V.

Intergovernmental Relations

A. With the National Government and its Agencies

Question:

Min City enacted an ordinance prohibiting the operation of a casino because pursuant to the
Section 458 of the Local Government Code (LGC), the Local Government Unit (LGU) has the
power to enact ordinances intended to prevent, suppress and impose appropriate penalties for
gambling, among others. However, under Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation
(PAGCOR) charter PAGCOR has the power to centralize and regulate all games of chance
including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. It was
PAGCOR which announce the opening of the said casino in the Min City.

Min City argue that by virtue of Section 458 and Section 16 of the LGC, the Sangguniang
Panlungsod may prohibit the operation of casinos because they involve games of chance,
which are detrimental to the people. Gambling is not allowed by general law and even by the
Constitution itself. The legislative power conferred upon local government units may be
exercised over all kinds of gambling and not only over "illegal gambling" as the respondents
erroneously argue. Even if the operation of casinos may have been permitted under the charter
of PAGCOR, the government of Min City has the authority to prohibit them within its territory
pursuant to the authority entrusted to it by the LGC.

Is the contention of Min City valid?

Suggested Answer:

No. The ordinance enacted is invalid.

The Supreme Court has enumerated in a long line of decisions that for an ordinance to be valid,
it must conform with the following requirements:

1) It must not contravene the constitution or any statute.

2) It must not be unfair or oppressive.

3) It must not be partial or discriminatory.

4) It must not prohibit but may regulate trade.

5) It must be general and consistent with public policy.

6) It must not be unreasonable.

In this case, the provisions of the Local Government Code which Min City anchored their basis
for the enactment of the ordinance contravene with the charter of PAGCOR insofar as they
prevent PAGCOR from exercising the power conferred on it to operate a casino in Min City. The
charter of PAGCOR has the character and force of a statute.

The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is obvious.
Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local councils exercise
only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking
body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of
the latter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local government units can undo the acts of
Congress, from which they have derived their power in the first place, and negate by mere
ordinance the mandate of the statute.

Therefore the contention of Min City is not valid.

(MAGTAJAS VS. PRYCE PROPERTIES, G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994)
Question:

BFI is a duly registered, non-stock domestic corporation. Its primary purpose is "to foster a
united, concerted and environment-conscious development of Nice Island, thereby preserving
and maintaining its culture, natural beauty and ecological balance, marking the island as the
crown jewel of Philippine tourism, a prime tourist destination in Asia and the whole world."

Philippine Reclamation Agency, a national government entity which one of the purpose is to
reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged areas, received a letter from Governor M on
March 12, 2020 expressing the interest of Province A to reclaim about 2.64 hectares of land
along the foreshores of Barangay C. Governor M is acting on the basis of a Sangguniang
Panlalawigan resolution authorizing nim to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with
respondent PRA in the implementation of the Beach Zone Restoration and Protection Marina
Development Project, which shall reclaim a total of 40 hectares in the areas adjacent to the jetty
ports at Barangay C.

On July 27, 2020, the MOA was confirmed by PRA Board of Directors under its Resolution No.
4130. PRA wrote to Province A on August 19, 2020, informing the latter to proceed with the
reclamation and development of phase 1 of site 1 of its proposed project. PRA attached to said
letter its Evaluation Report dated August 17, 2020.

In a letter dated August 12, 2010, BFI informed respondent PRA of its opposition to the
reclamation project because no prior public consultations was made in implementing the said
project.

Is there a need for a prior public consultations for the said project?

Suggested Answer:

Yes, there is a need for a prior public consultations for the said project.

The Local Government Code establishes the duties of national government agencies in the
maintenance of ecological balance, and requires them to secure prior public consultation and
approval of local government units for the projects described therein.

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

The law further states that no project or program shall be implemented by government
authorities unless the consultations mentioned in Sections 2 (c) and 26 hereof are complied
with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained: Provided, That occupants in
areas where such projects are to be implemented shall not be evicted unless appropriate
relocation sites have been provided, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
(Section 27, Local Government Code)

In the case before us, the national agency involved is PRA. Even if the project proponent is
Province A, it is PRA which authorized the reclamation, being the exclusive agency of the
government to undertake reclamation nationwide. Hence, it was necessary for Province A to go
through PRA and to execute a MOA, wherein respondent PRA’s authority to reclaim was
delegated to Province A.

This project can be classified as a national project that affects the environmental and ecological
balance of local communities, and is covered by the requirements found in the Local
Government Code.

Therefore, prior public consultations is needed before implementing the said project.

(BORACAY FOUNDATION, INC. VS. PROVINCE OF AKLAN, ET AL. G.R. NO. 196870, JUNE
26, 2012)
Question:

The City of Ikari, a highly-urbanized city, already appoved their appropriation ordinance. Where
will they submit such appropriation ordinance for review?

Suggested Answer:

The City of Ikari have to submit the approved appropriation ordinance to the Department of
Budget and Management for review.

The law provides that the Department of Budget and Management shall review ordinances
authorizing the annual or supplemental appropriations of provinces, highly-urbanized cities,
independent component cities, and municipalities within the Metropolitan Manila Area. (Section
326, Local Government Unit)

In this case, the City of Ikari is a highly-urbanized city, therefore the Department of Budget and
Management has the authority to review their appropriation ordinance.

Question:

The City of Ikari, a component city of Province B, already appoved their appropriation
ordinance. Where will they submit such appropriation ordinance for review?

Suggested Answer:

The City of Ikari have to submit the approved appropriation ordinance to the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Province B for review.

The law provides that the sangguniang panlalawigan shall review the ordinance authorizing
annual or supplemental appropriations of component cities and municipalities in the same
manner and within the same period prescribed for the review of other ordinances. (Section 327,
Local Government Unit)

In this case, the City of Ikari is a component city of Province B, therefore the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Province B has the authority to review their appropriation ordinance.

Question:

Barangay Pobre of the City of Ikari already appoved their appropriation ordinance. Where will
they submit such appropriation ordinance for review?

Suggested Answer:

Barangay Pobre of the City of Ikari need to submit the approved appropriation ordinance to the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Ikari through the city budget officer for review.

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

Therefore, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Ikari has the authority to review their
appropriation ordinance.
Question:

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

Suggested Answer:

No. The appointment is not valid.

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

As per guidelines promulgated by the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF), a bureau
under the Department of Finance, the list of at least three (3) ranking eligible recommendees
and his preference together with the documentary requirements for appointment to the position
of Provincial / City Treasurer and Assistants shall be submitted to the BLGF Regional Offices.

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

Therefore the appointment is not valid.

Question:

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

Suggested Answer:

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

Question:

There was a vacancy in the position of chief of police in Cebu. X, the regional director of the
Regional Police Command No. 7 submitted a list of 5 eligible appointees to the position to the
mayor of Cebu. However, the mayor refused to appoint one from the list because he wanted a
certain Y, who was not on the list because he was not qualified. Can the mayor appoint
someone not on the list?

Suggested Answer

No. The mayor cannot appoint someone not on the list.

The law provides that governors and mayors shall be deputized as representatives of the
Commission in their respective territorial jurisdiction. City and Municipal Mayors shall have the
authority to choose the chief of police from a list of five (5) eligibles recommended by the
provincial police director, preferably from the same province, city or municipality.

It is the prerogative of the Regional Police Director to name the five (5) eligibles from a pool of
eligible officers without interference from local executives. In case of disagreement between the
Regional Police Director and the Mayor, the question shall be elevated to the Regional Director,
National Police Commission, who shall resolve the issue within five (5) working days from
receipt and whose decision on the choice of the Chief of Police shall be final and executory.

As deputy of the Commission, the authority of the mayor is very limited. In reality, he has no
power of appointment; he has only the limited power of selecting one from among the list of five
eligibles to be named the chief of police. Actually, the power to appoint the chief of police of
Cebu City is vested in the Regional Director, Regional Police Command No. 7. Much less may
the mayor require the Regional Director, Regional Police Command, to include the name of any
officer, no matter how qualified, in the list of five to be submitted to the mayor. The purpose is to
enhance police professionalism and to isolate the police service from political domination.

(ANDAYA VS. RTC, G.R. NO. 126661, DECEMBER 3, 1999)

Question:

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

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

Does Manila Ordinance No. 8040, a valid exercise of the powers of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod?

Suggested Answer:

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

Undoubtedly, the computation of the awardees' reward is excessive and tantamount to double
and additional compensation. This cannot be justified by the mere fact that the awardees have
been elected for three (3) consecutive terms in the same position. Neither can it be justified that
the reward is given as a gratuity at the end of the last term of the qualified elective official. The
fact remains that the remuneration is equivalent to everything that the awardees received during
the entire period that he served as such official. Indirectly, their salaries and benefits are
doubled, only that they receive half of them at the end of their last term.

(VELOSO, ET AL. VS. COA, G.R. NO. 193677, SEPTEMBER 16, 2011)

Question:

In 2007, the DSWD embarked on a poverty reduction strategy with the poorest of the poor as
target beneficiaries.Dubbed "Ahon Pamilyang Pilipino," it was pre-pilot tested in the
municipalities of Sibagat and Esperanza in Agusan del Sur; the municipalities of Lopez Jaena
and Bonifacio in Misamis Occidental, the Caraga Region; and the cities of Pasay and Caloocan
upon the release of the amount of P50 Million Pesos under a Special Allotment Release Order
(SARO) issued by the Department of Budget and Management.

On July 16, 2008, the DSWD issued AO 16, series of 2008, setting the implementing guidelines
for the project renamed "Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program" (4Ps), also referred to as
Conditional Cash Transfer Program (CCTP), which provides cash grants to extreme poor
households to allow the members of the families to meet certain human development goals.”
Eligible households selected from priority target areas are granted health and education benefits
for a total annual subsidy of P15k.

Is the CCTP budget allocation under the DSWD violates Article II, Sec. 25 and Article X, Sec. 3
of the 1987 Constitution in relation to Sec. 17 of the LGC of 1991 by providing for the
“recentralization” of the National Government in the delivery of basic services already devolved
to the LGUs
 Suggested Answer:

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

The LGC does not imply a complete relinquishment of central government powers on the matter
of providing basic facilities and services. The national government is not precluded from taking a
direct hand in the formulation and implementation of national development programs especially
where it is implemented locally in coordination with the LGUs concerned.

While the aforementioned provision charges the LGUs to take on the functions and
responsibilities that have already been devolved upon them from the national agencies on the
aspect of providing for basic services and facilities in their respective jurisdictions, paragraph (c)
of the same provision provides a categorical exception of cases involving nationally funded
projects, facilities, programs and services. The essence of this express reservation of power by
the national government is that, unless an LGU is particularly designated as the implementing
agency, it has no power over a program for which funding has been provided by the national
government under the annual general appropriations act, even if the program involves the
delivery of basic services within the jurisdiction of the LGU. xxx The national government is,
thus, not precluded from taking a direct hand in the formulation and implementation of national
development programs especially where it is implemented locally in coordination with the LGUs
concerned.

(PIMENTEL VS. OCHOA, GR NO. 195770, JULY 17, 2012)

B. LGU and the Supreme Court

Question:

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

Suggested Answer:

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

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

C. LGU and the President

Question:

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

Suggested Answer:

The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments.
Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with
respect to component barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within
the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. (Section 4, Article X, 1987 Constitution)

The President shall provide for regional development councils or other similar bodies composed
of local government officials, regional heads of departments and other government offices, and
representatives from non-governmental organizations within the regions for purposes of
administrative decentralization to strengthen the autonomy of the units therein and to accelerate
the economic and social growth and development of the units in the region. (Section 14, Article
X, 1987, Constitution)

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

What powers does the President have over the autonomous regions?

Suggested Answer

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

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

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

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

Question:

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

Suggested Answer:

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

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

Section 187 authorizes the Secretary of Justice to review only the constitutionality or legality of
the tax ordinance and, if warranted, to revoke it on either or both of these grounds. When he
alters or modifies or sets aside a tax ordinance, he is not also permitted to substitute his own
judgment for the judgment of the local government that enacted the measure. Secretary Drilon
did set aside the Manila Revenue Code, but he did not replace it with his own version of what
the Code should be. He did not pronounce the ordinance unwise or unreasonable as a basis for
its annulment. He did not say that in his judgment it was a bad law. What he found only was that
it was illegal. All he did in reviewing the said measure was determine if the petitioners were
performing their functions in accordance with law, that is, with the prescribed procedure for the
enactment of tax ordinances and the grant of powers to the city government under the Local
Government Code. As we see it, that was an act not of control but of mere supervision.

An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. If they are not followed, he may,
in his discretion, order the act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even decide to
do it himself. Supervision does not cover such authority. The supervisor or superintendent
merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor
does he have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, he may
order the work done or re-done but only to conform to the prescribed rules. He may not
prescribe his own manner for the doing of the act. He has no judgment on this matter except to
see to it that the rules are followed. In the opinion of the Court, Secretary Drilon did precisely
this, and no more nor less than this, and so performed an act not of control but of mere
supervision.

(DRILON VS. LIM, G.R. NO. 112497, AUGUST 4, 1994)

Question:

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

Does the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government (as the alter ego of the President)
have the authority to remove local officials.

Suggested Answer:

No. The Secretary of the Interior and Local Government (as the alter ego of the President) have
no authority to remove local officials.

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

Question:

Is there any violation of the principles of local and fiscal autonomy enshrined in the Constitution
and the Local Government Code in the issuance of memorandum circulars enumerating the
policies and guidelines on the utilization of the development fund component of the Internal
Revenue Allotment?

Suggested Answer:

No. The memorandum circulars enumerating the policies and guidelines on the utilization of the
development fund component of the Internal Revenue Allotment do not transgress the local and
fiscal autonomy granted to LGUs.

Section 287 of the Local Government Code mandates every local government to appropriate in
its annual budget no less than 20% of its annual revenue allotment for development projects. In
common understanding, development means the realization of desirable social, economic and
environmental outcomes essential in the attainment of the constitutional objective of a desired
quality of life for all.

The memorandum circulars enumerating the policies and guidelines on the utilization of the
development fund component of the Internal Revenue Allotment is not to restrict the discretion
of the LGUs in the utilization of their funds. It was meant to enlighten LGUs as to the nature of
the development fund by delineating it from other types of expenses. It was incorporated in the
assailed circular in order to guide them in the proper disposition of the IRA and avert further
misuse of the fund by citing current practices which seemed to be incompatible with the
purpose of the fund.

(VILLAFUERTE VS. ROBREDO, G.R. NO. 195390, DECEMBER 10, 2014)

Question:

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

Suggested Answer:

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

1. Direct
2. Indirect.

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

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

These 2 levels can be illustrated in filing administrative complaints against erring local elective
officials as provided in Section 61 of the Local Government Code.
 Question:

What is the distinction between Supervision and Control?

Suggested Answer:

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

In relation to LGUS, the President only In relation to LGUs, it is Congress which

has the power of supervision over LGUS. exercises control over them.
Thus, hevcannot interfere with the local
governments as long as they act within
the scope of theirvauthority.

Under the LGC (§25), the President

exercises direct supervision over
provinces, highlyvurbanized cities and
independent component cities. He
exercises indirect supervision
overvcomponent cities and municipalities
through the provinces. He also exercises
indirectvsupervision over barangays
through the city or municipality
concerned.

D. LGU and Congress

Question:

What are the legislative powers granted to the autonomous region within its territorial
jurisdiction?

Suggested Answer:

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

(1) Administrative organization;

(2) Creation of sources of revenues;

(3) Ancestral domain and natural resources;

(4) Personal, family, and property relations;

(5) Regional urban and rural planning development;

(6) Economic, social, and tourism development;

(7) Educational policies;

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

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

Do LGUs have inherent powers?

Suggested Answer:

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

Question:

Can a local government unit fix subscriber rates charged by CATV operators?

Suggested Answer:

No. A local government unit cannot fix subscriber rates charged by CATV operators.

E.O. No. 205 issued mandates the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to
regulate CATV operators. Fixing the subscriber rates of CATV operators by LGUs is usurping
the power exclusively vested with the NTC. The fixing of subscriber rates is definitely one of the
matters within the NTC's exclusive domain.

Since E.O. No. 205, a general law, mandates that the regulation of CATV operations shall be
exercised by the NTC, an LGU cannot enact an ordinance or approve a resolution in violation of
the said law.

(BATANGAS CATV, INC. VS. CA, G.R. NO. 138810, SEPTEMBER 29, 2004)

E. With other LGUs

1. Mother LGUs and Component LGUs

Question:

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

Suggested Answer:

Copies of approved ordinances and the resolutions approving the local development plans
and public investment programs formulated by the local development councils.

Secretary to the Sangguniang Secretary to the Sangguniang

Panlungsod of Component Cities or Panlalawigan
3 days after
Sangguniang Bayan of Municipalities
approval
Within 30 days after
receipt, if necessary

Provincial Attorney or Provincial

Secretary to the Sangguniang Prosecutor
Panlalawigan Within 10 days from
receipt

valid Presumed valid Invalid in

if no action whole of If beyond the power conferred
within 30 days in part
after
submission
(Section 56, Local Government Code)

Enter in the minutes and shall advise the

correspoding city or municipal authorities of the
action taken
 Question:

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

Sangguniang Bayan

Suggested Answer:

Copies of all barangay ordinances

Sangguniang Barangay Return within 30 days from receipt with

comments and recommendations if not
consistent with law and city or municipal
10 days after ordinances for adjustment, amendment, or
approval modification; in which case, the effectivity of
the barangay ordinance is suspended until
Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang such time as the revision called for is
Bayan effected.

approved Deemed
approved if no
action within 30 (Section 57, Local Government Code)
days after
submission

Question:

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

Municipalities

Suggested Answer:

Copies of Appropriation Ordinances

Secretary to the Sangguniang Secretary to the Sangguniang

Panlungsod of Component Cities or Panlalawigan
3 days after
Sangguniang Bayan of Municipalities
approval
Within 30 days after
receipt, if necessary

Provincial Attorney or Provincial

Secretary to the Sangguniang Prosecutor
Panlalawigan Within 10 days from
receipt

valid Deemed Inoperative

reviewed if no in its
action within 90 entirety or
days after in part
submission
(Section 327, Local Government Code)

Enter in the minutes and shall advise the

correspoding city or municipal authorities of the
action taken
 Question:

Explain the process of review of the Barangay Budget.

Suggested Answer:

Copies of Appropriation Ordinances Declared Inoperative in its entirety

or in part

- in excess of the estimates of the

Sangguniang Barangay income duly certified as collectible

- has not complied with the

10 days after
budgetary requirements in R.A.
approval
7160
Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang
Bayan through the city or municipal
budget officer

for proper
approved Deemed adjustments
approved if no
action within 60
days after
submission

Punong Barangay through the city or municipal

budget officer

(Section 333, Local Government Code)

Question:

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

Suggested Answer:

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

Question:

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

Suggested Answer:

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

Question:

What is the extent of the authority of a Mother LGU when it reviews the ordinance or
resolutions of a component LGU?

Suggested Answer:

As to the Provincial Government in relation to its component cities and municipalities, the
extent of authority is to determine whether or not the ordinances or resolutions were issued
within the power conferred to them by law. As to the City or Municipal Government in
 relation to its component barangays, the extent of authority is to determine whether the
barangay ordinances are consistent with law or city or municipal ordinances.

2. Other LGUs

Question:

Can Local Government Units group themselves?

Suggested Answer:

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

VI. Local Initiatives and Referendum

Local Initiative Local Referendum

Definition
Local initiative is the legal process whereby the Local referendum is the legal process whereby
registered voters of a local government unit the registered voters of the local government
may directly propose, enact, or amend any units may approve, amend or reject any
ordinance. (Section 120, Local Government ordinance enacted by the sanggunian. (Section
Code) 126, Local Government Code)
Who may exercise?
The power of local initiative and referendum may be exercised by all registered voters of the
provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. (Section 121, Local Government Code)
Procedure
1.Not less than one thousand (1,000) 1.The local referendum shall be held under
registered voters in case of provinces and the control and direction of the COMELEC
cities, one hundred (100) in case of within sixty (60) days in case of provinces
municipalities, and fifty (50) in case of and cities, forty-five (45) days in case of
barangays, may file a petition with the municipalities and thirty (30) days in case of
sanggunian concerned proposing the barangays.
adoption, enactment, repeal, or amendment
of an ordinance.
2.If no favorable action thereon is taken by the 2.The COMELEC shall certify and proclaim
sanggunian concerned within thirty (30) the results of the said referendum. (Section
days from its presentation, the proponents, 126, Local Government Code)
through their duly authorized and registered
representatives, may invoke their power of
initiative, giving notice thereof to the
sanggunian concerned.
3.The proposition shall be numbered serially
starting from Roman numeral I. The
COMELEC or its designated representative
shall extend assistance in the formulation of
the proposition.
4.Two (2) or more propositions may be
submitted in an initiative.
5.Proponents shall have ninety (90) days in
case of provinces and cities, sixty (60) days
in case of municipalities, and thirty (30) days
in case of barangays, from notice mentioned
in subsection (b) hereof to collect the
required number of signatures.
6.The petition shall be signed before the
election registrar, or his designated
representatives, in the presence of a
representative of the proponent, and a
representative of the sanggunian concerned
in a public place in the local government
 Local Initiative Local Referendum
unit, as the case may be. Stations for
collecting signatures may be established in
as many places as may be warranted.
7.Upon the lapse of the period herein
provided, the COMELEC, through its office
in the local government unit concerned,
shall certify as to whether or not the required
number of signatures has been obtained.
Failure to obtain the required number
defeats the proposition.
8.If the required number of signatures is
obtained, the COMELEC shall then set a
date for the initiative during which the
proposition shall be submitted to the
registered voters in the local government
unit concerned for their approval within sixty
(60) days from the date of certification by
the COMELEC, as provided in subsection
(g) hereof, in case of provinces and cities,
forty-five (45) days in case of municipalities,
and thirty (30) days in case of barangays.
The initiative shall then be held on the date
set, after which the results thereof shall be
certified and proclaimed by the COMELEC.
(Section 122 of Local Government Code)
Effectivity of Local Propositions
If the proposition is approved by a majority of
the votes cast, it shall take effect fifteen (15)
days after certification by the COMELEC as if
affirmative action thereon had been made by
the sanggunian and local chief executive
concerned. If it fails to obtain said number of
votes, the proposition is considered defeated.
Limitations
1.The power of local initiative shall not be
exercised more than once a year.
2.Initiative shall extend only to subjects or
matters which are within the legal powers of
the sanggunian to enact.
3.If at any time before the initiative is held, the
sanggunian concerned adopts in toto the
proposition presented and the local chief
executive approves the same, the initiative
shall be cancelled. However, those against
such action may, if they so desire, apply for
initiative in the manner herein provided.
Limitations upon Sanggunians
Any proposition or ordinance approved through the system of initiative and referendum as herein
provided shall not be repealed, modified or amended by the sanggunian concerned within six (6)
months from the date of the approval thereof, and may be amended, modified or repealed by the
sanggunian within three (3) years thereafter by a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its members:
Provided, That in case of barangays, the period shall be eighteen (18) months after the approval
thereof.
Authority of Courts.
Nothing in this Chapter II, Title IX of R.A. 7160 shall prevent or preclude the proper courts from
declaring null and void any proposition approved pursuant to this Chapter for violation of the
Constitution or want of capacity of the sanggunian concerned to enact the said measure.