Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The Court also agrees with the CAs ruling that MMDA Regulation No. 96-009 and
MMC Memorandum Circular No. 88-09 did not apply to Trackworks billboards,
signages and other advertising media. The prohibition against posting, installation
and display of billboards, signages and other advertising media applied only to
public areas, but MRT3, being private property pursuant to the BLT agreement
between the Government and MRTC, was not one of the areas as to which the
prohibition applied.
The complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below
the allowable standards set by law, specifically Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 or
the Philippine Environment Code.
In their individual causes of action, respondents alleged that the continued neglect
of petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of,
among others:
(1) Respondents constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced ecology;
(2) The Environment Code (PD 1152);
(3) The Pollution Control Law (PD 984);
(4) The Water Code (PD 1067);
(5) The Sanitation Code (PD 856);
(6) The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825);
(7) The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979);
(8) Executive Order No. 192;
(9) The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No. 6969);
(10) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations;
(11) The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Guardianship; and
(12) International Law
Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered to
clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for
the purpose.
Issues:
a) Whether or not pertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate
only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in
general.
b) Whether or not the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can
be compelled by mandamus.
Held:
Regional Trial Courts Order to Clean Up and Rehabilitate Manila Bay
On September 13, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondents.
Finding merit in the complaint, the Court ordered defendant-government agencies,
jointly and solidarily, to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters
7
10
12
13
14
distinguished from the power of control or the power of an officer to alter or modify
or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties
and to substitute the judgment of the former for the latter.
The petitioners apprehension regarding the Presidents alleged power of control
over the OICs is rooted in their belief that the Presidents appointment power
includes the power to remove these officials at will. In this way, the petitioners
foresee that the appointed OICs will be beholden to the President, and act as
representatives of the President and not of the people.
Section 3 of RA No. 10153 expressly contradicts the petitioners supposition. The
provision states:
Section 3. Appointment of Officers-in-Charge. The President shall appoint officersin-charge for the Office of the Regional Governor, Regional Vice Governor and
Members of the Regional Legislative Assembly who shall perform the functions
pertaining to the said offices until the officials duly elected in the May 2013
elections shall have qualified and assumed office.
The wording of the law is clear. Once the President has appointed the OICs for the
offices of the Governor, Vice Governor and members of the Regional Legislative
Assembly, these same officials will remain in office until they are replaced by the
duly elected officials in the May 2013 elections. Nothing in this provision even hints
that the President has the power to recall the appointments he already made.
Clearly, the petitioners fears in this regard are more apparent than real.
16
Ordillo v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 93054, December 4, 1990
Gutierrez, J.
FACTSJanuary 30, 1990, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6766 entitled An Act Providing for
anOrganic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region, the people of the provinces of
Benguet,Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra and Kalinga-Apayao and the city of Baguio
cast their votes in a plebiscite.
- Results of plebiscite: approved by majority of 5,889 votes in Ifugao, rejected by
148,676 inthe rest provinces and city. The province of Ifugao makes up only 11% of
total population,and as such has the second smallest number of inhabitants, of the
abovementioned areas.
- February 14, 1990, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2259 stating that the Organic
Act for the Region has been approved and/or ratified by majority of votes cast only
in the provinceof Ifugao. Secretary of Justice also issued a memorandum for the
President reiterating COMELEC resolution, stating that Ifugao being the only
province which voted favorably then. Alone, legally and validly constitutes CAR.
- March 8, 1990, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6861 setting elections in CAR of
Ifugao on first Monday of March 1991.
- Even before COMELEC resolution, Executive Secretary issued February 5, 1990
amemorandum granting authority to wind up the affairs of the Cordillera Executive
Board and Cordillera Regional Assembly created under Executive Order No. 220.
- March 30, 1990, President issued Administrative Order No. 160 declaring among
others that the Cordillera Executive Board and Cordillera Regional Assembly and all
offices under Executive Order No. 220 were abolished in view of the ratification of
Organic Act.
- Petitioners: there can be no valid Cordillera Autonomous Region in only one
province as the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6766 require that the said Region
be composed of more
than one constituent unit.
- Petitioners therefore pray that the court:a.declare null and void COMELEC
resolution No. 2259, the memorandum of the Secretary of Justice, Administrative
Order No. 160, and Republic Act No. 6861 and prohibit and restrain the respondents
from implementing the same and spending public funds for the purpose; declare
Executive Order No. 220 constituting the Cordillera Executive Board and
theCordillera Regional Assembly and other offices to be still in force and effect until
another organic law for the Autonomous Region shall have been enacted by
Congress and thesame is duly ratified by the voters in the constituent units.
ISSUE
WON the province of Ifugao, being the only province which voted favorably for the
creation of the Cordillera Autonomous Region can, alone, legally and validly
constitute such region.
HELD
a- The sole province of Ifugao cannot validly constitute the Cordillera Autonomous
Region. The keyword in Article X, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution provinces,
cities,municipalities and geographical areas connote that region is to be made up
of more than one constituent unit. The term region used in its ordinary sense
means two or more provinces.
- rule in statutory construction must be applied here: the language of the
Constitution,as much as possible should be understood in the sense it has in
17
common use and thatthe words used in constitutional provisions are to be given
their ordinary meaningexcept where technical terms are employed.
b.The entirety of Republic Act No. 6766 creating the Cordillera Autonomous Region
is infused with provisions which rule against the sole province of Ifugao constituting
theRegion.
- It can be gleaned that Congress never intended that a single province may
constitutethe autonomous region.
- If this were so, we would be faced with the absurd situation of having two sets of
officials: a set of provincial officials and another set of regional officials exercising
their executive and legislative powers over exactly the same small area. (Ifugao is
one of the smallest provinces in the Philippines, population-wise) (Art III sec 1 and 2;
Art V,sec 1 and 4; Art XII sec 10 of RA 6766)
- Allotment of Ten Million Pesos to Regional Government for its initial organizational
requirements can not be construed as funding only a lone and small province [Art
XXIsec 13(B)(c)]- Certain provisions of the Act call for officials coming from
different provinces andcities in the Region, as well as tribal courts and the
development of a commonregional language. (Art V sec 16; Art VI sec 3; Art VII; Art
XV RA 6766)- Thus, to contemplate the situation envisioned by the COMELEC would
not only violate theletter and intent of the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6766
but would be impractical andillogical.
18
20
DEVOLVING TO THE AUTONOMOUS REGIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO CERTAIN
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION
OVER ITS OFFICES IN THE REGION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS, Section 1, Article XV of Republic Act No. 6734 provides "That the Autonomous Region shall establish, maintain and support a
complete and integrated system of quality education and adopt an educational framework that is meaningful, relevant and responsive to the
needs, ideals and aspirations of the people in the Region";
WHEREAS, the Oversight Committee created under the said Act, recognizing the primacy of education as a necessary pillar for the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), has recommended the evaluation of certain powers and that the offices of the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports within the ARMM may be transferred to the Autonomous Regional Government to carry out this
mandate;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order:
Sec. 1. Policy to be Adopted. The Autonomous Regional Government (ARG) shall be responsible for the regional educational framework
within the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and shall adopt the policy of the National Government as embodied in Chapter
I, Title VI, of the Administrative Code of 1987.
Sec. 2. General Functions. The powers and functions with regard to the formulation, planning, implementation and coordination of policies,
plans, programs and projects of various aspects of education are hereby transferred to the ARG, specifically in the following areas:
a. Elementary, secondary, physical and international education;
b. Non-formal and vocational or technical education;
c. Higher education;
d. Development of culture;
e. Foreign and locally-assisted projects and other activities relative to (a), (b,) (c), and (d) above; and
f. Such other functions as may be provided by law.
Sec. 3. Transfer of Control and Supervision. The offices of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) within the ARMM
including their functions, powers and responsibilities, personnel, equipment, properties, budgets and liabilities are hereby placed under the
control and supervision of the ARG.
Sec. 4. Transfer of Functions and Powers of the DECS Regional Offices. The following functions and powers of DECS Regional offices are
hereby transferred to the ARG:
A. General Functions and Powers
21
a.1. Formulate the regional plan of education based on the national plans taking into account the specific needs and traditions of
the region;
a.2. Implement laws, rules and regulations, policies, programs and projects of the Regional Department;
a.3. Provide economical, efficient, and effective education service to the people;
a.4. Coordinate with regional offices of other departments, offices and agencies in the region;
a.5. Coordinate with local government units; and
a.6. Perform such other functions as may be provided for by law.
B. Specific Functions and Powers
B.1 Administrative Management
a. Act on all matters concerning appointment, promotion and transfer; hiring of casual employees, resignation, filling-up
of positions and granting of leaves of absence and other personnel transactions;
b. Legal and administrative investigation, recommendation decision on cases, complaints and other related matters;
c. Act on requests to teach, engage in business, and exercise of professions;
d. Act on request to render overtime services;
e. Act on request for authority for domestic/outside travel;
f. Conferring of incentives or recognition;
g. Acceptance of donations such as titled real properties and personal properties;
h. Act on requests for attendance of personnel to conferences, meetings, seminars and the like;
i. Upkeep of records and records management;
j. Supply management;
k. Medical and Dental services; and
l. Delivery of general administrative services.
B.2 Educational Supervision and School Administration
a. Conduct school visitations and teaching supervision;
b. Conduct educational statistical researches, experiments, studies, planning and organizations; and
c. Preparation of data and statistical reports.
B.3 Financial Management
a. Budget preparation and submission;
b. Fiscal control, accounting and auditing of expenditures;
c. Vouchers and claims processing for payment or disbursement of funds;
22
d. Claims processing and payment of retirement pay, hazard pay, allowances, extra compensation, salary differentials
and the like;
e. Implementation of salary standardization/adjustment/merit increases;
f. Recommend position classification/readjustment/conversion;
g. Requisition and procurement of supplies, materials, equipment and others;
h. Negotiation of contracts for services and goods;
i. Signing and countersigning of checks; and
j. Preparation and submission of financial reports.
B.4 Private School Regulations
a. Grant authority to establish/operate new schools;
b. Grant permits for operation of schools and summer classes;
c. Approval of classes and teacher programs;
d. Act/decide on problems and disputes arising from private school employment;
e. Approval of applications of private school teachers for teaching overload;
f. Approval of requests for temporary enrollment, late enrollment, subject load and overload of students;
g. Administer validation placement examinations;
h. Issue special orders for graduation of students;
i. Approval of applications for change of name of private schools;
j. Approval of application for change of text books and other materials;
k. Act on tuition fee increases;
l. Verification and authentication of student credentials/records;
m. Decide Administrative complaints arising from school decisions, rules and regulations;
n. Grant/cancel/withdraw government, recognition, or restore cancelled or revoked government recognition;
o. Decide on appeals regarding decisions on awards of graduation honors;
p. Decide administrative complaints of private school personnel;
q. Investigate and initiate action on cases involving illegal operation;
r. Approval of proposed modifications of school curriculum; and
s. Authentication of school records.
Sec. 5. Administrative Responsibility. The ARG shall be responsible for all outstanding obligations, liabilities and commitment under existing
and continuing contracts, memoranda of agreement, undertakings, and the like, in connection with the operation of school divisions located
23
in the Autonomous Region: Provided, That the National Government shall continue such levels of expenditure as may be necessary to
assure all obligations and liabilities transferred to the ARG.
Sec. 6. Board of Higher Education. The functions and powers of the Board of Higher Education shall be retained by the National DECS:
Provided, That the Regional Director of the Regional DECS when established, shall sit as a member of the Board with the right to vote on
matters pertaining to the four provinces within ARMM.
Sec. 7. DECS Bureaus. The functions and powers of the following DECS Bureaus as provided for under Chapter 6, Title VI, Book IV of the
Administrative Code of 1987 are hereby transferred to the ARG.
a. Bureau of Elementary Education;
b. Bureau of Secondary Education;
c. Bureau of Technical and Vocational Education;
d. Bureau of Higher Education;
e. Bureau of Non-Formal Education; and
f. Bureau of Physical Education and School Sports.
Sec. 8. Locally-Funded Programs and Projects. All locally-funded projects of the DECS within the four provinces of the ARMM shall be
transferred to the ARG.
Sec. 9. Foreign-funded Programs. The implementation of foreign-funded projects shall continue to be the responsibility of the DECS Central
Office: Provided, That the project components situated in the provinces of the ARMM may be implemented by the ARG by way of a
Memorandum of Agreement with the DECS.
Sec. 10. Regulations and Standards Governing the Educational System. (1) Rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Educational
Act of 1982 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 232) shall be strictly adhered to and considered as minimum standards by the ARG.
(2) Formulation of regional standards should recognize national standards as minimum requirements. No regionally-defined standard should
be below accepted national standards. All DECS circulars on standards will be given to the ARMM for information and consideration in
drafting future regional standards. Similarly, the ARG shall furnish the DECS with all circulars issued prescribing regional educational
standards.
Sec. 11. Assets, Equipment, Offices and Land. Assets and equipment including public elementary and secondary schools already existing,
being utilized or programmed for use in the four (4) provinces covered by the ARMM shall be turned over the ARG: Provided, That the
National Government shall continue such levels of expenditures as may be necessary to carry out the functions mandated under R.A. No.
6734.
Office buildings including the land where these edifices are built, within the provinces of ARMM shall immediately be transferred to the ARG
in compliance with R.A. No. 6734.
24
Sec. 12. Personnel/Position. (1) By operation of law, all plantilla positions (filled and unfilled) of the DECS effectively assigned or within the
provinces of ARMM, shall immediately be placed under the control and supervision of the ARG.
(2) All personnel of the National Government shall be absorbed by the ARG and shall retain their seniority rights, compensation and other
benefits.
(3) Personnel who decline to transfer to the ARG for any reason whatsoever shall have the following options as outlined by the Civil Service
Commission: (a) regular retirement; (b) absorption by their line department in another office or region subject to the availability of positions
and at the discretion of management; (c) transfer to another department subject to the availability of positions; or (4) voluntary resignation.
(4) The position and classification plan of the ARG shall conform to national standards classification/categories set by Republic Act No. 6758,
otherwise known as the Salary Standardization Law.
(5) From the date of transfer and for a period not exceeding twelve (12) months, the DECS Payroll Servicing Division shall continue to pay
the salaries of public elementary school teachers and other DECS personnel within the ARMM covered by the centralized payroll servicing
scheme. The Department of Budget and Management, the DECS and the ARG shall, within the said period, formulate the necessary
mechanisms for the payroll system within the ARMM.
Sec. 13. Budget. All outstanding budget balances duly appropriated for the operations of DECS in the provinces within the ARMM for FY
1991 shall be turned over to the ARG as of the date transfer. Budget balances shall include appropriations for personal services of public
secondary school teachers and other personnel not covered by the DECS-IBM Payroll servicing schedule, maintenance and other operating
expenses, capital outlay.
lawphi1.net
Sec. 14. State Colleges and Universities. Pursuant to Article XV, Section 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 6734, all state colleges and universities in the
ARMM shall assist and support the full development of the people and shall serve as regional centers for tertiary and postgraduate education
in their respective areas of competence: Provided, That they shall enjoy academic freedom and fiscal autonomy and shall continue to be
governed by their respective charters: Provided, further, That the DECS Regional Director shall be a member of the governing boards of
state colleges and universities in the ARMM.
Sec. 15. Control and Supervision of DECS Attached Agencies and Councils. Department attached agencies and councils, including
government corporations shall continue to be controlled and supervised by their respective line departments. The attached agencies shall
extend maximum assistance to the ARG and Regional DECS in carrying this programs and projects.
Sec. 16. Scholarship Program. Student scholarship programs shall be retained by the DECS.
Sec. 17. Free Public Secondary Education. In accordance with Republic Act No. 6655, the ARMM shall give free public secondary education
to students enrolled in national high schools, general comprehensive high schools, state colleges and universities, specialized schools,
trade, technical, vocational, fishery and agricultural schools, and in schools administered, maintained and funded by local government units,
including city, provincial, municipal and barangay high schools, and those public schools established by law within the provinces of the
ARMM.
Sec. 18. Instructional Materials. The Instructional Material Council (IMC) shall continue to be primarily responsible for the formulation of
policies and for the selection and adoption of textbooks, supplementary and reference books for use in public elementary and secondary
schools as well as the approval of textbooks for private elementary and secondary schools in the ARMM: Provided, That the significance of
the contribution of the different ethnic groups in the Philippines shall be emphasized.
The ARG may develop curricular materials with reference to regional history subject to the approval of the IMC.
25
Sec. 19. Effective Date of Transfer. The effective date of transfer on which budget and assets shall be computed and/or listed shall be 1 May
1991 to allow the schools and field offices to wind up matters related to Schoolyear 1990-1991 and for the regional DECS to prepare for
Schoolyear 1991-1992.
Sec. 20. Separability Clause If for any reason, any part or provision of this Executive Order shall be held unconstitutional or invalid other
parts or provision thereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect.
Sec. 21. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in a national newspaper of general circulation
and one (1) local newspaper of general circulation in the ARMM.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 17th day of May, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety-one.
26
28
29
A Local Government Unit is a political subdivision of the State which is constituted by law and possessed of substantial control over
its own affairs.3 Remaining to be an intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation, but not intended, however, to be
an imperium in imperio,4 the local government unit is autonomous in the sense that it is given more powers, authority, responsibilities
and resources.5 Power which used to be highly centralized in Manila, is thereby deconcentrated, enabling especially the peripheral
local government units to develop not only at their own pace and discretion but also with their own resources and assets.
SEC. 1, CHAPTER I, TITLE XII, E.O. 292 (THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987)
Title XII
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments. For this purpose,
it shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system
of decentralization. The allocation of powers and resources to local government units shall be promoted, and
inter-local government grouping, consolidation and coordination of resources shall be encouraged. The State
shall guarantee the local government units their just share in national taxes and their equitable share in
proceeds from the use of natural resources, and afford them a wider latitude for resources generation.
Section 2. Mandate. - The Department shall assist the President in the exercise of general supervision over
local governments and in ensuring autonomy, decentralization and community empowerment.
Section 3. Powers and Functions. - To accomplish its mandate, the Department shall:
(1) Advise the President on the promulgation of policies, rules, regulations and other issuances relative
to the general supervision of local government units;
(2) Establish and prescribe rules, regulations and other issuances and implementing laws on the
general supervision of local government units and on the promotion of local autonomy and monitor
compliance thereof by said units;
(3) Provide assistance in the preparation of national legislation affecting local government units;
(4) Establish and prescribe plans, policies, programs and projects to strengthen the administrative,
technical and fiscal capabilities of local government offices and personnel;
(5) Formulate and implement policies, plans, programs and projects to meet national and local
emergencies arising from natural and man-made disasters; and
(6) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law.
Section 4. Organization Structure. - The Department, shall be composed of the Office of the Secretary and the
staff and line offices which shall consist of the following:
(1) Bureau of Local Government Supervision;
(2) Bureau of Local Government Development;
(3) National Barangay Operations Office;
(4) Project Development Services;
30
31
Malonzo v. Zamora
323 SCRA 875
FACTS: A supplemental budget was passed by the councilors upon three readings held on the same day. They were charged with
misconduct.
HELD: There is no law prohibiting the holding of the three readings of a proposed ordinance in one session day.
Consistent with the doctrine that local government does not mean the creation
of imperium in imperii or a state within a State, the Constitution has vested the
President of the Philippines the power of general supervision over local government
units. Such grant of power includes the power of discipline over local officials,
keeping them accountable to the public, and seeing to it that their acts are kept
within the bounds of law. Needless to say, this awesome supervisory power,
however, must be exercised judiciously and with utmost circumspection so as not to
transgress the avowed constitutional policy of local autonomy. As the facts unfold,
the issue that obtrudes in our minds is: Should the national government be too
strong vis--vis its local counterpart to the point of subverting the principle of local
autonomy enshrined and zealously protected under the Constitution? It is in this
light that the instant case shall now be resolved.
32
Case Digest on Pimentel v. Aguirre G.R. No. 132988 (July 19, 2000)
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to annul
Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 372, issued by the President, insofar
as it requires local government units to reduce their expenditures by 25% of
their authorized regular appropriations for non-personal services and to
enjoin respondents from implementing Section 4 of the Order, which
withholds a portion of their internal revenue allotments.
HELD: Section 1 of the AO does not violate local fiscal autonomy. Local
fiscal autonomy does not rule out any manner of national government
intervention by way of supervision, in order to ensure that local programs,
fiscal and otherwise, are consistent with national goals. AO 372 is merely
directory and has been issued by the President consistent with his powers
of supervision over local governments. A directory order cannot be
characterized as an exercise of the power of control. The AO is intended
only to advise all government agencies and instrumentalities to undertake
cost-reduction measures that will help maintain economic stability in the
country. It does not contain any sanction in case of noncompliance.
The Local Government Code also allows the President to interfere in local
fiscal matters, provided that certain requisites are met: (1) an unmanaged
public sector deficit of the national government; (2) consultations with the
presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the
presidents of the various local leagues; (3) the corresponding
recommendation of the secretaries of the Department of Finance, Interior
and Local Government, and Budget and Management; and (4) any
adjustment in the allotment shall in no case be less than 30% of the
collection of national internal revenue taxes of the third fiscal year
preceding the current one.
Section 4 of AO 372 cannot be upheld. A basic feature of local fiscal
autonomy is the automatic release of the shares of LGUs in the national
internal revenue. This is mandated by the Constitution and the Local
Government Code. Section 4 which orders the withholding of 10% of the
LGUs IRA clearly contravenes the Constitution and the law.
33
34
Mayor Hadji Amer R. Sampiano, et. al. vs. Judge Cader P. Indar, et. al.
December 21, 2009
Leonardo-De Castro, J.
SUMMARY
This case stemmed from an election protest by incumbent Mayor Sampiano against his uncle Ogka. Pending the resolution of the
double proclamation election protest, COMELEC allowed Sampiano to temporarily assume the duties of a Mayor to prevent
paralysis to the Public Service. However, Ogka wrote to PNB thru PNBs chief legal counsel, Atty. Alvin C. Go, to suspend the
release of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) to the Municipality of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur. Atty. Go however allowed the
release of IRA. To prevent the release, Ogka filed a Special Civil Action for Prohibiton and Injunction with TRO and Preliminary
Injunction. On the same day (October 11, 2004), Judge issued ex parte a TRO which lasted for 11 days total. SC subjected the
judge to disciplinary fine of 10,000 pesos for violating the Rules of Court. Ex-parte TROs can only last 72 hours, and a 20-day TRO
only after a summary hearing. The SC also stated that the automatic release of the IRA from the national treasury does not prevent
the proper court from deferring or suspending the release thereof to particular local officials when there is a legal question presented
in the court pertaining to the rights of the parties to receive the IRA or to the propriety of the issuance of a TRO or a preliminary
injunction while such rights are still being determined.
FACTS
Administrative case against Judge Cader P. Indar of the RTC Branch 12 of Malabang, Lanao del Sur, by Mayor Hadji Amer R.
Sampiano and the members of the Sangguniang Bayan, charging him with gross and wanton ignorance of the law, grave abuse of
authority, manifest partiality and serious acts of impropriety.
Prior to that, Sampiano filed before the COMELEC a Petition for Annulment of Proclamation with Prayer for Preliminary
Injunction/TRO against his rival mayoralty candidate, his uncle Ogka, and the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Balabagan, Lanao
del Sur composed of Vadria Pungginagina and Zenaida Mante. The Comelec issued an order allowing Sampiano to act, perform
and discharge the duties, functions and responsibilities as mayor "to prevent paralysis to public service" pending determination and
final resolution of the controversy involving the mayorship of the Municipality of Balabagan.
Ogka however filed for an MR of the said COMELEC order and informed in writing PNBs Chief Legal Counsel, Atty. Alvin C. Go, not
to release the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for Municipality of Balabagan pending the resolution of double proclamation. Go
however directed PNB to release the IRA. Aggrieved, and to prevent the release, Ogka filed a Special Civil Action for Prohibiton and
Injunction with TRO and Preliminary Injunction. On the same day (October 11, 2004), Judge Indar issued ex parte a TRO which
lasted for 11 days total.
Sampianos arguments:
1. The October 11 order is in the nature of a TRO or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. As such prior notice and hearing are required. He
added that a TRO has a limited life of 20 days while a writ of preliminary injunction is effective only during the pendency of the case
and only after posting the required injunction bond. This is the ex-parte issuance of the October 11, 2004 order freezing the IRA of
the Municipality of Balabagan "unless ordered otherwise by the Court."
2. Said Order was issued in violation of Section 286 of the Local Government Code (LGC), which provides for the automatic release
of the share of the local government unit from the national government. This is so as not to deprive the officials and employees of
the Municipality of Balabagan from receiving their hard earned salaries, but the Judge did not heed the said request.
3. Judge has no jurisdiction as the same belongs to COMELEC.
Judge Indars arguments:
1. The October 11, 2004 order DID NOT FREEZE the IRA but merely HELD or DEFERRED its release to any person. Since said
proclamation was neither annulled nor invalidated by the COMELEC pending resolution of the petitioner Ogka's Motion for
Reconsideration of the above-mentioned 3 orders. Since petitioner Ogka was left with no alternative to protect his interest in the IRA
and to prevent irreparable injury, he filed the instant petition with the prayer for the issuance of TRO and preliminary injunction.
2. The provision on the automatic release of IRA is not a shield or immunity to the authority of the courts to interfere, interrupt or
suspend its release when there is a legal question presented before it in order to determine the rights of the parties concerned.
3. His court assumed jurisdiction as it is a petition for prohibition and injunction and not an enforcement of election laws. While he
considered the said petition as an improper remedy, hence, the court should not have taken cognizance of the case, he had
nevertheless acted on it since the petition prays for the issuance of temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, both an
auxiliary remedy which concerns the "enforcement of legal right or a matter that partakes of a question of law" and not the
enforcement of election laws.
ISSUE
1. WON RTC has jurisdiction
2. WON the October 11 order freezing the release of the IRA is valid.
3. WON the said order partakes of a TRO.
4. WON the Order contravenes the automatic release of funds to LGUs
HELD
1. YES. RTC has jurisdtion.
2. YES. But Judge violated the Rules when the TRO extended to 11 days, when only a 72-hour TRO is allowed ex-parte.
3. YES. It is obviously one of the prayers prayed for which is subsequently granted by the judge.
4. NO. This automatic release of the IRA from the national treasury does not prevent the proper court from deferring or suspending
the release.
35
Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the penalty of a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) is hereby imposed on respondent Judge for
the above-mentioned violation of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED.
RATIO
1.The petition prayed, among others, that Go should cease and desist from ordering PNB-Marawi through its branch manager to
release the IRA for the month of October 2004 and the succeeding months to Sampiano and Macabato or their agents. The issue
here involves the determination of whether Ogka is entitled to the issuance of a TRO or an injunction and not the application or
enforcement of election law. Undeniably, RTC has jurisdiction pursuant to BP 129.
2.Judge issued the October 11, 2004 Order on the very same day it was filed, and without any hearing and prior notice to herein
complainants. Respondent was allowed by the Rules to issue ex parte a TRO of limited effectivity and, in that time, conduct a
hearing to determine the propriety of extending the TRO or issuing a writ of preliminary injunction.
Respondent conducted the hearing of the petition on October 14, 2004 or on the third day of the issuance of a TRO ex parte. The
October 11, 2004 Order was lifted in an Order dated October 27, 2004 issued by the latter. Hence, the TRO issued ex parte was
effective for 11 days from October 11, 2004 until October 22, 2004 in violation of the Rules. Only a TRO issued after a summary
hearing can last for a period of 20 days. It is worthy to note that the said October 11, 2004 Order was subsequently lifted by the
succeeding judge on the ground that the requisites for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction were not present.
3. A cursory reading of the said Order reveals that it was in effect a TRO or preliminary injunction order. The Order directed PNB's
Go and Disomangcop to hold or defer the release of the IRA to Sampiano and Macabato while the petition is pending resolution of
the trial court and unless ordered otherwise by the court. This Order was merely consistent with the relief prayed for in respondent's
petition for prohibition and injunction.
4. The automatic release of the IRA under Section 286 is a mandate to the national government through the Department of Budget
and Management to effect automatic release of the said funds from the treasury directly to the local government unit, free from any
holdbacks or liens imposed by the national government. However, this automatic release of the IRA from the national treasury does
not prevent the proper court from deferring or suspending the release thereof to particular local officials when there is a legal
question presented in the court pertaining to the rights of the parties to receive the IRA or to the propriety of the issuance of a TRO
or a preliminary injunction while such rights are still being determined.This should be considered an exercise of judicial functions
and judicial prerogatives in the most cautious manner taking into account the factual and serious circumstances obtaining between
petitioner Ogka and his Uncle Mayor Sampiano whose family were already at war with each other.
36
37
In 2007, the DSWD embarked on a poverty reduction strategy with the poorest of the poor as target
beneficiaries.2 Dubbed "Ahon Pamilyang Pilipino,"... upon the release of the amount of P50 Million Pesos
under a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) issued by the Department of Budget and Management
On July 16, 2008, the DSWD issued Administrative Order No. 16, series of 2008 (A.O. No. 16, s. 2008),5
setting the implementing guidelines for the project renamed "Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program"
This government intervention scheme, also conveniently referred to as CCTP, "provides cash grant to
extreme poor households to allow the members of the families to meet certain human development
goals."
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)12 executed by the DSWD with each participating LGU outlines in
detail the obligation of both parties during the intended five-year implementation of the CCTP.
Pimentel challenges - challenges before the Court the disbursement of public funds and the
implementation of the CCTP which are alleged to have encroached into the local autonomy of the LGUs.
ISSUE:WON THE P21 BILLION CCTP BUDGET ALLOCATION UNDER THE DSWD IN THE GAA FY 2011 VIOLATES ART.
II, SEC. 25 & ART. X, SEC. 3 OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION IN RELATION TO SEC. 17 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CODE OF 1991 BY PROVIDING FOR THE RECENTRALIZATION OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THE DELIVERY
OF BASIC SERVICES ALREADY DEVOLVED TO THE LGUS.
HELD: NO.
SEC. 17 of LGC - The essence of this express reservation of power by the national government is that,
unless an LGU is particularly designated as the implementing agency, it has no power over a program for
which funding has been provided by the national government under the annual general appropriations act,
even if the program involves the delivery of basic services within the jurisdiction of the LGU.
Under the Philippine concept of local autonomy, the national government has not completely relinquished
all its powers over local governments... But to enable the country to develop as a whole, the programs
and policies effected locally must be integrated and coordinated towards a common national goal. Thus,
policy-setting for the entire country still lies in the President and Congress
Now, autonomy is either decentralization of administration or decentralization of power. There is
decentralization of administration when the central government delegates administrative powers to
political subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and in the process to make local
governments more responsive and accountable and ensure their fullest development as self-reliant
communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national development and social
progress. Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of political power in the
[sic] favor of local governments [sic] units declared to be autonomous. In that case, the autonomous
government is free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central
authorities.
With regard to devolution itself, it was claimed in Pimentel, Jr. v. Ochoa, 676 SCRA 551 (2012),
that implementing ConditionalCashTransfer Program(CCTP)thru theDepartment ofSocialWelfare
and Development (DSWD), instead of the local government units, would amount to
recentralization ofgovernment functions already conferred on local governments. The Court held,
otherwise, however. It said that while Sec. 17 of the Local Government Code charges the LGUs to
take on the functions and responsibilities that have already been devolved upon them from the
national agencies on the aspect of providing for basic services and facilities in their respective
jurisdictions, paragraph (c) ofthe same provision provides a categorical exception of casesinvolving
nationally-funded projects, facilities, programs and services. The essence ofthis expressreservation
of power by the national government is that, unless an LGU is particularly designated as the
implementing agency, it has no power over a program for which funding has been provided by the
national government under the annual general appropriations act, even if the program involves the
delivery of basic services within the jurisdiction of the LGU. In fined, [t]he national government
is, thus, not precluded from taking a direct hand in the formulation and implementation of national
development programs especially where it is implemented locally in coordination with the LGUs
concerned.
38
39
Fontanilla v. Maliaman
G.R. Nos. L-55963 & 61045 February 27, 1991
Paras, J.
Facts:
The National Irrigation Administration (NIA) maintains that it does not perform solely and primarily
proprietary functions but is an agency of the government tasked with governmental functions, and is therefore not
liable for the tortious act of its driver Hugo Garcia, who was not its special agent.
Issue:
whether NIA is performing governmental functions and is thus exempt form suit for damages caused by the
negligent act of its driver who is not its special agent
Held:
No. The functions of government have been classified into governmental or constituent and proprietary or
ministrant. The former involves the exercise of sovereignty and considered as compulsory; the latter connotes merely
the exercise of proprietary functions and thus considered as optional. The functions of providing water supply and
sewerage service are regarded as mere optional functions of government even though the service rendered caters to
the community as a whole and the goal is for the general interest of society.
The NIA was not created for purposes of local government. While it may be true that the NIA was
essentially a service agency of the government aimed at promoting public interest and public welfare, such fact does
not make the NIA essentially and purely a government-function corporation. NIA was created for the purpose of
constructing, improving, rehabilitating, and administering all national irrigation systems in the Philippines, including
all communal and pump irrigation projects. Certainly, the state and the community as a whole are largely benefited
by the services the agency renders, but these functions are only incidental to the principal aim of the agency, which is
the irrigation of lands.
The NIA is a government agency with a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government. It is
not a mere agency of the government but a corporate body performing proprietary functions. Therefore, it may be
held liable for the damages caused by the negligent act of its driver who was not its special agent.
40
Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs. Commission onAudit (2011) [Vital Role of the Youth]
Petition: petition for prohibition with preliminaryinjunction and temporary restraining order
Petitioner: Boy Scouts of the Philippines
Respondent: Commission on Audit
Ponencia: Leonardo-De Castro
DOCTRINE: An institution that molds and prepares the youth tobecome model citizens and outstanding leaders of thecountry
through lessons in patriotism, civicconsciousness and moral values, ultimately redounds tothe benefit of public welfare and the
state. Theaforementioned functions are undeniably sovereignfunctions enshrined under the Art. II- Sec. 13 of theConstitution
FACTS:
-The BSP is a public corporation created under Commonwealth Act No. 111 dated October 31, 1936,and whose functions relate to
the fostering of publicvirtues of citizenship and patriotism and the generalimprovement of the moral spirit and fiber of the youth.-On
Aug 19, 1999, COA issued Resolution No. 99-011"Defining the Commission's policy with respect to theaudit of the Boy Scouts of the
Philippines" whichprovides for the conduction of an annual financial auditof the Boy Scouts of the Phil. and the expression of
anopinion on the fairness of their financial statements. The BSP shall also be classified among the governmentcorporations
belonging to the Educational, Social,Scientific, Civic and Research Sector.- The COA resolution stated that the BSP was createdas
a public corporation under Commonwealth Act No.111 and is a government-controlled corporation. The COA Resolution also cited
its constitutional mandateunder Section 2 (1), Article IX (D).-On Nov. 26, 1999, the BSP National President Jejomar Binay sought
reconsideration of the resolution statingthat the BSP is not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction because it is not a unit of the
government.Moreover, RA 7278 virtually eliminated the "substantialgovernment participation" in the National ExecutiveBoard and
that the BSP is not as a governmentinstrumentality under the 1987 Administrative Codewhich provides that instrumentality refers to
"any agencyof the National Government, not integrated within thedepartment framework, vested with special functions or
jurisdiction by law.-On July 3, 2000, Director Sunico, Corporate AuditOfficer of the COA, furnished the BSP with a copy of the
Memorandum that opined that the substantialgovernment participation is only one (1) of the three (3)grounds relied upon by the
Court in the resolution of thecase. Other considerations include the character of theBSP's purposes and functions which has a
public aspectand the statutory designation of the BSP as a "publiccorporation". On the argument that BSP is not "agovernment
instrumentality" and "agency" of thegovernment, the Supreme Court has elucidated thismatter in the BSP vs NLRC case when it
declared thatBSP is both a "government-controlled corporation withan original charter" and as an "instrumentality" of
theGovernment.-Upon the BSP's request, the audit was deferred for thirty (30) days. The BSP then filed a Petition for Prohibition
with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order before the COA.
ISSUES: W/N the BSP is a public corporation and is subject to COAs audit jurisdiction.
PROVISIONS:
-Commonwealth Act No. 111 (Boy Scout Charter), or An Act to Create a Public Corporation to be Known asthe Boy Scouts of the
Philippines, and to Define itsPowers and Purposes: Section 3.The purpose of thiscorporation shall be to promote, through
organization,and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boysto do things for themselves and others, to train them
inscoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods whichare now in common
use by boy scouts.Section 2(1), Article IX-D of the Constitution provides that COA shall have the power, authority, and duty toexamine, audit and settle
all accounts pertaining to therevenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or
pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions,agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original chartersART II- Section 13 of the Constitution . The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-buildingand shall promote and
protect their physical, moral,spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shallinculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism,
andencourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.
Article 44 of the Civil Code:
The following are juridical persons:(1)The State and its political subdivisions;(2)
Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose created by law; their personality begins as soon as they
have beenconstituted according to law ;(3)Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose
to which the law grants a juridical personality, separate and distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or member
41
RULING + RATIO:
Yes. BSP is a public corporation andits funds are subject to the COA's audit jurisdiction.The BSP is a public corporation whose
functions relateto the fostering of public virtues of citizenship andpatriotism and the general improvement of the moralspirit and fiber
of the youth. The functions of the BSPinclude, among others, the teaching to the youth of patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and
kindred virtues,are undeniably sovereign functions enshrined under theConstitution. Any attempt to classify the BSP as aprivate
corporation would be incomprehensible since noless than the law which created it had designated it as apublic corporation and its
statutory mandate embracesperformance of sovereign functions. The manner of creation and the purpose for which the BSP was
createdindubitably prove that it is a government agency.Moreover, there are three classes of juridical personsunder Article 44 of the
Civil Code and the BSP, aspresently constituted under Republic Act No. 7278, fallsunder the second classification .The purpose of
the BSP as stated in its amended charter shows that it was created in order to implement a Statepolicy declared in Article II, Section
13 of theConstitution.Evidently, the BSP, which was created by a special lawto serve a public purpose in pursuit of a
constitutionalmandate, comes within the class of "public corporations"defined by paragraph 2, Article 44 of the Civil Code
andgoverned by the law which creates it.
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE , premises considered,the instant petition for prohibition is
DISMISSED
.
42
43
The fact that a private corporation is impressed with public interest does not make the entity a public corporation.
They may be considered quasi-public corporations which areprivate corporations that render public service, supply
public wants and pursue other exemplary objectives. The true criterion to determine whether a corporation is public
or private is found in the totality of the relation of the corporate to the State. It is public if it is created by the latters own
agency or instrumentality, otherwise, it is private.
44