Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

The BSP was created by CA No.

111 “to promote… the ability of boys to do useful “Indeed, the BSP performs functions which may be classified as
things for themselves and others, … and to inculcate in them patriotism, civic public in character, in the sense that it promotes virtues of
consciousness and responsibility, courage, self-reliance, discipline and kindred citizenship and patriotism and the general improvement of the
virtues, and moral values, using the method which are in common use by boy moral spirit and fiber of our youth. However, this fact alone does
scouts.” BSP is not anymore a GOCC. The National Executive Board of BSP no not automatically make the BSP a GOCC. Significantly, the Court
longer consists of several Cabinet Secretaries, except the Secretary of Education, declared in Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
under RA 7278. COA asserts jurisdiction over BSP contending that it is still a Animals v. Commission on Audit,27the fact that a certain juridical
government agency. Is BSP still an “instrumentality” of the government and entity is impressed with public interest does not, by that
therefore under COA’s jurisdiction? circumstance alone, make the entity a public corporation,
inasmuch as a corporation may be private although its charter
BSP’s contention: contains provisions of a public character, incorporated solely for
1. Control Test the public good.”
a. The government does not own the BSP.
“BSP is a non-stock and non-profit organization composed 2. Economic Viability Test
almost entirely of members coming from the private sector, “The fact that a certain juridical entity is impressed with public interest does
more particularly boys ranging from ages four (known as KID not, by that circumstance alone, make the entity a public corporation,
Scouts) to seventeen (known as SENIOR Scouts). The BSP is one inasmuch as a corporation may be private although its charter contains
of the largest Scout organizations in the world today (after provisions of a public character, incorporated solely for the public
Gerakan Pramuka of Indonesia and the Boy Scouts of America, good.36 Neither does administrative relationship to the government indicate
first and second, respectively) and is one of the worlds National that an entity is an instrumentality within the purview of the COAs audit
Scout Associations having the highest penetration rate (Scout jurisdiction. Only corporations controlled and owned by the government,
density), with one Scout out of two boys of Scouting age enrolled which are subject to the test of economic viability, and government
in the Scouting program.14 Since the BSP is composed almost instrumentalities, as defined by the Administrative Code, fall under COAs
entirely of members and officers from the private sector, the BSP audit jurisdiction. The BSP is neither; hence, it is beyond the COAs audit
is clearly not owned by the government.” jurisdiction.”

b. The government does not control the BSP. Not all corporations, which are NOT government owned or controlled, are ipso
“There is absolutely nothing which demonstrates that the facto to be considered private corporations as there exists another distinct class
President of the Philippines exercises control over the acts or of corporations or chartered institutions which are otherwise known as “public
decisions of the BSPs National Executive Board or any of its corporations.” These corporations are treated by law as agencies or
members.” instrumentalities of the government which are not subject to the tests of
ownership or control and economic viability but to different criteria relating to
c. The funds of the BSP are private in nature. their public purposes/interests or constitutional policies and objects and their
“BSPs properties are being managed and operated by the BSP administrative relationship to the government or any of its Departments or
itself, not by the government or any of its agencies. Therefore, it Offices.
is crystal-clear that the funds of the BSP come from private
sources. As such, the BSP funds are necessarily beyond the Economic Viability and Ownership and Control Test are inapplicable to Public
jurisdiction of the COA, which exclusively audits public funds and Corporations.
assets.”
 We can look at the purpose of the creation of a corporation but we
d. Public purpose of BSP is not determinative of status. can’t just look at that anymore because nowadays created to
promote interest, good or convenience of the public. So the true
criteria in determining whether a corporation is public or private is  There is decentralization of administration when the central
found in the totality of the relation of the corporation to the State. government delegates administrative powers to political
If the corporation is created by the State as the latter’s own agency subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and
or instrumentality to help it in carrying out its governmental in the process to make local governments “more responsive and
functions, then that corporation is considered public; otherwise it is accountable,” and “ensure their fullest development as self-reliant
private. communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit
 Applying the above test, provinces, chartered cities, and barangays of national development and progress.”
can best exemplify public corporations. They are created by the state
as its own device and agency for the accomplishment of parts of its Local autonomy is a concept, and not a rule. It means that it will not be used to
own public works. determine the validity of an act.
 Now, however, the BSP and the GSP have been classified as a “sui
generis” GOCC by the Governance Commission through If there are rules available, the rules will prevail. If none, then maybe local
Memorandum Order No. 2013-42. The issue now is whether this autonomy will be used.
administrative Memorandum has altered the character of BSP.
Pimentel v. Ochoa
Decentralization of power
 Whether an act is permissible or not Tension
 Decentralizing policies  The affirmation that the Philippines is still a unitary government and
 Involves an abdication of political power in favor of local the guarantee that LGUs shall enjoy local autonomy create a tension
government units declared to be autonomous. In that case, the between the national government and the local governments.
autonomous government is free to chart its own destiny and shape
its future with minimum intervention from central authorities Magtajas case:
(Limbona v. Mangelin)  The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not
contravene a statute is obvious. Municipal governments are only
Decentralization of administration agents of the national government. Local councils exercise only
 Devolving functional powers delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the
national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to the
Administrative Powers or Political Powers? principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter.
 What is the kind of decentralization adopted or practiced in the  Casino – a congressional allowed activity
Philippines?  Congress retains control of the local government unit, though lesser
 Pimentel v. Aguirre: Under the Philippine concept of local na
autonomy, the national government has not completely Lina, Jr. Case
relinquished all its powers over local governments, including  Ours is still a unitary form of government, not a federal state. Being
autonomous regions. Only administrative powers over local affairs so, any form of autonomy granted to local governments will
are delegated to political subdivisions. Thus, policy-setting for the necessarily be limited and confined within the extent allowed by the
entire country still lies in the President and Congress. central authority.
LLDA vs. CA
Local Autonomy  The power of the Authority to grant permit for fishpens, fishcages
 Limbona v. Mangelin: Now, autonomy is either decentralization of and other aqua-culture structures is for the purpose of effectively
administration or decentralization of power. regulating and monitoring activities in the Laguna de Bay region. It
does partake of the nature of police power which is the most
pervasive, the least limitable and the most demanding of all State
powers including the power of taxation. Accordingly, the charter of
the Authority which embodies a valid exercise of police power Kinds of Cities:
should prevail over the Local Government Code of 1991 on matters 1. Component Cities – not qualified to be highly urbanized; inhabitants can
affecting Laguna de Bay. vote for provincial candidates and can run for provincial elective posts =
 LLDA was created for purposes of regulating the activities of Laguna under the supervisory power of the province
de Bay and was created before the LGC. 2. Independent Component City – independent in the sense that the
 LLDA issued cease and desist orders to the municipalities for charter prohibits the voters from voting for provincial elective posts =
encroaching their powers. outside the supervisory power of province (Abella v. COMELEC)
 LGC says they now have the power to issue permits because of LGC 3. Highly Urbanized City – independent from province by reason of
of 1991 as it expressly grants them the power to issue fishing status/income = outside the supervisory power of the province
permits/licenses.
 Superseded the power: Special Law vs. General Law  Special law Abella vs. COMELEC
(LLDA) prevails  The phrase “shall not be qualified and entitled to vote in the election
 LLDA’s power is regulatory (police power) while the LGC’s power is of the provincial governor and the members of the provincial board
revenue raising, for purposes of taxation of the Province of Leyte” as found in the Charter of Ormoc City
connotes two prohibitions:
Tano v. Socrates 1. From running for provincial elective posts
 The centerpiece of LGC is the system of decentralization as expressly 2. From voting for provincial candidates
mandated by the Constitution. Indispensable to decentralization is
devolution. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the Mandaue City – classified as highly urbanized only on 1991
power shall be interpreted in favor of the local government unit
concerned. Section 452. Highly Urbanized Cities. Qualified voters of cities who acquired the
right to vote for elective provincial officials prior to the classification of said cities
Imbong v. Ochoa – Local Autonomy as highly-urbanized after the ratification of the Constitution and before the
effectivity of this Code, shall continue to exercise such right.
A law was passed calling for the abolition of barangays. Is the unconstitutional?
Why or why not? Vested Right Theory:

Sec. 12 Art. X, 1987 Constitution – Cities that are highly urbanized, as


This law contravenes Sec 1 of Article 10 of the 1987 Constitution because
determined by law, and component cities whose charters prohibit their voters
barangays are mandated by the Constitution to exist. However, this does not
preclude from abolishing a specific barangay, provided the requirements are from voting for provincial elective officials, shall be independent of the province.
present. The voters of component cities within a province, whose charters contain no
such prohibition, shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective provincial
Territorial and Political Subdivsions: officials.

Special Metropolitan Political Subdivisions


Regular LGUs Provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays
Autonomous Regions Muslim Mindanao and Cordilleras  Created by Congress and requires plebiscite
Special LGUs Special Metropolitan Political Subdivisions  The component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic
autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executives
Cordilleras – not a political subdivision but an administrative region because they
were not created pursuant to law but created upon presidential issuances. Helps MMDA v. Bel-Air Village
the government function at a local level
 MMDA is not a local government unit. It is not even a special Umali v. Comelec
metropolitan political subdivision because there was no plebiscite
While conversion to an HUC is not explicitly provided in the Consti, the
held after the law that created it was enacted and the President
conversion of a component city into an HUC is substantaial alteration of
exercise not just supervision but control over it.
boundaries. As the phrase implies, “substantial alteration of boundaries”
 MMDA has purely administrative function.
involves and necessarily entails a change in the geographical configuration of a
 MMDA is not a political subdivision, it cannot exercise political
local government unit or units. The phrase “boundaries” should not be limited
power like police power.
to the mere physical one, referring to the metes and bounds of the LGU, but also
 2 Reasons why: No Plebiscite was conducted and Not intended to be
to its political boundaries.
a political subdivision and the President has complete supervision
over MMDA The COMELEC can postpone the holding of a Plebiscite (and election) to
another date
Loose Federation of LGUs
 LGUs may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, The COMELEC has “exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of
services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them in all laws relative to the condict
accordance with law. (Sec. 13, Art. X, Constitution)
 How?
1. Through Ordinances,
2. Upon approval by the Sanggunian concerned, after lawful hearing,
contribute funds and assets through MOA (Sec. 33, LGU)

May this federation or consolidation of local government units enter into


contracts? If yes, how may the federation or consolidation of LGUs enter into
contracts? Under what name?

 The resultant consolidation would not be a separate body.

City of Paranaque vs. Katipunan ng mga Mamamayan ng Bagong Paranaque

There was an ordinance that substantially changed the boundaries of a


barangay. Thus a plebiscite is required.

In 1998, by virtue of RA No. 8528, the City of Santiago, Isabela was converted
from an independent component city to a component city. The consititutionality
of RA No. 8528 was assailed on the ground of lack of provision in the said law
submitting the same for ratification by the people of Santiago City in a proper
plebiscite. The issue was whether the downgrading of Santiago City from an
independent component city to ma mere component requires the approval of
the people of Santiago City. Decide.

Plebiscite will only be in the city concerned.

Оценить