Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LGUs are created by law, except the barangay, which is created either by law
or by an ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Panglalawigan or
Sangguniang Panglungsod, as the case may be
Sena v. COMELEC
- Congress may delegate the power to create municipalities and barangays but
not the power to create provinces and cities.
- Under the Constitution, a province once created automatically gets to have a
congressional district. A city with a population of 250,000 also becomes a
congressional district.
- The creation of a congressional district is a power that cannot be delegate by
Congress to any other government agency because it is a power of
apportionment and thus exclusive to the Congress
Miranda v. Aguirre
- Re: a law passed by Congress converting the city of Santiago to an
independent component city to a component city
- The law is unconstitutional because it did not provide for a plebiscite
Gov. Aurelio Umali v. COMELEC
SC held that the conversion of the city of Cabanatuan into a highly urbanized
city requires a plebiscite at which the registered voters of the entire province
of Nueva Ecija must participate
The political unit referred to in the LGC refers to the entire province if you are
talking of an independent component city becoming a highly urbanized city
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Requisites for valid IRR
1. Must be promulgated under authority
2. Must be within the scope and purview of the law
3. Must be reasonable
4. Must be published
2 additional requisites
1. It must state that violation of IRR is punishable
2. The law itself and the IRR must prescribe the penalty or the violation
2nd requisite: within the scope and purview of the law
- all jurisprudence that we have seen fall to the fact that an IRR cannot go
beyond what the law provides.
- Going back to the case of Navarro, If the law is silent on provinces, then IRR
should not provide a new exempting rule from the land area requirement so
in this case (wherein the ponente is Justice Nachura himself), the SC said that
we are looking at the true legislative intent and the correct legislative intent
is found in the IRR and not in the law and so we must yield to the IRR than
the law itself
General Welfare Clause
- Congressional grant of police power
- Delegation of police power by congress to the LGUs (Sec. 16)
Rimando v. Nagilian (?)
- A mayor cannot be compelled by mandamus to issue business permit
Calayan v. Gov. Tan (?)
- Provincial governor cannot exercise the calling out power nor vest this power
to any private police force. Under the Constitution, there is only one national
police force which is the Philippine National Police.
Valentino Legaspi v. City of Cebu
- Re: the validity of the ordinance that punished illegal parking and clamping
wheels in Cebu
- SC: Ordinance is valid as traffic has become a major pain and deter the
progress of the city
Requisites for a valid ordinance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
must
must
must
must
must
must
the act by which the national government confers powers and functions to
LGUs
when a power is devolved to a LGU, the national agency ceases to perform its
functions -- the personnel and the equipment of the national agency charged
with the function will now be turned over to the LGU, which means that you
devolve not only the power but also the personnel
when we look at the LGC provisions on re-classification, we see that LGUs are
empowered basically to classify and re-classify agricultural land into
residential industrial and commercial lands, effectively exempting some
agricultural lands from the agrarian reform law
actually provided in the LGC, it provides that the provisions on reclassification do not amend or replace the provisions of agrarian reform law
Power to discipline (of elected local govt. official)
-
Rios v. SB
- When an elected local government official faces a criminal charge before
Sandiganbayan and it issues an order of preventive suspension, the
suspension is not for 90 days but for 60 days, so it will be consistent in the
rule when a local govt. official faces administrative charge
- BUT the power to preventively suspend is concurrent with the Ombudsman
and the Ombudsman can preventively suspend for 6 months
Penalties
Penalty of suspension
- the suspension shall not last more than six months and in no case shall last
beyond the term of office, and it will not work to deprive the public officer to
seek election
Penalty of removal from office
- An elected local official can be removed from office form an administrative
infraction only upon a proper order of the court
- The Ombudsman has the power to remove public officials appointed or
elected
- The power of removal is immediately executory, unless appealed to the CA
and a TRO was issued
- If the Ombudsman files charges for a criminal case, appeal is to the SC
Boundary dispute
-
Undue Delegation
Jesus Garcia v. Rey Allan (?)
- Re: Delegation of authority on RA 9262 (VAWC)
- Brgy. Chairman is granted authority to issue Brgy. protection order
Is there undue delegation? No. The provision is valid because what the brgy
chairman does when he issues a brgy protection order is to order the
respondent to desist from doing violence and making any threat to the
women or children. SC said there is nothing judicial in this; it is essentially
executive in character and therefore it may be exercised precisely by the
brgy. Chairman.
ELECTION LAWS
GMA Network v. COMELEC
- Purpose of suffrage is for the people to choose their leaders and in the
exercise of this right, they should have access to what the candidates say
- Issue: W/N the COMELEC resolution reducing the radio and television airtime
of candidates reasonable?
- No. It violates the peoples right to suffrage because the people will be
deprived to know what the candidates say. Also, there is no compelling state
interest that will justify the resolution
When SC can review by CERTIORARI a COMELECs Decision
1. COMELECs decision En banc
2. Decision rendered by the COMELEC in its quasi-judicial function
Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC
- Bishop placed a tarpaulin Team Patay; Team Buhay (in re RH Bill)
- Local COMELEC official issued a notice asking the bishop to take down the
tarpaulin but the bishop did not do so
- the COMELEC then wrote a letter saying that the tarpaulin must be removed
otherwise appropriate criminal charges for an election offense will be filed
against the bishop and all those involved.
- Bishop filed with SC a petition for certiorari and prohibition
- SC: notice and letter of the COMELEC were not issued in the exercise of quasijudicial powers. Issue is a violation of a fundamental right to free expression.
- SC did not rely on the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction but on SC
constitutional jurisdiction over cases on original action for certiorari because
what is involved is a violation of a fundamental constitutional right.
Parameters used by COMELEC in allowing political parties to participate in
the party list election
1. Three groups can participate - national, regional, and sectoral
2. Regional and national parties need not represent the marginalized or underrepresented sectors
3. Political parties, whether major or not, may participate by registering
provided it does not field in candidates for a congressional district election
4. Sectoral
parties
may
either
be
representing
marginalized
or
underrepresented sectors or advocates of such sectors
5. Majority of the members must be members of the sector
6. Disqualification of one or two of the nominees will not affect the qualification
of the party
Dual Citizens
-
Administrative action: reconciliation or desistance will not affect the case at all,
what must be protected in an admin case is public service
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Arrigo v. Stan Smith (?)
- re USSR guardian; destruction of Tubataha reef
- locus standi; did the Reverend have personality to institute the action? Yes. A
citizen has a public right to a balanced and healthful ecology; a right existing
at the beginning of time, and of transcendental importance and
intergenerational implications (taken from the old case of Oposa v. Paterno (?)
wherein Atty. Oposa used his children as plaintiffs on an environmental case
and argued that they can file a case for the future generation because the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is intergenerational)
Suit against navy officials re immunity from suit
- re: navy officials performing acts in behalf of the United States
when the petitioners raised the issue of VFA which contains the waiver of
immunity
SC: waiver of immunity only applies to criminal cases (note that the case filed
is a case under Writ of Kalikasan)
--GOOD LUCK!--