LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW Applying the above test, provinces, chartered cities, and
(Municipal Corporation Law) barangays can best exemplify public corporations. They are
Kinds of Corporation, in general:
Private Corporation is one that is formed for some private
purpose, benefit, aim or end, such as a business corporation formed
and organized under a general law on corporation. It is created for
private objects. (Dillon, supra)
Public Corporation is one that is organized for government of a
portion of a state, such as a local government unit. It is created for
public purpose. (Dillon, supra)
BPA vs. COA (2011)
The BSP still remains an instrumentality of he national government. It is a
public corporation (this is declared in CA no. 111 itself) created by law for
a public purpose, attached to the DECS pursuant to its Charter and the
Administrative Code of 1987. It is not a private corporation which is
required to be owned or controlled by the government and be
economically liable to justify its existence under a special law.
(See, however, the dissent of Justice Carpio)
Dissent of J. Carpio
Indeed, the BSP performs functions which may be classified as
public in character, in the sense that it promotes virtues of
citizenship and patriotism and the general improvement of the
moral spirit and fiber of our youth. However, this fact alone does
not automatically make the BSP a GOCC
Authorities are of the view that the purpose of the corporation
cannot be taken as a safe guide, for the fact is that almost all
corporations are nowadays created to promote the interest, good,
or convenience of the public.
The true criterion, therefore, to determine whether a corporation is
public or private is found in the totality of the relation of the
creation to the State. If the corporation is created by the State
as the latters own agency or instrumentality to help in carrying out
its governmental functions, then that corporation is considered
public; otherwise, it is a private.
created by the State as its own device and agency for the
accomplishment of parts of its own public works. (Citing
Philippine Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals vs.
Commission on Audit [2007])
Kinds of Public Corporation
1. Quasi-Public Corporation a private corporation that renders
public service or suppliers public wants, such as utility companies.
It combines the elements of both public and private. Hough
organized for private profit, they are compelled by law or contract
to render public service. (Dillon, supra) E.g. public utility companies
2. Municipal Corporations body politic and corporate constituted
by the incorporation of the inhabitants for purposes of local
government thereof. Recently referred to as local governments
Local Government
A local government is defined as a political subdivision of a
nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial
control of local affairs E.g. Province (under 1987 Constitution, local
governments are not only called political subdivisions, but
territorial subdivisions as well)
What is the underlying reason or justification for the creation of
local governments?
Municipal Corporations
Elements:
1. Legal creation or incorporation
2. Corporate name
3. Inhabitants
4. Territory
Dual Nature and Functions of LGU
Governmental (also public or political) administering the powers
of the state and promoting the public welfare
 Proprietary (also called private or corporate) exercised for the
special benefit and advantage of the community
Local Government Code of 1991:
Sec 15. Political and Corporate Nature of Local Government Units
Every local government unit created or recognized under this Code is a body
politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity
with law. As such, it shall exercise powers as a political subdivision of
the National Government and as a corporate entity representing the
inhabitants of its territory.
Examples of Governmental functions: exercise of local police power,
taxation, and eminent domain for public works
Examples of Proprietary functions establishment of slaughter
houses and markets, maintenance of parks, cemeteries, fiesta
celebration
1994 BAR EXAMINATION:
Question No. 6
Johnny was employed as a driver by the Municipality of Calumpit, Bulacan.
While driving recklessly a municipal dump truck with its a load of sand for
the repair of municipal streets, Johnny hit a jeepney. The Sangguniang
Bayan passed an ordinance appropriating P 300,000.00 as compensation for
the heirs of the victim.
1. Is the municipality liable for the negligence of Johnny?
2. Is the municipal ordinance valid?
Kinds of Municipal Corporation:
De Jure created with all the elements of a municipal corporation
being present
De Facto where there is colorable compliance with the requisites
of a de jure municipal corporation
BASIS for the Doctrine of De Facto Corporation
The basis for this doctrine is a very strong public policy supporting
the security of units of local government and the conduct of
their business against attack grounded upon collateral inquiry into
the legality of their organization. (Cf: Operative Fact Doctrine)
It also underlies the theory that local units may exist by
prescription. (Fordham)
Municipality of Jimenez vs. Bas, Jr (1996):
The Municipality of Sinacaban was created through EO 258 in 1949
and since then had been exercising the powers of an LGU;
In 1965, Pelaez vs. Auditor General Case invalidated certain EOs
issues by the President creating municipalities because the power
to created LGU is essentially legislative, excluding WO 258;
IN 1990, Sinacabans existence was questioned.
Municipality of San Narciso vs. Mendez, Sr. (1994)
Municipality of San Andres was created in 1959 through EO 353
It became a 5th class municipality in 1965
In 1965, Pelaez vs. Audtor General case invalidated some EOs
(excluding EO 353) of the President creating some municipalities;
San Andres existence was questioned in 1989
RULING: San Andres became de jure by subsequent because it was
included in the Ordinance (Appendix) to the 1987 Constitution
apportioning the seats of the House of Representative (as one of
the 12 municipalities composing the 3rd district of Quezon).
Sec 442 (d), LGC:
Municipalities existing as of the date of the effectivity of this Code shall
continue to exist and operate as such. Existing municipal districts organized
pursuant to presidential issuances or executive orders and which have their
respective set of elective municipal officials holding office at the time of the
effectivity of this Code shall henceforth be considered as regular
municipalities.
Sultan Osop Camid vs. office of the President (2005)
Andong (created in 1964) was among the municipalities declared
invalidly created by an EO in Pelaez vs. Auditor General (1965);
Invoking Narciso case, reiterated in Candijay case, and specifically
Section 442 (d) of the LGC, petitioner wanted the SC to affirm the
de jure (or at least a de facto) status of Andong;
 Petitioner attached certificates: showing exercise of corporate
powers even after Pelaez case was decided in 1965
RULING:
o Section 442 (d) of the LGC does not sanction the
recognition of just any municipality;
o Only those that can prove continued exercise of corporate
powers can be covered;
o Incidentally, the SC, being not a trier of facts, cannot
ascertain the truthfulness of petitioners allegation of
continued exercise of corporate powers. (there should
have been a trial court that ascertained it.)
DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT, applicable in invalidly created LGU
2004 Bar exam (VII)
B. Suppose that one year after Masigla was constituted as a municipality,
the law creating it is voided because of defects. Would that invalidate the
acts of the municipality and/or its municipal officers?
ANSWER: Municipality of Malabang vs. Benito.
Municipality of Malabang vs. Benito (1969)
EO 386 creating the municipality in question is a nullity pursuant to
the ruling Pelaez vs. Auditor General and Municipality of San
Joaquin vs. Siva. The EO therefore created no office. This is not
to say, however, that the acts done by the municipality of
Balabagan in the exercise of its corporate powers are a nullity
because the EO is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as through
it had never been passed. For the existence of EO 386 is an
operative fact which cannot justify be ignored. There is then no
basis for the respondents apprehension that the invalidation of the
Executive Order creating Balabagan would have the effect of
unsettling many an act done in reliance upon the validity of the
creation of that municipality.
Bar Exam (2011)
Define/explain the following:
A. Doctrine of Operative facts (1%)
B. De facto municipal corporations (1%)
C. Municipal corporation by estoppel (1%)
Questions:
1. What is local autonomy?
2. What kind of decentralization has been granted to provinces, cities,
municipalities, barangays and autonomous regions?
3. True, False or Qualified True/False:
a. The National Government exercises general supervision
over a Province
b. The National Government exercises general supervision
over the ARMM
LOCAL AUTONOMY
Limbona vs. Mangelin Now, autonomy is either decentralization of
administration or decentralization of power.
There is decentralization of administration when the central
government delegates administrative powers to political
subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and
in the process to make local governments more responsive and
accountable, and ensure their fullest development as self-reliant
communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit
of national development and social progress.
Decentralization of Power, on the other hand, involved an
abdication of political power in favor of local governments units
declared to be autonomous. In that case, the autonomous
government is free to chart its own destiny and shape its
future with minimum intervention from central authorities.
According to a constitutional author, decentralization of power
amounts to self-immolation, since in that event, the autonomous
government becomes accountable not to the central authorities but
to its constancy.
Administrative Powers or Political Powers?
 What is the kind of decentralization adopted or practiced in the
Philippines?
o Philippines vs. Aquirre, GR no. 132988, July 19 2000
Under the Philippine concept of local autonomy, the
national government has not completely relinquished all
its powers over local governments, including
autonomous regions. Only administrative powers
over local affairs are delegated to political
subdivisions. Thus, policy0setting for the entire
country still lies in the President and Congress. (Also
cited in Kida vs. Senate, October 18, 2011)
coordination with the LGUs concerned. (see also Imbong vs. Ochoa
[2014] on RH law)
It was argued that DILG MC no. 2010-138 transgressed constitutionally-
protected liberties when it restricted the meaning of development and
enumerated activities which the local government must finance from the 20
development fund component of the IRA. It was argued that LGUs local
autonomy was violated. Did the Subject DILG MC violate local autonomy?
CREATION, CONVERSION, DIVISION, MERGER, ABOLITION,
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF BOUNDARY

Problem: A. Regular Political Subdivisions

In 2007, the DSWD embarked on a poverty reduction strategy with the B. Autonomous Regions
poorest of the poor as target beneficiaries called Pantawid Pamilyang C. Special Metropolitan Political Subdivisions
Pilipino Program (4Ps). This government intervention scheme, also D. Beginning of Corporate Existence
conveniently referred to as CCTP, provides cash grant to extremely poor
General Requirements:
households to allow the members of the family to meet certain human
development goals. The DSWD also institutionalized a coordinated inter-
Law
agency network among the Department of Education (DepEd), Department
Plebiscite
of Health (DOH), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and
Compliance with Criteria on Income, Land and/or Population
the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC). The only role of local
government units was to identify the beneficiaries of the program, but local
Problem
officials do not implement the distribution of case incentives to the
beneficiaries. The program was challenged as unconstitutional on the ground Seventy-five (75) laws creating 75 cities out of municipalities were passed
that it allegedly encroached into the local autonomy of the LGUs. Decide. in 2006, in each of these laws, a provision is provided which states: This
Act shall be exempt from the provision of RA 9009. RA 9009 increased the
Pimentel, Jr. vs. Ochoa (2012) income requirement for the creation of a city to P 100 M locally generated
Certainly, to yield unreserved power of governance to the local income. When a petition was filed seeking for the declaration of
government unit as to preclude any and all involvement by the unconstitutionally of these laws the 75 municipalities argued as follows:
national government in programs implemented in the local level
would be to shift the tide of monopolistic power to the other A. The League of Cities already settled the issue in favor of the newly-
extreme which would amount to a decentralization of power created cities;
explicated in Limbona vs. Mangelin as beyond our constitutional B. The newly-created cities are legitimate under the Doctrine of
concept of autonomy Operative Fact. Decide.
Indeed, a complete relinquishment of central government powers
on the matter of providing basic facilities and services cannot be Plebiscite Requirement:
implied as the Local Government Code itself weight against it. The
National government is, thus, not precluded from taking a direct Questions:
hand in the formulation and implementation of national
development programs especially where it is implemented locally in Who shall participate?
What is meant by units directly affected?
 In what sense affected?
How is it different from the manner of creating autonomous
regions?
What about in downgrading or upgrading of city?
Problem
In 1998, by virtue of RA no. 8528, the City of Santiago, Isabel was converted
from an independent component city to a component city. The
constitutionality of RA no. 8528 was assailed in the ground of lack of
provision in the said law submitting the same for ratification by the people
of Santiago City in a proper plebiscite. The issue was whether the
downgrading of Santiago City from an independent component city to a mere
component required the approval of the people of Santiago City. Decide.
Miranda vs. Aguirre (Sep 1999)
The Supreme Court ruled the plebiscite was required even in case of
conversion.
It observed that that common denominator in Section 10, Articles X of the
1987 Constitution is the material change in the political and economic rights
of the local government units directly affected as well as the people therein.
It is precisely for this reason that the Constitution required the approval of
the people in the political units directly affected.
Umali vs. COMELEC (April 2014)
While conversion to an HUC is not explicitly provided in Sec 10, Art X of the
Constitution, xxx the conversion of a component city into an HUC is
substantial alteration of boundaries. As the phrase implies, substantial
alteration of boundaries involves and necessarily entails a change in the
geographical configuration of a local government unit or units. The phrase
boundaries should not be limited to the mere physical one, referring to the
metes and bounds of the LGU, but also its political boundaries.
Question:
In the LGC of 1991, a municipality may be created with less than 50 sq km.
If it is an island. Under the LGC of 1991, however, there is no such exception
when it comes to creation of a province which normally requires t least 2,000
sq km. May the implementing rules of the LGC of 1991 provide for a similar
exception?
Navarro vs. Ermita (2010)
Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the rules and Regulations Implementing the Local
government Code of 1991, which states that the land area requirement shall
not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more
islands violates the Local Government Code of 1991 and therefore null and
void.
2011 Navarro vs. Ermita, reversed in 2011
SC through J. Nachura, ruled that Congress intended to apply the
exemption on land area requirements enjoyed by municipalities and
cities which have islands as territories to the province (Province of
Dinagat)
Note of J. Carpios dissent that the majority opinion will allow the
creation of a province with only one (1) unit (say a municipality)
instead of various component LGUs.
Problem:
In preparation for the 2016 local and national elections, the Comelec
conducted investigations in order to ascertain the veracity of reports of
ghost precincts. Based on the investigations it conducted, Comelec
discovered that there are no inhabitants in Barangay Diwata in Municipality
of Lazi, Siquijor. Consequently, the COMELEC removed Brgy. Diwata among
the list of precincts in the Municipality of Lazi, Siquijor for purposes of the
2016 elections. Is the act of the Comelect valid?
Problem:
Brgy. Pobre is the poorest of all brgys in the Municipality of Carmen mainly
because of its rocky, hilly, and mountainous topography. It strives mainly on
the IRA that it receives. Without IRA, it could hardly pay even the honoraria
of its barangay tanods.
A. Can it lawfully be abolished?
B. If yes, what is the procedure for the abolition of Barangay Pobre?
Sec 9, RA 7160 The law or ordinance abolishing a local government unit
shall specify the province, city, municipality or barangay with which the local
government unit sought to be abolished will be incorporated or merged.
Sec 10, RA 7160 Plebiscite Requirement. No creation, division, merger,
abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units
shall take effect unless approved by a majority of the votes case in a
plebiscite called for the purpose in the political unit or units directly affected.
Said plebiscite shall be conducted by COMELEC within 120 days from the about climatic change; (3) may cause the depletion of non-
date of effectivity of the law or ordinance affecting such action unless such renewable resources; (4) may result in loss of crop land, range-Lang,
law or ordinance fixes another date. or forest cover; (5) may eradicate certain animal or plan species
from the face of the planet; and (6) other projects or programs that
2009 Bar may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in
the locality where these will be implemented. (See also Province of
The Municipality of Bulalakaw, passed Ordinance No. 1234, authorizing the Laguna case [2005] and Bangus Fry Fisherfolk vs. Lanzanas [2003])
expropriation of two parcels of land situated in the publication as the site of
a freedom park, and appropriating the funds needed therefor. Upon review, Local Fiscal Autonomy
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Leyte disapproved the ordinance because
the municipality has an existing freedomg park which, through smaller in LOCAL FISCAL AUTONOMY: Local governments have the power to
size, is till suitable for the purpose, and to pursue expropriation would be create their own their own sources of revenue in addition to their
needless expenditure of the peoples money. Is the disapproval of the equitable share in the national taxes release by the national
ordinance correct? Explain your answer. government, as well as the power to allocate their resources in
accordance with their own priorities.
But, this, does not rule out any manner of national government
intervention by way of supervision, in order to ensure that local
Mother Sanggunians REVIEW POWER: programs, fiscal and otherwise, are consistent with national goals.
(Pimentel vs. Aguirre, 2000)
Grounds:
Reasons for giving Congress the power to provide guidelines and
1. If by Sangguniang Panlalawigan: limitations:
a. ULTRA VIRES (Sec 56 , LGC) [2009 Bar]
2. If by Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan: Manila Electric Company vs. Province of Laguna (1999):
a. Consistent with Law
b. Consistent with City/Municipal Ordinances (Sec 57, LGC) The Legislature must still see to it that:

LGUs and National Agencies (with Project Implementation 1. The taxpayer will not be overburdened or saddled with multiple and
functions) unreasonable impositions;
2. Each local government unit will have its fair share of available
Prior Consultation before implementation resources;
o No project or program shall be implemented by 3. The resources of the national government will not be unduly
government authorities unless the consultation in disturbed; and
Section 2 (C) and 26 of the LGC and prior approval of 4. Local taxation will be fair, uniform and just.
the Sanggunian concerned obtained, provided that
occupants affected shall be given relocation site (Sec. Local Police Power
27, LGC)
The General Welfare Clause:
Lina, Jr. vs. Pano (2001)
Sec 16. General Welfare. Every local government unit shall exercise the
The projects/programs mentioned in Sec 27 should be interpreted to mean powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as
projects/programs whose effects are among those enumerated in Sec. 26 powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective
and 27, to with, those that (1) may cause pollution; (2) may bring
governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general
welfare.
Basically a delegated power both in its general and specific sense, unlike in
taxation power where the general power to tax is constitutionally
guaranteed. Hence, police power is still under the control of Congress in all
its respects, although under Section 5 of the Code, the eneral welfare
provision shall be liberally construed to give more powers to the LGU.
Requisites for Validity of Local Police Power
Tatel vs. Municipality of Virac:
1. Must not contravene the Constitution and statute
2. Not unfair and oppressive (also a consti requirement)
3. Not partial or discriminatory (also a constitutional requirement)
4. Not prohibited but only regulate lawful trade (deeL De la Cruz vs.
paras where an ordinance prohibited the operation of night club)
5. Consistent with public policy (because of the requirement of valid
delegation of legislative power) see: (Lim vs. Pacquing) where it
was found out that the national policy was for National
government, not for LGUs to grant franchises for operation of jai-
alai, LGUs can only regulate but not grant franchise for operation of
jai-alai.
6. Not unreasonable (also a constitutional reqt.) (See: Balacuit case
where an ordinance penalized movie houses that charged full
payment for admission of children between 7-12)
*Dont forget lawful subject and lawful means requirement.
Problem
The City of Marikina passed an ordinance which regulates the construction
of fence as follows:
The Standard height of fences or walls allowed under this ordinance are as
follows:
1. Fences on the front yard shall be no more than one (1) meter in
height. Fences in excess of one (1) meter shall be an open fence
type, or at least 80% see-thru.
The objective of the ordinance is to discourage, repress, or prevent
concealment of prohibited or unlawful acts. Is this ordinance valid?
Two Tests are usually applied:
1. Rational Relationship Test
2. Strict Scrutiny Test
Using the rational basis examination, laws or ordinances are upheld if they
rationally further a legitimate governmental interest. Governmental interest
is extensively examined and the availability of less restrictive measures is
considered.
Applying strict scrutiny the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather
than substantial, governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive
means for achieving that interest. (Fernando vs. St. Scholasticas College,
GR no, 161107, March 12, 2013)
Local Eminent Domain
Specific Requirements: (Sec 19, LGC and Jesus is Lord Christian School vs.
City of Pasig case)
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing
the local chief executive, in behalf of the local government unit, to
exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation
proceedings over a particular private proeprty.
2. For public use, purpose, or welfare or for the behalf od the
poor and the landless.
3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section
9, Article III of the Constitution and other pertinent laws.
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner
of the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was NOT
accepted.
Add: Filstream international Inc. vs. City of Manila HR no. 125218,
January 23, 1998 (in re: expropriation for urban development and
housing)
5. Priorities in the acquisition of land shall be complied with as
mandated by RA no. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of
 1992) (meaning: private lands should be last in the election of
land) (Sec 9 of RA 7279)
6. Expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of
acquisition have been exhausted (Sec 10, RA 7279)
Note: (Jesus is Lord Case)
The LGU has the burden of proving that the foregoing requirements
have been complied with and that all reasonable efforts have been
exhausted
Valid and definite offer to the owner as shown in the title of the
land.
IRR on valid and definite offer must be complied with
City of Cebu vs. Dedamo (2002)
While Sec 4. Of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides that just
compensation shall be determined at the time of the filing of the
complaint for expropriation (or, time of taking whichever came
first), such rule cannot prevail over RA 7160, which is a substantive
law.
Sec. 4, Rule 67 (time of filing of complaint or taking, whichever
came first) vs. LGC: at the time of taking.
Republic vs. Lim (2005)
The landowner is entitled to recover possession of the property
expropriated if the government fails to fully pay just compensation
to the owner within a period of five(5) years from the finality of the
judgment in an expropriation proceeding.
American Vda. De Ouano vs. Republic (Feb 9, 2011)
If the genuine public necessity of expropriation of a private land
ceases or disappears, then there is no more cogent point for the
governments retention fo the expropriated land. The same legal
situation should hold if the government devotes the property to
another public use very much different from the original or deviates
from the declared purpose to benefits another private person.
MCIAA vs. Lozada, Sr. (2010)
Reversing Fery vs. Municipality of Cabanatuan (1921): The expropriator
should commit to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the
petition for expropriation filed, failing which, it should file another petitioner
for the new purpose. If not, it is then incumbent upon the expropriator to
return the said property to its private owner, if the latter desired to reacquire
the same.
In case of immediate possession
Before a local government unit may enter into the possession of the property
sought to be expropriated, it must: (1) file a complaint for expropriation
sufficient in form and susbtance in the proper court and (2) deposit with the
said court at least 15% of the propertys fair market vaue based on its
current tax declaration. The law does nto make the determination of a
public purpose a condition the determination of a public purpose a
condition precedent to the issuance of a writ of possession. (Francia
vs. Meyauayan [2008])
Requisites for Validity of Contracts and entered into by LGUs (asked
in the Bar many times)
A. The local government unit must have the power to enter into the
particular contract;
B. Pursuant to Section 22 (c) of the Local Government Code, there
must be prior authorization by the Sanggunian concerned, and
a legible copy of the contract shall be posted at a conspicuous place
in the provincial capitol or the city, municipal or barangay hall;
C. In accordance with Sec 46 and47, Chapter 8, Subtitle B, Book V,
1987 Admin Code if the contract involves the expenditure of public
funds, there should be actual appropriation AND a certificate of
availability of funds by the treasurer of the local government unit
(except in the case of a contract for supplies to be carried in stock)
D. The contract must conform with the formal requisites of written
contracts prescribed by law
Effects of Non-compliance with requisites
When a contract is entered into without compliance with A and C requisites,
the same is ultra vires and is null and void Such contract cannot be ratified
or validated.
Ratification of defective municipal contracts is possible only when there is
non-compliance with B and D requirements. Ratification may either be
express of implied.
2 kinds of Ultra Vires Acts:
An act which is outside of the municipalitys jurisdiction is considered as a
void ultra vires act, ahile an act attended only by an irregularity but
remains within the municipalitys power is considered as an ultra vires act
subject to ratification and/or validation. To the former belongs
municipal contracts which (a) are entered into beyond the express, implied
or inherent powers of the LGU; and (b) do not comply with the substantive
requirements of the law e.g., when expenditure of public funds is to be made,
there must be an actual appropriation and certificate of availability of funds
while to the latter belongs those which (a) are entered into by the improper
department, board, officer of agent; and (b) do not comply with the formal
requirements of a written contract e.g., the statute of frauds. (Land Bank
vs. Cacayuran, GR no. 191667, April 17, 2013)
by the official not at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy BUT at the
time he takes his oath of office ad assumes his post (2005 bar exam)
Residence
Residence synonymous with domicile in election laws
Residence temporary (physical presence for particular or
temporary purpose/calling) or permanent
Domicile permanent (coupled with animus manendi)
Note: there can only be one domicile at a time. There can be 2 or more
residences at a time (ex. Domicile and different temporary residence)
PROOF OF NON-ABANDONMENT OF DOMICILE:
1. Animus manendi and
2. Animus revertendi

PROOF OF ABANDONMENT OF OLD DOMICILE:

1. Actual physical presence in the new domicile

LOCAL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS
2. Animus manendi in the new domicile; and
2005 Bar 3. Animus non-revertendi to domicile of origin

In the May 8, 1995 elections for local officials whose terms were to (Gallego and Romualdez case)
commence on June 30, 1995, Ricky filed on March 20, 1995 his certificate of
Some Important Rulings:
candidacy for the Office of Governor of Laguna. He won, but his qualification
as an elected official was questioned. It is admitted that he is a repatriated
Faypon Case out of domicile of origin to pursue studies, engage
Filipino citizen and a resident of the Province of Laguna. To be qualified for
in business or practive vocation, not sufficient to constitute
the office to which a local official has been elected, when at the latest should
abandonment of domicile of origin
he be:
Coquilla case- naturalization in foreign country results in
abandonment
a) A Filipino citizen? Explain.
Caasi case becoming a permanent immigrant (greencard
b) A resident of the locality? Explain. (5%)
holder) to the US constitutes abandonment of residency
Citizenship S. Jalosjos vs. Comelec June 25, 2013: A temporary stay in a
dtrangers house cannot amount to residence.
Natural-born or otherwise, including naturalized citizen of the
Philippines *Approval of voter registration does not presuppose six-month residency in
the place prior to registration.
Frivaldo case: The qualifications in the LGC refer to that of Elective Officials
(and not of Candidates), hence, these qualifications need to be possessed Disqualifications (Sec 40, LGC)
 1. Sentenced by final judgment for (1) offense involving moral
turpitude OR (2) offense punishable by one year or more of
imprisonment, within 2 years after service of sentence.
a. Hence, after 2 years- the individual or candidate regains
his eligibility.
i. XPN: UNLESS, the crime for which had been
convicted carries with it as principal or accessory
penalty perpetual disqualification under RPC
(Jalosjos vs. Comelec)
Art 40 of the LGC and Perpetual Absolute Disqualification to Hold
Public Office in RPC
While Section 40 (a) of the LGC allows a prior conviction to run for
local elective office after the lapse of 2 years from the time he
serves his sentence, the said provision should not be deemed to
cover cases wherein the law imposes a penality, either as
principal or accessory, which has the effect of disqualifying
the convict to run for public office. (Jalosjos vs. Comelec, GR
no. 205033, June 18,2013)
Within 2 years from service
The phrase within 2 years after serving sentence should have been
interpreted and understood to apply both to those who have been
sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude
and to those who have been sentenced by final judgment for an
offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment. The
place of the comma (,) in the provision means that the phrase modifies both
parts of Sec 40 (a) of the LGC. (Moreno vs. Comelec [2006, En banc])
Effect of Probation:
This is as good a time as any to clarify that those who have not served their
sentence by reason of a grant of probation which, we reiterate, should not
be equated with service of sentence, should not likewise be disqualified from
running for a local elective office because the two-year period of ineligibility
under Sec 40 (a) of the LGC does not even begin to run. (Moreno vs.
Comelec, 2006)
Examples of moral turpitude crimes
Hanrieder vs. De Rivera (2007) and Inre: Re: Conviction of Imelda
B. Fortus, Clerk III, RTC Br. 40, Calapaan City, the Court
characterized the violation of BP 22 as a crime involving moral
turpitude.
De la Torre vs. Comelec: Violation of Anti-Fencing Law is a crim
involving moral turpitude
Continued
2. Removed from office as a result of administrative case (prospective
application only; any office {See: Osorio case 2004])
a. This ground is new in LGC and not present in the old one.
One must have been removed under the LGC of 1991 to
be disqualified under this ground.
3. Convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to
the Republic
4. Those with dual citizenship. (Manzano vs. Mercado: should be
interpreted as dual allegiance) See also Cordora (2009)
a. Give at least 2 basis for distinction of dual citizenship and
dual allegiance.
i. Dual allegiance is inimical to national interest
ii. By nature: dual citizenship is involuntary and
therefore, cannot be blamed to have acquired
such as compared to dual allegiance.
Macquiling vs. Comelec *April 16, 2013; July 2, 2013)
Arnado, by using his US passport after renouncing his American
citizenship, has recanted the same Oath of Renunciation he took.
Section 40 (d) of the LGC applies to his situation. He is disqualified
not only from holding the public office but even from becoming a
candidate
Arnados category of dual citizenship is that by which foreign
citizenship is acquired through a positive act of applying for
naturalization.
This is distinct from those considered dual citizens by virtue of birth,
who are not required by law tot ake the oath of renunciation as the
emre filing of the certificate of candidacy already carries with it an
implied renunciation of foreign citizenship. Dual citizens by
naturlizaton, on the other hand, are required tot ake not only the
Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines but also to
 personally renounce foreign citizenship in order to qualify as a
candidate for public office.
Arnado became dual citizen by naturalization hence, needs to
personally renounce foreign citizenship. As compared to Manzano,
who was dual citizen by birth, oath of allegiance was held to be
enough.
Rodriguez vs. Comelec (1996)
FUGITIVE FROM JUSTIVE includes not only those who flee after conviction
to avoid punishment but likewise who, after being charged, flee to avoid
prosecution. The definition thus indicates that the intent to evade is the
compelling factor that animates ones flight from a particular jurisdiction.
And obviously, there can only be an intent ot evade when there is knowledge
by fleeing subject of an already instituted indictment, or of a promulgated
judgment of conviction.
Eligibility of Ecclesiastics to a local elective position
Section 2175 of the Old Admin Code stated: In no case shall there
be elected or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics, soldiers
in active service, persons receiving salaries or compensation from
provincial or national funds, or contractors for public works of the
municipality
In Pamil vs. Teleron (1978), the voter for 7 was not enough to
declare the above provision unconstitutional
Term of office
Art X, Sec 8 of Constitution 3 years (2006 bar)
Terms of Barangay officials fixed by law
RA no. 8524 (1998) 5 years
RA 9160 (2002) 3 years (up to three terms only and to begin in
year 1994)
RA 9340 (2005) extended the term (which ended on Nov. 30,
200) to Nov. 30, 2007
Note: Hold-over Principle validly applies to barangay officials ONLY.
(Sambarani vs. Comelec [2004])
The three term limit rule
Elements:
1. That the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive
terms in he same local govt pose AND
2. That he has fully served three consecutive terms.
Interruption:
Voluntary resignation, abandonment (Aldovino case) => covered
by the concept of renunciation of the office and not merely an
interruption.
Involuntary not the initiative of the official, he may have been
ordered to step down; when he agrees with the Comelec to step
down => It interrupts the consecutiveness of the terms of office
2008 Bar
Abdul ran and won in the May 2001, 2004 and 2007 elections for Vice-
Governor of Tawi-Tawi. After being proclaimed Vice-Governor in 2004
elections, his opponent, Khalil, filed an election protest before the Comelec.
Ruling with finality on the protest, the Comelec declared Khalil as duly
elected Vice-Governor though the decision was promulgated only in 2007,
when Abdul had wholly served 2004-2007 term and was in fact already on
his 2007-2010 term as Vice-Governor.
a) Abdul now consults you if he can still run for Vice Governor of Tawi-
Tawi in the forthcoming May 2010 elections on the premise that he
could not be considered as having served a Vice-Governor from
2004-2007 because he was not duly elected to the post, as he
assumed office merely as a presumptive winner and that
presumption was later overturned when the COMELEC decided with
finality that he had lost in the May 2004 elections. What will be your
advice? (3%)
Court: For purposes of counting terms, we do not distinguish whether it was
de jure or de facto
2011 Bar
Alfredo was elected municipal mayor for 3 consecutive terms. During his 3rd
term, the municipality became a city. Alfredo ran for city mayor during the
next immediately succeeding election. Voltaire sought his disqualification
citing the 3 term limit for elective officials. Will Voltaires action prosper?
ANSWER: NO. The Supreme Court focused on the spirit of the law
which is to prevent the perpetual holding of a position by a single
person or clan. Permitting Voltaires action would circumvent the
intent. He has served the same territory and inhabitants.
2011 Bar
Adela served as Mayor of Kasim for 2 consecutive terms. On her third term,
COMELEC ousted her in an election protest that Gudi, her opponent, filed
against her. Two years later, Gudi faced recall proceedings and Adela ran in
the recall election against him. Adela won and served as Mayor for Gudis
remaining term. Can Adela run again for Mayor in the next succeeding
election without violating the 3 term limit? (Lonzanida and Socretes case)
This rule has been emphasized under Damasen vs. Tumamao (2010):
Conditions for the rule of succession under Section 45 of the LGC
to apply:
a) The appointee shall come from the same political party
as that of the Sanggunian member who caused the
vacancy;
b) The appointee must have nomination and a certificate
of Membership (bona fide membership) from the
highest official of the political party concerned.
2008 Bar
On August 8, 2008, the Governor of Bohol died and Vice-Governor Cesar
became the Governor by operation of law. Accordingly, Benito, the highest
ranking member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan was elevated tot eh
position of Vice-Governor. By the elevation of Benito to the office of the Vice-
Governor, a vacancy in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan was created. How
should the vacancy be filled? (3%)

Illustration
Illustration
Mayor X XXX
Mayor X XXX
V-Mayor Y PPP
V-Mayor Y PPP
Councilors
Councilors
A XXX
A Independent
B XXX
B XXX
C PPP
C PPP
D PPP
D PPP
E KKK
E KKK
F Independent
F Independent
G YYY
G YYY
H PPP
H PPP

Navarro vs. CA (2001)

The reason behind the right given to a political party to nominate a
replacement where a permanent vacancy occurs in the Sanggunian is to
maintain the party representation as willed by the people in the election.
RULES ON SUCCESSION:
As per Navarro vs. CA - A is the one who caused the vacancy
Problem
X, Y and Z were the candidates for Mayor in Municipality of ABC. Y had earlier
filed a petition for the cancellation of Xs certificate of candidacy on the
ground that X failed to comply with the 6-month residency requirement.
During the election, and while the disqualification case was still pending, X
received the highest number of votes followed by Y. Thereafter, the
COMELEC disqualified X. W, the elected Vice-Mayor, insisted that he should
become the Mayor. Should W be allowed to assume the office of the Mayor?
Before COC filing petition to deny due course
If COC has been given due course- remedy is cancellation of coc;
general petition for disqualification
After proclamation election contests, quo warranto
A: Apply rules on succession Sec 44 of LGC. Vice Mayor was permitted to
assume office instead of the 2nd placer. One who runs who violated the 3
term limit rule has failed to become a candidate and therefore, not open for
substitution.
vetlana Jalosjos vs. Comelec (June 25, 2013)
The rule on succession in Section 44 of the Local Government Code cannot
apply in instances when a de facto officer is ousted from office and the de
jure officer takes over. The ouster of a de facto officer cannot create a
permanent vacancy as contemplated in the Local government Code. There
is no vacancy to speak of as the de jure office, the rightful winner in the
elections, has the legal right to assume the position.
Note; Distinguish this case from Talaga Case (2012)!! See, however, Chua
vs. Comelec (April 5, 2016)
**The safest approach is to apply majority in Talaga. But if same with
Jalosjos, apply Jalosjos. But if dual citizenship when there is no
renunciation of Am citizenship and use of US passport
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
Filing of Complaint:
Office of the President Province, HUC & City
Sangguniang Panlalawigan Municipality (appealable to the Office
of the President)
SP or SB Barangay
[final and executory]
Concurrent Jurisdiction with Ombudsman
In administrative cases involving concurrent jurisdiction of two are
more disciplining authorities, the body where the complaint is filed
first, and which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising
concurrent jurisdiction.
Under RA 7160, the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan
has disciplinary authority over any elective barangay official. Since
the complaint against the petitioner was initially filed with the
office of the Ombudsman, the Ombudsmans exercise of jurisdiction
is to the exclusion of the sangguniang bayan whose exercise of
jurisdiction is concurrent. (Alejandro vs. office of the Ombudsman,
GR no 173121, April 3, 2013)
Rules and Prohibitions during Investigation
1. Investigation shall commence 10 days after respondent answers;
2. Investigation shall be held only in the place where the respondent
holds office;
3. No investigation within 90 days immediately prior to local
election and no preventive suspension shall be imposed
within said period (if already imposed ipso facto lifted);
Preventive Suspension
It is not a penalty, hence invocation of due process is generally not
appropriate
The sole objective of an administrative suspension is to prevent
the accused from hampering the normal course of the investigation
with his influence and authority over possible witnesses or to keep
him off the records and other evidence and to assist prosecutors
in firming up a case, if any, against an erring local official. (Bunye
vs. Escareal [1993]; Ganzon vs. CA [1991])
Authority:
1. President, in the case of HUC and ICC
2. Governor, in the case of CC and Mun;
3. Mayor; in the case of Barangay
CSQN:
a) issues have already been joined;
 b) evidence of guilt is strong and won a second term. He then moved to dismiss the charge against him
c) given the gravity of the offense, a responent might influence based on this supervening event. Should the motion be granted?
witnesses or pose a threat to records/evidence [Sec 63; Jason III
vs. CA, 2006] Administrative Appeals

Rights of Respondent Office of the President, in case of decision of SP of Province, HUC

and ICC;
Hearing SP of Province, in the case of decision of SP of CC and municipality
Counsel
Cross-Examine witnesses Note: Decision of the Office of the President shall be final and executory
Compulsory Process
Period of Investigation(90 days) Execution Pending Appeal
Period to Decide (30 days)
Penalty of Suspension shall not exceed the unexpired term or a The respondent shall be considered as having been placed
period of 6 months per administrative case, nor a bar to a candidacy under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal
(Sec 66[b]) in the event he wins such appeal. He shall be paid his salary
and benefits if the appeal exonerates him.
Famous (or infamous) Aguinaldo Doctrine
RECALL
A public official cannot be removed from office for administrative
conduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to the Recall is a mode of removing an elected official by the people before
office operates as a condonation of the officers previous the end of his term
misconduct to the extend of cutting off his right to remove him Ground: loss of trust and confidence;
therefore. No more preparatory recall assembly (PRA) as mode of initiating
It applies only to administrative case for misconduct, so the official recall.
may still be held criminally or civilly liable for the same act (CF: There is only one mode of initiating recall: By the Registered Voters
Three-Fold-Liability) (following certain percentage)

Garcia vs. Mojica See: RA 9244 (Feb 19, 2004)

Supreme Court disagreed because it is really impossible to Effectivity of Recall

determine actual or lack of knowledge by the electorates about the
Upon the election and proclamation of a successor (elected
misconduct at the time they case their votes. What can be
candidate other than the official subject of recall) in a recall
determined is that the misconduct was committed during a prior
election.
term. The fact that the misconduct was committed during the
If the official subject of the recall wins in the recall election, recall
prior term, Aguinaldo doctrine applies.
fails.
2011Bar
Prohibitions in Recall Proceedings:
Governor Paloma was administratively charged with abuse of authority
No registration during recall process;
before the Office of the President. Pending hearing, he ran for re-election
Recall election should only be once during the term of the official.
(Note of election, not proceeding)
 No recall (election) shall take place within one (1) year from date
of officials assumption to office or one (1) year immediately
preceding a regular election (day of election and that election
affecting the office of the official concerned).
2011 Bar
A was the duly elected Mayor of Tunawi in the local elections of 2004. He got
51% of all the votes cast. Fourteen months later, B, who also ran for mayor,
filed with the Local Election Registrar, a petition for recall against A. The
COMELEC approved the petition and set a date for its signing by other
qualified voters in order to garnet at least 25% of the totla registered voters
or total number of those who actually voted during the local election in 2004,
whichever is lower. A attacked the COMELEC resolution for being invalid. Do
you agree with A?
Human Resource and Development
Who may appoint local officials and employees?
What law governs the appointments of local officials and
employees?
Does the appointment process require the attestation of the Civil
Service Commission?
How will the resignation of a Vice-Mayor and a Member of the
Sanggunian be effected?
What are the grounds for the preventive suspension of an
appointive local official or employee?
What penalty may be imposed upon erring local officials and
employees?
Who among the following local elective officials can practice his profession?
Mayor X, who is a doctor he can practice
Vice-Mayor Y, who is an engineer he can practice
Councilor Z, who is a lawyer he can practice because hes not a
local chief executive because hes a member of the sanggunian
Subject to the rules on conflict of interest.
There is also no prohibition among these officers NOT to have
financial interest.
Problem
The Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) of Politika City is composed of X, the Vice-
Mayor/Presiding Officer, 10 regular members (Councilors A-J), 2 ex-officio
members (Liga ng mga Barangay and SK Presidents).
A. What is the quorom of the SP? Count the vice-mayor in determining the
quorom since he is the presiding officer
B. If Councilor A is on leave and Councilor B is outside the country, what is
the quorom of the SP of Politika City? If one is out of the country, beyond
the compulsory process of the senate, then the quorom should only be on
the basis of those who are in the Philippines.
C. How many votes are required in order to suspend Councilor C for
disorderly behavior?
QUOROM
La Carlota City vs. Rajo (2012)
the entire membership must be taken into account in computing the quorom
of the sangguniang panlalawigan, for while the constitution merely states
that majority of each House constitute a quorom, Section 53 of the LGC is
more exacting as it requires that the majority of all members of the
sanggunianelected and qualified shall constitute a quorom. The trial
court should thus have based its determination of the existence of a quorom
on the total number of members of the Sanggunian without regard to the
filing of a leave of absence by Board Member Sotto. (citing Zamora vs.
Caballero, 2004)
LOCAL LEGISLATIONS
Ordinance vs. Resolution
Approval of Ordinance
Veto by Gov./Mayor (vs. Punong Barangay)
Veto by the LCE vs. Review by Mother SP
Rules on Veto (Is item veto allowed?; How many times may
the LCE veto?)
Effectivity of Ordinance (See Arts. 113-114, IRR); What is
the effect of Review mechanism by the Mother SP to the
effectivity of the ordinance?;
What ordinance should be published?
Initiative and Referendum

Distinction
Subject matter
Limitations
Effectivity of local proposition
Authority of Courts

Settlement of Boundary Disputes

Amicable Settlement first by the SP concerned within 60 days

Joint referral for settlement
If not settled amicably, SP issues certification and TRIES the case.
The SP shall decide the case within 60 days from date of
certification.
Decision of SP may be appealed to the RTC

If there is adamant refusal from the Province, you can go to RTC directly