Locgov Notes (In Progress)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW
OVERVIEW
Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 25

The state shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.
Art. X, Secs. 2 & 4

Sec. 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.
Sec. 4. 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 power and functions.
Local Government Code (LGC), Sec. 25. National Supervision over LGUs
(a) Consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy, the President shall exercise general supervision over local government units to
ensure that their acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.
The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly over provinces, highly urbanized cities, and independent component
cities; through the province with respect to component cities and municipalities; and through the city and municipality with respect
to barangays.
(b) National agencies and offices with project implementation functions shall coordinate with one another and with the local
government units concerned in the discharge of these functions. They shall ensure the participation of local government units both
in the planning and implementation of said national projects.
(c) The president may, upon request of the local government unit concerned, direct the appropriate national agency to provide
financial, technical, or other forms of assistance to the LGU. Such assistance shall be extended at no extra cost the LGU
concerned.
(d) National agencies and offices including GOCCs with field units or branches in a province, city, or municipality shall furnish the local
chief executive concerned, for his information and guidance, monthly reports including duly certified budgetary allocations and
expenditures.
Mun. of Catbalogan vs. Director of Lands, G.R. L-5631, Oct. 17, 1910
If a municipality, as a juridical person susceptible of rights and duties, can acquire all kinds of property such as that termed propios and
patrimoniales, it undoubtedly merits the designation of owner with respect to the property which may have been awarded to it as its own.
Mondano vs. Silvosa, G.R. No. L-7708, May 30, 1955

The Department head as agent of the President has direct control and supervision over all bureaus and offices under his jurisdiction as
provided for in section 79(c) of the Revised Administrative Code, but he does not have the same control of local governments as that
exercised by him over bureaus and offices under his jurisdiction. Likewise, his authority to order the investigation of any act or conduct of any
person in the service of any bureau or office under his department is confined to bureaus or offices under his jurisdiction and does not extend
to local governments over which, as already stated, the President exercises only general supervision as may be provided by law.
In administrative law, supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their
duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform these
duties. Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done
in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.
Province of Batangas vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004
Pres. Estrada issued EO 48 which created the Local Government Service Equalization Fund (LGSEF). Provisos in the GAAs of 1999, 2000, and
2001 earmarked P5 billion from the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) of the LGUs for the LGSEF. The Oversight Committee constituted under
the LGC of 1991 was also tasked with adopting resolutions for the allocation of the LGSEF. Petitioner, the Province of Batangas, assails the
provisos in the GAAs and the OCD resolutions as violative of the Constitution and the LGC for imposing conditions on the automatic release of
the LGUs “just share” in the national taxes. The SC agreed with the petitioner and ruled that the assailed provisos and resolutions imposing
conditions on the release of the funds unduly placed the LGUs at the mercy of the Oversight Committee.
To the Court’s mind, the entire process involving the distribution and release of the LGSEF is constitutionally impermissible. The LGSEF is part
of the IRA or “just share” of the LGUs in the national taxes. To subject its distribution and release to the vagaries of the implementing rules
and regulations, including the guidelines and mechanisms unilaterally prescribed by the Oversight Committee from time to time, makes the
release not automatic, a flagrant violation of the constitutional and statutory mandate that the “just share” of the LGUs “shall be automatically
released to them.” The LGUs are, thus, placed at the mercy of the Oversight Committee.
Principle of Local Autonomy
(1) Sec. 25, Art. II: The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments. Sec. 2, Art. X: The territorial and political subdivisions
shall enjoy local autonomy.
(2) Consistent with this principle, the Constitution confines the President’s power over the LGUs to one of general supervision. This
provision has been interpreted to exclude the power of control. The distinction was enunciated in Drilon v. Lim:
a. Power of control – 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.
b. Power of supervision – 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
doing the act. He has no judgment on this matter except to see to it that the rules are followed.
National Liga vs. Paredes, G.R. No. 130775, Sept. 27, 2004
The DILG prayed that, pursuant to its delegated power of general supervision in Administrative Order No. 267 (dated February 18, 1992), it
would be appointed as the Interim Caretaker to manage and administer the Liga’s affairs until a new set of National Liga Officers have been
duly elected and have assumed office.
The rationale for making the Liga subject to DILG supervision is quite evident, whether from the perspectives of logic or of practicality. The
Liga is an aggroupment of barangays which are in turn represented therein by their respective punong barangays. The representatives of the
Liga sit in an ex officio capacity at the municipal, city and provincial sanggunians. As such, they enjoy all the powers and discharge all the
functions of regular municipal councilors, city councilors or provincial board members, as the case may be. Thus, the Liga is the vehicle
through which the barangay participates in the enactment of ordinances and formulation of policies at all the legislative local levels higher than
the sangguniang barangay, at the same time serving as the mechanism for the bottom-to-top approach of development.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT/MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Civil Code, Book 1, Title 1

Art. 37. Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is inherent in every natural person and is lost only
through death. Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost.
Art. 44. The following are juridical persons:

1. The State and its political subdivisions
2. xxx
3. xxx
Art. 45. Juridical persons mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2 of the preceding article are governed by the laws creating or recognizing them.
…xxx
Art. 46. Juridical persons may acquire and possess property of all kinds, as well as incur obligations and bring civil or criminal actions, in
conformity with the laws and regulations of their organization.
Art. 47. Upon the dissolution of corporations, institutions and other entities for public interest or purpose mentioned in No. 2 of Art 44, their
property and other assets shall be disposed of in pursuance of law or the charter creating them. If nothing has been specified on this point,
the property and other assets shall be applied to similar purposes for the benefit of the region, province, city or municipality which during
the existence of the institution derived the principal benefits from the same.
LGC, Sec.15. Political and Corporate Nature of LGUs

Every LGU created or recognized under this Code is a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity
with law. As such, it shall exercise powers as a political subdivision of the national government and as a corporate entity representing the
inhabitants of its territory.
Corporation – an artificial being created by operation of law, having the right of succession and the powers, attributes and properties
expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence. (Corpo Code, Sec. 2)
PUBLIC CORPORATION PRIVATE CORPORATION

One created by the state either by general or special act for purposes Those formed for some private purpose, benefit, aim or end
of administration of local government or rendering service in the
public interest
Creation of State either by special or general act Created by will of incorporators with recognizance of State
Involuntary consequence of the legislation Consequence of a voluntary agreement by and among its members
Classes of public corporation
a. Quasi-public corporation – created as agencies of the state for narrow and limited purposes without the powers and liabilities of
self-governing corporation. They render public service or public wants.
b. Municipal corporations – a body politic and corporate constituted by the incorporation of the inhabitants for purposes of local
government thereof. It is established by law partly as an agency of the state of the state to assist in the civil government of the
country, but chiefly to regulate and administer the local or internal affairs of the city, town, or district which is incorporated.
Elements:
a. A legal creation or incorporation
b. A corporate name by which the artificial personality or legal entity is known and in which all corporate acts are done
c. Inhabitants constituting the population who are invested with the political and corporate power which are executed
through duly constituted officers and agents
d. A place or territory within which the Local Civil Government and corporate functions are exercised.
PUBLIC CORPORATION GOCCs

Created for political purposes connected with the public good in the Any agency organized as a stock or a non-stock corporation, vested
administration of the civil government with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or
proprietary in nature.
Formed and organized by the State for government Owned by the Government directly through its instrumentalities either
wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to
the extent of at least 51% of its capital stock (Admin. Code, Sec. 2)
May thereby exercise state powers such as police power, taxation, Powers to be exercised are provided for in special law, if directly
and eminent domain chartered by a special law.
If organized under the Corporation Code, as provided for in Sec. 36 of

the Corpo Code
Public corporations, institutions, and entities for public interest or May be created or established by special charters in the interest of
purpose may be created by law and are governed by the laws the common good and subject to the test of economic viability
creating or recognizing the same
Local government – a political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs
1. Public or governmental – an agent of the state for the government of the territory and the inhabitants within the local
government limits
Ex: establishment and operation of schools, adoption of regulations against fire and diseases, preservation of public peace
2. Private or corporate – acts in a similar category as a business corporation, performing functions not strictly governmental or
political. These are exercised for the special benefit and advantage of the community. It is in this character that they are acting as a
separate entity for their own purposes and not as a subdivision of the State.
Ex: establishment of markets and slaughterhouses, operation of telephone system or ferry service
Types of Municipal Corporation

1. Municipal corporations by prescription
Those that exercised their powers from time immemorial without objection from the government, that although no charter exists, it is
presumed to have been duly incorporated and had been lost or destroyed.
2. De Jure municipal corporations

Those created or recognized by operation of law
3. De Facto municipal corporations

Those where the people have organized themselves, under color of law, into ordinary municipal bodies exercising their powers, with
their rights dependent quite as much as on acquiescence as on the regularity of their origin
Requisites:
a. An attempt in good faith to organize under it
b. A valid law authorizing incorporation
c. A colorable compliance with law
d. There is an assumption of corporate powers
Tatel vs. Municipality of Virac (1992)

Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac in the exercise of its police power. It prohibits the construction
or maintenance of warehouses for the storage of inflammable articles at a distance within 200 meters from a block of houses either in the
poblacion or in the barrios the purpose of which is to avoid loss of life and property in case of accidental fire which is one of the primordial and
basic obligation of any government.
It is a settled principle of law that municipal corporations are agencies of the State for the promotion and maintenance of local self-
government and as such are endowed with police powers in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared objects of their
creation. Its authority emanates from the general welfare clause under the Administrative Code, which reads:
"The municipal council shall enact such ordinance and make such regulations, not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into effect
and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon it by law and such as shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the health and
safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort and convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants
thereof, and for the protection of property therein."
Alvarez vs Guingona, G.R. No. 118303,, Jan. 31, 1996||

Petitioner Senators assails the validity of RA 7720 which converts the Municipality of Santiago into an Independent Component City because it
allegedly did not originate exclusively in the HREP and has not met the minimum average income of P20 Million, exclusive of IRA. The SC ruled
that: (1) IRAs are to be included in the computation of the average annual income of a municipality for purposes of its conversion into an
independent component city; and (2) the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, does
not contravene the constitutional requirement, for as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill.
Section 450 (c) of the Local Government Code provides that "the average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general
fund, exclusive of special funds, transfers, and non-recurring income.'' The IRAs are items of income because they form part of the gross
accretion of the funds of the local government unit. The IRAs regularly and automatically accrue to the local treasury without need of any
further action on the part of the local government unit.
IRAs are a regular, recurring item of income; nil is there a basis, too, to classify the same as a special fund or transfer, since IRAs have a
technical definition and meaning all its own as used in the Local Government Code that unequivocally makes it distinct from special funds or
transfers referred to when the Code speaks of "funding support from the national government, its instrumentalities and government-owned or
-controlled corporations".
Basco vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 91649, May 4, 1991

Attorneys Humberto Basco, Edilberto Balce, Socrates Maranan and Lorenzo Sanchez assail the constitutionality of the Philippine Amusements
and Gaming Corporation’s Charter (Presidential Decree No. 1869). They argue that the Charter constitutes as a waiver of the City of Manila’s
right to impose taxes I light of the exemption made for PAGCOR from local taxes. But for the Supreme Court, a local government’s power to
tax must yield to the restraints imposed upon it by legislation by the National Government. Since it is by legislation that PAGCOR is exempted,
such must be supreme over the local government taxes.
Local government has been described as a political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of
local affairs. In a unitary system of government, such as the government under the Philippine Constitution, local governments can only be an
intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation, and not an imperium in imperio. Furthermore the principle of local autonomy under the
1987 Constitution simply means "decentralization.
Homeowners Assn of Talayan, G.R. No. 203883, Nov. 10, 2015

Block 494 which was owned by J.M. Tuason was, by way of donation, transferred to the QC Government in compliance with the city ordinance
requiring open spaces for the developed lands. The deed however was not accepted nor was it notarized. Several public facilities were erected
in Block 494 nonetheless. However, due to J.M. Tuason’s failure in paying its realty taxes, Block 494 was subjected to delinquency sale, which
was sold to the highest bidder, also J.M. Tuason. It subsequently sold the Block to Talayan Holdings, Inc. (THI) Homeowners Association of
Talayan Village (HATVI) questioned the sale, saying that the Block, being used as public park, is outside the commerce of men and cannot be
a subject of sale. Further, it also argued that J.M. Tuason and THI is estopped from calming that Block 494 was private property because the
same has been used as an open space over the years and that they were guilty of bad faith for allowing the construction of public parks and
utilities in the said land. RTC and CA dismissed the complaint. SC upheld the lower court’s decision.
CREATION OF LGUs
Constitution, Art. X
Sec. 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays.
There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.
Sec. 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered,
except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
Sec. 11. The Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan political subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10
hereof. The component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executive
and legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will thereby be created shall be limited to basic
services requiring coordination.
Sec. 15. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities,
and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other
relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the
Republic of the Philippines.
Sec. 18. The Congress shall enact an organic act for each autonomous region with the assistance and participation of the regional
consultative commission composed of representatives appointed by the President from a list of nominees from multi-sectoral
bodies. The organic act shall define the basic structure of government for the region consisting of the executive department and
legislative assembly, both of which shall be elective and representative of the constituent political units. The organic acts shall
likewise provide for special courts with personal, family, and property law jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of this
Constitution and national laws. The creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when approved by majority of the votes
cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting
favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region.
Sec. 19. The first Congress elected under this Constitution shall, within eighteen months from the time of organization of both Houses, pass
the organic acts for the autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.
Requisites for the creation, division, merger, abolition of LGU, or substantial alteration of its boundaries
1. By a law or an ordinance
a. By a law – enacted by Congress in case of provinces, cities, municipalities, or any other political subdivisions; or
b. By an ordinance – passed by the Sanggunian Panlalawigan or Sangguniang Panlungsod concerned in the case of any barangay
within its territorial jurisdiction (Sec. 6, LGC). In the case of the creation of barangays by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, the
recommendation of the Sangguniang Bayan concerned shall be necessary. (Sec. 385, LGC – Manner of creation of barangays)
Power of creation is legislative in nature

To whom power can be delegated To whom power cannot be delegated
To local legislative bodies – subject to reasonable standards and Not to the President – it would allow him to exercise over the
provided no conflict arises with any provision of the Constitution LGUs the power of control denied to him by the Constitution
Ex: delegated power to SP or SB to create barangays (Sec. 385)

Power to create legislative districts cannot be delegated to a
regional assembly (ARMM)
2. Plebiscite
- Approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose in the political unit or units directly affected.
- Said plebiscite shall be conducted by the COMELEC within 120 days from the date of effectivity of the law or ordinance
effecting such action, unless said law or ordinance fixes another date (Sec. 10, LGC)
- Must be in the political units directly affected: means that the residents of the political entity who would be economically
dislocated by the separation of a portion thereof have the right to vote in said plebiscite.
- Material change: the creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of an LGU will cause a
material change in the political and economic rights of a political unit
When it is required:
1. Creation
2. Division
3. Merger
4. Abolition
5. Substantial alteration of its boundaries
6. Conversion (Sec. 453, LGC)
7. Downgrading
When not required:

1. Legislative districts – not political subdivisions through which functions of the government are carried out
2. Administrative regions – not territorial and political subdivisions. The power to create and merge administrative regions is
traditionally vested in the President
Plebiscite requirement for autonomous regions (Sec. 18, Art 10, Constitution)
- Sole province cannot validly constitute an autonomous region
- Only amendments to, or revisions of, the Organic Act constitutionally-essential to the creation of autonomous regions require
ratification through a plebiscite.
Require approval through plebiscite Do not require approval by plebiscite
Those which relate to the basic structure of the regional Date of elections
government
Those which relate to the region’s judicial system Legislative apportionment – merely delineates the areas
occupied by the people who will choose a representative in
their national affairs (legislative districts)
Those which relate to the grant and extent of the legislative Power to merge administrative regions
power constitutionally conceded to the regional government
under Sec 20, Art 10, Consti.
3. Election and qualification of elective officials

The corporate existence of an LGU commences upon the election and qualification of its chief executive and a majority of the
members of its sanggunian unless some other time is fixed therefore by the law or ordinance creating it. (Sec. 14, LGC)
Basis of creation and conversion of LGUs (Sec. 7, LGC)

1. Verifiable indicators of viability
a. Income
It must be sufficient, based on acceptable standards, to provide for all essential government facilities and services and special
functions commensurate with the size of its population, as expected of the local government unit concerned
Income accruing to the general fund, exclusive of special funds, transfers, and non-recurring income (Sec. 442, 250, 261)
o Internal revenue allotment
o Funds generated from local taxes
o National wealth utilization proceeds
Exception:
Component cities created under RA 9009, which mandates that the income requirement be satisfied through locally
generated revenue of at least P100M.
b. Population
It shall be determined as the total number of inhabitants within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government units
concerned.
c. Land Area
It must be contiguous, unless it comprises two (2) or more islands or is separated by a LGU independent of the others; properly
identified by metes and bounds with technical descriptions; and sufficient to provide for such basic services and facilities to meet
the requirements of its populace.
2. Projected capacity to provide services
Summary of verifiable indicators per LGU

INCOME POPULATION LAND AREA
Ave. annual income for the last 2 Total no. of inhabitants within Generally, must be contiguous
consecutive years LGU’s territory
Attested by DoF PSA (NSO) Land Management Bureau
Province (Sec. 46) P20M 250,000 2,000 sq. km
Highly urbanized city P50M 200,000 100 sq. km
(Sec. 452)
Component city (Sec. P100M 150,000 100 sq. km
450)
Municipality (Sec. 442) P2.5M 25,000 50 sq. km
Barangay (Sec. 386) No requirement 2,000; No requirement except for
5,000 if Metro Manila or HUCs contiguity
Land area requirements
Need not follow land area Need not be contiguous

Province Composed of 1 or more islands (LGC IRR) a. Composed of 2 or more islands
b. Separated by cities which do not contribute to the
income of the province (Sec. 461(b))
City Composed of 1 or more islands (Sec. 450 (b)) Composed of 2 or more islands (Sec. 450 (b))
Municipality Composed of 1 or more islands (Sec. 442 (a)) Composed of 2 or more islands (Sec. 442 (b))
Barangay No requirement Composed of 2 or more islands (Sec. 386 (b))
Other LGUs
i. Special metropolitan political subdivisions
- Created by Congress, subject to a plebiscite
- The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will be created shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination.
ii. Highly urbanized cities and independent component cities

- Independent of the province (Sec. 12, Art 10, Constitution)
- Independent component cities – those whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials (Sec.
451, LGC)
- Highly urbanized cities – those that meet the higher population threshold for cities in the LGC (See 452(a), LGC)
iii. Autonomous regions
- Consist of provinces, cities, and municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural
heritage, economic, and social structures, and other relevant characteristics within the framework of the Constitution
- Created via organic act for each autonomous region, with participation of the regional consultative commission.
- The organic act:
a. Defines the basic structure of government for the region consisting of the executive department and legislative
assemblies, both of which shall be elective and representative of the constituent political units; and
b. Provides for special courts with personal, family, and property law jurisdiction.
Alvarez v. Guingona, ibid.

Petitioner Senators assails the validity of RA 7720 which converts the Municipality of Santiago into an Independent Component City because it
allegedly did not originate exclusively in the HREP and has not met the minimum average income of P20 Million, exclusive of IRA. The SC ruled
that: (1) IRAs are to be included in the computation of the average annual income of a municipality for purposes of its conversion into an
independent component city; and (2) the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, does
not contravene the constitutional requirement, for as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill.
Navarro v. Ermita, G.R. No. 180050. February 10, 201

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9355 which created the new Province of Dinagat Islands from Surigao del Norte. The SC
ruled that R.A. No. 9355 is unconstitutional for its failure to comply with the criteria, particularly the territorial or the population requirement,
for the creation of the province of Dinagat Islands under the Local Government Code. Dinagat Island was found to have only a population of
106k based on the most recent certified survey by the NSO in 2000, which is less than the 250k requirement. The total land area is only at
802 sq. km, which is also less than 2,000 sq. km. requirement.
Under Sec. 10, Art. X of the Constitution, the Local Government Code establishes the criteria for the creation of a province. Under the LGC of
1991, the creation of a province requires (1) an average annual income of not less than P20m and (2) either a contiguous territory of at least
2,000 sq. km, certified by the Land Management Bureau OR a population of not less than 250k inhabitants, certified by the NSO.
The creation of the Province of Dinagat Island under R.A. No. 9355 failed to comply with the territorial or the population requirement. Dinagat
Island was found to have only a population of 106k based on the most recent certified survey by the NSO in 2000. The total land area is only
at 802 sq. km.
ALTERATION/DISSOLUTION OF LGUs
Sec. 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered,
except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
Local Government Code
Sec. 6. Authority to Create Local Government Units. - A local government unit may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its
boundaries substantially altered either by law enacted by Congress in the case of a province, city, municipality, or any other
political subdivision, or by ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan or Sangguniang Panlungsod concerned in the case
of a Barangay located within its territorial jurisdiction, subject to such limitations and requirements prescribed in this Code.
Sec. 7. Creation and Conversion. - As a general rule, the creation of a local government unit or its conversion from one level to another
level shall be based on verifiable indicators of viability and projected capacity to provide services, to wit:
(a) Income. - It must be sufficient, based on acceptable standards, to provide for all essential government facilities and services
and special functions commensurate with the size of its population, as expected of the local government unit concerned;
(b) Population. - It shall be determined as the total number of inhabitants within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government
unit concerned; and
(c) Land Area. - It must be contiguous, unless it comprises two or more islands or is separated by a local government unit
independent of the others; properly identified by metes and bounds with technical descriptions; and sufficient to provide
for such basic services and facilities to meet the requirements of its populace. Compliance with the foregoing indicators
shall be attested to by the Department of Finance (DOF), the National Statistics Office (NSO), and the Lands
Management Bureau (LMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR).
Sec.8. Division and Merger. - Division and merger of existing local government units shall comply with the same requirements herein
prescribed for their creation: Provided however, That such division shall not reduce the income, population, or land area of the
local government unit or units concerned to less than the minimum requirements prescribed in this Code: Provided, further, That
the income classification of the original local government unit or units shall not fall below its current income classification prior to
such division.
The income classification of local government units shall be updated within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Code to
reflect the changes in their financial position resulting from the increased revenues as provided herein.
Local Government Code
Sec. 9. Abolition of Local Government Units. - A local government unit may be abolished when its income, population, or land area has
been irreversibly reduced to less than the minimum standards prescribed for its creation under Book III of this Code, as certified
by the national agencies mentioned in Section 17 hereof to Congress or to the Sanggunian concerned, as the case may be.
The law or ordinance abolishing a local government unit shall specify the province, city, municipality, or Barangay with which the
local government unit sought to be abolished will be incorporated or merged.
Sec. 10. Plebiscite Requirement. - No creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units
shall take effect unless approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose in the political unit or units
directly affected. Said plebiscite shall be conducted by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) within one hundred twenty (120)
days from the date of effectivity of the law or ordinance effecting such action, unless said law or ordinance fixes another date.
Other Material Changes
i. Division and Merger

- Same requirements as prescribed for the creation of an LGU
- Limitations:
o Shall not reduce the income, population, or land area of the LGU concerned to less than the minimum requirements
prescribed
o The income classification of the original LGU or LGUs shall not fall below its current classification prior to the division.
(Sec. 8, LGC)
o Plebiscite be held in LGUs affected
o Assets and liabilities of creation shall be equitably distributed between the LGUs affected and the new LGU.
ii. Abolition
- When an LGU’s income, population, or land area has been irreversibly reduced to less than the minimum standards prescribed
for its creation as certified by the national agencies concerned to the Congress or the sanggunian (Sec. 9, LGC)
Dissolution does not occur due to:

1. Non-use or surrender of charter
2. Failure to elect municipal officers
3. Change of sovereignty
4. Change of name or boundaries
iii. Downgrading
- There is a material change in the political and economic rights of the LGU’s inhabitants as well as its budget, and thus reasonable
to require the consent of the affected population. The effects are:
o The city mayor will be placed under the administrative supervision of the Governor
o Resolutions and ordinances passed by the City Council will have to be reviewed by the Provincial Board; and
o Taxes will have to be shared with the province
Calanza vs. PICOP (2009)

There is boundary dispute when a portion or the whole of the territorial area of a Local Government Unit (LGU) is claimed by two or more
LGUs. Under paragraph (c) of Section 118, the settlement of a boundary dispute involving municipalities or component cities of different
provinces shall be jointly referred for settlement to the respective Sanggunians or the provincial boards of the different provinces involved.
Section 119 of the Local Government Code gives a dissatisfied party an avenue to question the decision of the Sanggunian to the RTC having
jurisdiction over the area.
The instant case was initiated by petitioners against respondents, predicated on the latter's refusal to allow the former entry into the disputed
mining areas. This is not a case where the Sangguniang Panlalawigans of Davao Oriental and Surigao del Sur jointly rendered a decision
resolving the boundary dispute of the two provinces, and the same decision was elevated to the RTC. Clearly, the RTC cannot exercise
appellate jurisdiction over the case, since there was no petition that was filed and decided by the Sangguniang Panlalawigans of Davao
Oriental and Surigao del Sur. Neither can the RTC assume original jurisdiction over the boundary dispute, since the Local Government Code
allocates such power to the Sangguniang Panlalawigans of Davao Oriental and Surigao del Sur. Since the RTC has no original jurisdiction over
the boundary dispute, between Davao Oriental and Surigao del Sur, its decision is a total nullity.
Brgy. Sangalang vs. Brgy. Maguitan (2009)

The controversy has its roots in a barangay jurisdiction dispute between petitioner Barangay Sangalang and respondent Barangay Maguihan,
both situated in Lemery, Batangas. Under Section 118 of the Local Government Code, the jurisdictional responsibility for settlement of
boundary disputes between and among local government units is to be lodged before the proper Sanggunian Panlungsod or Sangguniang
Bayan concerned, if it involves two or more barangays in the same city or municipality.
The documents presented by petitioner were sourced from the tax assessor's office, whereas the documents presented by respondent were
sourced from the land management bureau. It is undisputed that the Land Management Bureau is the principal government agency tasked
with the survey of lands, and thus, more weight should be given to the documents relating to its official tasks which are presumed to be done
in the ordinary course of business.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS
Mandanas vs. Ochoa (2018)

The Court has held that the Constitution itself set national taxes as the base amount from which to reckon the just share of the LGUs. There is
no issue as to what constitutes the LGUs' just share expressed in percentages of the national taxes (i.e., 30%, 35% and 40% stipulated in
subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Section 284). Yet, Section 6 mentions national taxes as the source of the just share of the LGUs while
Section 284 ordains that the share of the LGUs be taken from national internal revenue taxes instead.
The phrase national internal revenue taxes engrafted in Section 284 is undoubtedly more restrictive than the term national taxes written in
Section 6. As such, Congress has actually departed from the letter of the 1987 Constitution stating that national taxes should be the base from
which the just share of the LGU comes. Section 284 has effectively deprived the LGUs from deriving their just share from other national taxes,
like the customs duties.
The national taxes to be included in the base for computing the just share the LGUs shall henceforth be, but shall not be limited to, the
following:
1. The NIRTs enumerated in Section 21 of the NIRC, as amended, to be inclusive of the VATs, excise taxes, and DSTs collected by
the BIR and the BOC, and their deputized agents;
2. Tariff and customs duties collected by the BOC;
3. 50% of the VATs collected in the ARMM, and 30% of all other national taxes collected in the ARMM; the remaining 50% of the
VATs and 70% of the collections of the other national taxes in the ARMM shall be the exclusive share of the ARMM pursuant to
Section 9 and Section 15 of R.A. No. 9054;
4. 60% of the national taxes collected from the exploitation and development of the national wealth; the remaining 40% will
exclusively accrue to the host LGUs pursuant to Section 290 of the LGC;
5. 85% of the excise taxes collected from locally manufactured Virginia and other tobacco products; the remaining 15% shall accrue
to the special purpose funds pursuant created in R.A. No. 7171 and R.A. No. 7227;
6. The entire 50% of the national taxes collected under Section 106, Section 108 and Section 116 of the NIRC in excess of the
increase in collections for the immediately preceding year; and
7. 5% of the franchise taxes in favor of the national government paid by franchise holders in accordance with Section 6 of R.A. No.
6631 and Section 8 of R.A. No. 6632.
1. Barangay
Local Government Code, Sec. 384 – 439
Sec. 384. Role of the Barangay. - As the basic political unit, the Barangay serves as the primary planning and implementing unit of
government policies, plans, programs, projects, and activities in the community, and as a forum wherein the collective views of
the people may be expressed, crystallized and considered, and where disputes may be amicably settled.
Morata vs. Go (1983)

Petitioners contend that said PD 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay Law) is so broad and all-embracing as to apply to actions
cognizable not only by the city and municipal courts, now known as the metropolitan trial courts and municipal trial courts, but also
by the courts of first instance, now the regional trial courts. Upon the other hand, respondents would limit its coverage only to those
cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the metropolitan trial courts and municipal trial courts.
The Lupon has the authority to settle amicably all types of disputes involving parties who actually reside in the same city or
municipality. The law, as written, makes no distinction whatsoever with respect to the classes of civil disputes that should be
compromised at the barangay level, in contradistinction to the limitation imposed upon the Lupon by paragraph (3), section 2 thereof
as regards its authority over criminal cases.
By compelling the disputants to settle their differences through the intervention of the barangay leader and other respected members
of the barangay, the animosity generated by protracted court litigations between members of the same political unit, a disruptive
factor toward unity and cooperation, is avoided. It must be borne in mind that the conciliation process at the barangay level is
likewise designed to discourage indiscriminate filing of cases in court in order to decongest its clogged dockets and, in the process,
enhance the quality of justice dispensed by it. Thus, to say that the authority of the Lupon is limited to cases exclusively cognizable
by the inferior courts is to lose sight of this objective. Worse, it would make the law a self-defeating one.
Uy vs. Contreras (1994)

The law on the katarungang pambarangay was originally governed by P.D. No. 1508 which was enacted on 11 June 1978. However,
the Local Government Code of 1991, especially Chapter 7, Title I, Book III thereof, revised the law on the katarungang
pambarangay. As a consequence of this revision, P.D. No. 1508 was expressly repealed pursuant to Section 534(b) of the Code.
This Court wishes to emphasize the vital role which the revised katarungang pambarangay law plays in the delivery of justice at the
barangay level, in promoting peace, stability, and progress therein, and in effectively preventing or reducing expensive and
wearisome litigation. Parties to disputes cognizable by the lupon should, with sincerity, exhaust the remedies provided by that law,
government prosecutors should exercise due diligence in ascertaining compliance with it, and trial courts should not hesitate to
impose the appropriate sanctions for non-compliance thereof.
2. Municipality
It serves primarily as a general purpose government for the coordination and delivery of basic, regular, and direct services and
effective governance of the inhabitants within its territorial jurisdiction. (Sec. 440, LGC)
Torralba vs. Municipal of Sibagat (1987)

The absence of the Local Government Code at the time of its enactment did not curtail nor was it intended to cripple legislative
competence to create municipal corporations. Section 3, Article XI of the 1973 Constitution does not proscribe nor prohibit the
modication of territorial and political subdivisions before the enactment of the Local Government Code. It contains no requirement
that the Local Government Code is a condition sine qua non for the creation of a municipality, in much the same way that the
creation of a new municipality does not preclude the enactment of a Local Government Code. What the Constitutional provision
means is that once said Code is enacted, the creation, modication or dissolution of local government units should conform with the
criteria thus laid down. In the interregnum, before the enactment of such Code, the legislative power remains plenary except that the
creation of the new local government unit should be approved by the people concerned in a plebiscite called for the purpose.
It is a long-recognized principle that the power to create a municipal corporation is essentially legislative in nature. In the absence of
any constitutional limitations, a legislative body may create any corporation it deems essential for the more efficient administration of
government (I McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 3rd ed., 509). The creation of the new Municipality of Sibagat was a valid exercise
of legislative power then vested by the 1973 Constitution in the Interim Batasang Pambansa.
3. City
It serves as a general purpose government for the coordination and delivery of basic, regular and direct services and effective
governance of the inhabitants within its territorial jurisdiction (Sec. 448)
Independent Component Cities – these are component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial
elective officials (Sec. 451)
Conversion of a Component City into a Highly Urbanized City

If a component city shall have met the minimum requirements for a highly urbanized city, it shall be the duty of the President to
declare the city as highly urbanized city upon:
1. Proper application; and
2. Upon ratification in a plebiscite by the majority of registered voters therein
Lim vs. CA (2002)

Lim has no authority to close down Bistro's business or any business establishment in Manila without due process of law. Lim cannot
take refuge under the Revised Charter of the City of Manila and the Local Government Code. There is no provision in these laws
expressly or impliedly granting the mayor authority to close down private commercial establishments without notice and hearing, and
even if there is, such provision would be void. The due process clause of the Constitution requires that Lim should have given Bistro
an opportunity to rebut the allegations that it violated the conditions of its licenses and permits. The regulatory powers granted to
municipal corporations must always be exercised in accordance with law, with utmost observance of the rights of the people to due
process and equal protection of the law. Such power cannot be exercised whimsically, arbitrarily or despotically.
4. Province

Sec. 459. Role of the Province. - The province, composed of a cluster of municipalities, or municipalities and component cities, and as a
political and corporate unit of government, serves as a dynamic mechanism for developmental processes and effective governance of local
government units within its territorial jurisdiction.
5. Autonomous Regions
R.A 6734 (Organic Act establishing the ARMM) – valid

R.A. 6766 (Autonomous Region of Cordilleras) – not valid, only the Province of Ifugao voted in favor of it
Sec. 15. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities,
and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other
relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the nation al sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the
Republic of the Philippines.
Sec. 20. 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.
Sec. 21. The preservation of peace and order within the regions shall be the responsibility of the local police agencies which shall be
organized, maintained, supervised, and utilized in accordance with applicable laws. The defense and security of the regions shall
be the responsibility of the National Government.
Local Government Code, Sec. 526
Sec. 526. Application of this Code to Local Government Units in the Autonomous Regions. - This Code shall apply to all provinces, cities,
municipalities and Barangays in the autonomous regions until such time as the regional government concerned shall have enacted its own
local government code.
Disomangcop vs. Datumanong (2004)

The petitioners challenge the constitutionality of RA 8999 and DPWH DO 119 related to the establishment of an engineering district.
The Court said that the ARMM Organic Acts devolved functions of the DPWH in the ARMM to the Regional Government. The Court
then expounded on the meaning of regional autonomy as mandated in the Constitution. The Court concluded that RA 8999 and DO
119 are unconstitutional.
The Court said that the while the ARMM Organic Acts (laws enacted pursuant to the constitutional mandate to establish an
autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao) classified as statutes, these are more than ordinary statutes because they enjoy affirmation
by a plebiscite. The provisions thereof cannot be amended by an ordinary statute, such as R.A. 8999. The amendatory law has to be
submitted to a plebiscite.
The first ARMM Organic Act, R.A. 6074, devolved the functions of the DPWH in the ARMM which includes Lanao del Sur (minus
Marawi City at the time) to the Regional Government. By creating an office with previously devolved functions, R.A. 8999 sought to
amend R.A. 6074. The amendatory law should therefore first obtain the approval of the people of the ARMM before it could validly
take effect. Absent compliance with this requirement, R.A. 8999 has not even become operative.
The 1987 Constitution mandates regional autonomy to give a bold and unequivocal answer to the cry for a meaningful, effective and
forceful autonomy. The idea behind the Constitutional provisions for autonomous regions is to allow the separate development of
peoples with distinctive cultures and traditions. Autonomy, as a national policy, recognizes the wholeness of the Philippine society in
its ethnolinguistic, cultural, and even religious diversities.
However, the creation of autonomous regions does not signify the establishment of a sovereignty distinct from that of the Republic,
as it can be installed only "within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the
Republic of the Philippines." Regional autonomy is the degree of self-determination exercised by the local government unit vis-à-vis
the central government. It refers to the granting of basic internal government powers to the people of a particular area or region
with least control and supervision from the central government.
Province of North Cotabato vs. RP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (2008)

Following the negotiations between the GRP and MILF, the MOA-AD was crafted, forming and granting powers to the Bangsamoro
Juridical Entity. Petitioners argue that such powers exceed those granted to any local or regional government under present laws. SC
held that the MOA-AD, which envisions an “associative” relationship between the BJE and the GRP, and which vests excessive power
to the BJE, is indeed contrary to law and the Constitution.
As stated in the MOA-AD, the BJE and the Central Government are to have an “associative” relationship. The concept of association in
international practice has usually been used as a transitional device of former colonies on their way to full independence, like the
Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, which are associated states of the US.
Such concept of association is not recognized under the present Constitution. No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM,
is recognized under our laws as having an “associative” relationship with the national government.
It is a concept that implies powers that go beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to any local government. It implies the
recognition of the associated entity as a state, but our Constitution does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the
Philippine state.
6. The Metro Manila Development Authority
MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village (2000)

Metropolitan or Metro Manila is a body composed of several local government units — i.e., twelve (12) cities and five (5)
municipalities, namely, the cities of Caloocan, Manila, Mandaluyong, Makati, Pasay, Pasig, Quezon, Muntinlupa, Las Piñas, Marikina,
Parañaque and Valenzuela, and the municipalities of Malabon, Navotas, Pateros, San Juan and Taguig. With the passage of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 7924 in 1995, Metropolitan Manila was declared as a "special development and administrative region" and the
Administration of "metro-wide" basic services affecting the region placed under "a development authority" referred to as the MMDA.
Metro-wide services" are those "services which have metro-wide impact and transcend local political boundaries or entail huge
expenditures such that it would not be viable for said services to be provided by the individual local government units comprising
Metro Manila." There are seven (7) basic metro-wide services and the scope of these services cover the following: (1) development
planning; (2) transport and traffic management; (3) solid waste disposal and management; (4) flood control and sewerage
management; (5) urban renewal, zoning and land use planning, and shelter services; (6) health and sanitation, urban protection and
pollution control; and (7) public safety.
The governing board of the MMDA is the Metro Manila Council. The Council is composed of the mayors of the component 12 cities
and 5 municipalities, the president of the Metro Manila Vice-Mayors' League and the president of the Metro Manila Councilors'
League. The Council is headed by a Chairman who is appointed by the President and vested with the rank of cabinet member. As the
policymaking body of the MMDA, the Metro Manila Council approves metro-wide plans, programs and projects, and issues the
necessary rules and regulations for the implementation of said plans; it approves the annual budget of the MMDA and promulgates
the rules and regulations for the delivery of basic services, collection of service and regulatory fees, fines and penalties.
It will be noted that the powers of the MMDA are limited to the following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation,
preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system and administration. There is no syllable in R.A. No.
7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power. Even the Metro Manila Council has not been delegated any
legislative power. Unlike the legislative bodies of the local government units, there is no provision in R.A. No. 7924 that empowers
the MMDA or its Council to "enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare" of the inhabitants
of Metro Manila. The MMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, a "development authority." It is an agency created for the purpose of
laying down policies and coordinating with the various national government agencies, people's organizations, non-governmental
organizations and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area. All its
functions are administrative in nature and these are actually summed up in the charter itself.
MMDA vs. Garin (2005)

MMDA confiscated Garin’s driver’s license because he was caught illegally parking. Garin challenged the authority of MMDA. The
Court upheld the power of MMDA to confiscate, suspend, or revoke licenses – ruling that although the MMDA has no police power, it
is bound to enforce existing traffic laws and regulations.
Where there is a traffic law or regulation validly enacted by the legislature or those agencies to whom legislative powers have been
delegated (such as Manila City in this case, via ordinance), the MMDA is not precluded from confiscating, suspending, or revoking
drivers’ licenses in the exercise of its mandate. In fact, it is duty-bound to do so. While the MMDA cannot enact ordinances, it may
enforce them.
LOCAL AUTONOMY
Constitution, Art. II
Sec. 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.
Sec. 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.
Sec. 4. 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.
Sec. 11. The Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan political subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10
hereof. The component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executive
and legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will thereby be created shall be limited to basic
services requiring coordination.
Sec. 12. Cities that are highly urbanized, as determined by law, and component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for
provincial elective officials, shall be independent of the province. 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 officials.
Declaration of Policy
1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their
fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals
2. The State shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of
decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources.
3. The State shall ensure the accountability of LGUs through the institution of effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum.
4. All national agencies are required to conduct periodic consultations with the appropriate LGUs, NGOs, people’s organizations and
other concerned sector before any project or program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions.
Local autonomy – This means that local governments have certain powers given by the Constitution which may not be curtailed by the
national government, beyond these, local governments may not enact ordinances contrary to statute. (Bernas)
- The principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply means “decentralization;” it does not make the local governments
sovereign within a State or an imperium in imperio (Basco vs. Pagcor)
Limitations on the local autonomy of LGUs:

1. General supervision of the President
2. Control of Congress
Kinds of Autonomy
1. Decentralization of Administration
- Exists when the central government delegates administrative powers to political subdivisions in order to broaden the base of
-
- government power and in the process make LGUs 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
- 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.
2. Decentralization of Power
- Involves abdication of political power in favor of LGUs declared autonomous. In that case, the autonomous government is free
to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central authorities. This amounts to self-
immolation because the autonomous government becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to its constituency.
Forms of Decentralization
a. Devolution
The transfer of power and authority from the national government to LGUs as the territorial and political subdivisions of the State. It
is the transfer of power, responsibilities, and resources for the performance of certain functions from the central government to the
LGU.
b. Deconcentration
It is the transfer of power, authority, or responsibility, or the discretion to plan, decide, and manage from central point or local levels,
but within the central of national government itself. It is administrative in nature; it involves the transfer of functions or the
delegation of authority and responsibility from the national office to the regional and local offices.
c. Debureaucratization
It is the transfer of some public functions and responsibilities which the government may perform to private entities or non-
governmental organizstions; it is people’s empowerment on participation in local governance.
Salient Features of the LGC

1. Devolution of certain national governmental powers to LGU
a. Public works
b. Social welfare
c. Construction of school buildings and facilities
d. Health
e. Agriculture
f. Tourism functions
2. Increase in national tax share for LGUs

3. Increase in tax power
Fiscal autonomy
This means the LGUs have the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to 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. They are not formulated
at the national level and imposed on local governments, whether they are relevant to local needs and resources or not. [Pimentel v. Aguirre
(2000)]
Sources of LGU funds (Sec. 18, LGC)

1. Taxes, fees, and charges which accrue exclusively for their use and disposition
2. Just share in national taxes which shall be automatically and directly released to them
3. Equitable share in the proceeds from utilization and development of national wealth and resources within their territorial jurisdiction
Internal Revenue Allotments

General rule: LGUs shall have a 40% share in the national internal revenue taxes based on the collection of the third fiscal year preceding the
current fiscal year.
Exception: when the national government incurs an unmanageable public sector deficit, the President authorized to reduce the allotment to
30%.
Requisites for Exception:

1. Unmanageable public sector deficit
2. Recommendation of the Secretaries of (a) Finance, (b) Internal and Local Gov’t, and (c) Budget and Management
3. Consultation with (a) heads of both houses of Congress, and (b) presidents of the Liga)
Automatic Release
The share of each LGU shall be released, without need of any further action, directly to the respective treasurer on a quarterly basis within five
(5) days after the end of each quarter, and which shall not be subject to any lien or holdback that may be imposed by the national
government for whatever purpose. [Sec. 286(a), LGC]
San Juan vs. CSC, G.R. No. 92299. April 19, 1991|
DBM ruled that the nominees provided by the Governor for the position of PBO are not qualified, and thus appointed someone else to the
post. Petitioner governor argued that in selecting who to appoint, DBM should limit itself to the nominees submitted by the governor. CSC
agreed with DBM, saying that the recommending power of the local government to appointive positions is merely directory. SC ruled in favor
with the petitioner governor, and reiterated the importance of local autonomy. Where a law is capable of two interpretations, one in favor of
centralized power in Malacañang and the other beneficial to local autonomy, the scales must be weighed in favor of autonomy.
An entire article on Local Government was incorporated into the Constitution. It called for a local government code defining more responsive
and accountable local government structures. Any creation, merger, abolition, or substantial boundary alteration cannot be done except in
accordance with the local government code and upon approval by a plebiscite. The power to create sources of revenue and to levy taxes was
specifically settled upon local governments.
Pimentel vs. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988. July 19, 2000

President Ramos issued AO372 which directed LGUs to reduce their total expenditures by at least 25% (section 1) and the withholding of the
10% of their IRAs (section 4). Estrada later amended section 4 and reduced the amount to be withheld to 5 %. The Court held that section 1
is valid because it merely advisory in character and does not interfere with the local fiscal autonomy of the LGUs. Section 4, however, is invalid
because any form of retention of the IRA is prohibited by the constitution and the local government code.
LGUs also enjoy fiscal autonomy. Fiscal autonomy means that local government has 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.
Requisites before the president may interfere in local fiscal matters (Sec 284, LGC):
a. Unmanaged public sector deficit of the national government
b. Consultations with the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the presidents of the various local
leagues
c. Corresponding recommendation of the secretaries of the Department of Finance, DILG and Budget and Management.
d. 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.
Ganzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93252, Aug. 5, 1991

Mayor Rodolfo Ganzon challenges the authority of the Secretary of Local Government to issue suspensions, since the 1987 Constitution,
according to him, no longer allows the President to exercise the power of suspension and/or removal over local officials. SC held that such
interpretation is incorrect; the change in the constitutional language merely was meant to stress the objective of the framers to strengthen
local autonomy by severing congressional control of its affairs.
However, it also does not intend to deprive the legislature of ALL authority over municipal corporations. Autonomy, after all, does not
contemplate making mini--‐ states out of local government units. It is not meant to end the relation of partnership and interdependence
between the central administration and local government units, or otherwise, to usher in a regime of federalism.
Cordillera Broad Coalition v. COA, G.R. No. 79956, Jan. 29, 1990
EO 220 was issued, creating the CAR. Its validity was questioned primarily on the ground that it preempted Congress from its mandated task
of enacting an organic act and created an autonomous region in the Cordilleras. The Court ruled that the EO did not establish an autonomous
regional government. It created a region, covering a specified area, for administrative purposes with the main objective of coordinating the
planning and implementation of programs and services. CAR is not the autonomous region in the Cordilleras contemplated by the Constitution.
Furthermore, E.O. No. 220, did not create a new territorial and political subdivision or merge existing ones into a larger subdivision. The Court
likewise clarified that the CAR did not violate the constitutional guarantee of local autonomy as this refers to the administrative autonomy of
local government units, that is, the decentralization of government authority.
Local autonomy is not unique to the 1987 Constitution, it being guaranteed also under the 1973 Constitution. And while there was no express
guarantee under the 1935 Constitution, the Congress enacted the Local Autonomy Act(R.A. No. 2264) and the Decentralization Act (R.A. No.
5185), which ushered the irreversible march towards further enlargement of local autonomy in the country.
On the other hand, the creation of autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras, which is peculiar to the 1987 Constitution,
contemplates the grant of political autonomy and not just administrative autonomy to these regions. Thus, the provision in the Constitution for
an autonomous regional government with a basic structure consisting of an executive department and a legislative assembly and special
courts with personal, family and property law jurisdiction in each of the autonomous regions.
As stated earlier, the CAR is a mere transitory coordinating agency that would prepare the stage for political autonomy for the Cordilleras. It
fills in the resulting gap in the process of transforming a group of adjacent territorial and political subdivisions already enjoying local or
administrative autonomy into an autonomous region vested with political autonomy.
Mactan Cebu vs Marcos, G.R. No. 120082. September 11, 1996

MCIAA’s properties were taxed by the local government. Protesting, it cited Section 133 of the Local Government Code (LGC) which exempts
the National Government and its instrumentalities from local taxes. The Court held that Section 193 already withdrew its exemption. Sections
232 and 234, on the other hand, do not include it in the exceptions. Thus, it is liable for real property taxes, pursuant to the State policy to
promote local autonomy through the raising of local revenues, which may be attained through taxation.
It is true that Section 133 of the LGC provides that LGUs cannot tax the National Government, and its agencies and instrumentalities. But this
must be read in conjunction with Section 232, which empowers provinces, cities, and Metro Manila municipalities to impose real property tax
except on “real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions”, unless the beneficial use thereof has
been granted to a taxable person.
DECENTRALIZATION
Constitution, Art. X, Secs. 3 & 14
Limbona v. Mangellin, G.R. No. 80391, Feb. 28, 1989

Petitioner Limbona had been unseated from his speakership of the Legislative Assembly of an Autonomous region. He filed a case to have
himself reinstated. The respondents impute the jurisdiction of the national courts over the autonomous regions. The Supreme Court rejected
this argument. It held that the autonomy the region enjoyed is limited insofar as the court could assume jurisdiction over the matter at issue.
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". At the same time, it relieves the central government of the burden of managing
local affairs and enables it to concentrate on national concerns. 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. Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of political power in the favor of local governments 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.
GENERAL POWERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Sources of Power:
1. 1987 Constitution
2. Statutes – general and special
3. Charter creating such municipal corporation
4. All existing laws, acts, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, and administrative regulations not inconsistent with the 1987
Constitution
A. Police Power
LGC, SECTION 16. General Welfare.
Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied there from, as well as powers necessary,
appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare.
Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and
enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the
development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity
and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of
their inhabitants.
General Welfare Clause

a. Every LGU shall exercise the following powers:
1. Powers expressly granted
2. Powers necessarily implied therefrom
3. Powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for efficient and effective governance
4. Powers essential to the promotion of the general welfare
b. Within its territorial jurisdiction, the LGU shall ensure and support the promotion and/or preservation of the following:
1. Health and safety
2. Scientific and technological capabilities
3. Balanced ecology
4. Culture
5. Public morals
6. Economic prosperity
7. Social justice
8. Peace and order
9. Employment among its residents
10. Comfort and convenience of its residents
Limitations:
1. Express grant by law
2. Must not be contrary to law
3. Territoriality
4. Equal protection clause
5. Due process clause
Test to determine validity of Police Power

a. The subject matter of the law must be lawful, which means that public interest, as distinguished from those of a particular interest,
requires the interference of the State
b. The means employed to attain the purpose of the law must be reasonably necessary
c. It must not be unduly oppressive upon individuals
White Light vs. City of Manila (2009)

Owners and operators of hotels filed a case to invalidate an ordinance sanctioning any person or corporation who will allow the admission and
charging of room rates for less than 12 hours. The SC held that such ordinance is an invalid exercise of police power for not meeting the
requisites for valid exercise of police power. Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to
underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions
warrant. It is based upon the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people. In order to test the
validity of a police power measure, the ff. requisites must concur:
• It must appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require an interference
with private rights.
• It must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work.
• A reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment
Dela Cruz vs Paras (1983)

Petitioners are assailing the ordinance which prohibits the operation of night clubs, cabarets, and dance halls, and the issuance of permits for
hostesses, hospitality girls, and dances. CFI sided in favor of the municipality saying that it is a valid exercise of police power. SC said that
municipalities only have the power to regulate but not prohibit.
The general welfare clause has two branches: One branch attaches itself to the main trunk of municipal authority, and relates to such
ordinances and regulations as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon the municipal council
by law. With this class we are not here directly concerned. The second branch of the clause is much more independent of the specific
functions of the council which are enumerated by law. It authorizes such ordinances as shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the
health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the municipality and the
inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of property therein.' It is a general rule that ordinances passed by virtue of the implied power found
in the general welfare clause must be reasonable, consonant with the general powers and purposes of the corporation, and not inconsistent
with the laws or policy of the State.
SC said that if night clubs were merely regulated, then the ordinance would pass the test of validity. The ordinance must be reasonable as well
as consistent with the laws of the policy of the State. But it cannot be a sweeping exercise of lawmaking power like in this case where the
objective was to foster public morals which can be attained through a measure that is not as sweeping as Ordinance No. 84. The purpose
sought to be achieved could have been attained by reasonable restrictions rather than absolute prohibition.
Technology Developers vs. CA (1991)

Petitioner, Technology Developers Inc., is a domestic private corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of charcoal briquette. The
acting mayor ordered the full cessation of the operation of the petitioner's plant because of the air pollution. Petitioner instituted an action for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus with preliminary injunction which was granted but later on dissolved due to adduced evidence. The SC held
that the lower courts did not err in denying the motions of the petitioner. Factors were considered, such as lack of mayor’s permit, to justify
the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction. It must be recognized that the mayor of a town has as much responsibility to protect its
inhabitants from pollution, and by virtue of his police power, he may deny the application for a permit to operate a business or otherwise close
the same unless appropriate measures are taken to control and/or avoid injury to the health of the residents of the community from the
emissions in the operation of the business.
Chua Huat vs. CA (1991)

Occupants of a building in Paco Manila were asked to vacate because it was about to be demolished. They filed a case for Prohibition, with
Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining Order, against the City Mayor, City Engineer and Building Official. The power to condemn buildings
and structures in the City of Manila falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Engineer, who is at the same time the Building Oficial (Sec.
206, P.D. 1096). This is based on Sections 275 and 276 of the Compilation of Ordinances of the City of Manila (also Revised Ordinances 1600).
Section 215 of P.D. 1096, otherwise known as the National Building Code, also states the authority of the Building Official with respect to
dangerous buildings. SEE NOTES.
From the abovementioned provisions, it is unquestionable that the Building Official has the authority to order the condemnation and
demolition of buildings which are found to be in a dangerous or ruinous condition. It is also clear from the Compilation of Ordinances of the
City of Manila that the Mayor has the power to confirm or deny the action taken by the Building Official with respect to the dangerous or
ruinous buildings.
Binay vs. Domingo (1991)

Petitioner Binay, as Mayor of the Makati, filed a special civil action assailing the COA Decision which disapproved Makati’s Burial Assistance
Program inasmuch as it is not a valid exercise of police power for lack of relation to the general welfare of the inhabitants. The SC ruled that
the police power of municipal corporations under the general welfare clause is broad and not capable of exact definition, hence, COA cannot
redefine the scope of police power by circumscribing its exercise to “public safety, general welfare etc. of the inhabitants of Makati.” The care
of the poor has long been an accepted exercise of police power in the promotion of the common good.
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 extends to all
the great public needs, and, in a broad sense includes all legislation and almost every function of the municipal government. It covers a wide
scope of subjects, and, while it is especially occupied with whatever affects the peace, security, health, morals, and general welfare of the
community, it is not limited thereto, but 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.
Judge Tamin vs. CA (1992)
Acting on a complaint by the Municipality of Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur, RTC Judge Camilo Tamin issued a writ of possession and a writ of
demolition to evict Vicente Medina and Fortunata Rosellon from a parcel of land which the municipality claimed to be reserved by law for a
public plaza and to demolish their structures thereon. Judge Tamin justified his orders on the basis of eminent domain, which the Court of
Appeals voided, saying among other things, that the trial court erred when it applied by analogy the rule on eminent domain (Rule 67) to
justify the issuance of the writ of possession and writ of demolition. (Under Rule 67, there should be (1) clear statutory authority for the taking
of possession by the government and that the (2) authority is premised on the government depositing the value of the land to be taken.
Otherwise, it would constitute deprivation of property without due process of law which the Constitution prohibits).
Conceding that constructions on a public plaza can be abated summarily by the Municipality, the Supreme Court pointed out that the parcel of
land had only been reserved for use as a public plaza, subject to existing private rights. The existence of private rights would depend on the
result of an earlier cadastral proceedings, wherein Medina was one of the claimants. However, since the Municipality had already evicted
Medina and Rosellon and demolished their buildings, the Supreme Court ordered the Municipality to file a bond for just compensation in case
the result of the cadastral proceedings would show that the respondents had no right to occupy the land.
Parayno vs. Jovellanos (2006)

Concepcion Parayno owned a gas filling station in the municipality of Calasio, Pangasinan. Thru Resolution 50 issued by the Sangguniang
Bayan, the same was recommended to be shut down for being violative of Section 44 of Official Zoning Code of Calasiao. Parayno move for
reconsideration but it was denied. She then filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with the RTC of Dagupan but this was dismissed; CA
likewise dismissed the petition. Upon appeal to the SC, Parayno averred that Sec. 44 covered only “gas service stations” and not “gas filling
station”, and further argued that the act of Municipality of Calasiao is an invalid exercise of police power of the municipality. The Court sided
with her and struck down the Resolution.
The Court acknowledges the power of the Municipality under RA 7160 to take actions and enact measures to promote the health and general
welfare of its constituents. But a valid exercise of police power must conform to the following requisites: (1) the interests of the public
generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the State and (2) the means employed are reasonably
necessary for the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive. The first requirement refers to the equal
protection clause and the second, to the due process clause of the Constitution.
Respondent municipality failed to comply with the due process clause when it passed Resolution No. 50. While it maintained that the gasoline
filling station of petitioner was less than 100 meters from the nearest public school and church, the records do not show that it even
attempted to measure the distance, notwithstanding that such distance was crucial in determining whether there was an actual violation of
Section 44. The different local offices that respondent municipality tapped to conduct an investigation never conducted such measurement
either.
Balanga Dev’t vs. Balanga (1994)

GBDC applied for a mayor’s permit to operate on the disputed lot behind the Balanga Public Market. The mayor granted the permit to engage
in business as “a real estate dealer or privately owned public market contractor.” The Sanggunian passed a Resolution annulling the permit.
The Mayor later revoked the permit on various grounds including grounds like “anxiety, uncertainty, restiveness" among the stallholders and
traders of the Public Market. The SC ruled that the revocation of the permit in this case was made on invalid grounds and ordered
reinstatement of the permit.
The Sangguniang Bayan has the duty in the exercise of its police powers to regulate any business subject to municipal license fees and
prescribe the conditions under which a municipal license already issued may be revoked under B.P. Blg. 337, Sec. 149 [1] [r]2. In this case,
however, the reason made in the Resolution was the alleged "anxiety, uncertainty, restiveness" among the stallholders and traders which
cannot be a valid ground for revoking the permit of petitioner. The claim that the measures were “designed to promote peace and order and
protect the general welfare of the people” also too amorphous and convenient an excuse to justify respondents’ acts.
Tano vs. Socrates (1997)

The Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Puerto Princesa enacted an ordinance banning the shipment of all live fish and lobster outside Puerto
Princesa City from January 1, 1993 to January 1, 1998. Subsequently, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Provincial Government of Palawan
enacted a resolution prohibiting the catching , gathering, possessing, buying, selling, and shipment of a several species of live marine coral
dwelling aquatic organisms for 5 years, in and coming from Palawan waters.
Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, praying that the court declare the said ordinances and resolutions as
unconstitutional on the ground that the said ordinances deprived them of the due process of law, their livelihood, and unduly restricted them
from the practice of their trade, in violation of Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution. Supreme
Court held that the ordinances are valid and constitutional. Based on the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the LGC
and the powers granted to local government units under Section 16 (the General Welfare Clause), and under Sections 149, 447 (a) (1) (vi),
458 (a) (1) (vi) and 468 (a) (1) (vi), the issuance of the ordinances is a valid exercise of the police power of the local government units.
It is a state policy enshrined in the Constitution that the State has the duty to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. The General Welfare Clause (Sec 16 LGC), expressly mentions the power
of the LGUs to enhance this right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. Moreover, Section 5(c) of the LGC explicitly mandates
that the general welfare provisions of the LGC "shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers to the local government units in accelerating
economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the people of the community."
The Court further discussed that the centerpiece of LGC is the system of decentralization as expressly mandated by the Constitution.
Indispensable to decentralization is devolution and the LGC expressly provides that "[a]ny provision on a power of a local government unit
shall be liberally interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of
the lower local government unit. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the local
government unit concerned." Devolution refers to the act by which the National Government confers power and authority upon the various
local government units to perform specific functions and responsibilities. One of the devolved powers enumerated in the section of the LGC on
devolution is the enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters including the conservation of mangroves. This necessarily includes the
enactment of ordinances to effectively carry out such fishery laws within the municipal waters.
Manila vs. Laguio (2005)

The City of Manila passed an Ordinance prohibiting the establishment or operation of certain types of businesses. MTDC, owner of Victoria
Court, questioned the validity of the Ordinance. The SC ruled that the enactment of the Ordinance was an invalid exercise of delegated power
as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws.
For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and must be passed
according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements:
(1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
(2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
(3) must not be partial or discriminatory;
(4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
(5) must be general and consistent with public policy;
(6) must not be unreasonable.
The closing down and transfer of businesses or their conversion into businesses “allowed” under the Ordinance have no reasonable relation to
the accomplishment of its purposes. Otherwise stated, the prohibition of the enumerated establishments will not per se protect and promote
the social and moral welfare of the community; it will not in itself eradicate the alluded social ills of prostitution, adultery, fornication nor will it
arrest the spread of sexual disease in Manila. That these are used as arenas to consummate illicit sexual affairs and as venues to further the
illegal prostitution is of no moment. Sexual immorality, being a human frailty, may take place in the most innocent of places that it may even
take place in the substitute establishments enumerated under Section 3 of the Ordinance. Besides, there are other means to reasonably
accomplish the desired end.
Power to Provide Basic Services and Facilities

a. Endeavor to be self-reliant and shall continue exercising the powers, duties, and functions vested upon them.
b. Discharge functions and responsibilities of national agencies devolved to them
c. Exercise such powers, functions, and responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or incidental to the efficient and effective
provision of basic services and facilities. (Sec. 17, LGC)
Closure and Opening of Roads
LGC, SECTION 21. Closure and Opening of Roads.
(a) A local government unit may, pursuant to an ordinance, permanently or temporarily close or open any local road, alley, park, or square
falling within its jurisdiction: Provided, however, That in case of permanent closure, such ordinance must be approved by at least two-
thirds (2/3) of all the members of the Sanggunian, and when necessary, an adequate substitute for the public facility that is subject to
closure is provided.
(b) No such way or place or any part thereof shall be permanently closed without making provisions for the maintenance of public safety
therein. A property thus permanently withdrawn from public use may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property
belonging to the local government unit concerned may be lawfully used or conveyed: Provided, however, That no freedom park shall be
closed permanently without provision for its transfer or relocation to a new site.
(c) Any national or local road, alley, park, or square may be temporarily closed during an actual emergency, or fiesta celebrations, public
rallies, agricultural or industrial fairs, or an undertaking of public works and highways, telecommunications, and waterworks projects,
the duration of which shall be specified by the local chief executive concerned in a written order: Provided, however, That no national or
local road, alley, park, or square shall set temporarily closed for athletic, cultural, or civic activities not officially sponsored, recognized,
or approved by the local government unit concerned.
(d) Any city, municipality, or Barangay may, by a duly enacted close and regulate the use of any local ordinance, temporarily street, road,
thoroughfare, or any other public place where shopping malls, Sunday, flea or night markets, or shopping areas may be established and
where goods, merchandise, foodstuffs, commodities, or articles of commerce may be sold and dispensed to the general public.
Requisites for Temporary Closure:

1. Via ordinance
2. For reasons mentioned in Sec. 21
3. Duration of closure must be specified by the local chief executive in a written order
4. If for the purpose of athletic, cultural, or civil activities, these must be officially sponsored, recognized, or approved by the local
government
Requisited for Permanent Closure
1. Via ordinance approved by at least 2/3 of all members of the Sanggunian
2. When necessary, an adequate substitute for the public facility that is subject to closure should be provided
3. Such ordinance must have provisions for the maintenance of public safety therein
4. If a freedom park is permanently closed, there must be a provision for its transfer or relocation to a new site.
Such property permanently withdrawn from public use may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to
the LGU may be lawfully used or conveyed. [Sec. 21(b)]
Sangalang vs. IAC (1989)

The Mayor of Makati ordered the opening-up of Jupiter and Orbit Streets in Bel-Air Village. Petitioner argued that the Deed of Donation
between Ayala and BAVA provided that Jupiter Street was intended for the exclusive use of Bel-Air residents. As to the demolition of gates at
Jupiter Street and Orbit Street, it would amount to deprivation of property without due process of law or expropriation without just
compensation. Petitioner also claimed that the opening of the Orbit Street would result in the loss of privacy of BAVA residents. The Court
ruled that the acts of the Mayor were valid exercise of police power. The summary nature of the demolition of the gates was likewise held to
be valid and within the authority of the Mayor under the law.
The opening of Jupiter Street was warranted by the demands of the common good, in terms of traffic decongestion and public convenience.
SC also uphold the opening of Orbit Street for the same rationale. The act of the mayor now challenged is that of police power which is the
state’s authority to enact legislation that may interfere with the personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare.” It
consists of the (1) imposition of restraint upon liberty and property (2) in order to foster the common good.
Art. 436 of the Civil Code states that when any property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of health, safety or
security, the owner thereof shall not be entitled to compensation, unless he can show that such condemnation or seizure is unjustifiable. The
aggrieved party has not shown that there is unjustifiable reason for the exercise of the police power. The fact that it has lead to the loss of
privacy of BAVA residents is no argument against the municipality’s effort to ease vehicular traffic in Makati.
Cabrera vs. CA (1991)

The provincial government closed a road pursuant to the resolution it enacted. Property owners affected by the new road were given portions
of the old read in exchange. Petitioners argued that the old road was a public property and thus not outside the commerce of men. He argued
that the closure of the road was just a way to barter or exchange it with private property. He claimed that the control of public roads is within
the power of Congress and not of the Provincial Board. The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the deeds of exchange executed. It also held
that property owners affected by the closure of the road are not entitled to compensation as long as they still have access to their properties.
The closure of the road was done pursuant to a valid resolution. There was no barter that occurred between the municipality and the property
owners. RA 5185 (An Act Granting Further Autonomous Powers to Local Governments) in relation to the Revised Administrative Code provided
for the authority of the provincial board to close the road use or convey it for other purposes. The acts by the municipal officials should be
subject to approval or direction by the Provincial Board. Moreover, the provincial board has the duty of maintaining the roads for the comfort
and convenience of the inhabitants of the province. Such duty was reinforced further by the grant by the national legislature of the funds to
the Province of Catanduanes for the construction of provincial roads.
Dacanay vs. Asistio (1992)

The petitioner Dacanay was an aggrieved Caloocan City resident who filed a special civil action of mandamus against the incumbent city mayor
and city engineer, to compel these city officials to remove the market stalls from certain city streets which the aforementioned city officials
have designated as flea markets, and the private respondents (stallholders) to vacate the streets. The Supreme Court held that the city
government cannot lease out public streets for commercial purpose and the ordinance to this effect is beyond the powers of the city
government to enact.
The Executive Order issued by Acting Mayor Robles authorizing the use of Heroes del '96 Street as a vending area for stallholders who were
granted licenses by the city government contravenes the general law that reserves city streets and roads for public use. Mayor Robles'
Executive Order may not infringe upon the vested right of the public to use city streets for the purpose they were intended to serve: i.e., as
arteries of travel for vehicles and pedestrians. As early as 1989, the public respondents had started to look for feasible alternative sites for flea
markets. They have had more than ample time to relocate the street vendors.
Macasiano vs. Diokno (1992)

Respondent Municipality of Paranaque passed an ordinance authorizing the closure of certain streets located in Baclaran, Paranaque. This was
approved by the Metropolitan Manila Authority, subject to compliance with certain conditions. Petitioner Brig. Gen. Macasiano, PNP
Superintendent of the Metropolitan Traffic Command, ordered the destruction and confiscation of stalls. RTC denied the same. SC ruled in
favor of Macasiano, stating that the roads are intended to be used for public purposes. Local government did not comply with due process in
turning the road into patrimonial land, and the streets are commonly used for transit.
The property of provinces, cities and municipalities is divided into property for public use and patrimonial property pursuant to Art. 424 of the
Civil Code. Properties of the local government which are devoted to public service are deemed public and are under the absolute control of
Congress. Hence, local governments have no authority whatsoever to control or regulate the use of public properties unless specific authority
is vested upon them by Congress. One such example of this authority given by Congress to the local governments is the power to close roads
as provided in Section 10, Chapter II of the Local Government Code:
Sec. 10. Closure of Roads. A property thus withdrawn from public use may be used or conveyed for any its head acting pursuant to a
resolution of its sangguniang and in accordance with existing law and the provisions of this Code, close any barangay, municipal, city or
provincial road, street, alley, park or square. No such way or place or any part thereof shall be closed without indemnifying any person
prejudiced thereby.
Aside from the requirement of due process which should be complied with before closing a road, street or park, the closure should be for the
sole purpose of withdrawing the road or other public property from public use when circumstances show that such property is no longer
intended or necessary for public use or public service. When it is already withdrawn from public use, the property then becomes patrimonial
property of the local government unit concerned. However, those roads and streets which are available to the public in general and ordinarily
used for vehicular traffic are still considered public property devoted to public use. In such case, the local government has no power to use it
for another purpose or to dispose of or lease it to private persons.
Pilapil vs. CA (1992)

In issue here is the location of a municipal road called a camino vecinal and whether it traverses the property of the Sps. Pilapil. The
Colomidas argue that the witness testimonies of the long time residents that the road traverses the Pilapil property should be given weight.
RTC and CA ruled in favor of the Colomidas. SC ruled in favor of the Sps. Pilapil giving weight to the fact that the Municipality of Liloan,
through its Sangunian Bayan approved an Urban Land Use Plan that showed that the road ran along the side of the property and not
traversing it.
A camino vecinal is a municipal road. It is also property for public use. Pursuant, therefore, to the above powers of a local government unit,
the Municipality of Liloan had the unassailable authority to (a) prepare and adopt a land use map, (b) promulgate a zoning ordinance which
may consider, among other things, the municipal roads to be constructed, maintained, improved or repaired and (c) close any municipal road.
In the instant case, the Municipality of Liloan, through the Sangguniang Bayan, approved the Urban Land Use Plan; this plan was duly signed
by the Municipal Mayor. By doing so, the said legislative body determined, among others, the location of the camino vecinal in sitio Bahak. The
unrebutted testimony of Engineer Epifanio Jordan shows that the same was approved by the Sangguniang Bayan.
MMDA vs. Bel-Air Ass’n (2000)

MMDA sent a notice to BAVA, requesting it to open Neptune Street to public vehicular traffic. SC held that MMDA had no authority to make
such order. It had no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community; such authority is lodged in the City Council of Makati by an
ordinance.
The powers of the MMDA are limited to the following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management,
monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system and administration. There is no syllable in R.A. No. 7924 that grants the MMDA police
power, let alone legislative power. Even the MMC has not been delegated any legislative power.

Locgov Notes (In Progress)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Locgov Notes (In Progress)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW

Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 25

Art. X, Secs. 2 & 4

Mondano vs. Silvosa, G.R. No. L-7708, May 30, 1955

LOCAL GOVERNMENT/MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Civil Code, Book 1, Title 1

Art. 44. The following are juridical persons:

LGC, Sec.15. Political and Corporate Nature of LGUs

PUBLIC CORPORATION PRIVATE CORPORATION

PUBLIC CORPORATION GOCCs

If organized under the Corporation Code, as provided for in Sec. 36 of

Types of Municipal Corporation

2. De Jure municipal corporations

3. De Facto municipal corporations

Tatel vs. Municipality of Virac (1992)

Alvarez vs Guingona, G.R. No. 118303,, Jan. 31, 1996||

Basco vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 91649, May 4, 1991

Homeowners Assn of Talayan, G.R. No. 203883, Nov. 10, 2015

Power of creation is legislative in nature

Ex: delegated power to SP or SB to create barangays (Sec. 385)

When not required:

3. Election and qualification of elective officials

Basis of creation and conversion of LGUs (Sec. 7, LGC)

2. Projected capacity to provide services

Summary of verifiable indicators per LGU

Land area requirements

Need not follow land area Need not be contiguous

ii. Highly urbanized cities and independent component cities

Alvarez v. Guingona, ibid.

Navarro v. Ermita, G.R. No. 180050. February 10, 201

Local Government Code

Other Material Changes

i. Division and Merger

Dissolution does not occur due to:

Calanza vs. PICOP (2009)

Brgy. Sangalang vs. Brgy. Maguitan (2009)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

Mandanas vs. Ochoa (2018)

Local Government Code, Sec. 384 – 439

Morata vs. Go (1983)

Uy vs. Contreras (1994)

Local Government Code, Sec. 440 – 447

Torralba vs. Municipal of Sibagat (1987)

Conversion of a Component City into a Highly Urbanized City

Local Government Code, Sec. 448 – 458

Lim vs. CA (2002)

Local Government Code, Sec. 459 – 490

R.A 6734 (Organic Act establishing the ARMM) – valid

Local Government Code, Sec. 526

Disomangcop vs. Datumanong (2004)

Province of North Cotabato vs. RP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (2008)

6. The Metro Manila Development Authority

MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village (2000)

MMDA vs. Garin (2005)

Limitations on the local autonomy of LGUs:

Salient Features of the LGC

2. Increase in national tax share for LGUs

Sources of LGU funds (Sec. 18, LGC)

Internal Revenue Allotments

Requisites for Exception:

Pimentel vs. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988. July 19, 2000

Ganzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93252, Aug. 5, 1991

Mactan Cebu vs Marcos, G.R. No. 120082. September 11, 1996