Doctrines In Pubcor-prelims

1 MMDA v. Bel-Air MMDA Law placed the administration of 7 (DTSFUHP) metro-wide basic services affecting the MM (composed of several LGUs; dubbed as a special development and administrative regions) under a Development Authority referred to as MMDA. Clearly, the scope of MMDA’s function is limited to these 7. One of them is transport and traffic management, which is limited to the following acts: Formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system and administration.(FCRIPMMSIA) MMDA does not grant MMDA Police Power, let alone legislative power. Even MMC, its governing board, has not been delegated any legislative power. There is no provision in the MMDA Law that empowers MMDA or MMC to enact ordinances or resolutions, unlike bodies of LGUs. It is not a political unit of government. It merely is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with various national government agencies for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in MM. all its functions are merely Administrative in Nature. It is the LGUs, acting through their respective legislative councils that possess legislative power and police power.

MMDA can confiscate the driver’s license which shall be used as evidence. MMDA v. Trackworks MMDA does not have any police power. ABBAS v. Comelec It is clear from the wordings that the creation of the autonomous regions is made to depend, not on the total majority vote in the plebiscite, but on the will of the majority in each of the constituent units. Only those provinces and cities wherein the majority vote is attained will comprise the ARMM. President is not conferred with the Consitution the power to merge those provinces and cities  What is referred to in the Organic Act is the merger of administrative regions, which are mere groupings of contiguous provinces for administrative purposes. Administrative regions are not territorial or political subdivisions like provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays. While the power to merge administrative regions is not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it is a power which has traditionally been lodged with the President to facilitate the exercise of the Power of General Supervision over the LGs.

MMDA v. Garin While a license to operate a motor vehicle is but a privilege that the State may hold/regulate in the exercise of PP, MMDA does not have such power. MMDA is a development authority created for the purpose of laying down principles and coordinating with various national government agencies and may enforce but not enact ordinances. If as a result of violation of traffic rules and the provisions of the RPC, reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries,

Ordillo v.Comelec Provinces, cities, municipalities and geographical areas connote that Regions is made up of more than one constituent unit. Region  2 or more provinces. Otherwise, absurd/awkward situation of having 2 sets of officials, a set of

2 provincial officials and another set of regional officials exercising their executive and legislative powers over exactly the same are.

imperio, it is autonomous in the sense that it is given more powers, authority, responsibilities and resources.

Chiongban v. Orbos

1. Right to created and broaden its own source of revenue

Reorganization of Administrative Regions by the President  the division of the country into regions is intended to facilitate not only the administration of local governments but also the direction of executive departments which the law requires should have regional offices.

2. Right to be allocated a just share in national taxes in the form of IRA

The regrouping is done only on paper. It involves no more than a redefinition or redrawing of the lines separating administrative supervision of LGUs by the President and insuring the efficient delivery of essential services. There will be no “transfer” of Local governments from one region to another. CBC v. COA EO 220 does not create region contemplated in the constitution. It merely provides for transitory measures in anticipation of the enactment of an organic act and the creation of an autonomous region. It prepares the ground for autonomy. CAR was created primarily to coordinate the planning and implementation of programs and services in the covered areas. The constitutional guaranty of local autonomy refers to the Administrative Autonomy of LGUs or the decentralization of government authority. On the other hand, the creation of ARMM and CAR contemplates the grant of Political Autonomy and not just administrative autonomy to these regions. Alvarez v. Guingona LGU  a political subdivision of the State which is constituted by law and possessed of substantial control over its own affairs. Remaining to be an intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation, but not intended, however, to be an imperium in

3. Right to be given its equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within its territorial boundaries Malonzo v. Zamora The law does not require the completion of the updating or adoption of the internal rules of procedure before the Sanggunian could act on any other matter like the enactment of an ordinance. It simply requires that the matter of adopting or updating the internal rules of procedure be taken up during the first day of session. Pimentel v. Aguirre President wielded no more authority than that of checking won LGUs or their officials were performing their duties. He cannot interfere with LGUs so long as they act within the scope of their authority. Local Fiscal Autonomy does not however rule out any manner of national government intervention by way of supervision, in order to ensure that local programs are consistent with national goals. The formulation and implementation of such policies and programs are subject to consultations with the appropriate public agencies various private sectors and LGUs. The President cannot do so unilaterally. Under the Phil. Concept of Local autonomy, the national government has not completely relinquished all of its powers over LGUs, including autonomous regions. Only

3 administrative powers over local affairs are delegated to LGUs.

Local Autonomy includes both administrative and fiscal autonomy

Just share – automatically released to them  shall is a word command… no hold back even if temporary

Fiscal Autonomy – LGUs have the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to their IRA, as well as the power to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities.

Province of Batangas v. Romulo Control – officer lays down the rules in doing an act, if the rules are not followed, he may order the act undone or redone by his subordinate of he himself. Supervision – merely sees to it that the rules are followed, if the rules are not observed, he may order the work done or redone but only to conform to the prescribed rules. He may not prescribe his own manner for doing the act. Just share – automatic Local Autonomy – a more responsive and accountable local government structure instated through a system of decentralization. Decentralization – devolution of national administration but no power to the local levels. D. of Administration – central government delegates administrative powers to political subd. In order to broaden the base of gov’t power and in the process to make LGUs more responsive and accountable and ensure fullest dev’t as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national dev’t and social progress. At the same time it relieves the central gov’t of the burden of managing local affairs. The president has no control over their acts in the sense that he cannot substitute their judgments with his own. D. of Power – abdication of political power in favor of LGUs declared to be autonomous. The autonomous gov’t is free to chart its own destiny and share its future with minimum intervention from central authorities.

A basic feature of Local Fiscal Autonomy is the constitutionally mandated automatic release of IRA. Fontanilla v. Maliaman NIA is a mere agency of the government but a corporate body performing proprietary functions. Since it is vested with a juridical personality separate and distinct from the gov’t, it is governed by the Corporation Code. It is vested with the power to sue and be sued. It has its own assets and liabilities and also has corporate powers to be exercised by BODs.

PSPCA v. COA Charter Test – if a corporation is created by its own charter for the exercise of public function, it is a Public Corporation, otherwise if under the Corporation Law, it is private. The fact that a certain juridical entity is impressed with public interest does not by that circumstances alone make the entity a public corporation. Quasi-Public Corporation – private corporatios which render public service and supply public want, while purposely organized for the benefit of its members, they are required by law to discharge functions for the public benefit. The true criterion to det. Whether a corporation is public or private is the Totality of the relation of the corporation to the

4 State. If it is created by the State as the latter’s own agency or instrumentality to help it in carrying out its gov’tal functions, then it is considered public.

There is prima facie arises the conclusion of RA 4354 abolished barrio Central as part of Davao City when it did not include in the enumeration of the barrios.

Mendenilla v. Onandia

A non-existent barrio, or barrio not situated in Davao City cannot present a claim against it or its officials for the share in taxes.

The power to crate and abolish municipal corporations is a political function which rests solely in the Congress. Municipal corporations are created under a general law or a special charter, in case of chartered cities No person shall have no vested right to an office, except those holding constitutional offices. All offices created by statutes are more or less temporary, transitory or precarious that they are subject to the power of the legislature to abolish them. By the abolition of the office of the CoP, the right thereto was necessarily extinguished thereby.

Samson v. Aguirre RA 8535 failed to provide for a seat of gov’t. however, this omission is not as fatal to its validity. Cawiling v. Comelec The phrase “a municipal or a cluster of barangays, may be converted into a component city” is not a criterion but simply one of the modes by which a city may be created. The constitution allows the merger of LGUs to create a province, city, municipality or barangay in accordance with the criteria established by the LGC. The plebiscite within 120days – take effect upon its publication in at least 2 newspapers of general and local circulation. Central v. City Treasurer of Davao

DAR v. Sarangani Comprehensive Land Use Plan – a document accompanied by maps and similar illustrations which represent the community-desired pattern of population distribution and a proposal for the future allocation of land to the various land-using activities. Under the LGC, a city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the Sangunian, authorize the reclassification of agricultural land and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition in the ff cases: 1. When the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agriculture purposes as det. By DAR 2. Where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, as det. By the Sangunian concerned. Provided, that such reclassification shall be limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural land area: a. For highly urbanized and independent component cities – 15% b. For component cities and 1-3 class mun – 10% c.

For 4-6 – 5%

Provided further, that agricultural land distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to CARL shall not be affected by the said reclassification.

5 DAR should refer to the CLUP and the ordinances of the Sangunian in assessing land use conversion applications Grino v. Comelec The makers of the law however, failed to foresee that in the event the negative vote prevails naturally, the sub-prov. Shall continue to be a part of the original province and continue to be represented by the provincial officials of the original province Ceniza v. Comelec The constitution places highly urbanized cities outside the supervisory power of the province where they are geographically located because of the complex and varied problems in a HUC due to bigger population and greater economic activities which require greater autonomy. Cororally to the independence however is the concomitant low of the right to participate in provincial affairs, more particularly the selection of elective provincial officials since these provincial officials have ceased to exercise any governmental jurisdiction and authority over said city. The creation of a city has made it a political entity separate from and independent of the province to which it previously belonged. Tobias v. Abalos “HoR shall be composed of not more than 250 members, unless otherwise fixed by law”  the present limit of 250 members is not absolute Each city with a population of at least 250k or each province, shall have at least 1 representative. Miranda v. Aguirre The law must be approve in a plebiscite by a majority vote case in the units directly affected.

Sarangani v. Comelec A barangay may officially exist on record and the fact that nobody resides in the place does not result in its automatic cessation as a LGU. The abolition of a LGU may be done by Congress in the case of provice, city, mun. or any other political subdivision. In the case of barangay, except MM and in cultural communities, it may be done by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan or Panglunsod concerned subject to the mandatory requirement of a plebiscite conducted for the purpose in the political units affected. “… as certificed by the national agencies mentioned..” Salva v. Makalintal What is contemplated by the term final orders, rulings and decisions of the Comelec reviewable by certiorari by SC as provided by law are those rendered in actions or proceedings before the Comelec and taken cognizance by the said body in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers not those which are inherently administrative and sometimes ministerial in character. Herrera v. Comelec RA 6636 in relation to their # of elective members of S. Panlalawigan 1-2nd class prov – 10 3-4th

-8

5-6th

-6

In relation thereto, RA 7166 reads: for provinces with only 1 leg. District, Comelec shall divide them into 2 districts for purposes of electing S. Panlalawigan members using the ff facts:

6 1. As nearly as practicable

2/more barangay in the same city/mun

SP/SB

2. Accord to the # of inahabitants

2/more mun in the same prov

SP

3. Each district comprising a compact, contiguous, and adjacent territory

Mun or component cities diff. prov

jointly

4. # of seats of elective members of their respective sanggunian shall be equitably apportioned between the districts. Thus, a provinces with only 1 leg.district such as Guimaras, should be divided into 2 provincial dists. The basis of the division into districts shall be the # of inhabitants not the registered voters. City of Pasig v. Comelec The importance of drawing with precise strokes the territorial boundaries of a LGU cannot be overemphasized. The boundaries must be clear for they define the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of a LGU. It can legitimately exercise powers of government only within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction. Beyond these limits, its acts are ultra vires. Thus, any uncertainty in the boundaries of LGUs will show costly conflicts in the exercise of governmental powers which ultimately will prejudice the people’s welfare. Mariano v. Comelec “.. present territory of the Mun. of Makati..” City of Makati shall have at least 2 legislative districts  the reapportionment of leg. Districts may be made not just through a genral reapportionment law, but also through special law such as in the charter of a new city. Municipality of Kananga v. Madrona Boundary Disputes:

Sanggunians of the provs. Component city/mun and HUC

jointly

Sanggunians of the parties Indiv. CC and Mun

RTC

Municipality of Sta. Fe v. Aritao Boundary disputes involving 2/more muns within same prov shall be referred for settlement to the Sanggunian Panlalawigan concerned. In the event the Sanggunian fails to effect an amicable settlement within 60 days from the date the dispute was referred thereto, it shall issue a certification to that effect. Thereafter, the dispute shall be formally tried by the sanggunian which shall decided the issue within 60days froms date of certification Any party may elevate the decision of the sanggunian to RTC having jurisdiction over the area dispute. Plaza v. Casion LGC authorizes the devolution of personnel, assets and liabs, records of basic services and facitilites of a national gov’t agency to LGUs. DEVOLUTION – under LGC, refers to the act by responsible for all devolved functions and that devolved permanent personnel shall be automatically reappointed by the local chief executive concerned immediately upon their transfer.

7 TRANSFER – a movement from 1 position to another which is of equivalent rank, level or salary without break in service and may be imposed as an administrative penalty. Since the dropping from the rolls is not an administrative sanction, they need not be notified or heard.

Badua v. CBA Since CAR did not come into legal existence, the Maeng Tribal Court was not constituted into an indigeneous or special court. Hence the Maeng Tribal Court is an ordinary tribal court existing under the customs and traditions of an indigeneous cultural community, which are not a part of the Phil. Judicial system. They do not possess judicial powers. They are advisory and conciliatory bodies whose principal objective is to bring together parties to a dispute and persuade them to make peace, settle and compromise. An amicable settlement, compromise and arbitration award rendered by a pangkat, if not seasonably repudiated, has the force and effect of a final judgment of a court, but it can be enforced only through the local city or municipal court. The decision of a tribal court based on compromised or arbitration may be enforced or set aside in and through the regular courts today. Binay v. Domingo Police Power is founded on the maxims .. “by each must be consistent with the rights of others” and “safety of the people is the supreme law” PP is the power to prescribe regulations to promote health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people.

PP is inherent in the state but not municipal corporations. There must be first a valid delegation of such power by the legislature by: 1. Express delegation 2. Implied – inferred from the mere fact of the creation of the MC Municipal gov’t exercises PP under the General welfare clause under the LGC. PP is not capable of exact definition but has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its all comprehensiveness. Public purpose is not unconstitutional merely because it incidentally benefits a limited number of persons. Dela Cruz v. Paras Ordinance 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 Also, from the General Welfare Clause of LGC, it can be gleaned that the power is only that regulation, not prohibition. City of Manila v. Laguio Requisites for the Valid Exercise of PP: 1. Interest of the public generally 2. Means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

8 Ordinance leaves no reasonable economically viable use of property in a manner that interferes with reasonable expectations for use, should be struck down. The word “regulate” means and include the power to control, to govern and to restrain, but it should not be construed as synonymous with suppress or prohibit

Parayno v. Jovellanos The abatement of nuisance without judicial proceedings is possible only if it is a nuisance per se. Iloilo Ice v. Municipal Council of Iloilo The Municipal council is empowered by Mun. Code to declare and abate nuisance (n. per se, declared by statute or by court) N. per se – unquestionably and under all circumstances nuisance N. per Accidens – because of particular facts and circumstances The question of nuisance can conclusively be decided by the courts (notice and hearing) of law or equity alone and the resolutios of officers, or of boards organized by mun. charters cannot to any degree, control such decision. Technology Developers v. CA While it is the Environmental Management Bureau of DENR that determines won there is a pollution of the environment that requires control in not prohibition of the operation of a business, the town mayor has as much responsibility to protect its inhabitants from pollution, and by virtue of his PP, he may deny the application for a permit to operate a business or otherwise close the same unless appropriate measure are

taken to control/avoid injury to the health of the residents of the community. A/C Enterprises v. Frabelle Public N – affect the community or neighborhood; interferes with the exercise of public rights by directly encroaching on public property or by causing a common injury; action for abatement of public n. Private N –violates only private rights and produces damage to 1 or a few persons; civil action/ abatement w/o judicial proceeding Under the LGC, the Sanggunian of an LGU is empowered to enact ordinances declaring, preventing or abating noise and other forms of nuisance. However, it does not have the power to declare that a thing is a nuisance when it is not a nuisance per se nor can it authorize its extrajudicial condemnation and destruction. Those things must be determined and resolved in the courts. Noise becomes actionable only when it passes the limits of reasonable adjustment to the conditions of the locality and of the needs of the maker to the needs of the listerner. Tayaban v. People Exercise of PP by an LGU is valid unless it contravenes the constitution or a statute or unless it is against public policy, or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating or in derogation of a common right. American Mail Line v. City of Basilan The power to regulate as an exercise of PP does not include the power to impose fees for revenue purposes – limitation to PP. Fees for purely regulatory purposes – may only be of sufficient amount to include the expenses of issuing the license and

9 the cost of the necessary inspection or examination or police surveillance. Zoomzat v. People SP overstepped the bounds of its authority when it usurped the powers of the NTC. While NTC is the licensing and regulatory body, nonetheless, under the General Welfare Clause of the LGC, the LGU can regulate the operation of cable TV but only when it encroaches on public properties.

Ynot v. IAC The protection of the general welfare is the particular function of the PP which both restraints and is restrained by due process. Notice and hearing may be validly dispensed with notwithstanding the usual requirement for these minimum guarantees of due process due to the immediacy of the problem sought to be corrected and the urgency of the need to correct it.

US. v. Pompeya

SAVING CLAUSE

PP – the defenses, regulations and domestic order of the country, whereby the inhabitants of a state, like members of a well-governed family, are bound to conform their general behavior to the rules of propriety, good neighborhood and good manners and to be decent, industrious and inoffensive in their respective stations.

With respect to existing rights, a saving clause enables the repealed law to continue in force.

US v. Toribio It is a valid police measure to prevent indiscriminate killing of carabaos which are badly needed by farmers. Confronted by such situation (scarcity), the legislature had a right to adopt measure for the preservation of work animals, even to the extent of prohibiting and penalizing what would, under ordinary conditions, be a legitimate exercise of rights of ownership and control of the private property of the citizen. There are cases where it becomes necessary for the public authorities to interfere with the control by individuals of their property and even to destroy it, where the owners themselves have fully observed all their duties to their fellows and to the State, but where, nevertheless, some controlling public necessity demands the interference or destruction.

WHEREAS CLAUSE This word implies a recital, and in general cannot be used in the direct and positive averment of a fact in a declaration or plea. ESCALATION CLAUSE a provision in a lease or other agreement in which rent, installment payments or alimony, for example, will increase from time to time when the cost of living index (or a similar gauge) goes up