Ultra Vires Acts | Powers | LGUs | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Ultra Vires Acts of Local Government Units (LGUs) – A Detailed Discussion

I. Introduction

In the context of Local Government Units (LGUs) in the Philippines, the doctrine of ultra vires acts pertains to actions taken by an LGU or its officials that exceed the scope of their authority. The Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) defines the general powers and limitations of LGUs. Acts beyond those expressly or impliedly granted by law are considered ultra vires, making them void or unenforceable.

This discussion will delve into the scope of LGU powers, the concept of ultra vires acts, the consequences of such acts, relevant jurisprudence, and exceptions or mitigating principles.

---

II. Powers of LGUs

Under the Local Government Code, LGUs are granted specific powers and responsibilities. These powers are classified into the following:

1. Express Powers: Those explicitly provided by law (R.A. No. 7160) and the Constitution.
2. Implied Powers: Powers necessary or incidental to the effective exercise of express powers.
3. Delegated Powers: Powers that are devolved by national legislation to LGUs, such as the powers relating to taxation, enactment of ordinances, and control over local resources.

The inherent powers of LGUs include:

• Police Power: The ability to enact laws and ordinances that promote the welfare of the community.
• Power of Eminent Domain: The right to expropriate private property for public use, subject to due process and payment of just compensation.
• Power of Taxation: The authority to impose local taxes, fees, and charges.

However, these powers must be exercised within the confines of the law and must follow prescribed procedures. Actions outside these bounds are considered ultra vires.

---

III. The Doctrine of Ultra Vires

The term ultra vires is a Latin phrase meaning “beyond the powers.” In the legal context, it refers to acts or decisions made beyond the legal authority of the entity or official performing them. For LGUs, an ultra vires act is an action that exceeds their statutory authority or violates limitations set by the Local Government Code or other relevant laws.

Key Legal Basis: Section 22(c) of the Local Government Code specifically provides that an LGU shall have “such other powers as are necessary, appropriate, or incidental to efficient and effective governance and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare.”

However, actions falling outside these parameters are not allowed.

Types of Ultra Vires Acts:

1. Substantive Ultra Vires: Acts that LGUs do not have the authority to undertake at all. For example, passing an ordinance regulating a matter exclusively within national legislation.

2. Procedural Ultra Vires: Acts that LGUs might have the authority to perform but are rendered ultra vires because they were done without following the proper procedures (e.g., failure to follow the required steps in passing an ordinance).

---

IV. Consequences of Ultra Vires Acts

An ultra vires act by an LGU or its officials results in the following consequences:

1. Nullity of the Act: Ultra vires acts are void ab initio (from the beginning) and have no legal effect. This is a fundamental principle in administrative law.

2. Personal Liability of Officials: LGU officials who engage in ultra vires acts may be held personally liable, especially if the act was done with malice, bad faith, or gross negligence. The doctrine of qualified political immunity may not shield them if their actions are ultra vires.

3. Non-Ratifiability: Ultra vires acts cannot be ratified, even by the LGU itself, since the actions were beyond the scope of their legal authority to begin with.

4. Injunctions or Declaratory Relief: Affected parties can seek judicial remedies, such as injunctions or declaratory relief, to nullify ultra vires acts.

---

V. Examples of Ultra Vires Acts

1. Imposition of Unauthorized Taxes: An LGU imposes a tax that is not authorized by the Local Government Code, such as a tax on national government instrumentalities like the Bureau of Customs. This would be an ultra vires exercise of the LGU’s taxation power.

2. Ordinances Inconsistent with National Law: LGUs passing ordinances that are inconsistent with or violate national laws are acting ultra vires. For instance, if an LGU enacts a traffic regulation that contradicts the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, such ordinance will be struck down.

3. Unlawful Use of Eminent Domain: LGUs are given the power to expropriate property, but doing so without following proper procedures (such as the requirement to negotiate with the property owner before filing for expropriation) renders the act ultra vires.

4. Overstepping Jurisdiction: If an LGU passes an ordinance or takes action that pertains to matters outside its territorial jurisdiction, such act is ultra vires. For example, a municipality cannot enact ordinances regulating businesses located outside its geographic boundaries.

---

VI. Jurisprudence on Ultra Vires Acts

Several cases have defined the boundaries of ultra vires acts by LGUs:

1. Province of Cebu v. City of Cebu (G.R. No. 138043, 2001): The Supreme Court ruled that the city’s imposition of a franchise tax on the Province of Cebu’s water distribution system was ultra vires, as local governments cannot impose taxes on government instrumentalities.

2. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) v. Bel-Air Village Association (G.R. No. 135962, 2000): The Supreme Court held that the MMDA’s action of opening streets within a private subdivision without the necessary authority was an ultra vires act. While MMDA has certain supervisory powers, its actions must be within the parameters of the law.

3. Paje v. Casino (G.R. No. 207257, 2014): The Supreme Court invalidated a municipal ordinance that sought to regulate the issuance of mining permits, ruling that the authority to regulate mining operations was vested exclusively in the national government under the Mining Act of 1995.

---

VII. Exceptions and Mitigating Principles

While ultra vires acts are generally void, there are instances where courts may not strictly apply the doctrine:

1. De Facto Officer Doctrine: This doctrine protects the public and third parties who rely on the actions of an officer or official who is later found to have acted without authority. It allows for the validity of certain acts taken in good faith by a de facto officer, despite the lack of authority.

2. Public Welfare Consideration: In some instances, courts may uphold acts that are ultra vires in nature if they were done for the benefit of the general welfare, provided there was no evident bad faith or malice.

---

VIII. Conclusion

The doctrine of ultra vires serves as a necessary limitation on the powers of Local Government Units (LGUs) in the Philippines. While LGUs are given broad powers under the Local Government Code to govern and promote the general welfare, such powers are not without boundaries. Any act outside these boundaries—whether by overstepping the authority granted or failing to follow the proper procedures—is considered ultra vires, rendering the act void.

LGU officials must be mindful of the scope of their powers and ensure that their actions are in accordance with the law. Ultra vires acts can lead to the nullity of government actions, as well as personal liability for the officials involved, making it crucial for local governance to remain within the limits prescribed by law and jurisprudence.

Liability of LGUs | LGUs | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Liability of Local Government Units (LGUs) in the Philippines

The liability of Local Government Units (LGUs) in the Philippines is primarily governed by the 1987 Constitution, the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160), and relevant jurisprudence. This liability may arise from acts or omissions in the exercise of governmental or proprietary functions, as well as from certain statutory obligations. The key areas that define LGU liability include civil liability, criminal liability, and administrative liability. Below is a meticulous and comprehensive overview of the legal framework surrounding LGU liability:

---

1. Constitutional Framework

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines recognizes the autonomy of LGUs under Article X, Section 2. However, this autonomy does not exempt them from liability for certain acts or omissions. The provisions of the Constitution aim to balance autonomy with accountability, especially in the performance of duties and delivery of public services.

---

2. Local Government Code of 1991

a. Governmental vs. Proprietary Functions

The liability of LGUs hinges on whether the act or omission involves governmental or proprietary functions:

• Governmental functions refer to activities inherently vested in the state, such as public safety, health, and order. LGUs are generally immune from suit when exercising governmental functions unless there is a specific waiver of immunity. This immunity derives from the doctrine of state immunity from suit.

• Proprietary functions are activities that are more commercial or business-like in nature, such as operating public utilities or maintaining markets. LGUs, in this case, are treated similarly to private entities and may be held liable for damages arising from negligence or breach of contract.

Important provision:

• Section 24 of the Local Government Code clarifies that LGUs are "liable for damages" resulting from the exercise of proprietary functions in the same manner as private corporations.

b. Tort Liability of LGUs

The liability of LGUs for tortious acts is governed by Article 2189 of the Civil Code, which holds provinces, cities, and municipalities liable for damages caused by "defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control."

• Article 2189 establishes strict liability, meaning that LGUs can be held liable regardless of fault or negligence, provided that the damage was caused by defective infrastructure under their control.

However, for torts arising from governmental functions, LGUs are typically immune from suit unless an exception to immunity applies. One recognized exception is when the LGU acts in a capacity similar to that of a private entity in proprietary functions.

c. Statutory Liability

Under the Local Government Code, specific provisions impose liability on LGUs in the following instances:

• Section 444(b)(3)(v) provides that a local chief executive (mayor) can be held liable for gross negligence or dereliction of duty in preventing the escape of prisoners.
• Section 511 provides that LGUs may be held liable for illegal or unlawful disbursements of public funds and may be compelled to return such funds.

d. Corporate Personality of LGUs

LGUs have a distinct corporate personality under Section 15 of the Local Government Code, which allows them to sue and be sued in their corporate names. The liability of LGUs may be differentiated from that of their officers; the LGU itself is liable in proprietary matters or in cases where its direct negligence or breach of duty can be established.

---

3. Civil Liability of LGUs

a. Contractual Liability

LGUs may enter into contracts in accordance with their powers and functions. If an LGU enters into a contract and breaches it, it may be held liable under civil law. The Local Government Code allows LGUs to contract debts, borrow funds, and engage in business enterprises, subject to the limitations provided by law.

LGUs may be held liable for breach of contract if:

• They enter into contracts not in conformity with the law (e.g., contracts without the necessary approvals).
• They default on financial obligations.

b. Quasi-delict (Tort) Liability

Under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, LGUs are strictly liable for damages arising from defective infrastructure. This includes negligence in the maintenance of roads, bridges, public buildings, and other public works. LGUs may also be liable under Article 2176 of the Civil Code for quasi-delicts arising from negligence in the performance of proprietary functions.

c. Civil Liability of Public Officers

LGU officials may be held personally liable for acts done with bad faith, malice, or gross negligence under Article 27 of the Civil Code. If an official’s act leads to damage or injury, the aggrieved party may file a civil case against the official for damages. The LGU may also be held subsidiarily liable.

---

4. Criminal Liability of LGUs and Public Officials

Criminal liability for acts or omissions of LGU officials falls under general laws, such as the Revised Penal Code and special penal laws. LGUs as entities do not incur criminal liability; however, LGU officials may be personally charged for crimes committed in the performance of their duties.

Key laws applicable to LGU officials include:

• Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019), which penalizes public officials for corrupt acts such as causing undue injury to any party, whether the government or a private entity.
• Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713), which sets standards of accountability for public officers.

In cases where LGU officials commit criminal acts, they can face both criminal prosecution and administrative sanctions.

---

5. Administrative Liability

LGU officials may be held administratively liable under the Local Government Code, particularly in instances of:

• Abuse of authority
• Misconduct or dereliction of duty
• Inefficiency or gross negligence

Under Section 60 of the Local Government Code, the President may discipline, suspend, or remove LGU officials for administrative violations. Grounds for removal or suspension include:

• Dishonesty
• Oppression
• Gross misconduct
• Neglect of duty

6. Jurisprudence on LGU Liability

Several cases provide clarity on the liability of LGUs:

• City of Manila v. Teotico (1966): The Supreme Court held that an LGU could be held liable under Article 2189 for damages arising from injuries sustained due to a defective road.

• Santos v. IAC (1985): LGUs were not liable for acts of their employees that were beyond the scope of their authority or performed in a personal capacity.

• Mendoza v. de Leon (1993): The Supreme Court ruled that public officers could be held administratively and criminally liable for dereliction of duty and gross misconduct.

---

7. Exceptions to Immunity

LGUs can be sued and held liable in the following instances:

• Waiver of immunity: If the government waives immunity, typically in proprietary functions.
• Proprietary functions: When an LGU acts in a business capacity, such as operating public utilities or markets, it may be sued for damages like any private corporation.
• Special laws: Certain laws explicitly provide for the liability of LGUs, such as environmental laws or laws concerning public infrastructure.

---

Conclusion

The liability of LGUs is a complex interplay of constitutional principles, statutory provisions, and judicial interpretations. LGUs enjoy certain immunities, especially when performing governmental functions, but they may be held accountable in their proprietary capacity or when specific laws impose obligations and liabilities. Understanding these nuances is critical to navigating the legal landscape governing LGU liability in the Philippines.

Settlement of Boundary Disputes | LGUs | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Settlement of Boundary Disputes in Local Government Units (LGUs)

The settlement of boundary disputes between local government units (LGUs) is governed by specific provisions under Republic Act No. 7160, also known as the Local Government Code of 1991. The Code outlines the procedure and authorities responsible for resolving disputes involving territorial boundaries between various LGUs (barangays, municipalities, cities, and provinces). Below is a meticulous breakdown of the relevant provisions and procedures.

1. Legal Basis:

Boundary disputes arise when two or more LGUs contest their territorial limits. The authority and process to settle these disputes are primarily found in:

• Section 118 of the Local Government Code of 1991
• Section 119 of the Local Government Code of 1991
• Relevant Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Local Government Code

2. Key Principles:

• The LGUs involved should prioritize an amicable settlement of the dispute at the administrative level.
• The Sangguniang Bayan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, or Sangguniang Panlalawigan, depending on the nature of the dispute, have the jurisdiction to settle these disputes.
• Should the administrative process fail, the matter may be elevated to the courts for judicial resolution.

3. Hierarchy of Jurisdiction:

a. Disputes Between Barangays:

• Section 118(a) provides that disputes between or among barangays within the same city or municipality shall be referred for settlement to the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan concerned.
• These legislative bodies must attempt to mediate and resolve the issue.

b. Disputes Between Municipalities or Component Cities within the Same Province:

• Section 118(b) specifies that disputes between municipalities or component cities within the same province shall be referred for settlement to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province.

c. Disputes Between Highly Urbanized Cities, Independent Component Cities, or Provinces:

• Section 118(c) applies when the dispute involves highly urbanized cities, independent component cities, or provinces. The dispute is referred to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province involved, or the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province where the independent component city or highly urbanized city is geographically located.

d. Disputes Between LGUs of Different Provinces:

• Section 118(d) governs disputes between municipalities or cities of different provinces. These disputes are referred for settlement to the Sanggunians of the provinces involved.

4. Procedural Process:

a. Filing of a Petition:

• A petition for settlement of boundary dispute must be filed by any of the LGUs involved, typically represented by their respective local chief executives (mayors or governors).
• The petition must clearly state the facts and arguments supporting the claim of the LGU regarding its boundary, often based on historical records, cadastral surveys, and official maps.

b. Mediation and Amicable Settlement:

• Upon the filing of a petition, the concerned Sangguniang Bayan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, or Sangguniang Panlalawigan is tasked with mediating the dispute.
• The goal is to arrive at an amicable settlement between the LGUs involved. The local legislative body may request the assistance of technical agencies, such as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for cadastral and land survey assistance.

c. Adjudication:

• If mediation fails, the local legislative body proceeds to adjudicate the dispute. A hearing may be conducted, wherein both LGUs present their evidence and arguments.
• The decision of the local legislative body should be based on the facts presented, particularly regarding official records, land surveys, historical boundaries, and legislative enactments affecting the boundaries.

d. Appeal:

• The decision of the Sangguniang Bayan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, or Sangguniang Panlalawigan may be appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) within the region where the LGUs are located.
• The appeal must be made within the period prescribed under the Rules of Court.

5. Resolution by Courts:

If the dispute remains unresolved at the administrative level, or if any of the parties are dissatisfied with the decision of the local legislative body, the dispute may be brought before the courts for judicial determination.

• The courts will then rely on the same evidence, particularly the official records and cadastral surveys, to determine the proper boundaries.
• In most cases, the final arbiter of boundary disputes between LGUs is the Supreme Court, particularly when questions of law or jurisdiction are involved.

6. General Considerations in Boundary Disputes:

a. Evidentiary Weight of Historical and Official Documents:

• Cadastral Maps, Presidential Decrees, and legislative enactments (laws, ordinances) are crucial pieces of evidence in boundary disputes. These documents often provide the clearest demarcations of territorial limits and are accorded great weight in determining boundaries.

b. Role of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR):

• The DENR, through its Land Management Bureau (LMB), plays a significant role in providing technical assistance, including cadastral surveys, which are vital for determining the precise locations of disputed boundaries.

c. Amicable Settlement vs. Judicial Proceedings:

• The law encourages amicable settlement at the administrative level through mediation by the local legislative bodies. The rationale is to avoid prolonged legal battles that could strain relationships between neighboring LGUs and cause administrative inefficiencies.

d. Importance of Local Autonomy and Coordination:

• The principle of local autonomy allows LGUs to manage their own affairs, but disputes over boundaries can disrupt governance and local administration. Hence, the resolution process seeks to balance local autonomy with administrative efficiency and harmonious relations.

7. Cases on Boundary Disputes:

The jurisprudence on boundary disputes involves several cases where the Supreme Court has resolved issues based on the cadastral surveys, historical documents, and the Local Government Code. Courts consistently reiterate the necessity of factual evidence, such as historical boundaries and land surveys, in the adjudication of these disputes.

Example Case:

• Piedad Estate v. Municipality of Quezon: This landmark case involved a boundary dispute where the Court ruled based on official documents, land surveys, and historical records in determining the boundaries between LGUs.

8. Conclusion:

Boundary disputes are inherent in the administration of local government units due to the complex history of territorial demarcations in the Philippines. The Local Government Code of 1991 provides a clear legal framework to resolve these disputes, prioritizing amicable settlements through mediation and adjudication by local legislative bodies. However, unresolved disputes can be elevated to the judiciary for final resolution, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence, especially cadastral maps, in determining the correct territorial boundaries.

Vacancies and Succession of Local Officials | LGUs | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Vacancies and Succession of Local Officials

Under the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160), the procedures and rules for vacancies and succession of local officials are governed primarily by the principles of continuity in public service and the preservation of local governance. The law provides for the manner by which vacancies may arise and the corresponding mechanisms for succession to ensure that local government units (LGUs) can continue functioning effectively.

I. Causes of Vacancy in Local Offices

A vacancy in the office of a local elective official can occur under the following circumstances:

1. Death – The demise of the local official results in an immediate vacancy.
2. Permanent Disability – When a local official becomes incapacitated due to physical or mental disability that permanently prevents the official from performing the functions of the office.
3. Removal from Office – This may be by virtue of:
   • Administrative proceedings leading to dismissal from service,
   • Disqualification from holding office due to criminal conviction,
   • Removal by a competent authority for just cause.
4. Resignation – A voluntary resignation submitted by the local official creates a vacancy. However, the resignation must be accepted by the proper authority to become effective.
5. Abandonment – Absence from office without authority for a continuous period of six months can be considered abandonment of office.
6. Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude – A local official convicted of such crime is disqualified from holding public office, resulting in a vacancy.
7. Assumption of an Incompatible Office – If a local official assumes another office or employment in the government that is incompatible with their current office, it results in a vacancy.
8. Other Legal Causes – Vacancies may also arise due to other legal causes provided by law, such as forfeiture of office due to certain violations.

II. Succession of Local Officials

The succession of local officials is crucial to ensure uninterrupted local governance. The Local Government Code specifies the process of succession for each type of local elective position.

1. Succession for the Position of Local Chief Executives (Governor, Vice Governor, Mayor, Vice Mayor)

• If the Governor or Mayor position becomes vacant, the following rules apply:
  • Vice Governor or Vice Mayor – The Vice Governor (for the Governor) or Vice Mayor (for the Mayor) automatically succeeds to the position of Governor or Mayor in the event of a vacancy. This principle ensures an immediate transition without any need for appointment or special election.
  • Filling the Position of Vice Governor or Vice Mayor – Once the Vice Governor or Vice Mayor assumes the higher office, their position is also vacated. The law provides that the highest-ranking member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (provincial board) or Sangguniang Panlungsod (city council) shall succeed to the position of Vice Governor or Vice Mayor.
    • In cases where two members have equal ranking (such as both having the same number of votes in the last election), the law mandates the drawing of lots to determine who will succeed.

2. Succession for the Position of Sangguniang Members

• Provincial Board Members (Sangguniang Panlalawigan), City Councilors (Sangguniang Panlungsod), and Municipal Councilors (Sangguniang Bayan) are likewise subject to the rules of succession:
  • Ranking of Sangguniang Members – The ranking of the members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Panlungsod, or Bayan is based on the order in which they were elected. In case of equal votes, the tie-breaking procedure of drawing lots applies.
  • Filling Vacancies in the Sangguniang – If a seat in the Sangguniang becomes vacant, it shall be filled by the political party to which the member who caused the vacancy belongs, in accordance with the following rules:
    • Nomination by Political Party – The party of the official who vacated the seat has the right to nominate a replacement. The replacement must come from the same political party.
    • In the Absence of Political Party Affiliation – If the official who vacated the seat does not belong to any political party, or if the vacancy occurs in a seat held by an independent candidate, the President, Governor, or Mayor (as the case may be, depending on the level of the Sanggunian) appoints a qualified person to fill the vacancy upon the recommendation of the Sangguniang concerned.

3. Special Rules for Barangay Officials

• The same basic principles apply to barangay officials (Barangay Chairperson and Barangay Kagawad). If the Barangay Chairperson position becomes vacant, the highest-ranking Barangay Kagawad automatically succeeds to the position. If two or more Barangay Kagawad have the same rank, the same method of drawing lots will apply.

III. Temporary Vacancies

In certain cases, a local official may be temporarily unable to perform their duties, such as when they are:

• Suspended from Office – In this case, an officer-in-charge (OIC) may be appointed to temporarily take over the functions of the suspended official. However, the suspension is not considered a permanent vacancy.
• Absent due to Authorized Leave – If a local official is on an approved leave of absence, the Vice Governor, Vice Mayor, or highest-ranking Sanggunian member temporarily assumes the functions of the absent official.
• Preventive Suspension – If a local official is under preventive suspension, the Vice Governor, Vice Mayor, or highest-ranking Sanggunian member takes over for the duration of the suspension. This suspension, however, does not create a vacancy.

IV. Appointments by the President in Case of Permanent Vacancies

Under exceptional circumstances, when a permanent vacancy occurs in both the positions of Governor and Vice Governor or both Mayor and Vice Mayor, the President of the Philippines is authorized to appoint a replacement from a list of three (3) nominees submitted by the respective Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Panlungsod, or Bayan.

In these instances, the appointee must meet the qualifications required by law and belong to the same political party as the official who vacated the office. If the official was independent, the President has the discretion to appoint a qualified person.

V. Special Elections

While the Local Government Code generally emphasizes succession and appointments to fill vacancies, there are circumstances where special elections may be called to fill a vacancy. This is more common in the case of congressional representatives but may apply to local positions if mandated by law or circumstance.

VI. Qualifications and Limitations in Succession

• Qualifications of Successors – The successor to any vacant position must meet all the qualifications required for the office, including residency, age, and citizenship requirements under the law.
• Term of the Successor – The successor serves only for the unexpired portion of the term of the official they are replacing.
• Prohibition on Successive Terms – While successors may serve for the unexpired term, the usual limitations on successive terms apply. For example, an official who succeeds a Governor or Mayor cannot serve more than three consecutive terms in the same office.

---

Key Principles in the Doctrine of Vacancy and Succession

1. Continuity of Governance – The law ensures that there is always a qualified individual ready to assume office in case of vacancies, preventing any disruption in the functions of the local government.
2. Preservation of Political Party Rights – The political party of the official who vacated the office is given the right to nominate a replacement, maintaining the balance of political representation.
3. Expedient and Efficient Transition – The procedures for succession are designed to be swift and straightforward, with provisions like automatic succession and the drawing of lots to resolve ties, ensuring that leadership transitions smoothly and governance is not interrupted.

These detailed procedures enshrined in the Local Government Code are essential in maintaining the stability, order, and functionality of local government units across the Philippines, while also respecting democratic principles and party affiliations.

Recall | LGUs | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

RECALL UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Legal Basis

The concept of recall in the Philippines is governed by the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160), specifically under Title I, Chapter 5, Section 69 to Section 75. It is one of the mechanisms provided by law to ensure accountability of local government officials. Recall serves as a direct democratic remedy by which the electorate can remove an elected local official before the end of their term for loss of confidence.

Grounds for Recall

The singular ground for initiating recall under Philippine law is loss of confidence. Unlike other accountability mechanisms that may require proving specific misconduct, the recall process is based purely on the collective sentiment of the electorate. It is premised on the democratic right of the people to withdraw their trust from an elected official if they believe the official no longer represents their interests or has otherwise lost the confidence of the public.

Who Can Be Recalled

All elective officials of Local Government Units (LGUs) can be subject to recall. These include:

• Provincial Governors and Vice Governors
• City and Municipal Mayors and Vice Mayors
• Members of the Sanggunian (Provincial, City, or Municipal)

However, members of the Sangguniang Barangay (Barangay Council) and the Punong Barangay (Barangay Captain) are not subject to recall as provided by specific laws concerning barangay officials.

Who May Initiate Recall

The recall process may be initiated by either:

1. Registered Voters: A recall can be initiated directly by registered voters of the LGU through a petition signed by a specific percentage of the voters. The required percentage varies depending on the size of the population of the LGU:

   • For LGUs with up to 20,000 voters: At least 25% of the total registered voters are needed.
   • For LGUs with more than 20,000 but less than 75,000 voters: At least 20% of the total registered voters.
   • For LGUs with more than 75,000 but less than 300,000 voters: At least 15% of the total registered voters.
   • For LGUs with over 300,000 voters: At least 10% of the total registered voters.

2. The Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA): This assembly consists of local government officials elected in the previous election. The assembly can initiate recall by a majority vote of all its members, only for officials holding positions in the province, city, or municipality concerned. This option is unavailable for barangay officials.

Timing of Recall

There are strict time limitations regarding when recall may be initiated:

• Within the first year of the term of office of an official, no recall can be initiated.
• After the second year of the official's term, no recall can be initiated.
• Therefore, the window to initiate a recall is during the second year of the official's term. For instance, if a local official's term began in 2022, recall proceedings can only occur between 2023 and 2024.

Furthermore, only one recall election can be held for an official during their term.

Procedure for Recall by Voters' Petition

1. Filing of Petition: The recall petition, signed by the required percentage of registered voters, must be submitted to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The petition must specify the names of the petitioners, their signatures, addresses, and precinct numbers, as well as the specific reasons for loss of confidence.

2. Verification by COMELEC: Upon receipt of the petition, COMELEC must verify the signatures to ensure that the required number of voters has been met. This involves a physical verification process, often including the examination of voter records and the conduct of hearings.

3. Scheduling of Recall Election: Once verified, the COMELEC will schedule the recall election not earlier than 30 days but not later than 45 days from the time the petition is found sufficient, or 90 days in cases where the LGU is located in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

4. Election Campaign: The official who is the subject of recall, along with other candidates who may file their candidacies, will be allowed to campaign for the position.

5. The Recall Election: The electorate of the concerned LGU will vote to either retain the incumbent official or elect a replacement. The incumbent automatically becomes a candidate in the recall election.

Effect of Recall Election

If the incumbent official wins the recall election, they will remain in office for the remainder of the term. However, if the official loses, the winner of the recall election will serve for the remainder of the unexpired term of the recalled official.

Prohibition on Resignation to Avoid Recall

An official cannot resign to avoid a recall election. Any resignation tendered after the filing of a recall petition will not prevent the continuation of the recall process. This is to ensure that an official cannot use resignation as a means of evading the democratic process.

Limitations on Recall Elections

1. Frequency: Only one recall election can be conducted within the term of an elected official.
2. Term Restrictions: A local official who has been recalled and subsequently won the recall election cannot be subjected to another recall for the remainder of their term.

Role of the COMELEC

The COMELEC plays a critical role in the recall process. It has the authority to:

• Determine the sufficiency of the recall petition.
• Conduct the verification of the signatures.
• Organize and oversee the recall election.
• Set rules and regulations regarding the recall process to ensure fairness and transparency.

Supreme Court Decisions on Recall

There have been significant rulings by the Supreme Court related to the recall process:

1. Angobung v. COMELEC (1995): The Court ruled that the petition for recall must comply strictly with the procedural and substantive requirements under the Local Government Code. This case emphasized the importance of the verification process.

2. Terse v. COMELEC (1997): The Court upheld the power of the Preparatory Recall Assembly to initiate a recall process, affirming that this body is a legitimate source of initiating recall in local government units.

3. Monsale v. COMELEC (2010): The Court reiterated that the recall mechanism is a valid and democratic method of ensuring public officials' accountability, as long as it is exercised within the parameters provided by the law.

Conclusion

Recall is an essential component of the political law system in the Philippines as it ensures accountability and gives the people a direct mechanism to express their loss of confidence in their local leaders. While limited in application—given the time restrictions, procedural requirements, and the single-use limit—recall serves as a reminder that sovereignty resides in the people and that elected officials are accountable to them throughout their term.

Term Limits | LGUs | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Term Limits of Local Government Officials under Philippine Law

Under the Philippine Constitution and the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), local government officials, including governors, mayors, and members of the local legislative bodies, are subject to term limits to promote democratic governance and prevent excessive concentration of power. The relevant laws set specific rules governing these term limits, which will be discussed below.

1. Constitutional Provision

The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides the general framework for term limits of elective local government officials. Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution states:

• "The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms."

This provision explicitly limits local government officials to a maximum of three consecutive terms, each lasting three years. After serving three consecutive terms, an official becomes ineligible to run for the same position in the subsequent election cycle. However, after skipping one election, the official may run again for the same office.

2. Scope of Term Limits under the Local Government Code

The Local Government Code (LGC), particularly Section 43, reinforces and implements the constitutional provision on term limits. It specifies the positions subject to term limits, including:

• Provincial Governors and Vice Governors
• City and Municipal Mayors and Vice Mayors
• Members of the Provincial Board (Sangguniang Panlalawigan)
• Members of the City Council (Sangguniang Panlungsod)
• Members of the Municipal Council (Sangguniang Bayan)

The Local Government Code mirrors the constitutional provision, affirming that these officials may serve for a maximum of three consecutive terms. Each term is three years long, making a total of nine years for any official who serves the maximum number of consecutive terms.

Key Features of the Term Limits in the Local Government Code:

1. Three consecutive terms limit: Officials can only serve three consecutive terms in the same position.

2. Ineligibility after three consecutive terms: After serving the maximum number of consecutive terms, the official cannot run for re-election in the same position in the next regular election.

3. Break in service allows re-election: After a one-term break, an official becomes eligible to run for the same office again.

3. Interpretation and Application of the Term Limits

3.1. Consecutive Terms

The term “consecutive” is a crucial element in determining whether the term limit applies. An official’s three-term limit applies only if the terms are served consecutively. If an official does not serve a full consecutive term (for example, due to resignation or removal), the incomplete term may not count toward the three-term limit, depending on the circumstances.

For example, the Supreme Court in Borja v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 133495, September 3, 1998) clarified that a “term” refers to the full three-year period for which an official is elected. Therefore, if an official serves a term that is interrupted (e.g., through resignation or removal), the interrupted term may not count as one of the three consecutive terms under the law. In this case, the official might still be eligible to run in subsequent elections without violating the term limit rule.

3.2. Voluntary and Involuntary Interruption

Another important aspect of the term limit rule is the distinction between voluntary and involuntary interruption of terms. An involuntary interruption (e.g., disqualification or removal from office through no fault of the official) may prevent that period from being counted as part of the consecutive terms. The Aldovino v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 184836, December 23, 2009) case tackled this matter, where the Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition only applies to successive full terms. If an official is disqualified, and this disqualification is subsequently lifted or the official resumes office, such period may not be counted as part of the consecutive terms for purposes of the three-term limit.

3.3. Absence of a Clear Prohibition on Running for Other Positions

It is important to note that the term limit applies only to the same position. An official who has served three consecutive terms as mayor, for example, is not prohibited from running for other local elective positions (e.g., governor or congressman). This practice has been commonly used by political families in the Philippines as a way to circumvent term limits while maintaining political control over different jurisdictions.

3.4. Substitutions and Appointments

Officials who assume office due to succession or appointment are subject to specific rules. If a Vice Mayor or Vice Governor assumes the office of Mayor or Governor due to vacancy, the period during which they hold office may or may not be counted as a full term, depending on the duration of the service. In cases where the assumption of office lasts more than half of the regular three-year term, it is typically counted as one full term for purposes of the three-term limit.

4. Jurisprudence on Term Limits

Philippine jurisprudence has clarified several ambiguities regarding the application of term limits, particularly regarding the question of what constitutes a “term.” Some key rulings include:

• Borja v. COMELEC (1998): This case clarified the distinction between full and incomplete terms and provided guidance on whether incomplete terms count towards the three-term limit.

• Aldovino v. COMELEC (2009): The Supreme Court ruled that an official could still run for office after serving incomplete or non-consecutive terms, provided the official did not complete three full consecutive terms.

• Lonzanida v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 135150, July 28, 1999): This case discussed the effects of involuntary interruption of an official’s term and clarified that such interruptions could restart the term limit count.

5. Special Considerations for Barangay Officials

Barangay officials (Barangay Captains and members of the Sangguniang Barangay) are not covered by the three-term limit rule stated in the Constitution and the Local Government Code. Instead, their term limits and rules of office are determined by specific laws governing barangays. Currently, the term of office for barangay officials is also three years, but there is no explicit term limit set under the Constitution.

6. Key Exceptions and Loopholes

While term limits are meant to prevent political dynasties and the entrenchment of power, various strategies have emerged to circumvent the term limit provisions, including:

• Shuffling positions: After serving the maximum number of terms, many officials shift to other positions (e.g., from mayor to vice mayor or governor) to remain in power, often with the support of family members holding other local government posts.

• Running in different jurisdictions: Some officials move to run in nearby municipalities or cities, thereby avoiding the term limit in their original jurisdiction while maintaining political influence.

7. Conclusion

The law on term limits for local government officials in the Philippines is clearly set out in both the Constitution and the Local Government Code. It establishes a balance between the continuity of experienced governance and the need to prevent local officials from entrenching themselves in power for too long. While this system of term limits works to some extent, various legal interpretations and strategies have allowed many politicians to find ways to extend their influence beyond the set limits.

Corporate Powers | Powers | LGUs | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: CORPORATE POWERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS (LGUs)

I. Introduction to Corporate Powers of LGUs

Local Government Units (LGUs) in the Philippines, composed of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays, are granted specific corporate powers under the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC). These corporate powers enable LGUs to function as corporate entities with distinct legal personalities, allowing them to enter into transactions, contracts, and agreements to carry out their mandates.

The corporate powers of LGUs are essential in empowering local governments to act in their proprietary capacity and achieve local autonomy. Section 22 of the LGC serves as the fundamental provision granting LGUs their corporate powers.

II. General Corporate Powers (Sec. 22, Local Government Code)

Section 22 of the Local Government Code delineates the corporate powers of LGUs as follows:

1. To Have a Continuous Succession in its Corporate Name

   • LGUs have perpetual legal existence under their corporate names, ensuring that they can continue to function as legal entities even as their elected officials change through elections.

2. To Sue and be Sued

   • LGUs can initiate legal actions and defend themselves in court. This power is essential for protecting their interests and enforcing their rights in legal matters, whether in proprietary or governmental capacity.

3. To Have and Use a Corporate Seal

   • LGUs are authorized to adopt and use an official corporate seal, which symbolizes their identity as a legal entity. The corporate seal is affixed to official documents, contracts, and transactions.

4. To Acquire and Convey Real or Personal Property

   • LGUs are empowered to acquire, purchase, hold, lease, or dispose of both real and personal properties. This corporate power allows them to manage public properties, including those necessary for providing public services.

5. To Enter into Contracts

   • LGUs, acting through their local chief executives (e.g., governor, mayor), are authorized to enter into contracts necessary to carry out their governmental and proprietary functions. However, there are statutory and legal restrictions to this power, as LGUs must ensure that their contracts are within their powers, fiscally responsible, and compliant with relevant laws.

III. Limitations on the Corporate Powers of LGUs

While LGUs have broad corporate powers, they are also subject to specific limitations imposed by law, including:

1. Subject to Legal Authority and Council Approval

   • Corporate acts, such as entering into contracts or acquiring property, must generally have the approval of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, or Sangguniang Bayan (depending on the level of LGU). The local chief executive (e.g., governor, mayor) is the authorized representative in entering contracts, but the legislative council must approve these actions.

2. Comprehensive Financial Authority

   • The power to acquire property and contract obligations is subject to the availability of appropriations and the fiscal management rules. LGUs must operate within their annual budgets, and their contracts should not result in obligations beyond what their resources can sustain.

3. Limitations on Borrowing and Indebtedness

   • LGUs are permitted to contract loans and borrow funds, but this power is heavily regulated by laws such as Republic Act No. 4860 (Foreign Borrowing Act), Republic Act No. 7180 (Local Borrowing Act), and relevant guidelines from the Department of Finance (DOF) and Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF). LGUs are subject to debt ceilings, and borrowing transactions must be approved by the Department of Finance.

4. Expropriation Power

   • As part of its corporate powers, an LGU can exercise eminent domain, or the power to expropriate private property for public use, but only when a public purpose is established. The exercise of this power is also subject to due process and the payment of just compensation to the property owner.

IV. Specific Corporate Acts

1. Contracts and Agreements

• LGUs are authorized to enter into contracts necessary for their operation. These include procurement contracts, public-private partnership (PPP) agreements, supply contracts, construction, leases, and joint ventures. However, all contracts must follow the procurement laws, such as Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act), and must be approved by the local legislature.

2. Public-Private Partnerships (PPP)

• LGUs may enter into joint ventures or partnerships with private entities to undertake projects such as infrastructure, transportation, housing, and economic development. The framework for these agreements is governed by guidelines issued by the national government, such as the Public-Private Partnership Center.

3. Issuance of Bonds

• LGUs are empowered to issue bonds, debentures, securities, and other forms of indebtedness to fund projects for economic development. The issuance of such instruments is regulated and requires approval from the Department of Finance to ensure that the LGU has the capacity to repay its debts.

4. Acquisition and Disposal of Property

• LGUs can acquire real or personal property for public use or for their operations. They are also authorized to sell, lease, or dispose of surplus properties following proper legislative approval and processes.

5. Franchise and Licensing

• LGUs may grant franchises, licenses, or permits in areas under their jurisdiction. These grants are typically for businesses, utilities, and services that operate within the locality, such as transport services, markets, and public utilities.

V. Powers in Relation to Economic Enterprises

In their proprietary capacity, LGUs may operate and manage economic enterprises, which generate income for the local government. Examples include public markets, slaughterhouses, parking lots, and public transport terminals. The income derived from these enterprises augments the resources available to LGUs and funds the delivery of basic services.

VI. Oversight and Regulatory Role of National Government

Although LGUs enjoy local autonomy, their corporate powers remain subject to oversight by the national government. Key regulatory bodies include:

• Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG): Provides general supervision over LGUs, ensuring that their corporate powers are exercised in accordance with the law.
• Commission on Audit (COA): Reviews and audits the financial transactions of LGUs to ensure that public funds are spent properly.
• Department of Finance (DOF): Regulates borrowing and other financial activities of LGUs, ensuring that they do not become financially insolvent.

VII. Conclusion

The corporate powers of LGUs, as enshrined in the Local Government Code, are fundamental to their ability to operate both as government entities and as corporate entities. These powers enable LGUs to carry out their mandates, provide services to their constituents, and promote economic development within their jurisdictions. However, LGUs must exercise their corporate powers within the limits imposed by law, with the necessary checks and balances provided by the oversight of national government agencies and local legislative bodies.

Local Legislation | Powers | LGUs | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Local Legislation under the Local Government Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 7160)

Local legislation refers to the authority of local government units (LGUs) to enact laws, referred to as ordinances, and to adopt resolutions that address the needs of the local community within the framework of the law. The powers and responsibilities of LGUs in relation to local legislation are primarily governed by the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC).

The LGUs include the following political subdivisions:

• Provinces
• Cities
• Municipalities
• Barangays

The legislative powers of these LGUs are vested in their respective local legislative bodies:

• Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial Board) for provinces
• Sangguniang Panlungsod (City Council) for cities
• Sangguniang Bayan (Municipal Council) for municipalities
• Sangguniang Barangay (Barangay Council) for barangays

1. Scope of Local Legislation

Under Section 16 of the Local Government Code, LGUs have the power to legislate for the following purposes:

• General Welfare Clause: The promotion of the health, safety, prosperity, and general welfare of the people within the LGU’s territorial jurisdiction. This broad provision grants LGUs flexibility to enact ordinances addressing diverse concerns, as long as these serve the general welfare.

• Corporate Powers: LGUs, as legal entities, can create policies or rules relating to their proprietary functions. These powers include those that enable the LGU to enter into contracts, manage property, and engage in economic activities for income generation.

2. Legislative Process

The process of enacting ordinances and adopting resolutions involves several key stages:

• Introduction of Ordinance or Resolution: A member of the sanggunian introduces a proposed ordinance or resolution.

• Deliberations and Readings: The ordinance or resolution undergoes several readings and deliberations. This includes:

  • First Reading: Title of the ordinance is read, and it is referred to an appropriate committee for study and recommendation.
  • Second Reading: Deliberation on the ordinance, including amendments and discussions on its merits.
  • Third Reading: Final reading and approval or disapproval of the ordinance or resolution.

• Approval by the Local Chief Executive (LCE):

  • The local chief executive (governor for provinces, mayor for cities and municipalities, and punong barangay for barangays) is given 10 days to approve or veto the proposed ordinance or resolution.
  • If approved, the ordinance is published or posted in public places and becomes law.
  • If vetoed, the sanggunian may override the veto with a two-thirds vote of all its members.

3. Veto Power of the Local Chief Executive

Under Section 55 of the LGC, the LCE may veto an ordinance or resolution within 10 days from receipt. The veto must be based on the following grounds:

• The ordinance or resolution is ultra vires (beyond the powers of the sanggunian).
• It is prejudicial to the public welfare.
• It fails to comply with mandatory procedural requirements.

If the veto is overridden by a two-thirds vote of the sanggunian members, the ordinance becomes effective.

4. Powers of the Local Legislative Bodies

Each level of local government has specific powers granted to their legislative bodies under the LGC, as outlined below:

a. Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial Board)

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan exercises legislative functions over the province. Its powers include:

• Appropriation of funds: Enacting ordinances that authorize the annual budget and other appropriations.
• Regulation of land use: Adopting measures that regulate the use of land within the province for agriculture, industry, and other purposes.
• Imposition of taxes and fees: Levying taxes, fees, and charges, particularly those related to the operation of the provincial government.
• Regulation of natural resources: Enacting ordinances that regulate the extraction and utilization of natural resources within the province.

b. Sangguniang Panlungsod (City Council)

The legislative authority of cities resides in the Sangguniang Panlungsod. In addition to the general powers granted under the LGC, cities have broader authority due to their status as independent or highly urbanized units. Their powers include:

• Taxation and revenue generation: Cities can impose taxes, fees, and charges as allowed under the LGC and other laws.
• Zoning ordinances: Cities can enact zoning ordinances to regulate the use and development of urban land.
• Public utilities and enterprises: City councils have the power to regulate public utilities and franchises operating within their jurisdiction.

c. Sangguniang Bayan (Municipal Council)

The Sangguniang Bayan serves as the legislative body of the municipality. Its powers are similar to those of cities but are limited to the municipality's jurisdiction. These powers include:

• Adopting ordinances for municipal development: Such as regulations on sanitation, waste management, and local economic enterprises.
• Taxation: Imposing taxes and fees that apply to the municipality.
• Issuance of permits and licenses: Municipal councils regulate local business operations through the issuance of permits and licenses.

d. Sangguniang Barangay (Barangay Council)

The Sangguniang Barangay, being the legislative body of the barangay, exercises more limited legislative functions, which include:

• Enactment of barangay ordinances: Ordinances that directly affect the day-to-day activities of barangay residents, including peace and order, sanitation, and local community projects.
• Issuance of barangay clearance: Barangays regulate small-scale local businesses and construction projects by issuing clearances and permits.

5. Limitations and Requirements on Local Legislation

While LGUs enjoy substantial legislative autonomy, their powers are subject to certain limitations, including:

a. Consistency with National Law

Local ordinances must be consistent with the Constitution and national laws. Under the principle of preemption, national law prevails over conflicting local ordinances.

b. Compliance with Procedural Requirements

Ordinances must go through the prescribed legislative process. Failure to comply with procedural requirements, such as public hearings for certain ordinances (e.g., zoning or taxation ordinances), renders the ordinances invalid.

c. Publication and Effectivity

For an ordinance to take effect, it must be published in a newspaper of general circulation or posted in prominent public places in the LGU, depending on the type of LGU and the ordinance involved (Section 59, LGC).

d. Judicial Review

Local ordinances are subject to judicial review. Courts may declare ordinances invalid if found to be beyond the powers of the LGU (ultra vires), unconstitutional, or in violation of statutory requirements.

6. Local Legislative Autonomy and Control

a. Autonomy

LGUs enjoy autonomy, particularly in the formulation of local policies through local legislation. This autonomy is enshrined in the Constitution and the Local Government Code, which recognize the right of LGUs to govern themselves and make laws for their local communities.

b. Supervisory Control

The President, through the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), exercises general supervision over LGUs to ensure that their actions are within the scope of their powers and in accordance with the law. Supervision does not extend to control, which means that the national government cannot directly interfere with the actions of LGUs unless these are illegal or outside the bounds of their authority.

7. Challenges in Local Legislation

LGUs often face various challenges in local legislation, including:

• Limited financial resources that affect their ability to implement local ordinances.
• Conflicting interests between local officials and their constituents.
• Political pressures that may influence legislative decisions.

Conclusion

Local legislation is a critical component of governance in the Philippines, allowing LGUs to exercise self-governance and respond to the specific needs of their constituents. While LGUs are granted broad legislative powers, they must operate within the constraints of national law and constitutional principles. The Local Government Code provides the framework for the legislative process, and LGUs must ensure compliance with both substantive and procedural requirements for their ordinances to be valid and effective.

Closure and Opening of Roads | Powers | LGUs | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Closure and Opening of Roads by Local Government Units (LGUs)

The power to open and close roads, streets, alleys, and other similar passageways is a significant function vested in Local Government Units (LGUs) under the Local Government Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 7160). This power is crucial as it directly affects the local community’s mobility, development, and public welfare. Below is a comprehensive legal discussion of this topic:

---

I. Legal Basis

The power of LGUs to open or close roads is provided under the following provisions of Republic Act No. 7160:

• Section 21: Closure and Opening of Roads
• Section 10: Limitations on Closure of Roads

These provisions outline the legal requirements and limitations that an LGU must observe in exercising this power.

---

II. Power to Open Roads

The Local Government Code grants LGUs the power to open new roads or other similar passageways as part of their general welfare functions and development programs. This includes the power to construct and maintain public roads and other infrastructure projects within their territorial jurisdiction.

• Scope of Power: The opening of new roads generally involves the planning and development of new streets and passageways for public use, which can be necessary for urban expansion, access to public services, or promoting economic development.

• Initiative Process: The LGU, through its legislative body (Sangguniang Bayan/Panlungsod/Barangay), may initiate the opening of a road. This action typically follows urban planning or development needs, or a public petition may request it.

• Funding: The funds for opening new roads may come from the LGU’s development funds, national government subsidies, or external grants, provided they are consistent with national development priorities.

---

III. Power to Close Roads

The closure of roads, streets, alleys, or other passageways is more complex and subject to strict legal limitations. Closure can be permanent or temporary, depending on the reasons for closure.

1. Permanent Closure

Permanent closure refers to the cessation of a road’s status as public property and its conversion to private use or another form of public property use.

• Section 21(a) of the Local Government Code: This provision outlines the general authority of the LGU to permanently close roads, streets, or alleys provided that they are no longer necessary for public use.

• Procedure for Permanent Closure:

  1. Public Hearing: Before the permanent closure of any road, street, or alley, the LGU is required to conduct a public hearing with the residents of the community who may be affected by the closure. The public hearing ensures transparency and provides the community an opportunity to voice their concerns.

  2. Ordinance: After conducting the necessary public hearing, the local Sanggunian (Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan) must enact an ordinance to authorize the closure of the road. The ordinance is the legal instrument that formalizes the closure.

  3. Concurrence of National Agencies: If the road in question is part of a national highway or otherwise falls under the jurisdiction of a national government agency (such as the Department of Public Works and Highways or the Department of Transportation), the LGU must secure the concurrence of the concerned national agency before closure.

• Disposition of Property: Once closed, the property may be reclassified as patrimonial property, meaning the LGU can dispose of or use the property for another purpose (e.g., for housing projects, commercial developments, etc.). However, there is a restriction: the property may be sold only to the owners of the adjoining land at a reasonable price if it is no longer needed for public use.

2. Temporary Closure

Temporary closure is typically done for specific events or purposes and does not change the legal status of the road as public property.

• Section 21(b) of the Local Government Code: This provision allows LGUs to temporarily close and regulate the use of any local street, road, or alley during public events like fiestas, parades, and other similar occasions.

• Procedure for Temporary Closure:

  1. The LGU may pass a resolution or issue an executive order for the temporary closure of a road or street for a specific period.
  2. There is no requirement for a public hearing for temporary closure, but proper public notice should be provided to ensure minimal disruption to the community.

• Common Uses for Temporary Closure:

  • Community events like fiestas, parades, and other celebrations.
  • Maintenance and repair work on roads and infrastructure.
  • Public safety concerns during emergencies or calamities.

---

IV. Limitations and Restrictions

While LGUs have the power to open and close roads, there are legal limitations and restrictions imposed to protect the public's interest and ensure accountability. These limitations are crucial to prevent arbitrary closures that could harm public welfare.

1. Necessity for Public Use (Section 21(a))

A road, street, or alley may be closed permanently only if it is no longer needed for public use. This criterion protects the public from being deprived of essential access routes, especially in densely populated areas where road space is scarce.

2. Requirement for Public Hearing

The mandatory public hearing for permanent closures ensures public participation and transparency in the decision-making process. The affected residents must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the closure is finalized.

3. Compensation for Affected Parties

In cases where the closure of a road results in the impairment of access to a property or negatively impacts a business or residence, the LGU may be required to compensate the affected parties. This requirement stems from the constitutional provision that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation (Article III, Section 9 of the Philippine Constitution).

4. Restrictions on Sale of Closed Roads

Under Section 10 of the Local Government Code, if a permanently closed road is no longer required for public use, it may only be sold to owners of the adjacent properties. This limitation ensures that public property is not disposed of without due consideration of those who may be most affected by its closure.

---

V. Other Relevant Considerations

1. National vs. Local Roads

LGUs only have jurisdiction over local roads within their territorial boundaries. National roads, which are under the jurisdiction of the national government, may only be closed or modified with the consent of the appropriate national agency, such as the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

2. Public Safety and Welfare

The closure or opening of roads must always consider public safety and welfare. Roads used for evacuation, emergency response, or essential public services should not be closed unless absolutely necessary, and alternative routes must be provided.

3. Judicial Review

Decisions to open or close roads are subject to judicial review. If an LGU’s action is deemed arbitrary, discriminatory, or in violation of due process, affected individuals or entities may challenge the closure or opening before the courts. LGUs must ensure that all actions comply with procedural and substantive due process requirements.

---

Conclusion

The power of Local Government Units to close and open roads is a significant tool for urban planning and development, but it is subject to several legal requirements and limitations. LGUs must ensure that closures and openings are conducted transparently, with due regard for public welfare, property rights, and procedural fairness. The legal framework provided by the Local Government Code of 1991 ensures that this power is exercised within a balanced system that respects both public and private interests.

Taxing Power | Powers | LGUs | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Taxing Power of Local Government Units (LGUs) Under Political Law and Public International Law

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

The taxing power of Local Government Units (LGUs) in the Philippines is derived primarily from Section 5, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, which grants LGUs the power to create their own sources of revenue. This is further elaborated in Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC), which provides the legal framework for the taxing power of LGUs.

The constitutional provision empowers LGUs to:

1. Exercise their taxing power directly, subject to the limitations established by law;
2. Create their own sources of revenue;
3. Levy taxes, fees, and charges as provided under the Local Government Code;
4. Allocate shares in the national taxes, through mechanisms such as the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA), now termed as the National Tax Allotment (NTA) under the Mandanas-Garcia ruling.

Scope and Limitations of LGU Taxing Power

1. General Rule on Taxation (Sec. 129, LGC)

LGUs are empowered to create their own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and charges within their territorial jurisdictions, subject to limitations outlined in the Local Government Code and other special laws.

2. Limitations on LGU Taxing Power

LGU taxing powers are not absolute. The Constitution and the Local Government Code place various limitations on the exercise of these powers, including:

• Non-delegability: The power to tax cannot be delegated to private entities.
• Uniformity and Equality: Taxes must be uniform and equitable within the LGU's jurisdiction.
• Public Purpose Requirement: Taxes must be levied for a public purpose.
• Constitutional and Statutory Prohibitions: LGUs are prohibited from levying certain taxes, such as those explicitly reserved for the national government (e.g., income tax, customs duties).

3. Specific Taxes that LGUs Can Levy

Sections 134 to 151 of the Local Government Code enumerate the specific taxes that LGUs are empowered to impose. These include:

• Provinces:

  • Tax on transfer of real property ownership.
  • Tax on businesses engaged in the printing and publication of books and other materials.
  • Franchise taxes on businesses operating within the province.
  • Tax on sand, gravel, and other quarry resources.
  • Professional tax.

• Cities:

  • Cities are granted broader taxing powers, allowing them to levy all the taxes that provinces and municipalities can impose, including additional revenue-generating mechanisms like amusement taxes.

• Municipalities:

  • Tax on business establishments within their jurisdiction (such as manufacturers, retailers, and wholesalers).
  • Fees and charges on business registrations and services provided by the municipality.

• Barangays:

  • Tax on stores or retailers with a gross sales of Php 50,000 or less within cities or Php 30,000 or less within municipalities.
  • Service fees for services rendered by barangay officials or employees.

Procedures and Requirements for Taxation by LGUs

The Local Government Code outlines the procedural requirements for LGUs when exercising their taxing powers:

• Ordinance Requirement: Taxes can only be imposed through ordinances enacted by the sanggunian of the LGU concerned.
• Publication and Public Hearing: Before the imposition of taxes, the proposed ordinance must be published, and a public hearing must be conducted to allow taxpayers to voice their concerns.
• Tax Rates and Bases: The tax rates and bases are established by law, and LGUs may not exceed the statutory limits.

Taxation and Public International Law

Under public international law, LGUs must ensure that their taxing ordinances do not violate international treaties and obligations to which the Philippines is a party. For instance:

• Non-Discrimination: LGUs cannot impose taxes that discriminate against foreign entities or individuals in violation of international treaties or agreements.
• Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs): Taxation measures affecting foreign investors must comply with the protections provided in BITs, such as fair and equitable treatment and non-expropriation without compensation.

National Tax Allotment (NTA) and the Mandanas-Garcia Ruling

The Supreme Court decision in the Mandanas-Garcia case significantly affected the fiscal autonomy of LGUs by ruling that LGUs are entitled to a larger share of the national taxes. The Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) was reinterpreted to include all national taxes, not just internal revenue taxes. The implementation of this ruling, which began in 2022, increased the fiscal resources available to LGUs, thus impacting their capacity to deliver services and fund local projects, including those supported by their own taxing powers.

Collection and Remedies

1. Taxpayer Remedies:

Taxpayers who wish to contest the legality or validity of taxes imposed by LGUs can file:

• Administrative appeals before the Secretary of Finance or the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), depending on the issue.
• Judicial remedies via a petition for review in courts, typically starting at the Regional Trial Court.

2. LGU’s Power to Collect:

LGUs have the authority to enforce the collection of local taxes, fees, and charges through:

• Issuance of warrants of distraint and levy;
• Civil action for collection in courts;
• Administrative remedies, including imposing interest and penalties for non-payment.

Autonomy and Fiscal Responsibility

While the taxing power of LGUs enhances local autonomy, they are also held to standards of accountability and fiscal responsibility:

• Audit and Oversight: The Commission on Audit (COA) audits LGUs to ensure proper management and expenditure of locally generated funds.
• Limitations on Borrowing and Debt Servicing: LGUs are subject to debt ceilings, and their capacity to borrow is contingent on their ability to generate revenues.

Conclusion

The taxing power of LGUs under the Philippine legal system is an essential component of local autonomy, allowing provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays to create their own revenue sources. This power is framed by constitutional, statutory, and regulatory guidelines to ensure proper, equitable, and responsible use. However, while LGUs enjoy broad taxing powers, these are subject to various limitations, including respect for national policies and international obligations.

Eminent Domain | Powers | LGUs | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Eminent Domain: Local Government Units (LGUs) in the Philippines

Eminent domain refers to the inherent power of the State to take or expropriate private property for public use, upon payment of just compensation. Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, this power is granted to various levels of government, including local government units (LGUs), subject to specific limitations and conditions.

Legal Framework

1. Constitutional Basis
   The power of eminent domain is grounded in Section 9, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:
   "Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation."

2. Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160)
   The Local Government Code (LGC) expressly grants LGUs the power to exercise eminent domain. This power is provided for in Section 19 of the LGC, subject to certain requirements.

Requisites for the Exercise of Eminent Domain by LGUs

To validly exercise the power of eminent domain, the following conditions must be satisfied:

1. Public Use or Purpose
   The taking of property must be for a public use or purpose. Public use has been broadly interpreted to include purposes that benefit the public at large, such as roads, parks, public buildings, and infrastructure projects. In Manapat v. CA (G.R. No. 110478, November 16, 1995), the Supreme Court affirmed that even if only a portion of the public is benefited, the requirement of public use can be satisfied.

2. Necessity
   There must be a showing of genuine necessity for the taking of the property. The power of eminent domain is not a blanket authority to take property without regard to necessity. The taking must be indispensable to achieve the stated public purpose. In Moday v. CA (G.R. No. 107916, February 20, 1997), the Supreme Court ruled that necessity is a condition precedent in the exercise of eminent domain by LGUs.

3. Ordinance of the Local Sanggunian
   The exercise of eminent domain by an LGU must be authorized by an ordinance enacted by the local sanggunian (legislative body). This requirement is stated in Section 19 of the Local Government Code. Without such an ordinance, any attempt to expropriate property will be considered invalid.

4. Payment of Just Compensation
   Just compensation must be paid to the owner of the property taken. Just compensation is generally the fair market value of the property at the time of the taking. In National Power Corporation v. CA (G.R. No. 106804, August 12, 2004), the Supreme Court clarified that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function, and the courts have the final say on what constitutes just compensation.

5. Judicial Intervention
   The power of eminent domain involves judicial intervention. If the owner of the property does not consent to the taking, the LGU must file an expropriation case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The court then determines whether the requisites for expropriation are present and fixes the amount of just compensation.

Procedure for Expropriation by LGUs

1. Preliminary Steps

   • Authorization by Ordinance: The local sanggunian must pass an ordinance authorizing the expropriation of the property.
   • Good Faith Negotiation: Before proceeding with the filing of an expropriation case, the LGU is required to enter into a good faith negotiation with the property owner for the purchase of the property. This is a mandatory requirement under Section 19 of the Local Government Code.

2. Filing of Complaint
   If no agreement is reached with the property owner, the LGU may file a complaint for expropriation in the RTC having jurisdiction over the property. The complaint must state the public use for which the property is being taken and other facts to justify the expropriation.

3. Writ of Possession
   Upon filing the complaint and after depositing an amount equivalent to 15% of the fair market value of the property (based on the current tax declaration), the court may issue a writ of possession authorizing the LGU to take immediate possession of the property. This is allowed under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, which governs expropriation proceedings.

4. Hearing on the Expropriation Case
   The court will then conduct a hearing to determine whether the taking is for a public purpose and whether the requisites of eminent domain have been satisfied. If the court finds in favor of the LGU, the expropriation will proceed.

5. Determination of Just Compensation
   After ruling on the propriety of the expropriation, the court will determine the just compensation due to the property owner. This is done by appointing commissioners who will assess the value of the property.

6. Payment of Just Compensation
   The LGU must pay the amount determined by the court as just compensation. Payment of just compensation is a condition precedent to the transfer of ownership of the property to the LGU.

Limitations on the Power of Eminent Domain by LGUs

1. Delegated Power
   The power of eminent domain, while inherent to the State, is merely delegated to LGUs. This means that LGUs can only exercise eminent domain within the bounds set by law, specifically the Local Government Code. Any expropriation beyond these bounds is ultra vires (beyond its powers) and invalid.

2. Use of Public Property
   LGUs cannot exercise eminent domain to expropriate property that is already devoted to a public use unless there is a clear showing that the existing public use will not be interfered with or unless the property is no longer necessary for the public purpose for which it was originally intended.

3. Specific Projects
   The courts have emphasized that the power of eminent domain must not be used arbitrarily. The LGU must identify specific projects or purposes for the taking of property. In Lagcao v. Judge Labra (G.R. No. 155746, October 13, 2004), the Supreme Court ruled that the LGU must sufficiently identify the public use or project that necessitates the exercise of eminent domain.

Notable Supreme Court Cases on Eminent Domain by LGUs

1. Municipality of Paranaque v. V.M. Realty Corp. (G.R. No. 127820, July 20, 1998)
   In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the taking of private property for a public market, which was intended to promote the public welfare, was a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain by the Municipality of Parañaque. However, the Court emphasized the importance of a proper ordinance authorizing the expropriation.

2. Moday v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 107916, February 20, 1997)
   This case involved the expropriation of private property for a resettlement project. The Supreme Court held that necessity is a condition precedent in the exercise of eminent domain. The LGU must show that the property is necessary for the public purpose it seeks to achieve.

3. City of Manila v. Judge Lagdameo (G.R. No. L-25461, October 31, 1969)
   The Supreme Court ruled that the power of eminent domain must be exercised within the territorial jurisdiction of the LGU. In this case, the City of Manila attempted to expropriate property outside its territorial limits, which the Court declared invalid.

Conclusion

The power of eminent domain is a crucial tool for local governments in the Philippines, allowing them to take private property for public purposes, subject to stringent requirements and judicial oversight. LGUs must comply with constitutional and statutory limitations, such as ensuring public use, demonstrating necessity, providing just compensation, and securing proper authorization through a local ordinance. These safeguards protect property owners from arbitrary takings while enabling LGUs to pursue projects that benefit the community.

Police Power | Powers | LGUs | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: POLICE POWER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS (LGUs)

I. Legal Basis for Police Power of LGUs

1. The 1987 Constitution
Article X, Section 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution grants Local Government Units (LGUs) the authority to exercise police power. It provides that “each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.”

2. Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160)
The Local Government Code (LGC) serves as the enabling law for the exercise of LGU powers, particularly police power.

• Section 16 (General Welfare Clause) – It is the most important provision in the Local Government Code in relation to police power. This clause states:
  • "Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare."
  • It continues, "LGUs shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants."

This broad provision encapsulates the police power of LGUs, allowing them to enact ordinances to promote the general welfare of the community.

II. Nature and Scope of Police Power

1. Definition of Police Power
Police power is the inherent power of the state to regulate behavior and enforce order within its territory to ensure public welfare, health, safety, and morals. When exercised by LGUs, this power must be consistent with the local autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution and the limitations set by national law.

2. Scope of LGU’s Police Power
The exercise of police power by LGUs covers a wide range of regulatory measures that aim to promote the general welfare. These include, but are not limited to:

• Public safety – Ordinances concerning traffic regulations, fire safety measures, regulation of public utilities, prevention of crimes, etc.
• Public health – Regulations on sanitation, control of infectious diseases, garbage disposal, regulation of businesses affecting health (e.g., slaughterhouses, restaurants), quarantine measures.
• Public morals – Ordinances against gambling, prostitution, and establishments that promote vice.
• Public convenience – Regulations on transportation, market operations, and other services that affect the daily convenience of the residents.
• Environmental protection – Ordinances that control pollution, protect ecological balance, and regulate the use of natural resources.

III. Requisites for a Valid Exercise of Police Power by LGUs

For an ordinance or regulation issued by an LGU to be considered a valid exercise of police power, it must meet the following requisites:

1. Lawful Subject
The subject of the ordinance must be within the scope of the LGU’s police power, meaning that it must pertain to public health, safety, morals, welfare, or convenience. The objective must align with the promotion of the general welfare of the local government unit.

2. Lawful Means
The ordinance or regulation must be reasonable and not oppressive. It must not unduly infringe on constitutional rights and should employ means that are reasonably necessary to achieve its purpose.

3. Territorial Application
An ordinance enacted under police power by an LGU can only have effect within its territorial jurisdiction. The power must be exercised within the geographical limits of the local government.

IV. Limitations on the Exercise of Police Power

Despite the wide latitude granted to LGUs, their exercise of police power is subject to several limitations:

1. Subordination to National Law
Ordinances or regulations passed by LGUs must not contravene national laws or policies. If there is a conflict between an ordinance and a national statute, the latter will prevail. For example, local ordinances that contradict the provisions of laws like the Clean Air Act (R.A. 8749) or Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act (R.A. 9262) will be deemed void.

2. Respect for Constitutional Rights
The exercise of police power must not infringe upon constitutional rights, such as the right to due process, equal protection, or freedom of speech. Any ordinance that violates these rights may be struck down by the courts.

3. Requirement of Due Process and Equal Protection
Ordinances must comply with the requirements of due process. This means that there must be sufficient public hearings or consultations, and affected individuals or entities must be given notice. The ordinance must also apply equally to all persons or entities similarly situated to avoid a violation of the equal protection clause.

V. Legislative and Executive Aspects of Police Power in LGUs

1. Legislative Power
The Sanggunians (Sangguniang Bayan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, Sangguniang Panlalawigan) are the legislative bodies of local governments. They are empowered under the Local Government Code to pass ordinances that regulate aspects of local life. Through these ordinances, the Sanggunian exercises police power on behalf of the LGU.

2. Executive Power
The Local Chief Executive (Governor, Mayor, or Barangay Captain) implements these ordinances. For instance, a mayor may issue executive orders to regulate traffic or market operations, which are considered part of police power when carried out pursuant to an ordinance or national law.

VI. Judicial Review of Police Power Ordinances

While LGUs enjoy a wide scope of discretion in the exercise of police power, their acts are subject to judicial review. Courts can strike down ordinances or executive actions that are:

• Ultra vires (beyond the powers of the LGU),
• Unreasonable or oppressive, or
• In violation of constitutional rights or national statutes.

The courts will examine whether the ordinance serves a legitimate public interest, whether the means employed are reasonable, and whether the ordinance respects the fundamental rights of individuals.

VII. Specific Illustrations of LGU Police Power

1. Traffic Regulations
   LGUs regularly pass ordinances regulating traffic, such as setting speed limits, prescribing routes for vehicles, or prohibiting certain types of vehicles from using specific roads. These ordinances aim to promote public safety.

2. Sanitation Ordinances
   LGUs have the authority to regulate public markets, restaurants, slaughterhouses, and other establishments affecting public health. These regulations may include setting hygiene standards, waste disposal requirements, and health certificates for workers.

3. Regulation of Business Establishments
   LGUs may require business permits and impose regulations on businesses within their jurisdiction. They can regulate the operation of entertainment venues, alcohol sale restrictions, or zoning ordinances that control where certain businesses can operate.

4. Environmental Protection
   Some LGUs have passed ordinances banning the use of plastic bags or regulating waste disposal to protect the environment and promote public welfare. Such measures, when reasonable and in line with national environmental laws, are a valid exercise of police power.

VIII. Conclusion

The police power of Local Government Units is an indispensable part of their role in governance and in promoting the general welfare of their constituents. While broad in scope, this power is tempered by national law, the Constitution, and the requirements of reasonableness, equality, and fairness. Through ordinances and regulations, LGUs can address local concerns on public health, safety, morals, and convenience, all in the name of public interest and community welfare.