Angmobasabogo Notes

7/31/2019 Angmobasabogo Notes

1/11

Brotherhood.Loyalty.Excellence

Ang mo basa BRIGHT pero kung ang imong pag basa kay way tingog BOGO! - Einstein

PART 1: GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A. Corporation

1. Definition

CORPORATION Defined: An artificial being created by operation of law havingthe right of succession and powers, attributes and properties expressly authorizedby law or incident to its existence.

2. Classifications

(i) Public organized for the government of a portion of the State;(ii) Private formed for some private purpose, benefit, aim or end;(iii) Quasi-public private corporation that renders public service or suppliespublic wants.(iv) Quasi-corporation created by the State for a narrow/limited purpose (PCSO,etc.)

NOTE: Criterion to determine whether a corporation is public The relationship of the corporation to the Sate, that is, if created by the State asits own agency to help the State in carrying out its governmental functions then it

is public, otherwise, it is private.3. Municipal Corporations, defined

Municipal Corporations body politic and corporate constituted by theincorporation of the inhabitants for the purpose of local government.

B. Municipal Corporations1. Elements

a. Legal creation or incorporation there must be a law creating/authorizing thecreation or incorporation of a municipal corporation;b. Corporate name name by which the corporation is known;

c. Inhabitants people residing in the territory of the corporation;d. Territory land mass where the inhabitants reside together with internal andexternal waters and air space above the land and waters.

2. Dual Nature and FunctionsEvery local government unit created/organized under the Local Government

Code is a BODY POLITIC and CORPORATE endowed with powers to be exercised byit in conformity with law. As such it shall exercise powers as a political subdi vision ofthe National Government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of theterritory (Section 15, RA7160). Accordingly, it has dual functions(i) public or governmental acts as an agent of the State f or the government of theterritory and the inhabitants; and(ii) private or proprietary acts as an agent of the community in the administration oflocal affairs, as such, acts as a separate entity f or its own purposes and not as a

subdivision of the State.

Lidasan v, Comelec

Assailed the constitutionality of a law creating a municipality constituting of barrios from

two different provinces being violative of the Constitutional limitation of one subject per

bill and must be expressed in t he title thereof

Only one province (Lanao del Sur) was mentioned in the title the other province was

not (Cotabato)

Null and void in its totality

Municipal corporations perform twin functions.

Firstly. They serve as an instrumentality of the State in carrying out the functions of

government. Secondly. They act as an agency of the community in the

administration of local affairs. It is in the latter character that they are a separate

entity acting for their own purposes and not a subdivision of the State.

Surigao Electric Co Inc. v. Municipality of Surigao

Municipal corporations are outside the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission,

being a political subdivision of the national government

Dual character of a municipal corporation

one as governmental, being a branch of the general administration of the state,and the other as quasi-private and corporate. A well-known authority, Dillon, was

referred to by us to stress the undeniable fact that "legislative and governmental

powers" are "conferred upon a municipality, the better to enable it to aid a state in

properly governing that portion of its people residing within its municipality, such

powers [being] in their nature public, ..."

3. Sources of Powers

1. Sec. 25, Art II; Secs, 5, 6, & 7, Art. X, Philippine Constitution2. Statutes, e.g., R.A. 7160

3. Charter ( Particularly of Cities)4. Doctrine of the right of self-government, but applies only in States whichadhere to the doctrine

4. Classifications of powers1. Express, Implied, Inherent (Powers necessary and proper for the

governance, e.g., to promote health and safety, enhance prosperity,improve morals of inhabitants)

2. Public or governmental, private or proprietory3. Intramural, extramural4. Mandatory, directory; ministerial, discretionary

5. Types of Municipal Corporations

1. Province (Sec. 459, LGC) cluster of municipalities or municipalities andcomponent cities, as a political and corporate unit of government which

serves as a dynamic mechanism for developmental processes and effectivegovernance of LGUs within its territorial jurisdiction.2. City (Sec. 448) composed of more more urbanized and developed

barangays, serves as a general purpose government for coordination anddelivery of basic, regular and direct services and effective governance of theinhabitants within its jurisdiction;3. Municipality (Sec. 440, LGC) groups of barangays, serves primarily as ageneral purpose government for coordination and delivery of basic, regularand direct services and effective governance of inhabitants within its

jurisdiction;4. Barangay (Sec. 384, LGC) basic political unit, serves as the primaryplanning and implementing unit of government policies, plans, programs,

projects and activities in the community and as a forum wherein collectiveviews of people may be expressed, crystallized and considered wheredisputes are also amicably settled;

5. Autonomous Regions refer to Article 10 of the Constitution.6. Special metropolitan political subdivisions Pursuant to Sec. 11 of ArticleX, Constitution. Shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination


2/11



6. De facto Municipal Corporations Doctrine; Elements

Requisites: (VACA)a. Valid law authorizing incorporationb. Attempt in good faith to organize itc. Colourable compliance with lawd. Assumption of corporate powers

Municipality of Jiminez vs Baz, Jr.

- Petitioner assailed the Executive Order creating the Municipality of Sinacaban on the

basis in the Ruling of Pelaez that only the legislative department has the power tocreate municipalities

- Municipality of Sinacaban was created prior to the Pelaez rulingRULINGSinacaban a De facto Municipal corporation but eventually became a De jure Municipalcorporation after an Ordinance appended in the Constitution recognizing Sinacaban aspart of a Legislative DistrictMUNICIPALITY CONSIDERED DE FACTO WHERE IT WAS CREATED BYEXECUTIVE ORDER BUT IMPLIEDLY RECOGNIZED AND ITS ACTS ACCORDEDLEGAL VALIDITY.

We have since held that where a municipality created as such by executive order islater impliedly recognized and its acts are accorded legal validity, its creation can nolonger be questioned. In MUNICIPALITY OF SAN NARCISO, QUEZON V. MENDEZ,

SR., this Court considered the following factors as having validated the creation of amunicipal corporation, which like the Municipality of Sinacaban, was created byexecutive order of the President before the ruling in Palaez v. Auditor General: (1) thefact that for nearly 30 years the validity of the creation of the municipality had neverbeen challenged; (2) the fact that following the ruling in Palaez no quo warranto suitwas filed to question the validity of the executive order creating such municipality; and(3) the fact that the municipality, organized as part of municipal circuit court andconsidered part of a legislative district in the Constitution apportioning the seats in theHouse of Representatives. Above all, it was held that whatever doubt there might be as

to the de jure character of the municipality must be deemed to have been put to restby the local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), 442(d) of which provides that"municipal districts organized pursuant to presidential issuances or executive ordersand which have their respective set of elective officials holding office at the time of theeffectivity of this Code shall henceforth be considered as regular municipalities.

Municipality of San Narciso vs Mendez, Sr.

Municipality of San Andres was created by virtue of an Executive OrderThe E.O excluded barrios from the petitioner and was included in the creation of theMunicipality of San AndresSan Andres was classified as a fifth class Municipality and was organized as part of the

Municipal Circuit CourtThe petitioner assailed the E.O creating the San Andres on the basis of the Pelaezruling that only the legislative department can create a Municipal corporationSan Andres had been in existence prior to the Pelaez rulingRULINGMunicpality of Jimenez v. Baz supraReasons for dismissal:but it was only after almost thirty (30) years, or on 05 June 1989, that the municipalityof San Narciso finally decided to challenge the legality of the executive order; failure totimely file a quo warranto proceeding

San Andres a De facto Municipal corporation but by virtue of the LGC of 1991 and theConstitution it became a de jure municipal corporation

All considered, the de jure status of the Municipality of San Andres in the province ofQuezon must now be conceded.

Municipality of Candijay v. C.A , Municipality of Alicia

Same ruling with supra

De facto Municipal corporation that became De jure by virtue of the Constitution and

LGC of 1991

Respondent municipality of Alicia was created by virtue of Executive Order No. 265

in 1949, orten years ahead of the municipality of San Andres, and therefore had

been in existence for all of sixteen years when Pelaez vs. Auditor Generalwas

promulgated. And various governmental acts throughout the years all indicate

the State's recognition and acknowledgment of the ex istence thereof. For

instance, under Administrative Order No. 33 above-mentioned, the Municipality of

Alicia was covered by the 7th Municipal Circuit Court of Alicia-Mabini for the

province of Bohol. Likewise, under the Ordinance appended to the 1987

Constitution, the Municipality of Alicia is one of twenty municipalities comprising the

Third District of Bohol.

Sultan Osop Camid v. Office of the President

- Municipality of Andong was created by virtue of and E.O issued by former Pres.

Diosdado Macapagal- Howver, the E.O was struck down in the case of Pelaez for being unconstitutional-

undue delegation of legislative powers

- Nonetheless, petitioner posited that Andong has evolved capable of being aMunicipality

- Petitioner presented certifications from various Govt agencies attesting to the fact thatAndongg is qualified of being a Municipality

- Petitioner assailed the Certification issued by the DILG and prayed that Andong berecognized as a Regular Municipality

- Petitioner invoked the ruling of the SC in Municipality of Jimenez v. Baz and

Municipality of San Narciso v. Mendez- ISSUEIs Andong entitled to the same ru ling given in Mun. of Jimenez v. Baz?

NO

The Executive Order creating the Municipality of Andong was declared null and void

in the case of Pelaez v. Auditor

Pelaezand its offspring cases ruled that the President has no power to create

municipalities, yet limited its nullificatory effects to the particular municipalities

challenged in actual cases before this Court.


3/11



Therefore, the reasoning of the Court in Mun. of Jimenez v. Baz cannot be applied herein

because the Mun. of Jimenez was not include in the case of Pelaez which declared those

included Municipalities created by virtue of an E.O void

7. Method of challenging existence of municipal corporation

Malabang v. Benito

-

Assailed the Constitutionality of the E.O creating the Muncipality of Balabagan 5 yearsfrom the Peleaz ruling-

- SC ruling E.O rendered void

- the mere fact that Balabagan was organized at a time when the statute had not beeninvalidated cannot conceivably make it a de factocorporation

- absence of colorable authority herein

It is indeed true that, generally, an inquiry into the legal existence of a municipality is

reserved to the State in a proceeding forquo warrantoor other direct proceeding, and that

only in a few exceptions may a private person exercise this function of government.4But the rule

disallowing collateral attacks applies only where the municipal corporation is at least a de

factocorporation.5

For where it is neither a corporation de jurenor de facto, but a nullity,

the rule is that its existence may be, questioned collaterally or directly in any action orproceeding by anyonewhose rights or interests are affected thereby, including the citizens of

the territory incorporated unless they are estopped by their conduct from doing so.

Elements of a de facto Municipal Corporation

I. The color of authority requisite to the organization of a de factomunicipal corporation may be:

1. A valid law enacted by the legislature.

2. An unconstitutional law, valid on its face, which has either (a) been upheld for a time

by the courts or (b) not yet been declared void; providedthat a warrant for its

creation can be found in some other valid law or in the recognition of its potential

existence by the general laws or constitution of the State.

II.

There can be no de factomunicipal corporation unless either directly or potentially, such a de jure

corporation is authorized by some legislative fiat.

III.

There can be no color of authority in an unconstitutional statute alone, the invalidity of which is

apparent on its face.

IV.

There can be no de factocorporation created to take the place of an existing de

jurecorporation, as such organization would clearly be a usurper.10

Hence, in the case at bar, the mere fact that Balabagan was organized at a time when the

statute had not been invalidated cannot conceivably make it a de factocorporation, , as,

independently of the Administrative Code provision in question, there is no other valid statute

to give color of authority to its creation.

Operative Fact doctrine

Executive Order 386 "created no office." This is not to say, however, that the acts done by

the municipality of Balabagan in the exercise of its corporate powers are a nullity because the

executive order "is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

For the existence of Executive, Order 386 is "an operative fact which cannot justly be

ignored."

C. Overview of the Philippine Local Government System

1. The Unitary vs. the Federal Forms of Government

Zoomzat v. People

Petitioner Zoomzat, Inc. alleged that the Sangguniang Panlungsodof Gingoog City passedResolution No. 261

[3]which resolved to express the willingness of the City of Gingo og to allow

Zoomzat to install and operate a cable TV system. Thereupon, petitioner applied for a mayorspermit but the same was not acted upon by the mayors office.

Subsequently, or on April 6, 1993, respondents enacted Ordinance No. 1 9[4]

which granteda franchise to Gingoog Spacelink Cable TV, Inc. to operate a cable television for a period of ten(10) years, subject to automatic renewal.

Hence, on July 30, 1993, petitioner filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman againstherein respondents for violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019

Accordingly, a criminal information f or violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, was filed againstthe respondents before the Sandiganbayan.

On further investigation, Special Prosecution Officer III Victor Pascual also recommendedthat the case be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

[8]

the Sandiganbayan issued the now assailed resolution approving the dismissal of the case andordering the withdrawal of the Information against the respondents.

Petitioner assails the findings of Special Prosecutor Pascual that under Executive Order No.205,

[9]it is the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), and not the local government

unit, that has the power and authority to allow or disallow the operation of cable television.

RULING:Respondents cannot be held liable under the charge against them because they are notemployees charge with the granting of franchise, license or permit. It is the NTC Executive Order No. 205 clearly provides that only the NTC could grant certificates of authority tocable television operators and issue the necessary implementing rules and regulations.

It is clear that in the absence of constitutional or legislative authorization, municipalities have nopower to grant franchises.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/135535.htm


4/11


5/11



to political subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and in the process tomake local governments "more responsive and accountable,"

23"and ensure their fullest

development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit ofnational development and social progress."

24At the same time, it relieves the central

government of the burden of managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate on nationalconcerns. The President exercises "general supervision"

25over them, but only to "ensure that

local affairs are administered according to law."26

He has no control over their acts in the sensethat he can substitute their judgments with h is own.

27

Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of political power in the favorof local governments units declare to be autonomous . In that case, the autonomous governmentis free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from centralauthorities. According to a constitutional author, decentralization of power amounts to "self-immolation," since in that event, the autonomous government becomes accountable not to thecentral authorities but to its constituency.

28

Decentralization of administration; Court can acquire jurisdiction (Judicial question)

If the Sangguniang Pampook (of Region XII), then, is autonomous in the latter( decentralization ofpower) sense, its acts are, debatably beyond the domain of this Court in perhaps the same waythat the internalacts, say, of the Congress of the Philippines are beyond our jurisdiction. But if itis autonomous in the former (decentralization administrative power) category only, it comesunarguably under our jurisdiction.

An examination of the very Presidential Decree creating the autonomous governments ofMindanao persuades us that they were never meant to exercise autonomy in the second sense,

that is, in which the central government commits an act of self-immolation. Presidential DecreeNo. 1618, in the first place, mandates that "[t]he President shall have the power of generalsupervision and control over Autonomous Regions."

Hence, we assume jurisdiction

Magtajas vs Pryce Properties

FACTS

PAGCOR is a corporation created directly by P.D. 1869. The trouble arose when in 1992, flushwith its tremendous success in several cities, PAGCOR decided to expand its operations toCagayan de Oro City. To this end, it leased a portion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties

Corporation, Inc., one of the herein private respondents, renovated and equipped the same, andprepared to inaugurate its casino there during the Christmas season.

The reaction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City was swift and hostile. OnDecember 7, 1992, it enacted Ordinance No. 3353 reading as follows:

AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS PERMIT AND CANCELLINGEXISTING BUSINESS PERMIT TO ANY ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE USING AND ALLOWINGTO BE USED ITS PREMISES OR PORTION THEREOF FOR THE OPERATION OF CASINO.

Pryce assailed the ordinances before the Court of Appeals, where it was joined by PAGCOR asintervenor and supplemental petitioner. Their challenge succeeded. On March 31, 1993, theCourt of Appeals declared the ordinances invalid and issued the writ prayed for to prohibit theirenforcement

Petitioner contends that even if the operation of casinos may have been permitted under P.D.1869, the government of Cagayan de Oro City has the authority to prohibit them within its territory

pursuant to the authority entrusted to it by the Local Government Code.

RULING

The Municipal Corporation cannot prohibit the operation of Casino when the LegislativeDepartment had permitted

Test of Valid Ordinance

1) It must not contravene the constitution or any statute.

2) It must not be unfair or oppressive.

3) It must not be partial or discriminatory.

4) It must not prohibit but may regulate trade.

5) It must be general and consistent with public policy.

6) It must not be unreasonable.

The apparent flaw in the ordinances in question is that they contravene P.D. 1869 and thepublic policy embodied therein insofar as they prevent PAGCOR from exercising the power

conferred on it to operate a casino in Cagayan de Oro City

The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute isobvious. Municipal governments are only agents of the national government . Localcouncils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as thenational lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise

powers higher than those of the l atter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local government unitscan undo the acts of Congress, from which they have derived their power in the first place, andnegate by mere ordinance the mandate of the statute.

Without meaning to detract from that policy, we here confirm that Congress retains control of thelocal government units although in significantly reduced degree now than under our previous

Constitutions (policy on local autonomy). The power to create still includes the power to destroy.The power to grant still includes the power to withhold or recall. True, there are certain notableinnovations in the Constitution, like the direct conferment on the local government units of thepower to tax,

12which cannot now be withdrawn by mere statute. By and large, however, the

national legislature is still the principal of the local government units, which cannot defy its will ormodify or violate it.

Lina Jr. vs. Pao

Private respondent applied for a mayor's permit to operate a lotto outlet in San Pedro, Laguna. It

was denied on the ground that an ordinance entitled Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995 datedSeptember 18, 1995 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna prohibited gambling in theprovince, including the operation of lotto. With the denial of his application, private respondentfiled an action for declaratory relief with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporaryrestraining order. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of private respondent enjoining

petitioners from implementing or enforcing the subject resolution. Motion for its reconsiderationwas denied. Hence, this recourse. Petitioners contended that "the resolution is a policydeclaration of the provincial government of Laguna on its vehement opposition and/or objectionto the operation of and/or all forms of gambling including the lotto operation" and thus it is valid.On the other hand, private respondent argued that the same curtailed the power of the statesince the legislature itself had declared lotto as legal and permitted its operation around thecountry.

RULING

An Ordinance should not be repugnant to Legislative enactments


6/11



Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local councils exercise onlydelegated legislative powers conferred upon them by Congress as the national lawmakingbody. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those ofthe latter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local government units can undo the acts ofCongress, from which they have derived their power in the first place, and negate by mereordinance the mandate of the statute.

Ours is still a unitary form of government, not a federal state. Being so, any form of autonomygranted to local governments will necessarily be limited and confined within the extent allowed bythe central authority. Besides, the principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply

means decentralization. It does not make local governments sovereign within the state oran imperium in imperio

We here confirm that Congress retains control of the local government units although insignificantly reduced degree now than under our previous Constitutions. The power to create stillincludes the power to destroy. The power to grant still includes the power to withhold or recall.

Since Congress has allowed the PCSO to operate lotteries which PCSO seeks to conduct inLaguna, pursuant to its legislative grant of authority, the provinces SangguniangPanlalawigancannot nullify the exercise of said authority by preventing something alreadyallowed by Congress.

It is only a declaration of policy, therefore not self-executing

That resolution expresses merely a policy statement of the Laguna provincial board. Itpossesses no binding legal force nor requires any act of implementation.

San Juan vs Civil Service Commission

FACTS

The position of Provincial Budget Officer (PBO) for the province of Rizal was left vacant by itsformer holder. the petitioner informed Director Reynaldo Abella of the Department of Budget and

Management (DBM) Region IV that Ms. Dalisay Santos assumed office as Acting PBO pursuantto a Memorandum issued by the petitioner who further requested Director Abella to endorse theappointment of the said Ms. Dalisay Santos to the contested position of PBO of Rizal. Ms.

Dalisay Santos was then Municipal Budget Officer of Taytay, Rizal before she discharged thefunctions of acting PBO.

However, then Director Abella of Region IV recommended the appointment of the private

respondent as PBO of Rizal. According to Abella, the private respondent was the most qualifiedsince she was the only Certified Public Accountant among the contenders. UndersecretaryNazario S. Cabuquit, Jr. signed the appointment papers of the private respondent as PBO ofRizal upon the aforestated recommendation of Abella. DBM Regional Director Agripino G. Galvezwrote the petitioner that Dalisay Santos and his other recommendees did not meet the minimumrequirements under Local Budget Circular No. 31 for the position of a local budget officer. thepetitioner after having been informed of the private respondent's appointment wrote SecretaryCarague protesting against the said appointment on the grounds that , it is the ProvincialGovernor, not the Regional Director or a Congressman, who has the power to recommendnominees for the position of PBO.

DBM denied the protest of petitioner and the respondent affirmed the DBMs Resolution

In the event that the Governor recommends an unqualified person, is the Department Head freeto appoint anyone he fancies ? No

RULING

Executive Order No. 112 which provides that:

Sec. 1. All budget officers of provinces, cities and municipalities shall be appointedhenceforth by the Minister of Budget and Management upon recommendation of the

local chief executive concerned, subject to civil service law, rules and regulations, andthey shall be placed under the administrative control and technical supervision of theMinistry of Budget and Management.

In case of doubt, law shall be construed in favor of local autonomy

We have to obey the clear mandate on local autonomy. Where a law is capable of

two interpretations, one in favor of centralized power in Malacaang and theother beneficial to local autonomy, the scales must be weighed in favor ofautonomy.

General Supervision by the Executive over the Local Government Units; the formercannot substitute its judgment to that of the latter

Supervision goes no further than "overseeing or the power or authority of anofficer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail orneglect to fulfill them the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law tomake them perform their duties

The right given by Local Budget Circular No. 31 which states:

Sec. 6.0 The DBM reserves the right to fill up any existing vacancywherenone of the nominees of the local chief executive meet the prescribedrequirements.

is ultra vires and is, accordingly, set aside. The DBM may appoint only from the list of

qualified recommendees nominated by the Governor. If none is qualified, he must

return the list of nominees to the Governor explaining why no one meets the legalrequirements and ask for new recommendees who have the necessary eligibilities andqualifications.

The PBO is expected to synchronize his work with DBM. More important, however, isthe proper administration of fiscal affairs at the local level. Provincial and municipal

budgets are prepared at the local level and after completion are forwarded to the

national officials for review

It is for this reason that the nomination and appointment process involves a sharing ofpower between the two levels of government.

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA

Republic Act No. 4850 created the "Laguna Lake Development Authority." This GovernmentAgency is supposed to carry out and effectuate the aforesaid declared policy, so as to acceleratethe development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces,

cities and towns, in the act clearly named, within the context of the national and regional plansand policies for social and economic development.

Presidential Decree No. 813 of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos amended certain sectionsof Republic Act No. 4850 because of the concern for the rapid expansion of Metropolitan Manila,the suburbs and the lakeshore towns of Laguna de Bay, combined with current and prospectiveuses of the lake for municipal-industrial water supply, irrigation, fisheries, and the like

Special powers were also granted to this authority provided by sec 3.


7/11



The authority was further empowered by E.O. No. 927 which enlarged its functions and powers.The Said order also named and enumerated towns, cities, and provinces encompassed by theterm "Laguna de Bay Region".

Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction t o issue permit for the use of all surface water f or anyprojects or activities in or affecting the said region including navigation, construction, andoperation eof fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like.(sec 2 of eo 927)

Then came Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991. The municipalities in

the Laguna Lake Region interpreted the provisions of this law to mean that the newly passed lawgave municipal governments the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within theirmunicipal waters

Municipal governments assumed authority to issue fishing privileges and fishpen permits.TheMayor's permit to construct fishpens and fishcages were all undertaken in violation of the policiesadopted by the Authority on fishpen zoning and the Laguna Lake carrying capacity

Authority sent notices to t he concerned owners of the illegally constructed fishpens, f ishcagesand other aqua-culture structures advising them to dismantle their respective structures within 10days from receipt thereof, otherwise, demolition shall be effected.

affected fishpen owners filed injunction cases against the Authority before various regional trialcourts

It has to be conceded that the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority constitutes aspecial law. Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, is a general law. It isbasic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation which is a general lawcannot be construed to have repealed a special law. It is a well settled rule in this jurisdiction that"a special statute, provided for a particular case or class of cases, is not repealed by asubsequent statute, general in its terms, provisions and application, unless the intent to repeal oralter is manifest, although the terms of the general law are broad enough to include the casesembraced in the special law. Where there is a conflict between a general law and a specialstatute, the special statute should prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than

the general statute. The special law is to be taken as an exception to the general law in theabsence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. This is because implied repealsare not favored and as much as possible, effect must be given to all enactments of thelegislature. A special law cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent general lawby mere implication. Thus, it has to be concluded that the charter of the Authority should prevailover the Local Government Code of 1991.

the Authority has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the enjoyment of fishery privileges

in Laguna de Bay to the exclusion of municipalities situated therein and the authority to exercisesuch powers as are by its charter vested on it. Removal from the Authority of the aforesaidlicensing authority will render nugatory its avowed purpose of protecting and developing the

Laguna Lake Region. Otherwise stated, the abrogation of this power would render useless itsreason for being and will in effect denigrate, if not abolish, the Laguna Lake Development

Authority. This, the Local Government Code of 1991 had never intended to do.

D. Local Government in the Philippines

1. Territorial and Political Subdivisions: Provinces, Cities, Municipalities, Barangays

1987 Constitution, Section 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of thePhilippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomousregions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.

1987 Constitution, Section 12. Cities that are highly urbanized, as determined by law, andcomponent cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials,shall be independent of the province. The voters of component cities within a province, whosecharters contain no such prohibition, shall not be deprived of their right to vote for electiveprovincial officials.

Abella vs COMELEC

- Petitioner and Larrazabal are both candidates for the office of the Governor in Leyte- Petitioner filed a (Pre-Proclamation) disqualification case against Larrazabal on the

ground that Larrazabal is not a resident of Kanga Leyte and not a registered voterthereof.

- Larrazabal won the election- Petitioner 2

ndwinning candidate

- Comelec Proclaimed Larrazabal despite the disqualification proceeding- Comelec thereafter issued its Resolution disqualifying Larrazabal on the ground that

the latter does not possess the residency requirement and she is not a registered voterof Kanga. Moreover, Larrazabal a resident and a registered voter of Ormoc City, acomponent independent of the province by virtue of its charter

- Petitioner filed a motion to the cancel proclamation of Larrazabal and He be declaredas the winning candidate

- Motion denied by Comelec with respect to the prayer of declaration as winner

Charter of Ormoc City- The qualified voters of Ormoc City shall NOT be qualifiedand entitled to vote in the election of the provincial governor and the members ofthe provincial board of the Province of Leyte.

ISSUE:The question now is whether or not the prohibition against the 'city's registered voters'electing the provincial officials necessarily mean, a prohibition of the registered votersto be elected as provincial officials.

RULING of the CourtAffirmed the findings and Resolution of the Comelec

Highly-urbanized cities are independent of the province;Prohibition to vote includes prohibition not to be voted for in the province

Section 12, Article X of the Constitution is explicit in that aside from highly-urbanizedcities, component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting forprovincial elective officials are independent of the province. In the same provision,it provides for othercomponent cities within a provincewhose charters do not

provide a similar prohibition. Necessarily, component cities like Ormoc City whosecharters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials aretreated like highly urbanized cities which are outside the supervisory power ofthe province to which they are geographically attached. This independence fromthe provincecarries with it the prohibition or mandate directed t o their registeredvoters not to vote and be voted for the provincial elective offices.

2. Autonomous Regions


8/11



1987 Constitution, Section 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of thePhilippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomousregions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.

3. Special Metropolitan Political Subdivisions

1987 Constitution, Section 11. The Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan political

subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10 hereof. The component cities and

municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executive

and legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will thereby becreated shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination.

MMDA vs Bel-Air Village

- Respondent owned a village and a private street along with the highway

- MMDA ordered that the street be opened for public use

- Court ruled MMDA has no authority to do so

The MMDA is not a political unit of government . The power delegated to the MMDA is that

given to the Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the

implementation of the MMDA's functions. There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and

regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis.

It is thus beyond doubt that the MMDA is not a local government unit or a public corporation

endowed with legislative power. It is not even a "special metropolitan politicalsubdivision" as contemplated in Section 11, Article X of the Constitution. The creation of a

"special metropolitan political subdivision" requires the approval by a majority of the votes

cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affecte d."56

R. A. No. 7924 was not

submitted to the inhabitants of Metro Manila in a plebiscite . The Chairman of the MMDA is

not an official elected by the people, but appointed by the President with the rank and

privileges of a cabinet member. In f act, part of his function is to perform such other duties as may

be assigned to him by the President,57

whereas in local government units, the President

merely exercises supervisory authority. This emphasizes the administrative character of

the MMDA.

Clearly then, the MMC under P.D. No. 824 is not the same entity as the MMDA under R.A. No.

7924. Unlike the MMC, the MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the

community. It is the local government units, acting through their respective legislativecouncils, that possess legislative power and police power. In the case at bar, the

Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering

the opening of Neptune Street, hence, its proposed opening by petitioner MMDA is illegal

and the respondent Court of Appeals did not err in so ruling.

E. Loose Federation of LGUs and Regional Development Councils

1987 Constitution, Section 13. Local government units may group themselves, consolidate or

coordinate their efforts, services, and resources f or purposes commonly beneficial to them in

accordance with law.

1987 Constitution, Section 14. The President shall provide for regional development councils or

other similar bodies composed of local government officials, regional heads of departments and

other government offices, and representatives from non-governmental organizations within the

regions for purposes of administrative decentralization to strengthen the autonomy of the units

therein and to accelerate the economic and social growth and development of the units in the

region.

LGC of 1991, Section 33. Cooperative Undertakings Among Local Government Units. - Local

government units may, through appropriate ordinances, group themselves, consolidate, or

coordinate their efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them. In

support of such undertakings, the local government units involved may, upon approval by thesanggunian concerned after a public hearing conducted for the purpose, contribute funds, real

estate, equipment, and other kinds of property and appoint or assign personnel under such terms

and conditions as may be agreed upon by the participating local units through Memoranda of

Agreement.

Part II : THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991

1. Constitutional MandateSection 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a

more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through asystem of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and

referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers,responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointmentand removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials, and allother matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units.

2. Sources of the local government code of 19913. Scope of Application

Sec 4, LGC of 1991 Scope of Application. - This Code shall apply to all provinces,cities, municipalities, barangays, and other political subdivisions as may be created bylaw, and, to the extent herein provided, to officials, offices, or agencies of the nationalgovernment.Sec 526, LGC of 1991 - Application of this Code to Local Government Units in the

Autonomous Regions. - This Code shall apply to all provinces, cities, municipalities andbarangays in the autonomous regions until such time as the regional government

concerned shall have enacted its own local government code.Sec 529, LGC of 1991 - Tax Ordinances or Revenue Measures. - All existing taxordinances or revenue measures of local government units shall continue to be in forceand effect after the effectivity of this Code unless amended by the sanggunianconcerned, or inconsistent with, or in violation of, the provisions of this Code.Sec 534(f), LGC of 1991 - (f) All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees,executive orders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or part or parts thereofwhich are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Code are hereby repealed ormodified accordingly.

4. Rules of Interpretation

Section 5, LGC of 1991. Rules of Interpretation. - In the interpretation of the provisionsof this Code, the following rules shall apply:(a) Any provision on a power of a local government unit shall be liberally interpreted in

its favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor ofdevolution of powers and of the lower local government unit. Any fair and reasonabledoubt as to the existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the localgovernment unit concerned;
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_135962_2000.html#fnthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_135962_2000.html#fnthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_135962_2000.html#fnthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_135962_2000.html#fnthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_135962_2000.html#fnthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_135962_2000.html#fnthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_135962_2000.html#fnthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_135962_2000.html#fnt


9/11



(b) In case of doubt, any tax ordinance or revenue measure shall be construed strictlyagainst the local government unit enacting it, and liberally in favor of the taxpayer. Anytax exemption, incentive or relief granted by any local government unit pursuant to theprovisions of this Code shall be c onstrued strictly against the person claiming it.

(c) The general welfare provisions in this Code shall be liberally interpreted to givemore powers to local government units in accelerating economic development and

upgrading the quality of life for the people in the community;

(d) Rights and obligations existing on the date of effectivity of this Code and arising outof contracts or any other source of presentation involving a local government unit shall

be governed by the original terms and conditions of said contracts or the law in force atthe time such rights were vested; and

(e) In the resolution of controversies arising under this Code where no legal provisionor jurisprudence applies, resort may be had to the customs and traditions in the placewhere the controversies take place.

5. EffectivitySection 536, LGC of 1991. Effectivity Clause. - This Code shall take effect on Januaryfirst, nineteen hundred ninety-two, unless otherwise provided herein, after its completepublication in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation.

PART III: CREATION, CONVERSION, DIVISION, MERGER, SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF

BOUNDARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS, AND ABOLITION

A. Regular Political Subdivisions ( Provinces, Cities, Municipalits, and Barangays)1. Creation and Conversion

a. General Requirements : Law, Plebiscite, Compliance with criteria onincome land, & population

Sec 10-11, Article X, 1987 Constitution

Section 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided,

merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the

criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority

of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.

Section 11. The Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan political

subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite as set f orth in Section 10 hereof. The component

cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their

own local executive and legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the metropolitan

authority that will thereby be created shall be limited to basic services requiring

coordination.

Sec 6-7, 10 LGC of 1991

Section 6. Authority to Create Local Government Units. - A local government unit may be

created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundaries substantially altered either by law enacted

by Congress in the case of a province, city, municipality, or any other political subdivision, or by

ordinance passed by the sangguniang panlalawigan or sangguniang panlungsod concerned in

the case of a barangay located within its territorial jurisdiction, subject t o such limitations and

requirements prescribed in this Code.

Section 7. Creation and Conversion. - As a general rule, the creation of a local government unit

or its conversion from one level to another level shall be based on verifiable indicators of viability

and projected capacity to provide services, to wit:

(a) Income. - It must be sufficient, based on acceptable standards, to provide f or all essential

government facilities and services and special functions commensurate with the size of itspopulation, as expected of the local government unit concerned;

(b) Population. - It shall be determined as the total number of inhabitants within the territorial

jurisdiction of the local government unit concerned; and

(c) Land Area. - It must be contiguous, unless it comprises two or more islands or is separated by

a local government unit independent of the others; properly identified by metes and bounds with

technical descriptions; and sufficient to provide f or such basic services and facilities to meet the

requirements of its populace.

Compliance with the foregoing indicators shall be attested to by the Department of Finance

(DOF), the National Statistics Office (NSO), and the Lands Management Bureau (LMB) of the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

Section 10. Plebiscite Requirement. - No creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial

alteration of boundaries of local government units shall take effect unless approved by a majority

of the votes cast in a plebiscite called f or the purpose in the political unit or units directly affected.

Said plebiscite shall be conducted by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) within one

hundred twenty (120) days from the date of effectivity of the law or ordinance effecting such

action, unless said law or ordinance fixes another date.

Tan vs Comelec

B.P 885 created the province of Negros del Norte

Comelec conducted a plebiscite in the newly created province of Negros del Norte excluding

Negros Occidental, the mother province of the f ormer

Court nullified the plebiscite

Article XI, section 3 (now Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution) of the then prevailing 1973

Constitution that no province may be created or divided or its boundary substantially altered

without "the approval of a majority of the votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected."

Creation of Province; Voters of parent Province shall be included in the plebiscite

Plain and simple logic will demonstrate than that two political units would be affected. The first

would be the parent province of Negros Occidental because its boundaries would be

substantially altered. The other affected entity would be composed of those in the area

subtracted from the mother province to constitute the proposed province of Negros del Norte.


10/11



We find no way to reconcile the holding of a plebiscite that should conform to said constitutional

requirement but eliminates the participation of either of these two component political units. No

amount of rhetorical flourishes can justify exclusion of the parent province in the

plebiscite because of an alleged intent on the par t of the authors and implementors of the

challenged statute to carry out what is claimed to be a mandate to guarantee and promote

autonomy of local government units.

Padilla vs Comelec

A new Municipality was created

A plebiscite was then conducted, including the voters of both the parent Municipality and the

newly created Municipality

In the plebiscite, the voters rejected the creation

Petitioner assailed the plebiscite on the ground that only the voters in the newly created

Municipality should participate and the mother Municipality should be excluded

Court upheld the validity of the plebiscite

RULING

Creation of Municipality; Voters of parent Municipality shall be included in the plebiscite

It stands to reason that when the law states that the plebiscite shall be conducted "in the

political units directly affected," it means that residents of the political entity who would be

economically dislocated by the separation of a portion thereof have a right to vote in said

plebiscite.

Lopez vs Comelec

Mangita pa sa case

Alvarez vs Guingona

On April 18, 1993, HB No. 8817 , a bill for the conversion of the Municipality of Santiago to a

component city was initiated in the House of Representatives

On January 28, 1994, HB No. 8817 was transmitted to the Senate.

- Meanwhile, on May 19, 1993 a counterpart of HB No. 8817, Senate Bill No.1243 was also initiated by a Senator in the Senate

- the House of Representatives, upon being apprised of the action of theSenate, approved the amendments proposed by the Senate

Bill was signed into Law

When a plebiscite on the Act was held on July 13, 1994, a great majority of the registered voters

of Santiago voted in favor of the conversion of Santiago into a c ity.

Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of the law converting the municipality into a city on the

following grounds:

o Failure to meet income requiremento Law did not originate from House of Reps.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRAs) are to be included in the computation

of the average annual income of a municipality for purposes of its conversion into an independentcomponent city, and

(II) Whether or not, considering that the Senate passed SB No. 1243, its own version of HB No.

8817, Republic Act No. 7720 can be said to have originated in the House of Representatives.

RULING

IRAs form part of the income of LGUs

INCOME is defined in the Local Government Code to be all revenues and receipts collected

or received forming the gross accretions of funds of the local government unit.10

the right to be allocated a just share in national taxes, such share being in the form of

internal revenue allotments (IRAs)

The IRAs (Internal Revenue Allotment) are items of income because they form part of the

gross accretion of the funds of the local gover nment unit.The IRAs regularly and

automatically accrue to the local treasury without need of any further action on the part of

the local government unit.11

They thus constitute income which the local government can

invariably rely upon as the source of much needed funds.

Bills of local Application; Law creating Municipality must originate from House of

Representatives, but there may be a similar bill with the Senate provided that House bill is

filed earlier than the Senate bill

Although a bill of local application like HB No. 8817 should, by constitutional prescription

originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, the claim of petitioners that RepublicAct No. 7720 did not originate exclusively in the House of Representatives because a bill of the

same import, SB No. 1243, was passed in the Senate, is untenable because it cannot be

denied that HB No. 8817 was filed in the House of Representatives first before SB No. 1243

was filed in the Senate. Petitioners themselves cannot disavow their own admission that HB No.

8817 was filed on April 18, 1993 while SB No. 1243 was filed on May 19, 1993.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9009

AN ACT AMENDING SECTION 450 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, BY INCREASING THE AVERAGE ANNUAL
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/118303.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/118303.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/118303.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/118303.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/118303.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/118303.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/118303.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/118303.htm#_edn10


11/11



INCOME REQUIREMENT FOR A MUNICIPALITY OR CLUSTER OF BARANGAYS TO BE

CONVERTED INTO A COMPONENT CITY.

Section 1. Sec. 450 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code

of 1991, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 450. Requisites for Creation. (a) A municipality or a cluster of barangays may be

converted into a component city if it has a locally generated average annual income, as certified

by the Department of Finance, of at least One hundred million pesos (P100,000,000.00) for thelast two (2) consecutive years based on 2000 constant prices, and if it has either of the following

requisites:

(i) a contiguous territory of at least one hundred (100) square kilometers, as certified by the

Land Management Bureau; or

(ii) a population of not less than one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) inhabitants, as certified

by the National Statistics Office.

The creation thereof shall not reduce the land area, population and income of the original unit or

units at the time of said creation to less than the minimum requirements prescribed herein.

(b) The territorial jurisdiction of a newly-created city shall be properly identified by metes and

bounds. The requirement on land area shall not apply where the city proposed to be created is

composed of one (1) or more islands. The territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two (2)

or more islands.

(c) The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund, exclusive

of special funds, transfers, and non-recurring income."

Sec. 2. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, and other

issuances or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with this Act, are hereby repealed or modified

accordingly.

LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES V. COMELEC

-Involves the conversion of 16 Municipalities to Cities

League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec, Nov. 2008

Sec. 10 Art X of the Constitution: No province, city, municipalit y, or barangay shall be created,

divided, merged, abolished or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the

criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the

votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.

- SC held that all criteria in the creation or conversion of a political subdivisionmust be written in the Local Government Code of 1991 alone

- Cityhood laws(16 laws providing exemption to the 100M incomerequirement) providing exemption for the income requirement under LGC asamended by R.A No. 9009 was UNCONSTITUTIONAL not being writtenunder the Local Government Code

- Local Government Code did not provide any exemption regarding theincome requirement

League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec, Dec. 2009

- SC revered Nov. decision rendered Cityhood Laws CONSTITUTIONAL- Sec. 10 does not mean that all criteria in the creation or conversion of a

political subdivision be written in the Local Government Code of 1991, toadopt the contrary view would mean that R.A No. 9009 is alsounconstitutional because income requirement (100M) not written under theLocal Government Code of 1991

- Congress has the plenary power to enact laws- Referred to the intent of the framers and the deliberations of R.A No. 9009

showed that the Municipalities involved (pending bill) were not covered withinthe scope of R.A No. 9009 ( 100M income requirement )

League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec, August 2010

- Reinstated Nov. 2008 Decision citing the same reason: Cityhood Laws

UNCONSTITUTIONAL- Additional: R.A No. 9009 expressly amended Local Government Code of

1991League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec, Feb. 2011

- Reversed August 2010 Decision: C ityhood Laws CONSTITUTIONAL- Plenary power of Congress to enact laws - Cited Intent of the framers (deliberations) and Congress enacted the

Cityhood Laws to expressly manifest their intent - Cityhood Laws amended the LGC of 1991, as amended by R.A No. 9009- Recognized the viability of the Municipaliti es to become Cities

League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec, April 2011

- Cityhood Laws CONSTITUTIONAL with finality- Intent of the framers

-Cityhood Laws did not repeal LGC, as amended by R.A No. 9009 butamended it only by providing an exemption from the income requirement(100M)

Documents

Angmobasabogo Notes