Discussion Mar.

10, 2019

LOCAL LEGISLATIVE

Vetoes may be impliedly partial

Solicitor General v MMDA of Mandaluyong GR 102782

 Facts: the Metro Manila Authority, to confiscate the license and the impounding
o EO392
 Issue: WON ordinace no 11 and 7 is valid for the impounding
 Held: NO. it is not valid.
o Requisites of a Valid Ordinance
1. NOT contravene consti/statute
2. NOT U/O
3. NOT P/D
4. NOT Prohibit trade but merely regulate
5. NOT unreasonable
6. MUST be general and consistent with public policy
o The pertinent law is PD 1605 (creating MMDA). It does not provide for impounding and
the license shall not be confiscated. The only sanction is fines and discipline drivers.
o The court goes further to rule that the powers of LGU is merely delegated.
o
 Note:
o They cannot confiscate driver’s license unless they are authorized by LTO.

Yusay v CA and City Council of Mandaluyong City GR 156684

 FACTS:
 ISSUE: WON Resolution 552 can be assailed by Certiorari.
 HELD: NO.
o In order for Certiorari to prosper
 Writ is directed to tribunal, judicial and quasi-judicial
 Alleged amounting to excess of jurisdiction
 No speedy, accurate,… remedy in the ordinary course of
o Difference of the Resolution v Ordinance

Beluso v The Municipality of Panay, GR 153974

 FACTS: the expropriation of property with only a resolution, there was already an expropriation
proceedings
 WON the power of ED can be exercised by a resolution
 HELD: NO.
 o Sec 19 Requisites
 ORDINANCE
 PUBLIC USEs PUBLIC PURPOSE or BENEFIT
 Sq
 Qd
o Ordinance v Resolution
 Law, declaration of sentiment

 Note: resolution is just a statement of opinions and sentiments. It confers no right.

Social justice Society v Atienza, GR 156052

 FACTS: Pandacan Terminal, classified as industrial, thus was good for business. The LGU, becoz
of the threats of terrorist attacks, deemed it proper to reclassify from industrial to commercial.
Doing so will cause the oil companies to abandon their factories.
 ISSUE; WON the ordinance is valid and constitutional.
 HELD: YES
o It was the exercise of Police Power.
o VALID exercise of Police Power
 Lawful subject: public interest over the few
 Lawful Method: the means used was reasonable

Learning Child Inc. v Ayala Alabang Village Association.

 FACTS: there was restriction in a deed of restriction annotated in the TCT of the land that the
land should only be used exclusively for nursery. But the buyers expanded their school to an
elementary school.
o It reclassified the area as institutional thus, there should have been a notice
o It was ruled that the resolution only was meant to the correction of typo, thus no need
for notice.
 ISSUE: WON valid
 HELD: AFFIRMED. The resolution was just to confirm the zoning map of muntinglupa
o Resins v Auditor General, this case, it was a tax payer who filed a petition to correct the
law. In the present case, it as the municipality.
o Being a mere correctional issuance is not validated by the nonissuance of notice.

Land Bank v Cacayuran

 FACTS: xa
 HELD: Sec 444 b 1 vi LGC, may not be in the form of an ordinance,

Acaac et al, v Azcuna, GR 187378

  Ml

Section 57.

 Inaction of SAngunniang Panlunsod or Bayan within 30 days shall be deemed valid.

 Suspend

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY