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.

Local Elective and Appointive Officials | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

XV. LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

E. Local Elective and Appointive Officials

This section deals with the provisions on local elective and appointive officials under Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC), and other relevant laws and jurisprudence.

---

1. Categories of Local Officials

Local officials are divided into elective and appointive officials. Both categories have distinct qualifications, duties, functions, and accountability mechanisms.

A. Elective Officials

1. Elective Local Officials include the following:

   • Provincial Level: Governor, Vice Governor, Sangguniang Panlalawigan Members.
   • City Level: City Mayor, City Vice Mayor, Sangguniang Panlungsod Members.
   • Municipal Level: Municipal Mayor, Municipal Vice Mayor, Sangguniang Bayan Members.
   • Barangay Level: Barangay Captain and Sangguniang Barangay Members.
   • Sangguniang Kabataan (SK): SK Chairperson and SK Members at the barangay level.

2. Qualifications for Elective Officials:

   • Citizenship: Must be a Filipino citizen.
   • Age: Varies by position:
     • Governor, Vice Governor, Mayor, Vice Mayor: at least 23 years old.
     • Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, and Sangguniang Bayan Members: at least 21 years old.
     • Barangay and SK Officials: at least 18 years old.
   • Residency: Must be a resident of the locality for at least one year immediately preceding the day of the election.
   • Voter Registration: Must be a registered voter in the locality.
   • Literacy: Must be able to read and write Filipino, English, or any local dialect.

3. Term of Office:

   • Elective local officials serve a three-year term, with a maximum of three consecutive terms for the same position, per Section 43 of the LGC.
   • The term limits rule has been interpreted strictly by the Supreme Court to prevent circumvention (e.g., switching positions between family members, etc.).

4. Powers and Functions of Elective Officials:

   • The LGC provides detailed descriptions of the executive and legislative powers conferred upon local officials, such as:
     • Governor and Mayor: Chief executives of the province and city/municipality, respectively. They have powers of supervision, control, and appointment over local offices, as well as general administrative powers.
     • Vice Governor and Vice Mayor: Preside over the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan and assume the governor’s/mayor’s duties in case of permanent or temporary vacancy.
     • Sanggunian Members: Exercise legislative powers such as passing ordinances, approving budgets, and creating programs for local development.

5. Vacancies:

   • Vacancies in elective positions are filled according to the rule of succession (Section 44, LGC). When the governor, mayor, or barangay captain dies, is permanently disabled, or resigns, the vice governor, vice mayor, or barangay kagawad (in rank order) will automatically assume the position.
   • Temporary vacancies, such as during leave or suspension, are filled by officials in the same order of succession.

6. Grounds for Disqualification:

   • Under Section 40 of the LGC, local elective officials may be disqualified from running or holding office on various grounds:
     • Having been removed from office due to administrative charges.
     • Conviction by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude.
     • Mental or physical incapacity to discharge the duties of the office.

B. Appointive Officials

1. Appointive Local Officials:

   • These are individuals appointed by elective officials to assist in the day-to-day operations of local government units (LGUs). Positions include:
     • Provincial, City, and Municipal Treasurers, Assessors, Health Officers, Planning and Development Coordinators, Accountants, Civil Registrars, and Social Welfare Officers.
     • Barangay Secretary and Barangay Treasurer at the barangay level.

2. Qualifications for Appointive Officials:

   • Vary depending on the office but typically include:
     • Educational and professional qualifications, such as relevant degrees and licensures (e.g., licensed civil engineer for the City Engineer position).
     • Good moral character and relevant experience in the field.

3. Appointment Process:

   • Appointment of department heads in provinces, cities, and municipalities is the prerogative of the local chief executive (governor, mayor) and is subject to concurrence by the Sanggunian.
   • Appointments must comply with the Civil Service Law and the merit and fitness principle outlined in the Constitution.

4. Duties and Functions of Appointive Officials:

   • Appointive officials perform administrative, technical, and regulatory functions, depending on their specific roles. For instance:
     • The Local Treasurer collects taxes and revenue.
     • The Assessor manages property assessment and taxation.
     • The Health Officer oversees public health programs and services.
   • They also act as advisors to the local chief executives in their respective technical capacities.

5. Tenure:

   • Appointive officials do not have fixed terms. Their tenure is subject to the discretion of the appointing authority but is governed by Civil Service regulations. Dismissal or discipline must follow due process.

---

2. Administrative Discipline of Local Officials

A. Elective Officials

Elective officials can be disciplined for violations of the Local Government Code or other laws:

1. Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Section 60, LGC):

   • Dishonesty, misconduct in office, gross negligence, or dereliction of duty.
   • Abuse of authority, oppression, or acts contrary to law.
   • Commission of an offense involving moral turpitude.

2. Disciplinary Authorities:

   • The Sangguniang Panlalawigan or Sangguniang Panlungsod can initiate disciplinary actions against their members, while the President can suspend or remove provincial officials.
   • The Office of the Ombudsman also has concurrent jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute local officials.

3. Suspension and Removal:

   • A preventive suspension may be imposed for not more than 60 days (Section 63, LGC).
   • Removal is only allowed after due process, including formal charges and an investigation.

B. Appointive Officials

• Appointive officials are subject to disciplinary action under the Civil Service Law and the Administrative Code of 1987. Grounds for dismissal or suspension include inefficiency, insubordination, or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

---

3. Accountability and Ethical Standards

1. Public Accountability:

   • Local officials are subject to Republic Act No. 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), which mandates standards such as:
     • Transparency in decision-making and public access to information.
     • Prohibition against conflicts of interest.
     • Full disclosure of financial and business interests.

2. Criminal Liability:

   • Officials may face criminal charges for violations of anti-graft laws, such as Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
   • Other laws such as Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder Law) and Republic Act No. 10121 (Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act) may also impose liabilities on local officials in relation to the misuse of public funds or dereliction of duty during emergencies.

---

4. Jurisprudence

Several important Supreme Court rulings interpret provisions on local elective and appointive officials. For instance:

• Aldovino v. COMELEC (2010) clarified the strict enforcement of term limits.
• Paredes v. Sandiganbayan (2014) underscored the liability of local officials for graft and corruption offenses.

---

This section on local elective and appointive officials provides a comprehensive understanding of the framework governing local governance in the Philippines. Local officials, whether elected or appointed, play a crucial role in the political and administrative functions of LGUs, with their responsibilities, qualifications, powers, and liabilities clearly outlined in both law and jurisprudence.

Concepts | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Public International Law: Concepts

Public International Law is the body of legal rules, norms, and principles that governs the relationships between sovereign states and other international actors, such as international organizations and, to a lesser extent, individuals. This field of law aims to regulate interactions on matters like peace, security, human rights, environmental protection, and trade. In this section, we will delve into key concepts under Public International Law.

1. Definition and Nature of Public International Law

Public International Law refers to the legal framework governing the conduct of states and international organizations in their relations with one another. Unlike national law, which is imposed on individuals by a sovereign, Public International Law primarily applies to sovereign states and other entities such as international organizations.

Key Characteristics:

• Horizontal System: Public International Law operates in a horizontal legal structure. States are considered equals, and there is no central authority to enforce compliance.
• Voluntary Compliance: States are sovereign, meaning they are generally free to accept or reject international obligations. Compliance with international law is often based on consent (through treaties, conventions, etc.).
• Sources of Law: The sources of Public International Law are set out in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and include treaties, customary international law, general principles of law, judicial decisions, and writings of publicists.

2. Sources of Public International Law

The sources of Public International Law serve as the foundation for the rules and norms that govern international relations.

• Treaties: Formal agreements between states that are binding under international law. Examples include bilateral or multilateral treaties, conventions, and protocols.
• Customary International Law: Practices that have evolved over time and are considered legally binding, even if not written down. It arises from a consistent and general practice of states, accepted as law (opinio juris).
• General Principles of Law: Fundamental principles that are recognized by a majority of national legal systems. These may fill gaps when neither treaties nor customary law provide guidance.
• Judicial Decisions and Writings of Publicists: Decisions of international courts, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and respected legal scholarship can be used as subsidiary means to determine rules of law.

3. Subjects of Public International Law

Subjects of Public International Law are entities capable of possessing international rights and duties. Traditionally, states are the primary subjects, but over time, other actors have gained limited or specialized international legal personality.

• States: The primary and most important subjects. States must possess defined territory, permanent population, government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states (Montevideo Convention, 1933).
• International Organizations: Entities such as the United Nations (UN) or World Trade Organization (WTO) that have international legal personality. Their capacity to act and bind their members is typically derived from treaties.
• Individuals: Under certain circumstances, individuals can also be subjects of international law, particularly in areas such as human rights and international criminal law. For instance, individuals may be held accountable for crimes against humanity, genocide, or war crimes (as seen in cases before the International Criminal Court).
• Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): While not traditional subjects of international law, NGOs play a significant role in influencing international legal developments, especially in human rights, environmental law, and humanitarian aid.

4. Principles of Public International Law

Several fundamental principles guide the conduct of states and international actors in their relations under Public International Law:

• Sovereignty: The principle of state sovereignty recognizes that states have supreme authority within their own territories. It implies non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, a cornerstone of international relations.
• Equality of States: All states, regardless of size or power, are legally equal in their rights and duties under international law.
• Non-Intervention: States are prohibited from interfering in the internal affairs of other states, including their political, economic, and cultural systems.
• Prohibition of the Use of Force: Under the United Nations Charter, the use of force is generally prohibited unless sanctioned by the UN Security Council or in self-defense.
• Self-Determination of Peoples: This principle allows peoples to freely determine their political status and pursue economic, social, and cultural development. It has been key in decolonization movements and is recognized in human rights law.
• Pacta Sunt Servanda: This principle mandates that treaties and agreements must be honored in good faith. It underscores the binding nature of international treaties once they are accepted by the parties involved.
• Responsibility to Protect (R2P): A more recent principle which holds that the international community has a responsibility to intervene, particularly in cases of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, if a state is unwilling or unable to protect its population.

5. International Legal Personality

An entity with international legal personality is one capable of possessing rights and duties under international law and can engage in international legal relations. The concept determines who is capable of participating directly in international law processes.

• States: The primary holders of international legal personality.
• International Organizations: Limited legal personality, usually bound by the powers conferred by their member states via treaties.
• Individuals: Limited international legal personality, mostly in areas such as human rights and international criminal law.

6. Jurisdiction in Public International Law

Jurisdiction refers to the legal authority a state or international tribunal has to make and enforce laws. In Public International Law, jurisdiction can take several forms:

• Territorial Jurisdiction: A state has jurisdiction over all persons, property, and activities within its territory.
• Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: States may assert jurisdiction over actions that occur outside their territory, such as crimes committed by their nationals abroad.
• Universal Jurisdiction: Certain crimes, such as piracy, genocide, and crimes against humanity, are so severe that any state may prosecute the offenders, regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrators.
• Diplomatic Immunity: Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), diplomats enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of the host state, but this is balanced by the sending state's duty to respect the laws of the host state.

7. State Responsibility

State responsibility is a fundamental principle of international law, holding states accountable for breaches of their international obligations. If a state violates international law, it must provide reparation, which may take the form of restitution, compensation, or satisfaction.

• Attribution: The conduct must be attributable to the state for it to incur responsibility, typically involving actions by state organs or agents acting on behalf of the state.
• Breach of an Obligation: There must be a violation of an international obligation.
• Consequences: The responsible state may face consequences, such as diplomatic measures, sanctions, or even legal actions before international courts or arbitration.

8. Recognition in International Law

Recognition in international law refers to the acceptance by other states of the legal status of a new state or government.

• De Facto Recognition: Given when a government has control over a state’s territory but lacks long-term stability or full international recognition.
• De Jure Recognition: Granted when a government is recognized as having full legal status and permanence.
• Non-Recognition: Some situations may prompt non-recognition, such as when a state is created through illegal means, such as the use of force, as in cases of occupation or annexation.

9. International Dispute Resolution

Public International Law provides mechanisms to resolve disputes between states or between states and other actors. These mechanisms can be diplomatic or judicial.

• Diplomatic Means: These include negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. These approaches rely on mutual agreement between the parties involved.
• Judicial Means: States may resolve disputes through international courts, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which adjudicates legal disputes submitted by states and gives advisory opinions on legal questions.

---

In conclusion, Public International Law establishes the rules and norms for state interactions and is rooted in principles of state sovereignty, equality, and non-intervention, among others. Its sources include treaties, customary law, and general legal principles, while its subjects encompass states, international organizations, and, to a limited degree, individuals. The principles of Public International Law are essential in maintaining global order and ensuring the peaceful coexistence of states.

Relationship Between International and Philippine Domestic Law | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW: Relationship Between International and Philippine Domestic Law

The relationship between international law and domestic law in the Philippines involves a complex interaction of principles and legal doctrines. Below is a meticulous breakdown of the subject:

1. Supremacy of the Philippine Constitution

The 1987 Philippine Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law, whether domestic or international, must conform to its provisions. Under Article II, Section 2, the Constitution provides the foundation for how international law interacts with domestic law:

“The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.”

This provision recognizes international law as part of Philippine law. However, it is not absolute, as international law is incorporated into domestic law subject to the Constitution's supremacy.

2. Doctrine of Incorporation

The doctrine of incorporation is embodied in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. This doctrine states that generally accepted principles of international law are automatically part of the Philippine legal system without the need for legislative action.

2.1. Generally Accepted Principles of International Law

• These include norms of customary international law, jus cogens norms (peremptory norms that no state may derogate from), and other universal legal principles.
• Customary international law becomes binding as part of the law of the land when it meets two requirements: state practice and opinio juris (belief that the practice is legally obligatory).

In this regard, courts may enforce these principles as domestic law even without specific implementing legislation.

3. Doctrine of Transformation

While the doctrine of incorporation applies to customary international law, treaties and other international agreements are governed by the doctrine of transformation, meaning they do not automatically become part of Philippine law. They must be transformed into domestic law through legislative enactment.

3.1. Treaties and International Agreements

Under Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution, treaties and international agreements must undergo the following process:

• Negotiation and signing by the Executive branch.
• Ratification by the President, subject to the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

Only after Senate concurrence does a treaty become binding and enforceable as part of Philippine law.

4. Hierarchy between Domestic Law and International Law

4.1. Constitution vs. International Law

The Philippine Constitution remains the highest law in the land. In case of a conflict between a provision of the Constitution and a treaty or an international agreement, the Constitution prevails. This principle is crucial in ensuring the Philippines maintains sovereignty over its domestic legal system, despite its international obligations.

4.2. International Law vs. Statutes

In instances where a statute conflicts with international law, Philippine courts often attempt harmonization. If harmonization is not possible, domestic laws may prevail, especially if the international law is a treaty that has not been transformed into domestic law. However, courts may rule in favor of treaties in cases where no direct conflict with the Constitution exists, based on the principle that the Philippines adheres to its international obligations in good faith.

4.3. Case Law on International Law's Application

• Kuroda v. Jalandoni (1949): The Supreme Court held that the generally accepted principles of international law are automatically incorporated into the Philippine legal system and do not require legislative enactment.
• Mejoff v. Director of Prisons (1951): This case emphasized that international law principles, especially those involving human rights, are incorporated into Philippine law.
• Secretary of Justice v. Lantion (2000): The Court discussed the application of treaties in domestic law, holding that the doctrine of transformation requires Senate concurrence for a treaty to become part of domestic law.

5. International Customary Law

Customary international law, which consists of unwritten rules derived from the consistent practice of states and is binding even without a treaty, is recognized as part of Philippine domestic law under the doctrine of incorporation. The courts may enforce customary international law principles without further legislative action.

5.1. Examples of Customary International Law

• The prohibition of torture.
• The prohibition of slavery and genocide.
• Principles of territorial sovereignty and non-intervention.

6. Philippine Courts and International Law

6.1. Judicial Notice of International Law

Philippine courts may take judicial notice of generally accepted principles of international law. Courts do not require these principles to be proven in the same way that foreign laws or facts would need to be.

6.2. Judicial Interpretation and Application

In interpreting laws, Philippine courts are guided by the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept), meaning the Philippines, as a member of the international community, must uphold its international obligations in good faith. However, the courts also balance this with the sovereign will of the Filipino people as expressed in the Constitution.

7. Soft Law and International Guidelines

While soft law—such as United Nations declarations, resolutions, and international guidelines—may influence domestic legal interpretations, it is generally not enforceable unless transformed into domestic law. However, these norms often guide judicial decisions and policy-making, especially in areas like human rights and environmental protection.

8. Recent Developments in Philippine Jurisprudence

Philippine courts continue to develop their interpretation of the relationship between international and domestic law, particularly in the context of human rights, environmental law, and international trade. The Philippines’ involvement in the United Nations Human Rights mechanisms, the International Criminal Court, and the World Trade Organization reflect an evolving jurisprudence that seeks to harmonize domestic legal frameworks with international norms and obligations.

8.1. Environmental Law and International Obligations

In Oposa v. Factoran (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that intergenerational responsibility and sustainable development, principles recognized internationally, could be applied domestically to protect the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

8.2. Human Rights and International Law

The Philippine courts have shown deference to international human rights law in various decisions. For instance, the Writ of Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data, which protect individuals from human rights abuses, were developed by the Supreme Court based on international human rights principles.

9. Conclusion

In summary, the relationship between international law and Philippine domestic law is primarily governed by the Constitution, which recognizes international law but remains supreme. The doctrine of incorporation applies to customary international law, while the doctrine of transformation governs treaties and international agreements. Philippine courts seek to harmonize international law with domestic law, but in cases of conflict, the Constitution prevails.

International law plays a significant role in the development of Philippine law, especially in human rights, environmental law, and international trade, but always within the context of constitutional supremacy.

International Court of Justice Statute | Sources of International Law | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Sources of International Law: International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), established by the Charter of the United Nations, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The ICJ Statute is a key document that defines the Court's functions, including the sources of international law it applies when deciding disputes brought before it. Article 38 of the ICJ Statute is considered one of the most authoritative statements on the sources of international law. Below is a meticulous breakdown of the relevant provisions and doctrines:

Article 38 of the ICJ Statute: Primary Sources of International Law

Article 38(1) of the ICJ Statute enumerates the primary sources of international law that the ICJ is to apply in its adjudication of disputes. These sources are widely accepted as the formal sources of international law:

1. International Conventions (Treaties)
   Article 38(1)(a): International conventions, whether general or particular, establish rules expressly recognized by the states involved in the dispute.

   • Treaties are binding agreements between states or international organizations, and they constitute one of the most significant sources of international law. Treaties may be bilateral, multilateral, or even universal, such as the UN Charter or the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
   • States are only bound by treaties to which they have consented, through ratification, accession, or other formal mechanisms, which are governed by the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept).

2. International Custom
   Article 38(1)(b): International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law.

   • Customary international law arises from a consistent practice of states accompanied by opinio juris, the belief that such practice is legally obligatory. Both elements, state practice and opinio juris, must be present for a norm to be recognized as customary law.
   • Customary law binds all states, except those that have persistently objected during the formation of the custom. Examples include the prohibition of the use of force and the rules of international humanitarian law.

3. General Principles of Law
   Article 38(1)(c): The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.

   • General principles are those legal norms that are common to major legal systems around the world, transcending national boundaries. These principles fill gaps in treaties or customary law and include concepts such as good faith, equity, justice, and due process.
   • They are often invoked in cases where there is no applicable treaty or custom. They help ensure the coherence and comprehensiveness of the legal system.

Subsidiary Sources of International Law

In addition to the primary sources, Article 38(1)(d) mentions subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law:

4. Judicial Decisions and the Teachings of the Most Highly Qualified Publicists
   Article 38(1)(d): Judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

   • Judicial decisions from international courts and tribunals, such as the ICJ, International Criminal Court (ICC), or regional courts, are not binding precedents in international law. However, they provide important guidance on how international law is interpreted and applied. The ICJ may also refer to decisions of national courts, but these are not considered binding.
   • Writings of legal scholars and publicists are also considered persuasive but not binding. These may include treatises, legal opinions, and academic commentary by leading authorities in international law. The ICJ often cites these writings to clarify or interpret complex legal principles.

Other Sources of International Law (Not Listed in Article 38)

While not explicitly listed in Article 38, there are other recognized sources of international law that play a role in international relations:

1. Resolutions of International Organizations

   • The UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions may, in certain contexts, contribute to the development of customary international law or provide evidence of state practice. However, General Assembly resolutions are generally considered non-binding (except in certain situations like binding decisions of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter).

2. Unilateral Declarations by States

   • In certain cases, unilateral declarations made by states may create legal obligations under international law, provided that these declarations are made publicly and with the intent to be bound (as established by the ICJ in the Nuclear Tests Case).

3. Soft Law Instruments

   • Soft law refers to non-binding norms, guidelines, or principles that may influence state behavior and contribute to the progressive development of international law. These can include declarations, codes of conduct, and policy recommendations adopted by international organizations or conferences.

Hierarchy of Sources under Article 38

• The ICJ Statute does not explicitly provide for a hierarchy between treaties, customary international law, and general principles of law. In practice, the Court considers these sources together and applies them as appropriate to the case. However, treaties generally take precedence when the parties to the dispute have agreed to specific obligations.
• Customary law may serve as a default where no treaty is applicable. General principles fill in the gaps but are rarely invoked as the sole basis for a decision.
• Subsidiary means, such as judicial decisions and teachings, are used primarily for interpretation and clarification, rather than as independent sources of law.

Jus Cogens Norms and Erga Omnes Obligations

Certain norms of international law are considered peremptory or jus cogens, meaning they are mandatory and non-derogable, such as the prohibitions on genocide, slavery, and torture. These norms override conflicting treaties and customs, and no derogation is permitted. Similarly, erga omnes obligations are duties that states owe to the international community as a whole, such as the prohibition of aggression or respect for fundamental human rights.

Conclusion

The sources of international law as outlined in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute form the backbone of how the ICJ and international law in general operate. Treaties, custom, and general principles, supported by judicial decisions and scholarly writings, guide the ICJ in resolving disputes and promoting international justice. The evolution of international law is shaped by both these formal sources and emerging practices like soft law and resolutions of international organizations, reflecting the dynamic nature of international relations.

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.

Autonomous Regions and their Relation to the National Government | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

XV. LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

C. Autonomous Regions and their Relation to the National Government

1. Constitutional Basis for Autonomous Regions

The establishment of autonomous regions in the Philippines is grounded in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically in Article X, Sections 15 to 21. These provisions mandate the creation of autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras to allow for self-governance within the framework of national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

• Article X, Section 15: Recognizes the necessity of forming autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.
• Article X, Section 16: Grants autonomous regions their own organic act, which serves as the constitution of the region, defining its political structure and scope of powers.
• Article X, Section 17: Establishes the legislative powers of the regional legislative assembly, which includes the authority to legislate on matters not covered by national law, as long as such legislation is consistent with the Constitution and national laws.
• Article X, Section 18: Provides for the creation of regional executive departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities. The heads of these entities must come from the autonomous regions themselves, with supervision from the President of the Philippines as required by law.
• Article X, Section 19: Emphasizes the equitable share of the autonomous regions in the national taxes, ensuring that local government units (LGUs) within these regions receive their due Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and other funds from the National Government.
• Article X, Section 20: Grants the autonomous regions powers over matters of internal governance, economic planning, and development, but reserves to the National Government essential functions such as defense, foreign affairs, and postal services.

2. Autonomous Regions: Muslim Mindanao and Cordillera

The Philippines has two constitutionally recognized autonomous regions: the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) and a still-to-be-formed autonomous region in the Cordilleras.

A. Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM)

• Legal Framework: Republic Act No. 11054, or the "Organic Law for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" (Bangsamoro Organic Law), enacted pursuant to Article X of the 1987 Constitution, serves as the BARMM's governing law.

• Powers of the BARMM: The Bangsamoro Organic Law grants BARMM both exclusive and concurrent powers. Exclusive powers include legislation on Shariah law (for Muslims), ancestral domain, customary law, and natural resources, among others. Concurrent powers are shared with the national government in areas such as social security, education, and health.

• Government Structure: BARMM has a parliamentary form of government, unique within the Philippines. The Bangsamoro Parliament enacts laws and oversees an executive body led by a Chief Minister. This is distinct from the more common presidential form of government used in the rest of the country.

• Fiscal Autonomy: BARMM enjoys fiscal autonomy, meaning it has a block grant equivalent to 5% of the net internal revenue collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs. This ensures stable financial support from the National Government, in addition to its own locally generated revenues and share in the utilization of natural resources within its jurisdiction.

B. Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)

The Cordilleras, despite multiple attempts, has yet to establish a fully autonomous region. The 1987 Constitution envisions an autonomous region in the Cordilleras, but no organic law establishing autonomy has passed the required plebiscites. The current administrative structure, the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), is an interim arrangement pending the creation of a formal autonomous government through an enabling law.

3. Relationship Between Autonomous Regions and the National Government

The relationship between autonomous regions and the National Government is characterized by autonomy in local governance but within the limits set by national sovereignty and law. This involves the following dynamics:

A. Supervision by the President

While autonomous regions have extensive powers over local governance, the President of the Philippines retains supervisory authority to ensure that laws and policies comply with the Constitution. This supervisory power allows the President to intervene in cases where actions or laws of the autonomous regions contravene national interests, but such intervention is limited to ensuring compliance with constitutional provisions and does not extend to day-to-day governance.

B. Reserved Powers of the National Government

Autonomous regions have no jurisdiction over certain powers that remain with the National Government. These include:

• Defense and national security: The national government maintains control over military defense, internal and external security.

• Foreign relations: The autonomous regions cannot engage in foreign diplomacy or enter into treaties or international agreements independently of the national government.

• Monetary and fiscal policy: Autonomous regions cannot establish their own currency or central banks, and they remain part of the national economic system.

C. National Laws and Local Legislation

Legislation enacted by the regional legislative bodies must comply with the Constitution and national laws. The Supreme Court may review regional legislation to ensure constitutionality, and any conflict between regional laws and national laws is resolved in favor of the latter.

D. Judicial System

While autonomous regions may establish their own courts for matters within their jurisdiction (e.g., Shariah courts in BARMM for Muslim family and personal law), the Philippine judiciary retains ultimate authority, particularly in constitutional interpretation and matters affecting national law.

E. Public Order and Safety

Autonomous regions have the power to maintain public order and safety within their jurisdictions through their local police forces. However, these forces are subject to supervision and coordination with the national police and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).

4. Autonomy vs. Local Government Units

Autonomous regions are distinct from ordinary local government units (LGUs) in the Philippines. While LGUs (provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays) enjoy a certain degree of local autonomy under the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), autonomous regions have significantly broader powers. They are empowered by their organic laws to govern independently in areas such as education, health, and ancestral domains, subject to the limitations imposed by the national government and the Constitution.

5. Challenges in the Implementation of Autonomy

Despite constitutional guarantees, the practical implementation of autonomy has faced challenges, including:

• Inconsistent funding: Although autonomous regions are entitled to a block grant, delays in fund disbursement and coordination issues with national agencies can hamper regional development.

• Conflicts between regional and national laws: Disputes occasionally arise over whether regional laws encroach on national government functions or violate the Constitution.

• Security and peacekeeping: In regions like Muslim Mindanao, peacekeeping efforts remain a challenge due to the long history of insurgency and conflict.

6. Conclusion

Autonomous regions in the Philippines, such as BARMM, play a critical role in recognizing the unique cultural, historical, and political contexts of certain areas while balancing the country's national unity and sovereignty. Their relationship with the National Government is founded on constitutional principles that aim to empower local governance while safeguarding national interests.

Principles of Local Autonomy | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Principles of Local Autonomy in the Philippines

Local autonomy is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution and operationalized through the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160). It is a foundational principle in the governance of local government units (LGUs), and it serves as a key pillar for decentralization, granting LGUs the ability to manage their own affairs. Below is a meticulous discussion of the key aspects, legal foundations, and principles of local autonomy in the Philippines:

1. Constitutional Framework

The 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly recognizes local autonomy, with the following key provisions:

• Article II, Section 25: "The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments."
• Article X, Section 2: "The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy."
• Article X, Section 3: "The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization..."

These constitutional provisions underscore the commitment of the Philippine government to decentralize power from the national government to LGUs.

2. Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160)

The Local Government Code (LGC) is the main legal framework implementing the principle of local autonomy. It details the structure, powers, functions, and responsibilities of LGUs, as well as the mechanisms for fiscal autonomy and intergovernmental relations. Key provisions include:

• Devolution of Powers and Functions: The LGC devolves certain powers from the national government to LGUs, such as health services, agricultural extension services, social welfare services, public works and highways, environmental management, and more.

• Autonomous Power of LGUs: The Code grants LGUs the authority to create their own sources of revenue, such as taxes, fees, and charges, in addition to receiving their share from national taxes (Internal Revenue Allotment or IRA, now termed National Tax Allotment or NTA after the Mandanas-Garcia ruling).

• Corporate Powers: LGUs have the power to sue and be sued, to acquire and convey real or personal property, and to enter into contracts.

3. Mandanas-Garcia Ruling (GR No. 199802, 2018)

A landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the Philippines expanded the fiscal autonomy of LGUs. The ruling interpreted the term “just share” in the context of the IRA to include all national taxes, not just those collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). This decision effectively increased the revenue share of LGUs and further empowered them to pursue independent local development initiatives.

4. Decentralization as a Pillar of Local Autonomy

Decentralization refers to the process of redistributing powers from the central government to local governments. It has two major forms:

• Devolution: A transfer of powers, responsibilities, and resources from the national government to LGUs. LGUs are empowered to manage local affairs such as health, education, and infrastructure, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

• Deconcentration: A weaker form of decentralization, where administrative powers are delegated to regional or local offices of the national government. In this case, LGUs have less control and autonomy.

5. Key Principles of Local Autonomy

The principle of local autonomy in the Philippines can be dissected into the following core aspects:

A. Political Autonomy

Political autonomy is reflected in the LGUs’ capacity to:

• Elect their own local officials, as provided by Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution.
• Formulate their own local policies, ordinances, and resolutions to address the unique needs of their communities, as authorized by the LGC.

B. Administrative Autonomy

LGUs have the autonomy to administer and implement policies in their jurisdiction. The Code empowers LGUs to:

• Enact local ordinances and perform legislative functions through their Sanggunian.
• Manage personnel, including hiring and discipline of local employees.
• Organize and reorganize their local offices in accordance with the needs of the community.

C. Fiscal Autonomy

Fiscal autonomy is one of the most critical components of local autonomy. The LGC provides for:

• The right to generate and control local revenues, such as through local taxation (property tax, business tax, etc.) and fees.
• A guaranteed share of national taxes through the National Tax Allotment (NTA). LGUs receive a portion of national taxes automatically.
• The power to incur loans and contract debt for local projects.
• Local governments can also enter into Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) to fund local infrastructure projects.

D. Local Legislative Power

The Sanggunian (local legislative council) of each LGU is vested with law-making powers. The Sanggunian has the authority to enact:

• Ordinances to regulate local matters such as public health, safety, and public order.
• Appropriation ordinances for budgetary purposes.
• Tax ordinances to generate revenues for local programs.

6. Mechanisms Ensuring Local Autonomy

A. Checks and Balances

The principle of local autonomy is balanced by mechanisms to ensure that LGUs remain accountable and transparent:

• Oversight Functions of National Agencies: While LGUs have autonomy, national agencies such as the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) exercise oversight to ensure that LGUs comply with national laws and policies.

• COA Audits: The Commission on Audit (COA) has the power to audit the use of public funds by LGUs to ensure that they are properly used for local development.

• Recall: Local officials may be subject to a recall election, where the electorate can remove them from office before the end of their term for loss of confidence.

B. Inter-LGU Cooperation

The LGC encourages inter-LGU cooperation through mechanisms such as:

• Local Government Units' Alliances (LGU Alliances): LGUs may form cooperative alliances with each other to jointly address issues that cross boundaries, such as environmental protection and regional development.

• Local Special Bodies (LSBs): The LGC provides for the establishment of various consultative and decision-making bodies (e.g., Local Development Councils) that include both local officials and civil society representatives to enhance participatory governance.

7. Limitations on Local Autonomy

Despite the broad powers granted to LGUs, local autonomy is not absolute. There are limits and restrictions imposed by the Constitution, the Local Government Code, and other national laws:

• Hierarchy of Laws: LGUs must enact ordinances in accordance with national laws. National statutes and the Constitution take precedence over local ordinances.

• Subject to National Supervision: Local autonomy is always subject to the general supervision of the President. The President can intervene when LGUs act beyond their powers or when necessary to maintain public order.

• Doctrine of Local Government as “Delegate” of the National Government: LGUs are considered "creatures of the state" and derive their powers from legislation. Congress may increase or decrease their powers through subsequent laws.

8. Public International Law and Local Autonomy

The principle of local autonomy in the Philippines is consistent with international standards of governance, particularly in terms of decentralization and good governance. Local autonomy allows for:

• Local Democracy: Empowering communities to participate in decision-making aligns with principles of democracy and self-determination recognized under international law.

• Sustainable Development: Decentralization can enhance localized responses to global challenges, such as climate change, poverty, and human rights, as articulated in the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Conclusion

Local autonomy in the Philippines is a fundamental principle that is constitutionally mandated and operationalized through the Local Government Code. It enables LGUs to exercise substantial control over their political, administrative, and fiscal affairs. However, local autonomy exists within the framework of national laws and is subject to general supervision by the national government to ensure that it operates in the best interests of the public. The principles of devolution, decentralization, and participatory governance shape the landscape of local governance in the country, driving more responsive and accountable local government units.

Quasi-Corporations | Classifications | Public Corporations | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Political Law and Public International Law: Local Government Law – Quasi-Corporations

I. Introduction to Public Corporations

Public corporations are entities created by law to govern and manage local affairs, vested with corporate powers necessary to carry out their functions. These corporations may exercise powers either through their corporate character (proprietary functions) or by virtue of their governmental character (governmental functions).

Under the law, public corporations are typically divided into two classifications: municipal corporations and quasi-corporations. This outline will focus specifically on quasi-corporations, their characteristics, and their role within the local government framework.

---

II. Quasi-Corporations: Definition and Legal Basis

Quasi-corporations are legal entities created by statute for a limited and special public purpose. Unlike regular municipal corporations, which have broad powers and duties over a defined territory, quasi-corporations possess more specialized functions and exist primarily to achieve specific governmental objectives.

Quasi-corporations do not enjoy the full corporate personality that municipalities or other local government units (LGUs) possess. They are considered "quasi" because, while they have certain legal powers similar to corporations (such as the ability to sue and be sued), their primary function is governmental, and their powers are limited and specialized.

These entities are created either by special legislative acts or general laws and are typically charged with the administration of special tasks that benefit a larger area or perform functions that would be inefficient for municipalities or provinces to carry out individually.

Examples of Quasi-Corporations in Philippine Law:

1. Barangay Waterworks Associations (BWAs) - Created for the administration and maintenance of local water systems in rural areas.
2. Special Economic Zones – These may be formed with special powers to promote economic development in specific geographic areas, often involving tax incentives and regulatory autonomy.
3. Barangay Councils of Local Government Units – While a barangay is a municipal corporation, certain specific functions (such as water supply or electricity distribution) may be delegated to quasi-corporate entities within barangays.
4. School Boards or Special Districts – Sometimes quasi-corporations are tasked with administering local education or health care services, typically in coordination with the national government but with operational independence in certain areas.

Legal Basis in the Philippine Constitution and Laws:

• 1987 Constitution: While the Constitution provides for the creation and governance of local governments (Art. X), quasi-corporations are typically governed by specific statutes or laws that grant them the limited legal capacity to perform specific roles.
• Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160): This comprehensive code covers municipal corporations but also contemplates the creation of special purpose entities which can have a quasi-corporate character.

---

III. Characteristics of Quasi-Corporations

Quasi-corporations in the Philippines are characterized by the following features:

1. Limited Powers:

   • Quasi-corporations are granted limited powers that are strictly defined by their enabling law. These powers generally pertain to a specific function or objective (e.g., managing a water district or a local economic zone).
   • Unlike fully-fledged LGUs, they do not have police powers, taxing powers (except when explicitly granted by law), or broad legislative powers.

2. Special Purpose Entities:

   • Their purpose is often tied to providing a specific public service, such as water distribution, health care, education, or regional economic development.
   • They are created when it is more efficient to delegate a specific governmental task to a specialized entity rather than a regular LGU.

3. Public Character:

   • While they have some elements of corporate personality, quasi-corporations are fundamentally public entities that serve governmental functions rather than proprietary interests.
   • The primary goal of a quasi-corporation is to fulfill a public need, making them governmental rather than purely corporate in character.

4. Creation by Statute:

   • Quasi-corporations are not organic entities but are created by legislative acts or executive orders. They are not created by local initiative but through national-level action that determines their scope and powers.

5. Limited Jurisdiction:

   • These entities often have jurisdiction over a particular area or class of individuals or properties and do not exercise broad territorial jurisdiction like a city or municipality. Their jurisdiction is tied to their specific function.

6. Funding:

   • Funding for quasi-corporations often comes from national government appropriations, grants, or specific fees collected for services rendered. They generally lack independent taxing power unless specifically conferred by law.

7. Limited Autonomy:

   • Quasi-corporations may exercise a degree of operational independence but are often subject to oversight by national government agencies or departments, such as the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) or specialized national agencies related to their specific function (e.g., water districts under the Local Water Utilities Administration).

---

IV. Differences Between Municipal Corporations and Quasi-Corporations

Aspect	Municipal Corporations	Quasi-Corporations
Powers	Broad powers, including police power and taxation	Limited powers, tied to specific statutory objectives
Scope	Governs an entire city, municipality, or province	Often limited to a special function or purpose in a specific area
Creation	Created by the Local Government Code or special law	Created by specific legislative acts or executive orders
Funding	Can generate revenue through taxation and fees	Limited revenue-raising powers; often reliant on government funding
Autonomy	High degree of autonomy from the national government	Limited autonomy, often subject to supervision or control by national agencies
Primary Purpose	Governing the general welfare of the local constituency	Fulfilling a special or technical governmental function

---

V. Functions and Powers of Quasi-Corporations

Quasi-corporations typically carry out specialized governmental functions such as:

1. Infrastructure Development:

   • Some quasi-corporations are tasked with managing and maintaining infrastructure, such as water districts or local electric cooperatives, where direct municipal administration might not be feasible.

2. Service Provision:

   • Entities like barangay water districts or health boards provide essential services to areas where local governments may lack the technical expertise or resources.

3. Regulation and Administration:

   • In cases where specialized regulation or administration is required (e.g., in Special Economic Zones), quasi-corporations are empowered to act with limited authority, sometimes with delegated regulatory powers.

4. Collaboration with National Agencies:

   • Quasi-corporations often collaborate with national agencies to implement specific policies or programs, such as environmental management, public health campaigns, or regional economic development initiatives.

---

VI. Conclusion

Quasi-corporations play a vital role in the decentralized structure of the Philippines by carrying out specialized functions that complement the broader mandates of local government units. Their creation reflects the need for targeted, efficient governance solutions in areas where full municipal or provincial oversight may be either inefficient or impractical. These entities, while limited in scope and powers, fulfill critical public functions and are essential components of the Philippine local government framework.

Their special-purpose nature distinguishes them from fully-fledged LGUs, highlighting their role in addressing specific public needs through a flexible, albeit controlled, corporate structure.

Corporate Powers of LGUs | Public Corporations | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Corporate Powers of Local Government Units (LGUs)

The Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) governs the corporate powers of Local Government Units (LGUs) in the Philippines. These powers enable LGUs to act as legal entities, manage local affairs, and enter into legal contracts. The purpose of conferring corporate powers is to ensure that LGUs, as public corporations, can act autonomously to perform their local functions effectively and efficiently. Below is a detailed discussion on the corporate powers of LGUs under the Local Government Code:

1. Nature of LGUs as Public Corporations

LGUs are considered public corporations, which are legal entities created by law to perform governmental and proprietary functions. As such, they possess a dual character:

• Governmental Functions: These pertain to the exercise of the State's sovereign powers delegated to the LGUs, such as police power, eminent domain, and taxation.
• Proprietary Functions: These refer to functions that relate to activities traditionally considered commercial, similar to those performed by private corporations.

2. Corporate Powers of LGUs

Under Section 22 of the Local Government Code, LGUs have three specific corporate powers:

A. To Have Continuous Succession in Its Corporate Name

An LGU, as a public corporation, exists perpetually in law and continues to operate in its corporate name regardless of changes in leadership. This continuity is necessary to ensure that the LGU can perform its duties and obligations uninterrupted, including entering into contracts and acquiring assets.

B. To Sue and Be Sued

This corporate power allows LGUs to initiate legal actions and defend themselves in court. LGUs can sue any party in their corporate capacity, and they can be sued for obligations they incur. This ensures accountability and the legal capacity to enforce rights and obligations.

• Scope of Liability: LGUs may be held liable for damages arising from their proprietary functions, but they generally enjoy immunity from suit concerning their governmental functions unless there is a waiver or legislative approval.
• Restrictions: The power to sue and be sued is limited by statutory provisions, including compliance with procedural requirements such as obtaining prior approval from the Sangguniang Bayan, Panlungsod, or Panlalawigan before entering into or settling disputes.

C. To Enter into Contracts

LGUs, through their executive officials (i.e., mayor or governor), may enter into contracts necessary for the proper exercise of their functions. This includes contracts for the provision of services, acquisition of property, or establishment of partnerships.

• Limitations: Contracts must be in line with the LGU’s powers and functions under the law, and they must comply with procedural requirements such as:

  • Authorization by the Sangguniang (council) concerned;
  • Compliance with public bidding requirements for procurement and disposal of property, as provided under Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act);
  • Adherence to budgetary limits and funding availability.

• Ultra Vires Acts: Any contract entered into by an LGU that is outside its lawful powers or without the requisite authorization is considered ultra vires and unenforceable.

3. Exercise of Corporate Powers by the Local Chief Executive

The local chief executive, such as the governor, city mayor, or municipal mayor, represents the LGU in its corporate dealings. However, the Local Government Code provides that certain acts by the local chief executive require prior authorization from the Sangguniang or legislative council, such as:

• Entering into long-term contracts;
• Loan agreements;
• Sale or lease of LGU properties.

The local chief executive is also responsible for the proper execution of contracts and ensuring that obligations are fulfilled.

4. Limitations on the Exercise of Corporate Powers

The exercise of corporate powers by LGUs is not absolute and is subject to several limitations and controls, including:

• Fiscal Autonomy: While LGUs enjoy a degree of fiscal autonomy, they must ensure that expenditures do not exceed available resources. Contractual obligations must comply with the approved local budget.
• Public Accountability: As public entities, LGUs are subject to laws on transparency, accountability, and good governance. This includes the prohibition on contracts manifesting conflict of interest, such as those involving relatives of public officials.
• Compliance with National Laws: LGUs must operate within the bounds of national laws and policies. For example, their taxing and regulatory powers cannot contravene national statutes or infringe upon the powers of national agencies.

5. LGUs as Proprietary Entities

In their capacity as public corporations, LGUs may engage in proprietary activities. These activities are undertaken primarily for profit and do not directly relate to the exercise of governmental functions. For example:

• Establishment of Economic Enterprises: LGUs can establish local economic enterprises (e.g., public markets, slaughterhouses, and transportation systems) to generate revenue for the local government.
• Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): LGUs are allowed to enter into joint ventures or partnerships with private entities for the development of public infrastructure projects or other economic endeavors. These partnerships are governed by Republic Act No. 6957 (as amended by Republic Act No. 7718), also known as the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Law.

6. Corporate Powers of Barangays

Even the smallest political subdivisions, such as barangays, have corporate powers. However, due to their size and limited resources, barangays have more restricted powers compared to cities, municipalities, and provinces. Their corporate powers are usually limited to:

• Providing basic services and facilities;
• Constructing and maintaining barangay infrastructure projects;
• Collecting minimal fees for certain services.

Barangays also have the power to enter into contracts and sue and be sued, though these contracts are typically limited in scope and value due to budgetary constraints.

7. Key Jurisprudence on LGU Corporate Powers

Several landmark Supreme Court rulings have shaped the understanding and application of LGU corporate powers:

• Pimentel v. Aguirre (2000): The Court ruled that LGUs enjoy a measure of fiscal autonomy and that any executive act that unduly interferes with such autonomy, such as the imposition of restrictions on their corporate powers without legal basis, is unconstitutional.
• Municipality of San Narciso v. Mendez (1995): The Supreme Court held that an LGU cannot disavow its contracts or obligations by simply claiming it was acting in its governmental capacity. LGUs are liable for obligations that arise from proprietary functions.
• Municipality of Bacoor v. IAC (1985): This case highlights the distinction between governmental and proprietary functions, holding that LGUs may be held liable for damages arising from their proprietary acts but may enjoy immunity for governmental acts, unless waived by law.

8. Conclusion

The corporate powers of LGUs are essential in enabling them to function autonomously in managing local affairs. These powers are exercised within the framework of the Local Government Code and are subject to certain limitations, such as fiscal responsibility, transparency, and accountability. LGUs must balance their dual roles as public corporations performing governmental functions and as entities engaging in proprietary activities to promote the welfare and development of their local communities.