Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

V.

Intergovernmental Relations

A. With the National Government and its Agencies

Question:

Can a Local Government Unit prohibit through an ordinance the issuance of a business permit
and cancel existing business permit to establishment for the operation of a business which is
authorized by the National Government to operate?

Suggested Answer:

NO. The ordinance enacted is invalid. Ordinances should not contravene a statute. Municipal
governments are merely agents of the National Government. Local Councils exercise only
delegated powers conferred by Congress. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal
powers higher than those of the latter. There is a law which authorized casino gambling. As a
statute, it cannot be amended/nullified by a mere ordinance.

It is a heresy to suggest that the local government units can undo the acts of Congress, from
which they have derived their power in the first place, and negate by mere ordinance the
mandate of the statute.

This basic relationship between the national legislature and the local government units has not
been enfeebled by the new provisions in the Constitution strengthening the policy of local
autonomy. Without meaning to detract from that policy, we here confirm that Congress retains
control of the local government units although in significantly reduced degree now than under
our previous Constitutions. The power to create still includes the power to destroy. The power to
grant still includes the power to withhold or recall. True, there are certain notable innovations in
the Constitution, like the direct conferment on the local government units of the power to tax,
which cannot now be withdrawn by mere statute. By and large, however, the national legislature
is still the principal of the local government units, which cannot defy its will or modify or violate
it.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court (MAGTAJAS VS. PRYCE PROPERTIES, G.R. No.
111097, July 20, 1994) it was held that the power of PAGCOR to centralize and regulate all
games of chance, including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines, remains unimpaired. P.D. 1869 has not been modified by the Local Government
Code, which empowers the local government units to prevent or suppress only those forms of
gambling prohibited by law.

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.

In another case decided by the Supreme Court (LINA VS. PANO, G.R. No. 129093, August 30,
2001) it was held that as a policy statement expressing the local government’s objection to the
lotto, such resolution is valid. This is part of the local government’s autonomy to air its views
which may be contrary to that of the national government’s. However, this freedom to exercise
contrary views does not mean that local governments may actually enact ordinances that go
against laws duly enacted by Congress. Given this premise, the assailed resolution in this case
could not and should not be interpreted as a measure or ordinance prohibiting the operation of
lotto in our system of government, the power of local government units to legislate and enact
ordinances and resolutions is merely a delegated power coming from Congress.

Question:

What is the duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological Balance

Suggested Answer:

It shall be the duty of every national agency or government-owned or -controlled corporation


authorizing or involved in the planning and implementation of any project or program that may
cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of cropland,
rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant species, to consult with the local
government units, nongovernmental organizations, and other sectors concerned and explain
the goals and objectives of the project or program, its impact upon the people and the
community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the measures that will be
undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects thereof. (Section 26, Local Government
Code)

Question:

Does Prior Consultations Required before a project or program be implemented by government


authorities

Suggested Answer:

Yes. Prior consultations are required before a project or program is implemented by


government entitiies.

The law provides that no project or program shall be implemented by government authorities
unless the national agencies and offices conduct periodic consultations with appropriate local
government units, nongovernmental and people’s organizations, and other concerned sectors
of the community before any project or program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions
and it shall be the duty of every national agency or government-owned or -controlled
corporation authorizing or involved in the planning and implementation of any project or
program that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss
of cropland, rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant species, to consult with
the local government units, nongovernmental organizations, and other sectors concerned and
explain the goals and objectives of the project or program, its impact upon the people and the
community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the measures that will be
undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects, and prior approval of the sanggunian
concerned is obtained: Provided, That occupants in areas where such projects are to be
implemented shall not be evicted unless appropriate relocation sites have been provided, in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. (Section 2 (c), 26 & 27, Local Government
Code)

Question:

In Budgeting of a Local Government Unit which agency review the Appropriation Ordinances of:

a. Provinces, Highly-Urbanized Cities, Independent Component Cities, and Municipalities


within the Metropolitan Manila Area

b. Component Cities and Municipalities

c. Barangays

Suggested Answer:

a. The Department of Budget and Management shall review ordinances authorizing the annual
or supplemental appropriations of provinces, highly-urbanized cities, independent
component cities, and municipalities within the Metropolitan Manila Area in accordance with
the immediately succeeding section. (Section 326, Local Government Unit)

b. The sangguniang panlalawigan shall review the ordinance authorizing annual or


supplemental appropriations of component cities and municipalities in the same manner and
within the same period prescribed for the review of other ordinances. (Section 326, Local
Government Unit)

c. Within ten (10) days from its approval, copies of the barangay ordinance authorizing the
annual appropriations shall be furnished the sangguniang panlungsod or the sangguniang
bayan, as the case may be, through the city or municipal budget officer. The sanggunian
concerned shall have the power to review such ordinance in order to ensure that the
provisions of this Title V of R.A. 7160 are complied with. (Section 333, Local Government
Unit)
Question:

The position of City Treasurer became vacant. The Mayor appointed the Assistant Treasurer as
the new City Treasurer, Is the appointement valid?

Suggested Answer:

No. The appointment is not valid.

The law provides that the treasurer shall be appointed by the Secretary of Finance from a list of
at least three (3) ranking eligible recommendees of the governor or mayor, as the case may be,
subject to civil service law, rules and regulations. (Section 470, Local Government Code)

In this case, the appointment was made by the Mayor and not by the Secretary of Finance,
therefore it is contrary to the provision of the law.

Therefore the appointment is not valid.

Question:

How much Internal Revenue Allotment a Local Government Unit is required to appropriate for
Local Development Projects

Suggested Answer:

Each local government unit shall appropriate in its annual budget no less than twenty percent
(20%) of its annual internal revenue allotment for development projects. Copies of the
development plans of local government units shall be furnished the Department of Interior and
Local Government. (Section 287, Local Government Code)

Question:

There was a vacancy in the position of chief of police in Cebu. The regional director of the Cebu
police X submitted a list of 5 eligible appointees to the position to the mayor of Cebu. However,
the mayor refused to appoint one because he wanted a certain Y, who was not on the list due to
being disqualified. RTC ruled in favor of the mayor, granting the appointment of Y. Can the
mayor require the Regional Director to include the mayor’s protégé in the list?

Suggested Answer

No. The mayor has no power of appointment, and has only the limited power of selecting one
from among the list of 5 eligibles to be named chief of police. The mayor cannot require the
Regional Director to include the name of any officer, no matter how qualified, in the list.

The law provides (Section 51, Republic Act No. 6975), the mayor of Cebu City shall be
deputized as representative of the Commission (National Police Commission) in his territorial
jurisdiction and as such the mayor shall have authority to choose the chief of police from a list of
five (5) eligibles recommended by the Police Regional Director. The City Police Station of Cebu
City is under the direct command and control of the PNP Regional Director, Regional Police
Command No. 7, and is equivalent to a provincial office. Then, the Regional Director, Regional
Police Command No. 7 appoints the officer selected by the mayor as the City Director, City
Police Command (chief of police) Cebu City. It is the prerogative of the Regional Police Director
to name the five (5) eligibles from a pool of eligible officers screened by the Senior Officers
Promotion and Selection Board, Headquarters, Philippine National Police, Camp Crame,
Quezon City, without interference from local executives. In case of disagreement between the
Regional Police Director and the Mayor, the question shall be elevated to the Regional Director,
National Police Commission, who shall resolve the issue within five (5) working days from
receipt and whose decision on the choice of the Chief of Police shall be final and executory. As
deputy of the Commission, the authority of the mayor is very limited. In reality, he has no power
of appointment; he has only the limited power of selecting one from among the list of five
eligibles to be named the chief of police. Actually, the power to appoint the chief of police of
Cebu City is vested in the Regional Director, Regional Police Command No. 7. Much less may
the mayor require the Regional Director, Regional Police Command, to include the name of any
officer, no matter how qualified, in the list of five to be submitted to the mayor. The purpose is to
enhance police professionalism and to isolate the police service from political domination.
(ANDAYA VS. RTC, G.R. No. 126661, December 3, 1999)
Question:

On December 7, 2000, the City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8040 entitled An
Ordinance Authorizing the Conferment of Exemplary Public Service Award to Elective Local
Officials of Manila Who Have Been Elected for Three (3) Consecutive Terms in the Same
Position. On August 8, 2005, Atty. Gabriel J. Espina (Atty. Espina), Supervising Auditor of the
City of Manila, issued Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) No. 2005-100(05)07(05) stating
that Ordinance No. 8040 is without legal basis and the amount granted as monetary reward is
excessive and tantamount to double compensation. After evaluation of the AOM, the Director,
Legal and Adjudication Office (LAO)-Local of the COA issued a Notice of Disallowance.

The COA opined that the monetary reward under the EPSA is covered by the term
“compensation.” Though it recognizes the local autonomy of LGUs, it emphasized the limitations
thereof set forth in the Salary Standardization Law (SSL). It explained that the SSL does not
authorize the grant of such monetary reward or gratuity. It also stressed the absence of a
specific law passed by Congress which ordains the conferment of such monetary reward or
gratuity to the former councilors.

Does Manila Ordinance No. 8040, which authorized the conferment to the former three-term
councilors retirement and gratuity pay remuneration, a valid exercise of the powers of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod?

Suggested Answer:

No. Section 458 of RA 7160 defines the power, duties, functions and compensation of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod and in the exercise of this power, the City Council of Manila enacted
on Ordinance No. 8040. However, the above power is not without limitations. These limitations
are embodied in Section 81 of RA 7160. Moreover, the IRR of RA 7160 reproduced the
Constitutional provision that “no elective or appointive local official or employee shall receive
additional, double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept
without the consent of the Congress, any present, emoluments, office, or title of any kind from
any foreign government.”

Undoubtedly, the computation of the awardees' reward is excessive and tantamount to double
and additional compensation. This cannot be justified by the mere fact that the awardees have
been elected for three (3) consecutive terms in the same position. Neither can it be justified that
the reward is given as a gratuity at the end of the last term of the qualified elective official. The
fact remains that the remuneration is equivalent to everything that the awardees received during
the entire period that he served as such official. Indirectly, their salaries and benefits are
doubled, only that they receive half of them at the end of their last term. (Veloso, et al. vs. COA,
G.R. No. 193677, September 16, 2011)

Question:

In 2007, the DSWD embarked on a poverty reduction strategy with the poorest of the poor as
target beneficiaries.Dubbed "Ahon Pamilyang Pilipino," it was pre-pilot tested in the
municipalities of Sibagat and Esperanza in Agusan del Sur; the municipalities of Lopez Jaena
and Bonifacio in Misamis Occidental, the Caraga Region; and the cities of Pasay and Caloocan
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 AO 16, series of 2008, setting the implementing guidelines
for the project renamed "Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program" (4Ps), also referred to as
Conditional Cash Transfer Program (CCTP), which provides cash grants to extreme poor
households to allow the members of the families to meet certain human development goals.”
Eligible households selected from priority target areas are granted health and education benefits
for a total annual subsidy of P15k.

AO 16 also institutionalized a coordinated inter-agency network among DepEd, DOH, DILG, the
National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) and LGUs. DSWD as lead implementing agency
“oversees and coordinates the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the program” while
the LGU is responsible for the availability of health and education supply, and providing
technical assistance for the Program implementation, among others. DSWD executed MOAs
with each participating LGUs to outline the obligation of both parties during the 5-year
implementation period. Congress then provided funding for the project as follows: P298K in
2008, P5 Billion in 2009, P10 Billion in 2010, and P21 Billion in 2011.
Is the CCTP budget allocation under the DSWD violates Article II, Sec. 25 and Article X, Sec. 3
of the 1987 Constitution in relation to Sec. 17 of the LGC of 1991 by providing for the
recentralization of the National Government in the delivery of basic services already devolved to
the LGUs

Suggested Answer:

No, it does not violates the cited provisions of the Constitution and the Local Government Code.

The LGC does not imply a complete relinquishment of central government powers on the matter
of providing basic facilities and services. The national government is 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.

The petitioners argued that the manner by which CCTP is implemented is questionable. It is the
LGU’s responsibility to deliver social welfare, agriculture, and health care services. Giving
DSWD full control over the identification of beneficiaries and the manner by which services are
to be delivered or conditionalities are to be complied with would have enhanced its delivery of
basic services. This results in the "recentralization" of basic government functions”, which is
contrary to the precepts of local autonomy and the avowed policy of decentralization.

While the aforementioned provision 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)
of the same provision provides a categorical exception of cases involving nationally funded
projects, facilities, programs and services. 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. xxx The 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. (Pimentel vs. Ochoa, GR No. 195770, July 17, 2012)

B. LGU and the Supreme Court

Question:

Can the Supreme Court declare the Ordinance of a Local Government Unit invalid?

Suggested Answer:

Yes, the Supreme Court can declare the Ordinance of a Local Government Unit invalid.

The Constitution provides that all cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or
executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other
cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those
involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations,
orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of
a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case
and voted thereon. (Section 4 (2), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)

C. LGU and the President

Question:

Give at least three provisions in the Constitution reflecting the power of supervision of the
President over the LGUs.

Suggested Answer:

The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments.
Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with
respect to component barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within
the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. (Section 4, Article X, 1987 Constitution)
The President shall provide for regional development councils or other similar bodies composed
of local government officials, regional heads of departments and other government offices, and
representatives from non-governmental organizations within the regions for purposes of
administrative decentralization to strengthen the autonomy of the units therein and to accelerate
the economic and social growth and development of the units in the region. (Section 14, Article
X, 1987, Constitution)

The President shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that the
laws are faithfully executed. (Section 16, Article X, 1987 Constitution)

Question:

What powers does the President have over the autonomous regions?

Suggested Answer

The President shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that the
laws are faithfully executed. (Section 16, Article X, 1987 Consitution)

The President of the Republic shall exercise general supervision over the Regional Governor to
ensure that his or her acts are within the scope of his or her powers and functions.

The President may suspend, reduce, or cancel the financial blocks or grants-in-aid, funds for
infrastructure, and other forms of assistance intended for the autonomous region (1) if the
regional government fails to account for the funds and financial assistance released to it by the
central government or national government, within one month from the end of every quarter in
which the funds and financial assistance had been released or (2) when measures for the
protection and enhancement of the civil, human, political or religious rights of the lumads,
Christians and other minorities in the autonomous region ordained by the Constitution and this
Organic Act, are not respected or are violated or are not implemented within one (1) year from
its enactment.

The President may suspend the Regional Governor for a period not exceeding six (6) months
for willful violation of the Constitution, this Organic Act or any existing law that applies to the
autonomous region. (Section 1, Article V, R.A. 9054)

Question:

The Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon, pursuant to the authority granted upon him by Section
187 of the Local Government Code (LGC) and upon appeal of concerned parties, declared the
Manila Revenue Code null and void for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure in the
enactment of local tax ordinance and for containing provisions contrary to law and public policy.
Is this an exercise of power of control over the Local Government Unit?

Suggested Answer:

No. The power of control encompasses the power to lay down the rules in the accomplishment
of an act.

Where the Secretary of Justice reviews, pursuant to law, a tax measure enacted by a lgu to
determine if the officials performed their functions in accordance with law, i.e. with the
prescribed procedure for the enactment of tax ordinances and the grant of powers under the
LGC, the same is an act of mere supervision, not control.

Section 187 authorizes the Secretary of Justice to review only the constitutionality or legality of
the tax ordinance and, if warranted, to revoke it on either or both of these grounds. When he
alters or modifies or sets aside a tax ordinance, he is not also permitted to substitute his own
judgment for the judgment of the local government that enacted the measure. Secretary Drilon
did set aside the Manila Revenue Code, but he did not replace it with his own version of what
the Code should be. He did not pronounce the ordinance unwise or unreasonable as a basis for
its annulment. He did not say that in his judgment it was a bad law. What he found only was that
it was illegal. All he did in reviewing the said measure was determine if the petitioners were
performing their functions in accordance with law, that is, with the prescribed procedure for the
enactment of tax ordinances and the grant of powers to the city government under the Local
Government Code. As we see it, that was an act not of control but of mere supervision.
An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. If they are not followed, he may,
in his discretion, order the act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even decide to
do it himself. Supervision does not cover such authority. The supervisor or superintendent
merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor
does he have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, he may
order the work done or re-done but only to conform to the prescribed rules. He may not
prescribe his own manner for the doing of the act. He has no judgment on this matter except to
see to it that the rules are followed. In the opinion of the Court, Secretary Drilon did precisely
this, and no more nor less than this, and so performed an act not of control but of mere
supervision. (DRILON VS. LIM, G.R. No. 112497, August 4, 1994)

Question:

X, after having been issued three successive 60-day of suspension order by Secretary of Local
Government, filed a petition for prohibition with the CA to bar the Secretary from implementing
the said orders. X was faced with 10 administrative complaints on various charges on abuse of
authority and grave misconduct.

Can the Secretary of Local Government (as the alter ego of the President) has the authority to
remove local officials.

Suggested Answer:

No. The Secretary of Local Government (as the alter ego of the President) has the authority to
remove local officials.

The law provides that an elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds
enumerated in Section 60 of the Local Government Code by order of the proper court.

Question:

In 1995, the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an examination and audit on the manner
the local government units (LGUs) utilized their Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for the
calendar years 1993-1994. The examination yielded an official report, showing that a
substantial... portion of the 20% development fund of some LGUs was not actually utilized for
development projects but was diverted to expenses properly chargeable against the
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE), in stark violation of Section 287 of R.A.
No. 7160, otherwise known... as the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC).

December 14, 1995, the DILG issued MC No. 95-216,[5] enumerating the policies and
guidelines on the utilization of the development fund component of the IRA. It likewise carried a
reminder to LGUs of the... strict mandate to ensure that public funds, like the 20% development
fund, "shall be spent judiciously and only for the very purpose or purposes for which such funds
are intended."

On September 20, 2005, then DILG Secretary Angelo T. Reyes and Department of Budget and
Management Secretary Romulo L. Neri issued Joint MC No. 1, series of 2005,[7] pertaining to
the guidelines on the appropriation and utilization of the 20% of the IRA for... development
projects, which aims to enhance accountability of the LGUs in undertaking development
projects. The said memorandum circular underscored that the 20% of the IRA intended for
development projects should be utilized for social development, economic development and...
environmental management.[8]

On August 31, 2010, the respondent, in his capacity as DILG Secretary, issued the assailed MC
No. 2010-83,[9] entitled "Full Disclosure of Local Budget and Finances, and Bids and Public
Offerings," which aims to promote good governance through enhanced... transparency and
accountability of LGUs.

Is there any violation of the principles of local and fiscal autonomy enshrined in the Constitution
and the LGC in the issuance of the memorandum circulars?

Suggested Answer:

No. The assailed memorandum circulars do not transgress the local and fiscal autonomy
granted to LGUs.
The Constitution has expressly adopted the policy of ensuring the autonomy of LGUs. To
highlight its significance, the entire Article X of the Constitution was devoted to laying down the
bedrock upon which this policy is anchored.

It is also pursuant to the mandate of the Constitution of enhancing local autonomy that the LGC
was enacted.

Verily, local autonomy means a more responsive and accountable local government structure
instituted through a system of decentralization.

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." At the same time, it relieves the central
government of the burden of managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate on national
concerns.

Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of political power in the
favor of local government 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.

To safeguard the state policy on local autonomy, the Constitution confines the power of the
President over LGUs to mere supervision. "The President exercises 'general supervision' over
them, but only to 'ensure that local affairs are administered according to law.' He has no control
over their acts in the sense that he can substitute their judgments with his own."[

At any rate, LGUs must be reminded that the local autonomy granted to them does not
completely severe them from the national government or turn them into impenetrable states.
Autonomy does not make local governments sovereign within the state.

Thus, notwithstanding the local fiscal autonomy being enjoyed by LGUs, they are still under the
supervision of the President and maybe held accountable for malfeasance or violations of
existing laws. "Supervision is not incompatible with discipline. And the power to discipline... and
ensure that the laws be faithfully executed must be construed to authorize the President to
order an investigation of the act or conduct of local officials when in his opinion the good of the
public service so requires."

A scrutiny of the contents of the mentioned issuances shows that they do not, in any manner,
violate the fiscal autonomy of LGUs. To be clear, "fiscal autonomy means that local
governments have the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to their
equitable... share in the national taxes released by the national government, as well as the
power to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities. It extends to the
preparation of their budgets, and local officials in turn have to work within the constraints...
thereof."

It is inconceivable, however, how the publication of budgets, expenditures, contracts and loans
and procurement plans of LGUs required in the assailed issuances could have infringed on the
local fiscal autonomy of LGUs. Firstly, the issuances do not interfere with the... discretion of the
LGUs in the specification of their priority projects and the allocation of their budgets. The
posting requirements are mere transparency measures which do not at all hurt the manner by
which LGUs decide the utilization and allocation of their funds. (Villafuerte vs. Robredo, G.R.
No. 195390, December 10, 2014)

Question:

What are the two levels of supervision that the President exercises according to the
Constitution?

Suggested Answer:

Section 4, Article X, 1987 Constitution and Section 25 of the Local Government Code recognize
two levels of “supervision” that the president exercises:

1. Direct
2. Indirect.
The President has “direct” supervision over Provinces, Highly-Urbanized Cities, and
Independent Component Cities.

The President has “indirect” supervision over component cities and municipalities (through the
Province) and barangays (through the Municipality or City)

These 2 levels can be illustrated in filing administrative complaints against erring local elective
officials:

Section 61. Form and Filing of Administrative Complaints. - A verified complaint against any
erring local elective official shall be prepared as follows:

a) A complaint against any elective official of a province, a highly urbanized city, an


independent component city or component city shall be filed before the Office of the
President;[direct supervision]

b) A complaint against any elective official of a municipality shall be filed before the
sangguniang panlalawigan whose decision maybe appealed to the Office of the
President; and[indirect supervision]

c) A complaint against any elective barangay official shall be filed before the sangguniang
panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned whose decision shall be final and
executory.

Question:

What is the distinction between Supervision and Control

Suggested Answer:

1. Supervision

a. It means the overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that the
subordinate officers perform their duties.

b. In relation to LGUS, the President only has the power of supervision over LGUS.
Thus, hevcannot interfere with the local governments as long as they act within the
scope of theirvauthority.

c. Under the LGC (§25), the President exercises direct supervision over provinces,
highlyvurbanized cities and independent component cities. He exercises indirect
supervision overvcomponent cities and municipalities through the provinces. He also
exercises indirectvsupervision over barangays through the city or municipality
concerned.

2. Control

a. It means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate officer has done in the performance of his/her duties and to substitute
the judgment of the former for that of the latter.

b. In relation to LGUs, it is Congress which exercises control over them.

D. LGU and Congress

Question:

What are the legislative powers granted to the autonomous region which it will exercise within
its territorial jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of the Constitution and national laws?

Suggested Answer:

Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national
laws, the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over:

(1) Administrative organization;


(2) Creation of sources of revenues;

(3) Ancestral domain and natural resources;

(4) Personal, family, and property relations;

(5) Regional urban and rural planning development;

(6) Economic, social, and tourism development;

(7) Educational policies;

(8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and

(9) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of
the people of the region. (Section 20, Article X, 1987 Constitution)

Question:

Do LGUs have inherent power?

Suggested Answer:

None. Congress enacted the LGC as the implementing law for the delegation to the various
LGUs of the State’s great powers, namely: the police power, the power of eminent domain, and
the power of taxation. The LGC was fashioned to delineate the specific parameters and
limitations to be complied with by each LGU in the exercise of these delegated powers with the
view of making each LGU a fully functioning subdivision of the State subject to the constitutional
and statutory limitations. (Legaspi v. City of Cebu, G.R. No. 159110, December 10, 2013)

Question:

On July 28, 1986, respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Resolution No. 210 granting
petitioner a permit to construct, install, and operate a CATV system in Batangas City. Section 8
of the Resolution provides that petitioner is authorized to charge its subscribers the maximum
rates specified therein, “provided, however, that any increase of rates shall be subject to the
approval of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.

Sometime in November 1993, petitioner increased its subscriber rates from P88.00 to P180.00
per month. As a result, respondent Mayor wrote petitioner a letter threatening to cancel its
permit unless it secures the approval of respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod, pursuant to
Resolution No. 210.

Petitioner then filed with the RTC, Branch 7, Batangas City, a petition for injunction alleging that
respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod has no authority to regulate the subscriber rates charged
by CATV operators because under Executive Order No. 205, the National Telecommunications
Commission (NTC) has the sole authority to regulate the CATV operation in the Philippines.

Respondents likewise argue that E.O. No. 205 violates the constitutional prohibition against
impairment of contracts, Resolution No. 210 of Batangas City Sangguniang Panlungsod being a
grant of franchise to petitioner.

Is the contention of the respondent that E.O. No. 205 violates the constitutional prohibition
against impairment of contracts valid?

Suggested Answer:

No. There is no law specifically authorizing the LGUs to grant franchises to operate CATV
system. Whatever authority the LGUs had before, the same had been withdrawn when
President Marcos issued P.D. No. 1512 "terminating all franchises, permits or certificates for the
operation of CATV system previously granted by local governments." Today, pursuant to
Section 3 of E.O. No. 436, "only persons, associations, partnerships, corporations or
cooperatives granted a Provisional Authority or Certificate of Authority by the NTC may install,
operate and maintain a cable television system or render cable television service within a
service area." It is clear that in the absence of constitutional or legislative authorization,
municipalities have no power to grant franchises.53 Consequently, the protection of the
constitutional provision as to impairment of the obligation of a contract does not extend to
privileges, franchises and grants given by a municipality in excess of its powers, or ultra vires.
E. With other LGUs

1. Mother LGUs and Component LGUs

Question:

Explain the pocess of the review of Component City and Municipal Ordinances or
Resolutions by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

Suggested Answer:

(a) Within three (3) days after approval, the secretary to the sangguniang panlungsod or
sangguniang bayan shall forward to the sangguniang panlalawigan for review, copies
of approved ordinances and the resolutions approving the local development plans and
public investment programs formulated by the local development councils.

(b) Within thirty (30) days after the receipt of copies of such ordinances and resolutions,
the sangguniang panlalawigan shall examine the documents or transmit them to the
provincial attorney, or if there be none, to the provincial prosecutor for prompt
examination. The provincial attorney or provincial prosecutor shall, within a period of
ten (10) days from receipt of the documents, inform the sangguniang panlalawigan in
writing of his comments or recommendations, which may be considered by the
sangguniang panlalawigan in making its decision.

(c) If the sangguniang panlalawigan finds that such an ordinance or resolution is beyond
the power conferred upon the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan
concerned, it shall declare such ordinance or resolution invalid in whole or in part. The
sangguniang panlalawigan shall enter its action in the minutes and shall advise the
corresponding city or municipal authorities of the action it has taken.

(d) If no action has been taken by the sangguniang panlalawigan within thirty (30) days
after submission of such an ordinance or resolution, the same shall be presumed
consistent with law and therefore valid. (Section 56, Local Government Code)

Question:

Explain the process of review of Barangay Ordinances by the Sangguniang Panlungsod or


Sangguniang Bayan

Suggested Answer:

(a) Within ten (10) days after its enactment, the sangguniang barangay shall furnish copies
of all barangay ordinances to the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan
concerned for review as to whether the ordinance is consistent with law and city or
municipal ordinances.

(b) If the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, fails to
take action on barangay ordinances within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, the
same shall be deemed approved.

(c) If the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, finds the
barangay ordinances inconsistent with law or city or municipal ordinances, the
sanggunian concerned shall, within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, return the
same with its comments and recommendations to the sangguniang barangay
concerned for adjustment, amendment, or modification; in which case, the effectivity of
the barangay ordinance is suspended until such time as the revision called for is
effected. (Section 57, Local Government Code)
Question:

Explain the process of review of Appropriation Ordinances of Component Cities and


Municipalities

Suggested Answer:

The sangguniang panlalawigan shall review the ordinance authorizing annual or


supplemental appropriations of component cities and municipalities in the same manner and
within the same period prescribed for the review of other ordinances.

If within ninety (90) days from receipt of copies of such ordinance, the sangguniang
panlalawigan takes no action thereon, the same shall be deemed to have been reviewed in
accordance with law and shall continue to be in full force and effect. If within the same
period, the sangguniang panlalawigan shall have ascertained that the ordinance authorizing
annual or supplemental appropriations has not complied with the requirements set forth in
this Title, the sangguniang panlalawigan shall, within the ninety-day period hereinabove
prescribed, declare such ordinance inoperative in its entirety or in part. Items of
appropriation contrary to limitations prescribed in this Title or in excess of the amounts
prescribed herein shall be disallowed or reduced accordingly.

The sangguniang panlalawigan shall, within the same period, advise the sangguniang
panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned, through the local chief executive, of any
action on the ordinance under review. Upon receipt of such advice, the city or municipal
treasurer concerned shall not make further disbursements of funds from any of the items of
appropriation declared inoperative, disallowed or reduced. (Section 327, Local Government
Code)

Question:

Explain the process of review of the Barangay Budget.

Suggested Answer:

(a) Within ten (10) days from its approval, copies of the barangay ordinance authorizing the
annual appropriations shall be furnished the sangguniang panlungsod or the
sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, through the city or municipal budget officer.
The sanggunian concerned shall have the power to review such ordinance in order to
ensure that the provisions of this Title are complied with. If within sixty (60) days after the
receipt of the ordinance, the sanggunian concerned takes no action thereon, the same
shall continue to be in full force and effect. If within the same period, the sanggunian
concerned shall have ascertained that the ordinance contains appropriations in excess
of the estimates of the income duly certified as collectible, or that the same has not
complied with the budgetary requirements set forth in this Title, the said ordinance shall
be declared inoperative in its entirety or in part. Items of appropriation contrary to, or in
excess of, any of the general limitations or the maximum amount prescribed in this Title
shall be disallowed or reduced accordingly.

(b) Within the period hereinabove fixed, the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan
concerned shall return the barangay ordinance, through the city or municipal budget
officer, to the punong barangay with the advice of action thereon for proper adjustments,
in which event, the barangay shall operate on the ordinance authorizing annual
appropriations of the preceding fiscal year until such time that the new ordinance
authorizing annual appropriations shall have met the objections raised. Upon receipt of
such advice, the barangay treasurer or the city or municipal treasurer who has custody
of the funds shall not make further disbursement from any item of appropriation declared
inoperative, disallowed, or reduced. (Section 333, Local Government Unit)

Question:

What is the relation of the Provincial Government with Component Cities and Municipalities

Suggested Answer:

The province, through the governor, shall ensure that every component city and municipality
within its territorial jurisdiction acts within the scope of its prescribed powers and functions.
Highly urbanized cities and independent component cities shall be independent of the
province. (Section 29, Local Government Code)
Question:

Explain the process of review of Executive Orders issued by the component city or municipal
mayor within his jurisdiction.

Suggested Answer:

(a) Except as otherwise provided under the Constitution and special statutes, the
governor shall review all executive orders promulgated by the component city or
municipal mayor within his jurisdiction. The city or municipal mayor shall review all
executive orders promulgated by the punong barangay within his jurisdiction. Copies
of such orders shall be forwarded to the governor or the city or municipal mayor, as
the case may be, within three (3) days from their issuance. In all instances of review,
the local chief executive concerned shall ensure that such executive orders are
within the powers granted by law and in conformity with provincial, city, or municipal
ordinances.

(b) If the governor or the city or municipal mayor fails to act on said executive orders
within thirty (30) days after their submission, the same shall be deemed consistent
with law and therefore valid. (Section 30, Local Government Code)

Question:

In the absence of a municipal legal officer where will municipal questions be submitted?

Suggested Answer:

In the absence of a municipal legal officer, the municipal government may secure the
opinion of the provincial legal officer, and in the absence of the latter, that of the provincial
prosecutor on any legal question affecting the municipality. (Section 31, Local Government
Code)

Question:

A municipality tried to expropriate a particular private land. Under the LGC of 1991,
expropriation is to be done by passing, among others, an ordinance, not mere resolution.
The ordinance must authorize the LCE to initiate expropriation proceeding. The private
owner resisted but he cannot convince the sangguniang bayan, however, he was able to
convince the provincial board because he had knowledge that an ordinance of a municipality
gets reviewed by the provincial board. Pag-abot sa provincial board, g-set aside ang
ordinance, wala gi-approve. What was the authority exercised by the municipality here, what
kind of power? Power to expropriate. What is the extent of the authority of a mother lgu
when it reviews the ordinance of a component lgu? Ultra vires acts, meaning, WON the
component lgu is exercising within the scope of its prescribed powers and functions. Does a
municipality have the power to expropriate?

Suggested Answer:

Yes, it has the power to expropriate. When it reaches the provincial board, it was
disapproved but it wasn’t because it was ultra vires and the provincial board cannot also say
that it was beyond the authority of the municipality concerned because the power involved is
within the power of a municipality to exercise.

2. Other LGUs

Question:

Can Local Government Units group themselves?

Suggested Answer:

Yes. Local government units may, through appropriate ordinances, group themselves,
consolidate, or coordinate their efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly
beneficial to them. In support of such undertakings, the local government units involved
may, upon approval by the sanggunian concerned after a public hearing conducted for the
purpose, contribute funds, real estate, equipment, and other kinds of property and appoint or
assign personnel under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the
participating local units through Memoranda of Agreement. (Section 33, Local Government
Code)

VI. Local Initiatives and Referendum

A. Local Initiative

1. Definition

Question:

Define local initiative.

Suggested Answer:

Local initiative is the legal process whereby the registered voters of a local government unit
may directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance. (Section 120, Local Government
Code)

Question:

Who may exercise the local initiative?

Suggested Answer:

The power of local initiative and referendum may be exercised by all registered voters of the
provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. (Section 121, Local Government Code)

2. Procedure

Question:

What are the procedures for local initiative?

Suggested Answer:

The procedures for local initiaitve are the following:

(a) Not less than one thousand (1,000) registered voters in case of provinces and cities, one
hundred (100) in case of municipalities, and fifty (50) in case of barangays, may file a
petition with the sanggunian concerned proposing the adoption, enactment, repeal, or
amendment of an ordinance.

(b) If no favorable action thereon is taken by the sanggunian concerned within thirty (30)
days from its presentation, the proponents, through their duly authorized and registered
representatives, may invoke their power of initiative, giving notice thereof to the
sanggunian concerned.

(c) The proposition shall be numbered serially starting from Roman numeral I. The
COMELEC or its designated representative shall extend assistance in the formulation of
the proposition.

(d) Two (2) or more propositions may be submitted in an initiative.

(e) Proponents shall have ninety (90) days in case of provinces and cities, sixty (60) days in
case of municipalities, and thirty (30) days in case of barangays, from notice mentioned
in subsection (b) hereof to collect the required number of signatures.

(f) The petition shall be signed before the election registrar, or his designated
representatives, in the presence of a representative of the proponent, and a
representative of the sanggunian concerned in a public place in the local government
unit, as the case may be. Stations for collecting signatures may be established in as
many places as may be warranted.

(g) Upon the lapse of the period herein provided, the COMELEC, through its office in the
local government unit concerned, shall certify as to whether or not the required number
of signatures has been obtained. Failure to obtain the required number defeats the
proposition.
(h) If the required number of signatures is obtained, the COMELEC shall then set a date for
the initiative during which the proposition shall be submitted to the registered voters in
the local government unit concerned for their approval within sixty (60) days from the
date of certification by the COMELEC, as provided in subsection (g) hereof, in case of
provinces and cities, forty-five (45) days in case of municipalities, and thirty (30) days in
case of barangays. The initiative shall then be held on the date set, after which the
results thereof shall be certified and proclaimed by the COMELEC. (Section 122 of Local
Government Code)

Question

When will the proposition become effective

Suggested Answer:

If the proposition is approved by a majority of the votes cast, it shall take effect fifteen (15)
days after certification by the COMELEC as if affirmative action thereon had been made by
the sanggunian and local chief executive concerned. If it fails to obtain said number of votes,
the proposition is considered defeated. (Section 123 of Local Government Code)

3. Limitation

Question:

What are the limitations in local initiative?

Suggested Answer:

The following are the limitations in local initiative

(a) The power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than once a year.

(b) Initiative shall extend only to subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of the
sanggunian to enact.

(c) If at any time before the initiative is held, the sanggunian concerned adopts in toto the
proposition presented and the local chief executive approves the same, the initiative shall
be cancelled. However, those against such action may, if they so desire, apply for
initiative in the manner herein provided. (Section 124, Local Government Code)

B. Local Referendum

1. Definition

Question:

Define Local Referendum.

Suggested Answer

Local referendum is the legal process whereby the registered voters of the local government
units may approve, amend or reject any ordinance enacted by the sanggunian. (Section
126, Local Government Code)

Question:

Who may exercise local referendum?

Suggested Answer:

The power of local initiative and referendum may be exercised by all registered voters of the
provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. (Section 121, Local Government Code)
2. Procedure

Question:

What are the procedures for local referendum?

Suggested Answer:

The procedures for local referendum are the following:

The local referendum shall be held under the control and direction of the COMELEC within
sixty (60) days in case of provinces and cities, forty-five (45) days in case of municipalities
and thirty (30) days in case of barangays.

The COMELEC shall certify and proclaim the results of the said referendum. (Section 126,
Local Government Code)

3. Limitation

Question:

What is Limitation Upon Local Legislative Bodies by the system of local initiative and
referendum

Suggested Answer:

Any proposition or ordinance approved through the system of initiative and referendum as
herein provided shall not be repealed, modified or amended by the sanggunian concerned
within six (6) months from the date of the approval thereof, and may be amended, modified
or repealed by the sanggunian within three (3) years thereafter by a vote of three-fourths
(3/4) of all its members: Provided, That in case of barangays, the period shall be eighteen
(18) months after the approval thereof. (Section 125, Local Government Code)

Вам также может понравиться