You are on page 1of 3

Prior Consultations Required

Lina v. Pao
G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001
Quisumbing, J.
Facts:
Private respondent Tony Calvento, was appointed agent by PCSO to install a terminal for the
operation of lotto, applied for a mayors permit to operate a lotto outlet in San Pedro, Laguna. It was
denied on the ground that an ordinance entitled Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, Taon 1995 of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Laguna prohibited gambling in the province, including the operation of lotto. With the
denial of his application, private respondent filed an action for declaratory relief with prayer for preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of private
respondent enjoining petitioners from implementing or enforcing the subject resolution.
Issue:

whether Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna and the denial
of a mayors permit based thereon are valid
Held:

No. The questioned ordinance merely states the objection of the council to the said game. It is but
a mere policy statement on the part of the local council, which is not self-executing. Nor could it serve as a
valid ground to prohibit the operation of the lotto system in the province of Laguna. As a policy statement
expressing the local governments objection to the lotto, such resolution is valid. This is part of the local
governments autonomy to air its views which may be contrary to that of the national governments.
However, this freedom to exercise contrary views does not mean that local governments may actually
enact ordinances that go against laws duly enacted by Congress. Given this premise, the assailed
resolution in this case could not and should not be interpreted as a measure or ordinance prohibiting the
operation of lotto.
Moreover, ordinances should not contravene statutes as municipal governments are merely agents
of the national government. The local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers which have been
conferred on them by Congress. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher
than those of the latter. This being the case, these councils, as delegates, cannot be superior to the
principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. The question of whether gambling should be
permitted is for Congress to determine, taking into account national and local interests. Since Congress
has allowed the PCSO to operate lotteries which PCSO seeks to conduct in Laguna, pursuant to its
legislative grant of authority, the province's Sangguniang Panlalawigan cannot nullify the exercise of said
authority by preventing something already allowed by Congress.

Mayors Power over the Police: Operational Control and Suspension


Andaya vs RTC
319 SCRA 696 (G.R. No. 126661)
FACTS:
On January 3, 1996, the position of City Director, Cebu City Police Command (chief of police) became
vacant after P/Supt. Antonio Enteria was relieved of command. Thereafter, petitioner Andaya submitted to
the City Mayor of Cebu a list of 5 eligibles from which the latter would choose and appoint as the new chief
of police. However, the mayor did not choose anyone from the list because P/Chief Inspector Andres
Sarmiento was not included therein. Petitioner Andaya refused the Mayors request to include Major Andres
Sarmiento in the list of police officers for appointment since he was not qualified for the position under
NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 95-04.
ISSUE:
WON Mayor of Cebu City may require the inclusion of his protg in the list of 5 eligibles to be
recommended to him by the Regional Police Dir., Regional Police Command No.7, for his selection of the
City Director, City Police Command (chief of police)
HELD:
No.
RA 6975
Sec.51 deputizes the Mayor of Cebu City as representative of the National Police Commission in his
territorial jurisdiction
grants the Mayor of Cebu City authority to choose the chief of police from a list of five (5) eligibles
recommended by the Regional Director, Regional Police Command No. 7
The City Police Station of Cebu City is under the direct command & control of the PNP Regional Director,
and is equivalent to a provincial office.
It is the prerogative of the Regional Police Director to name the 5 eligibles from a pool of eligible officers,
screened by the Senior Officers Promotion and Selection Board, without interference from local executives.
The National Police Commission issued Memorandum Circular No. 95-04 to implement RA 6975.
Memorandum Circular 95-04 provides qualifications for Chief of Police of highly urbanized cities:
(1) completion of the Officers Senior Executive Course (OSEC)
(2) holding the rank of Police Superintendent
In case of disagreement between the Regional Police Director and the Mayor, the question shall be
elevated to the Regional Director, National Police Commission, who shall resolve the issue within 5 working
days from receipt and whose decision on the choice of the Chief of Police shall be final and executory.
As deputy of the Commission, the authority of the mayor is very limited. In reality, he has no power of
appointment; he has only the limited power of selecting one from among the list of 5 eligibles to be named
the chief of police. The actual power to appoint the Chief of Police is vested in the Regional Director.
As such, the mayor cannot require the Regional Director to include the name of any officer, no matter how
qualified, in the list of 5 to be submitted to him. This is to enhance police professionalism and to isolate the
police service from political domination.

Constitutional Provisions on Local Government Units; State Policies on LGUs and Operative Principles;
Delegation of powers to LGUs.

You might also like