Consti Digest Locgov

8/13/2019 Consti Digest Locgov

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/consti-digest-locgov 1/33

Limbona vs MangelinG.R. No. 80391, February 28, 1989Sarmiento, .Facts:Sultan Alimbusar Limbona was appointed as a member of theSangguniang Pampook,Regional Autonomous Government, Region!!, representing Lanao del Sur" #e was thenelected speaker of theregional legislative assembl$ of central %indanao, composed of&'members" Later, (ongressman )atu Guimid %atalam, (hairman ofthe (ommittee on %uslimAffairs of the #ouse of Representatives,invited %r" avier Ra*ul, Pampook Speaker of Region !, +amboanga(it$ and the petitioner in his capacit$ as Speaker of the

Assembl$,Region !!, in a conference" Petitioner then ordered ActingSecretar$ Alimbu$ao to informthe assembl$men that there will be nosession on said date as petitioner and Ra*ul areattending the housecommittee hearing" he Assembl$ held session in defiance ofpetitioner-s advice" After declaring thepresence of a .uorum, theSpeaker Pro/empore was authori*ed to preside in the session"0n%otion to declare the seat of the Speaker vacant, all Assembl$men inattendance votedin the affirmative, hence, the chair declared said seatof the Speaker vacant" he petitioner then went to court pra$ing that

1udgment be rendered declaring theproceedings held b$ respondentsduring the session as null and void and holding theelection of petitioneras Speaker of said Legislative Assembl$ or 2atasan Pampook,Region!! held on %arch &3, &4'5 valid and subsisting, and6e7 %akingthe in1unction permanent"!ssue:809 the epulsion of the petitioner 6pending litigation7 has made thecase moot andacademic"

#eld: he case has not been rendered moot and academic b$ reasonsimpl$ of theepulsion resolution so issued" For, if the petitioner-sepulsion was done purposel$ to makethis petition moot andacademic, and to preempt the (ourt, it will not make it academic"0nthe ground of the immutable principle of due process alone, we holdthat theepulsion in .uestion is of no force and effect" !n the first place,there is no showing that theSanggunian had conducted aninvestigation, and whether or not the petitioner had beenheard in hisdefense, assuming that there was an investigation, or otherwise giventheopportunit$ to do so" 8hat appears in the records is an admissionb$ the Assembl$ that;since 9ovember, &4'5 up to this writiang, thepetitioner has not set foot at the SangguniangPampook"; o be sure,respondents aver that ;<t=he Assembl$men, in a conciliator$gesture,wanted him to come to (otabato (it$,; but that was ;so thattheir differences could bethreshed out and settled"; (ertainl$, that

avowed wanting or desire to thresh out and settle,no matter howconciliator$ it ma$ be cannot be a substitute for the notice andhearingcontemplated b$ law"!n the second place, the resolutionappears strongl$ to be a bare act of vendetta b$the other

Assembl$men against the petitioner arising from what the formerperceive to beabdurac$ on the part of the latter" !ndeed, it 6theresolution7 speaks of ;a case <having beenfiled= <b$ the petitioner=before the Supreme (ourt " " " on .uestion which should havebeenresolved within the confines of the Assembl$ //// an act whichsome members claimedunnecessaril$ and undul$ assails their integrit$and character as representative of thepeople,; an act that cannotpossibl$ 1ustif$ epulsion" Access to 1udicial remedies is guaranteed b$the (onstitution, and, unless the recourse amounts to maliciousprosecution,no one ma$ be punished for seeking redress in thecourts"8e therefore order reinstatement, with the caution that shouldthe past acts of thepetitioner indeed warrant his removal, the Assembl$is en1oined, should it still be so minded,to commence proper

proceedings therefor in line with the most elementar$ re.uirements ofdue process" And while it is within the discretion of the members of theSanggunian topunish their erring colleagues, their acts arenonetheless sub1ect to the moderating hand of this (ourt in the eventthat such discretion is eercised with grave abuse"!ssue:8hat is the etent of self/government given to the two autonomousgovernments of Region ! and !!>#eld: he autonomous governments of %indanao were organi*ed inRegions ! and !! b$Presidential )ecree 9o" &?&'" Among otherthings, the )ecree established ;internalautonom$; in the two regions;<w=ithin the framework of the national sovereignt$ andterritorialintegrit$ of the Republic of the Philippines and its (onstitution,; ;withlegislativeand eecutive machiner$ to eercise the powers andresponsibilities;- specified therein"!t re.uires the autonomous regional

governments to ;undertake all internaladministrative matters for therespective regions,; ecept to ;act on matters which arewithin the

1urisdiction and competence of the 9ational Government,; ;whichinclude, but arenot limited to, the following:6&7 9ational defense andsecurit$@637 Foreign relations@67 Foreign trade@6B7 (urrenc$, monetar$affairs, foreign echange, banking and .uasi/banking, andeternalborrowing,6C7 )isposition, eploration, development, eploitation orutili*ation of all naturalresources@6?7 Air and sea transport@657 Postalmatters and telecommunications@6'7 (ustoms and .uarantine@647!mmigration and deportation@6&D7 (iti*enship and naturali*ation@6&&79ational economic, social and educational planning@ and6&37 Generalauditing";!n relation to the central government, it provides that ;<t=he

President shall have thepower of general supervision and control overthe Autonomous Regions"9ow, autonom$ is either decentrali*ation ofadministration or decentrali*ation of power" here is decentrali*ation ofadministration when the central government delegatesadministrativepowers to political subdivisions in order to broaden the base ofgovernmentpower and in the process to make local governments;more responsive and accountable,;and ;ensure their fullestdevelopment as self/reliant communities and make them moreeffectivepartners in the pursuit of national development and social progress"; Athe sametime, it relieves the central government of the burden ofmanaging local affairs and enablesit to concentrate on nationalconcerns" he President eercises ;general supervision; overthem, buonl$ to ;ensure that local affairs are administered according to law"; #ehas nocontrol over their acts in the sense that he can substitute their

1udgments with his own" )ecentrali*ation of power, on the other hand,involves an abdication of politicalpower in the favor of localgovernments units declared to be autonomous" !n that case,

theautonomous government is free to chart its own destin$ and shapeits future with minimumintervention from central authorities" Accordingto a constitutional author, decentrali*ationof power amounts to ;self/immolation,; since in that event, the autonomous governmentbecomesaccountable not to the central authorities but to i ts constituenc$"2ut the.uestion of whether or not the grant of autonom$ to %uslim %indanaounderthe &4'5 (onstitution involves, trul$, an effort to decentrali*epower rather than mereadministration is a .uestion foreign to thispetition, since what is involved herein is a localgovernment unitconstituted prior to the ratification of the present (onstitution" #ence,the(ourt will not resolve that controvers$ now, in this case, since nocontrovers$ in fact eists"8e will resolve it at the proper time and in theproper case" Ender the &4'5 (onstitution,local government units en1o$autonom$ in these two sensesAn autonomous government that en1o$sautonom$ of the latter categor$ is sub1ectalone to the decree of theorganic act creating it and accepted principles on the effects andlimits

of ;autonom$"; 0n the other hand, an autonomous government of theformer class is,as we noted, under the supervision of the nationalgovernment acting through the President6and the )epartment of LocalGovernment7" !f the Sangguniang Pampook 6of Region !!7,then, isautonomous in the latter sense, its acts are, debatabl$, be$ond thedomain of this(ourt in perhaps the same wa$ that the internal acts,sa$, of the (ongress of the Philippinesare be$ond our 1urisdiction" 2utif it is autonomous in the former categor$ onl$, it comesunarguabl$under our 1urisdiction"An eamination of the ver$ Presidential )ecreecreating the autonomousgovernments of %indanao persuades us thatthe$ were never meant to eercise autonom$in the second sense, thatis, in which the central government commits an act of self/immolation"Presidential )ecree 9o" &?&', in the first place, mandates that ;<t=hePresidentshall have the power of general supervision and control over

Autonomous Regions"; thesecond place, the SangguniangPampook, their legislative arm, is made to dischargechiefl$administrative services"#ence, we assume 1urisdiction" And if we

can make an in.uir$ in the validit$ of theepulsion in .uestion, withmore reason can we review the petitioner-s removal as Speaker"

!"#$%N &'() *S +)N(#L G.R. No. 1-201Respondent 2a$an elecommunications, !nc"62a$antel7 is a legislativefranchise holder under RA 3C4 toestablish and operate radio stationsfor domestic telecommunications, radiophone, broadcasting andtelecasting" A ta provision in its charter eempted 2a$antelfrompa$ment of realt$ taes actuall$, directl$ and eclusivel$used in thepursuit of its franchise"0n anuar$ &, 3DD3, the LG( took effectwhichgrants LGEs the power to lev$ ta on real properties" 0n ul$3D,&443, (ongress enacted Rep" Act 9o" 5?, amending2a$antelsoriginal franchise which contained once again theeemption of2a$antel from pa$ment of realt$ taes actuall$,directl$ and eclusivel$used in the pursuit of its franchise" !n &44, the government of Hue*on(it$ enacted the Hue*on(it$ Revenue (ode 6H(R(7, imposing a real



propert$ ta on allreal properties in Hue*on (it$ which included someproperties of2a$antel"2a$antel did not pa$ the realt$ taes promptingtheH( reasurer to issue warrants of lev$ against theproperties"hreatened, 2a$antel filed with the R( apetitionfor prohibition with an urgent application for a temporar$restraining order 6R07 andIor writ of preliminar$ in1unction"

!SSEJ: Should 2a$antel be granted ta eemption>

REL!9G:Kes" he power to ta is primaril$ vested in the(ongress@however, in our 1urisdiction, it ma$ be eercised b$local legislative

bodies, no longer merel$ be virtue of a validdelegation as before, but pursuant to direct authorit$ conferredb$ Section C, Article of the (onstitution" Ender the latter, theeercise of the power ma$ be sub1ect to suchguidelines and limitations as the (ongress ma$ provide which,however, must be consistent with the basic polic$ of local autonom$"Section C does not change the doctrine that municipal corporations donot possess inherent powers of taation" 8hat it does is to confermunicipal corporations ageneral power to lev$ taes and otherwisecreate sources of revenue" he$ no longer have to wait for a statutor$grant of these powers" he power of the legislative authorit$ relativetothe fiscal powers of local governments has been reducedto theauthorit$ to impose limitations on municipal powers"here can reall$ beno dispute that the power of theHue*on (it$ Government to ta islimited b$ Section 33 of the LG(" Ender this law, the Legislaturehighlighted its power to thereafter eempt certain realties from thetaing power of local government

units"Admittedl$, Rep" Act 9o" 5? was enactedsubse.uent to theLG(" he (ourt views this subse.uentpiece of legislation as anepress and real intention on thepart of (ongress toonce again remove from the LG(s delegated taing power, all of2a$antels properties that are actuall$, directl$ and eclusivel$ used inthe pursuit of its franchise"

(it$ Government of Hue*on (it$ vs 2a$antel)ate: %arch ?,3DD?Petitioners: he (it$ Government of Hue*on (it$, etalRespondent: 2a$antelPonente: GarciaFacts: 2a$antel is a legislative franchise holder under RA 3C4 to establishand operate radiostations for domestic telecommunications,radiophone, broadcasting and telecasting" 0f relevance to thiscontrovers$ is the ta provision of Rep" Act 9o" 3C4, embodied inSection &Bthereof, which reads:

SJ(!09 &B" 6a7 he grantee shall be liable to pa$ the same taes onits real estate, buildings and personal propert$,eclusive of thefranchise, as other persons or corporations are now or hereafter ma$be re.uired b$ law to pa$" 6b7 he grantee shall further pa$ to thereasurer of the Philippines each $ear, within ten da$s after the auditandapproval of the accounts as prescribed in this Act, one and one/half per centum of all gross receipts from the businesstransacted underthis franchise b$ the said grantee he LG( took effect and granted the LGES within %etro %anila thepower to lev$ on realproperties" 0n ul$ 3D, &443, barel$ few monthsafter the LG( took effect, (ongress enacted RA5?, amending2a$antel-s original franchise" he amendator$ law contained an in lieuof taesclause 67"!n &44, the government of Hue*on (it$, pursuantto the taing power vested on localgovernment units b$ Section C,

Article of the &4'5 (onstitution, infra, in relation to Section 33of theLG(, supra, enacted (it$ 0rdinance 9o" SP/4&, S/4, otherwiseknown as the Hue*on (it$Revenue (ode 6H(R(7, C imposing, under

Section C thereof, a real propert$ ta on all realproperties in Hue*on(it$, and, reiterating in its Section ?, the withdrawal of eemption fromrealpropert$ ta under Section 3B of the LG(, supra" Furthermore,much like the LG(, the H(R(,under its Section 3D, withdrew taeemption privileges in general"(onformabl$ with the (it$-s Revenue(ode, new ta declarations for 2a$antel-s realproperties in Hue*on(it$ were issued b$ the (it$ Assessor and were received b$ 2a$antelonAugust &, &44', ecept one 6a )eclaration 9o" &3B/D&D&7which was received on ul$ &B,&444"%eanwhile, on %arch &?, &44C,Rep" Act 9o" 543C, otherwise known as the ;Publicelecommunications Polic$ Act of the Philippines,; envisaged to levelthe pla$ing field amongtelecommunications companies, took effect"Section 3 of the Act provides an e.ualit$ clause"0n anuar$ 5, &444,2a$antel wrote the office of the (it$ Assessor seeking the eclusion ofits real properties in the cit$ from the roll of taable real properties"8ith its re.uest having beendenied, 2a$antel interposed an appeal

with the L2AA" And, evidentl$ on its firm belief of itseempt status,2a$antel did not pa$ the real propert$ taes assessed against it b$ theHue*on(it$ government"0n account thereof, the Hue*on (it$reasurer sent out notices of delin.uenc$ for thetotal amount ofPB,'5',3D'"&', followed b$ the issuance of several warrants of lev$against2a$antel-s properties preparator$ to their sale at a publicauction set on ul$ D, 3DD3" hreatened with the imminent loss of itsproperties, 2a$antel immediatel$ withdrew itsappeal with the L2AAand instead filed with the R( of Hue*on (it$ a petition for prohibitionwithan urgent application for a temporar$ restraining order 6R07andIor writ of preliminar$in1unction" he R( then rendered 1udgmenteempting 2a$antel from taes"!ssue:809 2a$antel failed to ehaust

administrative remedies#eld:9oRatio:8ith the realit$ that 2a$antel-sreal properties were alread$ levied upon on account of itsnonpa$mentof real estate taes thereon, the (ourt agrees with 2a$antel that anappeal to theL2AA is not a speed$ and ade.uate remed$ within thecontet of the afore.uoted Section 3 of Rule ?C" his is not to mentionof the auction sale of said properties alread$ scheduled on ul$D,3DD3"%oreover, one of the recogni*ed eceptions to the ehaustion/of/administrative remediesrule is when, as here, onl$ legal issues are tobe resolved" !n fact, the (ourt, cogni*ant of thenature of the .uestionspresentl$ involved, gave due course to the instant petition" As the(ourthas said in $ vs" rampe: " " " " Although as a rule, administrativeremedies must first beehausted before resort to 1udicial action canprosper, there is a well/settled eception in caseswhere thecontrovers$ does not involve .uestions of fact but onl$ of law" " " " "Lestit be overlooked, an appeal to the L2AA, to be properl$ considered,re.uired priorpa$ment under protest of the amount of PB,'5',3D'"&',

a figure which, in the light of the thenprevailing Asian financial crisis,ma$ have been difficult to raise up" Given this realit$, an appealto theL2AA ma$ not be considered as a plain, speed$ and ade.uateremed$" !t is thusunderstandable wh$ 2a$antel opted to withdraw itsearlier appeal with the L2AA and, instead,filed its petition forprohibition with urgent application for in1unctive relief in (ivil (ase 9o"H/D3/B5343" he remed$ availed of b$ 2a$antel under Section 3, Rule?C of the Rules of (ourt mustbe upheld"!ssue:809 2a$antel-s realproperties in Hue*on (it$ are, under its franchise, eempt fromrealpropert$ ta"#eld:Ratio: he lower court resolved the issue in theaffirmative, basicall$ owing to the phrase;eclusive of this franchise;found in Section && of 2a$antel-s amended franchise, Rep" Act9o"5?" o petitioners, however, the language of Section && of Rep"

Act 9o" 5? is neither clearnor une.uivocal" he elaborate andetensive discussion devoted b$ the trial court on themeaning andimport of said phrase, the$ add, suggests as much" !t is petitioners-

thesis that2a$antel was in no time given an$ epress eemption fromthe pa$ment of real propert$ taunder its amendator$ franchise" hereseems to be no issue as to 2a$antel-s eemption from real estatetaes b$ virtue of the term ;eclusive of the franchise; .ualif$ing thephrase ;same taes on its real estate,buildings and personal propert$,;found in Section &B, supra, of its franchise, Rep" Act 9o" 3C4,asoriginall$ granted" he legislative intent epressed in the phrase;eclusive of this franchise; cannot be construedother thandistinguishing between two 637 sets of properties, be the$ real orpersonal, owned b$the franchisee, namel$, 6a7 those actuall$, directl$and eclusivel$ used in its radio ortelecommunications business, and6b7 those properties which are not so used" !t is worth$ to notethat theproperties sub1ect of the present controvers$ are onl$ those which areadmittedl$ fallingunder the first categor$" o the mind of the (ourt,Section &B of Rep" Act 9o" 3C4 effectivel$ works to grant ordelegateto local governments of (ongress- inherent power to ta thefranchisee-s propertiesbelonging to the second group of properties

indicated above, that is, all properties which,;eclusive of thisfranchise,; are not actuall$ and directl$ used in the pursuit ofits franchise" Asma$ be recalled, the taing power of localgovernments under both the &4C and the &45(onstitutions solel$depended upon an enabling law" Absent such enabling law, localgovernmentunits were without authorit$ to impose and collect taeson real properties within theirrespective territorial 1urisdictions" 8hileSection &B of Rep" Act 9o" 3C4 ma$ be validl$ viewedas an implieddelegation of power to ta, the delegation under that provision, ascouched, islimited to impositions over properties of the franchiseewhich are not actuall$, directl$ andeclusivel$ used in the pursuit ofits franchise" 9ecessaril$, other properties of 2a$antel directl$used inthe pursuit of its business are be$ond the pale of the delegated taingpower of localgovernments" !n a ver$ real sense, therefore, realproperties of 2a$antel, save those eclusive of its franchise, aresub1ect to realt$ taes" Eltimatel$, therefore, the inevitable result was



that allrealties which are actuall$, directl$ and eclusivel$ used in theoperation of its franchise are;eempted; from an$ propert$ta"2a$antel-s franchise being national in character, the ;eemption;thus granted underSection &B of Rep" Act 9o" 3C4 applies to all itsreal or personal properties found an$wherewithin the Philippinearchipelago"#owever, with the LG(-s taking effect on anuar$ &, &443, 2a$antel-s;eemption; fromreal estate taes for properties of whatever kindlocated within the %etro %anila area was, b$force of Section 3B of the(ode, supra, epressl$ withdrawn" 2ut, not long thereafter, however,oron ul$ 3D, &443, (ongress passed Rep" Act 9o" 5? amending2a$antel-s original franchise"8orth$ of note is that Section && of Rep"

Act 9o" 5? is a virtual reenacment of the taprovision, i"e", Section&B, supra, of 2a$antel-s original franchise under Rep" Act 9o" 3C4"Statedotherwise, Section &B of Rep" Act 9o" 3C4 which was deemedimpliedl$ repealed b$ Section 3Bof the LG( was epressl$ revivedunder Section &B of Rep" Act 9o" 5?" !n concrete terms, therealt$ taeemption heretofore en1o$ed b$ 2a$antel under its original franchise,butsubse.uentl$ withdrawn b$ force of Section 3B of the LG(, hasbeen restored b$ Section &B of Rep" Act 9o" 5?" he (ourt hastaken stock of the fact that b$ virtue of Section C, Article of the&4'5(onstitution, local governments are empowered to lev$ taes"

And pursuant to thisconstitutional empowerment, 1utaposed withSection 33 of the LG(, the Hue*on (it$government enacted in &44its local Revenue (ode, imposing real propert$ ta on all realpropertiesfound within its territorial 1urisdiction" And as earlier stated, the (it$-sRevenue (ode, 1ust like the LG(, epressl$ withdrew, under Section3D thereof, supra, all ta eemptionprivileges in general" his thusraises the .uestion of whether or not the (it$-s Revenue (ode

pursuant to whichthe cit$ treasurer of Hue*on (it$ levied real propert$taes against 2a$antel-s real propertieslocated within the (it$effectivel$ withdrew the ta eemption en1o$ed b$ 2a$antel underitsfranchise, as amended"2a$antel answers the poser in the negativearguing that once again it is onl$ ;liable to pa$the same taes, as an$other persons or corporations on all its real or personalproperties,eclusive of its franchise"; 2a$antel-s posture is well/taken"8hile the s$stem of localgovernment taation has changed with theonset of the &4'5 (onstitution, the power of localgovernment units tota is still limited" As we eplained in %actan (ebu !nternational

AirportAuthorit$: he power to ta is primaril$ vested in the (ongress@ however, in our

1urisdiction, it ma$ be eercised b$ locallegislative bodies, no longermerel$ be virtue of a valid delegation as before, but pursuant to directauthorit$ conferredb$ Section C, Article of the (onstitution" Ender thelatter, the eercise of the power ma$ be sub1ect to suchguidelines and

limitations as the (ongress ma$ provide which, however, must beconsistent with the basic polic$ of local autonom$"(learl$ then, while a new slant on the sub1ect of local taation nowprevails in the sensethat the former doctrine of local government units-delegated power to ta had been effectivel$modified with Article ,Section C of the &4'5 (onstitution now in place, the basic doctrineonlocal taation remains essentiall$ the same" For as the (ourtstressed in %actan, ;the power tota is <still= primaril$ vested in the(ongress"; his new perspective is best articulated b$ Fr" oa.uin G"2ernas, S"", himself a(ommissioner of the &4'? (onstitutional(ommission which crafted the &4'5 (onstitution, thus:8hat is the effect of Section C on the fiscal position of municipalcorporations> Section C does not change the doctrinethat municipalcorporations do not possess inherent powers of taation" 8hat it doesis to confer municipalcorporations a general power to lev$ taes andotherwise create sources of revenue" he$ no longer have to wait forastatutor$ grant of these powers" he power of the legislative authorit$

relative to the fiscal powers of localgovernments has been reduced tothe authorit$ to impose limitations on municipal powers" %oreover,these limitationsmust be ;consistent with the basic polic$ of localautonom$"; he important legal effect of Section C is thus to reversetheprinciple that doubts are resolved against municipal corporations"#enceforth, in interpreting statutor$ provisionson municipal fiscalpowers, doubts will be resolved in favor of municipal corporations" !t isunderstood, however, thattaes imposed b$ local government must befor a public purpose, uniform within a localit$, must not beconfiscator$,and must be within the 1urisdiction of the local unit to pass"!n net effect, the controvers$ presentl$ before the (ourt involves, atbottom, a clashbetween the inherent taing power of the legislature,which necessaril$ includes the power toeempt, and the localgovernment-s delegated power to ta under the aegis of the&4'5(onstitution"9ow to go back to the Hue*on (it$ Revenue (odewhich imposed real estate taes on allreal properties within the cit$-s

territor$ and removed eemptions theretofore ;previousl$granted to, orpresentl$ en1o$ed b$ all persons, whether natural or 1uridical " " " ",;there canreall$ be no dispute that the power of the Hue*on (it$Government to ta is limited b$ Section33 of the LG( which epressl$ provides that ;a province or cit$ ormunicipalit$ within the%etropolitan %anila Area ma$ lev$ an annual advalorem ta on real propert$ such as land,building, machiner$, andother improvement not hereinafter specificall$ eempted"; Enderthislaw, the Legislature highlighted its power to thereafter eemptcertain realties from the taingpower of local government units" Aninterpretation den$ing (ongress such power to eemptwould reducethe phrase ;not hereinafter specificall$ eempted; as a pure 1argon,

withoutmeaning whatsoever" 9eedless to state, such absurd situationis unacceptable"For sure, in PL) vs" (it$ of )avao, this (ourt hasupheld the power of (ongress to granteemptions over the power oflocal government units to impose taes" here, the (ourt wrote:!ndeed, the grant of taing powers to local government units under the(onstitution and the LG( does not affect thepower of (ongress togrant eemptions to certain persons, pursuant to a declared nationalpolic$" he legal effect of the constitutional grant to local governmentssimpl$ means that in interpreting statutor$ provisions onmunicipaltaing powers, doubts must be resolved in favor of municipalcorporations"

As we see it, then, the issue in this case no longer dwells on whether(ongress has thepower to eempt 2a$antel-s properties from realt$taes b$ its enactment of Rep" Act 9o" 5?which amended 2a$antel-soriginal franchise" he more decisive .uestion turns onwhether(ongress actuall$ did eempt 2a$antel-s properties at all b$virtue of Section && of Rep" Act 9o"5?"Admittedl$, Rep" Act 9o"

5? was enacted subse.uent to the LG(" Perfectl$ aware thattheLG( has alread$ withdrawn 2a$antel-s former eemption from realt$taes, (ongress optedto pass Rep" Act 9o" 5? using, under Section&& thereof, eactl$ the same defining phrase;eclusive of thisfranchise; which was the basis for 2a$antel-s eemption from realt$taes priorto the LG(" !n plain language, Section && of Rep" Act 9o"5? states that ;the grantee, itssuccessors or assigns shall be liableto pa$ the same taes on their real estate, buildings andpersonalpropert$, eclusive of this franchise, as other persons or corporationsare now orhereafter ma$ be re.uired b$ law to pa$"; he (ourt viewsthis subse.uent piece of legislation asan epress and real intention onthe part of (ongress to once again remove from the LG(-sdelegatedtaing power, all of the franchisee-s 62a$antel-s7 properties that areactuall$, directl$and eclusivel$ used in the pursuit of its franchise"

L(#RN('*# &#N(#R F%R %RGN'$('%NL R#F%RMS N/

/#*#L%M#N(, 'N&., *S. $M%RG.R. No. 12-Subet4 Public (orporation/otrine4 Automatic release of !RAFats4Pres" Jstrada, pursuant to Sec 33, Art M!! mandating the Pres tosubmit to (ongress a budget of ependitures within D da$s before theopening of ever$ regular session, submitted the 9ational Jpendituresprogram for FK 3DDD" he President proposed an !RA ofP&3&,55',DDD,DDD" his became RA '5?D, NA9 A(

APPR0PR!A!9G FE9)S F0R #J 0PJRA!09 0F #JG0MJR9%J9 0F #J RJPE2L!( 0F #J P#!L!PP!9JS FR0%A9EARK 09J 0 )J(J%2JR #!RK/09J, 80 #0ESA9),

A9) F0R 0#JR PERP0SJSO also known as General Appropriations Act 6GAA7 for the Kear 3DDD" !t provides under theheading NALL0(A!09S 0 L0(AL G0MJR9%J9 E9!SO that the!RA for local government units shall amount to P&&&,55',DDD,DDDO"

!n another part of the GAA, under the heading NE9PR0GRA%%J)FE9),O it is provided that an amount of P&D,DDD,DDD,DDD 6P&D 2illion7,apart from the P&&&,55',DDD,DDD mentioned above, shall be used tofund the !RA, which amount shall be released onl$ when the originalrevenue targets submitted b$ the President to (ongress can bereali*ed based on a .uarterl$ assessment to be conducted b$ certaincommittees which the GAA specifies, namel$, the )evelopment2udget (oordinating (ommittee, the (ommittee on Finance of theSenate, and the (ommittee on Appropriations of the #ouse ofRepresentatives"hus, while the GAA appropriates P&&&,55',DDD,DDD of !RA asProgrammed Fund, it appropriates a separate amount of P&D 2illion of!RA under the classification of Enprogrammed Fund, the latter amountto be released onl$ upon the occurrence of the condition stated in theGAA"0n August 33, 3DDD, a number of 9G0s and P0s, along with



baranga$ officials filed with this (ourt the petition at bar, for (ertiorari,Prohibition and %andamus 8ith Application for emporar$ Restraining0rder, against respondents then Jecutive Secretar$ Ronaldo+amora, then Secretar$ of the )epartment of 2udget and %anagement2en1amin )iokno, then 9ational reasurer Leonor %agtolis/2riones,and the (ommission on Audit, challenging the constitutionalit$ ofprovision M!! 6ALL0(A!09S 0 L0(AL G0MJR9%J9 E9!S7referred to b$ petitioners as Section &, M!! 6A7, and L!M6E9PR0GRA%%J) FE9)7 Special Provisions & and B of the GAA6the GAA provisions7Petitioners contend that the said provisions violates the LGEsautonom$ b$ unlawfull$ reducing the !RA allotted b$ &D2 and b$

withholding its release b$ placing the same under NEnprogrammedfundsO" Although the effectivit$ of the Kear 3DDD GAA has ceased, this(ourt shall nonetheless proceed to resolve the issues raised in thepresent case, it being impressed with public interest" Petitioners arguethat the GAA violated the constitutional mandate of automaticall$releasing the !RAs when it made its release contingent on whetherrevenue collections could meet the revenue targets originall$ submittedb$ the President, rather than making the release automatic"'SS"#4 809 the sub1ect GAA violates LGEs fiscal autonom$ b$ notautomaticall$ releasing the whole amount of the allotted !RA"5#L/4

Article , Section ? of the (onstitution provides:SJ(!09 ?" Local government units shall have a 1ust share, asdetermined b$ law, in the national taes which shall be automaticall$released to them"Petitioners argue that the GAA violated this constitutional mandatewhen it made the release of !RA contingent on whether revenue

collections could meet the revenue targets originall$ submitted b$ thePresident, rather than making the release automatic" Respondentscounterargue that the above constitutional provision is addressed notto the legislature but to the eecutive, hence, the same does notprevent the legislature from imposing conditions upon the release ofthe !RA"Respondents thus infer that the sub1ect constitutional provision merel$prevents the eecutive branch of the government from Nunilaterall$Owithholding the !RA, but not the legislature from authori*ing theeecutive branch to withhold the same" !n the words of respondents,Nhis essentiall$ means that the President or an$ member of theJecutive )epartment cannot unilaterall$, i"e", without the backing ofstatute, withhold the release of the !RA"O

As the (onstitution la$s upon the eecutive the dut$ to automaticall$release the 1ust share of local governments in the national taes, so iten1oins the legislature not to pass laws that might prevent the

eecutive from performing this dut$" o hold that the eecutive branchma$ disregard constitutional provisions which define its duties,provided it has the backing of statute, is virtuall$ to make the(onstitution amendable b$ statute a proposition which is patentl$absurd" !f indeed the framers intended to allow the enactment ofstatutes making the release of !RA conditional instead of automatic,then Article , Section ? of the (onstitution would have been wordeddifferentl$"Since, under Article , Section ? of the (onstitution, onl$ the 1ust shareof local governments is .ualified b$ the words Nas determined b$ law,Oand not the release thereof, the plain implication is that (ongress is notauthori*ed b$ the (onstitution to hinder or impede the automaticrelease of the !RA"!n another case, the (ourt held that the onl$ possible eception tomandator$ automatic release of the !RA is, as held in 2atangas:Qif the national internal revenue collections for the current fiscal $earis less than BD percent of the collections of the preceding third fiscal

$ear, in which case what should be automaticall$ released shall be aproportionate amount of the collections for the current fiscal $ear" head1ustment ma$ even be made on a .uarterl$ basis depending on theactual collections of national internal revenue taes for the .uarter ofthe current fiscal $ear"his (ourt recogni*es that the passage of the GAA provisions b$(ongress was motivated b$ the laudable intent to Nlower the budgetdeficit in line with prudent fiscal management"O he pronouncement inPimentel, however, must be echoed: N<=he rule of law re.uires thateven the best intentions must be carried out within the parameters ofthe (onstitution and the law" Meril$, laudable purposes must be carriedout b$ legal methods"O8#JRJF0RJ, the petition is GRA9J)" M!! and L!M SpecialProvisions & and B of the Kear 3DDD GAA are hereb$ declaredunconstitutional insofar as the$ set apart a portion of the !RA, in theamount of P&D 2illion, as part of the E9PR0GRA%%J) FE9)"

L0 vs (it$ of 2utuanFacts: Rel$ing on the fiscal autonom$ granted to LGE-s b$ the (onstittuionand the provisons of the Local Government (ode, the SangguniangPanglunsod of the (it$ of 2utuan enacted an ordinance ;Regulatingthe 0peration of ric$cles/for/#ire, providing mechanism for theissuance of Franchise, Registration and Permit, and !mposingPenalties for Miolations thereof and for other Purposes"; heordinance provided for, among other things, the pa$ment of franchisefees for the grant of the franchise of tric$cles/for/hire, fees for theregistration of the vehicle, and fees for the issuance of a permit for thedriving thereof"

Petitioner L0 eplains that one of the functions of the nationalgovernment that, indeed, has been transferred to local governmentunits is the franchising authorit$ over tric$cles/for/hire of the Landransportation Franchising and Regulator$ 2oard 6;LFR2;7 but not, itasseverates, the authorit$ of L0 to register all motor vehicles and toissue to .ualified persons of licenses to drive such vehicles"

he R( and (A ruled that the power to give registration andlicense for driving tric$cles has been devolved to LGE-s"!ssue: 8hether or not, the registration of tric$cles was given to LGE-s,hence the ordinance is a valid eercise of police power"

Ruling: 9o, based on the/;Guidelines to !mplement the )evolution ofLFR2s Franchising Authorit$ over ric$cles/For/#ire to Local

Government units pursuant to the Local Government (ode;/ the newl$delegated powers to LGE-s pertain to the franchising and regulator$powers eercised b$ the LFR2 and not to the functions of the L0relative to the registration of motor vehicles and issuance of licensesfor the driving thereof" (orollaril$, the eercised of a police power mustbe through a valid delegation" !n this case the police power ofregistering tric$cles was not delegated to the LGEs, but remained inthe L0"

(learl$ unaffected b$ the Local Government (ode are the powers ofL0 under R"A" 9o"B&? re.uiring the registration of all kinds of motorvehicles ;used or operated on or upon an$ public highwa$; in thecountr$"

he (ommissioner of Land ransportation and his deputies areempowered at an$time to eamine and inspect such motor vehicles to

determine whether said vehicles are registered, or are unsightl$,unsafe, improperl$ marked or e.uipped, or otherwise unfit to beoperated on because of possible ecessive damage to highwa$s,bridges and other infrastructures" he L0 is additionall$ charged withbeing the central repositor$ and custodian of all records of all motorvehicles"

Adds the (ourt, the reliance made b$ respondents on the broadtaing power of local government units, specificall$ under Section &of the Local Government (ode, is tangential"

Police power and taation, along with eminent domain, are inherentpowers of sovereignt$ which the State might share with localgovernment units b$ delegation given under a constitutional or astatutor$ fiat" All these inherent powers are for a public purpose andlegislative in nature but the similarities 1ust about end there" he basicaim of police power is public good and welfare" aation, in its case,focuses on the power of government to raise revenue in order to

support its eistence and carr$ out its legitimate ob1ectives" Althoughcorrelative to each other in man$ respects, the grant of one does notnecessaril$ carr$ with it the grant of the other" he two powers are, b$tradition and 1urisprudence, separate and distinct powers, var$ing intheir respective concepts, character, scopes and limitations"

o construe the ta provisions of Section & 6&7 of the LG(indistinctivel$ would result in the repeal to that etent of L0-sregulator$ power which evidentl$ has not been intended" !f it wereotherwise, the law could have 1ust said so in Section BB5 and BC' of2ook !!! of the Local Government (ode in the same manner that thespecific devolution of LFR2-s power on franchising of tric$cles hasbeen provided" Repeal b$ implication is not favored"

he power over tric$cles granted under Section BC'6a7676M!7 of theLocal Government (ode to LGEs is the power to regulate their



operation and to grant franchises for the operation thereof" heeclusionar$ clause contained in the ta provisions of Section & 6&7of the Local Government (ode must not be held to have had the effectof withdrawing the epress power of L0 to cause the registration ofall motor vehicles and the issuance of licenses for the driving thereof"hese functions of the L0 are essentiall$ regulator$ in nature,eercised pursuant to the police power of the State, whose basicob1ectives are to achieve road safet$ b$ insuring the road worthiness ofthese motor vehicles and the competence of drivers prescribed b$ R"

A" B&?" 9ot insignificant is the rule that a statute must not beconstrued in isolation but must be taken in harmon$ with the etantbod$ of laws"

LGEs indubitabl$ now have the power to regulate the operation oftric$cles/for/hire and to grant franchises for the operation thereof, andnot to issue registration"

Jrgo, the ordinance being repugnant to a statute is void and ultravires"

L0 versus (!K 0F 2EEA9 G"R" 9o" &&C&3 anuar$ 3D,3DDDFacts:Local (ouncil of the (it$ of 2utuan passed anordinance entitled ;An0rdinance Regulating the0peration of ric$cles/for/#ire, providingmechanismfor the issuance of Franchise, Registration and Permit,andimposing Penalties for Miolations thereof and forother Purposes"; heordinance provided for, amongother things, the pa$ment of franchisefees for thegrant of the franchise of tric$cles/for/hire, fees fortheregistration of the vehicle, and fees for the issuance of a permit for

the driving thereof"%ain !ssue: he (ourt is asked in this instance to resolve the issueof whetherunder the present set up the power of theLand Registration 0ffice6;L0;7 to register, tric$cles inparticular, as well as to issue licenses forthe drivingthereof, has likewise devolved to local governmentunits"Relevant Huestions and Answers:8hat is the primar$ function of Land ransportation 2oard> he L0 is a line agenc$ under the )0( whosepowers andfunctions, pursuant to Article !!!, Section B6d7 <&=,&D of R"A" 9o" B&?,otherwise known as Land ransportation and raffic (ode, asamended, dealprimaril$ with the registration of all motor vehiclesandthe licensing of drivers thereof"8hat is the primar$ function of Land ransportation and Franchising2oard> he LFR2, upon the other hand, is the governing bod$tasked b$

J"0" 9o" 3D3, dated &4 une &4'5, toregulate the operation of publicutilit$ or ;for hire;vehicles and to grant franchises or certificates ofpublicconvenience 6;(P(;7"Finel$ put, registration and licensingfunctions arevested in the L0 while franchising andregulator$responsibilities had been vested in the LFR2"Ender the Local Government (ode, what certainfunctions of )0(were transferred to the Local Government Enits>Ender the LGEs indubitabl$ now have the power toregulate theoperation of tric$cles/for/hire and to grantfranchises for the operationthereof" Ender the LocalGovernment (ode, certain functions of the)0( weretransferred to the LGEs, thusl$:Sec" BC'" Powers, )uties,Functionsand (ompensation" 67 Sub1ect to theprovisions of 2ook !!of this (ode, enact ordinancesgranting franchisesand authori*ingthe issuance of permits or licenses,upon suchconditions and for suchpurposes intended to promote thegeneralwelfare of the inhabitants of the cit$ and pursuant to thislegislativeauthorit$ shall: 6M!7 Sub1ect to the guidelinesprescribed

b$ the )epartment of ransportation and (ommunications,regulatethe operation of tric$cles andgrant franchises for the operationthereofwithin the territorial 1urisdiction of the cit$" 6Jmphasissupplied7"Rel$ing on the foregoing provision of law, arethe powers of the L0 6&7to register tric$cles/for/hire and 637 to issue license for drivingthereofnow devolved to Local Government Enits>9o" he newl$ delegated powers pertain to thefranchising andregulator$ powers theretoforeeercised b$ the LFR2 and not to thefunctions of theL0 relative to the registration of motor vehiclesandissuance of licenses for the driving thereof" (learl$unaffected b$the Local Government (ode are thepowers of L0 under R"A" 9o"B&? re.uiring theregistration of all kinds of motor vehicles ;usedoroperated on or upon an$ public highwa$; in thecountr$" husSec"C" All motor vehicles and othervehicles must be registered" 6a7 9omotor vehicle shall be used oroperated on or upon an$ publichighwa$of the Philippines unless thesame is properl$ registered for thecurrent

$ear in accordance with theprovisions of this Act 6Article &, (hapter!!,R"A" 9o" B&?7" he (ommissioner of Land ransportation and hisdeputies areempowered at an$time to eamine andinspect such motorvehicles todetermine whether said vehicles areregistered, or areunsightl$, unsafe,improperl$ marked or e.uipped, orotherwise unfit tobe operated onbecause of possible ecessive damageto highwa$s,bridges and otherinfrastructures"&5 he L0 isadditionall$ chargedwith being thecentral repositor$ and custodian of allrecords of all motorvehicles"&'Jrgo, the registration of the tric$cles and issuance ofalicense for the driving thereof is maintained b$ theL0"8hat is the rationale wh$ said functions of L0were not devolved toLocal Government (ode>

!f the tric$cle registration function of respondent L0 isdecentrali*ed,the incidence of theft of tric$cles willmost certainl$ go up, and stolentric$cles registered inone local government could be registered inanotherwith ease" he determination of ownership thereof willalsobecome ver$ difficult"

Fake driver-s licenses will likewise proliferate" hislikel$ scenariounfolds where a tric$cle driver, not.ualified b$ petitioner L0-s testing,could secure alicense from one municipalit$, and when the sameisconfiscated, could 1ust go another municipalit$ tosecure anotherlicense")evolution will entail the hiring of additional personnelchargedwith inspecting tric$cles for road worthiness,testing drivers, anddocumentation"Revenues raised from tric$cle registration ma$ notbeenough to meet salaries of additional personnel andincidental costsfor tools and e.uipment"

(R'&)&L#S

L0Registration of tric$cles and issuance of licensefor the drivingthereof"

LGEPower to regulate the operation of tric$cle/for/hire and to grantfranchises thereof"

Magtaas v. rye ro6erties &or6.G.R. No. 111097, uly 20, 199&ru, .Fats4G&%R eie to e:6an its o6erations to &agayan e %ro&ity. (o t;is en, itlease a 6ortion o< a builing belonging torye ro6erties &or6oration, 'n., renovate ane=ui66e t;esame, an 6re6are to inaugurate its asino t;ere uring t;e&;ristmasseason.&ivi organiations angrily enoune t;e

6roet. (;e religious elements e;oe t;eobetion an so it;e >omen?s grou6s an t;e yout;. /emonstrations >ere le byt;emayor an t;e ity legislators. (;e meia trum6ete t;e6rotest, esribing t;e asino as ana<<ront to t;e >el<are o< t;eity. (;e ontention o< t;e 6etitioners is t;at it is violative o< t;eSangguniang anlungsoo< &agayan e %ro &ity %rinane No.333 6ro;ibiting t;e use o< builings <or t;e o6erationo< a asinoan %rinane No. 337@93 6ro;ibiting t;e o6eration o<asinos.%n t;e ot;er ;an, t;e res6onents invoAe ./. 18-9>;i; reate G&%R to ;el6entralie an regulate all gameso< ;ane, inluing asinos on lan an sea >it;in t;eterritorial

urisition o< t;e ;ili66ines. (;e &ourt o< 66eals rule in <avoro< t;e res6onents. 5ene, t;e 6etition <or revie>.'ssue4B;et;er or not t;e %rinane No. 333 an %rinane No. 337@93 are vali5el4

No. &agayan e %ro &ity, liAe ot;er loal 6olitial subivisions, isem6o>ere toenat orinanes <or t;e 6ur6oses iniate in t;eLoal Government &oe. 't is e:6resslyveste >it; t;e 6olie6o>er uner >;at is Ano>n as t;e General Bel<are &lauseno>emboie in Setion 1- as <ollo>s4Se. 1-.General Bel<are. C #very loal government unit s;all e:erise t;e6o>erse:6ressly grante, t;ose neessarily im6lie t;ere<rom, as >ellas6o>ers neessary, a66ro6riate, or iniental <or its e<<iientan e<<etivegovernane, an t;ose >;i; are essential to t;e6romotion o< t;e general>el<are. Bit;in t;eir res6etive territorial

urisitions, loal governmentunits s;all ensure an su66ort,among ot;er t;ings, t;e 6reservation anenri;ment o< ulture,6romote ;ealt; an sa<ety, en;ane t;e rig;t o< t;e6eo6le to abalane eology, enourage an su66ort t;e evelo6ment o<a66ro6riate an sel<@reliant sienti<i an te;nologial



a6abilities, im6rove6ubli morals, en;ane eonomi 6ros6erityan soial ustie, 6romote <ullem6loyment among t;eirresients, maintain 6eae an orer, an 6reservet;e om<ort anonveniene o< t;eir in;abitants. (;ere is a re=uirement t;at t;eorinanes s;oul not ontravene a statute.Munii6algovernments are only agents o< t;e national government. Loalounils e:erise only elegate legislative 6o>ers on<erre ont;em by &ongress as t;e national la> maAing boy. (;e elegateannot be su6erior to t;e 6rini6al or e:erise 6o>ers ;ig;ert;an t;ose o< t;e latter. 't is a ;eresy to suggest t;at t;e loalgovernment units an uno t;e ats o< &ongress, <rom >;i;t;ey ;ave erive t;eir 6o>er in t;e <irst 6lae, an negate by

mere orinane t;e manate o< t;e statute.

&asino gambling is aut;orie by ./. 18-9. (;is eree ;as t;estatus o< a statute t;at annot be amene or nulli<ie by a mereorinane.

/rilon v. LimG.R. No. 11297, ugust , 199&ru, .Fats4 (;e 6rini6al issue in t;is ase is t;e onstitutionality o< Setion187 o< t;e LoalGovernment &oe. (;e Seretary o< ustie Don a66eal to ;im o< <our oil om6aniesan ata:6ayerE elare %rinane No. 779 DManila Revenue&oeE null an voi <or non@om6liane >it; t;e 6roeure in t;eenatment o< ta: orinanes an <or ontaining ertain6rovisionsontrary to la> an 6ubli 6oliy. (;e R(& revoAe t;eSeretarys resolution an sustaine t;e orinane. 't

elareSe 187 o< t;e LG& as unonstitutional beause it vestson t;e Seretary t;e 6o>er o< ontrol over LG"s in violation o<t;e 6oliy o< loal autonomy manate in t;e &onstitution. (;eSeretary argues t;at t;e annulle Setion 187 is onstitutionalan t;at t;e 6roeuralre=uirements <or t;e enatment o< ta:orinanes as s6ei<ie in t;e Loal Government&oe ;a ineenot been observe. Detition originally ismisse by t;e &ourtue to<ailure to submit erti<ie true o6y o< t;e eision, butreinstate it any>ay.E'ssue4B%N t;e lo>er ourt ;as urisition to onsier t;eonstitutionality o< Se 187 o< t;e LG&5el4 )es. + 129 vests in t;e regional trial ourts urisition over allivil ases in >;i;t;e subet o< t;e litigation is ina6able o<6euniary estimation. Moreover, rtile , SetionD2E, o< t;e

&onstitution vests in t;e Su6reme &ourt a66ellate urisitionover <inal ugments an orers o< lo>er ourts in all ases in>;i; t;e onstitutionality or valiity o< any treaty, internationalor e:eutive agreement, la>, 6resiential eree,6rolamation,orer, instrution, orinane, or regulation is in=uestion.'n t;e e:erise o< t;is urisition, lo>er ourts areavise to at >it; t;e utmostirums6etion, bearing in mint;e onse=uenes o< a elaration o< unonstitutionalityu6on t;estability o< la>s, no less t;an on t;e otrine o< se6aration o<6o>ers. 't is alsoem6;asie t;at every ourt, inluing t;is&ourt, is ;arge >it; t;e uty o< a 6ur6ose<ul;esitation be<oreelaring a la> unonstitutional, on t;e t;eory t;at t;e measure>as <irstare<ully stuie by t;e e:eutive an t;e legislativee6artments an etermine by t;emto be in aorane >it; t;e<unamental la> be<ore it >as <inally a66rove. (o oubt istosustain. (;e 6resum6tion o< onstitutionality an be overomeonly by t;e learest s;o>ingt;at t;ere >as inee an in<ration o<

t;e &onstitution.'ssue4B%N Setion 187 o< t;e LG& is unonstitutional5el4 )es. Setion 187 aut;ories t;e Seretary o< ustie to revie>only t;eonstitutionality or legality o< t;e ta: orinane an, i<>arrante, to revoAe it on eit;er orbot; o< t;ese grouns. B;en;e alters or moi<ies or sets asie a ta: orinane, ;e is not also6ermitte to substitute ;is o>n ugment <or t;e ugment o< t;eloal government t;atenate t;e measure. Seretary /rilon iset asie t;e Manila Revenue &oe, but ;e inot re6lae it >it;;is o>n version o< >;at t;e &oe s;oul be.. B;at ;e <oun only>as t;atit >as illegal. ll ;e i in revie>ing t;e sai measure>as etermine i< t;e 6etitioners >ere6er<orming t;eir <untions inaorane >it; la>, t;at is, >it; t;e 6resribe 6roeure <ort;eenatment o< ta: orinanes an t;e grant o< 6o>ers to t;e ity

government uner t;eLoal Government &oe. s >e see it, t;at>as an at not o< ontrol but o< mere su6ervision.n o<<ier inontrol lays o>n t;e rules in t;e oing o< an at. '< t;ey arenot<ollo>e, ;e may, in ;is isretion, orer t;e at unone or re@one by ;is suborinate or ;emay even eie to o it ;imsel<.Su6ervision oes not over su; aut;ority. (;e su6ervisororsu6erintenent merely sees to it t;at t;e rules are <ollo>e, but;e ;imsel< oes not layo>n su; rules, nor oes ;e ;ave t;eisretion to moi<y or re6lae t;em.Signi<iantly, a rule similar toSetion 187 a66eare in t;e Loal utonomy t. (;atsetionallo>e t;e Seretary o< Finane to sus6en t;e e<<etivity o< ata: orinane i<, in;is o6inion, t;e ta: or <ee levie >as unust,

e:essive, o66ressive or on<isatory./etermination o< t;ese<la>s >oul involve t;e e:erise o< ugment or isretion annotmerely an e:amination o< >;et;er or not t;e re=uirements orlimitations o< t;e la> ;abeen observeH ;ene, it >oul smaA oontrol rat;er t;an mere su6ervision. (;at 6o>er>as never=uestione be<ore t;is &ourt but, at any rate, t;e Seretary o<ustie is not givent;e same latitue uner Setion 187. ll ;e is6ermitte to o is asertain t;eonstitutionality or legality o< t;eta: measure, >it;out t;e rig;t to elare t;at, in ;iso6inion, it isunust, e:essive, o66ressive or on<isatory. 5e ;as noisretion on t;ismatter. 'n <at, Seretary /rilon set asie t;eManila Revenue &oe only on t>o grouns, to>it;, t;e inlusiont;erein o< ertain ultra vires 6rovisions an non@om6liane >it;t;e6resribe 6roeure in its enatment. (;ese grounsa<<ete t;e legality, not t;e >isomor reasonableness, o< t;e ta:measure. (;e issue o< non@om6liane >it; t;e 6resribe6roeure in t;e enatment o< t;eManila Revenue &oe is

anot;er matter. Dallegations4 No >ritten noties o< 6ubli;earing,no 6ubliation o< t;e orinane, no minutes o< 6ubli;earing, no 6osting, no translation into (agalogE uge alattao;o>ever <oun t;at all t;e 6roeural re=uirements ;abeenobserve in t;e enatment o< t;e Manila Revenue &oe ant;at t;e &ity o< Manila ;a notbeen able to 6rove su;om6liane be<ore t;e Seretary only beause ;e ;a given itonly<ive ays >it;in >;i; to gat;er an 6resent to ;im all t;eeviene Donsisting o< 2e:;ibitsE later submitte to t;e trialourt. Be agree >it; t;e trial ourt t;at t;e6roeuralre=uirements ;ave inee been observe. Noties o<t;e 6ubli ;earings >ere sent tointereste 6arties as eviene.(;e minutes o< t;e ;earings are <oun in #:;ibits M, M@1, M@2,an M@3. #:;ibits + an & s;o> t;at t;e 6ro6ose orinanes>ere 6ublis;e in t;e +alitaan t;e Manila Stanar on 6ril 21an 2, 1993, res6etively, an t;e a66rove orinane>as

6ublis;e in t;e uly 3, , , 1993 issues o< t;e Manila Stanaran in t;e uly -, 1993issue o< +alita, as s;o>n by #:;ibits !, !@1, !@2, an !@3. (;e only e:e6tions are t;e 6osting o< t;eorinane as a66rove but t;is omissionoes not a<<et itsvaliity, onsiering t;at its 6ubliation in t;ree suessiveissues o< ane>s6a6er o< general irulation >ill satis<y ue6roess. 't ;as also not been s;o>n t;at t;ete:t o< t;e orinane;as been translate an isseminate, but t;is re=uirementa66lies tot;e a66roval o< loal evelo6ment 6lans an 6ubliinvestment 6rograms o< t;e loalgovernment unit an not to ta:orinanes.

L#G"# %F &'('#S %F (5# 5'L''N#S *S. &%M#L#&, G.R. No17-91, November 18, 2008

F&(S %F (5# &S#4

/uring t;e 12t; &ongress, &ongress enate into la> R..9009 amening Setion 0 o< t;e Loal Government &oe byinreasing t;e annual inome re=uirement <or onversion o< amunii6ality into a ity <rom 20 million to 100 million in orer torestrain It;e ma rus;I o< munii6alities to onvert into itiessolely to seure a larger s;are in t;e 'nternal Revenue llotmentes6ite t;e <at t;at t;ey are ina6able o< <isal ine6enene.

rior to its enatment, a total o< 7 munii6alities ;a ity;oo bills 6ening in &ongress but 2 o< t;em >ere notonverte uring t;e 11t; &ongress. (;e 5ouse o<Re6resentatives o< t;e 12t; &ongress ao6te oint ResolutionNo. 29 to e:em6t t;e 2 munii6alities >;ose ity;oo bills >erenot a66rove in t;e 11t; &ongress but it >as aourne >it;outt;e Senate?s a66roval. /uring t;e 13t; &ongress, 1- o< t;e 2munii6alities mentione in t;e una66rove oint Resolution No.



29 <ile bet>een November an /eember o< 200-, t;roug; t;eirres6etive s6onsors in &ongress, iniviual ity;oo billsontaining a ommon 6rovision, as <ollo>s4

#:em6tion <rom Re6ubli t No. 9009.@ (;e &ity o< : : :s;all be e:em6te <rom t;e inome re=uirement 6resribe unerRe6ubli t No. 9009.

(;ese ity;oo bills la6se into la> on various ates <romMar; to uly 2007 a<ter resient Gloria Maa6agal@rroyo <aileto sign t;em. etitioners <ile t;e 6resent 6etitions to elare t;e&ity;oo La>s unonstitutional <or violation o< Setion 10, rtile

o< t;e 1987 &onstitution an as >ell as <or violation o< t;e e=ual6rotetion lause. etitioners also lament t;at t;e >;olesaleonversion o< munii6alities into ities >ill reue t;e s;are o<e:isting ities in t;e 'nternal Revenue llotment beause moreities >ill s;are t;e same amount o< internal revenue set asie <orall ities uner Setion 28 o< t;e Loal Government &oe.

'SS"#S4

B;et;er or not t;e &ity;oo La>s violate Setion 10,rtile o< 1987 &onstitutionH an >;et;er or not t;e &ity;ooLa>s violate t;e e=ual 6rotetion lause.

R"L'NG %F (5# &%"R(4

(;e &ity;oo La>s violate Setion - an 10, rtile o<1987 &onstitution an t;e e=ual 6rotetion lause, an are t;us

unonstitutional. (;e onstitution 6rovies4

Setion 10, rtile o< 1987 &onstitution.::: ::: :::No 6rovine, ity, munii6ality, or barangay s;all be reate,ivie, merge, abolis;e or its bounary substantially altere,e:e6t in aorane >it; t;e riteria establis;e in t;e loalgovernment oe an subet to a66roval by a maority o< t;evotes ast in a 6lebisite in t;e 6olitial units iretly a<<ete.:::. D#m6;asis su66lieE

'n t;at ase, t;e ity;oo bills violate Setion 10, rtile o< t;e &onstitution. (;e reation o< loal government units must<ollo> t;e riteria establis;e in t;e Loal Government &oe annot in any ot;er la>s. (;ere is only one Loal Government &oe.(;e &onstitution re=uires &ongress to sti6ulate in t;e Loal

Government &oe all t;e riteria neessary <or t;e reation o< aity, inluing t;e onversion o< a munii6ality into a ity. (;e&ongress annot >rite su; riteria in any ot;er la>, liAe t;e&ity;oo La>s.

'< t;e riteria in reating loal government units are notuni<orm an isriminatory, t;ere an be no <air an ustistribution o< t;e national ta:es to loal government units. ity>it; an annual inome o< only 20 million, all ot;er riteria beinge=ual, s;oul not reeive t;e same s;are in national ta:es as aity >it; an annual inome o< 100 million or more. Sine t;e&ity;oo La>s o not <ollo> t;e inome riterion in Setion 0o< t;e Loal Government &oe, t;ey 6relue t;e <air an ustistribution o< t;e 'nternal Revenue llotment in violation o<Setion -, rtile o< t;e &onstitution.

(;e #=ual rotetion &lause o< t;e 1987 &onstitution

6ermits a vali lassi<iation uner t;e <ollo>ing onitions4 1. (;e lassi<iation must rest on substantial istintionsH 2. (;e lassi<iation must be germane to t;e 6ur6ose o<t;e la>H 3. (;e lassi<iation must not be limite to e:istingonitions onlyH an . (;e lassi<iation must a66ly e=ually to all members o<t;e same lass.

(;e e:em6tion to t;e 100 million annual inomere=uirement is unonstitutional <or violation o< t;e e=ual6rotetion lause. Setion 0 o< t;e Loal Government &oe, asamene by R 9009, oes not ontain any e:em6tion. (;ee:em6tion is ontaine in t;e &ity;oo La>s, >;i; isunonstitutional beause su; e:em6tion must be 6resribe in

t;e Loal Government &oe as manate in Setion 10, rtile o< t;e &onstitution.

(;e e:em6tion 6rovision merely states, I#:em6tion <romRe6ubli t No. 9009 @ (;e &ity o< : : : s;all be e:em6te <romt;e inome re=uirement 6resribe uner Re6ubli t No. 9009.I(;is one sentene e:em6tion 6rovision ontains no lassi<iationstanars or guielines i<<erentiating t;e e:em6temunii6alities <rom t;ose t;at are not e:em6te.

Furt;ermore, R.. 9009 is a ros6etive 66liation o< t;eLa>. 't tooA e<<et in 2001 >;ile t;e ity;oo bills beame la>

more t;an <ive years later. 5ene, t;e retroative a66liation isinamissible.

B5#R#F%R#, t;e &ourt grants t;e 6etitions an elares"N&%NS('("('%NL t;e &ity;oo La>s, namely4 Re6ubli tNos. 9389, 9390, 9391, 9392, 9393, 939, 9398, 90, 90, 907,908, 909, 93, 93, 93-, an 991.

League o< &ities o< t;e ;ili66ines DL&E, et al. vs. &ommissionon #letions, et al.G.R. No. 17-91, G.R. No. 17799 J G.R. No. 1780-H 2 ugust2010Fats4 (;e 11t; &ongress enate into la> 33 bills onverting 33munii6alities into ities. 5o>ever,it i not at on bills onverting 2 ot;er munii6alities into itiesSubse=uently, t;e 12t; &ongressenate Re6ubli t No. 9009 DR 9009E, >;i; tooA e<<et on 20

une 2001, amening Setion0 o< t;e Loal Government &oe by inreasing t;e annualinome re=uirement <or onversion o< amunii6ality into a ity <rom 20million to 100million. (;erea<ter1- munii6alities <ile t;eir iniviual ity;oo bills. (;e 1- ity;oo bills ontaine aommon 6rovision e:em6ting all t;e 1-munii6alities <rom t;e 100million inome re=uirement o< R9009. (;e ity;oo bills >erea66rove by t;e 5ouse o< Re6resentatives an t;e Senate, anla6se into la> >it;out t;eresients signature. Sai &ity;oo La>s irete t;e&ommission on #letions D&%M#L#&E to;ol 6lebisites to etermine >;et;er t;e voters in ea;munii6ality a66rove o< t;e onversion.etitioners soug;t to elare t;e 1- &ity;oo La>s

unonstitutional <or violation o< Setion 10,rtile o< t;e &onstitution an t;e e=ual 6rotetion lause,lamenting t;at t;e >;olesaleonversion o< munii6alities into ities >oul reue t;e s;are o<e:isting ities in t;e 'nternalRevenue llotment D'RE.%n 18 November 2008, t;e Su6reme &ourt #n +an, by a maorityvote, elare t;e 1- &ity;ooLa>s to be in violation o< Setion 10, rtile o< t;e 1987&onstitution, >;i; 6rovies t;at no itys;all be reate e:e6t in aorane >it; t;e riteria establis;ein t;e loal government oe. (;eSu6reme &ourt ;el t;at sine res6onent munii6alities i notmeet t;e 100million inomere=uirement uner Setion 0 o< t;e Loal Government &oe, asamene by R 9009, t;e&ity;oo La>s onverting sai munii6alities into ities >ere

unonstitutional. (;e Su6reme &ourtalso elare t;e 1- &ity;oo La>s to be in violation o< t;e e=ual6rotetion lause sine t;ere >asno vali lassi<iation bet>een t;ose entitle an t;ose notentitle to e:em6tion <rom t;e100million inome re=uirement4 D1E t;ere >as no substantialistintion bet>een munii6alities>it; 6ening ity;oo bills in t;e 11t; &ongress >;en R 9009>as enate an munii6alities t;ati not ;ave su; 6ening billsH D2E t;e lassi<iation riterionKmere 6eneny o< a ity;oo bill int;e 11t; &ongress K>as not germane to t;e 6ur6ose o< t;e la>,>;i; >as to 6revent <isally nonviable munii6alities <romonverting into itiesH D3E t;e 6eneny o< a ity;oo bill in t;e11t;



&ongress limite t;e e:em6tion to a s6ei<i onition e:isting att;e time o< 6assage o< R 9009 aonition t;at >oul never ;a66en again, violating t;ere=uirement t;at a vali lassi<iation mustnot be limite to e:isting onitions onlyH an DE limiting t;ee:em6tion only to t;e 1- res6onentmunii6alities violate t;e re=uirement t;at t;e lassi<iationmust a66ly to all similarly situateHmunii6alities >it; t;e same inome as t;e 1- res6onentmunii6alities oul not onvert into ities.%n 31 Mar; 2009, t;e Su6reme &ourt #n +an, also by a maorityvote, enie t;e res6onent

munii6alities <irst motion <or reonsieration. %n 28 6ril 2009,t;e Su6reme &ourt #n +an, by as6lit vote, enie t;e res6onent munii6alities seon motion<or reonsieration. (;e 18November 2008 /eision beame <inal an e:eutory an >asreore in t;e +ooA o< #ntries o< ugments on 21 May 2009.5o>ever, on 21 /eember 2009, t;e Su6reme &ourt #n +anreverse t;e 18 November 2008/eision an u6;el t;e onstitutionality o< t;e &ity;oo La>s.(;e &ourt reasone t;at4D1E B;en Setion 10, rtile o< t;e 1987 &onstitution s6eaAs o<t;e loal government oe, t;ere<erene annot be to any s6ei<i statute or oi<iation o< la>s,let alone t;e Loal Government.

L#G"# %F &'('#S &S#

/uring t;e 11t; &ongress, 7 bills seeAing t;e

onversion o< munii6alities into om6onent ities >ere <ile

be<ore t;e 5ouse o< Re6resentatives. 5o>ever, &ongress ate

only on 33 bills. 't i not at on bills onverting 2 ot;er

munii6alities into ities. /uring t;e 12t; &ongress, R.. No.

9009 beame e<<etive revising Setion 0 o< t;e Loal

Government &oe. 't inrease t;e inome re=uirement to =uali<y

<or onversion into a ity <rom 20 million annual inome to100

million loally@generate inome. 'n t;e 13t; &ongress, 1- o< t;e

2 munii6alities <ile, t;roug; t;eir res6etive s6onsors,

iniviual ity;oo bills. #a; o< t;e ity;oo bills ontaine a

ommon 6rovisione:em6ting t;e 6artiular munii6ality <rom t;e

100 million inome re=uirement im6ose by R.. No. 9009. re

t;e ity;oo la>s onverting 1- munii6alities into ities

onstitutional

S"GG#S(#/ NSB#R4

November 18, 2008 Ruling

9o" he S( 6voting ?/C7 ruled that the eemptions in the (it$

Laws is unconstitutional because sec" &D, Art" of the (onstitution

re.uires that such eemption must be written into the LG( and not into

an$ other laws" Nhe (it$hood Laws violate sec" ?, Art" of the

(onstitution because the$ 6revent a <air an ust istribution o< t;e

national ta:es to loal government units.O Nhe criteria, as

prescribed in sec" BCD of the LG(, must be strictl$ followed because

such criteria prescribed b$ law, are material in determining the N1us

shareO of local government units 6LGEs7 in national taes.” ( League o

&ities o< t;e ;ili66ines v. &omele GR No. 176951, November 18

2008)

March 31, 2009 Ruling

9o" he S( denied the first %otion for Reconsideration" 5/C vote"

April 28, 2009 Ruling

9o" he S( En Banc , b$ a split vote 6?/?7, denied a second

motion for reconsideration"

December 21, 2009 Ruling

Kes" he S( 6voting ?/B7 reversed its 9ovember &', 3DD'

decision and declared as constitutional the (it$hood Laws or Republic

Acts 6RAs7 converting &? municipalities into cities" !t said that based on

(ongress deliberations and clear legislative intent was that the then

pending cit$hood bills would be outside the pale of the minimum

income re.uirement of PhP&DD million that Senate 2ill 9o" 3&C4

proposes@ and RA 4DD4 would not have an$ retroactive effect insofa

as the cit$hood bills are concerned" he conversion of a municipalit$

into a cit$ will onl$ affect its status as a political unit, but not its propert$

as such, it added" he (ourt held that the favorable treatmen

accorded the siteen municipalities b$ the cit$hood laws rests on

substantial distinction

he (ourt stressed that respondent LGEs were .ualified cit$hood

applicants before the enactment of RA 4DD4" o impose on them the

much higher income re.uirement after what the$ have gone through

would appear to be indeed unfair" Nhus, the imperatives of fairness

dictate that the$ should be given a legal remed$ b$ which the$ should

be allowed to prove that the$ have all the necessar$ .ualifications fo

cit$ status using the criteria set forth under the LG( of &44& prior to its

amendment b$ RA 4DD4" (GR No. 176951, League of Citie of t!e

"!i#i$$i%e v. C&'LC GR No. 177*99, League of Citie of t!e

"!i#i$$i%e v. C&'LC GR No. 178056, League of Citie of t!e

"!i#i$$i%e v. C&'LC, +eember 21, 2009)

N&- he 9ovember &', 3DD' ruling alread$ became final and



eecutor$ and was recorded in the S(s 2ook of Jntries of udgments

on %a$ 3&, 3DD4"7

Augus 2!, 2010 Ruling

9o" he S( 6voting 5/?7 granted the motions for reconsideration of the

League of (ities of the Philippines 6L(P7, e al " and reinstated its

9ovember &', 3DD' decision declaring unconstitutional the (it$hood

Laws or Republic Acts 6RAs7 converting &? municipalities into

cities" NEndeniabl$, the ?/? vote did not overrule the prior ma1orit$ en

banc )ecision of &' 9ovember 3DD', as well as the prior ma1orit$ en

banc Resolution of & %arch 3DD4 den$ing reconsideration" he tie/

vote on the second motion for reconsideration is not the same as a tie/

vote on the main decision where there is no prior decision,O the (ourt

said" !n the latest resolution, the (ourt reiterated its 9ovember &',

3DD' ruling that the (it$hood Laws violate sec" &D, Art" of the

(onstitution which epressl$ provides that Nno cit$Qshall be createdQ

ecept in accordance with the criteria established in the local

government code"O !t stressed that while all the criteria for the creation

of cities must be embodied eclusivel$ in the Local Government (ode,

the assailed (it$hood Laws provided an eemption from the increased

income re.uirement for the creation of cities under sec" BCD of the

LG(" Nhe unconstitutionalit$ of the (it$hood Laws lies in the fact that

(ongress provided an eemption contrar$ to the epress language of

the (onstitutionQ"(ongress eceeded and abused its law/making

power, rendering the challenged (it$hood Laws void for being violative

of the (onstitution,O the (ourt held"

he (ourt further held that Nlimiting the eemption onl$ to the

&? municipalities violates the re.uirement that the classification must

appl$ to all similarl$ situated" %unicipalities with the same income as

the &? respondent municipalities cannot convert into cities, while the

&? respondent municipalities can" (learl$, as worded the eemption

provision found in the (it$hood Laws, even if it were written in Section

BCD of the Local Government (ode, would still be unconstitutional for

violation of the e.ual protection clause"O (GR No. 176951,League o<

&ities o< t;e ;ili66ines v. &omele GR No. 177*99, League o<

&ities o< t;e ;ili66ines v. &omele GR No. 178056, League o<

&ities o< t;e ;ili66ines v. &omele, /ugut 2*, 2010)

"ebruar# 1$, 2011 Ruling

Kes, the laws are constitutional" he Februar$ &C, 3D&& resolution is

the fourth ruling since the #igh (ourt first resolved the (it$hood case

in 3DD'"

April 12, 2011Ruling

Kes !ts final" he &? (it$hood Laws are constitutional" N8e should no

ever lose sight of the fact that the &? cities covered b$ the (it$hood

Laws not onl$ had conversion bills pending during the &&th (ongress

but have also complied with the re.uirements of the <Loca

Government (ode= LG( prescribed prior to its amendment b$ RA 9o

4DD4" (ongress undeniabl$ gave these cities all the considerations

that 1ustice and fair pla$ demanded" #ence, this (ourt should do no

less b$ stamping its imprimaur to the clear and unmistakable

legislative intent and b$ dul$ recogni*ing the certain collective wisdom

of (ongress,O the S( said"

he (ourt stressed that (ongress clearl$ intended that the loca

government units covered b$ the (it$hood Laws be eempted from the

coverage of RA 4DD4, which imposes a higher income re.uirement of

PhP&DD million for the creation of cities"

Nhe (ourt reiterated that while RA 4DD4 was being

deliberated upon, the (ongress was well aware of the pendenc$ o

conversion bills of several municipalities, including those covered b$

the (it$hood Laws" !t pointed out that RA 4DD4 took effect on une D

3DD&, when the &3th (ongress was incipient" 2$ reason of the clea

legislative intent to eempt the municipalities covered b$ the

conversion bills pending during the &&th (ongress, the #ouse o

Representatives adopted %oin Resoluion No& 29 enile' %oin

Resoluion o E(emp )erain Municipaliies Embo'ie' in Bills "ile' in

)ongress be*ore %une 30, 2001 *rom he coverage o* Republic Ac No

9009" #owever, the Senate failed to act on the said oint Resolution

Jven so, the #ouse readopted oint Resolution 9o" 34 as oin

Resolution 9o" & during the &3th (ongress, and forwarded the same

for approval to the Senate, which again failed to prove it" Jventuall$

the conversion bills of respondents were individuall$ filed in the Lowe

#ouse and fellesters"blogspot"com were all unanimousl$ and favorabl$

voted upon" 8hen forwarded to the Senate, the bills were also

unanimousl$ approved" he acts of both (hambers of (ongress show

that the eemption clauses ultimatel$ incorporated in the (it$hood

Laws are but the epress articulations of the clear legislative intent to



eempt the respondents, without eception, from the coverage of RA

9o" 4DD4" hereb$, RA 4DD4, and, b$ necessit$, the L(G, were

amended, not b$ repeal but b$ wa$ of the epress eemptions being

embodied in the eemption

clauses&” (!tt$.uiiar3.gov.$!%e4ourt%e4

20f#a!20110*0*1*1101.$!$)

he (ourt held that the imposition of the income re.uirement of P&DD

million from local sources under RA 4DD4 was arbitrar$" N8hile the

(onstitution mandates that the creation of local government units must

compl$ with the criteria laid down in the LG(, it cannot be 1ustified to

insist that the (onstitution must have to $ield to ever$ amendment to

the LG( despite such amendment imminentl$ producing effects

contrar$ to the original thrusts of the LG( to promote autonom$,

decentrali*ation, countr$side development, and the concomitant

national growth"O DGR No. 17-91, League of Cit3 of t!e

"!i#i$$i%e v. &%M#L#&H GR No. 17799, League of Cit3 of t!e

"!i#i$$i%e v. &%M#L#&4 GR No. 1780-, League of Cit3 of t!e

"!i#i$$i%e v. C&'LC, 6ril 12, 2011E

Navarro vs #rmita &ase

(;e National Statistis %<<ie erti<ie t;at /inagat 'slans

6o6ulation is 120,813. 'ts lan area is 802.12 s=uare Ailometers

an its average annual inome is 82,-9-,33.23, as erti<ie by

t;e +ureau o< Loal Government Finane. %n %tober 2, 200-, t;e

resient a66rove into la> R.. 93 reating t;e rovine o<

/inagat 'slans. %n /eember 3, 200-, t;e &%M#L#& onute

t;e manatory 6lebisite <or t;e rati<iation o< t;e reation o< t;e

6rovine uner t;e LG& >;i; yiele -9,93 a<<irmative votes

an -3,02 negative votes. Bit; t;e a66roval o< t;e 6eo6le <rom

bot; t;e mot;er 6rovine o< Surigao el Norte an t;e rovine o<

/inagat 'slans D/inagatE, t;e resient a66ointe t;e interim set

o< 6rovinial o<<iials >;o tooA t;eir oat; o< o<<ie on anuary 2-,

2007. Later, uring t;e May 1, 2007 syn;ronie eletions, t;e

/inagatnons elete t;eir ne> set o< 6rovinial o<<iials >;o

assume o<<ie on uly 1, 2007.

Mean>;ile, on November 10, 200-, 6etitioners Rool<o

G. Navarro an ot;er <ormer 6olitial leaers o< Surigao el Norte,

<ile be<ore t;e S& a 6etition <or ertiorari an 6ro;ibition DG.R.

No. 1718E ;allenging t;e onstitutionality o< R.. No. 93

alleging t;at t;at t;e reation o< /inagat as a ne> 6rovine, i<

unorrete, >oul 6er6etuate an illegal at o< &ongress, an

>oul unustly e6rive t;e 6eo6le o< Surigao el Norte o< a large

;unA o< t;e 6rovinial territory, 'nternal Revenue lloation

D'RE, an ri; resoures <rom t;e area. 's R.. No. 93

onstitutional

Suggeste ns>er4

"ebruar# 10, 2010 Ruling

9o" he S( ruled that the population of &3D,'& is below the

Local Government (ode 6LG(7 minimum population re.uirement o

3CD,DDD inhabitants" 9either did )inagat !slands, with an approimate

land area of 'D3"&3 s.uare kilometers meet the LG( minimum land

area re.uirement of 3,DDD s.uare kilometers" he (ourt reiterated its

ruling that paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Rules an' Regulaions

+mplemening he ocal -overnmen )o'e, which eempts proposed

provinces composed of one or more islands from the land area

re.uirement, was null and void as the said eemption is not found in

Sec" B?& of the LG(" Nhere is no dispute that in case of discrepanc$

between the basic law and the rules and regulations implementing the

said law, the basic law prevails, because the rules and regulations

cannot go be$ond the terms and provisions of the basic law,O held the

(ourt" (GR No. 180050, Navarro v. #rmita, 'a3 12, 2010)

he Republic, represented b$ the 0ffice of the Solicito

General, and )inagat filed their respective motions for reconsideration

of the )ecision" !n its Resolution dated %a$ &3, 3D&D, the Supreme

(ourt denied the said motions"

April 12, 2011 Ruling

Kes" !n Navarro v. eutive eretar3 (G.R. %o. 180050, /$ri# 12

2011), the #onorable Supreme (ourt ruled that Republic Act 9o" 4CC

is as MAL!) and (09S!E!09AL, and the proclamation of the

Province of )inagat !slands and the election of the officials thereof are

declared MAL!)"

he S( also ruled that the provision in Article 4637 of the Rules and

Regulations !mplementing the Local Government (ode of &44& stating

Nhe land area re.uirement shall not appl$ where the proposed

province is composed of one 6&7 or more islands,O is declared *L'/.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2011/04/04141101.php


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/176951.htm





















According to the S(, Nwith respect to the creation

of baranga#s, land area is not a re.uisite indicator of

viabilit$" #owever, with respect to the creation of municipalities,

component cities, and provinces, the three 67 indicators of viabilit$ and

pro1ected capacit$ to provide services, i&e&, income, population, and

land area, are provided for"O

N2ut it must be pointed out that when the local government unit to be

created consists of one 6&7 or more islands, it is eempt from the land

area re.uirement as epressl$ provided in Section BB3 and Section

BCD of the LG( if the local government unit to be created is a

municipalit$ or a component cit$, respectivel$" his eemption is

absent in the enumeration of the re.uisites for the creation of a

province under Section B?& of the LG(, although it is epressl$ stated

under Article 4637 of the LG(/!RR"O

Nhere appears neither rh$me nor reason wh$ this

eemption should appl$ to cities and municipalities, but not to

provinces"!n fact, considering the ph$sical configuration of the

Philippine archipelago, there is a greater likelihood that islands or

group of islands would form part of the land area of a newl$/created

province than in most cities or municipalities" !t is, therefore, logical to

infer that the genuine legislative polic$ decision was epressed in

Section BB3 6for municipalities7 and Section BCD 6for component cities7

of the LG(, but fellester"blogspot"com was inadvertentl$ omitted in

Section B?& 6for provinces7" hus, when the eemption was epressl$

provided in Article 4637 of the LG(/!RR, the inclusion was intended to

correct the congressional oversight in Section B?& of the LG( and to

reflect the true legislative intent" !t would, then, be in order for the (ourt

to uphold the validit$ of Article 4637 of the LG(/!RR"O

N(onsistent with the declared polic$ to provide local

government units genuine and meaningful local autonom$, contiguit$

and minimum land area re.uirements for prospective local government

units should be liberall$ construed in order to achieve the desired

results" he strict interpretation adopted b$ the Februar$ &D, 3D&D

)ecision could prove to be counter/productive, if not outright absurd,

awkward, and impractical" Picture an intended province that consists of

several municipalities and component cities which, in themselves, also

consist of islands" he component cities and municipalities which

consist of islands are eempt from the minimum land area

re.uirement, pursuant to Sections BCD and BB3, respectivel$, of the

LG(" Ket, the province would be made to compl$ with the minimum

land area criterion of 3,DDD s.uare kilometers, even if it consists of

several islands" fellester"blogspot"com his would mean that (ongress

has opted to assign a distinctive preference to create a province with

contiguous land area over one composed of islands and negate the

greater imperative of development of self/reliant communities, rura

progress, and the deliver$ of basic services to the constituenc$" his

preferential option would prove more difficult and burdensome if the

3,DDD/s.uare/kilometer territor$ of a province is scattered because the

islands are separated b$ bodies of water, as compared to one with a

contiguous land mass"O

N8hat is more, the land area, while considered as an indicator of

viabilit$ of a local government unit, is not conclusive in showing tha

)inagat cannot become a province, taking into account its average

annual income of P'3,?4?,B"3 at the time fellester"blogspot"com o

its creation, as certified b$ the 2ureau of Local Government Finance

which is four times more than the minimum re.uiremen

of P3D,DDD,DDD"DD for the creation of a province" he deliver$ of basic

services to its constituents has been proven possible and

sustainable" Rather than looking at the results of the plebiscite and the

%a$ &D, 3D&D elections as mere *ai accompli circumstances which

cannot operate in favor of )inagats eistence as a province, the$ mus

be seen from the perspective that )inagat is read$ and capable o

becoming a province"O (Navarro v. eutive eretar3 (G.R. %o.

180050, /$ri# 12, 2011)

Ganon vs &/ate4 ugust , 1991etitioner4 Rool<oGanonRes6onent4 & an Luis Santosonente4SarmientoFats4(;e 6etitions o< Mayor Ganon originate <rom aseries o< aministrative om6laints, ten in number,<ile against;im by various ity o<<iials sometime in 1988, on various;arges, among t;em, abuse o< aut;ority, o66ression, gravemisonut, isgrae<ul an immoral onut, intimiation,ul6able violationo< t;e &onstitution, an arbitrary etention.Fining 6robable grouns an reasons, t;e res6onent DSe o<Loal GovernmentE issue a 6reventive sus6ension orer <or a6erio o< si:ty ays. 'n t;e ot;er ase,res6onent orere6etitioner?s seon 6reventive sus6ension <or anot;er si:ty D-0Eays. (;e 6etitioner>as able to obtain a restraining orer an a>rit o< 6reliminary inuntion in t;e R(&. (;e seon6reventivesus6ension >as not en<ore.mist t;e t>o suessivesus6ensions, Mayor Ganon institute an ation <or 6ro;ibitionagainstt;e res6onent in t;e R(&. resently, ;e institute anation <or 6ro;ibition, in t;e res6onent &.Mean>;ile, t;eres6onent issue anot;er orer, 6reventively sus6ening MayorGanon <or anot;er si:tyays, t;e t;ir time in t>enty mont;s,an esignating meantime *ie@Mayor Mansueto Malabor asatingmayor. "naunte, Mayor Ganon ommene be<ore t;e&, a 6etition <or 6ro;ibition. (;e & renere ugmentismissing t;e ases.'ssue4B%N t;e Seretary o< LoalGovernment, as t;e resient?s alter ego, an sus6en an orremoveloal o<<iials.'ssue4)esRatio4't is t;e 6etitioners?argument t;at t;e 1987 &onstitution no longer allo>s t;eresient, as t;e193 an 1973 &onstitutions i, to e:erise t;e








6o>er o< sus6ension anor removal over loalo<<iials.oring to bot; 6etitioners, t;e &onstitution is meant,<irst, to strengt;en sel<@rule by loal governmentunits anseon, by eleting t;e 6;rase Ias may be 6rovie by la>,I tostri6 t;e resient o< t;e 6o>ero< ontrol over loal governments.'t is a vie>, so t;ey onten, t;at <ins su66ort in t;e ebates o<t;e&onstitutional &ommission. (;e issue onsists o< t;ree=uestions4 D1E /i t;e 1987 &onstitution, in eletingt;e 6;rase Iasmay be 6rovie by la>I inten to ivest t;e resient o< t;e6o>er to investigate,sus6en, isi6line, an or remove loalo<<iials D2E 5as t;e &onstitution re6eale Setions -2 an -3 o<t;e Loal Government &oe D3E B;at is t;e signi<iane o< t;e

;ange in t;e onstitutional language't is t;e onsiereo6inion o< t;e &ourt t;at not>it;staning t;e ;ange in t;eonstitutionallanguage, t;e ;arter i not inten to ivest t;elegislature o< its rig;t @ or t;e resient o< ;er6rerogative ason<erre by e:isting legislation to 6rovie aministrativesantions against loal o<<iials. 'tis our o6inion t;at t;e omissionDo< Ias may be 6rovie by la>IE signi<ies not;ing more t;an tounersoreloal governments? autonomy <rom ongress an tobreaA &ongress? IontrolI over loal governmenta<<airs. (;e&onstitution i not, ;o>ever, inten, <or t;e saAe o< loalautonomy, to e6rive t;e legislatureo< all aut;ority over munii6alor6orations, in 6artiular, onerning isi6line.utonomy oesnot, a<ter all, ontem6late maAing mini@states out o< loalgovernment units, as int;e <eeral governments o< t;e "S.utonomy, in t;e onstitutional sense, is subet to t;e guiingstar,t;oug; not ontrol, o< t;e legislature, albeit t;e legislativeres6onsibility uner t;e &onstitution @ an ast;e Isu6ervision

lauseI itsel< suggest @ is to >ean loal government units <romover e6enene on t;eentral government.'t is note>ort;y t;atuner t;e &;arter, Iloal autonomyI is not instantly sel<@e:euting, but subetto, among ot;er t;ings, t;e 6assage o< aloal government oe, a loal ta: la>, inomeistributionlegislation, an a national re6resentation la>, anmeasures esigne to realie autonomy at t;e loallevel. 't is alsonote>ort;y t;at in s6ite o< autonomy, t;e &onstitution 6laes t;eloal government unert;e general su6ervision o< t;e #:eutive.'t is note>ort;y <inally, t;at t;e &;arter allo>s &ongresstoinlue in t;e loal government oe 6rovisions <or removal o<loal o<<iials, >;i; suggest t;at &ongressmay e:erise removal6o>ers, an as t;e e:isting Loal Government &oe ;as one,elegate its e:eriseto t;e resient. (;e eletion o< Ias may be6rovie by la>I >as meant to stress, sub silenio, t;e obetiveo< t;e<ramers to strengt;en loal autonomy by severing

ongressional ontrol o< its a<<airs, as observe by t;e&ourt o<66eals, liAe t;e 6o>er o< loal legislation. (;e &onstitution inot;ing more, ;o>ever, aninso<ar as e:isting legislationaut;ories t;e resient Dt;roug; t;e Seretary o< LoalGovernmentE to6roee against loal o<<iials aministratively,t;e &onstitution ontains no 6ro;ibition.(;e 6etitioners are uner t;e im6ression t;at t;e &onstitution ;asle<t t;e resient meresu6ervisory 6o>ers, >;i; su66oselye:lues t;e 6o>er o< investigation, an enie ;er ontrol,>;i;allegely embraes isi6linary aut;ority. 't is a mistaAenim6ression beause legally, Isu6ervisionI is notinom6atible>it; isi6linary aut;ority (;e &ourt oes not believe t;at t;e6etitioners an rig;t<ully 6oint to t;e ebates o< t;e&onstitutional&ommission to e<eat t;e resient?s 6o>ers. (;e &ourt believest;at t;e eliberations areby t;emselves inonlusive, beausealt;oug; &ommissioner ose Nolleo >oul e:lue t;e 6o>er o<removal <rom t;e resient, &ommissioner +las %6le >oul not.

(;e &ourt is onse=uently relutant to say t;at t;e ne>&onstitution ;as re6eale t;e LoalGovernment &oe, +atas +lg.337. s >e sai, Isu6ervisionI an IremovalI are notinom6atible terms anone may stan >it; t;e ot;ernot>it;staning t;e stronger e:6ression o< loal autonomy unert;e ne>&;arter. Be ;ave inee ;el t;at in s6ite o< t;e a66rovalo< t;e &;arter, +atas +lg. 337 is still in <ore ane<<et. s t;e&onstitution itsel< elares, loal autonomy means Ia moreres6onsive an aountableloal government struture institutet;roug; a system o< eentraliation.I (;e &onstitution, as>eobserve, oes not;ing more t;an to breaA u6 t;e mono6oly o<t;e national government over t;e a<<airs o< loal governments anas 6ut by 6olitial a;erents, to Iliberate t;e loal governments<rom t;eim6erialism o< Manila.I utonomy, ;o>ever, is not meantto en t;e relation o< 6artners;i6 anintere6enene bet>eent;e entral aministration an loal government units, or

ot;er>ise, to us;er ina regime o< <eeralism. (;e &;arter ;as nottaAen su; a raial ste6. Loal governments, unert;e&onstitution, are subet to regulation, ;o>ever limite, an<or no ot;er 6ur6ose t;an 6reisely, albeit6arao:ially, toen;ane sel<@government.s >e observe in one ase,eentraliation means evolution o< national aministration @ butnot6o>er @ to t;e loal levels. (;us4No>, autonomy is eit;er eentraliation o< aministration oreentraliation o< 6o>er. (;ere is eentraliation o<aministration>;en t;e entral government elegatesaministrative 6o>ers to 6olitial subivisions in orer tobroaen t;e base o< government6o>er an in t;e 6roess to

maAe loal governments Imore res6onsive an aountable,I anIensure t;eir <ullest evelo6ment assel<@reliant ommunities anmaAe t;em more e<<etive 6artners in t;e 6ursuit o< nationalevelo6ment an soial 6rogress.I t t;esame time, it relievest;e entral government o< t;e buren o< managing loal a<<airsan enables it to onentrate on nationalonerns. (;e resiente:erises Igeneral su6ervisionI over t;em, but only to Iensuret;at loal a<<airs are aministere aoringto la>.I 5e ;as noontrol over t;eir ats in t;e sense t;at ;e an substitute t;eir

ugments >it; ;is o>n./eentraliation o< 6o>er, on t;e ot;er;an, involves an abiation o< 6olitial 6o>er in t;e <avor o<loal governments unitselare to be autonomous, 'n t;at ase,t;e autonomous government is <ree to ;art its o>n estiny ans;a6e its <uture >it;minimum intervention <rom entralaut;orities. oring to a onstitutional aut;or, eentraliationo< 6o>er amounts to Isel<@immolation,I sine in t;at event, t;eautonomous government beomes aountable not to t;e entral

aut;orities but to itsontitueny.'ssue4B%N t;e several sus6ensions im6ose u6on MayonGanon are 6ro6er5el4NoRatio4(;e suessive si:ty@aysus6ensions im6ose on Mayor Ganon is albeit anot;er matter.B;atbot;ers t;e &ourt, an >;at inee looms very large, is t;e<at t;at sine t;e Mayor is <aing tenaministrative ;arges, t;eMayor is in <at <aing t;e 6ossibility o< -00 ays o< sus6ension,in t;e eventt;at all ten ases yiel 6rima <aie <inings. (;e &ourtis not o< ourse tolerating mis<easane in 6ublio<<ie Dassumingt;at Ganon is guilty o< mis<easaneE but it is ertainly anot;er=uestion to maAe ;imserve -00 ays o< sus6ension, >;i; ise<<etively, to sus6en ;im out o< o<<ie. (;e 6lain trut; is t;att;is &ourt ;as been ill at ease >it; sus6ensions, <or t;e abovereasons, anso also, beause it is out o< t;e orinary to ;ave avaany in loal government. (;e sole obetive o< asus6ension,as >e ;ave ;el, is sim6ly Ito 6revent t;e ause <rom

;am6ering t;e normal ause o< t;einvestigation >it; ;is in<luenean aut;ority over 6ossible >itnessesI or to Aee6 ;im o<< It;ereors anot;er eviene.I 't is a means, an no more, to assist6roseutors in <irming u6 a ase, i< any, against anerring loalo<<iial. "ner t;e Loal Government &oe, it an not e:eesi:ty ays, >;i; is to say t;at itnee not be e:atly si:ty ayslong i< a s;orter 6erio is ot;er>ise su<<iient, an >;i; is alsoto say t;atit oug;t to be li<te i< 6roseutors ;ave a;ieve t;eir6ur6ose in a s;orter s6an.Sus6ension <inally is tem6orary, an ast;e Loal Government &oe 6rovies, it may be im6ose <ornomore t;an si:ty ays. s >e ;el, a longer sus6ension is unustan unreasonable, an not;ing lesst;an tyranny. Be reiterate t;a>e are not 6reluing t;e resient, t;roug; t;e Seretary o<'nterior <rome:erising a legal 6o>er, yet >e are o< t;e o6iniont;at t;e Seretary o< 'nterior is e:erising t;at 6o>ero66ressivelyan neeless to say, >it; a grave abuse o< isretion.

1. Loal autonomy, uner t;e &onstitution, involves a

mere eentraliation o< aministration, not o< 6o>er, in>;i;loal o<<iials remain aountable to t;e entralgovernment in t;e manner t;e la> may 6rovie

2. (;e ne> &onstitution oes not 6resribe <eeralismH3. (;e ;ange in onstitutional language D>it; res6et to

t;e su6ervision lauseE >as meant but to enylegislativeontrol over loal governmentsH it i note:em6t t;e latter <rom legislative regulations 6rovieregulation isonsistent >it; t;e <unamental 6remise o<autonomyH. Sine loal governments remainaountable to t;e national aut;ority, t;e latter may, byla>, an in t;e manner set<ort; t;erein, im6oseisi6linary ation against loal o<<iialsH.ISu6ervisionI an IinvestigationI are not inonsistenttermsH IinvestigationI oes not signi<y IontrolI D>;i;t;eresient oes not ;aveEH-. (;e 6etitioner, Mayor



Rool<o Ganon, may serve t;e sus6ension so <arorere, but may no longer be sus6ene<or t;eo<<enses ;e >as ;arge originallyH 6rovie4aE t;atelays in t;e investigation o< t;ose ;arges Iue to ;is<ault, neglet or re=uest, Dt;e time o< t;e elayE s;allnotbe ounte in om6uting t;e time o< sus6ension.IOSu6ra, se. -3D3EPbE t;at i< uring, or a<ter t;e e:6irationo<, ;is 6reventive sus6ension, t;e 6etitioner ommitsanot;er or ot;er rimesan abuses <or >;i; 6ro6er;arges are <le against ;im by t;e aggrieve 6arty or6arties, ;is 6revious sus6ensions;all not be a bar to ;isbeing 6reventively sus6ene again, i< >arrante uner

sub6ar. D2E, Setion -3 o< t;e LoalGovernment &oe.

%S%N * (%RR#Sma;aba toQ Aaya >alang magrereAlamoQ 0 6agesQ b>a;a;aQQQ t;is is about... *L'/'() %F (5# S"S#NS'%N %F #('('%N#R#/"R/%%S%N S G%*#RN%R %F N"#* #&'. B5( 5#N#/ +#F%R# %S%N F'L#/ #('('%N (% (5#S"R#M# &%"R(DAeA>ento Ao buong bu;ay niya...E 6rivate res6onents <ile a letter@om6laint to t;e o<<ie o< t;e6resient ;arging oson >it; grave misonut an abuse o<aut;ority.

aoring to t;e res6onents, in one o< t;e Sanggunianganlala>iganDSE meeting, oson barge into t;e ;all in orer to ;arass t;eminto a66roving t;e loan o< 10 million 6esos <rom t;e N+. t;eyinot a66rove t;e loan <or t;ere is still a 6ening obligation o< 70million 6esos an t;ey annot a<<or to enter into anot;erobligation. (;us, Seretary o< 'nterior an Loal Government +arberssummonebot; 6arties to a settlement, but bot; i not om6ly >it; t;eom6romise. /'LG asAe bot; 6arties to <ile t;eir ans>ers >it; regar to t;enon@

settlement o< t;e issue. oson Aee6s on asAing <or an e:tensionto<ile ;is ans>er <or t;ree times, an ;is re=uest >as grante <ort;ree times. 5o>ever, even on t;e t;ir time, ;e ;a not still <ile;is ans>er, an /'LG elare t;at oson eeme >aive ;isrig;t to<ile ;is ans>er by an orer o< /e<ault by /'LG. D6arang &ivil &oeart - no;QQE 5o>ever, ;e >as reonsiere but same t;ing ;a66ene."nerseretarySan;e reinstate t;e orer o< e<ault an irete 6rivateres6onents to 6resent t;eir eviene e:@6arte. 6etitioner, t;roug; ounsel, <ile a IMotion to /ismiss.I etitionerallege t;at t;e letter@om6laint >as not veri<ie on t;e ay it >as<ile >it; t;e %<<ie o< t;e resientH an t;at t;e /'LG ;a no

urisition over t;e ase an no aut;ority to re=uire ;im, toans>er t;e om6laint. on reommenation o< Seretary +arbers, #:eutive SeretaryRuben(orres issue an orer, by aut;ority o< t;e resient, 6laing6etitioner uner 6reventive sus6ension <or si:ty D-0E ays6eninginvestigation o< t;e ;arges against ;im. Seretary +arbersesignate *ie@Governor %sar (inio as ting Governor untilsu;time as 6etitioner?s tem6orary legal ina6aity s;all ;ave easetoe:ist.

6etitioner <ile a 6etition <or ertiorari an 6ro;ibition >it; t;e

&ourt o< 66eals ;allenging t;e orer o< 6reventive sus6ensionant;e orer o< e<ault. "nerseretary San;e issue an orerenying6etitioner?s IMotion to /ismissI an I"rgent #:@arte Motion <orReonsieration.I

etitioner allege t;at *ie@Governor (inio >as enrage at t;emembers o< t;e Sangguniang anlala>igan >;o >ere in6etitioner?s6arty beause t;ey re<use to 6lae on t;e agena t;e rati<iationo< t;e 6ro6ose 10 million loan o< t;e 6rovine. 5e sai t;at

liAe*ie@Governor (inio, ;e >as al>ays aom6anie by ;is o<<iialseurity esorts >;enever ;e re6orte <or >orA.

%n Se6tember 11, 1997, 6etitioner <ile an I"rgent Motion <orReonsierationI o< t;e orer o< ugust 20, 1997 enying ;ismotionto ismiss. (;e I"rgent Motion <or ReonsierationI >as reeteby"nerseretary San;e on %tober 8, 1997. "nerseretarySan;e,;o>ever, grante t;e IMotion to Li<t /e<ault %rer an to mitns>er &autelamI an amitte t;e Ins>er &autelamI as6etitioner?s 6osition 6a6er 6ursuant to t;e orer o< ugust 20,1997.

6etitioner <ile a IMotion to &onut Formal 'nvestigation.I

etitioner 6raye t;at a <ormal investigation o< ;is ase beonute 6ursuant to t;e 6rovisions o< t;e Loal Government&oe o<1991 an Rule 7 o< ministrative %rer No. 23. & ismisseoson?s6etition. S BS, #(% N )"NG S S&4 t;e /'LG enie 6etitioner?s IMotion to &onut Formal'nvestigationI. S& issue (R% enoining im6lementation o< t;e orer o< #:e.Se.Ruben (orres Dabout un sa 6reventive sus6ension ni osonE

oring to t;e res6onents, ;o>ever, t;e 6osition o< oson>asalreay veste by Se. +arbers to *G (inio, an t;e (R% ;a lostits6ur6ose an e<<etivity. B5( G%*#RNS /M'N'S(R('*# /'S&'L'N'NGR%&##/'NGS G'NS(#L#&('*# L%&L %FF'&'LS ministrative isi6linary 6roeeings against eletive loalo<<iials are governe by t;e Loal Government &oe o< 1991, t;eRules an Regulations 'm6lementing t;e Loal Government &oeo<1991, an ministrative %rer No. 23 entitle Iresribing t;eRules an roeures on t;e 'nvestigation o< ministrative/isi6linary &ases gainst #letive Loal %<<iials o< rovines,

5ig;ly "rbanie &ities, 'ne6enent &om6onent &ities, an&itiesan Munii6alities in Metro6olitan Manila.I om6laint againstaneletive 6rovinial or ity o<<iial must be <ile >it; t;e %<<ieo< t;e resient. om6laint against an eletive munii6al o<<iiamust be <ile >it; t;e Sangguniang anlala>igan >;ile t;at o< abarangay o<<iial must be <ile be<ore t;e Sanggunianganlungso orSangguniang +ayan. etitioner ontene t;at t;e letter@om6laint submitte to t;eo<<ie o< t;e res >as not veri<ie by t;e res6onents. ssuming, nonet;eless, t;at t;e letter@om6laint >as unveri<ie>;en



submitte to t;e %<<ie o< t;e resient, t;e e<et >as not <atal.(;e re=uirement o< veri<iation >as eeme >aive by t;eresient;imsel< >;en ;e ate on t;e om6laint. (;e laA o< veri<iation isa mere <ormal e<et. 6etitioner =uestions t;e urisition an aut;ority o< t;e /'LGSeretary over t;e ase. 5e ontens t;at uner t;e la>, it is t;e%<<ie o< t;e resient t;at ;as urisition over t;e letter@om6laint an t;at t;e &ourt o< 66eals erre in a66lying t;ealter@ego 6rini6le beause t;e 6o>er to isi6line eletive loal

o<<iials lies >it; t;e resient, not >it; t;e /'LG Seretary. urisition over aministrative isi6linary ations againsteletive loal o<<iials is loge in t>o aut;orities4 t;e/isi6lining ut;ority an t;e 'nvestigating ut;ority. ursuantto% 23, t;e /isi6lining ut;ority is t;e resient o< t;e;ili66ines, >;et;er ating by ;imsel< or t;roug; t;e #:eutiveSeretary. (;e Seretary o< t;e 'nterior an Loal Government ist;e'nvestigating ut;ority, >;o may at by ;imsel< or onstitute an'nvestigating &ommittee. (;e Seretary o< t;e /'LG, ;o>ever, isnott;e e:lusive 'nvestigating ut;ority. 'n lieu o< t;e /'LGSeretary, t;e /isi6linary ut;ority may esignate a S6eial'nvestigating &ommittee.

(;e 6o>er o< t;e resient over aministrative isi6linary asesagainst eletive loal o<<iials is erive <rom ;is 6o>er o<general su6ervision over loal governments. (;e resient?s6o>er o<general su6ervision means no more t;an t;e 6o>er o< ensuringt;atla>s are <ait;<ully e:eute, or t;at suborinate o<<iers at>it;in t;e la>. Su6ervision is not inom6atible >it; isi6line. (;e 6o>er to isi6line eviently inlues t;e 6o>er toinvestigate.s t;e /isi6lining ut;ority, t;e resient ;as t;e 6o>er erive<rom t;e &onstitution itsel< to investigate om6laints against loalgovernment o<<iials. .%. No. 23, ;o>ever, elegates t;e 6o>ertoinvestigate to t;e /'LG or a S6eial 'nvestigating &ommittee, as

maybe onstitute by t;e /isi6lining ut;ority. (;is is not unueelegation, ontrary to 6etitioner oson?s laim. (;e resientremains t;e /isi6lining ut;ority. B;at is elegate is t;e 6o>erto investigate, not t;e 6o>er to isi6line. Moreover, t;e 6o>er o< t;e /'LG to investigate aministrativeom6laints is base on t;e alter@ego 6rini6le or t;e otrine o<=uali<ie 6olitial ageny. D!"L'F'#/ %L'('&L G#N&)@ uns aseati ni %rbos@ eision o< e:eutive o<<iials is vali as i< it ist;e eision o< t;e resE. R#!"'R#M#N(4 t;e isi6lining aut;ority DresientE >ill be t;eoneto asA t;e res6onent to <ile ;is ans>er. B5( 5#N#/ 'N(5'S

&S#4 t;e investigating aut;ority D/'LGE >as t;e one >;o asAeosonto <ile ;is ans>er. 5%B#*#R, >;at ;a66ene is not <atal. (;e6resient <oun t;e om6laint su<<iient in <orm an substane to>arrant its <urt;er investigation. D+aAa tanungin ni sir, si F*R un6resientE. 6etitioner also laims t;at /'LG erre in elaring ;im in e<ault<or <iling a motion to ismiss. 5e alleges t;at a motion to ismissis not a 6leaing 6ro;ibite by t;e la> or t;e rules an t;ere<ore/'LG Se s;oul ;ave onsiere it an given ;im time to <ile ;isans>er. 't is true t;at a motion to ismiss is not a 6leaing 6ro;ibiteuner t;e Loal Government &oe o< 1991 nor in .%. No. 23.etitioner, ;o>ever, >as instrute not to <ile a motion to ismiss

in t;e orer to <ile ans>er. (;rie, ;e re=ueste <or e:tension o<time to <ile ;is ans>er iting as reasons t;e sear; <or om6etentounsel an t;e emans o< ;is o<<iial uties. n, t;rie, ;isre=uests >ere grante. #ven t;e orer o< e<ault >asreonsierean 6etitioner >as given aitional time to <ile ans>er. <ter alt;e re=uests an seven mont;s later, ;e <ile a motion to ismissDe:lamation marA su66lieQE etitioner, in <at, <ile ;is ans>er nine D9E mont;s a<ter t;e<irst notie. 'nee, t;is >as more t;an su<<iient time <or6etitioner to om6ly >it; t;e orer to <ile ans>er. /'LG i not err

in reommening to t;e /isi6lining ut;ority ;is 6reventivesus6ension uring t;e investigation. reventive sus6ension isaut;orie uner Setion -3 o< t;e Loal Government &oe. 6reventive sus6ension may be im6ose by t;e /isi6liningut;orityat any time DaE a<ter t;e issues are oineH DbE >;en t;e evieneo< guilt is strongH an DE given t;e gravity o< t;e o<<ense, t;ereis great 6robability t;at t;e res6onent, >;o ontinues to ;olo<<ie, oul in<luene t;e >itnesses or 6ose a t;reat to t;e sa<etyan integrity o< t;e reors an ot;er eviene. ll >ere om6liein t;e ase o< oson. etitioner laims t;at t;e sus6ension >as mae >it;out <ormalinvestigation 6ursuant to t;e 6rovisions o< Rule 7 o< .%. No. 23. (;e enial o< 6etitioner?s Motion to &onut Formal 'nvestigation

iserroneous. etitioner?s rig;t to a <ormal investigation is s6elleout in t;e <ollo>ing 6rovisions o< .%. No. 23, vi4Se. 3 #valuation. Bit;in t>enty D20E ays <rom reei6t o< t;eom6laint an ans>er, t;e 'nvestigating ut;ority s;all etermine>;et;er t;ere is a 6rima <aie ase to >arrant t;e institution o<<ormal aministrative 6roeeings. <ter t;e 6reliminary on<erene, t;e 'nvestigating ut;ority s;alissue an orer reiting t;e matters taAen u6 t;ereon an s;alls;eule t;e <ormal investigation >it;in ten D10E ays <rom itsissuane, unless a later ate is mutually agree in >riting by t;e6arties onerne.

(;e reetion o< 6etitioner?s rig;t to a <ormal investigation enie;im 6roeural ue 6roess. Setion o< .%. No. 23 6roviest;at at t;e 6reliminary on<erene, t;e 'nvestigating ut;ority

s;all summon t;e 6arties to onsier >;et;er t;ey esire a<ormal investigation. (;is 6rovision oes not give t;e'nvestigating ut;ority t;e isretion to etermine >;et;er a<ormal investigation >oul be onute. (;e reors s;o> t;at6etitioner <ile a motion <or <ormal investigation. s res6onent,;e is aore several rig;ts uner t;e la>.

(;e loal eletive o<<iial ;as t;e D1E t;e rig;t to a66ear ane<en ;imsel< in 6erson or by ounselH D2E t;e rig;t to on<rontan ross@e:amine t;e >itnesses against ;imH an D3E t;e rig;t toom6ulsory attenane o< >itness an t;e 6roution o<oumentary eviene. D% 23 an LG&E B;en ;e >as grante to <ile an ans>er &aetelum, it >asreognie only as a %S'('%N #R. osition 6a6ers areo<ten@times 6re6are >it; t;e assistane o< la>yers an t;eirart<ul 6re6aration an maAe t;e isovery o< trut; i<<iult.

(;e 6roeure o< re=uiring 6osition 6a6ers in lieu o< a ;earing inaministrative ases is e:6ressly allo>e >it; res6et toa66ointive o<<iials but not to t;ose elete. Sus6ension anremoval are im6ose only a<ter t;e eletive o<<iial is aore;is rig;ts an t;e eviene against ;im strongly itates t;eirim6osition.

'N *'#B B5#R#%F, t;e Resolution o< anuary 8, 1998 o< t;e6ubli res6onent #:eutive Seretary is elare null an voian is set asie. No &ost.

ablio vs *illa6anoG.R. No. 17870uly 31, 2002



Fats4Solomon Maaga an Renato Fernane, members o< t;eSangguniang +ayan o< San *iente, ala>an <ile anaministrative om6laint against leanro . *illa6ano, t;emayor o< San *iente, ala>an <or abuse o< aut;ority anul6able violation o< t;e &onstitution <or entering into aonsultany agreement >it; %rlano M. (ia6e, a e<eatemayoralty aniate in t;e May 1998 eletions >;ere *illa6ano>as elete. (;ey allege t;at t;e onsultany agreementamounte to an a66ointment to a government 6osition >it;in t;e6ro;ibite one@year 6erio uner rtile '@+, Setion -, o< t;e

1987 &onstitution. *illa6ano, on t;e ot;er ;an, argues t;at ;ei not ;ire (ia6e, but a66ointe ;im an invoAe %6inion No.10-, s. 1992, o< t;e /e6artment o< ustie >;i; states t;at t;ea66ointment o< a e<eate aniate as a onsultant oes notonstitute an a66ointment to a government o<<ie or 6osition as6ro;ibite by t;e &onstitution. (;e Sangguniang anlala>igan o<ala>an <oun *illa6ano guilty o< t;e aministrative ;arge anismisse ;im <rom servie >;i; >as a<<irme by t;e %<<ie o<t;e resient. Mean>;ile, Ramir ablio, t;e vie@mayor o< San*iente, ala>an, tooA ;is oat; o< o<<ie as Munii6al Mayor.*illa6ano <ile <or a tem6orary restraining orer >it; t;e R(& o<ala>an >;i; >as <irst grante, t;en enie.*illa6ano no> seeAs to annul t;e Sangguniang anlala>igans/eision as a<<irme by t;e %<<ie o< t;e resient, an t;e R(&senial o< t;e (R%. 5e argues t;at uner Se. -0 o< R.. 71-0, aneletive loal o<<iial may be remove by orer o< t;e 6ro6er ourtbase on t;e grouns enumerate uner sai setion. Bit;out

su; orer o< t;e ourt, ;e annot be ismisse.

'ssue4B;et;er or not loal legislative boies anor t;e %<<ie o< t;eresient, on a66eal, may valily im6ose t;e 6enalty o< ismissal<rom servie on erring eletive loal o<<iials

5el4No.(;e Su6reme &ourt ;el t;at it is lear uner Se. -0 o< R.. 71-0t;at t;e 6enalty o< ismissal <rom servie u6on an erring eletiveloal o<<iial may be eree only by a ourt o< la>.'n Salalima, et al. v. Guingona, et al., it >as ;el t;at OtP;e %<<ieo< t;e resient is >it;out any 6o>er to remove elete o<<iials,sine su; 6o>er is e:lusively veste in t;e 6ro6er ourts ase:6ressly 6rovie <or in t;e last 6aragra6; o< Setion -0.T

rtile 12 DbE, Rule ' o< t;e Rules an Regulations'm6lementing t;e Loal Government &oe, ;o>ever, as t;at DbE n eletive loal o<<iial may be remove <rom o<<ie on t;egrouns enumerate in 6aragra6; DaE o< t;is rtile O(;e grounsenumerate in Setion -0, Loal Government &oe o< 1991P byorer o< t;e 6ro6er ourt or t;e isi6lining aut;ority >;i;ever<irst a=uires urisition to t;e e:lusion o< t;e ot;er.T (;eisi6lining aut;ority re<erre to 6ertains to t;e Sanggunianganlala>igananlungso+ayan an t;e %<<ie o< t;e resient.s ;el in Salalima, t;is grant to t;e isi6lining aut;orityT o<t;e 6o>er to remove eletive loal o<<iials is learly beyon t;eaut;ority o< t;e %versig;t &ommittee t;at 6re6are t;e Rules anRegulations. No rule or regulation may alter, amen, orontravene a 6rovision o< la>, su; as t;e Loal Government&oe. 'm6lementing rules s;oul on<orm, not las;, >it; t;e la>t;at t;ey im6lement, <or a regulation >;i; o6erates to reate arule out o< ;armony >it; t;e statute is a nullity. 't is beyon avil,

t;ere<ore, t;at t;e 6o>er to remove erring eletive loal o<<iials<rom servie is loge e:lusively >it; t;e ourts. 5ene, rtile12 DbE, Rule ', o< t;e Rules an Regulations 'm6lementing t;eLoal Government &oe, inso<ar as it vests 6o>er on t;eisi6lining aut;orityT to remove <rom o<<ie erring eletive loalo<<iials, is voi <or being re6ugnant to t;e last 6aragra6; o<Setion -0 o< t;e Loal Government &oe o< 1991.(;e la> on sus6ension or removal o< eletive 6ubli o<<iialsmust be stritly onstrue an a66lie, an t;e aut;ority in >;omsu; 6o>er o< sus6ension or removal is veste must e:erise it>it; utmost goo <ait;, <or >;at is involve is not ust an orinary6ubli o<<iial but one ;osen by t;e 6eo6le t;roug; t;e e:eriseo< t;eir onstitutional rig;t o< su<<rage. (;eir >ill must not be 6utto naug;t by t;e a6rie or 6artisans;i6 o< t;e isi6liningaut;ority. B;ere t;e isi6lining aut;ority is given only t;e 6o>er

to sus6en an not t;e 6o>er to remove, it s;oul not be6ermitte to mani6ulate t;e la> by usur6ing t;e 6o>er to remove.

Latasa vs. &omele

F&(S4rsenio Latasa >as elete Mayor o< /igos, /avao el Sur to 3t;ree onseutive terms D1992, 199, 1998E. /uring ;is t;ir term,a 6lebisite >as ;el to onvert /igos into a om6onent ityD2000E. (;e rati<iation o< t;e &;arter o< t;e &ity o< /igos enet;e tenure o< Latasa as Mayor. 5o>ever, ;e >as still manate as;ol@over mayor o< t;e ity until t;e ne:t eletion.

For t;e eletion o< 2001, Latasa <ile ;is &%& <or ;is <irst term asmayor o< t;e ity. 5e aAno>leges t;at ;e serve as mayor o</igos >;en it >as still a munii6ality. Sunga, also a aniate <ormayor, <ile a 6etition to is=uali<y Latasa as ;e alreay ;aserve as mayor <or t;ree onseutive terms in violation o< t;eLoal Government &oe an t;e &onstitution. &omele issue aresolution in <avor o< Sunga an is=uali<ie Latasa. Latasasubmitte a motion <or reonsieration >;i; >as not ate u6onby t;e &omele until t;e en o< t;e May 1 eletions. s a result,Latasa >as still able to ontinue ;is am6aign an eventually >ont;e eletion. Sunga no> also soug;t to annul Latasas6rolamation. &omele only renere its eision enyingLatasas motion <or reonsieration in 2002. Sunga laims t;at ;es;oul be 6rolaime mayor as ;e ;ols t;e seon mostnumber o< votes in 2001

'SS"#4

B%N Latasa is eligible to run as aniate <or t;e 6osition o<mayor o< t;e ne>ly@reate &ity o< /igos immeiately a<ter ;eserve <or t;ree onseutive terms as mayor o< t;e Munii6alityo< /igos.

5#L/4

Latasa annot serve as Mayor o< t;e ne> ity o< /igos. Latasa;aving been elete as mayor in 1998, t;e onversion o< /igos<rom a munii6ality to a ity in 2000 <alls >it;in ;is term. s /igosa=uire a ne> or6orate e:istene, =uali<iations <or its eletive6ositions also ;ange. s a result, t;e %<<ie o< t;e Munii6alMayor >as abolis;e to maAe >ay <or t;e reation o< t;e %<<ie o<t;e &ity Mayor. 5o>ever, uner t;e &;arter o< t;e &ity o< /igos,t;e eletive o<<iials o< t;e Munii6ality o< /igos s;all ;ave ;ol@

over 6o>er until a ne> eletion an t;e uly elete o<<iials ;aveassume t;eir o<<ie. Latasa never ease to is;arge ;is utiesas Mayor uring t;e onversion o< /igos. lso, alt;oug; /igos>as onverte into a ity, /igos never ree<ine its territory, t;ein;abitants are t;e same grou6 o< voters >;o elete 6etitionerLatasa to be t;eir munii6al mayor <or t;ree onseutive terms.(;ese are also t;e same in;abitants over >;om ;e ;el 6o>eran aut;ority as t;eir ;ie< e:eutive <or nine years.Sungas annot laim t;at ;e be 6rolaime as mayor a<ter t;eis=uali<iation o< Latasa, t;e S& alreay rule t;at t;eis=uali<iation o< t;e >inning aniate oes not entitle t;eseon ;ig;est vote earner t;e 6osition o< mayor. *aany be<ille by suession.

L(S vs. &%M#L#&etition4 6etition <or ertiorari unerRule - o< t;e Rules o< &ourt >;i;seeAs to ;allenge t;eresolution issue by t;e First /ivision o< t;e &ommissionon

#letions D&%M#L#&E ate 6ril 27, 2001 in S &ase No. 01@09 entitle, RomeoM. Sunga, etitioner, versus rsenio .Latasa, res6onent, an t;e Resolution o<t;e &%M#L#& en banenying ;erein 6etitioners Motion <or Reonsieration.(;eassaile Resolution enie ue ourse to t;e erti<iate o<aniay o<6etitioner rsenio . Latasa, elaring ;imis=uali<ie to run <or mayor o< /igos&ity, /avao el Sur rovinein t;e May 1, 2001 eletions, orering t;at allvotes ast in ;is<avor s;all not be ounte, an i< ;e ;as been 6rolaime>inner,elaring sai 6rolamation null an voi.Ruling4/'SM'SS#/F&(S4 etitioner rsenio . Latasa, >as eletemayor o< t;e Munii6ality o</igos, /avao el Sur in t;e eletionso< 1992, 199, an 1998. /uring 6etitionerst;ir term, t;eMunii6ality o< /igos >as elare a om6onent ity, to beAno>nas t;e &ity o< /igos. 6lebisite onute on Se6tember8, 2000 rati<ieRe6ubli t No. 8798 entitle, n t &onverting



t;e Munii6ality o< /igos, /avaoel Sur rovine into a&om6onent &ity to be Ano>n as t;e &ity o< /igos or t;e&;arter o<t;e &ity o< /igos. (;is event also marAe t;e en o< 6etitionerstenureas mayor o< t;e Munii6ality o< /igos. 5o>ever, unerSetion 3, rtile ' o<t;e &;arter, 6etitioner >as manate toserve in a ;ol@over a6aity as mayor o<t;e ne> &ity o< /igos.5ene, ;e tooA ;is oat; as t;e ity mayor.%n February 28, 2001,6etitioner <ile ;is erti<iate o< aniay <or ity mayor<or t;eMay 1, 2001 eletions. 5e state t;erein t;at ;e is eligiblet;ere<or,an liAe>ise islose t;at ;e ;a alreay serve <ort;ree onseutive terms asmayor o< t;e Munii6ality o< /igos anis no> running <or t;e <irst time <or t;e6osition o< ity mayor.%n

Mar; 1, 2001, 6rivate res6onent Romeo M. Sunga, also aaniate <or itymayor in t;e sai eletions, <ile be<ore t;e&%M#L#& a etition to /eny /ue&ourse, &anel &erti<iate o<&aniay an or For /is=uali<iation against6etitioner Latasa.Res6onent Sunga allege t;erein t;at 6etitioner<alselyre6resente in ;is erti<iate o< aniay t;at ;e iseligible to run as mayor o</igos &ity sine 6etitioner ;a alreaybeen elete an serve <or t;reeonseutive terms as mayor<rom 1992 to 2001.;anroblesvirtualla>library%n Mar; , 2001,6etitioner Latasa <ile ;is ans>er, arguing t;at ;e i notmaAeany <alse re6resentation in ;is erti<iate o< aniay sine;e <ully isloset;erein t;at ;e ;a serve as mayor o< t;eMunii6ality o< /igos <or t;reeonseutive terms. Moreover, ;eargue t;at t;is <at oes not bar ;im <rom <ilinga erti<iate o<aniay <or t;e May 1, 2001 eletions sine t;is >ill be t;e<irsttime t;at ;e >ill be running <or t;e 6ost o<itymayor.;anroblesvirtualla>library+ot; 6arties submitte t;eir

6osition 6a6ers on Mar; 19, 2001.%n 6ril 27, 2001, res6onent&%M#L#&s First /ivision issue a Resolution, t;eis6ositive6ortion o< >;i; reas, as<ollo>s4;anroblesvirtualla>libraryB;ere<ore, 6remisesonsiere, t;e res6onents erti<iate o< aniay s;oulbeanelle <or being a violation o< t;e t;ree D3E@term rule6rosribe by t;e 1987&onstitution an t;e Loal Government&oe o< 1991.etitioner <ile ;is Motion <or Reonsieration ateMay , 2001,>;i; remaineunate u6on until t;e ay o< t;eeletions, May 1, 2001. %n May 1-, 2001,6rivate res6onentSunga <ile an #: arte Motion <or 'ssuane o<(em6oraryRestraining %rer #noining t;e &ity +oar o<&anvassers From &anvassing or(abulating Res6onents *otes,an From rolaiming 5im as t;e /uly #lete Mayori< 5e Binst;e #letions.O-P /es6ite t;is, ;o>ever, 6etitioner Latasa >asstill6rolaime >inner on May 17, 2001, ;aving garnere t;e most

number o< votes.&onse=uently, 6rivate res6onent Sunga <ile,on May 27, 2001, a Su66lementalMotionO7P >;i; essentiallysoug;t t;e annulment o< 6etitioners 6rolamation an t;esus6ension o< its e<<ets.;anroblesvirtualla>library%n uly 1,2001, 6etitioner >as s>orn into an assume ;is o<<ie as t;ene>lyelete mayor o< /igos &ity. 't >as only on ugust 27, 2002t;at t;e &%M#L#& enban issue a Resolution enying6etitioners Motion <orReonsieration.;anroblesvirtualla>library'SS"# 4>;et;er ornot 6etitioner Latasa is eligible to run as aniate <or t;e6ositiono< mayor o< t;e ne>ly@reate &ity o< /igos immeiately a<ter ;eserve<or t;ree onseutive terms as mayor o< t;e Munii6ality o</igos.5#L/4 s a rule, in a re6resentative emoray, t;e 6eo6les;oul be allo>e<reely to ;oose t;ose >;o >ill govern t;em.rtile , Setion 8 o< t;e&onstitution is an e:e6tion to t;is rule,in t;at it limits t;e range o< ;oieo< t;e 6eo6le.Setion 8. (;eterm o< o<<ie o< eletive loal o<<iials, e:e6t barangayo<<iials,

>;i; s;all be etermine by la>, s;all be t;ree years an nosu;o<<iial s;all serve <or more t;an t;ree onseutive terms.*oluntary renuniationo< t;e o<<ie <or any lengt; o< time s;all notbe onsiere as an interru6tion int;e ontinuity o< ;is servie<or t;e <ull term <or >;i; ;e >as elete.n eletive loal o<<iial,t;ere<ore, is not barre <rom running again in <orsame loalgovernment 6ost, unless t>o onitions onur4 1.E t;at t;eo<<iialonerne ;as been elete <or t;ree onseutive terms tot;e same loalgovernment 6ost, an 2.E t;at ;e ;as <ully servet;ree onseutive terms.'n t;e 6resent ase, 6etitioner states t;ata ity an a munii6ality ;avese6arate an istint 6ersonalities.(;us t;ey annot be treate as a singleentity an must beaore i<<erent treatment onsistent >it; s6ei<i6rovisions o<t;e Loal Government &oe. 5e oes not eny t;e <at t;at ;e;asalreay serve <or t;ree onseutive terms as munii6almayor. 5o>ever, ;e assertst;at >;en /igos >as onverte <rom

a munii6ality to a ity, it attaine ai<<erent uriial 6ersonality.(;ere<ore, >;en ;e <ile ;is erti<iate o<aniay <or itymayor, ;e annot be onstrue as vying <or t;e sameloalgovernment 6osts seen in t;e a<orementione 6rovisionsDSetion 0 DRe=uisites <or &reationE,Se 7 D&reation an&onversionE o< t;e Loal Government &oe an Setions 2 an3o< t;e &;arter o< t;e &ity o< /igosE, t;e &ourt note t;at t;eelineation o< t;emetes an bouns o< t;e &ity o< /igos i not;ange even by an in; t;e lan area6reviously overe by t;eMunii6ality o< /igos. (;is &ourt also notes t;at t;eeletiveo<<iials o< t;e Munii6ality o< /igos ontinue to e:erise t;eir6o>ersan <untions until eletions >ere ;el <or t;e ne> ity

o<<iials.(rue, t;e ne> ity a=uire a ne> or6orate e:istenese6arate an istint <romt;at o< t;e munii6ality. (;is oes notmean, ;o>ever, t;at <or t;e 6ur6ose o<a66lying t;e subet&onstitutional 6rovision, t;e o<<ie o< t;e munii6al mayor>oulno> be onstrue as a i<<erent loal government 6ost as t;at o<t;e o<<ieo< t;e ity mayor. s state earlier, t;e territorial

urisition o< t;e &ity o</igos is t;e same as t;at o< t;emunii6ality. &onse=uently, t;e in;abitants o<t;e munii6ality aret;e same as t;ose in t;e ity. (;ese in;abitants are t;esamegrou6 o< voters >;o elete 6etitioner Latasa to be t;eirmunii6al mayor <ort;ree onseutive terms. (;ese are also t;esame in;abitants over >;om ;e ;el6o>er an aut;ority as t;eir;ie< e:eutive <or nineyears.;anroblesvirtualla>library't isevient t;at in t;e ases o< +ora, r. v. &%M#L#&, Sorates vs&%M#L#&,Lonania vs &%M#L#&, an ormeo vs. &%M#L#&,t;ere e:ists a rest 6erio or abreaA in t;e servie o< t;e loaleletive o<<iial. 'n Lonania, 6etitionert;erein >as a 6rivate

itien a <e> mont;s be<ore t;e ne:t mayoral eletions.Similarly,in ormeo an Sorates, t;e 6rivate res6onents t;erein liveas6rivate itiens <or t>o years an <i<teen mont;s res6etively.'nee, t;e la>ontem6lates a rest 6erio uring >;i; t;e loaleletive o<<iial ste6s o>n<rom o<<ie an eases to e:erise6o>er or aut;ority over t;e in;abitants o< t;e territorial

urisition o< a 6artiular loal government unit.(;is &ourtreiterates t;at t;e <ramers o< t;e &onstitution s6ei<iallyinluean e:e6tion to t;e 6eo6les <reeom to ;oose t;ose>;o >ill govern t;em in orerto avoi t;e evil o< a single 6ersonaumulating e:essive 6o>er over a6artiular territorial

urisition as a result o< a 6rolonge stay in t;e sameo<<ie. (oallo> 6etitioner Latasa to vie <or t;e 6osition o< ity mayora<ter;aving serve <or t;ree onseutive terms as a munii6almayor >oul obviouslye<eat t;e very intent o< t;e <ramers >;ent;ey >rote t;is e:e6tion. S;oul ;e beallo>e anot;er t;ree

onseutive terms as mayor o< t;e &ity o< /igos, 6etitioner>oult;en be 6ossibly ;oling o<<ie as ;ie< e:eutive over t;e sameterritorialurisition an in;abitants <or a total o< eig;teenonseutive years. (;is ist;e very senario soug;t to be avoieby t;e &onstitution, i< not ab;orre by it.

R'*#R ''' *. &%M#L#& G.R. No. 1-791 May 9, 2007

F&(S4 6etition <or anelation o< t;e &erti<iate o< &aniay o<Marino Morales as mayoralty aniate in Mabalaat, am6anga<or t;e May 200 mayoralty >as <ile on t;e groun t;e ;e alreayserve t;ree onseutive terms in t;e o<<ie ;e seeAs to run.

Morales argues t;at t;is is not so beause alt;oug; ;e reallyserve in 199@1998 D1st termE an 200@2007 D3r termE, ;e >asmerely a aretaAer or e <ato mayor in 1998@2001D2n termE

beause ;is eletion >as elare voi by t;e R(& ue to aneletion 6rotest.

&omele rule t;at Morales alreay serve ;is t;ir term ana<ter an MR >as <ile, elare it <inal an e:eutory on May 1,200.

'SS"#4B%N Morales ;a alreay serve ;is 3 onseutive terms an i<so, >;o s;oul taAe ;is 6osition.

5#L/4For t;e t;ree@term limit <or eletive loal government o<<iials toa66ly, t>o onitions or re=uisites must onur, to >it4 D1E t;att;e o<<iial onerne ;as been elete <or t;ree D3E onseutive



terms in t;e same loal government 6ost, an D2E t;at ;e ;as <ullyserve t;ree D3E onseutive terms.

5ere, Morales >as elete <or t;e term uly 1, 1998 to une 30,2001. 5e assume t;e 6osition. 5e serve as mayor until une 30,2001. 5e >as mayor <or t;e entire 6erio not>it;staning t;e/eision o< t;e R(& in t;e eletoral 6rotest ase <ile by6etitioner /ee ousting ;im Dres6onentE as mayor. Su;irumstane oes not onstitute an interru6tion in serving t;e<ull term.

B;et;er as IaretaAerI or Ie <atoI o<<ier, ;e e:erises t;e

6o>ers an enoys t;e 6rere=uisites o< t;e o<<ie >;i; enables;im Ito stay on ine<initelyI.

Bit; regar to t;e 6erson >;o >ill re6lae Morales, it is a rulet;at t;e ineligibility o< a aniate reeiving maority votes oesnot entitle t;e eligible aniate reeiving t;e ne:t ;ig;estnumber o< votes to be elare elete. minority or e<eateaniate annot be eeme elete to t;e o<<ie.

Sine ;is is=uali<iation beame <inal an e:eutory a<ter t;eeletions, t;e aniate ;aving t;e seon ;ig;est number o<votes annot assume t;e 6osition. 5ene, it is t;e 6etitioner, t;eelete *ie Mayor nt;ony /ee >;o s;oul be elare as t;emayor.

R'*#R ''' *. &%M#L#&G.R. No. 1-791May 9, 2007F&(S4 6etition <or anelation o< t;e &erti<iateo< &aniay o< Marino

Morales asmayoralty aniate in Mabalaat,am6anga <or t;eMay 200 mayoralty >as<ile on t;e groun t;e ;e alreayservet;ree onseutive terms in t;e o<<ie ;eseeAs torun.Morales argues t;at t;is is not so beausealt;oug; ;e reallyserve in 199@1998 D1sttermE an 200@2007 D3rtermE, ;e >asmerely a aretaAer or e <ato mayor in1998@2001D2ntermE beause ;is eletion>as elare voi by t;e R(& ue toaneletion 6rotest.&omele rule t;at Morales alreay serve;ist;ir term an a<ter an MR >as <ile,elare it <inal ane:eutory on May 1,200.'SS"#4B%N Morales ;a alreay serve ;is 3onseutive terms an i<

so, >;o s;oultaAe ;is 6osition.5#L/4For t;e t;ree@term limit <or eletive loalgovernment o<<iials toa66ly, t>oonitions or re=uisites must onur, to >it4D1E t;at t;eo<<iial onerne ;as beenelete <or t;ree D3E onseutiveterms int;e same loal government 6ost, an D2Et;at ;e ;as <ullyserve t;ree D3Eonseutive terms.5ere, Morales >as elete <ort;e term uly1, 1998 to une 30, 2001. 5e assume t;e6osition.5e serve as mayor until une 30,2001. 5e >as mayor <or t;eentire 6erionot>it;staning t;e /eision o< t;e R(& int;eeletoral 6rotest ase <ile by 6etitioner /ee ousting ;imDres6onentE as mayor.Su; irumstane oes not onstituteaninterru6tion in serving t;e <ull term.B;et;er as IaretaAerI orIe <atoI o<<ier,;e e:erises t;e 6o>ers an enoyst;e6rere=uisites o< t;e o<<ie >;i; enables;im Ito stay onine<initelyI.Bit; regar to t;e 6erson >;o >ill re6laeMorales, itis a rule t;at t;e ineligibility o< aaniate reeiving maority

votes oes notentitle t;e eligible aniate reeiving t;ene:t;ig;est number o< votes to be elareelete. minority ore<eate aniateannot be eeme elete to t;e o<<ie.Sine;is is=uali<iation beame <inal ane:eutory a<ter t;e eletions,t;e aniate;aving t;e seon ;ig;est number o< votesannotassume t;e 6osition. 5ene, it is t;e6etitioner, t;e elete *ieMayor nt;ony/ee >;o s;oul be elare as t;e mayor.

/'$%N *S &%M#L#&F&(S4

Roberto L. /ion, a resient an ta:6ayer o< Mabalaat,am6anga, <ile a ase >it; t;e &%M#L#& to is=uali<y Marino .Morales, t;e inumbent mayor o< Mabalaat on t;e groun t;att;e latter >as elete an ;a <ully serve t;ree 6reviousonseutive terms in violation o< Setion 3 o< t;e Loal

Government &oe. /ion allege t;at Morales >as munii6almayor in 199, 1998, 2001 an 200. (;us, Morales s;oul not;ave been allo>e to ;ave <ile ;is &erti<iate o< &aniay onMar; 2007 <or t;e same 6osition an same munii6ality.

Morales, on t;e ot;er ;an, ontene t;at ;e is still eligible an=uali<ie to run as mayor o< Mabalaat beause ;e >as notelete <or t;e sai 6osition in t;e 1998 eletions. 5e averre t;att;e &%M#L#& en ban a<<irme t;e eision o< t;e R(& elaringnt;ony /. /ee as t;e uly elete Mayor o< Mabalaat in t;e1998 eletions. (;us, ;e >as not elete <or t;e sai 6osition int;e 1998 eletions. 5is term s;oul be reAone <rom 2001. 5e

ae t;at ;is eletion in 200 is only <or ;is seon term.

&%M#L#& Seon /ivision rule in <avor o< Morales an eniet;e 6etition. 't tooA uiial notie o< S&s ruling in t;e Rivera ase6romulgate on May 9, 2007 >;ere it >as ;el t;at Morales >aselete as mayor o< Mabalaat in 199, 1998 an 2001Dnot>it;staning t;e R(& /eision in an eletoral 6rotest aset;at t;e t;en 6rolamation o< Morales >as voiE. (;e S& rule int;at ase t;at Morales violate t;e t;ree@term limit uner Setion3 o< t;e LG&. 5ene, Morales >as onsiere not a aniate int;e 200 eletions, an t;is <ailure to =uali<y <or t;e 200eletions is a ga6 an allo>s ;im to run again <or t;e same6osition in 2007 eletions.

/ion <ile a motion <or reonsieration be<ore t;e &%M#L#& #n+an. &%M#L#& #n +an4 a<<irme. (;e t;ree@term limit is nota66liable ;ere <or4 1E Morales >as not t;e uly@elete mayor o<

Mabalaat <or t;e uly 1, 200 to une 30, 2007 term 6rimoriallybeause ;e >as not even onsiere a aniate t;ereatH an 2EMorales ;as <aile to serve t;e entire uration o< t;e term o< o<<iebeause ;e ;as alreay relin=uis;e t;e is6ute o<<ie on May1-, 2007 >;i; is more t;an a mont; 6rior to t;e en o< ;issu66ose term.

'SS"#S4

1. B%N t;e 6erio serve by Morales in t;e 200@2007 termDalt;oug; ;e >as ouste <rom ;is o<<ie as Mayor on May1-, 2007Es;oul be onsiere ;is <ourt; term

2. B%N t;e 2007@2010 term o< Morales is ;is t; term

5#L/4

1. N%. 'n our eision 6romulgate on 9 May 2007, t;is &ourtunseate Morales uring ;is <ourt; term. Be anelle ;is&erti<iate o< &aniay ate 30 /eember 2003. (;isanellation is=uali<ie Morales <rom being a aniate in t;eMay 200 eletions. (;e votes ast <or Morales >ere onsierestray votes.

+ot; rtile , Setion 8 o< t;e &onstitution an Setion 3DbE o<t;e Loal Government &oe state t;at t;e term o< o<<ie o<eletive loal o<<iials, e:e6t barangay o<<iials, s;all be t;reeyears, an no su; o<<iial s;all serve <or more t;an t;reeonseutive terms. *oluntary renuniation o< t;e o<<ie <or anylengt; o< time s;all not be onsiere as an interru6tion in t;eontinuity o< ;is servie <or t;e <ull term <or >;i; ;e >as elete

(;ere s;oul be a onurrene o< t>o onitions <or t;ea66liation o< t;e is=uali<iation4 D1E t;at t;e o<<iial onerne;as been elete <or t;ree onseutive terms in t;e same loalgovernment 6ost an D2E t;at ;e ;as <ully serve t;reeonseutive terms.

'n t;e Rivera ase, >e <oun t;at Morales >as elete as mayor o<Mabalaat <or <our onseutive terms4 1 uly 199 to 30 une1998, 1 uly 1998 to 30 une 2001, 1 uly 2001 to 30 une 200,an 1 uly 200 to 30 une 2007. Be is=uali<ie Morales <rom ;isaniay in t;e May 200 eletions beause o< t;e t;ree@termlimit. lt;oug; t;e trial ourt 6reviously rule t;at Morales6rolamation <or t;e 1998@2001 term >as voi, t;ere >as nointerru6tion o< t;e ontinuity o< Morales servie >it; res6et tot;e 1998@2001 term beause t;e trial ourts ruling >as



6romulgate only on uly 2001, or a<ter t;e e:6iry o< t;e 1998@2001 term.

%ur ruling in t;e Rivera ase serve as Morales involuntaryseverane <rom o<<ie >it; res6et to t;e 200@2007 term.'nvoluntary severane <rom o<<ie <or any lengt; o< time s;ort o<t;e <ull term 6rovie by la> amounts to an interru6tion o<ontinuity o< servie. %ur eision in t;e Rivera ase >as6romulgate on 9 May 2007 an >as e<<etive immeiately. (;ene:t ay, Morales noti<ie t;e vie mayors o<<ie o< our eision.(;e vie mayor assume t;e o<<ie o< t;e mayor <rom 17 May2007 u6 to 30 une 2007. (;e assum6tion by t;e vie mayor o< t;e

o<<ie o< t;e mayor, no matter ;o> s;ort it may seem to /ion,interru6te Morales ontinuity o< servie. (;us, Morales i not;ol o<<ie <or t;e <ull term o< 1 uly 200 to 30 une 2007. Dt;termE

2. /ion laims t;at t;e 2007@2010 term is Morales <i<t; term ino<<ie. N%. Morales ou6ie t;e 6osition o< mayor o< Mabalaat<or t;e <ollo>ing 6erios4

1 uly 199 to 30 une 19981 uly 1998 to 30 une 20011 uly 2001 to 30 une 200, an1 uly 200 to 1- May 2007.

5o>ever, beause o< ;is is=uali<iation, Morales >as not t;euly elete mayor <or t;e 200@2007 term. Neit;er i Morales

;ol t;e 6osition o< mayor o< Mabalaat <or t;e <ull term. Moralesannot be eeme to ;ave serve t;e <ull term o< 200@2007beause ;e >as orere to vaate ;is 6ost be<ore t;e e:6irationo< t;e term. Morales ou6any o< t;e 6osition o< mayor o<Mabalaat <rom 1 uly 200 to 1- May 2007 annot be ounte asa term <or 6ur6oses o< om6uting t;e t;ree@term limit. 'nee, t;e6erio <rom 17 May 2007 to 30 une 2007 serve as a ga6 <or6ur6oses o< t;e t;ree@term limit rule. (;us, t;e 6resent 1 uly2007 to 30 une 2010 term is e<<etively Morales <irst term <or6ur6oses o< t;e t;ree@term limit rule.

U /ion alleges t;at Morales I>as able to serve ;is <ourt; term asmayor t;roug; lengt;y litigations. 'n ot;er >ors, ;e >asviolating t;e rule on t;ree@term limit >it; im6unity by t;e s;eerlengt; o< litigation an 6ro<it <rom it even more by raising t;e

te;nialities arising t;ere<rom.I (o t;is, >e =uote our ruling inLonania v. &%M#L#&4

(;e res6onents ;ar6 on t;e elay in resolving t;e eletion6rotest bet>een 6etitioner an ;is t;en o66onent lve >;i;tooA roug;ly about t;ree years an resultantly e:tene t;e6etitioners inumbeny in an o<<ie to >;i; ;e >as not la><ullyelete. Be note t;at su; elay annot be im6ute to t;e6etitioner. (;ere is neit;er s6ei<i allegation nor 6roo< t;at t;eelay >as ue to any 6olitial maneuvering on ;is 6art to 6rolong;is stay in o<<ie. Moreover, 6rotestant lve, >as not >it;outlegal reourse to move <or t;e early resolution o< t;e eletion6rotest >;ile it >as 6ening be<ore t;e regional trial ourt or to<ile a motion <or t;e e:eution o< t;e regional trial ourts eisionelaring t;e 6osition o< mayor vaant an orering t;e vie@mayor to assume o<<ie >;ile t;e a66eal >as 6ening >it; t;e&%M#L#&. Su; elay >;i; is not ;ere s;o>n to ;ave been

intentionally soug;t by t;e 6etitioner to 6rolong ;is stay in o<<ieannot serve as basis to bar ;is rig;t to be elete an to serve;is ;osen loal government 6ost in t;e sueeing mayoraleletion.T D/ion v. &omele, G.R. No. 182088, anuary 30, 2009E

M%N(#+%N vs &%M#L#&/%&(R'N#4

Suession in loal government o<<ie is by o6eration o< la> anas su;, it is an involuntary severane <rom o<<ie.

!"'& F&(S4

Montebon ;a been elete <or t;ree onseutive terms asmunii6al ounilor o< (uburan, &ebu in 1998@2001, 2001@200,an 200@2007. 5o>ever, in anuary 200, or uring ;is seon

term, Montebon sueee an assume t;e 6osition o< vie@mayor o< (uburan >;en t;e inumbent vie@mayor retire. B;enMontebon <ile ;is erti<iate o< aniay againas munii6alounilor, a 6etition <or is=uali<iation >as <ile against ;imbase on t;e t;ree@term limit rule.

F&(S4

etitioners Montebon an %ny an res6onent otenioso, r.>ere aniates <or munii6al ounilor o< t;e Munii6ality o<(uburan, &ebu <or t;e May 1, 2007 #letions.

%n 6ril 30, 2007, 6etitioners an ot;er aniates <or munii6alounilor <ile a 6etition <or is=uali<iation against res6onent>it; t;e &%M#L#& alleging t;at res6onent ;a been elete anserve t;ree onseutive terms as munii6al ounilor in 1998@@2001, 2001@200, an 200@2007. (;us, ;e is 6rosribe <romrunning <or t;e same 6osition in t;e 2007 eletions as it >oul be;is <ourt; onseutive term.

'n ;is ans>er, res6onent argues t;at ;e annot be is=uali<ieon t;e groun o< t;e 3 term limit rule beause ;is seon term>as interru6te >;en ;e assume t;e 6osition o< vie@mayor ueto t;e retirement o< elete vie@mayor etronilo Menoa.

etitioners maintain t;at res6onent?s assum6tion o< o<<ie asvie@mayor in anuary 200 s;oul not be onsiere aninterru6tion in t;e servie o< ;is seon term sine it >as avoluntary renuniation o< ;is o<<ie as munii6al ounilor. (;ey

argue t;at, aoring to t;e la> Donstitution an LG&E,voluntary renuniation o< t;e o<<ie <or any lengt; o< time s;allnot be onsiere an interru6tion in t;e ontinuity o< servie <ort;e <ull term <or >;i; t;e o<<iial onerne >as elete.

%n une 2, 2007, t;e &%M#L#& First /ivision enie t;e 6etition<or is=uali<iation ruling t;at res6onent?s assum6tion o< o<<ieas vie@mayor s;oul be onsiere an interru6tion in t;eontinuity o< ;is servie. 5is seon term ;aving beeninvoluntarily interru6te, res6onent s;oul t;us not beis=uali<ie to seeA reeletion as munii6al ounilor.

%n a66eal, t;e &%M#L#& #n +an u6;el t;e ruling o< t;e First/ivision. etitioners <ile t;e instant 6etition <or ertiorari on t;egroun t;at t;e &%M#L#& ommitte grave abuse o< isretionamounting to laA or e:ess o< urisition in ruling t;at

res6onent?s assum6tion o< o<<ie as vie@mayor in anuary 200interru6te ;is 2001@200 term as munii6al ounilor.

'SS"#4

B%N t;e 6rivate res6onents assum6tion o< t;e vie@mayoro<<ie, by virtue o< suession, an be onsiere as an e<<etiveisru6tion in ;is <ull servie o< ;is seon term as ounilor.

5#L/4

)#S. 'n Lonania v. &ommission on #letions, t;e &ourt ;elt;at t;e t>o onitions <or t;e a66liation o< t;e is=uali<iationmust onur4 1E t;at t;e o<<iial onerne ;as been elete <ort;ree onseutive terms in t;e same loal government 6ostH an2E t;at ;e ;as F"LL) serve t;ree onseutive terms.

'n +ora, r. v. &ommission on #letions, t;e &ourt em6;asiet;at t;e term limit <or eletive o<<iials must be taAen to re<er tot;e rig;t to be elete as >ell as t;e rig;t to serve in t;e sameeletive 6osition. (;us, <or t;e is=uali<iation to a66ly, it is notenoug; t;at t;e o<<iial ;as been elete t;ree onseutive timesH;e must also ;ave serve t;ree onseutive terms in t;e same6osition.

'n Lonania v. &ommission on #letions, t;e &ourt e:6laine t;eone6t o< voluntary renuniation as <ollo>s4

(;e seon sentene o< t;e onstitutional 6rovision unersrutiny states, V*oluntary renuniation o< o<<ie <or any lengt; o<time s;all not be onsiere as an interru6tion in t;e ontinuity o<servie <or t;e <ull term <or >;i; ;e >as elete. (;e lear intento< t;e <ramers o< t;e onstitution to bar any attem6t to irumvent



t;e t;ree@term limit by a voluntary renuniation o< o<<ie an att;e same time res6et t;e 6eo6les ;oie an grant t;eir eleteo<<iial <ull servie o< a term is evient in t;is 6rovision. *oluntaryrenuniation o< a term oes not anel t;e renoune term in t;eom6utation o< t;e t;ree term limitH onversely, involuntaryseverane <rom o<<ie <or any lengt; o< time s;ort o< t;e <ull term6rovie by la> amounts to an interru6tion o< ontinuity o<servie.

B;ile it is unis6ute t;at res6onent >as elete munii6alounilor <or t;ree onseutive terms, t;e issue lies on >;et;er;e is eeme to ;ave <ully serve ;is seon term in vie> o< ;is

assum6tion o< o<<ie as vie@mayor o< (uburan on anuary 12,200.

Suession in loal government o<<ies is by o6eration o< la>.Setion o< Re6ubli t No. 71-0, 6rovies t;at i< a 6ermanentvaany ours in t;e o<<ie o< t;e vie mayor, t;e ;ig;estranAing sanggunian member s;all beome vie mayor.

'n t;is ase, a 6ermanent vaany ourre in t;e o<<ie o< t;evie mayor ue to t;e retirement o< *ie Mayor Menoa.Res6onent, being t;e ;ig;est ranAing munii6al ounilor,sueee ;im in aorane >it; la>. (;us, res6onent?sassum6tion o< o<<ie as vie@mayor in anuary 200 >as aninvoluntary severane <rom ;is o<<ie as munii6al ounilor,resulting in an interru6tion in t;e servie o< ;is 2001@200 term. 'tannot be eeme to ;ave been by reason o< voluntaryrenuniation beause it >as by o6eration o< la>.

Be =uote >it; a66roval t;e ruling o< t;e &%M#L#& t;at

(;e legal suessor is not given any o6tion uner t;e la> on>;et;er to ae6t t;e vaate 6ost or not. Setion o< t;e LoalGovernment &oe maAes no e:e6tion. %nly i< t;e ;ig;est@‐ranAing ounilor is 6ermanently unable to suee to t;e 6ostoes t;e la> s6eaA o< alternate suession. "ner noirumstanes an sim6le re<usal o< t;e o<<iial onerne beonsiere as 6ermanent inability >it;in t;e ontem6lation o<la>.

(;us, suession by la> to a vaate government o<<ie is;arateristially not voluntary sine it involves t;e 6er<ormaneo< a 6ubli uty by a government o<<iial, t;e non@6er<ormane o<>;i; e:6oses sai o<<iial to 6ossible aministrative an

riminal ;arges o< erelition o< uty an neglet in t;e6er<ormane o< 6ubli <untions. 't is t;ere<ore more om6ulsoryan obligatory rat;er t;an voluntary. DMontebon vs. &omele,G.R. No. 180. 6ril 9, 2008E

U (;e &ourt rule t;at Montebons assum6tion o< o<<ie as vie@mayor in anuary 200 >as an interru6tion o< ;is ontinuity o<servie as ounilor. (;e &ourt em6;asie t;at suession inloal government o<<ie is by o6eration o< la> an as su;, it isan involuntary severane <rom o<<ie. Sine t;e la> no lessallo>e Montebon to vaate ;is 6ost as ounilor in orer toassume o<<ie as viemayor, ;is ou6ation o< t;e ;ig;er o<<ieannot, >it;out more, be eeme as a voluntary renuniation o<;is 6osition as ounilor.

+olos r vs &%M#L#&Fats4

etitioner +olos >as elete as t;e unong +arangay o<+arangay +iAing, /auis, +o;ol <or 3 onseutive termsD199,1997, 2002E.

'n May 200, uring ;is inumbeny, ;e ran <or Munii6al&ounilor o< /auis an >on. 5e assume o<<ie on uly 1, 200leaving ;is 6ost as unong +arangay.

<ter serving ;is term as a ounilor ;e <ile ;is aniay <or t;e6osition o< unong +arangay in t;e %tober 29, 2007 +arangayan Sangguniang abataan #letions. &inoniegue, t;eninumbent unong +arangay an also a aniate <or t;e sameo<<ie, <ile a 6etition <or is=uali<iation on t;e groun t;at +olos

r. ;as alreay serve t;e ma:imum limit o< t;ree term ;ene nolonger eligible to run an ;ol t;e 6osition in aorane >it;Se. 8, rtile o< t;e &onstitution an Se. 3 DbE o< R 71-0 ort;e Loal Government &oe o< 1991.

&inoniegue ontene t;at +olos relin=uis;ment o< t;e 6ositiono< unong +arangay in uly 200 >as voluntary on ;is 6art, as itoul be 6resume t;at it >as ;is 6ersonal eision to run asmunii6al ounilor in t;e May 1, 200 National an Loal#letions. 5e ae t;at 6etitioner Ane> t;at i< ;e >on anassume t;e 6osition, t;ere >oul be a voluntary renuniation o<;is 6ost as unong +arangay.

'n ;is ns>er, 6etitioner argue t;at >;en ;e assume t;e6osition o< Sangguniang +ayan member, ;e le<t ;is 6ost asunong +arangay by o6eration o< la>H ;ene, it must beonsiere as an involuntary interru6tion in t;e ontinuity o< ;islast term o< servie.

ening t;e resolution o< t;e ase be<ore t;e &%M#L#&, +olosr. >on in t;e eletion.

(;e &%M#L#& resolve t;e 6etition in <avor o< &inoniegueruling t;at +olos r. ;as alreay serve t;e ma:imum t;reeonseutive term <or an o<<ie an t;us is=uali<ie to run <or t;esame o<<ie. 't <urt;er orere t;at t;e 6rolamation o< +olos r.be annulle an t;at t;e o<<ie >ill be sueee base on Se. o< t;e Loal Government &oe.

'ssue4

B;et;er or not t;ere >as a voluntary renuniation o< t;e o<<ie o<unong +arangay by +olos r. >;en ;e assume t;e 6ost o<Munii6al &ounilor so t;at ;e is eeme to ;ave serve <or t;reeonseutive terms.

5el4

)#S. (;e t;ree@term limit <or eletive o<<iial is ontaine in Se.8, rtile o< t;e &onstitution states4

Setion 8. (;e term o< o<<ie o< eletive loal o<<iials, e:e6tbarangay o<<iials, >;i; s;all be etermine by la>, s;all be

t;ree years an no su; o<<iial s;all serve <or more t;an t;reeonseutive terms. *oluntary renuniation o< t;e o<<ie <or anylengt; o< time s;all not be onsiere as an interru6tion in t;eontinuity o< ;is servie <or t;e <ull term <or >;i; ;e >aselete.T

(;e Loal Government &oe 6rovies <or t;e term o< o<<ie o<+arangay %<<iials4

Se. 3. (erm o< %<<ie. : : : DbE No loal eletive o<<iial s;allserve <or more t;an t;ree D3E onseutive terms in t;e same6osition. *oluntary renuniation o< t;e o<<ie <or any lengt; o<time s;all not be onsiere as an interru6tion in t;e ontinuity o<servie <or t;e <ull term <or >;i; t;e eletive o<<iial onerne>as elete.

DE (;e term o< barangay o<<iials an members o< t;e

sangguniang Aabataan s;all be <or <ive DE years, >;i; s;allbegin a<ter t;e regular eletion o< barangay o<<iials on t;eseon Monay o< May 19974 rovie, t;at t;e sangguniangAabataan members >;o >ere elete in t;e May 199- eletionss;all serve until t;e ne:t regular eletion o< barangay o<<iials.

Sorates v. &omele ;el t;at t;e rule on t;e t;ree@term limit,emboie in t;e &onstitution an t;e Loal Government &oe,;as t>o 6arts4 : : : (;e <irst 6art 6rovies t;at an eletive loalo<<iial annot serve <or more t;an t;ree onseutive terms. (;elear intent is t;at only onseutive terms ount in eterminingt;e t;ree@term limit rule. (;e seon 6art states t;at voluntaryrenuniation o< o<<ie <or any lengt; o< time oes not interru6t t;eontinuity o< servie. (;e lear intent is t;at involuntaryseverane <rom o<<ie <or any lengt; o< time interru6ts ontinuityo< servie an 6revents t;e servie be<ore an a<ter t;e



interru6tion <rom being oine toget;er to <orm a ontinuousservie or onseutive terms.

<ter t;ree onseutive terms, an eletive loal o<<iial annotseeA immeiate reeletion <or a <ourt; term. (;e 6ro;ibiteeletion re<ers to t;e ne:t regular eletion <or t;e same o<<ie<ollo>ing t;e en o< t;e t;ir onseutive term.

'n Lonania v. &omele, t;e &ourt state t;at t;e seon 6art o<t;e rule on t;e t;ree@term limit s;o>s t;e lear intent o< t;e<ramers o< t;e &onstitution to bar any attem6t to irumvent t;et;ree@term limit by a voluntary renuniation o< o<<ie an at t;e

same time res6et t;e 6eo6les ;oie an grant t;eir eleteo<<iial <ull servie o< a term. (;e &ourt ;el t;at t>o onitions<or t;e a66liation o< t;e is=uali<iation must onur4 D1E t;at t;eo<<iial onerne ;as been elete <or t;ree onseutive terms int;e same government 6ostH an D2E t;at ;e ;as <ully serve t;reeonseutive terms.

'n t;is ase, it is unis6ute t;at 6etitioner >as elete asunong +arangay <or t;ree onseutive terms, satis<ying t;e <irstonition <or is=uali<iation.

B;at is to be etermine is >;et;er 6etitioner is eeme to ;avevoluntarily renoune ;is 6osition as unong +arangay uring;is t;ir term >;en ;e ran <or an >on as Sangguniang +ayanmember an assume sai o<<ie.

(;e &ourt agrees >it; t;e &%M#L#& t;at 6etitioners

relin=uis;ment o< t;e o<<ie o< unong +arangay o< +iAing, /auis,+o;ol, as a onse=uene o< ;is assum6tion to o<<ie asSangguniang +ayan member o< /auis, +o;ol, on uly 1, 200, is avoluntary renuniation.

B;en 6etitioner <ile ;is erti<iate o< aniay <or t;e %<<ie o<Sangguniang +ayan, ;e >as not eeme resigne. Nonet;eless,all t;e ats attening ;is 6ursuit o< ;is eletion as munii6alounilor 6oint out to an intent an reainess to give u6 ;is 6ostas unong +arangay one elete to t;e ;ig;er eletive o<<ie, <orit >as very unliAely t;at res6onent ;a <ile ;is &erti<iate o<&aniay <or t;e Sangguniang +ayan 6ost, am6aigne ane:;orte t;e munii6al eletorate to vote <or ;im as su; ant;en a<ter being elete an 6rolaime, return to ;is <ormer6osition. 5e Ane> t;at ;is eletion as munii6al ounilor >oulentail abanonment o< t;e 6osition ;e ;el, an ;e intene to

<orego o< it. banonment, liAe resignation, is voluntary.

etitioner erroneously argues t;at >;en ;e assume t;e 6ositiono< Sangguniang +ayan member, ;e le<t ;is 6ost as unong+arangay by o6eration o< la>H ;ene, ;e i not <ully serve ;ist;ir term as unong +arangay.

(;e term Io6eration o< la>I is e<ine by t;e ;ili66ine Legal#nylo6eia as Ia term esribing t;e <at t;at rig;ts may bea=uire or lost by t;e e<<et o< a legal rule >it;out any at o< t;e6erson a<<ete.I +laA?s La> /itionary also e<ines it as a termt;at Ie:6resses t;e manner in >;i; rig;ts, an sometimesliabilities, evolve u6on a 6erson by t;e mere a66liation to t;e6artiular transation o< t;e establis;e rules o< la>, >it;out t;eat or oo6eration o< t;e 6arty ;imsel<.

n interru6tion in t;e servie o< a term o< o<<ie, by o6eration o<

la>, is e:em6li<ie in Montebon v. &omele an +ora vs.&omele. 'n t;is ase, 6etitioner i not <ill or suee to avaany by o6eration o< la>. 5e instea relin=uis;e ;is o<<ie asunong +arangay uring ;is t;ir term >;en ;e >on anassume o<<ie as Sangguniang +ayan member o< /auis, +o;ol,>;i; is eeme a voluntary renuniation o< t;e %<<ie o< unong+arangay. D+olos v. &omele, G.R. No. 18082, Mar; 17, 2009E

L/%*'N% *S &%M#L#& N/ S'L%F&(S4 's t;e 6reventivesus6ension o< an elete 6ubli o<<iial an interru6tion o< ;is termo< o<<ie <or 6ur6oses o< t;e t;ree@term limit rule uner Setion 8,rtile o< t;e &onstitution anSetion 3DbE o< Re6ubli t No.71-0 DR 71-0, or t;e Loal Government &oeE(;e res6onent&ommission on #letions D&%M#L#&E rule t;at 6reventivesus6ension is ane<<etive interru6tion beause it reners t;esus6ene 6ubli o<<iial unable to 6rovie om6leteservie <or

t;e <ull termH t;us, su; term s;oul not be ounte <or t;e6ur6ose o< t;e t;ree@termlimit rule.(;e 6resent 6etition seeAs toannul an set asie t;is &%M#L#& ruling <or ;aving beenissue>it; grave abuse o< isretion amounting to laA or e:esso< urisition.Bil<reo F. silo DsiloE >as elete ounilor o<Luena &ity <or t;ree onseutive terms4 <or t;e1998@2001, 2001@200, an 200@2007 terms, res6etively. 'n Se6tember 200 oruring ;is200@2007 term o< o<<ie, t;e Saniganbayan6reventively sus6ene ;im <or 90 ays in relation>it; a riminalase ;e t;en <ae.(;is &ourt, ;o>ever, subse=uently li<te t;eSaniganbayanssus6ension orerH ;ene, ;e resume

6er<orming t;e <untions o< ;is o<<ie an <inis;e ;is term.'n t;e 2007 eletion, silo <ile ;is erti<iate o< aniay <or t;esame 6osition. (;e 6etitionersSimon +. lovino, r., /anilo +.Faller, an Ferinan N. (alabong Dt;e 6etitionersE soug;t toenyue ourse to silos erti<iate o< aniay or to anel it ont;e groun t;at ;e ;a beenelete an ;a serve <or t;reetermsH ;is aniay <or a <ourt; term t;ere<ore violate t;et;ree@term limit rule uner Setion 8, rtile o< t;e &onstitution anSetion 3DbE o< R 71-0.(;e &%M#L#&s Seon /ivision ruleagainst t;e 6etitioners an in silos <avour in itsResolution o<November 28, 2007. 't reasone out t;at t;e t;ree@term limit rulei not a66ly, assilo <aile to rener om6lete servie <or t;e200@2007 term beause o< t;e sus6ension t;eSaniganbayan;a orere.'SS"#4 B;et;er 6reventive sus6ension o< an eleteloal o<<iial is an interru6tion o< t;e t;ree@term limit ruleH an .B;et;er 6reventive sus6ension is onsiere involuntaryrenuniation asontem6late in Setion 3DbE o< R 71-05#L/4

N#G('*#. etition is meritorious.s >ore, t;e onstitutional6rovision <i:es t;e term o< a loal eletive o<<ie anlimits aneletive o<<iials stay in o<<ie to no more t;an t;reeonseutive terms. (;is is t;e <irst bran; o< t;e rule emboie in Setion 8, rtile.Signi<iantly, t;is 6rovision re<ers to a ItermIas a 6erio o< time

t;ree years

uring >;i; ano<<iial ;as title to o<<ie an anserve(;e >or ItermI in a legal sense means a <i:ean e<inite 6erio o< time >;i; t;e la>esribes t;atan o<<ier may ;ol an o<<ie., 6reventive sus6ension isnot a =uali<ieinterru6tionW

Lonania v. &ommission on #letions

76resente t;e =uestion o< >;et;er t;e is=uali<iation ont;ebasis o< t;e t;ree@term limit a66lies i< t;e eletion o< t;e6ubli o<<iial Dto be stritly aurate,t;e 6rolamation as>inner o< t;e 6ubli o<<iialE <or ;is su66osely t;ir term;a been elare invali in a <inal an e:eutory ugment.Be rule t;at t;e t>o re=uisites <or t;e a66liation o< t;eis=uali<iation Dvi., 1. t;at t;e o<<iial onerne ;as beenelete <or t;ree onseutiveterms in t;e same loalgovernment 6ostH an 2. t;at ;e ;as <ully serve t;reeonseutivetermsWW (;e 6etitioner vaate ;is 6ost a <e>mont;s be<ore t;e ne:t mayoral eletions, not by voluntaryrenuniation but in om6liane >it; t;e legal 6roess o< >rito< e:eution issue by t;e&%M#L#& to t;at e<<et. Su;involuntary severane <rom o<<ie is an interru6tion o<ontinuity o< servie an t;us, t;e 6etitioner i not <ullyserve t;e 199@1998 mayoral term.D#&#('%NE

I'nterru6tionI o< a term e:em6ting an eletive o<<iial <romt;e t;ree@term limit rule is one t;atinvolves no less t;an t;einvoluntary loss o< title to o<<ie. (;e eletive o<<iial must;aveinvoluntarily le<t ;is o<<ie <or a lengt; o< time, ;o>evers;ort, <or an e<<etive interru6tion to our.(;is ;as to be t;ease i< t;e t;rust o< Setion 8, rtile an its strit intentare to be <ait;<ullyserve, i.e., to limit an eletive o<<iialsontinuous stay in o<<ie to no more t;an t;reeonseutiveterms, using Ivoluntary renuniationI as an e:am6le anstanar o< >;at oes notonstitute an interru6tion.Strita;erene to t;e intent o< t;e t;ree@term limit rule emanst;at 6reventive sus6ensions;oul not be onsiere aninterru6tion t;at allo>s an eletive o<<iials stay in o<<iebeyont;ree terms. 6reventive sus6ension annot sim6lybe a term interru6tion beause t;esus6ene o<<iialontinues to stay in o<<ie alt;oug; ;e is barre <rom



e:erising t;e <untionsan 6rerogatives o< t;e o<<ie >it;int;e sus6ension 6erio.(;e best iniator o< t;e sus6ene o<<iials ontinuity ino<<ie is t;e absene o< a 6ermanent re6laement an t;elaA o< t;eaut;ority to a66oint one sine no vaany e:ists

GR&' *. &%M#L#&227 S&R 100"N%, %tober , 1993N("R#%riginal etition an t;e Su66lemental etition assailing t;eonstitutionality o< setion 70 o< R.. 71-0 inso<ar as itallo>s a6re6aratory reall assembly to initiate t;e reall o<loal eletive o<<iials

F&(S@May 11, 1992, #nri=ue Garia D6etitionerE >as eletegovernor o< +ataan.@+"( in t;e early evening o< uly 1, somemayors, vie@mayors an members o< t;e Sangguinang+ayan o< t;e 12 munii6alities o< +ataan met at t;e N&&om6oun an t;e <ollo>ing ay, t;ey 6roeee toonstitute t;emselves into are6aratory Reall ssemblyDR&E to initiate t;e reall eletion o< #('('%N#R. (;ey;ose Mayor /e los Reyes DMarivelesE as resiing %<<ieranMayor ayumo D/inalu6i;anE as Seretary o< t;eassembly. *ie@Mayor Ro=ue DLimayE move t;at a resolution1be 6asse <or t;ereall o< #('('%N#R on t;e groun o<loss o< on<ieneT, >;i; >as unanimously seoneT.@uly 7, #('('%N#R <ile >it; &%M#L#& a 6etition to enyue ourse to Resolution No. 1 alleging <ailure o< R& to

om6ly >it; t;eIsubstantive an 6roeural re=uirementsIlai o>n in Setion 70 o< R.. 71-0 DLG&E@&%M#L#&4/'SM'SS 6etition, s;eule reall eletions on %tober 11.@#('('%N#R <ile 6etition <or ertiorari an 6ro;ibition >it;>rit o< 6reliminary inuntion to annul &%M#L#& ResolutionDargumentsE4a. Se. 70, LG& unonstitutional beause4D1E t;e6eo6le ;ave t;e sole an e:lusive rig;t to eie >;et;er ornot to initiate reall 6roeeings,D2E it violate t;e rig;t o<elete loal 6ubli o<<iials belonging to t;e 6olitialminority to e=ual 6rotetion o< la>.b. t;e 6roeeings<ollo>e by t;e R& in 6assing Resolution No. 1 su<<ere<rom numerous e<ets, t;e most <atal o< >;i; >ast;eeliberate <ailure to sen noties o< t;e meeting to si:ty@<ive D-E members o< t;e assembly.@S&4 orere res6onentsto <ile &omments, set 6etition <or ;earing. <ter ;earing,grante 6etition on t;e narro> groun t;at t;esening o<

seletive noties to members o< t;e R& violate t;e ue6roess 6rotetion o< t;e &onstitution an <atally <la>et;eenatment o< Resolution No. 1 Dan not ruling on allegeonstitutional in<irmity o< Se.70E.@'n aor >it; t;e S&Resolution, Mayor /e los Reyes G'Nsent N%('&# %F S#SS'%N to t;e members o< t;e R& toonvene anone more, R& 6asse a resolution alling<or t;e reall o< #('('%N#R@etitioner <ile a su66lementaletition etition an Reiteration o< #:tremely "rgent Motion6resiing <or a resolution o< t;eirontention t;at setion 70o< R.. 71-0 is unonstitutional4a. t;e rig;t to reall oes note:ten merely to t;e 6rerogative o< t;e eletorate toreon<irm or >it;ra> t;eir on<iene on t;eo<<iial soug;tto be realle at a s6eial eletion. Su; 6rerogativeneessarily inlues t;e sole an e:lusive rig;t to eieon>;et;er to initiate a reall 6roeeings or notb. in 6assing

Resolution No. 1, t;e +ataan re6aratory Reall ssemblyi not only initiate t;e 6roess o< reall but ;a e<atorealle 6etitioner Garia <rom o<<ie, a 6o>er reserveto t;e 6eo6le alone. #& argument4 t;e loal o<<iialsonstituting t;e maority 6arty an onstitute itsel< into aR an initiate t;e reall o< a ulyelete 6rovinial o<<iialbelonging to t;e minority 6arty t;us renering ine<<etual ;iseletion by 6o6ular manate'SS"#B%N Setion 70, o< R 71-0 is unonstitutional5#L/N%. (;e 6etition at ben; a66ears to ;am6ion t;e sovereigntyo< t;e 6eo6le, 6artiularly t;eir iret rig;t to initiate anremoveeletive loal o<<iials t;ru reall eletions. '< t;e6etition >oul suee, t;e result >ill be a return to t;e6revious system o< realleletions >;i; &ongress <oun

s;oul be im6rove. (;e alternative moe o< initiating reall6roeeings t;ru a 6re6aratory reallassembly is, ;o>ever,an innovative attem6t by &ongress to remove im6eimentsto t;e e<<etive e:erise by t;e 6eo6le o< t;eirsovereign6o>er to ;eA t;e 6er<ormane o< t;eir elete o<<iials. (;e6o>er to etermine t;is moe >as s6ei<ially givento&ongress an is not 6rosribe by t;e &onstitution.Ratio. D%n 6resum6tion o< valiity o< la>sE#very la> enoys t;e 6resum6tion o< valiity. (;e6resum6tion rests on t;e res6etue to t;e >isom,integrity, an t;e 6atriotism o< t;e legislative, by >;i; t;ela> is 6asse, an t;e &;ie< #:eutive, by >;om t;ela> is

a66rove. For u6;oling t;e &onstitution is not t;eres6onsibility o< t;e uiiary alone but also t;e uty o< t;elegislative ane:eutive. (o striAe o>n a la> asunonstitutional, t;ere must be a lear an une=uivoals;o>ing t;at >;at t;e <unamental la>6ro;ibits, t;e statute6ermits. (;e annulment annot be eree on a oubt<ul anarguable im6liation. (;e universal rule o< legal;ermeneutisis t;at all reasonable oubts s;oul be resolve in <avor o<t;e onstitutionality o< a la>.DR#&LL /'S&"SS'%NE Reallis a moe o< removal o< a 6ubli o<<ier by t;e 6eo6le be<oret;e en o< ;is term o< o<<ie. (;e 6eo6le?s6rerogative toremove a 6ubli o<<ier is an inient o< t;eir sovereign6o>er an in t;e absene o< onstitutional restraint, t;e6o>eris im6lie in all governmental o6erations. Su; 6o>er;as been ;el to be inis6ensable <or t;e 6ro6eraministration o< 6ublia<<airs. Not uneservely, it is<re=uently esribe as a <unamental rig;t o< t;e 6eo6le in

a re6resentative emoray.@Reall as a moe o< removal o<eletive loal o<<iials mae its maien a66earane in our1973 &onstitution D', S2E. ursuant to>;i;, +atasangambansa enate + 337 DLG& o< 1983E >;erein &;a63,Se 6rovie only 1 moe o< initiating reall eletions o<loal eletive o<<iials Dby 6etition o< at least t>enty@<ive6erent D2XE o< t;e total number o< registere Yvoters in t;eloalgovernment unit onerneE@#/S R#*%L"('%N4 our 6eo6le more t;an e:erise t;eirrig;t o< reall <or t;ey resorte to revolution an t;ey booteout o< o<<iet;e ;ig;est eletive o<<iials o< t;e lan@1987&onsti4 ''', Se 1 an 1- Deo6les artii6ationE an ,Se3DSimilar to 1973 &onstiE DS## &%NS('E@R 71-0 >asenate in res6onse to t;ese onsti 6rovisions. 'n t;is &oe,&ongress 6rovie <or aseon moe

o< initiating t;ereall 6roess t;roug; a 6re6aratory reallassembly >;i; in t;e 6rovinial level is om6ose o< allmayors, vie@mayors ansanggunian members o< t;emunii6alities an om6onent ities2.@>;y a a seon moe4t;e iea o< em6o>ering a 6re6aratory reall assembly toinitiate t;e reall <rom o<<ie o< loal eletiveo<<iialsoriginate <rom t;e 5ouse o< Re6resentatives an not t;eSenate. (;e legislative reors reveal t;at t;ere >ere t>oD2E6rini6al reasons >;y t;is alternative moe o< initiatingt;e reall 6roess t;ru an assembly >as ao6te, vi4 DaE toiminis; t;ei<<iulty o< initiating reall t;ru t;e iret ationo< t;e 6eo6leH an DbE to ut o>n on its e:6enses.Reasoning.%n <irst argument4

&onsti i not 6rovie t;at only t;e 6eo6le ;ave t;e rig;t toeie on B%N to initiate a reallH inot 6rovie moe <orinitiating reall but gave &%NGR#SS t;e 6o>er to ;oose t;ee<<etive me;anism o< reall. N/ &ongresseeme it >iseto enat an alternative moe o< initiating reall eletions tosu66lement t;e <ormer moe o< initiation by iret ationo<t;e 6eo6le. &ongress ;as mae its ;oie as alle <or byt;e &onstitution an it is not t;e 6rerogative o< t;is &ourt tosu66lant t;is ugment. (;e ;oie may be erroneous buteven t;en, t;e remey against a ba la> is to seeA itsamenment or re6eal by t;elegislative. +y t;e 6rini6le o<se6aration o< 6o>ers, it is t;e legislative t;at etermines t;eneessity, ae=uay, >isom ane:6eieny o< any la>.@on seon argument4'nitiation by t;e R& is also initiation by t;e 6eo6le, albeitone iniretly t;roug; t;eir re6resentatives. 'tis not



onstitutionally im6ermissible <or t;e 6eo6le to at t;roug;t;eir elete re6resentatives. R resolution o< reall merelystartst;e 6roess. 't is 6art o< t;e 6roess but is not t;e>;ole 6roess. (;is oug;t to be sel< evient <or a Rresolution o< reall t;at is notsubmitte to t;e &%M#L#& <orvaliation >ill not reall its subet o<<iial. LiAe>ise, a Rresolution o< reall t;at is reete by t;e6eo6le in t;eeletion alle <or t;e 6ur6ose bears no e<<et >;atsoever.(;e initiatory resolution merely sets t;e stage <or t;eo<<iialonerne to a66ear be<ore t;e tribunal o< t;e 6eo6leso ;e an usti<y >;y ;e s;oul be allo>e to ontinue ino<<ie. +e<ore t;e6eo6le rener t;eir sovereign ugment, t;e

o<<iial onerne remains in o<<ie but ;is rig;t to ontinuein o<<ie is subet to=uestion. (;is is lear in setion 72 o<t;e Loal Government &oe >;i; e:6liitly states t;at It;ereall o< an eletive loal o<<iials;all be e<<etive only u6ont;e eletion an 6rolamation o< a suessor in t;e 6erson o<t;e aniate reeiving t;e ;ig;est numbero< votes asturing t;e eletion on reall.I@on #& argument4(;e la> oes not give an asymmetrial treatment to loallyelete o<<iials belonging to t;e 6olitial minority.First to beonsiere is t;e 6olitially neutral om6osition o< t;e6re6aratory reall assembly. "ner t;e la>, all mayors, vie@mayorsan sangguniang members o< t;e munii6alities anom6onent ities are mae members o< t;e 6re6aratoryreall assembly at t;e6rovinial level. 'ts members;i6 is nota66ortione to 6olitial 6arties. No signi<iane is given tot;e 6olitial a<<iliation o< itsmembers. SeonlyH t;e

6re6aratory reall assembly at t;e 6rovinial level inluesall t;e elete o<<iials in t;e 6rovineonerne.&onsiering t;eir number, t;e greater 6robability is t;at noone 6olitial 6arty an ontrol its maority. (;irly, se. -9 o<t;e &oe 6rovies t;at t;e only groun to reall a loallyelete 6ubli o<<iial is loss o< on<iene o< t;e 6eo6le. (;emembers o< t;e R& are in t;e R& not in re6resentationo< t;eir 6olitial 6arties but as re6resentatives o< t;e 6eo6le.+y neessaryim6liation, loss o< on<iene annot be6remise on mere i<<erenes in 6olitial 6arty a<<iliation.'nee, our &onstitutionenourages t;e multi@6arty system<or t;e e:istene o< o66osition 6arties is inis6ensable to t;egro>t; an nurture o< t;eemorati system. &learly t;en,t;e la> as ra<te annot be <aulte <or isriminatingagainst elete loal o<<iials belonging tot;e minority.@(;e<ear t;at a 6re6aratory reall assembly may be ominate by

a 6olitial 6arty an t;at it may use its 6o>er to initiate t;ereallo< o<<iials o< o66osite 6olitial 6ersuasions, es6eiallyt;ose belonging to t;e minority, is not a groun to striAeo>n t;e la> asunonstitutional. (o be sure, t;is argument;as long been in isuse <or t;ere an be no esa6e <rom t;ereality t;at all 6o>ers aresuse6tible o< abuse. (;e mere6ossibility o< abuse annot, ;o>ever, in<irm 6er se t;e granto< 6o>er to an iniviual or entity. (oeny 6o>er sim6lybeause it an be abuse by t;e grantee is to renergovernment 6o>erless an no 6eo6le nee anim6otentgovernment. (;ere is no emorati governmentt;at an o6erate on t;e basis o< <ear an istrust o< itso<<iials, es6eially t;oseelete by t;e 6eo6le t;emselves.%n t;e ontrary, all our la>s assume t;at our o<<iials,>;et;er a66ointe or elete, >ill at ingoo <ait; an >illregularly 6er<orm t;e uties o< t;eir o<<ie. Su; a6resum6tion <ollo>s t;e solemn oat; t;at t;ey tooA

a<terassum6tion o< o<<ie, to <ait;<ully e:eute all our la>s.

@laA o< on<iene Dvote beyon any in=uiryE ag toimentel4 I(;ere is only one groun <or t;e reall o< loalgovernment o<<iials4loss o< on<iene. (;is means t;at t;e6eo6le may 6etition or t;e re6aratory Reall ssembly mayresolve to reall any loaleletive o<<iials >it;out s6ei<yingany 6artiular groun e:e6t loss o< on<iene. (;ere is nonee <or t;em to bring u6 any ;argeo< abuse or orru6tionagainst t;e loal eletive o<<iials >;o are t;e subet o< anyreall 6etition.'n t;e ase o<#varone vs. &ommission on #letions, t;e &ourt rule t;at Iloss o< on<ieneI as a groun <orreall is a 6olitial =uestion

. 'n t;e >ors o< t;e &ourt, I>;et;er or not t;e eletorate o<t;e munii6ality o< Sulat ;as lost on<iene in t;einumbenmayor is a 6olitial =uestion.I/is6osition.'N *'#B B5#R#%F, t;e original etition an t;eSu66lemental etition assailing t;e onstitutionality o<setion 70 o< R.. 71-0 inso<ar as it allo>s a 6re6aratoryreall assembly to initiate t;e reall 6roess are ismisse<or laA o< merit. (;is /eisionis immeiately e:eutory. S%%R/#R#/.S#R(# %'N'%NS!"'S%N, ., onurring4@(;e 1987 &onstitution oes not 6resribe t;e 6roeure int;e reall o< eletive o<<iials. (;e intent is lear t;at t;e

1987&onstitution leaves it to &ongress to 6rovie t;e reallme;anism >it;out any 6re@oraine restritions. (;e broa6o>ers o< &ongress in 6resribing t;e 6roeure <or reallinlue t;e etermination as to t;e number o< eletorsneee to initiate t;e reall,t;e met;o o< voting o< t;eeletors, t;e time an 6lae o< t;e voting an >;et;er t;e6roess inlues t;e eletion o< t;e suessoro< t;e realleo<<iial.@'n t;e Loal Government &oe o< 1991 DR.. No.71-0E, &ongress ao6te an alternative 6roeure <orinitiating t;e reall an maeit as a mere stage o< t;e reall6roess.@&ongress also eigne it >ise to give t;e eletoratea ;ane to 6artii6ate in t;e e:erise t>ie4 <irst, in t;einitiation o< t;e reallHan, seonly, in t;e eletion o< t;e6erson to ou6y t;e o<<ie subet o< t;e reall. (;is is inontrast >it; t;e <irst reall statute int;e ;ili66ines, t;eFestin La> D&om. t No. -0E >;ere t;e 6artii6ation o< t;eeletorate ene a<ter t;e voting <or t;e reall. 'nt;e Festin

La>, t;e eletorate >ere enie t;e o66ortunity to vote <ort;e retention o< t;e o<<iial subet o< t;e reall.@'n a sense,t;e members o< t;e R an be onsiere as onstituting asegment o< t;e eletorate beause t;ey are allregisterevoters o< t;e 6rovine. '< t;ey onstitute less t;anone 6erent o< t;e voters in t;e 6rovine, t;at minisulenumber goes to t;e 6oliy,not t;e valiity o< t;e la> an t;eremey to orret su; a <la> is le<t >it; t;e legislature, not>it; t;e uiiary.*'("G, ., onurring4@it is not >it;in t;e6rovine o< t;e ourts to =uestion t;e >isom o<, let alonesu66lant, legislative ugments lai o>n by &ongressto t;ee:tent o< its onstitutional aut;ority an manate.@&"('%Nagainst any iea o< omni6otene in >ieling t;e I6o>er o<reallI on<erre to t;e Ire6aratory Reall ssembly.I&learlyim6liit in any grant o< 6o>er, liAe any ot;er rig;t, isan

assum6tion o< a orrelative uty to e:erise it res6onsibly. B;en it, t;ere<ore,beomes all too evient t;at t;ere ;asbeen an abuse o< t;at aut;ority, a66ro6riate uiial reourseto, an orretive relie< by, t;is&ourt >ill not be enie.

A)0R%J0 vs" (0%JLJ(G"R" 9o" &B5435" Februar$ B, 3DD3FA(S: Adormeo and alaga, r" filed their certificates of candidac$ for ma$orof Lucena (it$ for the 3DD& elections" alaga, r" was then theincumbent ma$or" #e was elected ma$or in &443 andwas again re/elected in &44C/&44'" !n the election of &44', he lost, however, in therecallelection of %a$ 3DDD, he won and served the unepired term"

Adormeo filed a Petition to (ancel(ertificate of (andidac$ andIor)is.ualification of alaga, r", on the ground that the latter waselectedand had served as cit$ ma$or for consecutive terms" alaga, r"responded that he wasnot elected (it$ %a$or for consecutive termsbut onl$ for 3 consecutive terms since he wasdefeated in the &44'election, interrupting the consecutiveness of his $ears as ma$or"

(0%JLJ(First )ivision found alaga, r" dis.ualified for the positionof cit$ ma$or" #e filed a motion for reconsideration and (0%JLJ( enbanc ruled in his favor and held that &7 respondent was notelected forthree 67 consecutive terms because he did not win in the &44'elections@ 37 that hewas installed onl$ as ma$or b$ reason of his victor$in the recall elections@ 7 that his victor$ inthe recall elections was notconsidered a term of office and is not included in the /termdis.ualification rule, and B7 that he did not full$ serve the three 67consecutive terms, and hisloss in the &44' elections is considered aninterruption in the continuit$ of his service as %a$or of Lucena (it$"

After canvassing, alaga, r" was proclaimed as the dul$ elected%a$or of Lucena (it$"!SSEJ:8hether or not alaga, r was dis.ualified to run for ma$or of in theelections"REL!9G:



he term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to theright to be electedas well as the right to serve in the same electiveposition" !t is not enough that an individual hasserved threeconsecutive terms in an elective local office, he must also have beenelected to thesame position for the same number of times before thedis.ualification can appl$" he twoconditions for the application of thedis.ualification must concur: a7 that the official concernedhas beenelected for three consecutive terms in the same local government postand 37 that he hasfull$ served three consecutive terms" (0%JLJ(sruling that private respondent was not electedfor three 67 consecutiveterms should be upheld" he continuit$ of his ma$orship was disruptedb$ his defeat in the &44' elections" Moluntar$ renunciation of office for

an$ length of time shallnot be considered as an interruption in thecontinuit$ of service for the full term for which he waselected" Moluntar$renunciation of a term does not cancel the renounced term in thecomputationof the three term limit@ conversel$, involuntar$ severancefrom office for an$ length of time shortof the full term provided b$ lawamounts to an interruption of continuit$ of service"8#JRJF0RJ, the instant petition is hereb$ )!S%!SSJ)"

S0(RAJS v (0%JLJ(FA(S:

#agedorn had been elected and served as ma$or of Puerto Princesa(it$ for three consecutive terms: in &443/&44C, &44C/&44' and &44'/3DD&" 0bviousl$ aware of the three/term limit principle, #agedornopted not to vie for the same ma$oralt$ position in the 3DD& elections,in which Socrates ran and eventuall$ won" #owever, midwa$ into histerm, Socrates faced recall proceedings and in the recall election held,

#agedorn run for the formers unepired term as ma$or" Socratessought #agedorns dis.ualification under the three/term limit rule"

!SSEJ:

809 #agedorn is dis.ualified to run under the three/term limit rule

#JL):

hese constitutional and statutor$ provisions have two parts" he firstpart provides that an elective local official cannot serve for more thanthree consecutive terms" he clear intent is that onl$ consecutive termscount in determining the three/term limit rule" he second part statesthat voluntar$ renunciation of office for an$ length of time does not

interrupt the continuit$ of service" he clear intent is that involuntar$severance from office for an$ length of time interrupts continuit$ ofservice and prevents the service before and after the interruption frombeing 1oined together to form a continuous service or consecutiveterms"

After three consecutive terms, an elective official cannot immediate re/election for a fourth term, he prohibited election refers to the netregular election for a fourth term" he prohibited election refers to thenet regular election for the same office following the same officefollowing the third consecutive term" An$ subse.uent election, like arecall election, is no longer covered b$ the prohibition for two reasons:&7 A subse.uent election like a recall election, is no longer animmediate reelection after the three consecutive terms@ and 37 heintervening period constitutes an involuntar$ interruption in thecontinuit$ of service"

After #agedorn ceased to be ma$or on une D, 3DD&, he became aprivate citi*en until the recall election of September 3B, 3DD3 when hewon b$ ,D&' votes over his closest opponent, Socrates"

From une D, 3DD& until the recall election on September 3B, 3DD3,the ma$or of Puerto Princesa was Socrates" )uring the same period,#agedorn was simpl$ a private citi*en" his period is clearl$ aninterruption in the continuit$ of #agedorns service as ma$or, notbecause of his voluntar$ renunciation, but because of a legalprohibition" 6Socrates vs" (omelec, G"R" 9o" &CBC&3" 9ovember &3,3DD37

%endo*a vs (0%JLJ(FA(S:

Respondent Leonardo 2" Roman held the post of Governor of 2ataanprovince a number of times:

a7 &4'? &4'' Appointed 0!( Governor of 2ataan b$ former Pres" A.uino

and served up to &4''b7 &4'' &443 Jlected Governor and served up to &443c7 &44B &44C Jlected Governor during the recall election in &44,assumed

office on 3' une &44B and served up to &44Cd7 &44C &44' Jlected Governor and served up to&44'e7 &44' 3DD& Jlected Governor and served up to 3DD&"

!n 3DD&, private respondent Roman again filed a certificate ofcandidac$ for the same post in the &B %a$ 3DD& regular elections" 0n&? %a$ 3DD&, Leonardo Roman was proclaimed b$ the Provincial2oard of (anvassers of 2ataan"

Petitioners %elanio L" %endo*a and %ario J" !barra seek to declarerespondent Romans election as governor of 2ataan as null and voidfor allegedl$ being contrar$ to Art" , T' of the (onstitution

!SSEJ:

809 Private Respondent-s incumbenc$ to the post of Governorfollowing the recall elections be included in determining the three//consecutive term limit fied b$ law

#JL):

9o" A winner who dislodges in a recall election an incumbent electivelocal official merel$ serves the balance of the latter-s term of office@ it isnot a full three/$ear term"

he law contemplates a continuous full three/$ear term before theproscription can appl$, providing for onl$ one eception, i"e", when anincumbent voluntaril$ gives up the office" !f involuntar$ severance fromthe service which results in the incumbents being unable to finish histerm of office because of his ouster through valid recall proceedingsnegates None termO for purposes of appl$ing the three/ term limit, it‐

stands to reason that the balance of the term assumed b$ the newl$elected local official in a recall election should not also be held to beone term in reckoning the three/term limit"

!n both situations, neither the elective local official who is unable to

finish his term nor the elected local official who onl$ assumes thebalance of the term of the ousted local official following the recallelection could be considered to have served a full three/$ear term setb$ the (onstitution"

he (onstitution does not prohibit elective local officials from servingfor more than three consecutive terms because, in fact, it ecludesfrom the three/term limit interruptions in the continuit$ of service, solong as such interruptions are not due to the voluntar$ renunciation ofthe office b$ an incumbent" #ence, the period from une 3', &44B toune D, &44C, during which respondent Leonardo 2" Roman servedas governor of 2ataan b$ virtue of a recall election held in &44, shouldnot be counted" Since on %a$ &B, 3DD& respondent had previousl$served as governor of 2ataan for onl$ two consecutive terms 6&44C/&44' and &44'/3DD&7, his election on that da$ was actuall$ onl$ histhird term for the same position"

A recall term should not be considered as one full term, because acontrar$ interpretation would in effect cut short the elected officialsservice to less than nine $ears and shortchange his constituents" hedesire to prevent monopol$ of political power should be balancedagainst the need to uphold the voters obvious preference who, in thepresent case, is Roman who received 45 percent of the votes cast"

69ote: (ourt voted ' to 5 to )!S%!SS the petition"7

M!EG, ", 1oined b$ K9ARJS/ SA9!AG0, ", voted to dismiss the‐

petition" %J9)0+A, ", in whose opinion HE!SE%2!9G, " 1oined,voted to dismiss the petition on the ground that a term during whichsuccession to a local elective office takes place or a recall election isheld should not be counted in determining whether an elective localofficial has served more than three consecutive terms" #e argued thatthe (onstitution does not prohibit elective local officials from serving fo



more than three consecutive terms because, in fact, it ecludes fromthe three/ term limit interruptions in the continuit$ of service, so long‐

as such interruptions are not due to the voluntar$ renunciation of theoffice b$ an incumbent"

PA9GA9!2A9, ", 1oined b$ PE90, ", also voted to dismiss thepetition" #e argued that a recall term should not be considered as onefull term, because a contrar$ interpretation would in effect cut short theelected official-s service to less than nine $ears and shortchange hisconstituents" he desire to prevent monopol$ of political power shouldbe balanced against the need to uphold the voters- obvious preferencewho, in the present case, is Roman who received 45 percent of the

votes cast"

A+(E9A, ", 1oined b$ 2JLL0S!LL0, ", also voted to dismiss, arguingthat it is clear from the constitutional provision that the dis.ualificationapplies onl$ if the terms are consecutive and the service is full andcontinuous" #ence, service for less than a term, ecept onl$ in case ofvoluntar$ renunciation, should not count to dis.ualif$ an elective localofficial from running for the same position"

SA9)0MAL/ GE!JRRJ+, ", with whom )AM!)J, ("", and‐

AESR!A/ %AR!9J+, (0R09A, and (ALLJ0, SR", "‐

concurred, holds the view that the recall term served b$ respondentRoman, comprising the period une 3', &44B to une D, &44C, shouldbe considered as one term"

(ARP!0, ", 1oined b$ (ARP!0/ %0RALJS, ", also dissented and‐

voted to grant the petition" #e held that a recall term constitutes oneterm and that to totall$ ignore a recall term in determining the three/term limit would allow local officials to serve for more than nineconsecutive $ears contrar$ to the manifest intent of the framers of the(onstitution" #e contended that respondent Roman-s election in 3DD&cannot eempt him from the three/term limit imposed b$ the(onstitution" 6%endo*a vs" (omelec, G"R" 9o" &CBC&3" 9ovember &3,3DD37

%%)A vs GarinGR 9o" &D3DApril &C, 3DDC(hico/9a*ario,":FA(S:Respondent Garin was issued a traffic violation receipt6MR7 and his driverslicense was confiscated for parking illegall$"Garin wrote to then %%)A (hairmanProspero 0reta re.uesting thereturn of his license and epressed his preference for hiscase to be filein (ourt" 8ithout an immediate repl$ from the chairman, Garin filed fora preliminar$ in1unction assailing among others that Sec C 6f7 of RA

543B violates theconstitutional prohibition against undue delegation oflegislative authorit$, allowing%%)A to fi and impose unspecified andunlimited fines and penalties" R( rule in hisfavor, directing %%)A toreturn his license and for the authorit$ to desist fromconfiscatingdrivers license without first giving the driver the opportunit$ to beheard inan appropriate proceeding" hus this petition"!SSEJ:8hetherof not Sec C6f7 of RA 543B which authori*es %%)A to confiscateandsuspend or revoke drivers license in the enforcement of trafficrules and regulationsconstitutional>REL!9G:he %%)A is not vestedwith police power" !t was concluded that %%)A is nota localgovernment unit of a public corporation endowed with legislative powerand it hasno power to enact ordinances for the welfare of thecommunit$"Police power, as an inherent attribute of sovereignt$ is thepower vested in thelegislature to make, ordain, establish all manner ofwholesome and reasonable laws,statutes and ordinances either withpenalties of without, not repugnant to the constitution,as the$ shall

1udge to be for good and welfare of the commonwealth and for sub1ects

of the same"here is no provision in RA 543B that empowers %%)A orits council to Nenactordinance, approve resolutions and appropriatefunds for the general welfare of theinhabitants of %etro %anila"O !t is anagenc$ created for the purpose of la$ing down policies andcoordinating with the various national government agencies,Peoples0rgani*ations, 9G0s and private sector for the efficient andepeditious deliver$ of services" All its functions are administrative innature"

Facts: he issue arose from an incident involving the respondent)ante 0" Garin, a law$er, who was issued a traffic violation receipt6MR7 b$ %%)A and his driver-s license confiscated for parkingillegall$ along Gandara Street, 2inondo, %anila, on August &44C"Shortl$ before the epiration of the MR-s validit$, the respondentaddressed a letter to then %%)A (hairman Prospero 0reta re.uesting

the return of his driver-s license, and epressing his preference for hiscase to be filed in court"Receiving no immediate repl$, Garin filed the original complaint withapplication for preliminar$ in1unction, contending that, in the absence oan$ implementing rules and regulations, Sec" C6f7 of Rep" Act 9o" 543Bgrants the %%)A unbridled discretion to deprive erring motorists oftheir licenses, pre/empting a 1udicial determination of the validit$ of thedeprivation, thereb$ violating the due process clause of the(onstitution"

he respondent further contended that the provision violates theconstitutional prohibition against undue delegation of legislative

authorit$, allowing as it does the %%)A to fi and impose unspecified and therefore unlimited fines and other penalties on erringmotorists"

he trial court rendered the assailed decision in favor of hereinrespondent"!ssue:&" 809 %%)A, through Sec" C6f7 of Rep" Act 9o" 543B could validl$eercise police power"

#JL): Police Power, having been lodged primaril$ in the 9ationalLegislature, cannot be eercised b$ an$ group or bod$ of individualsnot possessing legislative power" he 9ational Legislature, however,ma$ delegate this power to the president and administrative boards aswell as the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or localgovernment units 6LGEs7" 0nce delegated, the agents can eerciseonl$ such legislative powers as are conferred on them b$ the national

lawmaking bod$"0ur (ongress delegated police power to the LGEs in the LocalGovernment (ode of &44&" &C A local government is a ;politicalsubdivision of a nation or state which is constituted b$ law and hassubstantial control of local affairs"; &? Local government units are theprovinces, cities, municipalities and baranga$s, which eercise policepower through their respective legislative bodies"%etropolitan or %etro %anila is a bod$ composed of several localgovernment units" 8ith the passage of Rep" Act 9o" 543B in &44C,%etropolitan %anila was declared as a ;special development andadministrative region; and the administration of ;metro/wide; basicservices affecting the region placed under ;a development authorit$;referred to as the %%)A" hus:he %%)A is, as termed in the charter itself, a ;developmentauthorit$"; !t is an agenc$ created for the purpose of la$ing downpolicies and coordinating with the various national government

agencies, people-s organi*ations, non/governmental organi*ations andthe private sector for the efficient and epeditious deliver$ of basicservices in the vast metropolitan area" All its functions areadministrative in nature and these are actuall$ summed up in thecharter itself

• Section C of Rep" Act 9o" 543B enumerates the ;Functions

and Powers of the %etro %anila )evelopment Authorit$";he contested clause in Sec" C6f7 states that the petitionershall ;install and administer a single ticketing s$stem, fi,impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds ofviolations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving ornon/moving in nature, and confiscate and suspend or revokedrivers- licenses in the enforcement of such traffic laws andregulations, the provisions of Rep" Act 9o" B&? and P")"9o" &?DC to the contrar$ notwithstanding,; and that ;6f7or thispurpose, the Authorit$ shall enforce all traffic laws and

regulations in %etro %anila, through its traffic operationcenter, and ma$ deputi*e members of the P9P, trafficenforcers of local government units, dul$ licensed securit$guards, or members of non/governmental organi*ations towhom ma$ be delegated certain authorit$, sub1ect to suchconditions and re.uirements as the Authorit$ ma$ impose";

0rdillo v" (0%JLJ(G"R" 9o" 4DCB, )ecember B, &44DGutierre*, "FA(S/ anuar$ D, &44D, pursuant to Republic Act 9o" ?5?? entitled NAn ActProviding for an0rganic Act for the (ordillera Autonomous RegionO,the people of the provinces of 2enguet,%ountain Province, !fugao,

Abra and Ualinga/Apa$ao and the cit$ of 2aguio cast their votesin aplebiscite"/ Results of plebiscite: approved b$ ma1orit$ of C,''4 votes in



!fugao, re1ected b$ &B',?5? inthe rest provinces and cit$" he provinceof !fugao makes up onl$ && of total population,and as such has thesecond smallest number of inhabitants, of the abovementioned areas"/Februar$ &B, &44D, (0%JLJ( issued Resolution 9o" 33C4 stating thatthe 0rganic Act forthe Region has been approved andIor ratified b$ma1orit$ of votes cast onl$ in the provinceof !fugao" Secretar$ ofustice also issued a memorandum for the Presidentreiterating(0%JLJ( resolution, stating that NQ!fugao being the onl$province which voted favorabl$ then" Alone, legall$ and validl$constitutes (AR"O/ %arch ', &44D, (ongress ebacted Republic Act 9o"?'?& setting elections in (AR of !fugaoon first %onda$ of %arch &44&"/Jven before (0%JLJ( resolution, Jecutive Secretar$ issued

Februar$ C, &44D amemorandum granting authorit$ to wind up theaffairs of the (ordillera Jecutive 2oard and(ordillera Regional

Assembl$ created under Jecutive 0rder 9o" 33D"/ %arch D, &44D,President issued Administrative 0rder 9o" &?D declaring amongothersthat the (ordillera Jecutive 2oard and (ordillera Regional

Assembl$ and all offices underJecutive 0rder 9o" 33D wereabolished in view of the ratification of 0rganic Act"/ Petitioners: therecan be no valid (ordillera Autonomous Region in onl$ one province asthe(onstitution and Republic Act 9o" ?5?? re.uire that the said Regionbe composed of morethan one constituent unit"/ Petitioners thereforepra$ that the court:a"declare null and void (0%JLJ( resolution 9o"33C4, the memorandum of theSecretar$ of ustice, Administrative0rder 9o" &?D, and Republic Act 9o" ?'?& andprohibit and restrain therespondents from implementing the same and spending publicfunds forthe purposeb"declare Jecutive 0rder 9o" 33D constituting the(ordillera Jecutive 2oard and the(ordillera Regional Assembl$ andother offices to be still in force and effect until anotherorganic law for

the Autonomous Region shall have been enacted b$ (ongress andthesame is dul$ ratified b$ the voters in the constituent units"!SSEJ809 the province of !fugao, being the onl$ province which votedfavorabl$ for thecreation of the (ordillera Autonomous Region can,alone, legall$ and validl$ constitute suchregion"#JL)

/ he sole province of !fugao cannot validl$ constitute the(ordillera Autonomous Region"a"he ke$word ins Article ,Section &C of the &4'5 (onstitution provinces,cities,municipalities and geographical areas connote thatNregionO is to be made up of morethan one constituent unit"he term NregionO used in its ordinar$ sense means twoormore provinces"/ rule in statutor$ construction must beapplied here: the language of the (onstitution,as much aspossible should be understood in the sense it has in

common use and thatthe words used in constitutionalprovisions are to be given their ordinar$ meaningeceptwhere technical terms are emplo$ed"

// b"he entiret$ of Republic Act 9o" ?5?? creating the

(ordillera Autonomous Region isinfused with provisionswhich rule against the sole province of !fugao constitutingtheRegion"/ !t can be gleaned that (ongress never intendedthat a single province ma$ constitutethe autonomousregion"/ !f this were so, we would be faced with the absurdsituation of having two sets of officials: a set of provincialofficials and another set of regional officials eercisingtheireecutive and legislative powers over eactl$ the samesmall area" 6!fugao is one of the smallest provinces in thePhilippines, population/wise7 6Art !!! sec & and 3@ Art M,sec &and B@ Art !! sec &D of RA ?5??7/ Allotment of en %illionPesos to Regional Government for its initial

organi*ationalre.uirements can not be construed as fundingonl$ a lone and small province <Art !sec &6276c7=/ (ertainprovisions of the Act call for officials Ncoming from differentprovinces andcitiesO in the Region, as well as tribal courtsand the development of a commonregional language" 6Art Msec &?@ Art M! sec @ Art M!!@ Art M RA ?5??7/ hus, tocontemplate the situation envisioned b$ the (0%JLJ(would not onl$ violate theletter and intent of the (onstitutionand Republic Act 9o" ?5?? but would be impracticalandillogical"

Abbas vs" (omelec&54 S(RA 3'5Facts:he ripoli Agreement, more specificall$, the Agreement 2etweentheGovernment of the Republic of the Philippines and the %oro

9ational LiberationFront with the participation of the Huadripartite%inisterial (ommission, %embers of the !slamic (onference andthe Secretar$ General of the 0rgani*ation of !slamic(onference"!t provided for the establishment of autonom$ in thesouthernPhilippines within the realm of the sovereignt$ andterritorial integrit$ of theRepublic of the Philippines andenumerated the thirteen provinces comprising theareas ofautonom$"!n &4'5, a new (onstitution was ratified which for thefirst time provided forregional autonom$" Pursuant to thisconstitutional mandate, R"A" 9o" ?5B wasenacted and signedinto law"Petitioner Abbas argues that R" A" 9o" ?5Bunconditionall$ creates an autonomousregion in %indanao,

contrar$ to the provisions of the (onstitution on theautonomousregion which makes the creation of such region dependent upontheoutcome of the plebiscite"!ssue:8hether certain provisions of RA ?5B conflict with the ripoli

Agreement"#eld:8e find it neither necessar$ nor determinative of the case to ruleon thenature of the ripoli Agreement and its binding effect on thePhilippine Governmentwhether under public international orinternal Philippine law" !n the first place, it isnow the (onstitutionitself that provides for the creation of an autonomous regionin%uslim %indanao" he standard for an$ in.uir$ into the validit$of R"A" 9o" ?5Bwould therefore be what is so provided in the(onstitution" hus, an$ conflictbetween the provisions of R"A" 9o"?5B and the provisions of the ripoli Agreementwill not have theeffect of en1oining the implementation of the 0rganic

Act"Assuming for the sake of argument that the ripoli Agreementis a binding treat$ orinternational agreement, it would thenconstitute part of the law of the land" 2ut asinternal law it wouldnot be superior to R"A" 9o" ?5B, an enactment of the (ongressofthe Philippines, rather it would be in the same class as the latter"hus, if at all,R"A" 9o" ?5B would be amendator$ of the ripoli

Agreement, being a subse.uentlaw" 0nl$ a determination b$ this(ourt that R"A" 9o" ?5B contravened the(onstitution wouldresult in the granting of the reliefs sought" he matter of thecreation of the autonomous region and its compositionneeds tobe clarified" First, the .uestioned provision itself in R"A" 9o" ?5Brefers toSection &', Article of the (onstitution which sets forththe conditions necessar$for the creation of the autonomousregion" he reference to the constitutionalprovision cannot beglossed over for it clearl$ indicates that the creation oftheautonomous region shall take place onl$ in accord with the

constitutionalre.uirements" Second, there is a specific provision inthe ransitor$ Provisions6Article !7 of the 0rganic Act, whichincorporates substantiall$ the samere.uirements embodied in the(onstitution and fills in the details" hus, under the(onstitutionand R"A" 9o ?5B, the creation of the autonomous region shalltakeeffect onl$ when approved b$ a ma1orit$ of the votes cast b$the constituent units ina plebiscite, and onl$ those provinces andcities where a ma1orit$ vote in favor of the 0rganic Act shall beincluded in the autonomous region" he provinces andcitieswherein such a ma1orit$ is not attained shall not be included in theautonomous region" !t ma$ be that even if an autonomous regionis created, not allof the thirteen 6&7 provinces and nine 647 citiesmentioned in Article !!, section & 637of R"A" 9o" ?5B shall beincluded therein" he single plebiscite contemplated b$the(onstitution and R"A" 9o" ?5B will therefore be determinativeof 6&7 whether thereshall be an autonomous region in %uslim%indanao and 637 which provinces andcities, among those

enumerated in R"A" 9o" ?5B, shall compromise it"!f the framersof the (onstitution intended to re.uire approval b$ a ma1orit$of allthe votes cast in the plebiscite the$ would have so indicated"hus, in ArticleM!!!, section 35, it is provided that ;<t=his(onstitution shall take effect immediatel$upon its ratification b$ ama1orit$ of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for thepurpose """(omparing this with the provision on the creation of theautonomousregion, it will readil$ be seen that the creation of theautonomous region is made todepend, not on the total ma1orit$vote in the plebiscite, but on the will of thema1orit$ in each of theconstituent units and the proviso underscores this" for iftheintention of the framers of the (onstitution was to get thema1orit$ of the totalit$ of the votes cast, the$ could have simpl$adopted the same phraseolog$ as that usedfor the ratification ofthe (onstitution, i"e" ;the creation of the autonomous regionshallbe effective when approved b$ a ma1orit$ of the votes cast in a



plebiscitecalled for the purpose";!t is thus clear that what isre.uired b$ the (onstitution is a simple ma1orit$ of votesapproving the organic Act in individual constituent units and not adoublema1orit$ of the votes in all constituent units put together, aswell as in the individualconstituent units"%ore importantl$,because of its categorical language, this is also the sensein whichthe vote re.uirement in the plebiscite provided under Article ,section &'must have been understood b$ the people when the$ratified the (onstitution"!nvoking the earlier cited constitutionalprovisions, petitioner %ama/o, on theother hand, maintain thatonl$ those areas which, to his view, share common anddistinctivehistorical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures,

andother relevant characteristics should be properl$ includedwithin the coverage of the autonomous region" #e insists thatR"A" 9o" ?5B is unconstitutional becauseonl$ the provinces of2asilan, Sulu, awi/awi, Lanao del Sur, Lanao del 9orteand%aguindanao and the cities of %arawi and (otabato, and notall of the thirteen 6&7provinces and nine 647 cities included in the0rganic Act, possess such concurrencein historical and culturalheritage and other relevant characteristics" 2$ includingareaswhich do not strictl$ share the same characteristics" 2$ includingareas whichdo not strictl$ share the same characteristic as theothers, petitioner claims that(ongress has epanded the scope ofthe autonomous region which the constitutionitself has prescribedto be limited"Petitioner-s argument is not tenable" he (onstitutionla$s down thestandards b$ which (ongress shall determine whichareas should constitute theautonomous region" Guided b$ theseconstitutional criteria, the ascertainment b$(ongress of the areasthat share common attributes is within the eclusive realm of the

legislature-s discretion" An$ review of this ascertainment wouldhave to go intothe wisdom of the law" his the (ourt cannot dowithout doing violence to theseparation of governmentalpowers"After assailing the inclusion of non/%uslim areas in the0rganic Act for lack of basis, petitioner %ama/o would then adoptthe etreme view that other non/%uslimareas in %indanao shouldlikewise be covered" #e argues that since the 0rganic Actcoversseveral non/%uslim areas, its scope should be further broadenedto includethe rest of the non/%uslim areas in %indanao in order for theother non/%uslimareas denies said areas e.ual protection of thelaw, and therefore is violative of the(onstitution"Petitioner-scontention runs counter to the ver$ same constitutionalprovisionhe had earlier invoked" An$ determination b$ (ongressof what areas in %indanaoshould compromise the autonomousregion, taking into account shared historicaland cultural heritage,

economic and social structures, and other relevantcharacteristics,would necessaril$ carr$ with it the eclusion of other areas" Asearlier stated, such determination b$ (ongress of which areasshould be covered b$the organic act for the autonomous regionconstitutes a recogni*ed legislativeprerogative, whose wisdomma$ not be in.uired into b$ this (ourt"2oth petitions also .uestionthe validit$ of R"A" 9o" ?5B on the ground that itviolates theconstitutional guarantee on free eercise of religion" heob1ectioncenters on a provision in the 0rganic Act whichmandates that should there be an$conflict between the %uslim(ode and the ribal (ode 6still be enacted7 on the onehad, andthe national law on the other hand, the Shari-ah courts createdunder thesame Act should appl$ national law" Petitioners maintainthat the islamic law6Shari-ah7 is derived from the Uoran, whichmakes it part of divine law" hus it ma$not be sub1ected to an$;man/made; national law" Petitioner Abbas supports thisob1ectionb$ enumerating possible instances of conflict between provisions

of the%uslim (ode and national law, wherein an application ofnational law might beoffensive to a %uslim-s religiousconvictions"!n the present case, no actual controvers$ betweenreal litigants eists" hereare no conflicting claims involving theapplication of national law resulting in analleged violation ofreligious freedom" his being so, the (ourt in this case ma$ notbecalled upon to resolve what is merel$ a perceived potentialconflict between theprovisions the %uslim (ode and nationallaw"According to petitioners, said provision grants the Presidentthe power tomerge regions, a power which is not conferred b$ the(onstitution upon thePresident" hat the President ma$ choose tomerge eisting regions pursuant to the0rganic Act is challengedas being in conflict with Article , Section &D of the(onstitution" !tmust be pointed out that what is referred to in R"A" 9o" ?5B isthemerger of administrative regions, i"e" Regions ! to !! and the9ational (apitalRegion, which are mere groupings of contiguous

provinces for administrativepurposes" Administrative regions arenot territorial and political subdivisions likeprovinces, cities,municipalities and baranga$s" 8hile the power tomergeadministrative regions is not epressl$ provided for in the(onstitution, it is a powerwhich has traditionall$ been lodged withthe President to facilitate the eercise of the power of generalsupervision over local governments" here is no conflictbetweenthe power of the President to merge administrative regions withtheconstitutional provision re.uiring a plebiscite in the merger oflocal governmentunits because the re.uirement of a plebiscite ina merger epressl$ applies onl$ toprovinces, cities, municipalitiesor baranga$s, not to administrative regions"Petitioners likewise

.uestion the validit$ of provisions in the 0rganic Actwhich createan 0versight (ommittee to supervise the transfer to theautonomousregion of the powers, appropriations, and propertiesvested upon the regionalgovernment b$ the organic Act" Saidprovisions mandate that the transfer of certainnationalgovernment offices and their properties to the regionalgovernment shallbe made pursuant to a schedule prescribed b$the 0versight (ommittee, and thatsuch transfer should be accomplished within si 6?7 $ears fromthe organi*ation of the regional government"!t is asserted b$petitioners that such provisions are unconstitutional becausewhilethe (onstitution states that the creation of the autonomous regionshall takeeffect upon approval in a plebiscite, the re.uirement oforgani*ing an 0versightcommittee tasked with supervising thetransfer of powers and properties to theregional governmentwould in effect dela$ the creation of the autonomous region"Endethe (onstitution, the creation of the autonomous region hinges

onl$ onthe result of the plebiscite" if the 0rganic Act is approvedb$ ma1orit$ of the votescast b$ constituent units in the scheduledplebiscite, the creation of theautonomous region immediatel$takes effect dela$ the creation of the autonomousregion"Enderthe constitution, the creation of the autonomous region hingesonl$ onthe result of the plebiscite" if the 0rganic Act is approvedb$ ma1orit$ of the votescast b$ constituent units in the scheduledplebiscite, the creation of theautonomous region immediatel$takes effect" he .uestioned provisions in R"A" 9o"?5B re.uiringan oversight (ommittee to supervise the transfer do not providefora different date of effectivit$" %uch less would the organi*ationof the 0versight(ommittee cause an impediment to the operationof the 0rganic Act, for such isevidentl$ aimed at effecting asmooth transition period for the regional government" heconstitutional ob1ection on this point thus cannot be sustained asthere is nobases therefor"Jver$ law has in its favor the

presumption of constitutionalit$" hose whopetition this (ourt todeclare a law, or parts thereof, unconstitutional mustclearl$establish the basis for such a declaration" otherwise, theirpetition must fail" 2asedon the grounds raised b$ petitioners tochallenge the constitutionalit$ of R"A" 9o"?5B, the (ourt findsthat petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption"hedismissal of these two petitions is, therefore, inevitable"

(ordillera 2road (oalition vs (0A)ate: anuar$ 34,&44DPetitioner: (ordillera 2road (oalitionRespondent: (0A, etalPonente: (ortesFacts:/J0 33D, issued b$ the President in theeercise of her legislative powers under Art" M!!!,sec" ? of the(onstitution, created the (AR" !t was created to accelerateeconomic and socialgrowth in the region and to prepare for theestablishment of the autonomous region in the(ordilleras" !tsmain function is to coordinate the planning and implementation ofprograms andservices in the region, particularl$, to coordinate

with the local government units as well as withthe eecutivedepartments of the 9ational Government in the supervision offield offices and inidentif$ing, planning, monitoring, and acceptingpro1ects and activities in the region" !t shall alsomonitor theimplementation of all ongoing national and local governmentpro1ects in the region" he (AR shall have a (ordillera Regional

Assembl$ as a polic$/formulating bod$ and a (ordilleraJecutive2oard as an implementing arm" he (AR and the Assembl$ andJecutive 2oard shalleist until such time as the autonomousregional government is established and organi*ed"!n these casespetitioners principall$ argue that b$ issuing J"0" 9o" 33D thePresident, inthe eercise of her legislative powers prior to theconvening of the first (ongress under the &4'5(onstitution, hasvirtuall$ pre/empted (ongress from its mandated task of enactingan organicact and created an autonomous region in the(ordilleras"!ssue:809 J0 33D is valid#eld:KesRatio: A reading



of J"0" 9o" 33D will easil$ reveal that what it actuall$ envisions istheconsolidation and coordination of the deliver$ of services ofline departments and agencies of the 9ational Government in theareas covered b$ the administrative region as a steppreparator$to the grant of autonom$ to the (ordilleras" !t does notcreate the autonomous regioncontemplated in the (onstitution" !tmerel$ provides for transitor$ measures in anticipation oftheenactment of an organic act and the creation of anautonomous region" !n short, it prepares theground for autonom$"his does not necessaril$ conflict with the provisions of the(onstitution onautonomous regions, as we shall showlater"%oreover, the transitor$ nature of the (AR does not

necessaril$ mean that it is, aspetitioner (ordillera 2road (oalitionasserts, ;the interim autonomous region in the (ordilleras;" he(onstitution provides for a basic structure of government in theautonomous regioncomposed of an elective eecutive andlegislature and special courts with personal, famil$ andpropert$law 1urisdiction" Esing this as a guide, we find that J"0" 9o" 33Ddid not establish anautonomous regional government" !t created aregion, covering a specified area, foradministrative purposes withthe main ob1ective of coordinating the planningandimplementation of programs and services" o determinepolic$, it created a representativeassembl$, to convene $earl$onl$ for a five/da$ regular session, tasked with, amongothers,identif$ing priorit$ pro1ects and development programs" oserve as an implementing bod$, itcreated the (ordillera Jecutive2oard" he bodies created b$ J"0" 9o" 33D do not supplanttheeisting local governmental structure, nor are the$autonomous government agencies" he$merel$ constitute the

mechanism for an ;umbrella; that brings together the eistinglocalgovernments, the agencies of the 9ational Government, theethno/linguistic groups or tribes,and non/governmentalorgani*ations in a concerted effort to spur development in the(ordilleras

!ssue:809 (AR is a territorial and political subdivision"

#eld:9o

Ratio:8e have seen earlier that the (AR is not the autonomousregion in the (ordillerascontemplated b$ the (onstitution" hus,we now address petitioners- assertion that J"0" 9o"33Dcontravenes the (onstitution b$ creating a new territorial andpolitical subdivision" After carefull$considering the provisions ofJ"0" 9o" 33D, we find that it did not create a new territorial

andpolitical subdivision or merge eisting ones into a largersubdivision"Firstl$, the (AR is not a public corporation or aterritorial and political subdivision" !t doesnot have a separate

1uridical personalit$, unlike provinces, cities and municipalities"9either is itvested with the powers that are normall$ granted topublic corporations, e"g" the power to sueand be sued, the powerto own and dispose of propert$, the power to create its ownsources of revenue, etc" As stated earlier, the (AR was createdprimaril$ to coordinate the planning andimplementation ofprograms and services in the covered areas" he creation ofadministrative regions for the purpose of epediting the deliver$ ofservices is nothing new" he !ntegrated Reorgani*ation Plan of&453, which was made as part of the law of the land b$ virtue ofP) &, established &&regions, later increased to &3, withdefiniteregional centers and re.uired departments and agenciesof the Jecutive 2ranch of the 9ationalGovernment to set up fieldoffices therein" he functions of the regional offices to be

establishedpursuant to the Reorgani*ation Plan are: 6&7 toimplement laws, policies, plans, programs, rulesand regulations ofthe department or agenc$ in the regional areas@ 637 to provideeconomical,efficient and effective service to the people in thearea@ 67 to coordinate with regional offices of other departments,bureaus and agencies in the area@ 6B7 to coordinate with localgovernmentunits in the area@ and 6C7 to perform such otherfunctions as ma$ be provided b$ law"(AR is in the same genre asthe administrative regions created under the Reorgani*ationPlan,albeit under J"0" 9o" 33D the operation of the (AR re.uires theparticipation not onl$ of theline departments and agencies of the9ational Government but also the local governments,ethno/linguistic groups and non/governmental organi*ations in bringingabout the desiredob1ectives and the appropriation of funds solel$for that purpose"!ssue:809 the creation of the (AR contravenedthe constitutional guarantee of the localautonom$ for the

provinces 6Abra, 2enguet, !fugao, Ualinga/Apa$ao and %ountainProvince7 andcit$ 62aguio (it$7 which compose the(AR"#eld:9oRatio:!t must be clarified that the constitutionalguarantee of local autonom$ in the (onstitutionrefers to theadministrative autonom$ of local government units or, cast inmore technicallanguage, the decentrali*ation of governmentauthorit$" Local autonom$ is not uni.ue to the&4'5 (onstitution, itbeing guaranteed also under the &45 (onstitution" And whilethere was noepress guarantee under the &4C (onstitution, the(ongress enacted the Local Autonom$ Act6R"A" 9o" 33?B7 andthe )ecentrali*ation Act 6R"A" 9o" C&'C7, which ushered theirreversiblemarch towards further enlargement of local autonom$

in the countr$"0n the other hand, the creation of autonomousregions in %uslim %indanao and the(ordilleras, which is peculiarto the &4'5 (onstitution, contemplates the grant ofpoliticalautonom$ and not 1ust administrative autonom$ to theseregions" hus, the provision in the(onstitution for an autonomousregional government with a basic structure consisting ofaneecutive department and a legislative assembl$ and specialcourts with personal, famil$ andpropert$ law 1urisdiction in each ofthe autonomous regions"As we have said earlier, the (AR is amere transitor$ coordinating agenc$ that wouldprepare the stagefor political autonom$ for the (ordilleras" !t fills in the resulting gapin theprocess of transforming a group of ad1acent territorial andpolitical subdivisions alread$ en1o$inglocal or administrativeautonom$ into an autonomous region vested with politicalautonom$"

)isomangcop vs )atumanong)ate: 9ovember 3C,3DDBPetitioners: Arsadi )isomangcop and Ramir)imalotongRespondents: )P8# Secretar$ Simeon )atumanongand )2% Secretar$ Jmilia 2oncodinPonente: ingaFacts:(hallenged in the instant petition for certiorari, prohibition andmandamus with pra$er for atemporar$ restraining order andIorwrit of preliminar$ in1unction are the constitutionalit$ andvalidit$ ofRepublic Act 9o" '444 entitled NAn Act Jstablishing AnJngineering )istrict in the First)istrict of the Province of Lanaodel Sur and Appropriating Funds herefor,O and )epartment ofPublic 8orks and #ighwa$s 6)P8#7 )epartment 0rder 9o" &&4on the sub1ect, N(reation of %arawiSub/)istrict Jngineering0ffice"OPursuant to the constitutional mandate, Republic Act 9o"?5B 6R"A" ?5B7, entitled NAn ActProviding for An 0rganic Act forthe Autonomous Region in %uslim %indanao,O was enactedandsigned into law on & August &4'4" he law called for the

holding of a plebiscite in the provinces of 2asilan, (otabato,)avao del Sur, Lanao del 9orte, Lanao del Sur, %aguindanao,Palawan, South(otabato, Sultan Uudarat, Sulu, awi/awi,+amboanga del 9orte, and +amboanga del Sur, and thecities of(otabato, )apitan, )ipolog, General Santos, !ligan, %arawi,Pagadian, Puerto Princesa and+amboanga" !n the plebiscite, onl$four 6B7 provinces voted for the creation of an autonomousregion,namel$: Lanao del Sur, %aguindanao, Sulu and awi/awi"hese provinces became theAutonomous Region in %uslim%indanao 6AR%%7" he law contains elaborate provisions onthepowers of the Regional Government and the areas of

1urisdiction which are reserved for the9ational Government"President A.uino issued J"0" B3?, entitled NPlacing the (ontrolandSupervision of the 0ffices of the )P8# within the AR%%under the Autonomous RegionalGovernment, and for otherpurposes"O9earl$ nine 647 $ears later, then )P8# Secretar$Gregorio R" Migilar issued )"0" &&46(reation of %arawi Sub/

)istrict Jngineering 0fficewhich shall have 1urisdiction over allnationalinfrastructure pro1ects and facilities under the )P8#within %arawi (it$ and the province of Lanaodel Sur"7Almost two$ears later, President Jstrada approved and signed into law R"A"'4446establishing engineering district in lanao del sur7"(ongresslater passed R"A" 4DCB, entitled NAn Act to Strengthen andJpand the 0rganic Actfor the Autonomous Region in %uslim%indanao, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act 9o"?5B,entitled An Act Providing for the Autonomous Region in%uslim %indanao, as Amended"O0n 3 ul$ 3DD&, petitionersaddressed a petition to )P8# Secretar$ Simeon)atumanong,seeking the revocation of )"0" &&4 and the non/implementation of R"A" '444" 9o action, however,was taken onthe petition"<Petitioners allege that )"0" &&4 was issued withgrave abuse of discretion and that itviolates the constitutionalautonom$ of the AR%%" he$ point out that the challenged



)epartment0rder has tasked the %arawi Sub/)istrict Jngineering0ffice with functions that have alread$ beendevolved to the)P8#/AR%% First Jngineering )istrict in Lanao delSur"Petitioners also contend that R"A" '444 is a piece oflegislation that was not intelligentl$ andthoroughl$ studied, andthat the eplanator$ note to #ouse 2ill 9o" 44C 6#"2" 44C7 fromwhich thelaw originated is .uestionable" Petitioners assert as wellthat prior to the sponsorship of the law, nopublic hearing norconsultation with the )P8#/AR%% was made" he #ouse(ommittee on Public8orks and #ighwa$s 6(ommittee7 failed toinvite a single official from the affected agenc$" Finall$,petitionersargue that the law was skillfull$ timed for signature b$ former

President oseph J"Jstrada during the pendenc$ of theimpeachment proceedings"!ssue:PreliminariesRatio: !n seeking tonullif$ acts of the legislature and the eecutive department on theground thatthe$ contravene the (onstitution, the petition no doubtraises a 1usticiable controvers$" he challenge to the legalstanding of petitioners cannot succeed" Legal standing orlocusstandi is defined as a personal and substantial interest in thecase such that the part$ hassustained or will sustain direct in1ur$as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged"he term NinterestO means a material interest, an interest in issueaffected b$ the decree, asdistinguished from a mere interest inthe .uestion involved, or a mere incidental interest"2ut followingthe new trend, this (ourt is inclined to take cogni*ance of a suitalthough itdoes not satisf$ the re.uirement of legal standing whenparamount interests are involved" !nseveral cases, the (ourt hasadopted a liberal stance on the locus standi of a petitioner wherethepetitioner is able to craft an issue of transcendental

significance to the people"!t is not far/fetched that the creation ofthe %arawi Sub/)istrict Jngineering 0ffice under)"0" &&4 andthe creation of and appropriation of funds to the First Jngineering)istrict of Lanaodel Sur as directed under R"A" '444 will affect thepowers, functions and responsibilities of thepetitioners and the)P8#/AR%%" As the two offices have apparentl$ been endowedwith functionsalmost identical to those of )P8#/AR%% FirstJngineering )istrict in Lanao del Sur, it is likel$ thatpetitioners arein imminent danger of being eased out of their duties and, notremotel$, even their 1obs" heir material and substantial interestswill definitel$ be pre1udiced b$ the enforcement of )"0" &&4 andR"A" '444" Such in1ur$ is direct and immediate" hus, the$ canlegitimatel$ challengethe validit$ of the enactments sub1ect of theinstant case"!ssue:809 Republic Act 9o" '444 wasvalid#eld:9oRatio: he challenged law never became operativeand was superseded or repealed b$ asubse.uent enactment" he

AR%% 0rganic Acts are deemed a part of the regionalautonom$scheme" 8hile the$ are classified as statutes, the0rganic Acts are more than ordinar$ statutesbecause the$ en1o$affirmation b$ a plebiscite" #ence, the provisions thereof cannotbe amendedb$ an ordinar$ statute, such as R"A" '444 in thiscase" he amendator$ law has to be submitted toaplebiscite"Although R"A" 4DCB was enacted later, it reaffirmed theimperativeness of the plebiscitere.uirement" !n fact, R"A" 4DCBitself, being the second or later AR%% 0rganic Act, wassub1ectedto and ratified in a plebiscite" he first AR%% 0rganic

Act, R"A" ?D5B, as implemented b$ J"0" B3?, devolved thefunctionsof the )P8# in the AR%% which includes Lanao del Sur6minus %arawi (it$ at the time7 to theRegional Government" 2$creating an office with previousl$ devolved functions, R"A" '444,inessence, sought to amend R"A" ?D5B" he amendator$ lawshould therefore first obtain theapproval of the people of the

AR%% before it could validl$ take effect" Absent compliance with

thisre.uirement, R"A" '444 has not even become operative"Fromanother perspective, R"A" '444 was repealed and superseded b$R"A" 4DCB" 8here astatute of later date clearl$ reveals anintention on the part of the legislature to abrogate a prior actonthe sub1ect, that intention must be given effect" R"A" 4DCB isanchored on the &4'5 (onstitution"!t advances the constitutionalgrant of autonom$ b$ detailing the powers of the ARGcovering,among others, Lanao del Sur and %arawi (it$, one ofwhich is its 1urisdiction over regional urbanand rural planning" R"A"'444, however, ventures to reestablish the 9ationalGovernments 1urisdiction over infrastructure programs in Lanaodel Sur" R"A" '444 is patentl$ inconsistent withR"A" 4DCB, and itdestro$s the latter laws ob1ective"(learl$, R"A" '444 isantagonistic to and cannot be reconciled with both AR%%0rganic Acts,R"A" ?5B and R"A" 4DCB" he kernel of theantagonism and disharmon$ lies in the regionalautonom$ which

the AR%% 0rganic Acts ordain pursuant to the (onstitution" 0nthe other hand,R"A" '444 contravenes true decentrali*ation whichis the essence of regional autonom$"Regional Autonom$ EnderR"A" ?5B and R"A" 4DCB he idea behind the (onstitutionalprovisions for autonomous regions is to allow theseparatedevelopment of peoples with distinctive cultures and traditions"hese cultures, as amatter of right, must be allowed toflourish"Autonom$, as a national polic$, recogni*es the wholenessof the Philippine societ$ in i tsethnolinguistic, cultural, and evenreligious diversities" !t strives to free Philippine societ$ of thestrainand wastage caused b$ the assimilationist approach" Policiesemanating from the legislatureare invariabl$ assimilationist in

character despite channels being open for minorit$representation"As a result, democrac$ becomes an iron$ to theminorit$ group"he need for regional autonom$ is more pressing in the case ofthe Filipino %uslims and the(ordillera people who have beenfighting for it" heir political struggle highlights their uni.ueculturesand the unresponsiveness of the unitar$ s$stem to theiraspirations" he %oros strugglefor self/determination dates as faback as the Spanish con.uest in the Philippines" Jven atpresent,the struggle goes on"#owever, the creation ofautonomous regions does not signif$ the establishment ofasovereignt$ distinct from that of the Republic, as it can beinstalled onl$ Nwithin the framework of this (onstitution and thenational sovereignt$ as well as territorial integrit$ of the Republicof thePhilippines"O he ob1ective of the autonom$ s$stem is topermit determined groups, with a commontradition and sharedsocial/cultural characteristics, to develop freel$ their wa$s of life

and heritage,eercise their rights, and be in charge of their ownbusiness" his is achieved through theestablishment of a specialgovernance regime for certain member communities who choosetheirown authorities from within the communit$ and eercise the

1urisdictional authorit$ legall$accorded to them to decide internalcommunit$ affairs"!n the Philippine setting, regional autonom$implies the cultivation of more positive meansfor nationalintegration" !t would remove the wariness among the %uslims,increase their trust inthe government and pave the wa$ for theunhampered implementation of the developmentprograms in theregionA necessar$ prere.uisite of autonom$ is decentrali*ation")ecentrali*ation is a decision b$the central governmentauthori*ing its subordinates, whether geographicall$ orfunctionall$defined, to eercise authorit$ in certain areas" !tinvolves decision/making b$ subnational units" !tis t$picall$ adelegated power, wherein a larger government chooses to

delegate certain authorit$to more local governments" Federalismimplies some measure of decentrali*ation, but unitar$s$stemsma$ also decentrali*e" )ecentrali*ation differs intrinsicall$ fromfederalism in that the sub/units that have been authori*ed to act6b$ delegation7 do not possess an$ claim of right againstthecentral government")ecentrali*ation comes in two formsdeconcentration and devolution" )econcentration isadministrativein nature@ it involves the transfer of functions or the delegation ofauthorit$ andresponsibilit$ from the national office to the regionaland local offices" his mode of decentrali*ation is also referred toas administrative decentrali*ation")evolution, on the other hand,connotes political decentrali*ation, or the transfer ofpowers,responsibilities, and resources for the performance ofcertain functions from the centralgovernment to local governmentunits" his is a more liberal form of decentrali*ation since thereisan actual transfer of powers and responsibilities" !t aims to grantgreater autonom$ to localgovernment units in cogni*ance of their

right to self/government, to make them self/reliant, and toimprovetheir administrative and technical capabilities" he diminution of(ongress powers over autonomous regions was confirmed inGan*on v"(A wherein this (ourt held that Nthe omission 6of Nasma$ be provided b$ lawO7 signifies nothingmore than tounderscore local governments autonom$ from (ongress and tobreak (ongressVcontrol over local government affairs"O his istrue to sub1ects over which autonomous regions have powers, asspecified in Sections&' and 3D, Article of the &4'5 (onstitution"Jpressl$ not included therein are powers overcertain areas"8orth$ of note is that the area of public works is not ecluded andneither is itreserved for the 9ational Government"J"0" B3?officiall$ devolved the powers and functions of the )P8# in

AR%% to theAutonomous Regional Government 6ARG7" %oreimportantl$, (ongress itself through R"A" 4DCBtransferred anddevolved the administrative and fiscal management of public



works and funds forpublic works to the ARG"!n treading theirchosen path of development, the %uslims in %indanao are to begivenfreedom and independence with minimum interference fromthe 9ational Government" hisnecessaril$ includes the freedom todecide on, build, supervise and maintain the public worksandinfrastructure pro1ects within the autonomous region" hedevolution of the powers and functions of the )P8# in the AR%%and transfer of the administrative and fiscal management of publicworksand funds to the ARG are meant to be true, meaningful andunfettered" his unassailableconclusion is grounded on a clear consensus, reached at the(onstitutional (ommission and ratifiedb$ the entire Filipino

electorate, on the centralit$ of decentrali*ation of power as theappropriatevessel of deliverance for %uslim Filipinos and theultimate unit$ of %uslims and (hristians in thiscountr$"8ith R"A"'444, however, this freedom is taken awa$, and the 9ationalGovernment takescontrol again" he hands, once more, of theautonomous peoples are reined in and tied up" he challengedlaw creates an office with functions and powers which, b$ virtue ofJ"0" B3?,have been previousl$ devolved to the )P8#/AR%%,First Jngineering )istrict in Lanao del Sur" J"0"B3? clearl$ordains the transfer of the control and supervision of the offices ofthe )P8# within theAR%%, including their functions, powers andresponsibilities, personnel, e.uipment, properties, andbudgets tothe ARG" Among its other functions, the )P8#/AR%%, under thecontrol of the RegionalGovernment shall be responsible forhighwa$s, flood control and water resource developments$stems,and other public works within the AR%%" !ts scope of powerincludes the planning, design,construction and supervision of

public works" According to RA 4DCB, the reach of theRegionalGovernment enables it to appropriate, manage anddisburse all public work funds allocated for theregion b$ thecentral government" he use of the word NpowersO in J0 B3?manifests anunmistakable case of devolution"!t is clear from theforegoing provision of law that ecept for the areas of eecutivepowermentioned therein, all other such areas shall be eercisedb$ the Autonomous RegionalGovernment 6NARGO7 of the

Autonomous Region in %uslim %indanao" !t is noted thatprogramsrelative to infrastructure facilities, health, education,women in development, agricultural etensionand watershedmanagement do not fall under an$ of the eempted areas listed inthe provision of law" hus, the inevitable conclusion is that allthese spheres of eecutive responsibilit$ have beentransferred tothe ARG"R"A" '444 has made the )P8#/AR%% effete andrendered regional autonom$ illusor$ withrespect to infrastructure

pro1ects" he (ongressional Record shows, on the other hand,that theNlack of an implementing and monitoring bod$ within theareaO has hindered the speed$implementation, of infrastructurepro1ects" Apparentl$, in the legislatures estimation, theeisting)P8#/AR%% engineering districts failed to measure upto the task" 2ut if it was indeed the case,the problem could not besolved through the simple legislative creation of anincongruousengineering district for the central government in the

AR%%" As it was, #ouse 2ill 9o" 44C whichultimatel$ becameR"A" '444 was passed in record time on second reading 6notmore than &Dminutes7, absolutel$ without the usual sponsorshipspeech and debates" he precipitate speedwhich characteri*edthe passage of R"A" '444 is difficult to comprehend since R"A"'444 could haveresulted in the amendment of the first AR%%0rganic Act and, therefore, could not take effectwithout first beingratified in a plebiscite" 8hat is more baffling is that in %arch 3DD&,or barel$ two637 months after it enacted R"A" '444 in anuar$

3DD&, (ongress passed R"A" 4DCB, the secondAR%% 0rganic Act, where it reaffirmed the devolution of the )P8# in AR%%,including Lanao delSur and %arawi (it$, to the RegionalGovernment and effectivel$ repealed R"A" '444"!ssue:809)P8# )epartment 0rder 9o" &&4 was validRatio: )"0" &&4creating the %arawi Sub/)istrict Jngineering 0ffice which has

1urisdiction overinfrastructure pro1ects within %arawi (it$ andLanao del Sur is violative of the provisions of J"0"B3?" heJecutive 0rder was issued pursuant to R"A" ?5Bwhichinitiated the creation of theconstitutionall$/mandated autonomousregion and which defined the basic structure of theautonomousgovernment" J"0" B3? sought to implement the transfer of thecontrol and supervisionof the )P8# within the AR%% to the

Autonomous Regional Government" !n particular, it identifiedfour6B7 )istrict Jngineering 0ffices in each of the four 6B7 provinces,namel$: Lanao del Sur,%aguindanao, Sulu and awi/awi"<'4=

Accordingl$, the First Jngineering )istrict of the )P8#/AR%% inLanao del Sur has 1urisdiction over the public works within theprovince" he office created under )"0" &&4, having essentiall$the same powers, is a duplication of the )P8#/AR%% FirstJngineering )istrict in Lanao del Sur formed under the aegis ofJ"0" B3?" he department order, in effect, takes back powerswhich have been previousl$ devolved under thesaid eecutiveorder" )"0" &&4 runs counter to the provisions of J"0" B3?" he)P8#s order, likespring water, cannot rise higher than its sourceof powerthe Jecutive" he fact that the department order wasissued pursuant to J"0" &3Bsigned and approvedb$ President

A.uino in her residual legislative powersis of no moment" !t is a

finel$/imbedded principle in statutor$ construction that a special provision or lawprevails over a general one"<4D=Le specialis derogant generali"

As this (ourt epressed in the case of Leveri*a v"!ntermediateAppellate (ourt,<4&= Nanother basic principle ofstatutor$ construction mandates that generallegislation must givewa$ to special legislation on the same sub1ect, and generall$ beso interpretedas to embrace onl$ cases in which the specialprovisions are not applicable, that specific statuteprevails over ageneral statute and that where two statutes are of e.ualtheoretical application to aparticular case, the one designedtherefor speciall$ should prevail"OJ"0" 9o" &3B, upon which )"0"&&4 is based, is a general law reorgani*ing the %inistr$ of Public8orks and #ighwa$s while J"0" B3? is a special law transferringthe control and supervisionof the )P8# offices within AR%% tothe Autonomous Regional Government" he latter

statutespecificall$ applies to )P8#/AR%% offices" J"0" &3Bshould therefore give wa$ to J"0" B3? in theinstant case"!n an$event, the AR%% 0rganic Acts and their ratification in a plebiscitein effectsuperseded J"0" &3B" !n case of an irreconcilable conflictbetween two laws of different vintages,the later enactmentprevails because it is the later legislative will"Further, in itsrepealing clause, R"A" 4DCB states that Nall laws, decrees, orders,rules andregulations, and other issuances or parts thereof, whichare inconsistent with this 0rganic Act, arehereb$ repealed ormodified accordingl$"O 8ith the repeal of J"0" &3B which is thebasis of )"0"&&4, it necessaril$ follows that )"0" &&4 was alsorendered functus officio b$ the AR%% 0rganicActs"

SJ%A v (0%JLJ(

Municipal )orporaion . )reaion o* -/s b# Auonomous Regions

ARMM . opulaion Reuiremen

he Province of %aguindanao is part of AR%%" (otabato (it$ is par

of the province of %aguindanao but it is not part or AR%% because

(otabato (it$ voted against its inclusion in a plebiscite held in &4'4

%aguindanao has two legislative districts" he &stlegislative distric

comprises of (otabato (it$ and ' other municipalities"

A law 6RA 4DCB7 was passed amending AR%%s 0rganic Act and

vesting it with power to create provinces, municipalities, cities and

baranga$s" Pursuant to this law, the AR%% Regional Assembl$

created Shariff Uabunsuan 6%uslim %indanao Autonom$ Act 3D&

which comprised of the municipalities of the &st district of %aguindanao

with the eception of (otabato (it$"

For the purposes of the 3DD5 elections, (0%JLJ( initiall$ stated tha

the &st district is now onl$ made of (otabato (it$ 6because of %%A

3D&7" 2ut it later amended this stating that status .uo should be



retained however 1ust for the purposes of the elections, the first district

should be called Shariff Uabunsuan with (otabato (it$ this is also

while awaiting a decisive declaration from (ongress as to (otabatos

status as a legislative district 6or part of an$7"

Sema was a congressional candidate for the legislative district of S"

Uabunsuan with (otabato 6&st district7" Later, Sema was contending

that (otabato (it$ should be a separate legislative district and that

votes therefrom should be ecluded in the voting 6probabl$ because

her rival )ilangalen was from there and ) was winning in fact he

won7" She contended that under the (onstitution, upon creation of a

province 6S" Uabunsuan7, that province automaticall$ gains legislative

representation and since S" Uabunsuan ecludes (otabato (it$ so in

effect (otabato is being deprived of a representative in the #0R"

(0%JLJ( maintained that the legislative district is still there and that

regardless of S" Uabunsuan being created, the legislative district is not

affected and so is its representation"

'SS"#4 8hether or not RA 4DCB is unconstitutional" 8hether or not

AR%% can create validl$ LGEs"

5#L/4 RA 4DCB is unconstitutional" he creation of local government

units is governed b$ Section &D, Article of the (onstitution, which

provides:

4ec& 10& No province, ci#, municipali#, or baranga# ma# be creae',

'ivi'e', merge', abolishe' or is boun'ar# subsaniall# alere' e(cep

in accor'ance 5ih he crieria esablishe' in he local governmen

co'e an' sub6ec o approval b# a ma6ori# o* he voes cas in a

plebiscie in he poliical unis 'irecl# a**ece'&

hus, the creation of an$ of the four local government units province,

cit$, municipalit$ or baranga$ must compl$ with three conditions" First,

the creation of a local government unit must follow the criteria fied in

the Local Government (ode" Second, such creation must not conflict

with an$ provision of the (onstitution" hird, there must be a plebiscite

in the political units affected"

here is neither an epress prohibition nor an epress grant of

authorit$ in the (onstitution for (ongress to delegate to regional or

local legislative bodies the power to create local government units"

#owever, under its plenar$ legislative powers, (ongress can delegate

to local legislative bodies the power to create local government units

sub1ect to reasonable standards and provided no conflict arises with

an$ provision of the (onstitution" !n fact, (ongress has delegated to

provincial boards, and cit$ and municipal councils, the power to create

baranga$s within their 1urisdiction, sub1ect to compliance with the

criteria established in the Local Government (ode, and the plebiscite

re.uirement in Section &D, Article of the (onstitution" #ence, AR%%

cannot validl$ create Shariff Uabunsuan province"

9ote that in order to create a cit$ there must be at least a population o

at least 3CDk, and that a province, once created, should have at leas

one representative in the #0R" 9ote further that in order to have a

legislative district, there must at least be 3CDk 6population7 in said

district" (otabato (it$ did not meet the population re.uirement so

Semas contention is untenable" 0n the other hand, AR%% canno

validl$ create the province of S" Uabunsuan without first creating a

legislative district" 2ut this can never be legall$ possible because the

creation of legislative districts is vested solel$ in (ongress" At most

what AR%% can create are baranga$s not cities and provinces"

Facts:

0n August 3', 3DD?, the AR%% Regional Assembl$, eercising its

power to create provinces under Sec"&4, Art"M! of RA 4DCB, enacted%uslim %indanao Autonom$ Act 9o" 3D& 6%%A Act 3D&7 creating theprovince of Shariff Uabunsuan in the first district of %aguindanao"

he voters of %aguindanao ratified Shariff Uabunsuans creation in aplebiscite held on 0ctober 34, 3DD?"

0n Februar$ ?, 3DD5, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of (otabato (it$passed Resolution 9o" 444 re.uesting the (0%JLJ( to Nclarif$ thestatus of (otabato (it$ in view of the conversion of the First )istrict of%aguindanao into a regular provinceO under %%A Act 3D&"

!n an answer to (otabato (it$s .uer$, the (0%JLJ( issuedResolution 9o" D5/DBD5 Nmaintaining the status .uo with (otabato (it$as part of Shariff Uabunsuan in the First Legislative )istrict of%aguindanao"O

#owever, in preparation for the %a$ &B, 3DD5 elections, the (0%JLJ(promulgated Resolution 9o" 5'BC stating that %aguindanaos firstlegislative district is composed onl$ of (otabato (it$ because of theenactment of %%A Act 9o" 3D&" 0n %a$ &D, 3DD5, the (0%JLJ(issued Resolution 9o" 54D3 amending Resolution 9o" D5/DBD5 b$renaming the legislative district in .uestion as NShariff UabunsanProvince with (otabato (it$O"

Sema, who was a candidate for Representative of NShariff Uabunsuanwith (otabato (it$O pra$ed for the nullification of Resolution 9o" 54D3and the eclusion from the canvassing of votes cast in (otabato forthat office" Sema contended that Shariff Uabunsuan is entitled to onerepresentative in (ongress under Sec" C67, Art" M! of the (onstitutionand Sec" of the 0rdinance appended to the (onstitution"



!ssues:

&" 8hether Sec" &4, Art" M! of RA 4DCB delegating to the AR%%Regional Assembl$ the power to create provinces, cities, municipalitiesand baranga$s is constitutional"

3" 8hether a province created under Sec" &4, Art"M! of RA 4DCB isentitled to one representative in the #ouse of Representatives withoutneed of a national law creating a legislative district for such province"

#eld:

&"Sec"&4, Art"M! of RA 4DCB is E9(09S!E!09AL, insofar as itgrants to the AR%% Regional Assembl$ the power to create provincesand cities,for being contrar$ to Sec" C of Art"M! and Sec"3D of Art" ofthe (onstitution, as well as Sec" of the 0rdinance appended to the(onstitution"

he creation of LGEs is governed b$ Sec"&D, Art" of the (onstitution:

N9o province, cit$, municipalit$, or baranga$ ma$ be created, divided,merged, abolished or its boundar$ substantiall$ altered ecept inaccordance with the criteria established in the local government code6LG(7 and sub1ect to approval b$ a ma1orit$ of the votes cast in aplebiscite in the political units directl$ affected"O

hus, the creation of an$ LGE must compl$ with conditions: First, thecreation of an LGE must follow the criteria fied in the LG(" Second,such creation must not conflict with an$ provision of the (onstitution"

hird, there must be a plebiscite in the political units affected"

here is neither an epress prohibition nor an epress grant ofauthorit$ in the (onstitution for (ongress to delegate toregionalIlegislative bodies the power to create LGEs"#owever, underits plenar$ powers, (ongress can delegate to local legislative bodiesthe power to create LGEs sub1ect to reasonable standards andprovided no conflict arises with an$ provisions of the (onstitution" !nfact, the delegation to regional legislative bodies of the power to createmunicipalities and baranga$s is constitutional, provided the criteriaestablished in the LG( and the plebiscite re.uirement in Sec" &D, Art" of the (onstitution is complied"

#owever, the creation of provinces is another matter" Ender the LG(,Nonl$ an Act of (ongressO can create provinces, cities, ormunicipalities"

According to, Sec" C 67, Art"M! of the (onstitution:

NJach (it$ with a population of at least 3CD,DDD, or each province, shallhave at least & representative in the #ouse of Representatives"O

Similarl$, Sec" of the 0rdinance appended to the (onstitutionprovides,

NAn$ province that ma$ hereafter be created, or an$ cit$ whosepopulation ma$ hereafter increase to more than 3CD,DDD shall beentitled in the immediatel$ following election to at least & %emberO"

hus, onl$ (ongress can create provinces and cities because thecreation of provinces and cities necessaril$ includes the creation oflegislative districts, a power onl$ (ongress can eercise under Sec" C,

Art"M! of the (onstitution and Sec" of the 0rdinance appended to the(onstitution"

3"Legislative )istricts are created or reapportioned onl$ b$ an act of(ongress" Ender the (onstitution, the power to increase the allowablemembership in the #ouse of Representatives, and to apportionlegislative districts, is vested eclusivel$ in (ongress"

Sec" C 6&7, Art"M! of the (onstitution vests (ongress the power toincrease the allowable membership in the #ouse of Representatives"Sec" C 6B7 empowers (ongress to reapportion legislative districts" hepower to reapportion legislative districts necessaril$ includes the powerto create legislative districts out of eisting ones" (ongress eercisesthese powers through a law the (ongress itself enacts, not through alaw enacted b$ regionalIlocal legislative bodies" he Npower ofredistricting is traditionall$ regarded as part of the power 6of(ongress7 to make lawsO, and is thus vested eclusivel$ in 6it7 <%onte1ov" (0%JLJ(, 3B3 S(RA B&C 6&44C7="

An inferior legislative bod$ cannot change the membership of thesuperior legislative bod$ which created it" (ongress is a nationallegislature, and an$ changes in its membership through the creation oflegislative districts must be embodied in national law"

he power to create or reapportion legislative districts cannot bedelegated b$ (ongress but must be eercised b$ (ongress itself" Jventhe AR%% Regional Assembl$ recogni*es this"

he AR%% cannot create a province without a legislative districtbecause the (onstitution mandates that ever$ province shall have a

legislative district"

2ut this can never be legall$ possible because the creation oflegislative districts is vested solel$ in (ongress"

%oreover, the AR%% Regional Assembl$ cannot enact a law creatinga national office because Sec" 3D, Art" of the (onstitution epressl$provides that the legislative powers of regional assemblies are limitedonl$ Nwithin its territorial 1urisdiction"O 69othing in Sec" 3D, Art" of the(onstitution authori*es autonomous regions to createIapportionlegislative districts for (ongress"7

!t is aiomatic that organic acts of autonomous regions cannot prevailover the (onstitution" Since the AR%% Regional Assembl$ has nolegislative power to enact laws relating to national elections, it cannotcreate a legislative district whose representative is elected in nationalelections"

At most, what AR%% can create are baranga$s not cities andprovinces"

hus, %%A Act 3D& enacted b$ the AR%% Regional Assembl$,creating the Province of Shariff Uabunsuan, is void"

6G"R" 9o" &4?35&7

Petitioners: )atu %ichael Abas Uida 6Representative of %aguindanaoFederation of Autonomous !rrigators Association, !nc"7, et" al"

Respondents: Senate of the Philippines 6Represented b$ Sen" Jnrile7,et" al"

6G"R" 90" &4?DC7 Assailing validit$ of RA 4

Petitioner: 2asari )" %apupno

Respondent: Sito 2rillantes 6(hairman of (0%JLJ(7, et" al"

6G"R" 90" &4533&7 Petition for (ertiorari and Prohibition

Petitioner: Rep" Jdcel (" Lagman

Respondents: Pa.uito 0choa, r" and (0%JLJ(

6G"R" 90" &453'D7 Petition for Prohibition and %andamus

Petitioners: Almarim (enti illah, )atu (ana and P)P/Laban

Respondents: (0%JLJ(, et" al"

6 G"R" 90" &453'37 Petition for (ertiorari and Prohibition

Petitoner: Att$" Romulo %acalintal

Respondents: (0%JLJ( and Jecutive Secretar$ 0choa



6G"R" 90" &45437 Petition for (ertiorari and %andamus, !n1unctionand Preliminar$ !n1unction

Petitioner: Luis 2iraogo

Respondents: (0%JLJ( and Jec" Sec" 0choa

6G"R" 90" &45BCB7 Petition for (ertiorari and %andamus

Petitioner: acinto M" Paras

Respondents: Jecutive Secretra$ 0choa and (0%JLJ(

Respondent/!ntervenor: %inorit$ Rights Forum, Philippines, !nc"

Facts:

/ he State, through Sections &C to 33, Article of the &4'5(onstitution, mandated the creation of autonomous regions in %uslim%indanao and the (ordilleras"

Section &C" here shall be created autonomous regions in %uslim%indanao and in the (ordilleras consisting of provinces, cities,

municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common and distinctivehistorical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, andother relevant characteristics within the framework of this (onstitutionand the national sovereignt$ as well as territorial integrit$ of theRepublic of the Philippines"

/ Section &' of the Article, on the other hand, directed (ongress toenact an organic act for these autonomous regions to concretel$ carr$into effect the granted autonom$"

/ August &, &4'4: (ongress acted through Republic Act 6RA7 9o" ?5Bentitled NAn Act Providing for an 0rganic Act for the AutonomousRegion in %uslim %indanao"O

/ he net legislative act passed b$ (ongress was RA 9o" 4DCB6entitled NAn Act to Strengthen and Jpand the 0rganic Act for the

Autonomous Region in %uslim %indanao, Amending for the PurposeRepublic Act 9o" ?5B, entitled An Act Providing for the AutonomousRegion in %uslim %indanao, as AmendedO7

/ RA 4DCB= provided further refinement in the basic AR%% structurefirst defined in the original organic act, and reset the regular electionsfor the AR%% regional officials to the second %onda$ of September3DD&"

/ RA 9o" 4 was subse.uentl$ passed b$ (ongress to reset the AR%% regional elections to the 3nd %onda$ of August 3DDC, and onthe same date ever$ $ears thereafter"

/ Enlike RA 9o" ?5B and RA 9o" 4DCB, RA 9o" 4 was not ratifiedin a plebiscite"

/ Pursuant to RA 9o" 4, the net AR%% regional elections should

have been held on August ', 3D&&" (0%JLJ( had begunpreparations for these elections and had accepted certificates ofcandidacies for the various regional offices to be elected"

/ une D, 3D&&: RA 9o" &D&C was enacted, resetting the AR%%elections to %a$ 3D&, to coincide with the regular national and localelections of the countr$"

/ he earl$ challenge to RA 9o" &D&C came through a petition filedwith this (ourt G"R" 9o" &4?35& 6instant case7 assailing theconstitutionalit$ of both #2 9o" B&B? and S2 9o" 35C? 6bills for RA&D&C7 , and challenging the validit$ of RA 9o" 4 as well for non/compliance with the constitutional plebiscite re.uirement"

/ hereafter, petitioner 2asari %apupuno in G"R" 9o" &4?DC filedanother petition also assailing the validit$ of RA 9o" 4"

/ 8ith the enactment into law of RA 9o" &D&C, the (0%JLJ(stopped its preparations for the AR%% elections"

/ he (ourt ordered the consolidation of all the petitions relating to theconstitutionalit$ of #2 9o" B&B?, S2 9o" 35C?, RA 9o" 4, and RA9o" &D&C"

/ he petitioners assailing RA 9o" 4&BD, RA 9o" 4 and RA 9o"&D&C assert that these laws amend RA 9o" 4DCB and thus, have tocompl$ with the superma1orit$ vote and plebiscite re.uirementsprescribed under Sections & and , Article M!! of RA 9o" 4D4B in

order to become effective" he petitions assailing RA 9o"&D&C further maintain that it is unconstitutional for its failure to compl$with the three/reading re.uirement" Also cited as grounds are thealleged violations of the right of suffrage of the people of AR%%, aswell as the failure to adhere to the Nelective and representativeOcharacter of the eecutive and legislative departments of the AR%%"Lastl$, the petitioners challenged the grant to the President of thepower to appoint 0!(s to undertake the functions of the elective

AR%% officials until the officials elected under the %a$ 3D& regularelections shall have assumed office"

/ (orrolaril$, petitioners also argue that the power of appointment alsogave the President the power of control over the AR%%, in completeviolation of Section &?, Article of the (onstitution"

!ssue:

8hether or not there has been a violation of the &4'5 (onstitution forthe passage and enactment of assailed laws"

#eld:

According to the Supreme (ourt, Republic Act &D&C, in its totalit$, isconstitutional"

8hile the (onstitution does not epressl$ state that (ongress has tos$nchroni*e national and local elections, the clear intent towards thisob1ective can be gleaned from the ransitor$ Provisions 6Article M!!!7of the (onstitution, which show the etent to which the (onstitutional(ommission, b$ deliberatel$ making ad1ustments to the terms of theincumbent officials, sought to attain s$nchroni*ation of elections"

Although called regional elections, the AR%% elections should beincluded among the elections to be s$nchroni*ed as it is a NlocalOelection based on the wording and structure of the (onstitution"

!n the present case, the records show that the President wrote to theSpeaker of the #ouse of Representatives to certif$ the necessit$ of the

immediate enactment of a law s$nchroni*ing the AR%% elections withthe national and local elections" Following our olentino ruling, thePresidents certification eempted both the #ouse and the Senate fromhaving to compl$ with the three separate readings re.uirement"

RA 9o" 4 and RA 9o" &D&C cannot be considered amendmentsto RA 9o" 4DCB as the$ did not change or revise an$ provision in thelatter law@ the$ merel$ filled in a gap in RA 9o" 4DCB or supplementedthe law b$ providing the date of the subse.uent regular elections"(onse.uentl$, there was no need to submit them to an$ plebiscite forratification"



here are onl$ three options available on how to handle the electionsof %a$ 3D&3:

&" etend term for those in office 6unconstitutional7

3" special elections b$ (0%JLJ( 6(0%JLJ( has not authorit$ toconduct special elections7

" appointments b$ Presidents

!n the present case, the postponement of the AR%% elections is b$law i"e", b$ congressional polic$ and is pursuant to theconstitutional mandate of s$nchroni*ation of national and localelections"

As to the appointments made b$ the President, it is pursuant to ArticleM!!, Section &? of the (onstitution: Nhird, those whom the Presidentma$ be authori*ed b$ law to appoint"O

Since the Presidents authorit$ to appoint 0!(s emanates from RA 9o"&D&C, it falls under the third group of officials that the President canappoint pursuant to Section &?, Article M!! of the (onstitution" hus, theassailed law faciall$ rests on clear constitutional basis"

!f RA 9o" &D&C cancelled the regular August 3D&& elections, it was fora ver$ specific and limited purpose the s$nchroni*ation of elections"!t was a temporar$ means to a lasting end the s$nchroni*ation ofelections" hus, RA 9o" &D&C and the support that the (ourt givesthis legislation are likewise clear and specific, and cannot betransferred or applied to an$ other cause for the cancellation ofelections" An$ other locali*ed cancellation of elections and call forspecial elections can occur onl$ in accordance with the power alread$delegated b$ (ongress to the (0%JLJ(, as above discussed"

A provision of the constitution should not be construed in isolation from

the rest" Rather, the constitution must be interpreted as a whole, andapparentl$, conflicting provisions should be reconciled and harmoni*edin a manner that ma$ give to all of them full force and effect"

(ongress acted within its powers and pursuant to a constitutionalmandate the s$nchroni*ation of national and local elections when itenacted RA 9o" &D&C" his (ourt cannot .uestion the manner b$which (ongress undertook this task@ the udiciar$ does not and cannotpass upon .uestions of wisdom, 1ustice or epedienc$ of legislation"

8#JRJF0RJ, premises considered, we )!S%!SS the consolidatedpetitions assailing the validit$ of RA 9o" &D&C for lack of merit, andEP#0L) the constitutionalit$ of this law"

Ender: Fundamental Principles on (onstitutional Law and the 2ill ofRights

Consti Digest Locgov

Documents

Transcript of Consti Digest Locgov