LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW NOTES
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2
Bara Lidasan v COMELEC
Whether or not a cluster of just nine barangays, after the 12 brgys of a 21-barangay proposed municipality
was declared invalidly included in the proposed municpality, can compose a minicipality.
The SC states that because of the second function of the LGCU, it serves as agency of the community in
the administration of local affairs, a LGU must be self sufficient to enable it to exercise its corporate
powers and serve its constituents.
NO. The 9 remaining barangays or barrios as insufficient to constitute a separate municipality. MC
perform twin functions. 1st - serve as an instrumentality of the State in carrying out the functions of ogvt.
2ndm they act as agency of community in the administration of local affairs. It is in the latter character
that they are a separate entity acting for their own purposes and not a subdivision of State.
Surigao Electric Co., Inc. v. Municipality of Surigao –
Whether or not a LGU can be considered as an instrumentality of the national government.
YES, SC ruled a dual character of a municipal corporation, one as governmental, branch of the general
administration of state, and other as QUASI-private and corporate.
Governmental affairs do not lose their governmental character by being delegated to the municipal
governments.
Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, Catanduanes
Municipal corporations are agencies of the State for the promotion and maintenance of local self-
government and as such are endowed with police powers in order to effectively accomplish and carry out
the declared object of their creation.
Municipality of San Fernando v Firme
Municipality is not liable for the torts committed by its regular employees in the discharge of
governmental functions. Only if it is acting in a proprietary capacity.
CHAPTER 3
San Juan v. Civil Service Commission
Applicant for Provincial Budget Officer nominated by the Governor was found to be not qualified, the
Secretary of Budget and Management insisted on appointing another who was qualified but was not
nominated by the Governor.
SC ruled in favor of Governor, stating that the latter was seen to be in a much better position than the
Secretary in determining local needs, stating the need to obey the clear mandate on local autonomy.
Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA
Whether or not the LLDA had the authority to order local governments along Laguna de Bay to cease and
desist from issuing fishing privilegs.
The SC held that the power of the LLDA to grant permits for fish pens, and other was for the purpose of
effectively regulating and monitoring activities in the Laguna de Bay region.
The charter of the LLDA which embodies a valid exercise of police power should prevail over the Local
Government Code of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de Bay.
Pimentel v Ochoa
Petitioners argued that the implementation of the GAA of 2011 directly by the national government
through DSWD, and bypassing LGUs would amount to a recentralization.
SC held that to yield unreserved power of governance to the local government unit as to preclude any and
all involvement by the NG programs implemented in the local level would be to shift the tide of
monopolistic power to the other extreme, which would amount to DECENTRALIZATION OF POWER.
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 6
League of Cities in the Philippines v. COMELEC
PRIOR: SC found 16 laws enacted by Congress in 2007 as unconstitutional for having been passed
without following the criteria on income as provided for in Section 450 of the LGC.
The Constitution requires Congress to stipulate in the Local Government Code all the criteria necessary
for the creation of a city, including the conversion of a municipality into a city. Congress cannot write
such criteria in any other law, like the Cityhood Laws.
Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay 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 approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political
units directly affected.
FINAL:
Historical Background
In the late 1990s, many municipalities sought cityhood status to access greater resources and autonomy
due to their economic potential. RA 9009 was enacted to curb the rapid conversion of municipalities into
cities by raising the income requirement. However, exemptions were debated for municipalities with
pending cityhood bills, leading to the passage of special legislative enactments (Cityhood Laws). This
ultimately resulted in a landmark Supreme Court case examining the constitutionality of these
exemptions.
Constitutionality (Article X, Section 10)
The Supreme Court ruled that the Cityhood Laws did not violate Article X, Section 10 of the
Constitution. While the Local Government Code (LGC) mandates criteria for cityhood—including the
increased income requirement set by RA 9009—the Court acknowledged the legislative intent and
historical context behind the exemptions granted to municipalities with pending cityhood bills at
the time of RA 9009’s enactment.
Compliance with the Local Government Code (RA 9009)
The Court found that the 16 municipalities met the original requirements before RA 9009 was introduced.
The exemption clauses in the Cityhood Laws were deemed valid legislative measures rather than
unconstitutional amendments to RA 9009. Congress recognized these exemptions as necessary to uphold
local development and autonomy.
Equal Protection Clause
The Court upheld that the Cityhood Laws did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The classification
of the exempted municipalities was valid because:
1. It rested on substantial distinctions.
2. It was aligned with the law’s purpose.
3. It was not limited to existing conditions.
4. It applied equally to all members of the same class.
The Court emphasized that the exempted municipalities had proven their capability to function as cities
despite the arbitrarily increased income threshold.
Doctrine
This case established that legislative intent and historical background could justify exemptions from
newer statutory amendments. Such exceptions are valid when they align with legislative purposes
and the principles of local government autonomy.
Class Notes
Equal Protection Clause: Classifications must have substantial distinctions, be relevant to the
law’s purpose, not be limited to current conditions, and apply equally to all members of the class.
Article X, Section 10: The creation of local government units must comply with LGC criteria
and be approved through a plebiscite.
Legislative Intent: Historical context and legislative intent can justify legal exemptions under
specific conditions.
Miranda v. Aguirre
- Requirement of plebiscite in cases of downward conversion of an independent component city
into a mere component city of a province.
- SC ruled that plebiscite was required in Santiago City. The common denominator in Section 10,
Article X of the Constitution is the material change in the political and economic rights of the
local government units directly affected as well as the people therein.
Umali v. COMELEC
- It has been held that the upward conversion of a component city into a highly urbanized city is a
case of “substantial alteration of boundaries.”
- Hence, the mother province to which the component city originally belonged must participate in
the plebiscite for its conversion into a highly urbanized for its (province’s) boundary is
substantially altered.
Abbas v COMELEC
- Merger o
- f administrative regions, which pertains to the executive branch, will not require plebiscite. The
requirement of plebiscite in a merger expressly applies only to provinces, cities, municipalities or
barangays.
CHAPTER 9
Basco vs PAGCOR
- PD 1869 exemptts the PAGCOR, a government owned or controlled corporation from paying any
tax of any kind or form
- The City of Manila, being a Municipal corporation has no inherent right to impose taxes
- Hence, its power to tax must always yield to a legislative act which is superior
- Local government have no power to tax instrumentalities of the National Government like
PAGCOR, with an original chaterter, PD 1869.
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) v. Marcos
- Issue: whether or not a local government can tax MCIAA, a GOCC.
- SC refused to apply the Basco doctrine finding inapplicable having been decided before the
effectivity of Local Government Code of 1991 (January 1, 1992). The code effectively withdrew
all existing tax exemptions and privileges enjoyed by all persons, natural or artificial, before the
effectivity of the Code.
- Power to Tax exercised by local legislative bodies is no longer merely by virtue of a valid
delegation as before, but pursuant to direct authority conferred by Section 5, Article X of the
Constitution.
- Article X, Section 5 of the Constitution -- Each local government unit shall have the power to
create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines
and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.
Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments.
