Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
that the change has been made by the Local Government Code itself, which was also enacted by the national lawmaking authority. In their view, the
decree has been, not really repealed by the Code, but merely "modified pro tanto" in the sense that PAGCOR cannot now operate a casino over the
objection of the local government unit concerned. Under this (petitioners) construction, PAGCOR will have no more games of chance to regulate or
centralize as they must all be prohibited by the local government units pursuant to the mandatory duty imposed upon them by the Code. In this situation,
PAGCOR cannot continue to exist except only as a toothless tiger or a white elephant and will no longer be able to exercise its powers as a prime
source of government revenue through the operation of casinos.
There is no sufficient indication of an implied repeal of P.D. 1869. On the contrary, as the private respondent points out, PAGCOR is mentioned as the
source of funding in two later enactments of Congress, to wit, R.A. 7309, creating a Board of Claims under the Department of Justice for the benefit of
victims of unjust punishment or detention or of violent crimes, and R.A. 7648, providing for measures for the solution of the power crisis. PAGCOR
revenues are tapped by these two statutes. This would show that the PAGCOR charter has not been repealed by the Local Government Code but has in
fact been improved as it were to make the entity more responsive to the fiscal problems of the government.
On the assumption of a conflict between P.D. 1869 and the Code, the proper action is not to uphold one and annul the other but to give effect to both by
harmonizing them if possible. The proper resolution of the problem at hand is to hold that under the Local Government Code, local government
units may (and indeed must) prevent and suppress all kinds of gambling within their territories except only those allowed by statutes like P.D.
1869.
The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is obvious. Municipal governments are only agents of
the national government. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national
lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter.
Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without
which they cannot exist. As it creates, so it may destroy. As it may destroy, it may abridge and control. Unless there is some constitutional limitation on
the right, the legislature might, by a single act, and if we can suppose it capable of so great a folly and so great a wrong, sweep from existence all of
the municipal corporations in the State, and the corporation could not prevent it. We know of no limitation on the right so far as to the corporation
themselves are concerned. They are, so to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of the legislature.
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. We here confirm that Congress retains control of the local government units although in significantly reduced
degree now than under our previous Constitutions.
We hold 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.
RUPERTO TAULE, petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY LUIS T. SANTOS and GOVERNOR LEANDRO VERCELES, respondents.
FACTS: The Federation of Associations of Barangay Councils (FABC) of Catanduanes, composed of eleven (11) members, in their capacities as
Presidents of the Association of Barangay Councils in their respective municipalities, convened,with six members in attendance for the purpose of
holding the election of its officers.
The election nevertheless proceeded with Provincial Government Operating Officer Alberto P. Molina, Jr. as presiding officer. Chosen as members of the
Board of Directors were Taule, Aquino, Avila, Jacob and Sales.
Petitioner was then elected as President of FABC
Respondent Leandro I. Verceles, Governor of Catanduanes, sent a letter to respondent Luis T. Santos, the Secretary of Local Government,* protesting
the election of the officers of the FABC and seeking its nullification.
Petitioner Ruperto Taule as President of the FABC, filed his comment denying the alleged irregularities and denouncing said respondent Governor for
meddling or intervening in the election of FABC officers which is a purely non-partisan affair and at the same time requesting for his appointment as a
member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province being the duly elected President of the FABC in Catanduanes.
Respondent Secretary issued a resolution nullifying the election of the officers of the FABC in Catanduanes and ordering a new one to be conducted as
early as possible to be presided by the Regional Director of Region V of the Department of Local Government.
Petitioner, thus, seeks the reversal of the resolutions of respondent Secretary.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the respondent Secretary has jurisdiction to entertain an election protest involving the election of the officers of
the Federation of Association of Barangay Councils;
2) Whether or not the respondent Governor has the legal personality to file an election protest;
RULING:
1 The Secretary of Local Government is not vested with jurisdiction to entertain any protest involving the election of officers of the FABC.
The Sec. 110 of theLocal Government Code provides for the manner in which the katipunan ng mga barangay at all levels shall be organized.
The respondent Secretary, acting in accordance with the provision of the Local Government Code empowering him to "promulgate in detail the
implementing circulars and the rules and regulations to carry out the various administrative actions required for the initial implementation of this Code in
such a manner as will ensure the least disruption of on-going programs and projects 7 issued Department of Local Government Circular No. 89-09 on
April 7, 1989, 8 to provide the guidelines for the conduct of the elections of officers of the Katipunan ng mga Barangay at the municipal, city, provincial,
regional and national levels.
It is now the contention of petitioner that neither the constitution nor the law grants jurisdiction upon the respondent Secretary over election contests
involving the election of officers of the FABC, the katipunan ng mga barangay at the provincial level. It is petitioner's theory that under Article IX, C,
Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, it is the Commission on Elections which has jurisdiction over all contests involving elective barangay officials.
The jurisdiction of the COMELEC over contests involving elective barangay officials is limited to appellate jurisdiction from decisions of the trial courts.
The term "election," in the context of the Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral
campaign, and the casting and counting of the votes 14which do not characterize the election of officers in the Katipunan ng mga barangay.
The jurisdiction of the COMELEC does not cover protests over the organizational set-up of the katipunan ng mga barangay composed of popularly
elected punong barangays as prescribed by law whose officers are voted upon by their respective members. The authority of the COMELEC over
the katipunan ng mga barangay is limited by law to supervision of the election of the representative of the katipunan concerned to
the sanggunian in a particular level conducted by their own respective organization.
_________
There is no question that the Secretary of Local Government is vested with the power to promulgate rules and regulations as set forth in Section 222 of
the Local Government Code.
Likewise, under Book IV, Title XII, Chapter 1, See. 3(2) of the Administrative Code of 1987, ** the respondent Secretary has the power to "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."
The jurisdiction of administrative authorities is dependent entirely upon the provisions of the statutes reposing power in them; they cannot confer it upon
themselves.
Construing the constitutional limitation on the power of general supervision of the President over local governments, we hold that respondent Secretary
has no authority to pass upon the validity or regularity of the election of the officers of the katipunan. To allow respondent Secretary to do so will give
him more power than the law or the Constitution grants. It will in effect give him control over local government officials for it will permit him to
interfere in a purely democratic and non-partisan activity aimed at strengthening the barangay as the basic component of local governments so that the
ultimate goal of fullest autonomy may be achieved. In fact, his order that the new elections to be conducted be presided by the Regional Director is a
clear and direct interference by the Department with the political affairs of the barangays which is not permitted by the limitation of presidential power to
general supervision over local governments. 27
Indeed, it is the policy of the state to ensure the autonomy of local governments. The Local Government Code declared that "the State shall guarantee
and promote the autonomy of local government units to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective
partners in the pursuit of national development and social progress." 29 To deny the Secretary of Local Government the power to review the regularity of
the elections of officers of the katipunan would be to enhance the avowed state policy of promoting the autonomy of local governments.
Moreover, although the Department is given the power to prescribe rules, regulations and other issuances, the Administrative Code limits its authority to
merely "monitoring compliance" by local government units of such issuances. Any doubt therefore as to the power of the Secretary to interfere with
local affairs should be resolved in favor of the greater autonomy of the local government.
Thus, the Court holds that in assuming jurisdiction over the election protest filed by respondent Governor and declaring the election of the officers of the
FABC on June 18, 1989 as null and void, the respondent Secretary acted in excess of his jurisdiction. The Regional Trial Courts have the exclusive
original jurisdiction to hear the protest.
2 As regards the second issue raised by petitioner, the Court finds that respondent Governor has the personality to file the protest. As presiding officer of
the sagguniang panlalawigan, the respondent governor has an interest in the election of the officers of the FABC since its elected president becomes a
member of the assembly. Hence, respondent governor is a proper party to question the regularity of the elections of the officers of the FABC.
HON. JEJOMAR C. BINAY and the MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI, petitioners,
vs.
HON. EUFEMIO DOMINGO and the COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Municipality, through its Council, approved Resolution No. 60 which reads:
A RESOLUTION TO CONFIRM AND/OR RATIFY THE ONGOING BURIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INITIATED BY THE OFFICE
OF THE MAYOR, OF EXTENDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OF FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) TO A BEREAVED FAMILY,
FUNDS TO BE TAKEN OUT OF UNAPPROPRIATED AVAILABLE FUNDS EXISTING IN THE MUNICIPAL TREASURY. (Rollo,
Annnex "A" p. 39)
Qualified beneficiaries, under the Burial Assistance Program, are bereaved families of Makati whose gross family income does not exceed two thousand
pesos (P2,000.00) a month. The beneficiaries, upon fulfillment of other requirements, would receive the amount of five hundred pesos (P500.00) cash
relief from the Municipality of Makati.
Resolution No. 60 was referred to respondent Commission on Audit (COA) for its expected allowance in audit. Based on its preliminary findings,
respondent COA disapproved Resolution No. 60 and disallowed in audit the disbursement of funds for the implementation thereof.
Two letters for reconsideration filed by petitioners Mayor Jejomar Binay, were denied by respondent in its decision for two reasons: (1) We see no
perceptible connection or relation between the objective sought to be attained under Resolution No. 60, s. 1988, and the alleged public safety, general
welfare, etc. of the inhabitants of Makati.(2) Let it be stressed that Resolution No. 60 is still subject to the limitation that the expenditure covered thereby
should be for a public purpose, i.e., that the disbursement of the amount of P500.00 as burial assistance to a bereaved family of the Municipality of
Makati, or a total of P400,000.00 appropriated under the Resolution, should be for the benefit of the whole, if not the majority, of the inhabitants of the
Municipality and not for the benefit of only a few individuals as in the present case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Resolution No. 60, re-enacted under Resolution No. 243, of the Municipality of Makati is a valid exercise of police power under
the general welfare clause.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
The police power is a governmental function, an inherent attribute of sovereignty, which was born with civilized government
Police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal corporations. Before a municipal corporation may exercise such power, there must be a valid
delegation of such power by the legislature which is the repository of the inherent powers of the State. A valid delegation of police power may arise from
express delegation, or be inferred from the mere fact of the creation of the municipal corporation; and as a general rule, municipal corporations may
exercise police powers within the fair intent and purpose of their creation which are reasonably proper to give effect to the powers expressly
granted, and statutes conferring powers on public corporations have been construed as empowering them to do the things essential to the enjoyment of
life and desirable for the safety of the people.
Municipal governments exercise this power under the general welfare clause: pursuant thereto they are clothed with authority to "enact such ordinances
and issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out and discharge the responsibilities conferred upon it by law, and such as shall be necessary
and proper.
And under Section 7 of BP 337, "every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well
as powers necessary and proper for governance such as to promote health and safety, enhance prosperity, improve morals, and maintain peace and
order in the local government unit, and preserve the comfort and convenience of the inhabitants therein."
In the case at bar, COA is of the position that there is "no perceptible connection or relation between the objective sought to be attained under
Resolution No. 60, s. 1988, supra, and the alleged public safety, general welfare. etc. of the inhabitants of Makati." (Rollo, Annex "G", p. 51).
The police power of a municipal corporation is broad, and has been said to be commensurate with, but not to exceed, the duty to provide for the real
needs of the people in their health, safety, comfort, and convenience as consistently as may be with private rights. It is broadened to deal with conditions
which exists so as to bring out of them the greatest welfare of the people by promoting public convenience or general prosperity, and to everything
worthwhile for the preservation of comfort of the inhabitants of the corporation.)
The care for the poor is generally recognized as a public duty. The support for the poor has long been an accepted exercise of police power in the
promotion of the common good.
There is no violation of the equal protection clause in classifying paupers as subject of legislation.
Resolution No. 60, re-enacted under Resolution No. 243, of the Municipality of Makati is a paragon of the continuing program of our government towards
social justice.