PUBLIC CORPORATION

ATTY. MAURICIO ULEP

November 24, 2018

V. Legislative Powers of LGU

Case: Roble v. Arrastre

Distinctions between an Ordinance and a Resolution

Ordinance Resolution
It is a law. It is not a law.
Carries with it a character of permanency. Temporary in character.
Cannot be used for purposes of promotion. Can be used for purposes of promotion.

Case: Solicitor General v. MMA

6 Requisites of a Valid Ordinance

According to Elliot, a municipal ordinance, to be valid:

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 not be unreasonable; and

6) must be general and consistent with public policy. The Solicitor General vs. The
Metropolitan Manila Authority, G.R. No. 102782, December 11, 1991, 204 SCRA 837.

Case: Zamora v. Caballero

Meaning of Quorum

"Quorum" is defined as that number of members of a body which, when legally assembled in their
proper places, will enable the body to transact its proper business or that number which makes a
lawful body and gives it power to pass upon a law or ordinance or do any valid act. [44] "Majority,"
when required to constitute a quorum, means the number greater than half or more than half of any
total. [45] In fine, the entire membership must be taken into account in computing the quorum of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, for while the constitution merely states that "majority of each House shall
constitute a quorum,"

Section 53 of the LGC is more exacting as it requires that the "majority of all members of the
sanggunian.elected and qualified" shall constitute a quorum.
Passage of an Ordinance

If an elected councillor faces an election protest, he should not be counted in the casting of or
deliberation of sangguniang bayan/panlalawigan.

There are 8 councilors and 1 of the councillors has a pending election protest, then the quorum has
only 7 members.

Case: Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative v. Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete

Q: Can a sangguniang panlungsod have contempt powers?

A: No. Because sang pangla or panglungsod is not considered as a court or judicial body whch has
contempt powers.

However, in the case of Batangas CATV v. CA, all ordinances of the country should be taken judicial
cognizance by courts means that when an oridinance is used as an evidence in court in case of legal
presumption of regularity means there is no need to present evidence with respect to regularity in its
issuance.

VII. Requirements and Prohibitions Applicable to all Local Officials and Employees

Section 90. Practice of Profession

a. All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession or engaging
in any

occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives.

b. Sanggunian officials may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools
except

during session hours. Provided, that sanggunian members who are also members of the Bar shall not:

1. Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein and LGU or any office, agency or
instrumentality of

the government is the adverse party

2. Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an official or employee of the national or local
government is

accused of an offense committed in relation to his office

3. Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the LGU of which he is
an official

4. Use property and personnel of the Government except when the sanggunian member concerned is
defending the

interest of the Government.

c. Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even during official hours of work only on
occasion of
emergency. Provided, that the official does not derive any monetary income profession.

Q: Is being an actress a profession?

A: Yes. For a profession be considered as such, it must be regulated by the PRC.

*Vilma Santos, Joey De Leon and Lito Lapid still continue to practice their profession despite of being
elected as public officials.*

Q: Have they all Section 90?

A: Yes. The penalty is found in RA 6713 – Code of Professional Responsibility of Public Officials.

The penalty is one of removal of public office.

Q: Were they removed from their office?

A: No. Even if it is of public knowledge.

Q: Is it not unfair for the People of Lipa considering that she still exercises his profession despite the
express prohibition of section 90?

A: Yes.

Case: Social Justice Society v. Lina

Q: Can anybody file a case against them?

A: No. It cannot be.

If you want to file a case involving section 90 against Vilma Santos, you should be a resident of Lipa.

NGO cannot file a case against Vilma Santos.

Q: What about tito sotto? A senator. Nasa eat bulaga. Is he covred by the prohibition?

A: No, because only governors, city and municipal mayors and sanggunian officials are covered by the
prohibition.

Case: Javellana v. DILG

Lawyer and at the same time a councilor.

Q: Is he prohibited to practice law?

A: No. He is allowed to practice his profession provided:

1. In civil cases where there is no conflict of interest involved.

Eg. No instrumentality of the government should be sued by him.
2. In criminal cases, he should only handle cases that is not involve the interest of the local
government unit. Otherwise, conflict of interest happens.
3. He must not use office equipment or personnel in practicing his profession.
Eg. Coupon bond
 4. He must secure permit from the head of office he belongs.

Case: Villegas v. Legaspi

Congressman and at the same time a lawyer.

Q: Can he practice his profession?

A: The constitutional provision allows Assemblyman to appear only when the court handling their case
exercise appellate jurisdiction (CA). Only Appellate jurisdiction is permitted because the office of the
Assemblyman carry so much influence and prestige that they might unduly influence upon the
administration of justice.

Note: He can only appear before CA and SC, he cannot appear before the RTC*

Case: Noriega v. Sison

If there is an isolated practice, the lawyer and at the same time a public official, cannot be said to have
engaged in the practice of law.

Case: Teves v. Sandiganbayan

A lawyer and his wife have a cockpit arena business. Later on, he ran for Mayor and he won. During
the renewal of the business permit, the wife goes to his husband for the issuance of the permit. They
were charged of violation of RA 3019.

SC acquitted both of them, because it is only an adjunct job as a mayor, it is inevitable. Wala naming
ibang pipirma kundi siya. He only committed an ordinary job. It is only incidental.

Moral lesson for people who have businesses and want to engage in politics, you have to divest your
businesses fully.

Bar question: The husband is a mayor. After election, his wife engaged in the business of mini grocery
within the jurisdiction of her husband. They were charged of violation of RA 3019.

Ruling: Guilty of violation of RA 3019 because their property regime is presumed to be conjugal
property. The husband who is a mayor is pecuniary benefited. It is intentional.

XPN: If the property regime is separation of property.

Case: People v. Sandiganbayan

Prohibition of appointment of elective and appointive local officials: candidates who lost in an
election

Reason: To avoid nepotism.

Section 94. Appointment of elective and appointive local officials: candidates who lost in an election
a. No elective or appointive local official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any
capacity to any public office or position during his tenure Unless otherwise allowed by law or primary
functions of his position, no elective or appointive local official shall hold any other office or
employment in the Government or any subdivision or agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
government – owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) or their subsidiaries; b. Except for losing
candidates in barangay elections, no candidate who lost in any elections shall within 1 year after such
election be appointed to any office in the Government or any GOCC or in any of the subsidiaries.

Prohibition of Multiple Positions in Government *not expressly prohibited*

1 person (Estelito Mendoza): Solicitor General, Secretary of Department of Justice, Governor of

Pampanga, Member of the congress

XPN: OIC

QUALIFICATION AND ELECTION

Age 21 years old for Governor, Mayor,

18 years old for Brgy. Chairman
Residency 1 year. For familiarization purposes.
Property None.
Drug Testing None.

Case: Frivaldo v. COMELEC

Ruling:

Under Sec. 39 of the LGC of 1991, there is no showing that a candidate for an electoral position must
be a Filipino citizen at any particular date and time. Admittedly, there was the objection that since a
candidate must have been a registered voter beforehand, he must have therefore possessed Filipino
citizenship in order to become a registered voter. The Court gave an explanation – that the
qualification of citizenship for a registered voter and that for a candidate are separate. The registration
requirement of a candidate moreover, is for the purpose of registering him as a voter in the area or
requirement of a candidate moreover, is only for the purpose of registering him as a voter in the area
or territory he seeks to govern.

. The alleged repatriation of Frivaldo can be retroactive. PD 725 declares that repatriation creates a
“new right” in order to cure a defect in the existing naturalization law. In Frivaldo's cause he was
stateless at the time he took his Filipino oath of allegiance since in his comment, he has long
renounced his American citizenship (a self serving statement). Moreover since he ran for governor
several times prior to 1995, he necessarily must have taken the Filipino oath of allegiance several times
as well, which is another indication of renunciation of his American citizenship (Davide countered that
it is the US, not Frivaldo, who decides who is and who is not her nationals, a principle in international
law). Therefore, to prevent prejudice to Frivaldo by letting him remain stateless for a substantial
period of time while in the meantime being deprived of his rights, it is clear then that PD 725 was
intended to be retroactive. In short, Frivaldo's repatriation retracted to Aug 17, 1994, the day he filed
his application for such and not just on June 30, 1995.

Frivaldo Doctrine (Panganiban Doctrine):

1. Pro hac vice: for this case only

2. Voc populi vox dei: the voice of the people is the voice of God
*Moreno v. COMELEC

Can a person who has been convicted of a crime and has been granted probation still run for office?

Yes. Probation constitutes a suspension of conviction. Hence, all political rights are restored.

Case: Salomon v. NEA

Prohibition for a member of the provincial board to be appointed as a member of electric cooperative
because it entails conflict of interest.

Case: Bautista v. COMELEC

For a person to run for public office, he must not only be a registered voter but also to be a qualified
electorate. Eg. Ex-convict who is a qualified voter - disqualified

Case: Fr. Cayat v. COMELEC

A priest filed for a certificate of a candidacy while he has a pending case of acts of lasciviousness is not
qualified to run for public office. However, this issue became moot and academic because the priest
lost in the election.

Case: Rivera III v. COMELEC

What is the reason for the three-term limit rule?

To allow other persons from seeking public office and an opportunity to serve their country. This is
pursuant to the Anti-Dynasty Law.

Case: Jalosjos v. COMELEC

Q: Is there a need for a person to have a house in order to run for public office?

A: No. You can run even if you’re just a lessee.

Q: Is a beach house considered as a residence?

A: No. It is not a residence because there is no intent to live there, it is just a place for rest.

DISQUALIFICATIONS

Case: Mercado v. Manzano

Q: May a dual citizen be disqualified to run for public office?

A: What is prohibited is dual allegiance, not dual citizenship.

Case: Labo Jr. v. COMELEC

Q: Can a person be disqualified by marrying a foreigner and he became a citizen of Australia by choice?

A: Yes. No dual citizenship with regard to Australia.

Case: De Guzman v. COMELEC

Membership in the US Marines? A disqualification?

Yes. You have to renounce being a member of the US Marines to be eligible for election. Because to
be a member of the US Marines, you have to swear allegiance to the United States.

Case: Kare v. COMELEC

A – Mayor – Proclaimed - Died

B – Vice Mayor

D – 2nd Placer

Who will take the place of A?

By virtue of the Rule on Succession:

B should take the place of A as a mayor because D in the first place lost in the election. B was the one
who elected by the people.

Case: Dela Torre v. COMELEC, Maquiling v. COMELEC, Jacot v. Dal, Valles v. COMELEC, Justimbaste
v. COMELEC, Amora v. COMELEC, People v. Sandiganbayan

Q: Migration to a foreign country, employment in a foreign country and being a member of the US
Marine Court? Can all of these considered a disqualification to run for public office?

A: Yes. Because there is such thing as the Repatriation law and the Philippine Retention Act. Once you
get employed in a foreign country and you stay there, there is a presumption that you already
renounced your Philippine Citizenship and therefore, that is a disqualification to run for public office.