dominion over the cemetery, the cemetery is patrimonial property. The city, in
contracting for lease of its cemetery lot, entered into a contract in its corporate
capacity and is thus liable for the tort (failure to verify contract lease term)
committed by its agents.

DOCTRINE OF RESPONDENT SUPERIOR (Torio v Fontanilla)

SYLLABUS PART 2:
DECENTRALIZATION;
LOCAL AUTONOMY;
POWERS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
Reference: LGC Bk 1, Chapt 2

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS VIS-À-VIS NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

POWER OF GENERAL SUPERVISION
Drilon v Lim Sec 187, LGC authorizes the Secretary of Justice (Drilon) to review the constitutionality or Sec 187, LGC
(1994) legality of a tax ordinance and revoke it. Sec. Drilon declared the Manila Revenue Code null (Procedure
and void for non-compliance w/ prescribed procedure in enactment of taxes and for Approval
containing provisions w/c are contrary to law and public policy. of Effectivity
WON Sec 187 vests the DOJ Sec with power of control over LGUs against the policy local of Tax
autonomy. Ordinances..)

Held: Sec 187 constitutional, it merely vests the power of supervision. Drilon merely Related
exercised the POWER of SUPERVISION when he determined that the passage of the ruling in
ordinance did not comply with procedural requirements and declared it void. Basis for Taule v
declaring ordinance void: ultra vires provision (outside scope of authority of promulgating Santos
body) or non compliance w/ ordinance requirement.

SC: The national govt. can only exercise the power of SUPERVISION and not control over
LGUs.
CONTROL: lay down rules in doing an act, order the act undone, redo the act by
subordinate or do it him/herself
SUPERVISION: ensures that rules are followed, order it redone or done according to rules.
NOT prescribe manner of doing an act or give an opinion other than on the act’s legality or
constitutionality
Solicitor General In a previous case, the SC ruled that the confiscation of license plates is not among the
v MMA powers conferred on the Metropolitan Manila Authority (MMA) by PD 1605. However,
(Dec 1991) MMA issued Ordinance 11 authorizing itself to detach license plates or tow and impound
attended or unattended or abandoned motor vehicles illegally parked or obstructing the
flow of traffic in Metro Manila”.
FACTS:
• In Metropolitan Traffic Command, West Traffic District vs. Hon. Arsenio M.
Gonong, the SC ruled that (1) the confiscation of the license plates of motor vehicles for

Page 5 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020
 traffic violations was not among the sanctions that could be imposed by the Metro Manila
Commission under PD 1605; and, that (2) even the confiscation of driver's licenses for
traffic violations was not directly prescribed by the decree nor was it allowed by the decree
to be imposed by the Commission.
• Several complaints were filed in the SC against the confiscation by police
authorities of driver's licenses and removal of license plates for alleged traffic violations.
These sanctions were not among those that may be imposed under PD 1605.
• The Metropolitan Manila Authority issued Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1991,
authorizing itself "to detach the license plate/tow and impound attended/ unattended/
abandoned motor vehicles illegally parked or obstructing the flow of traffic in Metro
Manila."
o The Metropolitan Manila Authority defended the said ordinance on the ground
that it was adopted pursuant to the powers conferred upon it by EO 392. There was no
conflict between the decision and the ordinance because the latter was meant to
supplement and not supplant the latter.
o The Solicitor General expressed the view that the ordinance was null and void
because it represented an invalid exercise of a delegated legislative power. It violated PD
1605 which does not permit, and so impliedly prohibits, the removal of license plates and
the confiscation of driver's licenses for traffic violations in Metropolitan Manila.

WON ordinance is an invalid exercise of delegated power.

Held: Yes. Invalid ordinance for going against PD 1605.

SC: Municipal enactments, or local laws, must not violate national laws since local political
subdivisions are able to legislate only by virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power
from the national legislation. As delegates of Congress, they cannot go against the will of
their principals.

TEST FOR VALID MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE

1. Not contravene the Constitution
2. Not unfair or oppressive
3. Not partial or discriminatory
4. Not prohibit but may regulate trade
5. Not unreasonable
6. Must be general and consistent with public policy

Ganzon v CA FACTS: Related

(Aug 1991) siguro sa Sec
On November 28, 1956, Gelacio Tumambing contracted the services of Mauro B. Ganzon to 25, LGC
haul 305 tons of scrap iron from Mariveles, Bataan, to the port of Manila on board the (National
lighter LCT “Batman. Pursuant to that agreement, Mauro B. Ganzon sent his lighter Supervision
“Batman” to Mariveles where it docked in three feet of water. Gelacio Tumambing over Local
delivered the scrap iron to defendant Filomeno Niza, captain of the lighter, for loading Government
which was actually begun on the same date by the crew of the lighter under the captain’s Units)
supervision. When about half of the scrap iron was already loaded, Mayor Jose Advincula
of Mariveles, Bataan, arrived and demanded P5,000.00 from Gelacio Tumambing. The Sec 63, LGC
latter resisted the shakedown and after a heated argument between them, Mayor Jose (Preventive
Advincula drew his gun and fired at Gelacio Tumambing who sustained injuries. Suspension)
After sometime, the loading of the scrap iron was resumed. But on December 4, 1956, More info
Acting Mayor Basilio Rub, accompanied by three policemen, ordered captain Filomeno Niza under
and his crew to dump the scrap iron where the lighter was docked. The rest was brought to section on
the compound of NASSCO. Later on Acting Mayor Rub issued a receipt stating that the Disciplinary
Municipality of Mariveles had taken custody of the scrap iron. Actions
Tumabing sued Ganzon; the latter alleged that the goods have not been unconditionally
placed under his custody and control to make him liable. The trial court dismissed the case
Page 6 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020
 but on appeal, respondent Court rendered a decision reversing the decision of the trial
court and ordering Ganzon to pay damages.
Mayor Ganzon had several administrative cases filed against him and was placed under
preventive suspension on 3 different occasions by the Secretary of Local Government.
WON the Pres c/o the Secretary of Local Government still had the power to suspend LGU
officials.

Held: Yes. However, based on the LGC, the suspension cannot exceed 60d.

SC: POWER TO SUSPEND. Despite autonomy, local governments are still subject to limited
regulation of the general supervision of the Executive. Under the Charter Congress can
include in the LGC provisions for removal of local officials and exercise this power and
delegate it to the President as the LGC has done.

OBJECTIVE OF SUSPENSION: “to prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of
the investigation with his influence and authority over possible witnesses” or to keep him
off “the records and other evidence”. The suspension is a means to assist prosecutors to
firm up their case against an erring local official and therefore may last for a shorter period
if the prosecutors have already achieved their purpose.

MCIAA v Marcos FACTS: Sec 193, LGC

et al (Withdrawal
(1996) Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) was created by virtue of Republic Act of Tax
6958. Since the time of its creation, MCIAA enjoyed the privilege of exemption from Exemptions
payment of realty taxes in accordance with Section 14 of its Charter. However on 11 and
October 1994, the Office of the Treasurer of Cebu, demanded for the payment of realty Privileges)
taxes on several parcels of land belonging to the petitioner.
Sec 234, LGC
Petitioner objected to such demand for payment as baseless and unjustified and asserted (Exemptions
that it is an instrumentality of the government performing governmental functions, which from Real
puts limitations on the taxing powers of local government units. Property
Tax)
The City refused to cancel and set aside petitioner’s realty tax account, insisting that the
MCIAA is a government controlled corporation whose tax exemption privilege has been
withdrawn by virtue of Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code (LGC), and not
an instrumentality of the government but merely a government owned corporation
performing proprietary functions. MCIAA paid its tax account “under protest” when City is
about to issue a warrant of levy against the MCIAA’s properties.

MCIAA filed a Petition of Declaratory Relief with the RTC contending that the taxing power
of local government units do not extend to the levy of taxes or fees on an instrumentality
of the national government. It contends that by the nature of its powers and functions, it
has the footing of an agency or instrumentality of the national government; which claim
the City rejects. The trial court dismissed the petition, citing that close reading of the LGC
provides the express cancellation and withdrawal of tax exemptions of Government Owned
and Controlled Corporations.
WON the City of Cebu can still tax Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA), a
GOCC, for realty taxes.
Held: Yes. The LGC has lifted tax exemptions (Sec 193, 234, LGC)

Sec, 193 withdraws tax exemptions enjoyed by juridical persons including GOCCs.
AGENCY – any of the various unit of the govt., depts., bureaus, office, LGU or district
INSTRUMENTALITY – any agency of the govt. NOT integrated into within the department
framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not
all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy,
usually through a charter.

Page 7 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020
 Since MCIAA is not an agency or instrumentality of the government but only a GOCC, Cebu
City may tax it.
Notes: Refer to Basco V PAGCOR doctrine: LGUs cannot tax instrumentalities of national
govt.
DECENTRALIZATION, LOCAL AUTONOMY
Limbona v Facts: Petitioner, Sultan Alimbusar Limbona, was elected Speaker of the Regional
Mangelin Legislative Assembly or Batasang Pampook of Central Mindanao (Assembly). On October
(1989) 21, 1987 Congressman Datu Guimid Matalam, Chairman of the Committee on Muslim
Affairs of the House of Representatives, invited petitioner in his capacity as Speaker of the
Assembly of Region XII in a consultation/dialogue with local government officials. Petitioner
accepted the invitation and informed the Assembly members through the Assembly
Secretary that there shall be no session in November as his presence was needed in the
house committee hearing of Congress. However, on November 2, 1987, the Assembly held
a session in defiance of the Limbona's advice, where he was unseated from his position.
Petitioner prays that the session's proceedings be declared null and void and be it declared
that he was still the Speaker of the Assembly. Pending further proceedings of the case, the
SC received a resolution from the Assembly expressly expelling petitioner's membership
therefrom. Respondents argue that petitioner had "filed a case before the Supreme Court
against some members of the Assembly on a question which should have been resolved
within the confines of the Assembly," for which the respondents now submit that the
petition had become "moot and academic" because its resolution.
Regional Legislative Assembly Speaker Limbona is asking the SC to declare an assembly
session w/c took place while he was away and resulted in his ouster as null and void.

WON the SC has jurisdiction over the issue.

WON Limbona’s ouster was valid.

Held: SC has jurisdiction over the issue as the Sangguniang Pampook of Region XII is
discharges only chiefly administrative services and they are still subject to general
supervision of the national government. Limbona’s ouster invalid due to lack of due
process.

SC: AUTONOMY is either the DECENTRALIZATION OF ADMINISTRATION or

DECENTRALIZATION OF POWER.
1. DECENTRALIZATION OF ADMINISTRATION - administrative powers are delegated
to political subdivisions to broaden the base of govt. power and create local
governments that would make be more responsive and accountable and ensure
the fullest development of self-reliant communities. National govt. is relieved of
managing local affairs and is able to concentrate on national concerns. The
President, acting through the DILG, exercises GENERAL SUPERVISION only to
ensure that local affairs are administered according to law.
2. DECENTRALIZATION OF POWER – abdication of political power in favor of LGUs
declared to be autonomous. Autonomous govt is free to shape its future with
minimum intervention from national govt. Autonomous government is
accountable not to the national govt. but to its constituents.
San Juan v Civil Facts: The Provincial Budget Officer of Rizal (PBO) was left vacant; thereafter Rizal
Service Governor San Juan, peititioner, nominated Dalisay Santos for the position and the latter
Commission quickly assumed position. However, Director Abella of Region IV Department of Budget and
(1991) Management (DBM) did not endorse the nominee, and recommended private respondent
Cecilia Almajose as PBO on the ground that she was the most qualified. This appointment
was subsequently approved by the DBM. Petitioner protested the appointment of
Almajose before the DBM and the Civil Service Commission who both dismissed his
complaints. His arguments rest on his contention that he has the sole right and privilege to
recommend the nominees to the position of PBO and that the appointee should come only
from his nominees. In support thereof, he invokes Section 1 of Executive Order No. 112.

Page 8 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020
 WON the recommending power of the Provincial Director in filling the position of Provincial
Budget Officer (Province of Rizal) is mandatory or directory.

Held: The recommending power of the Provincial Director is mandatory in line with the
principles of local autonomy. The DBM cannot ignore the right of local governments to
develop self-reliance in handling their own funds in the interest of local autonomy. It is not
the Department of Budget and Management who appoints the position of PBO since it is
the local officials who know better the needs of their LGU and the provincial and municipal
budgets and it is the local officials who will have to work within the constraints of the
budget.
This case involves the application of a most important constitutional policy and principle,
that of local autonomy. We have to obey the clear mandate on local autonomy. Where a
law is capable of two interpretations, one in favor of centralized power in Malacañang and
the other beneficial to local autonomy, the scales must be weighed in favor of autonomy.

Note: Maam askeid about process of appointment

Ganzon v CA Supra.
(1991)
SC: On the matter of DECENTRALIZATION. Local Autonomy in the Philippine setting is not
the making of federal states but of local governments under the supervision of the national
government. The purpose of the supervision is regulation to enhance self-government.
Cordillera Board WON EO 220 creating the Cordillera Administrative Region is unconstitutional for pre- EO 220
Coalition v COA empting the enactment of an organic act by Congress creating an autonomous region in
the Cordilleras upon its approval in a plebiscite.

H: EO 220 constitutional. It only creates an administrative region and not a territorial or

political subdivision like an autonomous region

SC: EO 220 does not create an autonomous regional government as contemplated in the
constitution. It merely creates an administrative region for the purpose of coordinating the
planning and implementation of programs and services. The bodies it created, the
Cordillera Executive Board and the Cordillera Administrative Region do not supplant the
existing local government structures, nor are they autonomous government agencies. They
merely constitute a mechanism bringing together the existing local governments and
agencies of the National Government, ethno-linguistic groups, and NGOs in a concerted
effort to spur development in the Cordilleras.
Magtajas v Pryce FACTS:
Properties Corp, PAGCOR is a corporation created directly by P.D. 1869 to help centralize and regulate all
Inc. games of chance, including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines.
PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City. It leased a portion of a
building belonging to Pryce Properties Corporations, Inc., renovated & equipped the same,
and prepared to inaugurate its casino during the Christmas season.
Then Mayor Magtajas together with the city legislators and civil organizations of the City of
Cagayan de Oro denounced such project.
In reaction to this project, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City enacted
two (2) ordinances prohibiting the issuance of a business permit and canceling existing
business permit to establishment for the operation of casino (ORDINANCE NO. 3353) and
an ordinance prohibiting the operation of casino and providing penalty for its violation.
(ORDINANCE NO. 3375-93).
Pryce assailed the ordinances before the Court of Appeals, where it was joined by PAGCOR
as intervenor and supplemental petitioner.
Court of Appeals declared the ordinances invalid and issued the writ prayed for to prohibit
their enforcement. 1 Reconsideration of this decision was denied against petitioners.
WON an ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Panglungsod od CDO prohibiting the
establishment of gambling casinos is valid.

Page 9 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020
 Held: No. Casino gambling is authorized by PD 1862, a statute which cannot be nullified by
a mere ordinance.

SC: Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local councils
exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress the national
lawmaking body.
Local Government Code, local government units are authorized to prevent or suppress,
among others, "gambling and other prohibited games of chance." Obviously, this provision
excludes games of chance which are not prohibited but are in fact permitted by law.The
rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is
obvious.Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869. This decree has the status of a statute
that cannot be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance. Hence, it was not competent for
the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City to enact Ordinance No. 3353
prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of a casino and Ordinance No. 3375-93
prohibiting the operation of casinos. For all their praiseworthy motives, these ordinances
are contrary to P.D. 1869 and the public policy announced therein and are therefore ultra
vires and void.
Taule v Santos This is a petition for certiorari seeking the reversal of the resolutions of respondent
(Aug 12, 1991) Secretary dated August 4, 1989 and September 5, 1989 for being null and void.
Facts:
An election for the officers of the Federation of Associations of Barangay Council (FABC)
was held on June 18, 1989 despite the absence of other members of the said council.
Including Petitioner was elected as the president.
Respondent Verceles sent a letter of protest to respondent Santos, seeking its nullification
in view of several flagrant irregularities in the manner it was conducted.

Petitioner denied the allegations of respondent Verceles and denouncing respondent for
intervening in the said election which is a purely non-partisan affair. And requesting for his
appointment as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province being the duly
elected President of the FABC in Catanduanes.
Respondent Santos issued a resolution on August 4, 1989 nullifying the election and
ordering a new one to be conducted as early as possible to be presided by the Regional
Director of Region V of the Department of Local Government. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but it was denied by respondent Santos in his resolution on September 5,
1989.

WON the DILG has the power to decide on Federation of Barangay Councils (FABC)
electoral contests.

Held: It is the RTC that has the power to decide on electoral contests, the DILG only holds
powers of general supervision and no law confers jurisdiction over electoral protests to the
DILG. To pass on the validity of the election would be to give control and allow the DILG to
interfere with a barangay democratic processes instead of merely monitoring compliance
with rules.

SC: The power of general supervision of the president to ensure that local affairs are
administered according to law is exercised through the Secretary of Local Government.

SUPERVISION – (admin law) power/authority of an officer to see that the subordinate

officers perform their duties and take action or step prescribed by law to make them
perform their duties.
-“power of mere oversight over an inferior body; it does not include any restraining
authority over such body”

CONTROL – power to alter or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer has done in
performance of duties and to substitute the one’s judgment over the subordinate.
Page 10 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020
Binay v Domingo Municipal Reso 6: Ganito kami sa Makati, merong Burial Assistance Program PhP 500 para Sec 16, LGC
(1991) sa mahihirap na namatayan from unappropriated available funds in the municipal treasury (General
(Municipal Council of Makati Reso No . 60). Welfare
FACTS: The Municipality of Makati passed a resolution extending financial assistance to a Clause)
bereaved family whose gross income does not exceed P2000 a month. The resolution was
referred to respondent COA for its expected allowance in audit. However, COA
disapproved the resolution and disallowed in audit the disbursement of funds for the
implementation thereof. COA's objection is of the position that there is no perceptible
connection or relation between the objective sought to be attained under the resolution
and the alleged public safety, general welfare, etc., of the inhabitants of Makati. COA's also
argued that. "Resolution No. 60 is still subject to the limitation that the expenditure
covered thereby should be for a public purpose, ... should be for the benefit of the whole, if
not the majority, of the inhabitants of the Municipality and not for the benefit of only a few
individuals as in the present case."

WON Reso 6 is a valid exercise of police power under the general welfare clause

Held: Yes, support for the poor has been a long accepted exercise of police power.

DOCTRINE/S and notes: POLICE POWER – power to prescribe regulations to promote

health, morals, peace, education, good order, safety and general welfare. The police
power of a municipal corporation is said to be broad, commensurate with the duty to
provide for the real needs of the people in their health, safety, comfort, and convenience.
It extends to all great public needs, and, in a broad sense includes all legislation and almost
every function of the municipal government.
- government power inherent in state but not in municipal corporations. There must first
be a VALID DELEGATION of power by the legislature. Municipal corporations exercise police
power under the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE (Sec 16, LGC).
- (notes) power of promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty
City Government Facts:
of QC v Ericta An ordinance was promulgated in Quezon city which approved the the regulation
(June 24, 1983) ofestablishment of private cemeteries in the said city. According to the ordinance, 6% of
the total area of the private memorial park shall be set aside for charity burial of deceased
persons who are paupers and have been residents of QC. Himlayang Pilipino, a private
memorial park, contends that the taking or confiscation of property restricts the use of
property such that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose and deprives the owner of
all beneficial use of his property. It also contends that the taking is not a valid exercise of
police power, since the properties taken in the exercise of police power are destroyed and
not for the benefit of the public.
Ordinance passed requiring that every memorial park cemetery shall set aside at least 6%
of its total area for charity burial. WON city resolution passed instructing city engineers to
stop selling memorial park lots to those who failed to make the donations is a valid exercise
of police power.

Held: No. There is outright confiscation and not just mere police regulation when one is
deprived of property without due process or compensation. It is the duty of the city to
build a public cemetery for the poor and not to pass this responsibility on to private
cemeteries like Himlayang Pilipino.

SC: POLICE POWER – usually exercised through regulation of use of liberty or property for
the promotion of general welfare. The power to regulate does not include the power to
confiscate or power to prohibit.
Villanueva v The case involved a strip of land near public market on which stands a conglomeration of
Castaneda vendor stalls known as talipapa. Said vendors was authorized by Sanggunian resolution to
(1987) operate. This was protested in a civil case causing an injunction. Pending case, municipal
council adopted a new resolution which declared the subject area “the parking space and
as the public plaza of the municipality”. The CFI made the injunction permanent. However,
Page 11 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020
 the decision apparently was not enforced because the occupants were never evicted. Stall
owners were even made to enter a lease agreement with the municipal government. After
some time, clamor was raised to restore the area into its public use. The office of the
mayor attempted to demolish the stalls. The stall owners filed petition for prohibition but
was denied.

WON Municipality of San Fernando can pass a resolution allowing merchants to construct
permanent stalls in the vicinity of the public market.

Held: No. A public plaza is communal property and may not be subject of commercial
undertakings. Town plazas are PROPERTIES OF PUBLIC DOMINION, to be devoted to public
use and to be made available to the public in general. They are outside the commerce of
man.

POLICE POWER cannot be bargained away through contract.

Republic v Pres. Magsaysay issues Proclamation 144 reserving some lands in Malabon for street Sec 16, LGC
Gonzalez widening and parking space ejecting appellants Gonzalez and co. who were occupying it
(1991) WON the proclamation was valid considering G and co had building permits and were Rule 67,
applying for its sale Rules of Civil
WON there is a public good and no violation of equal protection in reserving lands for Procedure
parking space.

Held: Yes the proclamation is valid since the land is public land under the disposition and
control of the national government. The Mayor of Malabon had no authority to allow the
use of public lands to the appellants as the management of these lands was under the
Director of Lands, not of the local government.
Traffic decongestion through street widening and providing for parking lots is a PUBLIC
GOOD for the benefit of all, even those without cars since the decongestion of the streets
from parked cars will benefit even pedestrians and commuters.

EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS REVIEW (Civ Pro codals)

Patalinhug v CA Funeral home in residential area, w/in 50 meters from and Iglesia ni Kristo church. Sec 16, LGC
(1994) Ordinance prohibiting funeral parlors from being built 50 metres from residences and
churches. WON building is residential or commercial.

Tax declaration is not conclusive of nature of property in the zoning area. The declaration
of a Sangguniang Panlungsod through an ordinance that the area is commercial is given
more weight. This declaration of a commercial zone through an ordinance is an exercise of
POLICE POWER to promote common, good, order and GENERAL WELFARE of the people in
the locality.

SC: In order to promote the GENERAL WELFARE (public sanitation), the state may interfere
with personal liberty, property and business and occupations.

POWERS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS / LOCAL GOVERNMENTS; POLICE POWER

References: Sec 16, 19, LGC and Sec 9, Art II, Consti
CASE DOCTRINES/NOTES Laws

Binay v F: Supra. Disbursement of Php500 burial assistance to poor families in Makati from available, RA 7160, Sec
Domingo unappropriated municipal funds is an example of valid use of police power. 16 (General
(Sept 1991)* Welfare
SC: Valid use of police power. Clause); Sec
POLICE POWER - power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use 19 (Eminent
of liberty Domain)
Purpose: secure general welfare and comfort of people
INFERRED POLICE POWER: powers that inferred from those expressly delegated such that
Page 12 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020
 corporations must have these powers to accomplish its object.
Notes: Police power is delegated to LGUs through the General Welfare Clause.

Chua Huat v F: Manila mayor confirms City Engineer’s order to condemn Chua Huat and co’s bldg, Chua National
CA, (July1991) Huat and co protest. CA dismissed their case. SC affirms. Building
Code
SC: Condemnation was a valid use of POLICE POWER.
The power to condemn buildings and structures in the City of Manila falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the City Engineer, who has the authority to order the condemnation and
demolition of buildings which are found to be in a dangerous or ruinous condition. It is also
clear from the Compilation of Ordinances of the City of Manila that the Mayor has the power
to confirm or deny the action taken by the Building Officials, with respect to the dangerous or
ruinous buildings.
Tatel v Facts: Petitioner Celestino Tatel owns a warehouse in barrio Sta. Elena, Municipality of Virac.
Municipallity Complaints were received by the municipality concerning the disturbance caused by the
of Virac operation of the abaca bailing machine inside petitioner’s warehouse. A committee was then
(1992) appointed by the municipal council, and it noted from its investigation on the matter that an
accidental fire within the warehouse of the petitioner created a danger to the lives and
properties of the people in the neighborhood. Resolution No. 29 was then passed by the
Municipal council declaring said warehouse as a public nuisance within a purview of Article
694 of the New Civil Code. According to respondent municipal officials, petitioner’s warehouse
was constructed in violation of Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, prohibiting the construction
of warehouses near a block of houses either in the poblacion or barrios without maintaining
the necessary distance of 200 meters from said block of houses to avoid loss of lives and
properties by accidental fire. On the other hand, petitioner contends that Ordinance No. 13 is
unconstitutional.
Municipal Council pass a resolution declaring the warehouse with an abaca bailing machine,
that was smelly and a fire hazard, as a public nuisance (694 NCC). The warehouse was also
declared in violation of an ordinance prohibiting the construction of warehouses within 200
meters from residences. WON resolution valid exercise of police power by municipal council.

Held: Yes. The purpose of the ordinance was to avoid accidental fire protecting life and
property of residents, it provided a protection that is one of the obligations of government
and thus was a valid exercise of POLICE POWER.

SC:
For an ordinance to be valid it must be w/in the corporate powers of the municipality and
passed according to the procedures required by law.
REQUISITES in passing a VALID ORDINANCE: (see also Solicitor General v MMA and White
Light Corporation v City of Manila)
1. Not contravene the Constitution
2. Not be unfair or oppressive
3. Not partial or discriminatory
4. Not prohibit but may regulate business
5. Must be general and consistent with public policy
6. Must be reasonable
(CUPPGR)
White Light WON Manila ordinance prohibiting short time admissions and wash up rates in hotels, motels Sec 16, LCG
Corporation v and similar establishments is constitutional (and a valid exercise of police power). Its
City of Manila proponents claim it aims to curb illicit sexual activities and drug use thus improving public
(2009) morals and promoting general welfare.

Held: The ordinance is unconstitutional because the means used to prevent an evil is NOT
REASONABLY NECESSARY and IMPAIRS other LEGITIMATE ACTIVITIES.

SC: Review test/REQUISITES of VALID ORDINANCE. The ordinance prohibits legitimate

Page 13 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020
 business (number 4 requisite) and is unreasonable (sec 6). The ordinance is invalid for being
overbroad, affecting even legitimate exercise of rights, such as right to property since
corporation livelihood is affected when their operation of business is affected.

Notes: You can never really legislate morality or legislate to “improve public morality” (as
stated in Sec 16, LGC). Who is the moral arbitrer to say what is or is not moral?
POWER OF MAYOR TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR RALLIES
Bayan v WON BP 880 law requiring an application to the Mayor of a city for a permit to rally and the BP 880
Ermita Arroyo administration policy of Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR) are valid exercises of
(2006) police power or do they violate the people’s rights to public assembly and free expression.

Held: BP 880 is a valid exercise of police power as it merely REGULATES the exercise of the
right to peaceful assembly and petition only to the extent needed to avoid a clear and present
danger. It does NOT impose an absolute ban on rallies but merely a TIME, PLACE, MANNER
(TPM) regulation that is CONTENT NEUTRAL. There is no prior restraint. (Go sir Jardie!) The
CPR policy meanwhile serves no purpose if it merely means maximum tolerance and it is
illegal if it means something else. For this reason it is struck down as a “darkness that shrouds
freedom”. It merely confuses people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses.

Notes: There is a valid exercise of POLICE POWER in regulating rallies for they promote the
general welfare of the public in the interest of promoting public convenience in traffic matters
as well as public safety in ensuring order in the manner of holding the rallies.
Phil FACTS: Sec 5, Art X,
Petroleum Philippine Petroleum Corporation (PPC for short) is a business enterprise engaged in the Consti (LGUs
Corp v manufacture of a petroleum product, with its refinery plant situated at Malaya, Pililla, Rizal, power to
Municipality conducting its business activities within the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Pililla, create own
of Pililia, Rizal Rizal sources of
(1991) Under Section 142 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1939, manufactured oils and revenue)
other fuels are subject to specific tax.
Respondent Municipality of Pililla, Rizal, through Municipal Council Resolution No. 25, S-1974 PD 231 Local
enacted Municipal Tax Ordinance No. 1, S-1974 otherwise known as “The Pililla Tax Code of Tax Code
1974”. Sections 9 and 10 of the said ordinance imposed a tax on business, except for those for
which fixed taxes are provided in the Local Tax Code
The respondents then filed a complaint for the collection of business tax, storage permit fees,
mayor’s permit and sanitary inspection fees.
WON a municipal ordinance taxing the Phil Petroleum Corp business when there are
provincial circulars that direct municipal officers from collecting such taxes.

Held: Valid ordinance. TAX EXEMPTIONS ARE TO BE HELD STRICTLY AGAINST THE ONE
CLAIMING THE EXEMPTION AND LIBERALLY IN FAVOR OF THOSE WITH TAXING AUTHORITY.
Continuous enforcement of the prohibition of the circular would be tantamount to restricting
LGU power to tax by mere administrative issuance. Administrative issuances must be in
harmony with the Local Tax Code (PD 231).
Floro Cement PD 463 exempts mineral products from LGU taxes. Floro Cement claims exemption insisting PD 463
Corp v that cement is a mineral product.
Gorospe
Held: Cement is a manufactured product, not a mineral product, and is thus subject to local
taxes. Exemptions strictly held against the one claiming the exception. What stat con
provision/principle is this again?
Tuzon and Facts:
Mapagua v CA In 1977, the Sangguniang Bayan of Camalaniugan, Cagayan thought of fund-raising scheme to
(1992) help finance the construction of a Sports and Nutrition Center. They adopted Resolution No. 9
whereby all thresher operators who will apply for a permit to thresh will be required to
donate 1% of all the palay threshed by them.
Private respondent Jurado tried to pay the P285.00 license fee for thresher operators but
Municipal Treasurer Mapagu refused to accept payment and required him to first secure a

Page 14 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020
 mayor’s permit. Mayor Domingo Tuzon, on the other hand, said that Jurado should first
comply with Resolution No. 9 and sign the agreement before the permit could be issued.
Jurado filed an action for mandamus with the CFI Cagayan to compel the issuance of the
mayor’s permit and license. He filed another petition for declaratory judgment against the
resolution for being illegal either as a donation or as a tax measure. Named defendants were
the same respondents and all the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Camalaniugan
The trial court upheld the challenged measure. Jurado appealed to the Court of Appeals which
affirmed the validity of Resolution No. 9 and the implementing agreement. Nevertheless, it
found Tuzon and Mapagu liable to pay actual and moral damages for acting maliciously and in
bad faith when they denied Jurado's application for the mayor's permit and license. As for the
Resolution, it was passed by the Sanggunian in the lawful exercise of its legislative powers
granted by Article XI, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution which provided that each LGU shall
have the power to create its own source revenue and to levy taxes, subject to such limitation
as may be provided by law. And also under Article 4, Sec. 29, PD 231: The barrio council may
solicit money, materials, and other contributions from private agencies and individuals.
Sangguniang Bayan adopts a resolution requiring a 1% donation from operators of palay
threshers. The mayor refused to issue a permit and license for operating this palay for those
who did not pay this ‘donation’ in accordance with the ordinance. Petitioners claim damages
from the mayor for refusing to give permit and license.

Held: NO damages since the mayor was just doing his job. The issue of WON the resolution
was valid was not raised but the SC held that if a donation is deemed obligatory then it is not a
donation. If the ordinance is a tax ordinance then it must have been shown to have been
enacted in accordance with the requirements of the Local Tax Code.
Real Property Taxation (sec 197-283, RA 7160)
Sec of Finance
v Ilarde
(2005)

Page 15 of 15
Local Government Code
Feb 10, 2020