Local Government Code (Full Cases)

8/13/2019 Local Government Code (Full Cases)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/local-government-code-full-cases 1/53

ATTORNEYS HUMBERTO BASCO, EDILBERTO BALCE,SOCRATES MARANAN AND LORENZOSANCHEZ,petitioners,vs.PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENTS AND GAMINGCORPORATION (PAGCOR), respondent.

A TV ad proudly announces:

"The new PAGCOR — respondin throuh responsi!leain."

#ut the petitioners thin$ otherwise, that is why, they %iledthe instant petition see$in to annul the PhilippineAuseent and Gain Corporation &PAGCOR' Charter— P( )*+, !ecause it is alleedly contrary to orals,pu!lic policy and order, and !ecause —

A. -t constitutes a waiver o% a riht preudicial to a thirdperson with a riht reconi/ed !y law. -t waived the0anila City overnent1s riht to ipose ta2es andlicense %ees, which is reconi/ed !y law3

#. 4or the sae reason stated in the iediatelyprecedin pararaph, the law has intruded into the localovernent1s riht to ipose local ta2es and license %ees.

This, in contravention o% the constitutionally enshrinedprinciple o% local autonoy3

C. -t violates the e5ual protection clause o% theconstitution in that it leali/es PAGCOR — conducteda!lin, while ost other %ors o% a!lin areoutlawed, toether with prostitution, dru tra%%ic$in andother vices3

(. -t violates the avowed trend o% the Cory overnentaway %ro onopolistic and crony econoy, and toward%ree enterprise and privati/ation. &p. 6, Aended Petition3p. 7, Rollo'

-n their 8econd Aended Petition, petitioners also clai

that P( )*+ is contrary to the declared national policy o%the "new restored deocracy" and the people1s will ase2pressed in the )*7 Constitution. The decree is said tohave a "a!lin o!ective" and there%ore is contrary to8ections )), )6 and )9 o% Article --, 8ec. ) o% Article V---and 8ection 9 &6' o% Article -V, o% the presentConstitution &p. 9, 8econd Aended Petition3 p. 6), Rollo'.

The procedural issue is whether petitioners, as ta2payersand practicin lawyers &petitioner #asco !ein also theChairan o% the Coittee on ;aws o% the City Council o%0anila', can 5uestion and see$ the annulent o% P( )*+on the alleed rounds entioned a!ove.

The Philippine Auseents and Gain Corporation&PAGCOR' was created !y virtue o% P.(. )<+7=A dated

>anuary ), )77 and was ranted a %ranchise under P.(.)<+7=# also dated >anuary ), )77 "to esta!lish, operateand aintain a!lin casinos on land or water within

the territorial urisdiction o% the Philippines." -ts operationwas oriinally conducted in the well $nown %loatin casino"Philippine Tourist." The operation was considered asuccess %or it proved to !e a potential source o% revenueto %und in%rastructure and socio=econoic proects, thus,P.(. )9 was passed on >une 6, )7* %or PAGCOR to %ullyattain this o!ective.

8u!se5uently, on >uly )), )*9, PAGCOR was createdunder P.(. )*+ to ena!le the Governent to reulateand centrali/e all aes o% chance authori/ed !y e2istin%ranchise or peritted !y law, under the %ollowindeclared policy —

8ec. ). Declaration of Policy . — -t is here!y declared to !e

the policy o% the 8tate to centrali/e and interate allaes o% chance not hereto%ore authori/ed !y e2istin%ranchises or peritted !y law in order to attain the%ollowin o!ectives:

&a' To centrali/e and interate the riht and authority tooperate and conduct aes o% chance into one corporateentity to !e controlled, adinistered and supervised !ythe Governent.

&!' To esta!lish and operate clu!s and casinos, %orauseent and recreation, includin sports ainpools, &!as$et!all, %oot!all, lotteries, etc.' and such other%ors o% auseent and recreation includin aes o%chance, which ay !e allowed !y law within the territorial

urisdiction o% the Philippines and which will: &)' eneratesources o% additional revenue to %und in%rastructure andsocio=civic proects, such as %lood control proras,!eauti%ication, sewerae and sewae proects, Tulunann #ayan Centers, ?utritional Proras, PopulationControl and such other essential pu!lic services3 &6'create recreation and interated %acilities which wille2pand and iprove the country1s e2istin tourist

attractions3 and &9' inii/e, i% not totally eradicatethe evils, alpractices and corruptions that are norprevalent on the conduct and operation o% a!linand casinos without direct overnent involveen&8ection ), P.(. )*+'

To attain these o!ectives PAGCOR is iven territori urisdiction all over the Philippines. @nder its Charterepealin clause, all laws, decrees, e2ecutive ordersand reulations, inconsistent therewith, are accordirepealed, aended or odi%ied.

-t is reported that PAGCOR is the third larest sourcovernent revenue, ne2t to the #ureau o% -nternaRevenue and the #ureau o% Custos. -n )* alonePAGCOR earned P9.9 #illion, and directly reitted ?ational Governent a total o% P6.B #illion in %or o%ranchise ta2, overnent1s incoe share, the Pres8ocial 4und and ost Cities1 share. -n addition, PAGCsponsored other socio=cultural and charita!le proecits own or in cooperation with various overnentaaencies, and other private associations andorani/ations. -n its 9 )D6 years o% operation under tpresent adinistration, PAGCOR reitted to theovernent a total o% P+.6 #illion. As o% (ece!er 9)*, PAGCOR was eployin , eployees in nine &' casinos nationwide, directly supportin thelivelihood o% 4our Thousand 4our undred ?inety=4o&,' %ailies.

#ut the petitioners, are 5uestionin the validity o% P?o. )*+. They allee that the sae is "null and voi!ein "contrary to orals, pu!lic policy and pu!lic oonopolistic and tends toward "crony econoy", anviolative o% the e5ual protection clause and localautonoy as well as %or runnin counter to the statpolicies enunciated in 8ections )) &Personal (inityuan Rihts', )6 &4aily' and )9 &Role o% Eouth' oArticle --, 8ection ) &8ocial >ustice' o% Article --- and8ection 6 &Fducational Values' o% Article -V o% the )Constitution.

This challene to P.(. ?o. )*+ deserves a searchinthorouh scrutiny and the ost deli!erate consider!y the Court, involvin as it does the e2ercise o% wh!een descri!ed as "the hihest and ost delicate %uwhich !elons to the udicial departent o% theovernent." &8tate v. 0anuel, 6< ?.C. )3 ;o/ano0artine/, )+ 8CRA 969'.



As e enter upon the tas$ o% passin on the validity o% anact o% a co=e5ual and coordinate !ranch o% theovernent e need not !e reinded o% the tie=honored principle, deeply inrained in our urisprudence,that a statute is presued to !e valid. Fvery presuptionust !e induled in %avor o% its constitutionality. This isnot to say that e approach Our tas$ with di%% idence ortiidity. here it is clear that the leislature or thee2ecutive %or that atter, has over=stepped the liits o%its authority under the constitution, e should nothesitate to wield the a2e and let it %all heavily, as %all itust, on the o%%endin statute &;o/ano v.0artine/, supra'.

-n Victoriano v . Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, et al, B8CRA B, the Court thru 0r. >ustice Haldivar underscoredthe —

. . . thorouhly esta!lished principle which ust !e%ollowed in all cases where 5uestions o% constitutionalityas o!tain in the instant cases are involved. Allpresuptions are induled in %avor o% constitutionality3one who attac$s a statute allein unconstitutionalityust prove its invalidity !eyond a reasona!le dou!t3 thata law ay wor$ hardship does not render itunconstitutional3 that i% any reasona!le !asis ay !econceived which supports the statute, it will !e upheldand the challener ust neate all possi!le !asis3 thatthe courts are not concerned with the wisdo, ustice,policy or e2pediency o% a statute and that a li!eralinterpretation o% the constitution in %avor o% theconstitutionality o% leislation should !e adopted. &(annerv. ass, ) ?.. 2nd B9, B93 8pur!ec$ v. 8tatton, )<+?.. 2nd ++<, ++93 B 8CRA ++3 see also e.. 8alas v.

>arencio, + 8CRA 79, 79 I)7<J3 Peralta v. Coissionon Flections, *6 8CRA 9<, BB I)7*J3 and eirs o% Ordonav. Reyes, )6B 8CRA 66<, 6)=66 I)*9J cited in Citi/ensAlliance %or Consuer Protection v. Fnery Reulatory#oard, )+6 8CRA B6), B<'

O% course, there is %irst, the procedural issue. Therespondents are 5uestionin the leal personality o%

petitioners to %ile the instant petition.

Considerin however the iportance to the pu!lic o% thecase at !ar, and in $eepin with the Court1s duty, underthe )*7 Constitution, to deterine whether or not theother !ranches o% overnent have $ept theselveswithin the liits o% the Constitution and the laws and thatthey have not a!used the discretion iven to the, the

Court has !rushed aside technicalities o% procedure andhas ta$en coni/ance o% this petition. &Kapatiran n a?alilin$od sa Paahalaan n Pilipinas -nc. v. Tan, )+98CRA 97)'

ith particular reard to the re5uireent o% proper partyas applied in the cases !e%ore us, e hold that the saeis satis%ied !y the petitioners and intervenors !ecauseeach o% the has sustained or is in daner o% sustaininan iediate inury as a result o% the acts or easurescoplained o%. And even i%, strictly spea$in they are not

covered !y the de%inition, it is still within the widediscretion o% the Court to waive the re5uireent and soreove the ipedient to its addressin and resolvinthe serious constitutional 5uestions raised.

-n the %irst Ferency Powers Cases, ordinary citi/ensand ta2payers were allowed to 5uestion theconstitutionality o% several e2ecutive orders issued !yPresident Luirino althouh they were involvin only anindirect and eneral interest shared in coon with thepu!lic. The Court disissed the o!ection that they werenot proper parties and ruled that "the transcendentaliportance to the pu!lic o% these cases deands thatthey !e settled proptly and de%initely, !rushin aside, i%we ust technicalities o% procedure." e have since thenapplied the e2ception in any other cases. &Associationo% 8all ;andowners in the Philippines, -nc. v. 8ec. o%Ararian Re%or, )7B 8CRA 99'.

avin disposed o% the procedural issue, e will nowdiscuss the su!stantive issues raised.

Ga!lin in all its %ors, unless allowed !y law, isenerally prohi!ited. #ut the prohi!ition o% a!lin doesnot ean that the Governent cannot reulate it in thee2ercise o% its police power.

The concept o% police power is well=esta!lished in this urisdiction. -t has !een de%ined as the "state authority toenact leislation that ay inter%ere with personal li!erty

or property in order to proote the eneral wel%are." &Fduv. Fricta, 9B 8CRA *), *7' As de%ined, it consists o% &)'an iposition or restraint upon li!erty or property, &6' inorder to %oster the coon ood. -t is not capa!le o% ane2act de%inition !ut has !een, purposely, veiled in eneralters to underscore its all=coprehensive e!race.&Philippine Association o% 8ervice F2porters, -nc. v. (rilon,)+9 8CRA 9*+'.

-ts scope, ever=e2pandin to eet the e2iencies oties, even to anticipate the %uture where it could !done, provides enouh roo %or an e%%icient and %leresponse to conditions and circustances thus assuthe reatest !ene%its. &Fdu v. Fricta, supra'

-t %inds no speci%ic Constitutional rant %or the plainreason that it does not owe its oriin to the charter.with the ta2in power and einent doain, it is in!the very %act o% statehood and sovereinty. -t is a%undaental attri!ute o% overnent that has ena!

to per%or the ost vital %unctions o% overnance.0arshall, to who the e2pression has !een creditedre%ers to it succinctly as the plenary power o% the stovern its citi/ens". &Tri!e, Aerican Constitutional969, )7*'. The police power o% the 8tate is a powee2tensive with sel%=protection and is ost aptly terthe "law o% overwhelin necessity." &Ru!i v. Provin#oard o% 0indoro, 9 Phil. ++<, 7<*' -t is "the ostessential, insistent, and illiita!le o% powers." &8itM Co. v. ?ational, < Phil. )9+' -t is a dynaic %orceena!les the state to eet the aencies o% the windschane.

hat was the reason !ehind the enactent o% P.(.

P.(. )*+ was enacted pursuant to the policy o% theovernent to "reulate and centrali/e thru anappropriate institution all aes o% chance authori/e2istin %ranchise or peritted !y law" &)st whereaclause, P( )*+'. As was su!se5uently proved, reand centrali/in a!lin operations in one corporaentity — the PAGCOR, was !ene%icial not ust to theGovernent !ut to society in eneral. -t is a relia!lesource o% uch needed revenue %or the cash strappGovernent. -t provided %unds %or social ipact proand su!ected a!lin to "close scrutiny, reulatiosupervision and control o% the Governent" &th hClause, P( )*+'. ith the creation o% PAGCOR anddirect intervention o% the Governent, the evil pracand corruptions that o with a!lin will !e ininot totally eradicated. Pu!lic wel%are, then, lies at th

!otto o% the enactent o% P( )*+.

Petitioners contend that P.(. )*+ constitutes a wathe riht o% the City o% 0anila to ipose ta2es and l%ees3 that the e2eption clause in P.(. )*+ is violathe principle o% local autonoy. They ust !e re%er8ection )9 par. &6' o% P.(. )*+ which e2epts PAGas the %ranchise holder %ro payin any "ta2 o% any



or %or, incoe or otherwise, as well as %ees, chares orlevies o% whatever nature, whether ?ational or ;ocal."

&6' Income and other taes. — a' 4ranchise older: ?o ta2o% any $ind or %or, incoe or otherwise as well as %ees,chares or levies o% whatever nature, whether ?ational or;ocal, shall !e assessed and collected under this%ranchise %ro the Corporation3 nor shall any %or or ta2or chare attach in any way to the earnins o% theCorporation, e2cept a %ranchise ta2 o% %ive &B' percent o%the ross revenues or earnins derived !y the

Corporation %ro its operations under this %ranchise. 8uchta2 shall !e due and paya!le 5uarterly to the ?ationalGovernent and shall !e in lieu o% all $inds o% ta2es,levies, %ees or assessents o% any $ind, nature ordescription, levied, esta!lished or collected !y anyunicipal, provincial or national overnent authority&8ection )9 I6J'.

Their contention stated hereina!ove is without erit %orthe %ollowin reasons:

&a' The City o% 0anila, !ein a ere 0unicipal corporationhas no inherent riht to ipose ta2es &-card v. City o%#auio, *9 Phil. *7<3 City o% -loilo v. Villanueva, )<B Phil.9973 8antos v. 0unicipality o% Caloocan, 7 8CRA +9'.

Thus, "the Charter or statute ust plainly show an intentto con%er that power or the unicipality cannot assueit" &0edina v. City o% #auio, )6 8CRA +6'. -ts "power tota2" there%ore ust always yield to a leislative act whichis superior havin !een passed upon !y the state itsel%which has the "inherent power to ta2" &#ernas, theRevised I)79J Philippine Constitution, Vol. ), )*9 ed. p.B'.

&!' The Charter o% the City o% 0anila is su!ect to control!y Conress. -t should !e stressed that "unicipalcorporations are ere creatures o% Conress" &@nson v.;acson, G.R. ?o. 7<, >anuary )*, )B7' which has thepower to "create and a!olish unicipal corporations" dueto its "eneral leislative powers" &Asuncion v. Eriantes,6* Phil. +73 0erdanillo v. Orandia, B 8CRA B)'. Conress,

there%ore, has the power o% control over ;ocalovernents &e!ron v. Reyes, G.R. ?o. )6, >uly 6,)B<'. And i% Conress can rant the City o% 0anila thepower to ta2 certain atters, it can also provide %ore2eptions or even ta$e !ac$ the power.

&c' The City o% 0anila1s power to ipose license %ees ona!lin, has lon !een revo$ed. As early as )7B, thepower o% local overnents to reulate a!lin thru therant o% "%ranchise, licenses or perits" was withdrawn !yP.(. ?o. 77) and was vested e2clusively on the ?ationalGovernent, thus:

8ec. ). Any provision o% law to the contrarynotwithstandin, the authority o% chartered cities andother local overnents to issue license, perit or other%or o% %ranchise to operate, aintain and esta!lish horse

and do race trac$s, ai=alai and other %ors o% a!linis here!y revo$ed.

8ec. 6. erea%ter, all perits or %ranchises to operate,aintain and esta!lish, horse and do race trac$s, ai=alaiand other %ors o% a!lin shall !e issued !y thenational overnent upon proper application andveri%ication o% the 5uali%ication o% the applicant . . .

There%ore, only the ?ational Governent has the powerto issue "licenses or perits" %or the operation o%a!lin. ?ecessarily, the power to deand or collectlicense %ees which is a conse5uence o% the issuance o%"licenses or perits" is no loner vested in the City o%0anila.

&d' ;ocal overnents have no power to ta2instruentalities o% the ?ational Governent. PAGCOR isa overnent owned or controlled corporation with anoriinal charter, P( )*+. All o% its shares o% stoc$s areowned !y the ?ational Governent. -n addition to itscorporate powers &8ec. 9, Title --, P( )*+' it alsoe2ercises reulatory powers thus:

8ec. . Re!ulatory Po"er . — The Corporation shallaintain a Reistry o% the a%%iliated entities, and shalle2ercise all the powers, authority and the responsi!ilitiesvested in the 8ecurities and F2chane Coission oversuch a%%iliatin entities entioned under the precedinsection, includin, !ut not liited to aendents o%

Articles o% -ncorporation and #y=;aws, chanes incorporate ter, structure, capitali/ation and otheratters concernin the operation o% the a%%iliated entities,the provisions o% the Corporation Code o% the Philippinesto the contrary notwithstandin, e2cept only with respectto oriinal incorporation.

PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and to reulatea!lin casinos. The latter role is overnental, wplaces it in the cateory o% an aency or instruento% the Governent. #ein an instruentality o% theGovernent, PAGCOR should !e and actually is e2e%ro local ta2es. Otherwise, its operation iht !e!urdened, ipeded or su!ected to control !y a e;ocal overnent.

The states have no power !y ta2ation or otherwise,retard, ipede, !urden or in any anner control the

operation o% constitutional laws enacted !y Conrescarry into e2ecution the powers vested in the %ederaovernent. &0C Culloch v. 0arland, heat 9)+, Fd. B7'

This doctrine eanates %ro the "supreacy" o% th?ational Governent over local overnents.

>ustice oles, spea$in %or the 8upree Court, re%erence to the entire a!sence o% power on the parthe 8tates to touch, in that way &ta2ation' at least, tinstruentalities o% the @nited 8tates &>ohnson v.0aryland, 6B @8 B)' and it can !e areed that no sor political su#division can re!ulate a federalinstrumentality in such a "ay as to prevent it from

consummatin! its federal responsi#ilities, or even tseriously #urden it in the accomplishment of them.&Antieau, 0odern Constitutional ;aw, Vol. 6, p. )<,ephasis supplied'

Otherwise, ere creatures o% the 8tate can de%eat?ational policies thru e2terination o% what localauthorities ay perceive to !e undesira!le activitieenterprise usin the power to ta2 as "a tool %orreulation" &@.8. v. 8anche/, 9< @8 6'.

The power to ta2 which was called !y >ustice 0arshthe "power to destroy" &0c Culloch v. 0aryland, supcannot !e allowed to de%eat an instruentality or co% the very entity which has the inherent power to w

it.

&e' Petitioners also arue that the ;ocal Autonoy Co% the Constitution will !e violated !y P.(. )*+. Thpointless aruent. Article o% the )*7 Constituti;ocal Autonoy' provides:



8ec. B. Fach local overnent unit shall have the powerto create its own source o% revenue and to levy ta2es,%ees, and other chares su#$ect to such !uidelines andlimitation as the con!ress may provide, consistent withthe !asic policy on local autonoy. 8uch ta2es, %ees andchares shall accrue e2clusively to the local overnent.&ephasis supplied'

The power o% local overnent to "ipose ta2es and%ees" is always su!ect to "liitations" which Conressay provide !y law. 8ince P( )*+ reains an

"operative" law until "aended, repealed or revo$ed"&8ec. 9, Art. V---, )*7 Constitution', its "e2eptionclause" reains as an e2ception to the e2ercise o% thepower o% local overnents to ipose ta2es and %ees. -tcannot there%ore !e violative !ut rather is consistent withthe principle o% local autonoy.

#esides, the principle o% local autonoy under the )*7Constitution siply eans "decentrali/ation" &--- Recordso% the )*7 Constitutional Coission, pp. 9B=9+, ascited in #ernas, The Constitution o% the Repu!lic o% thePhilippines, Vol. --, 4irst Fd., )**, p. 97'. -t does nota$e local overnents soverein within the state or an"imperium in imperio."

;ocal Governent has !een descri!ed as a politicalsu!division o% a nation or state which is constituted !ylaw and has su!stantial control o% local a%%airs. -n aunitary syste o% overnent, such as the overnentunder the Philippine Constitution, local overnents canonly !e an intra soverei!n su#division of one soverei!nnation, it cannot !e an imperium in imperio. ;ocalovernent in such a syste can only ean a easureo% decentrali/ation o% the %unction o% overnent.&ephasis supplied'

As to what state powers should !e "decentrali/ed" andwhat ay !e deleated to local overnent unitsreains a atter o% policy, which concerns wisdo. -t isthere%ore a political 5uestion. &Citi/ens Alliance %orConsuer Protection v. Fnery Reulatory #oard, )+6

8CRA B9'.

hat is settled is that the atter o% reulatin, ta2in orotherwise dealin with a!lin is a 8tate concern andhence, it is the sole preroative o% the 8tate to retain it ordeleate it to local overnents.

As !am#lin! is usually an offense a!ainst the%tate, le!islative !rant or epress charter po"er is!enerally necessary to empo"er the local corporation todeal "ith the su#$ect . . . . -n the a!sence o% e2press ranto% power to enact, ordinance provisions on this su#$ect"hich are inconsistent "ith the state la"s are void. &;ianv. Gadsden, Ala App. )<7 8o. 799 F2=Parte 8oloon, ,Cals. <, 67 PAC 7B7 %ollowin in re Ah Eou, ** Cal. ,6B PAC 7, 66 A 8t. Rep. 6*<, )) ;RA *<, as cited in0c Luinllan Vol. 9 I#id, p. B*, ephasis supplied'

Petitioners ne2t contend that P.(. )*+ violates the e5ualprotection clause o% the Constitution, !ecause "itleali/ed PAGCOR — conducted a!lin, while osta!lin are outlawed toether with prostitution, drutra%%ic$in and other vices" &p. *6, Rollo'.

e, li$ewise, %ind no valid round to sustain thiscontention. The petitioners1 posture inores the well=accepted eanin o% the clause "e5ual protection o% thelaws." The clause does not preclude classi%ication o%individuals who ay !e accorded di%%erent treatentunder the law as lon as the classi%ication is notunreasona!le or ar!itrary &-tchon v. ernande/, )<) Phil.))BB'. A law does not have to operate in e5ual %orce onall persons or thins to !e con%ora!le to Article ---,8ection ) o% the Constitution &(FC8 v. 8an (ieo, G.R. ?o.

*B76, (ece!er 6), )*'.

The "e5ual protection clause" does not prohi!it the;eislature %ro esta!lishin classes o% individuals oro!ects upon which di%%erent rules shall operate &;aurel v.0isa, 9 O.G. 6*7'. The Constitution does not re5uiresituations which are di%%erent in %act or opinion to !etreated in law as thouh they were the sae &Goe/ v.Paloar, 6B 8CRA *67'.

>ust how P.(. )*+ in leali/in a!lin conducted !yPAGCOR is violative o% the e5ual protection is not clearlye2plained in the petition. The ere %act that soea!lin activities li$e coc$%ihtin &P.( ' horseracin &R.A. 9<+ as aended !y RA *9', sweepsta$es,

lotteries and races &RA ))+ as aended !y #.P. 6' areleali/ed under certain conditions, while others areprohi!ited, does not render the applica!le laws, P.(. )*+%or one, unconstitutional.

-% the law presua!ly hits the evil where it is ost %elt, itis not to !e overthrown !ecause there are other instances

to which it iht have !een applied. &Goe/ v. Palo6B 8CRA *67'

The e5ual protection clause o% the )th Aendennot ean that all occupations called !y the sae naust !e treated the sae way3 the state ay do whcan to prevent which is deeed as evil and stop shothose cases in which har to the %ew concerned is nless than the har to the pu!lic that would insure i%rule laid down were ade atheatically e2act.&(oinican otel v. Ari/ona, 6 @8 6+B)'.

Anent petitioners1 clai that P( )*+ is contrary to"avowed trend o% the Cory Governent away %roonopolies and crony econoy and toward %reeenterprise and privati/ation" su%%ice it to state that tnot a round %or this Court to nulli%y P.(. )*+. -%, inP( )*+ runs counter to the overnent1s policies is %or the F2ecutive (epartent to recoend toConress its repeal or aendent.

The udiciary does not settle policy issues. The Couonly declare what the law is and not what the law s!e. @nder our syste o% overnent, policy issues within the doain o% the political !ranches o% overand o% the people theselves as the repository o% a

power. &Valonte v. #elonte, >r., )7< 8CRA 6B+'.

On the issue o% "onopoly," however, the Constitutprovides that:

8ec. ). The 8tate shall reulate or prohi!it onopowhen pu!lic interest so re5uires. ?o co!inations irestraint o% trade or un%air copetition shall !e allow&Art. --, ?ational Fconoy and Patriony'

-t should !e noted that, as the provision is worded,onopolies are not necessarily prohi!ited !y theConstitution. The state ust still decide whether puinterest deands that onopolies !e reulated orprohi!ited. Aain, this is a atter o% policy %or the

;eislature to decide.

On petitioners1 alleation that P.(. )*+ violates 8e)) &Personality (inity' )6 &4aily' and )9 &Role o%

Eouth' o% Article --3 8ection )9 &8ocial >ustice' o% Artand 8ection 6 &Fducational Values' o% Article -V o% )*7 Constitution, su%%ice it to state also that these erely stateents o% principles and, policies. As su



they are !asically not sel%=e2ecutin, eanin a lawshould !e passed !y Conress to clearly de%ine ande%%ectuate such principles.

-n eneral, there%ore, the )9B provisions were notintended to !e sel%=e2ecutin principles ready %oren%orceent throuh the courts. They were ratherdirectives addressed to the e2ecutive and the leislature.-% the e2ecutive and the leislature %ailed to heed thedirectives o% the articles the availa!le reedy was not

udicial or political. The electorate could e2press theirdispleasure with the %ailure o% the e2ecutive and theleislature throuh the lanuae o% the !allot. &#ernas,Vol. --, p. 6'

Fvery law has in its %avor the presuption o%constitutionality &Eu Con Fn v. Trinidad, 7 Phil. 9*738alas v. >arencio, * 8CRA 793 Peralta v. Coelec, *68CRA 9<3 A!!as v. Coelec, )7 8CRA 6*7'. There%ore,%or P( )*+ to !e nulli%ied, it ust !e shown that there isa clear and une5uivocal !reach o% the Constitution, noterely a dou!t%ul and e5uivocal one. -n other words, therounds %or nullity ust !e clear and !eyond reasona!ledou!t. &Peralta v. Coelec, supra' Those who petition thisCourt to declare a law, or parts thereo%, unconstitutionalust clearly esta!lish the !asis %or such a declaration.Otherwise, their petition ust %ail. #ased on the rounds

raised !y petitioners to challene the constitutionality o%P.(. )*+, the Court %inds that petitioners have %ailed toovercoe the presuption. The disissal o% this petitionis there%ore, inevita!le. #ut as to whether P.(. )*+reains a wise leislation considerin the issues o%"orality, onopoly, trend to %ree enterprise,privati/ation as well as the state principles on social

ustice, role o% youth and educational values" !einraised, is up %or Conress to deterine.

As this Court held in &itizens' lliance for &onsumerProtection v . Ener!y Re!ulatory (oard, )+6 8CRA B6) —

Presidential (ecree ?o. )B+, as aended !y F2ecutiveOrder ?o. )97 has, in any case, in its %avor the

presuption o% validity and constitutionality whichpetitioners Valonte and the K0@ have not overturned.Petitioners have not underta$en to identi%y the provisionsin the Constitution which they clai to have !een violated!y that statute. This Court, however, is not copelled tospeculate and to iaine how the assailed leislationay possi!ly o%%end soe provision o% the Constitution.

The Court notes, %urther, in this respect that petitioners

have in the ain put in 5uestion the wisdo, ustice ande2pediency o% the esta!lishent o% the OP84, issueswhich are not properly addressed to this Court and whichthis Court ay not constitutionally pass upon. Thoseissues should !e addressed rather to the politicaldepartents o% overnent: the President and theConress.

Parenthetically, e wish to state that a!lin isenerally ioral, and this is precisely so when thea!lin resorted to is e2cessive. This e2cessivenessnecessarily depends not only on the %inancial resources o%the a!ler and his %aily !ut also on his ental, social,and spiritual outloo$ on li%e. owever, the ere %act thatsoe persons ay have lost their aterial %ortunes,ental control, physical health, or even their lives doesnot necessarily ean that the sae are directlyattri!uta!le to a!lin. )am#lin! may have #een theantecedent ,#ut certainly not necessarily the cause. 4orthe sae conse5uences could have !een preceded !y anoverdose o% %ood, drin$, e2ercise, wor$, and even se2.

FRF4ORF, the petition is (-80-88F( %or lac$ o% erit.

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY, petitioner , vs. BEL-AIR VILLAGE

ASSOCIATION, INC., respondent .

D E C I S I O N

PUNO, J.:

?ot in%re5uently, the overnent is tepted to ta$e lealshortcuts to solve urent pro!les o% the people. #uteven when overnent is ared with the !est o%intention, we cannot allow it to run rouhshod over therule o% law. Aain, we let the haer %all and %all hard onthe illeal attept o% the 00(A to open %or pu!lic use aprivate road in a private su!division. hile we hold thatthe eneral wel%are should !e prooted, we stress that itshould not !e achieved at the e2pense o% the rule o%

law. h E

Petitioner 00(A is a overnent aency tas$ed with thedelivery o% !asic services in 0etro 0anila. Respondent#el=Air Villae Association, -nc. &#AVA' is a non=stoc$,non=pro%it corporation whose e!ers are hoeownersin #el=Air Villae, a private su!division in 0a$ati City.

Respondent #AVA is the reistered owner o% ?eptun8treet, a road inside #el=Air Villae.

On (ece!er 9<, )B, respondent received %ropetitioner, throuh its Chairan, a notice dated(ece!er 66, )B re5uestin respondent to open?eptune 8treet to pu!lic vehicular tra%%ic startin >a6, )+. The notice reads: Court

"8@#>FCT: ?OT-CF o% the Openin o% ?eptune 8treet Tra%%ic

"(ear President ;indo,

"Please !e in%ored that pursuant to the andate o00(A law or Repu!lic Act ?o. 76 which re5uires Authority to rationali/e the use o% roads andDorthorouh%ares %or the sa%e and convenient oveepersons, ?eptune 8treet shall !e opened to vehicultra%%ic e%%ective >anuary 6, )+.

"-n view whereo%, the undersined re5uests you tovoluntarily open the points o% entry and e2it on saidstreet.

"Than$ you %or your cooperation and whatever assisthat ay !e e2tended !y your association to the 00personnel who will !e directin tra%%ic in the area.

"4inally, we are %urnishin you with a copy o% thehandwritten instruction o% the President on the at

"Very truly yours,

PRO8PFRO -. ORFTA

Chairan"I)J

On the sae day, respondent was apprised that theperieter wall separatin the su!division %ro theadacent Kalayaan Avenue would !e deolished. 8p

On >anuary 6, )+, respondent instituted aainstpetitioner !e%ore the Reional Trial Court, #ranch )0a$ati City, Civil Case ?o. +=<<) %or inunction.Respondent prayed %or the issuance o% a teporaryrestrainin order and preliinary inunction enoinin

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/135962.html#_ftn1




openin o% ?eptune 8treet and prohi!itin the deolitiono% the perieter wall. The trial court issued a teporaryrestrainin order the %ollowin day.

On >anuary 69, )+, a%ter due hearin, the trial courtdenied issuance o% a preliinary inunction.I6J Respondent5uestioned the denial !e%ore the Court o% Appeals in CA=G.R. 8P ?o. 9B. The appellate court conducted anocular inspection o% ?eptune 8treetI9J and on 4e!ruary )9,)+, it issued a writ o% preliinary inunction enoininthe ipleentation o% the 00(AQs proposed action. IJ

On >anuary 6*, )7, the appellate court rendered a(ecision on the erits o% the case %indin that the 00(Ahas no authority to order the openin o% ?eptune 8treet,a private su!division road and cause the deolition o% itsperieter walls. -t held that the authority is loded in theCity Council o% 0a$ati !y ordinance. The decisiondisposed o% as %ollows:>urissc

"FRF4ORF, the Petition is GRA?TF(3 the challenedOrder dated >anuary 69, )B, in Civil Case ?o. +=<<), is8FT A8-(F and the rit o% Preliinary -nunction issuedon 4e!ruary )9, )+ is here!y ade peranent.

"4or want o% sustaina!le su!stantiation, the 0otion to Cite

Ro!erto ;. del Rosario in contept is denied.IBJ

"?o pronounceent as to costs.

"8O OR(FRF(."I+J

The 0otion %or Reconsideration o% the decision wasdenied on 8epte!er 6*, )*. ence, thisrecourse. >$s

Petitioner 00(A raises the %ollowin 5uestions:

"-

A8 TF 0FTROPO;-TA? 0A?-;A (FVF;OP0F?TA@TOR-TE &00(A' TF 0A?(ATF TO OPF? ?FPT@?F8TRFFT TO P@#;-C TRA44-C P@R8@A?T TO -T8RFG@;ATORE A?( PO;-CF POFR8N

--

-8 TF PA88AGF O4 A? OR(-?A?CF A CO?(-T-O?PRFCF(F?T #F4ORF TF 00(A 0AE OR(FR TFOPF?-?G O4 8@#(-V-8-O? ROA(8 TO P@#;-C TRA44-CN

---

-8 RF8PO?(F?T #F;=A-R V-;;AGF A88OC-AT-O?, -?C.F8TOPPF( 4RO0 (F?E-?G OR A88A-;-?G TF A@TOR-TEO4 TF 00(A TO OPF? TF 8@#>FCT 8TRFFTN >le2

V

A8 RF8PO?(F?T (FPR-VF( O4 (@F PROCF88 (F8P-TF TF 8FVFRA; 0FFT-?G8 F;( #FTFF? 00(A A?( TFA44FCTF( #F;=A-R RF8-(F?T8 A?( #AVA O44-CFR8N

V

A8 RF8PO?(F?T CO0F TO CO@RT -T @?C;FA?A?(8N"I7J

?eptune 8treet is owned !y respondent #AVA. -t is aprivate road inside #el=Air Villae, a private residentialsu!division in the heart o% the %inancial and coercialdistrict o% 0a$ati City. -t runs parallel to Kalayaan Avenue,

a national road open to the eneral pu!lic. (ividin thetwo &6' streets is a concrete perieter wall appro2iately%i%teen &)B' %eet hih. The western end o% ?eptune 8treetintersects ?icanor Garcia, %orerly Reposo 8treet, asu!division road open to pu!lic vehicular tra%%ic, while itseastern end intersects 0a$ati Avenue, a national road.#oth ends o% ?eptune 8treet are uarded !y ironates. Fdp is

Petitioner 00(A clais that it has the authority to open?eptune 8treet to pu!lic tra%%ic !ecause it is an aent o%the state endowed with police power in the delivery o%!asic services in 0etro 0anila. One o% these !asicservices is tra%%ic anaeent which involves thereulation o% the use o% thorouh%ares to insure thesa%ety, convenience and wel%are o% the eneral pu!lic. -tis alleed that the police power o% 00(A was a%%ired !ythis Court in the consolidated cases o% 8analan v.-nterediate Appellate Court.I*J 4ro the preise that ithas police power, it is now ured that there is no need %orthe City o% 0a$ati to enact an ordinance openin ?eptunestreet to the pu!lic.IJ

Police power is an inherent attri!ute o% sovereinty!een de%ined as the power vested !y the Constitutiothe leislature to a$e, ordain, and esta!lish all ao% wholesoe and reasona!le laws, statutes andordinances, either with penalties or without, notrepunant to the Constitution, as they shall ude to%or the ood and wel%are o% the coonwealth, andthe su!ects o% the sae.I)<J The power is plenary anscope is vast and pervasive, reachin and usti%yineasures %or pu!lic health, pu!lic sa%ety, pu!lic oand the eneral wel%are. I))J

-t !ears stressin that police power is loded priathe ?ational ;eislature.I)6J -t cannot !e e2ercised !roup or !ody o% individuals not possessin leislatpower.I)9J The ?ational ;eislature, however, ay dethis power to the President and adinistrative !oarwell as the lawa$in !odies o% unicipal corporatlocal overnent units.I)J Once deleated, the aecan e2ercise only such leislative powers as are conon the !y the national lawa$in !ody.I)BJ

A local overnent is a "political su!division o% a naor state which is constituted !y law and has su!stancontrol o% local a%%airs."I)+J The ;ocal Governent Co)) de%ines a local overnent unit as a "!ody poand corporate"I)7J== one endowed with powers as a

political su!division o% the ?ational Governent ancorporate entity representin the inha!itants o% itsterritory.I)*J ;ocal overnent units are the provincecities, unicipalities and !aranays.I)J They are alsterritorial and political su!divisions o% the state.I6<J

Our Conr!"" #!$!%&!# 'o$! 'o*!r &o &+! $oo!rn!n& un&" n &+! Lo%$ Go!rn!n& Co/00/. This deleation is %ound in 8ection )+ o% the Code, $nown as the eneral wel%are clause, viz : Chi

"%ec* +,* )eneral Welfare.—Fvery local overnenshall e2ercise the powers e2pressly ranted, thosenecessarily iplied there%ro, as well as powersnecessary, appropriate, or incidental %or its e%%icient

e%%ective overnance, and those which are essentiathe prootion o% the eneral wel%are. ithin theirrespective territorial urisdictions, local overnentshall ensure and support, aon other thins, thepreservation and enrichent o% culture, proote heand sa%ety, enhance the riht o% the people to a !alecoloy, encourae and support the developent oappropriate and sel%=reliant scienti%ic and technolo










































capa!ilities, iprove pu!lic orals, enhance econoicprosperity and social ustice, proote %ull eployentaon their residents, aintain peace and order, andpreserve the co%ort and convenience o% theirinha!itants."I6)J

Lo%$ o!rn!n& un&" !1!r"! 'o$! 'o*!r&+rou+ &+!r r!"'!&! $!"$%&! 2o#!". Theleislative !ody o% the provincial overnent isthe "%nun%n '%n$%$%*%n, that o% the cityovernent is the "%nun%n '%n$un"o#, that o%the unicipal overnent is the "%nun%n 2%3%n,and that o% the !aranay is the"%nun%n 2%r%n%3.

The ;ocal Governent Code o% )) epowersthe "%nun%n '%n$%$%*%n, "%nun%n'%n$un"o# and s%nun%n 2%3%n to "enactordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate %unds %orthe eneral wel%are o% the Iprovince, city or unicipality,as the case ay !eJ, and its inha!itants pursuant to8ection )+ o% the Code and in the proper e2ercise o% thecorporate powers o% the Iprovince, city unicipalityJprovided under the Code 2 2 2."I66J The sae Code ivesthe "%nun%n 2%r%n%3the power to "enactordinances as ay !e necessary to dischare theresponsi!ilities con%erred upon it !y law or ordinance andto proote the eneral wel%are o% the inha!itantsthereon."I69J

M!&ro'o$&%n or M!&ro M%n$% " % 2o#3 o'o"!#o "!!r%$ $o%$ o!rn!n& un&" - i*e*, twelve &)6'cities and %ive &B' unicipalities, naely, the cities o%Caloocan, 0anila, 0andaluyon, 0a$ati, Pasay, Pasi,Lue/on, 0untinlupa, ;as Pinas, 0ari$ina, Parana5ue andValen/uela, and the unicipalities o% 0ala!on, ,?avotas, , Pateros, 8an >uan and Taui. 4&+ &+!'%""%! o R!'u2$ A& (R. A.) No. 50678679 n /00,M!&ro'o$&%n M%n$% *%" #!$%r!# %" % ;"'!%$#!!$o'!n& %n# %#n"&r%&! r!on; %n# &+!A#n"&r%&on o ;!&ro-*#!; 2%" "!r!"%!&n &+! r!on '$%!# un#!r ;% #!!$o'!n&%u&+or&3; r!!rr!# &o %" &+! MMDA .I6BJ

"M!&ro-*#! "!r!"" are those "services which haveetro=wide ipact and transcend local political!oundaries or entail hue e2penditures such that it wouldnot !e via!le %or said services to !e provided !y theindividual local overnent units coprisin 0etro0anila."I6+J There are seven &7' !asic etro=wide servicesand the scope o% these services cover the %ollowin: &)'developent plannin3 &6' transport and tra%%ic

anaeent3 &9' solid waste disposal and anaeent3&' %lood control and sewerae anaeent3 &B' ur!anrenewal, /onin and land use plannin, and shelterservices3 &+' health and sanitation, ur!an protection andpollution control3 and &7' pu!lic sa%ety. The !asic serviceo% transport and tra%%ic anaeent includes the%ollowin: ;e2uris

;(2) Tr%n"'or& %n# &r% %n%!!n& *++n$u#! &+! oru$%&on, oor#n%&on, %n#on&orn o 'o$!", "&%n#%r#", 'ror%" %n#'ro<!&" &o r%&on%$=! &+! !1"&n &r%n"'or&o'!r%&on", nr%"&ru&ur! r!>ur!!n&", &+! u"! o&+orou+%r!", %n# 'roo&on o "%! %n#on!n!n& o!!n& o '!r"on" %n# oo#"?'ro"on or &+! %"" &r%n"'or& "3"&! %n# &+!n"&&u&on o % "3"&! &o r!u$%&! ro%# u"!r"?%#n"&r%&on %n# '$!!n&%&on o %$$ &r%!nor!!n& o'!r%&on", &r% !nn!!rn"!r!" %n# &r% !#u%&on 'ror%", n$u#n&+! n"&&u&on o % "n$! &@!&n "3"&! nM!&ro'o$&%n M%n$%?;I67J

In &+! #!$!r3 o &+! "!!n (5) 2%" "!r!", &+!MMDA +%" &+! o$$o*n 'o*!r" %n# un&on": Fs

"%ec* -* .unctions and po"ers of the /etro /anilaDevelopment uthority .—The 00(A shall:

&a' 4orulate, coordinate and reulate theipleentation o% ediu and lon=ter plans andproras %or the delivery o% etro=wide services, landuse and physical developent within 0etropolitan 0anila,consistent with national developent o!ectives andpriorities3

&!' Prepare, coordinate and reulate the ipleentationo% ediu=ter investent proras %or etro=wideservices which shall indicate sources and uses o% %unds%or priority proras and proects, and which shall includethe pac$ain o% proects and presentation to %undininstitutions3 Fssc

&c' @nderta$e and anae on its own etro=wideproras and proects %or the delivery o% speci%ic servicesunder its urisdiction, su!ect to the approval o% theCouncil. 4or this purpose, 00(A can create appropriateproect anaeent o%%ices3

&d' Coordinate and onitor the ipleentation o% splans, proras and proects in 0etro 0anila3 ident!ottlenec$s and adopt solutions to pro!les o%ipleentation3

(!) T+! MMDA "+%$$ "!& &+! 'o$!" on!rnn&r% n M!&ro M%n$%, %n# "+%$$ oor#n%&! %r!u$%&! &+! '$!!n&%&on o %$$ 'ror%" %'ro<!&" on!rnn &r% %n%!!n&,"'!%$$3 '!r&%nn &o !nor!!n&, !nn!%n# !#u%&on. U'on r!>u!"&, & "+%$$ 2! !1&!n%"""&%n! %n# oo'!r%&on, n$u#n 2u& no&$&!# &o, %""n!n& o '!r"onn!$, 23 %$$ o&+o!rn!n& %!n!" %n# o!" on!rn!#?

() In"&%$$ %n# %#n"&!r % "n$! &@!&n "31, 'o"! %n# o$$!& n!" %n# '!n%$&!" or@n#" o o$%&on" o &r% ru$!" %n# r!u$%&*+!&+!r on or non-on n n%&ur!, %n#on"%&! %n# "u"'!n# or r!o@! #r!r" $!n &+! !nor!!n& o "u+ &r% $%*" %n#r!u$%&on", &+! 'ro"on" o RA 7/ %n# PD&o &+! on&r%r3 no&*&+"&%n#n. or &+" 'ur'&+! Au&+or&3 "+%$$ 'o"! %$$ &r% $%*" %n#r!u$%&on" n M!&ro M%n$%, &+rou+ &" &r%o'!r%&on !n&!r, %n# %3 #!'u&=! !2!r"&+! PNP, &r% !nor!r" o $o%$ o!rn!n&

un&", #u$3 $!n"!# "!ur&3 u%r#", or !2non-o!rn!n&%$ or%n=%&on" &o *+o %3#!$!%&!# !r&%n %u&+or&3, "u2<!& &o "u+on#&on" %n# r!>ur!!n&" %" &+! Au&+or&3 'o"!? and

&' Per%or other related %unctions re5uired to achithe o!ectives o% the 00(A, includin the underta$delivery o% !asic services to the local overnent uwhen deeed necessary su!ect to prior coordinatiowith and consent o% the local overnent unitconcerned." >urisis

The '$!!n&%&on o% the 00(AQs plans, proraproects is underta$en !y the local overnent unit

national overnent aencies, accredited peopleQsorani/ations, non=overnental orani/ations, andprivate sector as well as !y the 00(A itsel%. 4or thipurpose, the 00(A has the power to enter into coneoranda o% areeent and other cooperativearraneents with these !odies %or the delivery o% re5uired services within 0etro 0anila.I6*J




















The o!rnn 2o%r# o &+! MMDA " &+! M!&roM%n$% Coun$. The Council is coposed o% the ayorso% the coponent )6 cities and B unicipalities, thepresident o% the 0etro 0anila Vice=0ayorsQ ;eaue andthe president o% the 0etro 0anila CouncilorsQ ;eaue.I6J The Council is headed !y a Chairan who is appointed!y the President and vested with the ran$ o% ca!inete!er. As the policy=a$in !ody o% the 00(A, the0etro 0anila Council approves etro=wide plans,proras and proects, and issues the necessary rulesand reulations %or the ipleentation o% said plans3 itapproves the annual !udet o% the 00(A and

proulates the rules and reulations %or the delivery o%!asic services, collection o% service and reulatory %ees,%ines and penalties. These %unctions are particularlyenuerated as %ollows: ;F

"8ec. +. un&on" o &+! M!&ro M%n$% Coun$. =

&a' The Council shall !e the policy=a$in !ody o% the00(A3

&!' -t shall approve etro=wide plans, proras andproects and issue rules and reulations deeednecessary !y the 00(A to carry out the purposes o% thisAct3

&c' -t ay increase the rate o% allowances and per dieso% the e!ers o% the Council to !e e%%ective durin theter o% the succeedin Council. -t shall %i2 thecopensation o% the o%%icers and personnel o% the 00(A,and approve the annual !udet thereo% %or su!ission tothe (epartent o% #udet and 0anaeent &(#0'3

&d' -t shall proulate rules and reulations and setpolicies and standards %or etro=wide applicationovernin the delivery o% !asic services, prescri!e andcollect service and reulatory %ees, and ipose andcollect %ines and penalties." >S sc

Clearly, the scope o% the 00(AQs %unction is liited to the

delivery o% the seven &7' !asic services. One o% these istransport and tra%%ic anaeent which includes the%orulation and onitorin o% policies, standards andproects to rationali/e the e2istin transport operations,in%rastructure re5uireents, the use o% thorouh%ares andprootion o% the sa%e oveent o% persons and oods. -talso covers the ass transport syste and the institutiono% a syste o% road reulation, the adinistration o% all

tra%%ic en%orceent operations, tra%%ic enineerinservices and tra%%ic education proras, includin theinstitution o% a sinle tic$etin syste in 0etro 0anila %ortra%%ic violations. @nder this service, the 00(A ise2pressly authori/ed "to set the policies concernintra%%ic" and "coordinate and reulate the ipleentationo% all tra%%ic anaeent proras." -n addition, the00(A ay "install and adinister a sinle tic$etinsyste," %i2, ipose and collect %ines and penalties %or alltra%%ic violations. Ca=lrsc

-t will !e noted that the powers o% the 00(A are liitedto the %ollowin acts: %orulation, coordination,reulation, ipleentation, preparation, anaeent,onitorin, settin o% policies, installation o% a systeand adinistration. T+!r! " no "3$$%2$! n R. A. No.5067 &+%& r%n&" &+! MMDA 'o$! 'o*!r, $!& %$on!$!"$%&! 'o*!r. Fven the 0etro 0anila Council hasnot !een deleated any leislative power. @nli$e theleislative !odies o% the local overnent units, there isno provision in R. A. ?o. 76 that epowers the 00(Aor its Council to "enact ordinances, approve resolutionsand appropriate %unds %or the eneral wel%are" o% theinha!itants o% 0etro 0anila. The 00(A is, as tered inthe charter itsel%, a "developent authority."I9<J -t is anaency created %or the purpose o% layin down policiesand coordinatin with the various national overnent

aencies, peopleQs orani/ations, non=overnentalorani/ations and the private sector %or the e%%icient ande2peditious delivery o% !asic services in the vastetropolitan area. A$$ &" un&on" %r! %#n"&r%&!n n%&ur! and these are actually sued up in thecharter itsel%, vi/:

"%ec* 2* &reation of the /etropolitan /anila Development uthority . == 2 2 2.

The 00(A shall per%or '$%nnn, on&orn %n#oor#n%&! un&on", and in the processe2ercise r!u$%&or3 %n# "u'!r"or3 %u&+or&3 overthe delivery o% etro=wide services within 0etro 0anila,without diinution o% the autonoy o% the local

overnent units concernin purely local atters."I9)J

Petitioner cannot see$ re%ue in the cases o% S%n%$%n. In&!r!#%&! A''!$$%&! Cour&I96J where we upheld a/onin ordinance issued !y the 0etro 0anila Coission&00C', the predecessor o% the 00(A, as an e2ercise o%police power. The %irst S%n%$%n decision was on theerits o% the petition,I99J while the second decision denied

reconsideration o% the %irst case and in addition discthe case o% Y%2u& . Cour& o A''!%$".I9J

S%n%$%n . IAC involved %ive &B' consolidatedpetitions %iled !y respondent #AVA and three reside#el=Air Villae aainst other residents o% the Villaethe Ayala Corporation, %orerly the 0a$ati (evelopCorporation, as the developer o% the su!division. Thpetitioners souht to en%orce certain restrictiveeaseents in the deeds o% sale over their respectivin the su!division. These were the prohi!ition on thsettin up o% coercial and advertisin sins on tlots, and the condition that the lots !e used only %orresidential purposes. Petitioners alleed thatrespondents, who were residents alon >upiter 8treethe su!division, converted their residences intocoercial esta!lishents in violation o% the "deedrestrictions," and that respondent Ayala Corporationushered in the %ull coerciali/ation" o% >upiter 8tretearin down the perieter wall that separated thecoercial %ro the residential section o% the villa

The petitions were disissed !ased on Ordinance ?o% the 0unicipal Council o% 0a$ati and Ordinance ?o<) o% the 0etro 0anila Coission &00C'. 0unicipOrdinance ?o. *) classi%ied #el=Air Villae as a ClasResidential Hone, with its !oundary in the south

e2tendin to the center line o% >upiter 8treet. The0unicipal Ordinance was adopted !y the 00C undeCoprehensive Honin Ordinance %or the ?ational CReion and proulated as 00C Ordinance ?o. *)=#el=Air Villae was indicated therein as !ounded !y

>upiter 8treet and the !loc$ adacent thereto wasclassi%ied as a ih -ntensity Coercial Hone.I9+J

e ruled that since !oth Ordinances reconi/ed >up8treet as the !oundary !etween #el=Air Villae and coercial district, >upiter 8treet was not %or thee2clusive !ene%it o% #el=Air residents. e also held tthe perieter wall on said street was constructed nseparate the residential %ro the coercial !loc$siply %or security reasons, hence, in tearin down

wall, Ayala Corporation did not violate the "deedrestrictions" in the deeds o% sale. 8cc=alr

e upheld the ordinances, speci%ically 00C Ordinan?o. *)=<), as a leitiate e2ercise o% police power.power o% the 00C and the 0a$ati 0unicipal Councilenact /onin ordinances %or the eneral wel%are preover the "deed restrictions".



















-n the second S%n%$%nFY%2u& decision, we held thatthe openin o% >upiter 8treet was warranted !y thedeands o% the coon ood in ters o% "tra%%icdeconestion and pu!lic convenience." >upiter wasopened !y the 0unicipal 0ayor to alleviate tra%%icconestion alon the pu!lic streets adacent to theVillae.I9*J The sae reason was iven %or the openin topu!lic vehicular tra%%ic o% Or!it 8treet, a road inside thesae villae. The destruction o% the ate in Or!it 8treetwas also ade under the police power o% the unicipalovernent. The ate, li$e the perieter wall alon

>upiter, was a pu!lic nuisance !ecause it hindered and

ipaired the use o% property, hence, its suarya!ateent !y the ayor was proper and leal.I9J

Con&r%r3 &o '!&&on!r" $%, &+!&*o Sangalang %"!" #o no& %''$3 &o &+! %"! %&2%r. r"&$3, !oth involved /onin ordinances passed !ythe unicipal council o% 0a$ati and the 00C. -n theinstant case, the !asis %or the proposed openin o%?eptune 8treet is contained in the notice o% (ece!er 66,)B sent !y petitioner to respondent #AVA, throuh itspresident. The notice does not cite any ordinance or law,either !y the 8anunian Panlunsod o% 0a$ati City or!y the 00(A, as the leal !asis %or the proposed openino% ?eptune 8treet. Petitioner 00(A siply relied on itsauthority under its charter "to rationali/e the use o% roads

andDor thorouh%ares %or the sa%e and convenientoveent o% persons." Rationali/in the use o% roads andthorouh%ares is one o% the acts that %all within the scopeo% transport and tra%%ic anaeent. #y no stretch o% theiaination, however, can this !e interpreted as ane2press or iplied rant o% ordinance=a$in power,uch less police power. 0isuris

S!on#$3, &+! MMDA " no& &+! "%! !n&&3 %" &+!MMC n Sangalang. A$&+ou+ &+! MMC " &+!or!runn!r o &+! 'r!"!n& MMDA, %n !1%n%&ono Pr!"#!n&%$ D!r!! (P. D.) No. 67, &+! +%r&!ro &+! MMC, "+o*" &+%& &+! $%&&!r 'o""!""!#r!%&!r 'o*!r" *++ *!r! no& 2!"&o*!# on &+!'r!"!n& MMDA. >le2

0etropolitan 0anila was %irst created in )7B !yPresidential (ecree &P.(.' ?o. *6. -t coprised theGreater 0anila Area coposed o% the contiuous %our &'cities o% 0anila, Lue/on, Pasay and Caloocan, and thethirteen &)9' unicipalities o% 0a$ati, 0andaluyon, 8an

>uan, ;as Pinas, 0ala!on, ?avotas, Pasi, Pateros,Parana5ue, 0ari$ina, 0untinlupa and Taui in the

province o% Ri/al, and Valen/uela in the province o%#ulacan.I<J 0etropolitan 0anila was created as aresponse to the %indin that the rapid rowth o%population and the increase o% social and econoicre5uireents in these areas deand a call %orsiultaneous and uni%ied developent3 that the pu!licservices rendered !y the respective local overnentscould !e adinistered ore e%%iciently and econoicallyi% interated under a syste o% central plannin3 and thiscoordination, "especially in the aintenance o% peace andorder and the eradication o% social and econoic ills that%anned the %laes o% re!ellion and discontent IwereJ part

o% re%or easures under 0artial ;aw essential to thesa%ety and security o% the 8tate."I)J

M!&ro'o$&%n M%n$% *%" !"&%2$"+!# %" % ;'u2$or'or%&on; with the %ollowin powers: Calrs=pped

"%ection +* &reation of the /etropolitan /anila.—There ishere!y created a 'u2$ or'or%&on, to !e $nown asthe 0etropolitan 0anila, !"&!# *&+ 'o*!r" %n#%&&r2u&!" o % or'or%&on n$u#n &+! 'o*!r &o%@! on&r%&", "u! %n# 2! "u!#, %>ur!,'ur+%"!, !1'ro'r%&!, +o$#, &r%n"!r %n# #"'o"!o 'ro'!r&3 %n# "u+ o&+!r 'o*!r" %" %r!n!!""%r3 &o %rr3 ou& &" 'ur'o"!". The Corporationshall !e adinistered !y a Coission created under this

(ecree."I6J

The adinistration o% 0etropolitan 0anila was placedunder the 0etro 0anila Coission &00C' vested withthe %ollowin powers:

0%ec* 1* Po"ers and .unctions of the &ommission. = TheCoission shall have the %ollowin powers and%unctions:

/. To %& %" % !n&r%$ o!rn!n& &o !"&%2$"+ %n#%#n"&!r 'ror%" %n# 'ro#! "!r!" oon&o &+! %r!%?

6. To levy and collect ta2es and special assessents,!orrow and e2pend oney and issue !onds, revenuecerti%icates, and other o!liations o% inde!tedness.F2istin ta2 easures should, however, continue to !eoperative until otherwise odi%ied or repealed !y theCoission3

9. To chare and collect %ees %or the use o% pu!lic se%acilities3

. To appropriate oney %or the operation o% theetropolitan overnent and review appropriationthe city and unicipal units within its urisdiction wauthority to disapprove the sae i% %ound to !e not accordance with the esta!lished policies o% theCoission, without preudice to any contractualo!liation o% the local overnent units involved e2at the tie o% approval o% this (ecree3

. To r!!*, %!n#, r!"! or r!'!%$ %$$or#n%n!", r!"o$u&on" %n# %&" o &!" %n#un'%$&!" *&+n M!&ro'o$&%n M%n$%?

. To !n%& or %''ro! or#n%n!", r!"o$u&on&o 1 '!n%$&!" or %n3 o$%&on &+!r!o *++no& !1!!# % n! o P/,. or 'r"on"1 3!%r" or 2o&+ "u+ n! %n# 'r"on!n& "n$! o!n"!?

7. To per%or eneral adinistrative, e2ecutive andpolicy=a$in %unctions3

*. To esta!lish a %ire control operation center, which

direct the %ire services o% the city and unicipalovernents in the etropolitan area3

. To esta!lish a ar!ae disposal operation centershall direct ar!ae collection and disposal in theetropolitan area3

)<. To esta!lish and operate a transport and tra%%iccenter, which shall direct tra%%ic activities3 >uris

)). To coordinate and onitor overnental and practivities pertainin to essential services such astransportation, %lood control and drainae, water suand sewerae, social, health and environental serhousin, par$ developent, and others3

)6. To insure and onitor the underta$in o% acoprehensive social, econoic and physical plannand developent o% the area3

)9. To study the %easi!ility o% increasin !aranayparticipation in the a%%airs o% their respective local













overnents and to propose to the President o% thePhilippines de%inite proras and policies %oripleentation3

). To su!it within thirty &9<' days a%ter the close o%each %iscal year an annual report to the President o% thePhilippines and to su!it a periodic report wheneverdeeed necessary3 and

)B. To per%or such other tas$s as ay !e assined ordirected !y the President o% the Philippines." 8cU

T+! MMC *%" &+! ;!n&r%$ o!rn!n&; o M!&roM%nila %or the purpose o% esta!lishin and adinisterinproras providin services coon to the area. As a"central overnent" it had the power to levy and collectta2es and special assessents, the power to chare andcollect %ees3 the power to appropriate oney %or itsoperation, and at the sae tie, review appropriations%or the city and unicipal units within its urisdiction. -twas !estowed the power to enact or approve ordinances,resolutions and %i2 penalties %or violation o% suchordinances and resolutions. -t also had the power toreview, aend, revise or repeal all ordinances,resolutions and acts o% any o% the %our &' cities andthirteen &)9' unicipalities coprisin 0etro 0anila.

P. (. ?o. *6 %urther provided:

"%ec* . @ntil otherwise provided, the overnents o% the%our cities and thirteen unicipalities in the 0etropolitan0anila shall continue to e2ist in their present %or e2ceptas ay !e inconsistent with this (ecree. T+! !2!r"o &+! !1"&n &3 %n# un'%$ oun$" nM!&ro'o$&%n M%n$% "+%$$, u'on 'rou$%&on o&+" D!r!!, %n# un&$ D!!2!r /, /05, 2!o!!2!r" o &+! S%nun%n B%3%n *++ "+!r!23 r!%&!# or !!r3 &3 %n# un'%$&3 oM!&ro'o$&%n M%n$%.

-n addition, the 8anunian #ayan shall !e coposed o%

as any !aranay captains as ay !e deterined andchosen !y the Coission, and such nu!er o%representatives %ro other sectors o% the society as ay!e appointed !y the President upon recoendation o%the Coission.

2 2 2.

T+! S%nun%n B%3%n %3 r!o!n# &o &+!Co""on or#n%n!", r!"o$u&on" or "u+!%"ur!" %" & %3 %#o'&? Pro#!#, &+%& no "u+or#n%n!, r!"o$u&on or !%"ur! "+%$$ 2!o!!!&!, un&$ %&!r &" %''ro%$ 23 &+!Co""on? %n# Pro#!# ur&+!r, &+%& &+! 'o*!r&o 'o"! &%1!" %n# o&+!r $!!", &+! 'o*!r &o%''ro'r%&! on!3 %n# &+! 'o*!r &o '%""or#n%n!" or r!"o$u&on" *&+ '!n%$ "%n&on""+%$$ 2! !"&!# !1$u"!$3 n &+! Co""on.;

T+! r!%&on o &+! MMC %$"o %rr!# *&+ & &+!r!%&on o &+! S%nun%n B%3%n. This wascoposed o% the e!ers o% the coponent city andunicipal councils, !aranay captains chosen !y the 00Cand sectoral representatives appointed !y the President.

The S%nun%n B%3%n had the power to recoendto the 00C the adoption o% ordinances, resolutions oreasures. I& *%" &+! MMC &"!$, +o*!!r, &+%&'o""!""!# $!"$%&! 'o*!r". All ordinances,resolutions and easures recoended !ytheS%nun%n B%3%n were su!ect to the 00CQsapproval. 0oreover, the power to ipose ta2es and otherlevies, the power to appropriate oney, and the power topass ordinances or resolutions with penal sanctions werevested e2clusively in the 00C. 8ce=dp

T+u", M!&ro'o$&%n M%n$% +%# % ;!n&r%$o!rn!n&,; i.e., &+! MMC *++ u$$3 'o""!""!#$!"$%&! %n# 'o$! 'o*!r". 4+%&!!r $!"$%&!'o*!r" &+! o'on!n& &!" %n# un'%$&!"+%# *!r! %$$ "u2<!& &o r!!* %n# %''ro%$ 23 &+!MMC.

A&!r Pr!"#!n& Cor%=on A>uno %""u!# 'o*!r,there was a claor to restore the autonoy o% the localovernent units in 0etro 0anila. ence, 8ections ) and6 o% Article o% the )*7 Constitution provided: 8S c

"%ection +. The territorial and political su!divisions o% theRepu!lic o% the Philippines are the provinces, cities,unicipalities and !aranays. There shall !e autonoous

reions in 0usli 0indanao and the Cordilleras as hereinprovided.

%ection 2. The territorial and political su!divisions shallenoy local autonoy."

The Constitution, however, reconi/ed the necessitcreatin etropolitan reions not only in the e2istin?ational Capital Reion !ut also in potential e5uivain the Visayas and 0indanao.I9J 8ection )) o% the saArticle thus provided:

"%ection ++. The Conress ay, !y law, create specetropolitan political su!divisions, su!ect to a ple!as set %orth in 8ection )< hereo%. The coponent citand unicipalities shall retain their !asic autonoyshall !e entitled to their own local e2ecutives andleislative asse!lies. The urisdiction o% the etroauthority that will there!y !e created shall !e liite!asic services re5uirin coordination."

The Constitution itsel% e2pressly provides that Conay, !y law, create "special etropolitan politicalsu!divisions" which shall !e su!ect to approval !y aority o% the votes cast in a ple!iscite in the politunits directly a%%ected3 the urisdiction o% this su!divshall !e liited to !asic services re5uirin coordinaand the cities and unicipalities coprisin thissu!division shall retain their !asic autonoy and thown local e2ecutive and leislative asse!lies. IJ Penactent o% this law, the Transitory Provisions o% tConstitution ave the President o% the Philippines thpower to constitute the 0etropolitan Authority, vi/:

"%ection 3. @ntil otherwise provided !y Conress, thPresident ay constitute the 0etropolitan Authoritycoposed o% the heads o% all local overnent unitcoprisin the 0etropolitan 0anila area."IBJ

In /00, Pr!"#!n& A>uno ""u!# E1!u&! Or(E. O.) No. 06 %n# on"&&u&!# &+! M!&ro'o$&M%n$% Au&+or&3 (MMA). T+! 'o*!r" %n# uno &+! MMC *!r! #!o$!# &o &+! MMA.I+J I& ou&o 2! "&r!""!#, +o*!!r, &+%& no& %$$ 'o*!r" %un&on" o &+! MMC *!r! '%""!# &o &+! MMAMMA" 'o*!r *%" $&!# &o &+! ;#!$!r3 o 2ur2%n "!r!" r!>urn oor#n%&on nM!&ro'o$&%n M%n$%.;I7J T+! MMA" o!rnn

2o#3, &+! M!&ro'o$&%n M%n$% Coun$, %$&+ouo'o"!# o &+! %3or" o &+! o'on!n& &%n# un'%$&!", *%" !r!$3 !n &+! 'o*!(/) oru$%&on o 'o$!" on &+! #!$!r3 o 2"!r!" r!>urn oor#n%&on %n# on"o$#%%n# (6) 'rou$%&on o r!"o$u&on" %n# o&+!r""u%n!", %''ro%$ o % o#! o 2%" "!r!&+! !1!r"! o &" ru$!-%@n 'o*!r.I*J


















Un#!r &+! /05 Con"&&u&on, the local overnentunits !ecae priarily responsi!le %or the overnance o%their respective political su!divisions. The MMA" <ur"#&on *%" $&!# to addressin coonpro!les involvin !asic services that transcended local!oundaries. I& ## no& +%! $!"$%&! 'o*!r. -tspower was erely to provide the local overnent unitstechnical assistance in the preparation o% localdevelopent plans. Any se!lance o% leislative power ithad was con%ined to a "review Io%J leislation proposed !ythe local leislative asse!lies to ensure consistencyaon local overnents and with the coprehensive

developent plan o% 0etro 0anila," and to "advise thelocal overnents accordinly."IJ

4+!n R.A. No. 5067 &oo@ !!&, M!&ro'o$&%nM%n$% 2!%! % ;"'!%$ #!!$o'!n& %n#%#n"&r%&! r!on; %n# &+! MMDA % ;"'!%$#!!$o'!n& %u&+or&3; *+o"! un&on" *!r!;*&+ou& 'r!<u#! &o &+! %u&ono3 o &+! %!&!#$o%$ o!rn!n& un&".; T+! +%r%&!r o &+!MMDA *%" $!%r$3 #!n!# n &+! $!"$%&!#!2%&!" !n%&n &" +%r&!r.

R. A. ?o. 76 oriinated as ouse #ill ?o. ))7<D ))))+and was introduced !y several leislators led !y (ante

Tina, Roilo Gole/ and 4eliciano #elonte. -t was

presented to the ouse o% Representatives !y theCoittee on ;ocal Governents chaired !yConressan Ciriaco R. Al%elor. The !ill was a product o%Coittee consultations with the local overnent unitsin the ?ational Capital Reion &?CR', with %orerChairen o% the 00C and 00A,IB<J and career o%%icials o%said aencies. hen the !ill was %irst ta$en up !y theCoittee on ;ocal Governents, the %ollowin de!atetoo$ place:

"TF CA-R0A? Ion. Ciriaco Al%elorJ: O$ay, ;et ee2plain. This has !een de!ated a lon tie ao, you$now. -tQs a special we can create a specialetropolitan political su!division. 8upreeS

Actually, there are only si2 &+' political su!divisionsprovided %or in the Constitution: !aranay, unicipality,city, province, and we have the Autonoous Reion o%0indanao and we have the Cordillera. 8o we have +.?ow.

O?. IFliasJ ;OPFH: 0ay - interrupt, 0r. Chairan. -n thecase o% the Autonoous Reion, that is also speci%icallyandated !y the Constitution.

TF CA-R0A?: ThatQs correct. #ut it is considered to !ea political su!division. 4+%& " &+! !%nn o %'o$&%$ "u2#"on M!%nn &o "%3, &+%& & +%" &"o*n o!rn!n&, & +%" &" o*n 'o$&%$'!r"on%$&3, & +%" &+! 'o*!r &o &%1, %n# %$$o!rn!n&%$ 'o*!r": 'o$! 'o*!r %n#!!r3&+n. A$$ r+&. Au&+or&3 " #!r!n&?2!%u"! & #o!" no& +%! &" o*n o!rn!n&. I& "

on$3 % oun$, & " %n or%n=%&on o 'o$&%$"u2#"on, 'o*!r", no, *++ " no& 2u!# *&+%n3 'o$&%$ 'o*!r. Fsis

I 3ou o o!r S!&on , *+!r! &+! 'o*!r" %n#un&on" o &+! M!&ro M%n$% D!!$o'!n&Au&+or&3, & " 'ur!$3 oor#n%&!. An# & 'ro#!"+!r! &+%& &+! oun$ " 'o$3-%@n. All riht.

@nder the Constitution is a 0etropolitan Authority withcoordinative power. 0eanin to say, it coordinates all o%the di%%erent !asic services which have to !e delivered tothe constituency. All riht.

There is now a pro!le. Fach local overnent unit isiven its respective as a political su!division. Kaloo$anhas its powers, as provided %or and protected anduaranteed !y the Constitution. All riht, the e2ercise.owever, in the e2ercise o% that power, it iht !edeleterious and disadvantaeous to other localovernent units. 8o, we are %orin an authority whereall o% these will !e e!ers and then set up a policy inorder that the !asic services can !e e%%ectivelycoordinated. All riht. ustice

O our"!, *! %nno& #!n3 &+%& &+! MMDA +%" &o"ur!. 4! +%! &o 'ro#! "o! un#",r!"our!". Bu& & #o!" no& 'o""!"" %n3 'o$&%$'o*!r. 4! #o no& !$!& &+! Go!rnor. 4! #o no&+%! &+! 'o*!r &o &%1. As a atter o% %act, - was tryinto intiate to the author that it ust have the power tosue and !e sued !ecause it coordinates. All riht. -tcoordinates practically all these !asic services so that the%low and the distri!ution o% the !asic services will !econtinuous. ;i$e tra%%ic, we cannot deny that. -tQs !e%oreour eyes. 8ewerae, %lood control, water syste, peaceand order, we cannot deny these. -tQs riht on our %ace.

e have to loo$ %or a solution. hat would !e the rsolutionN All riht, we envision that there should !e coordinatin aency and it is called an authority. Ali% you do not want to call it an authority, itQs alriht.ay call it a council or ay!e a anaeent aen

2 2 2."IB)J

C$!%r$3, &+! MMDA " no& % 'o$&%$ un& oo!rn!n&. The power deleated to the 00(A isiven to the 0etro 0anila Council to proulate

adinistrative rules and reulations in theipleentation o% the 00(AQs %unctions. T+!r! " r%n& o %u&+or&3 &o !n%& or#n%n!" %n#r!u$%&on" or &+! !n!r%$ *!$%r! o &+!n+%2&%n&" o &+! !&ro'o$". This was e2plicitlstated in the last Coittee deli!erations prior to t!illQs presentation to Conress. Thus: Fd=p

"TF CA-R0A?: Eeah, !ut we have to o over thesuested revision. - thin$ this was already approve!e%ore, !ut it was reconsidered in view o% the proposet=up, to a$e the 00(A stroner. O$ay, so i% theno o!ection to pararaph "%" And then ne2t ispararaph "!," under 8ection +. ;I& "+%$$ %''ro!!&ro-*#! '$%n", 'ror%" %n# 'ro<!&" %n# or#n%n!" or r!"o$u&on" #!!!# n!!""%r3 2

MMDA &o %rr3 ou& &+! 'ur'o"!" o &+" A&.; 3ou +%! &+! 'o*!r" Do!" &+! MMDA J 2!%&+%& &%@!" &+! or o % $o%$ o!rn!n& un'o$&%$ "u2#"on.

O?. I4elicianoJ #F;0O?TF: Ees, - !elieve so, your hen we say that it has the policies, itQs very clear those policies ust !e %ollowed. Otherwise, whatQs tuse o% epowerin it to coe out with policies. ?owpolicies ay !e in the %or o% a resolution or it aythe %or o% a ordinance. The ter "ordinance" in threally ives it ore teeth, your honor. Otherwise, woin to see a situation where you have the power tadopt the policy !ut you cannot really a$e it stic$ the case now, and - thin$ here is Chairan #unye. -

he will aree that that is the case now. EouQve ot tpower to set a policy, the !ody wants to %ollow yourpolicy, then we say letQs call it an ordinance and seethey will not %ollow it.

TF CA-R0A?: ThatQs very nice. - li$e that. Ho*!&+!r! " % on"&&u&on%$ '!#!n&. You %r!










%@n &+" MMDA % 'o$&%$ "u2#"on. T+!r!%&on o &+! MMDA *ou$# 2! "u2<!& &o %'$!2"&!. T+%& " *+%& I &r3n &o %o#. I!2!!n &r3n &o %o# &+" @n# o 'r!#%!n&.Un#!r &+! Con"&&u&on & "&%&!": & " % 'o$&%$"u2#"on, on! & " r!%&!# & +%" &o 2! "u2<!&&o % '$!2"&!. I &r3n &o %@! &+" %"%#n"&r%&!. T+%&" *+3 *! '$%! &+! C+%r%n%" % %2n!& r%n@.

O?. #F;0O?TF: All riht, 0r. Chairan, o$ay, what youare sayin there is .

THE CHAIRMAN: In "!&&n u' or#n%n!", & " %'o$&%$ !1!r"!. B!$!! !.

HON. 8E$%"9 LOPEZ: Mr. C+%r%n, & %n 2!+%n!# n&o ""u%n!" o ru$!" %n# r!u$%&on".T+%& *ou$# 2! J & "+%$$ %$"o 2! !nor!#. >$sS U

HON. BELMONTE: O@%3, I *$$ J.

HON. LOPEZ: An# 3ou %n %$"o "%3 &+%& o$%&on o"u+ ru$!, 3ou 'o"! % "%n&on. Bu& 3ou @no*,or#n%n! +%" % #!r!n& $!%$ onno&%&on.

HON. BELMONTE: A$$ r+&. I #!!r &o &+%& o'non,3our Honor. sc

THE CHAIRMAN: So n"&!%# o or#n%n!", "%3 ru$!"%n# r!u$%&on".

HON. BELMONTE: Or r!"o$u&on". A&u%$$3, &+!3 %r!%&u%$$3 on"#!rn r!"o$u&on" no*.

THE CHAIRMAN: Ru$!" %n# r!"o$u&on".

HON. BELMONTE: Ru$!", r!u$%&on" %n#r!"o$u&on".;IB6J

The dra%t o% . #. ?o. ))7<D ))))+ was presented !y theCoittee to the ouse o% Representatives. Thee2planatory note to the !ill stated that the proposed00(A is a "developent authority" which is a "nationalaency, not a political overnent unit."IB9J Thee2planatory note was adopted as the sponsorship speecho% the Coittee on ;ocal Governents. ?o

interpellations or de!ates were ade on the %loor and noaendents introduced. The !ill was approved onsecond readin on the sae day it was presented.IBJ

hen the !ill was %orwarded to the 8enate, severalaendents were ade. These aendents, however,did not a%%ect the nature o% the 00(A as oriinallyconceived in the ouse o% Representatives.IBBJ

I& " &+u" 2!3on# #ou2& &+%& &+! MMDA " no& %$o%$ o!rn!n& un& or % 'u2$ or'or%&on

!n#o*!# *&+ $!"$%&! 'o*!r. -t is not even a"special etropolitan political su!division" asconteplated in 8ection )), Article o% the Constitution.

The creation o% a "special etropolitan politicalsu!division" re5uires the approval !y a aority o% thevotes cast in a ple!iscite in the political units directlya%%ected.IB+J R. A. ?o. 76 was not su!itted to theinha!itants o% 0etro 0anila in a ple!iscite. The Chairano% the 00(A is not an o%%icial elected !y the people, !utappointed !y the President with the ran$ and privilees o%a ca!inet e!er. -n %act, part o% his %unction is toper%or such other duties as ay !e assined to hi !ythe President,IB7J whereas in local overnent units, thePresident erely e2ercises supervisory authority. Thisephasi/es the %#n"&r%&! +%r%&!ro% the00(A. ?ewiso

C$!%r$3 &+!n, &+! MMC un#!r P. D. No. 67 " no&&+! "%! !n&&3 %" &+! MMDA un#!r R. A. No. 5067.Un$@! &+! MMC, &+! MMDA +%" no 'o*!r &o !n%&or#n%n!" or &+! *!$%r! o &+! oun&3. -t isthe local overnent units, actin throuh theirrespective leislative councils, that possess leislativepower and police power. -n the case at !ar, the8anunian Panlunsod o% 0a$ati City did not pass anyordinance or resolution orderin the openin o% ?eptune8treet, hence, its proposed openin !y petitioner 00(A isilleal and the respondent Court o% Appeals did not err inso rulin. e desist %ro rulin on the other issues asthey are unnecessary. Fsso

e stress that this decision does not a$e liht o% the00(AQs no!le e%%orts to solve the chaotic tra%%ic conditionin 0etro 0anila. Fveryday, tra%%ic as and tra%%ic!ottlenec$s plaue the etropolis. Fven our oncesprawlin !oulevards and avenues are now craed withcars while city streets are cloed with otorists andpedestrians. Tra%%ic has !ecoe a social alaise a%%ectinour peopleQs productivity and the e%%icient delivery o%

oods and services in the country. The 00(A wascreated to put soe order in the etropolitantransportation syste !ut un%ortunately the powersranted !y its charter are liited. -ts ood intentioncannot usti%y the openin %or pu!lic use o% a privatestreet in a private su!division without any leal war

The prootion o% the eneral wel%are is not antithetthe preservation o% the rule o% law. 8dad

IN VIE4 4HEREO, the petition is denied. The (eand Resolution o% the Court o% Appeals in CA=G.R. 8P9B are a%%ired.

THE PROVINCE O BATANGAS, r!'r!"!n&!# Go!rnor, HERMILANDO I. MANDANAS, petitvs. HON. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, E1!u&! S!%n# C+%r%n o &+! O!r"+& Co&&!D!o$u&on? HON. EMILIA BONCODIN, S!rD!'%r&!n& o Bu#!& %n# M%n%!!n&? KOSE D. LINA, KR., S!r!&%r3, D!'%r&!n& o In%n# Lo%$ Go!rn!n&, respondents.

The Province o% #atanas, represented !y its Goerilando -. 0andanas, %iled the present p%or certiorari, prohi!ition and andaus under Rulthe Rules o% Court, as aended, to declaunconstitutional and void certain provisos contai

the General Appropriations Acts &GAA' o% ), 6<6<<), inso%ar as they uni%orly earar$ed %orcorrespondin year the aount o% %ive !illion &PB,<<<,<<<,<<<.<<' o% the -nternal Revenue All&-RA' %or the ;ocal Governent 8ervice F5uali/atio&;G8F4' and iposed conditions %or the release the

?aed as respondents are F2ecutive 8ecretary Al!Roulo, in his capacity as Chairan o% the OvCoittee on (evolution, 8ecretary Filia #oncothe (epartent o% #udet and 0anaeent &(#08ecretary >ose ;ina o% the (epartent o% -nteri;ocal Governent &(-;G'.

#ac$round

On (ece!er 7, )*, then President >oseph FFstrada issued F2ecutive Order &F.O.' ?o. * eWF8TA#;-8-?G A PROGRA0 4OR (FVO;A(>@8T0F?T A?( FL@A;-HAT-O?.X The proraesta!lished to W%acilitate the process o% enhanci















capacities o% local overnent units &;G@s' in thedischare o% the %unctions and services devolved to the!y the ?ational Governent Aencies concernedpursuant to the ;ocal Governent Code.XI)J The OversihtCoittee &re%erred to as the (evolution Coittee inF.O. ?o. *' constituted under 8ection B99&!' o% Repu!licAct ?o. 7)+< &The ;ocal Governent Code o% ))' has!een tas$ed to %orulate and issue the appropriate rulesand reulations necessary %or i ts e%%ectiveipleentation.I6J 4urther, to address the %undinshort%alls o% %unctions and services devolved to the ;G@sand other %undin re5uireents o% the prora, the

W(evolution Adustent and F5uali/ation 4undX wascreated.I9J 4or )*, the (#0 was directed to set aside anaount to !e deterined !y the Oversiht Coittee!ased on the devolution status appraisal surveysunderta$en !y the (-;G.IJ The initial %und was to !esourced %ro the availa!le savins o% the nationalovernent %or CE )*.IBJ 4or ) and the succeedinyears, the correspondin aount re5uired to sustain theprora was to !e incorporated in the annual GAA. I+J TheOversiht Coittee has !een authori/ed to issue theipleentin rules and reulations overnin thee5uita!le allocation and distri!ution o% said %und to the;[email protected]

4he 5)%E. in the ) of +

-n Repu!lic Act ?o. *7B, otherwise $nown as the GAA o%), the prora was renaed as the ;OCA;GOVFR?0F?T 8FRV-CF FL@A;-HAT-O? 4@?(&;G8F4'. @nder said appropriations law, the aounto% P+,7*<,<<<,<<< was allotted as the share o% the ;G@sin the internal revenue ta2es. -te ?o. ), 8pecialProvisions, Title V- A. -nternal Revenue Allotent o%Rep. Act ?o. *7B contained the %ollowin proviso:

... PROV-(F(, That the aount o% 4-VF #-;;-O? PF8O8&PB,<<<,<<<,<<<' shall !e earar$ed %or the ;ocalGovernent 8ervice F5uali/ation 4und %or the %undin

re5uireents o% proects and activities arisin % ro the%ull and e%%icient ipleentation o% devolved %unctionsand services o% local overnent units pursuant to R.A.?o. 7)+<, otherwise $nown as the ;ocal GovernentCode o% )): PROV-(F(, 4@RTFR, That such aountshall !e released to the local overnent units su!ect tothe ipleentin rules and reulations, includin suchechaniss and uidelines %or the e5uita!le allocations

and distri!ution o% said %und aon local overnentunits su!ect to the uidelines that ay !e prescri!ed !ythe Oversiht Coittee on (evolution as constitutedpursuant to #oo$ -V, Title ---, 8ection B99&!' o% R.A. ?o.7)+<. The -nternal Revenue Allotent shall !e releaseddirectly !y the (epartent o% #udet and 0anaeent tothe ;ocal Governent @nits concerned.

On >uly 6*, ), the Oversiht Coittee &with thenF2ecutive 8ecretary Ronaldo #. Haora as Chairan'passed Resolution ?os. OC(==<<9, OC(==<<B andOC(==<<+ entitled as %ollows:

OC(==<<B

RF8O;@T-O? A(OPT-?G TF A;;OCAT-O? 8CF0F4OR TF PhPB #-;;-O? CE ) ;OCA;GOVFR?0F?T 8FRV-CF FL@A;-HAT-O? 4@?(&;G8F4' A?( RFL@F8T-?G -8 FCF;;F?CEPRF8-(F?T >O8FP F>FRC-TO F8TRA(A TO APPROVF8A-( A;;OCAT-O? 8CF0F.

OC(==<<+

RF8O;@T-O? A(OPT-?G TF A;;OCAT-O? 8CF0F4OR TF PhP.< #-;;-O? O4 TF ) ;OCA;

GOVFR?0F?T 8FRV-CF FL@A;-HAT-O? 4@?( A?(-T8 CO?CO0-TA?T GF?FRA; 4RA0FORK,-0P;F0F?T-?G G@-(F;-?F8 A?( 0FCA?-C8 4OR-T8 -0P;F0F?TAT-O? A?( RF;FA8F, A8PRO0@;GATF( #E TF OVFR8-GT CO00-TTFF O?(FVO;@T-O?.

OC(==<<9

RF8O;@T-O? RFL@F8T-?G -8 FCF;;F?CEPRF8-(F?T >O8FP F>FRC-TO F8TRA(A TO APPROVF

TF RFL@F8T O4 TF OVFR8-GT CO00-TTFF O?(FVO;@T-O? TO 8FT A8-(F TF?TE PFRCF?T &6<'O4 TF ;OCA; GOVFR?0F?T 8FRV-CFFL@A;-HAT-O? 4@?( &;G8F4' 4OR ;OCA;

A44-R0AT-VF ACT-O? PRO>FCT8 A?( OTFRPR-OR-TE -?-T-AT-VF8 4OR ;G@s -?8T-T@T-O?A; A?(CAPA#-;-TE #@-;(-?G -? ACCOR(A?CF -T TF-0P;F0F?T-?G G@-(F;-?F8 A?( 0FCA?-C8 A8PRO0@;GATF( #E TF CO00-TTFF.

These OC( resolutions were approved !y then PresidentFstrada on Octo!er +, ).

@nder the allocation schee adopted pursuResolution ?o. OC(==<<B, the %ive !illion pesos was to !e allocated as %ollows:

). The PhP #illion o% the ;G8F4 shall !e allocatein accordance with the allocation schee aipleentin uidelines and echaniproulated and adopted !y the OC(. To wit:

a. The %irst PhP6 #illion o% the ;G8F4 shall !e allocataccordance with the codal %orula sharin schee prescri!ed under the )) ;ocal Governent Code

!. The second PhP6 #illion o% the ;G8F4 shall !e alloin accordance with a odi%ied )6 cost o% devoluti%und &CO(F4' sharin schee, as recoended !yrespective leaues o% provinces, cities and unicipato the OC(. The odi%ied CO(F4 sharin %orula is%ollows:

Province : <Cities : 6<

0unicipalities : <

This is applied to the P6 #illion a%ter the approveaounts ranted to individual provinces, cities anunicipalities as assistance to cover decrease

) -RA share due to reduction in land area hav!een ta$en out.

6. The reainin PhP) #illion o% the ;G8F4 shall earar$ed to support local a%%irative actioproects and other priority initiatives su!itted ;G@s to the Oversiht Coittee on (evolution %approval in accordance with its prescri!ed uidelinas proulated and adopted !y the OC(.

-n Resolution ?o. OC(==<<9, the Oversiht Coset aside the one !illion pesos or 6< o% the ;Gsupport ;ocal A%%irative Action Proects &;AA;G@s. This reainin aount was intended to Wreto the urent need %or additional %unds assisotherwise not availa!le within the paraeters o%

e2istin %und sources.X 4or ;G@s to !e elii!le %or %under the one=!illion=peso portion o% the ;G8F4, thproulated the %ollowin:

---. CR-TFR-A 4OR F;-G-#-;-TE:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/152774.htm#_ftn1
















). ;G@s &province, city, unicipality, or !aranay',individually or !y roup or ulti=;G@s or leaues o% ;G@s,especially those !elonin to the Bth and +th class, ayaccess the %und to support any proects or activities thatsatis%y any o% the a%orecited purposes. A !aranay ayalso access this %und directly or throuh their respectiveunicipality or city.

6. The proposed proectDactivity should !e need=!ased, alocal priority, with hih developent ipact and areconruent with the socio=cultural, econoic anddevelopent aenda o% the Fstrada Adinistration, such

as %ood security, poverty alleviation, electri%ication, andpeace and order, aon others.

9. Flii!le %or %undin under this %und are proects arisin%ro, !ut not liited to, the %ollowin areas o% concern:

a. delivery o% local health and sanitation services, hospitalservices and other tertiary services3

!. delivery o% social wel%are services3

c. provision o% socio=cultural services and %acilities %oryouth and counity developent3

d. provision o% aricultural and on=site related research3

e. iproveent o% counity=!ased %orestry proectsand other local proects on environent and naturalresources protection and conservation3

%. iproveent o% touris %acilities and prootion o%touris3

. peace and order and pu!lic sa%ety3

h. construction, repair and aintenance o% pu!lic wor$sand in%rastructure, includin pu!lic !uildins and %acilities%or pu!lic use, especially those destroyed or daaed !y

an=ade or natural calaities and disaster as well as%acilities %or water supply, %lood control and river di$es3

i. provision o% local electri%ication %acilities3

. livelihood and %ood production services, %acilities ande5uipent3

$. other proects that ay !e authori/ed !y the OC(consistent with the a%oreentioned o!ectives anduidelines3

. F2cept on e2treely eritorious cases, as ay !edeterined !y the Oversiht Coittee on (evolution,this portion o% the ;G8F4 shall not !e used ine2penditures %or personal costs or !ene%its under e2istinlaws applica!le to overnents. Generally, this %undshall cover the %ollowin o!ects o% e2penditures %orproras, proects and activities arisin %ro theipleentation o% devolved and reular %unctions and

services:

a. ac5uisitionDprocureent o% supplies and aterialscritical to the %ull and e%%ective ipleentation o%devolved proras, proects and activities3

!. repair andDor iproveent o% %acilities3

c. repair andDor upradin o% e5uipent3

d. ac5uisition o% !asic e5uipent3

e. construction o% additional or new %acilities3

%. counterpart contri!ution to oint arraneents orcollective proects aon roups o% unicipalities, citiesandDor provinces related to devolution and delivery o%!asic services.

B. To !e elii!le %or %undin, an ;G@ or roup o% ;G@ shallsu!it to the Oversiht Coittee on (evolution throuhthe (epartent o% -nterior and ;ocal Governents, withinthe prescri!ed schedule and tie%rae, a ;etter Re5uest%or 4undin 8upport %ro the A%%irative Action Proraunder the ;G8F4, duly sined !y the concerned ;G@&s'and endorsed !y cooperators andDor !ene%iciaries, as wellas the duly sined Resolution o% Fndorseent !y therespective 8anunian&s' o% the ;G@s concerned. The;G@=proponent shall also !e re5uired to su!it the

Proect Re5uest &PR', usin OC( Proect Re5uest 4or ?o.=<6, that details the %ollowin:

&a' eneral description or !rie% o% the proect3

&!' o!ectives and usti%ications %or underta$in theproect, which should hihliht the !ene%its to the locality

and the e2pected ipact to the local proraDproearisin %ro the %ull and e%%icient ipleentation o%services and %acilities, at the local levels3

&c' taret outputs or $ey result areas3

&d' schedule o% activities and details o% re5uireent

&e' total cost re5uireent o% the proect3

&%' proponentQs counterpart %undin share, i% any, an

identi%ied source&s' o% counterpart %unds %or the %ullipleentation o% the proect3

&' re5uested aount o% proect cost to !e covered ;G8F4.

4urther, under the uidelines %orulated !y the OvCoittee as contained in Attachent = ResolutiOC(==<<9, the ;G@s were re5uired to identiproects elii!le %or %undin under the one=!illioportion o% the ;G8F4 and su!it the proect prothereo% and other docuentary re5uireents to th%or appraisal. The proect proposals that passe(-;GQs appraisal would then !e su!itted tOversiht Coittee %or review, evaluation

approval. @pon its approval, the Oversiht Cowould then serve notice to the (#0 %or the preparathe 8pecial Allotent Release Order &8ARO' and ?oCash Allocation &?CA' to e%%ect the release o% %undssaid ;G@s.

4he 5)%E. in the ) of 2666

@nder Rep. Act ?o. *7+<, otherwise $nown as the 6<<<, the aount o% P))),77*,<<<,<<< was allotthe share o% the ;G@s in the internal revenue ta2esthe GAA o% ), the GAA o% 6<<< contained a pearar$in %ive !illion pesos o% the -RA %o;G8F4. This proviso, %ound in -te ?o. ), Provisions, Title V-- A. -nternal Revenue Allowas siilarly worded as that contained in the G).

The Oversiht Coittee, in its Resolution ?o.6<<<=<69 dated >une 66, 6<<<, adopted the %o



allocation schee overnin the %ive !illion pesos ;G8F4%or 6<<<:

). The PhP9.B #illion o% the CE 6<<< ;G8F4 shall !eallocated to and shared !y the %our levels o% ;G@s, i.e.,provinces, cities, unicipalities, and !aranays, usin the%ollowin percentae=sharin %orula areed upon and

ointly endorsed !y the various ;eaues o% ;G@s:

4or Provinces 6+or P )<,<<<,<<<4or Cities 69 or *<B,<<<,<<<4or 0unicipalities 9B or ),66B,<<<,<<<4or #aranays )+ or B+<,<<<,<<<

Provided that the respective ;eaues representin theprovinces, cities, unicipalities and !aranays shall drawup and adopt the hori/ontal distri!utionDsharin scheesaon the e!er ;G@s where!y the ;eauesconcerned ay opt to adopt direct %inancial assistance orproect=!ased arraneent, such that the ;G8F4allocation %or individual ;G@ shall !e released directly tothe ;G@ concerned3

Provided %urther that the individual ;G8F4 shares to ;G@sare used in accordance with the eneral purposes anduidelines proulated !y the OC( %or theipleentation o% the ;G8F4 at the local levels pursuantto Res. ?o. OC(==<<+ dated Octo!er 7, ) andpursuant to the ;eauesQ uidelines and echanis asapproved !y the OC(3

Provided %urther that each o% the ;eaues shall su!it tothe OC( %or its approval their respective allocationschee, the list o% ;G@s with the correspondin ;G8F4shares and the correspondin proect cateories i%proect=!ased3

Provided %urther that upon approval !y the OC(, the listso% ;G@s shall !e endorsed to the (#0 as the !asis %or thepreparation o% the correspondin ?CAs, 8AROs, andrelated !udetDrelease docuents.

6. The reainin P),B<<,<<<,<<< o% the CE 6<<< ;G8F4shall !e earar$ed to support the %ollowin initiatives andlocal a%%irative action proects, to !e endorsed to andapproved !y the Oversiht Coittee on (evolution inaccordance with the OC( areeents, uidelines,procedures and docuentary re5uireents:

On >uly B, 6<<<, then President Fstrada issued a0eorandu authori/in then F2ecutive 8ecretaryHaora and the (#0 to ipleent and release the 6.B!illion pesos ;G8F4 %or 6<<< in accordance withResolution ?o. OC(=6<<<=<69.

Therea%ter, the Oversiht Coittee, now under theadinistration o% President Gloria 0acapaal=Arroyo,proulated Resolution ?o. OC(=6<<)=6 entitledWA(OPT-?G RF8O;@T-O? ?O. OC(=6<<<=<69 -? TFA;;OCAT-O?, -0P;F0F?TAT-O? A?( RF;FA8F O4 TFRF0A-?-?G P6.B #-;;-O? ;G8F4 4OR CE 6<<<.X @nderthis resolution, the aount o% one !illion pesos o% the;G8F4 was to !e released in accordance with pararaph )o% Resolution ?o. OC(=6<<<=69, to coplete the 9.B!illion pesos allocated to the ;G@s, while the aount o%).B !illion pesos was allocated %or the ;AAP. owever,out o% the latter aount, P<<,<<<,<<< was to !eallocated and released as %ollows: PB<,<<<,<<< as%inancial assistance to the ;AAPs o% ;G@s3 P67B,9+<,667as %inancial assistance to cover the decrease in the -RA o%;G@s concerned due to reduction in land area3andP7,+9,779 %or the ;G8F4 Capa!ility=#uildin 4und.

4he 5)%E. in the ) of 266+

-n view o% the %ailure o% Conress to enact the eneralappropriations law %or 6<<), the GAA o% 6<<< wasdeeed re=enacted, toether with the -RA o% the ;G@stherein and the proviso earar$in %ive !illion pesosthereo% %or the ;G8F4.

On >anuary , 6<<6, the Oversiht Coittee adoptedResolution ?o. OC(=6<<6=<<) allocatin the %ive !illionpesos ;G8F4 %or 6<<) as %ollows:

0odi%ied Codal 4orula P 9.<<< !illionPriority Proects ).<< !illionCapa!ility #uildin 4und .)<< !illion

P B.<<< !illion

RF8O;VF( 4@RTFR, that the P9.< # o% the CE 6<<);G8F4 which is to !e allocated accordin to the odi%iedcodal %orula shall !e released to the %our levels o% ;G@s,i.e., provinces, cities, unicipalities and !aranays, as%ollows:

;G@s Percentae Aount

Provinces 6B P <.7B< !illion Cities 6B <.7B< 0unicipalities 9B ).<B< #aranays )B <.B< )<< P 9.<<< !illion

RF8O;VF( 4@RTFR, that the P). # earar$ed %orpriority proects shall !e distri!uted accordin to th%ollowin criteria:

).< 4or proects o% the th, Bth and +th class ;G@s3

6.< Proects in consonance with the PresidentQs 8tatthe ?ation Address &8O?A'Dsuit coitents.

RF8O;VF( 4@RTFR, that the reainin P)<< illio;G8F4 capa!ility !uildin %und shall !e distri!uted iaccordance with the recoendation o% the ;eaueProvinces, Cities, 0unicipalities and #aranays, andapproved !y the OC(.

@pon receipt o% a copy o% the a!ove resolution0andanas wrote to the individual e!ers Oversiht Coittee see$in the reconsideratResolution ?o. OC(=6<<6=<<). e also wrote to0acapaal=Arroyo urin her to disapprove

resolution as it violates the Constitution and theGovernent Code o% )).

On >anuary 6B, 6<<6, Pres. 0acapaal=Arroyo apResolution ?o. OC(=6<<6=<<).

The PetitionerQs Case

The petitioner now coes to this Court assailunconstitutional and void the provisos in the GA), 6<<< and 6<<), relatin to the ;G8F4. 8iassailed are the Oversiht CoitteeQs ResolutionOC(==<<9, OC(==<<B, OC(==<<+, OC(=6<<

OC(=6<<)=<6 and OC(=6<<6=<<) issued puthereto. The petitioner su!its that the assailed pin the GAAs and the OC( resolutions, inso%ar aearar$ed the aount o% %ive !illion pesos o% thethe ;G@s %or ), 6<<< and 6<<) %or the ;G8Fiposed conditions %or the release thereo%, violaConstitution and the ;ocal Governent Code o% )



8ection +, Article o% the Constitution is invo$ed as itandates that the Wust shareX o% the ;G@s shall !eautoatically released to the. 8ections )* and 6*+ o%the ;ocal Governent Code o% )), which enoin thatthe Wust shareX o% the ;G@s shall !e Wautoatically anddirectlyX released to the Wwithout need o% %urtheractionX are, li$ewise, cited.

The petitioner posits that to su!ect the distri!ution andrelease o% the %ive=!illion=peso portion o% the -RA,classi%ied as the ;G8F4, to copliance !y the ;G@s withthe ipleentin rules and reulations, includin theechaniss and uidelines prescri!ed !y the OversihtCoittee, contravenes the e2plicit directive o% theConstitution that the ;G@sQ share in the national ta2esWshall !e autoatically released to the.X The petitioneraintains that the use o% the word WshallX ust !e ivena copulsory eanin.

To %urther !uttress this aruent, the petitioner contendsthat to vest the Oversiht Coittee with the authorityto deterine the distri!ution and release o% the ;G8F4,which is a part o% the -RA o% the ;G@s, is an anathea tothe principle o% local autonoy as e!odied in theConstitution and the ;ocal Governent Code o%)). The petitioner cites as an e2aple the e2periencein 6<<) when the release o% the ;G8F4 was lon delayed!ecause the Oversiht Coittee was not a!le toconvene that year and no uidelines were issuedthere%or. 4urther, the possi!le disapproval !y theOversiht Coittee o% the proect proposals o% the ;G@swould result in the diinution o% the latterQs share in the-RA.

Another in%rineent alleed to !e occasioned !y theassailed OC( resolutions is the iproper aendent to8ection 6*B o% the ;ocal Governent Code o% )) on thepercentae sharin o% the -RA aon the ;G@s. 8aidprovision allocates the -RA as %ollows: Provinces 693Cities 693 0unicipalities 93 and #aranays 6<.I*J This %orula has !een iproperly aended orodi%ied, with respect to the %ive=!illion=peso portion o%the -RA allotted %or the ;G8F4, !y the assailed OC(resolutions as they invaria!ly provided %or a di%%erentsharin schee.

The odi%ications alleedly constitute an illealaendent !y the e2ecutive !ranch o% a su!stantivelaw. 0oreover, the petitioner entions that in the ;etterdated (ece!er B, 6<<) o% respondent F2ecutive8ecretary Roulo addressed to respondent 8ecretary#oncodin, the %orer endorsed to the latter the release o%

%unds to certain ;G@s %ro the ;G8F4 in accordance "iththe hand"ritten instructions of President rroyo . Thus,the ;G@s are at a loss as to how a portion o% the ;G8F4 isactually allocated. 4urther, there are still portions o% the;G8F4 that, to date, have not !een received !y thepetitioner3 hence, resultin in daae and inury to thepetitioner.

The petitioner prays that the Court declare asunconstitutional and void the assailed provisos relatin tothe ;G8F4 in the GAAs o% ), 6<<< and 6<<) and theassailed OC( resolutions &Resolutions ?os. OC(==<<9,OC(==<<B, OC(==<<+, OC(=6<<<=<69, OC(=6<<)=<6and OC(=6<<6=<<)' issued !y the Oversiht Coitteepursuant thereto. The petitioner, li$ewise, prays that theCourt direct the respondents to recti%y the unlaw%ul andilleal distri!ution and releases o% the ;G8F4 %or thea%oreentioned years and release the sae inaccordance with the sharin %orula under 8ection 6*B o%the ;ocal Governent Code o% )). 4inally, thepetitioner ures the Court to declare that the entire -RAshould !e released autoatically without %urther action!y the ;G@s as re5uired !y the Constitution and the ;ocalGovernent Code o% )).

The RespondentsQ Aruents

The respondents, throuh the O%%ice o% the 8olicitorGeneral, ure the Court to disiss the petition onprocedural and su!stantive rounds. On the latter, therespondents contend that the assailed provisos in theGAAs o% ), 6<<< and 6<<) and the assailedresolutions issued !y the Oversiht Coittee are notconstitutionally in%ir. The respondents advance theview that 8ection +, Article o% the Constitution does notspeci%y that the Wust shareX o% the ;G@s shall !edeterined solely !y the ;ocal Governent Code o%)). 0oreover, the phrase Was deterined !y lawX in thesae constitutional provision eans that there e2ists noliitation on the power o% Conress to deterine what isthe Wust shareX o% the ;G@s in the national ta2es. -n

other words, Conress is the ar!iter o% what should !e theWust shareX o% the ;G@s in the national ta2es.

The respondents %urther theori/e that 8ection 6*B o% the;ocal Governent Code o% )), which provides %or thepercentae sharin o% the -RA aon the ;G@s, was notintended to !e a %i2ed deterination o% their Wust shareXin the national ta2es. Conress ay enact other laws,

includin appropriations laws such as the GAAs o%6<<< and 6<<), providin %or a di%%erent s%orula. 8ection 6*B o% the ;ocal Governent C)) was erely intended to !e the Wde%ault shathe ;G@s to do away with the need to deterine an!y law their Wust share.X owever, the ;G@s havested riht in a peranent or %i2ed percentaConress ay increase or decrease the Wust shathe ;G@s in accordance with what it !elieappropriate %or their operation. There is nothin Constitution which prohi!its Conress %ro a$indeterination throuh the appropriations laws.

provisions o% a particular statute, the GAA in this cawithin the constitutional power o% the leislature tothey should !e sustained whether the courts areein the wisdo o% their enactent.

On procedural rounds, the respondents ure the Cdisiss the petition outriht as the sade%ective. The petition alleedly raises %actual which should !e properly threshed out in thecourts, not this Court, not !ein a tri%acts. 8peci%ically, the petitionerQs alleation thatare portions o% the ;G8F4 that it has not, toreceived, there!y causin it &the petitioner' inudaae, is su!ect to proo% and ust !e su!stantithe proper venue, i*e*, the lower courts.

4urther, accordin to the respondents, the petitialready !een rendered oot and acadeic as it no presents a usticia!le controversy. The -RAs %or the), 6<<< and 6<<), have already !een releasethe overnent is now operatin under the!udet. -n support o% this, the respondents su!certi%ications issued !y o%%icers o% the (#0 attesthe release o% the allocation or shares o% the petitiothe ;G8F4 %or ), 6<<< and 6<<). There is, thenothin ore to prohi!it.

4inally, the petitioner alleedly has no leal stand!rin the suit !ecause it has not su%%ered any in%act, the petitionerQs Wust shareX has increased. Pursuant to 8ection 6*B o% the Governent Code o% )), the share o% the provin69. OC( ?os. =<<B, =<<+ and =<<9 aprovinces < o% P6 !illion o% the ;G8F4. OC( ?os<69 and 6<<)=<6 apportioned 6+ o% P9.B !illionprovinces. On the other hand, OC( ?o. 6<allocated 6B o% P9 !illion to the provinces. Thpetitioner has not su%%ered any inury iipleentation o% the assailed provisos in the G), 6<<< and 6<<) and the OC( resolutions.






The Rulin o% the Court

Procedural Issues

#e%ore resolvin the petition on its erits, the Court shall%irst rule on the %ollowin procedural issues raised !y therespondents: &)' whether the petitioner has lealstandin orlocus standi to %ile the present suit3 &6'whether the petition involves %actual 5uestions that areproperly coni/a!le !y the lower courts3 and &9' whetherthe issue had !een rendered oot and acadeic.

4he petitioner has locus standito maintain the present suit

The ist o% the 5uestion o% standin is whether a partyhas Walleed such a personal sta$e in the outcoe o% thecontroversy as to assure that concrete adverseness whichsharpens the presentation o% issues upon which the courtso larely depends %or illuination o% di%%icultconstitutional 5uestions.XIJ Accordinly, it has !een heldthat the interest o% a party assailin the constitutionality

o% a statute ust !e direct and personal. 8uch partyust !e a!le to show, not only that the law or anyovernent act is invalid, !ut also that he has sustainedor is in iinent daner o% sustainin soe direct inuryas a result o% its en%orceent, and not erely that hesu%%ers there!y in soe inde%inite way. -t ust appearthat the person coplainin has !een or is a!out to !edenied soe riht or privilee to which he is law%ullyentitled or that he is a!out to !e su!ected to soe!urdens or penalties !y reason o% the statute or actcoplained o%.I)<J

The Court holds that the petitioner possesses there5uisite standin to aintain the present suit. Thepetitioner, a local overnent unit, see$s relie% in orderto protect or vindicate an interest o% its own, and o% the

other ;G@s. This interest pertains to the ;G@sQ share inthe national ta2es or the -RA. The petitionerQsconstitutional clai is, in su!stance, that the assailedprovisos in the GAAs o% ), 6<<< and 6<<), and theOC( resolutions contravene 8ection +, Article o% theConstitution, andatin the Wautoatic releaseX to the;G@s o% their share in the national ta2es. 4urther, theinury that the petitioner clais to su%%er is the diinution

o% its share in the -RA, as provided under 8ection 6*B o%the ;ocal Governent Code o% )), occasioned !y theipleentation o% the assailed easures. Thesealleations are su%%icient to rant the petitioner standinto 5uestion the validity o% the assailed provisos in theGAAs o% ), 6<<< and 6<<), and the OC( resolutionsas the petitioner clearly has Wa plain, direct and ade5uateinterestX in the anner and distri!ution o% the -RA aonthe ;G@s.

4he petition involves a si!nificant le!al issue

The cru2 o% the instant controversy is whether theassailed provisos contained in the GAAs o% ), 6<<<and 6<<), and the OC( resolutions in%rine theConstitution and the ;ocal Governent Code o%)). This is undou!tedly a leal 5uestion. On the otherhand, the %ollowin %acts are not disputed:

). The earar$in o% %ive !illion pesos o% the -RA%or the ;G8F4 in the assailed provisos in the GAAs o%), 6<<< and re=enacted !udet %or 6<<)3

6. The proulation o% the assailed OC(resolutions providin %or the allocation schees

coverin the said %ive !illion pesos and theipleentin rules and reulations there%or3 and

9. The release o% the ;G8F4 to the ;G@s only upontheir copliance with the ipleentin rules andreulations, includin the uidelines andechaniss, prescri!ed !y the OversihtCoittee.

Considerin that these %acts, which are necessary toresolve the leal 5uestion now !e%ore this Court, are noloner in issue, the sae need not !e deterined !y atrial court.I))J-n any case, the rule on hierarchy o% courtswill not prevent this Court %ro assuin urisdiction overthe petition. The said rule ay !e rela2ed when theredress desired cannot !e o!tained in the appropriate

courts or where e2ceptional and copellincircustances usti%y availent o% a reedy within andcallin %or the e2ercise o% this CourtQs priary urisdiction.I)6J

The crucial leal issue su!itted %or resolution o% thisCourt entails the proper leal interpretation o%constitutional and statutory provisions. 0oreover, the

Wtranscendental iportanceX o% the case, as it neceinvolves the application o% the constitutional princlocal autonoy, cannot !e ainsaid. The nature present controversy, there%ore, warrants the rela2athis Court o% procedural rules in order to resolve th%orthwith.

4he su#stantive issue needs to #e resolvednot"ithstandin! the supervenin! events

Grantin ar!uendo that, as contended !yrespondents, the resolution o% the case had alreadoverta$en !y supervenin events as the -RA, incthe ;G8F4, %or ), 6<<< and 6<<), had alreadyreleased and the overnent is now operatin unew appropriations law, still, there is copellin %or this Court to resolve the su!stantive issue raisthe instant petition. 8upervenin events, wintended or accidental, cannot prevent the Courrenderin a decision i% there is a rave violationConstitution.I)9J Fven in cases where supervenin had ade the cases oot, the Court did not hesiresolve the leal or constitutional issues rais%orulate controllin principles to uide the !encand pu!lic.I)J

Another reason usti%yin the resolution !y this Cothe su!stantive issue now !e%ore it is the rule thatwill decide a 5uestion otherwise oot and acadeis Wcapa!le o% repetition, yet evadin review.X I)BJ GAAs in the coin years ay contain provisos sithose now !ein souht to !e invalidated, and y5uestion ay not !e decided !e%ore another Genacted. -t, thus, !ehooves this Court to cateorical rulin on the su!stantive issue now.

%u#stantive Issue

As earlier intiated, the resolution o% the su!sleal issue in this case calls %or the application o% aiportant constitutional policy and principle, that oautonoy.I)+J -n Article -- o% the Constitution, the 8tae2pressly adopted as a policy that:























8ection 6B. The 8tate shall ensure the autonoy o% localovernents.

An entire article &Article ' o% the Constitution has !eendevoted to uaranteein and prootin the autonoy o%;G@s. 8ection 6 thereo% reiterates the 8tate policy in thiswise:

8ection 6. The territorial and political su!divisions shallenoy local autonoy.

Consistent with the principle o% local autonoy, theConstitution con%ines the PresidentQs power over the ;G@sto one o% eneral supervision.I)7J This provision has !eeninterpreted to e2clude the power o% control. Thedistinction !etween the two powers was enunciatedin Drilon v* 5im:I)*J

An o%%icer in control lays down the rules in the doin o% anact. -% they are not %ollowed, he ay, in his discretion,order the act undone or re=done !y his su!ordinate or heay even decide to do it hisel%. 8upervision does notcover such authority. The supervisor or superintendenterely sees to it that the rules are %ollowed, !ut hehisel% does not lay down such rules, nor does he havethe discretion to odi%y or replace the. -% the rules arenot o!served, he ay order the wor$ done or re=done !utonly to con%or to the prescri!ed rules. e ay notprescri!e his own anner %or doin the act. e has no

udent on this atter e2cept to see to it that the rulesare %ollowed.I)J

The ;ocal Governent Code o% ))I6<J was enacted to%lesh out the andate o% the Constitution.I6)J The 8tatepolicy on local autonoy is apli%ied in 8ection 6 thereo%:

8ec. 6. Declaration of Policy . &a' -t is here!y declaredthe policy o% the 8tate that the territorial and politicalsu!divisions o% the 8tate shall enoy enuine andeanin%ul local autonoy to ena!le the to attain their%ullest developent as sel%=reliant counities and a$ethe ore e%%ective partners in the attainent o%national oals. Toward this end, the 8tate shall provide%or a ore responsive and accounta!le local overnentstructure instituted throuh a syste o% decentrali/ationwhere!y local overnent units shall !e iven orepowers, authority, responsi!ilities, and resources. Theprocess o% decentrali/ation shall proceed %ro the?ational Governent to the local overnent units.

Guided !y these precepts, the Court shall now deterinewhether the assailed provisos in the GAAs o% ), 6<<<and 6<<), earar$in %or each correspondin year theaount o% %ive !illion pesos o% the -RA %or the ;G8F4 andthe OC( resolutions proulated pursuant thereto,transress the Constitution and the ;ocal GovernentCode o% )).

4he assailed provisos in the )s of +7 2666and 266+ and the 8&D resolutions violate theconstitutional precept on local autonomy

8ection +, Article o% the Constitution reads:

8ec. +. ;ocal overnent units shall have a <u"& "+%r!,as #!&!rn!# 23 $%*, in the national ta2es which shall!e %u&o%&%$$3 released to the.

hen parsed, it would !e readily seen that this provisionandates that &)' the ;G@s shall have a Wust shareX inthe national ta2es3 &6' the Wust shareX shall !edeterined !y law3 and &9' the Wust shareX shall !eautoatically released to the ;G@s.

The ;ocal Governent Code o% )), aon its salient

provisions, underscores the autoatic release o% the;G@sQ Wust shareX in this wise:

8ec. )*. Po"er to )enerate and pply Resources. ;ocalovernent units shall have the power and authority toesta!lish an orani/ation that shall !e responsi!le %or thee%%icient and e%%ective ipleentation o% theirdevelopent plans, prora o!ectives and priorities3 tocreate their own sources o% revenue and to levy ta2es,%ees, and chares which shall accrue e2clusively %or theiruse and disposition and which shall !e retained !ythe3 to have a ust share in national ta2es which shall !eautoatically and directly released to the without needo% %urther action3

...

8ec. 6*+. utomatic Release of %hares. &a' The share o%each local overnent unit shall !e released, withoutneed o% any %urther action, directly to the provincial, city,unicipal or !aranay treasurer, as the case ay !e, ona 5uarterly !asis within %ive &B' days a%ter the end o% each

5uarter, and which shall not !e su!ect to any lien ohold!ac$ that ay !e iposed !y the nationalovernent %or whatever purpose.

&!' ?othin in this Chapter shall !e understood todiinish the share o% local overnent units undere2istin laws.

e!sterQs Third ?ew -nternational (ictionary dWautoaticX as Winvoluntary either wholly or to ae2tent so that any activity o% the will is larely neo% a re%le2 nature3 without volition3 echanical3 suestive o% an autoaton.X 4urther, the WautoaticallyX is de%ined as Win an autoatic without thouht or conscious intention.X Wautoatic,X thus, connotes soethin echspontaneous and per%unctory. As such, the ;G@s are5uired to per%or any act to receive the Wust accruin to the %ro the national co%%eephasi/ed !y the ;ocal Governent Code o% )Wust shareX o% the ;G@s shall !e released toWwithout need o% %urther action.X Construin 8ectio% the ;GC, we held in Pimentel7 9r* v* !uirre,I66J viz

8ection o% AO 976 cannot, however, !e upheld. A%eature o% local %iscal autonoy is the automatic relo% the shares o% ;G@s in the ?ational internal

revenue. This is andated !y no less than theConstitution. The ;ocal Governent Code speci%ies%urther that the release shall !e ade directly to thconcerned within %ive &B' days a%ter every 5uarter oyear and Wshall not #e su#$ect to any lien or hold#amay #e imposed #y the national !overnment for"hatever purpose.X As a rule, the ter WSHALLX isword o% coand that ust !e iven a copulsoryeanin. The provision is, there%ore, IMPERATIVE

8ection o% AO 976, however, orders the withholdine%%ective >anuary ), )*, o% )< percent o% the ;G@sWpendin the assessent and evaluation !y the(evelopent #udet Coordinatin Coittee o% theerin %iscal situationX in the country. 8uch

withholdin clearly contravenes the Constitution anlaw. Althouh teporary, it is e5uivalent to a hold!which eans Wsoethin held !ac$ or withheld, o%tteporarily.X ence, the WteporaryX nature o% theretention !y the national overnent does notatter. Any retention is prohi!ited.







http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/132988.HTM













-n su, while 8ection ) o% AO 976 ay !e upheld as anadvisory e%%ected in ties o% national crisis, 8ection thereo% has no color o% validity at all. The latter provisione%%ectively encroaches on the %iscal autonoy o% localovernents. Concededly, the President was well=intentioned in issuin his Order to withhold the ;G@sQ -RA,!ut the rule o% law re5uires that even the !est intentionsust !e carried out within the paraeters o% theConstitution and the law. Verily, lauda!le purposes ust!e carried out !y leal ethods.I69J

The Wust shareX o% the ;G@s is incorporated as the -RA in

the appropriations law or GAA enacted !y Conressannually. @nder the assailed provisos in the GAAs o%), 6<<< and 6<<), a portion o% the -RA in the aounto% %ive !illion pesos was earar$ed %or the ;G8F4, andthese provisos iposed the condition that Wsuch aountshall !e released to the local overnent units su!ect tothe ipleentin rules and reulations, includin suchechaniss and uidelines %or the e5uita!le allocationsand distri!ution o% said %und aon local overnentunits su!ect to the uidelines that ay !e prescri!ed !ythe Oversiht Coittee on (evolution.X Pursuantthereto, the Oversiht Coittee, throuh the assailedOC( resolutions, apportioned the %ive !illion pesos ;G8F4such that:

4or )

P6 !illion = allocated accordin to 8ec. 6*B ;GCP6 !illion = 0odi%ied 8harin 4orula &Provinces <3Cities 6<3 0unicipalities <'P) !illion proects &;AAP' approved !y OC(.I6J

4or 6<<<

P9.B !illion 0odi%ied 8harin 4orula &Provinces 6+3Cities 693 0unicipalities 9B3 #aranays )+'3P).B !illion proects &;AAP' approved !y the OC(.I6BJ

4or 6<<)

P9 !illion 0odi%ied 8harin 4orula &Provinces 6B3Cities 6B3 0unicipalities 9B3 #aranays )B'P). !illion priority proectsP)<< illion capa!ility !uildin %und.I6+J

8ini%icantly, the ;G8F4 could not !e released to the ;G@swithout the Oversiht CoitteeQs priorapproval. 4urther, with respect to the portion o% the;G8F4 allocated %or various proects o% the ;G@s &P)!illion %or )3 P).B !illion %or 6<<< and P6 !illion %or6<<)', the Oversiht Coittee, throuh the assailedOC( resolutions, laid down uidelines and echanissthat the ;G@s had to coply with !e%ore they could availo% %unds %ro this portion o% the ;G8F4. The uidelinesre5uired &a' the ;G@s to identi%y the proects elii!le %or%undin !ased on the criteria laid down !y the OversihtCoittee3 &!' the ;G@s to su!it their proect proposals

to the (-;G %or appraisal3 &c' the proect proposals thatpassed the appraisal o% the (-;G to !e su!itted to theOversiht Coittee %or review, evaluation andapproval. -t was only upon approval thereo% that theOversiht Coittee would direct the (#0 to release the%unds %or the proects.

To the CourtQs ind, the entire process involvin thedistri!ution and release o% the ;G8F4 is constitutionallyiperissi!le. The ;G8F4 is part o% the -RA or WustshareX o% the ;G@s in the national ta2es. To su!ect itsdistri!ution and release to the vaaries o% theipleentin rules and reulations, includin theuidelines and echaniss unilaterally prescri!ed !y theOversiht Coittee %ro tie to tie, as sanctioned !ythe assailed provisos in the GAAs o% ), 6<<< and 6<<)

and the OC( resolutions, a$es thereleaseno& autoatic, a %larant violation o% theconstitutional and statutory andate that the Wust shareXo% the ;G@s Wshall !e autoatically released to the.X

The ;G@s are, thus, placed at the ercy o% the OversihtCoittee.

here the law, the Constitution in this case, is clear anduna!iuous, it ust !e ta$en to ean e2actly what itsays, and courts have no choice !ut to see to it that theandate is o!eyed.I67J 0oreover, as correctly posited !ythe petitioner, the use o% the word WshallX connotes aandatory order. -ts use in a statute denotes aniperative o!liation and is inconsistent with the idea o%discretion.I6*J

-ndeed, the Oversiht Coittee e2ercisin discretion,even control, over the distri!ution and release o% aportion o% the -RA, the ;G8F4, is an anathea to andsu!versive o% the principle o% local autonoy ase!odied in the Constitution. 0oreover, it %inds nostatutory !asis at all as the Oversiht Coittee wascreated erely to %orulate the rules and reulations %orthe e%%icient and e%%ective ipleentation o% the ;ocal

Governent Code o% )) to ensure Wcopliance wprinciples o% local autonoy as de%ined undConstitution.XI6J -n %act, its creation was placed undtitle o% WTransitory Provisions,X sini%yin hoc character. Accordin to 8enator A5uilino L. Pithe principal author and sponsor o% the !ill that eve!ecae Rep. Act ?o. 7)+<, the CoitteeQs wosupposed to !e done a year %ro the approval Code, or on Octo!er )<, )6.I9<J The OvCoitteeQs authority is undou!tedly liited ipleentation o% the ;ocal Governent Code o%not to supplant or su!vert the sae. ?either

e2ercise control over the -RA, or even a portion therthe ;G@s.

That the autoatic release o% the -RA was printended to uarantee and proote local autono!e leaned %ro the discussion !elow !etween 0

>ose ?. ?olledo and Realado 0. 0aa!one!ers o% the )*+ Constitutional Coission, to

0R. 0AA0#O?G. @n%ortunately, under 8ection )* ;ocal Governent Code, the e2istence o% su!provinstill ac$nowleded !y the law, !ut the stateent o% Gentlean on this point will have to !e ta$en up pro!y the Coittee on ;eislation. A second point, 0Presidin O%%icer, is that under Article 6, 8ection )< )79 Constitution, we have a provision which states

The 8tate shall uarantee and proote the autonolocal overnent units, especially the !arrio, to instheir %ullest developent as sel%=reliant counitie

This provision no loner appears in the presentcon%iuration3 does this ean that the concept o% local autonoy to local overnents is no loner adas %ar as this Article is concernedN

0R. ?O;;F(O. ?o. -n the report o% the Coittee Prea!le, ?ational Territory, and (eclaration o%Principles, that concept is included and widened upinitiative o% Coissioner #ennaen.

0R. 0AA0#O?G. Than$ you %or that.

ith reard to 8ection +, sources o% revenue, the cro% sources as provided !y previous law was Wsu!ecliitations as ay !e provided !y law,X !ut now, weusin the ter Wsu!ect to such uidelines as ay !





















%i2ed !y law.X -n 8ection 7, ention is ade a!out theWuni5ue, distinct and e2clusive chares andcontri!utions,X and in 8ection *, we tal$ a!outWe2clusivity o% local ta2es and the share in the nationalwealth.X -ncidentally, - was one o% the authors o% thisprovision, and - a very than$%ul. (oes this indicate localautonoy, or was the wordin o% the law chaned to iveore autonoy to the local overnent unitsNI9)J

0R. ?O;;F(O. Ees. -n e%%ect, those words indicate alsoWdecentrali/ationX !ecause local political units can collectta2es, %ees and chares su!ect erely to uidelines, as

recoended !y the leaue o% overnors and cityayors, with who - had a dialoue %or alost twohours. They told e that liitations ay !e 5uestiona!lein the sense that Conress ay liit and in e%%ect denythe riht later on.

0R. 0AA0#O?G. Also, this provision on Wautoaticrelease o% national ta2 shareX points to ore localautonoy. -s this the intentionN

0R. ?O;;F(O. Ees, the Coissioner is per%ectly riht.I96J

The concept o% local autonoy was e2plained in )anzonv* &ourt of ppealsI99J in this wise:

As the Constitution itsel% declares, local autonoy Yeansa ore responsive and accounta!le local overnentstructure instituted throuh a syste o% decentrali/ation.Q

The Constitution, as we o!served, does nothin orethan to !rea$ up the onopoly o% the nationalovernent over the a%%airs o% local overnents and asput !y political adherents, to Wli!erate the localovernents %ro the iperialis o% 0anila.X Autonoy,however, is not eant to end the relation o% partnershipand interdependence !etween the central adinistrationand local overnent units, or otherwise, to usher in areie o% %ederalis. The Charter has not ta$en such aradical step. ;ocal overnents, under the Constitution,are su!ect to reulation, however liited, and %or no

other purpose than precisely, al!eit parado2ically, toenhance sel%=overnent.

As we o!served in one case, decentrali/ation eansdevolution o% national adinistration !ut not power tothe local levels. Thus:

?ow, autonoy is either decentrali/ation o%adinistration or decentrali/ation o% power. There isdecentrali/ation o% adinistration when the centralovernent deleates adinistrative powers to politicalsu!divisions in order to !roaden the !ase o% overnentpower and in the process to a$e local overnentsYore responsive and accounta!leQ and Yensure their%ullest developent as sel%=reliant counities and a$ethe ore e%%ective partners in the pursuit o% nationaldevelopent and social proress.Q At the sae tie, itrelieves the central overnent o% the !urden o%anain local a%%airs and ena!les it to concentrate on

national concerns. The President e2ercises YeneralsupervisionQ over the, !ut only to Yensure that locala%%airs are adinistered accordin to law.Q e has nocontrol over their acts in the sense that he can su!stitutetheir udents with his own.

(ecentrali/ation o% power, on the other hand, involves ana!dication o% political power in the IsicJ %avor o% localovernents IsicJ units declared to !e autonoous. -nthat case, the autonoous overnent is %ree to chart itsown destiny and shape its %uture with iniuintervention %ro central authorities. Accordin to aconstitutional author, decentrali/ation o% power aountsto Ysel%=iolation,Q since in that event, the autonoousovernent !ecoes accounta!le not to the centralauthorities !ut to its constituency.I9J

;ocal autonoy includes !oth adinistrative and %iscalautonoy. The %airly recent case o% Pimentel v*

!uirreI9BJ is particularly instructive. The Court declaredtherein that local %iscal autonoy includes the power o%the ;G@s to, inter alia, allocate their resources inaccordance with their own priorities:

@nder e2istin law, local overnent units, in addition tohavin adinistrative autonoy in the e2ercise o% their%unctions, enoy %iscal autonoy as well. 4iscal autonoyeans that local overnents have the power to createtheir own sources o% revenue in addition to their e5uita!leshare in the national ta2es released !y the nationalovernent, as well as the power to allocate their

resources in accordance with their own priorities. -te2tends to the preparation o% their !udets, and localo%%icials in turn have to wor$ within the constraintsthereo%. They are not %orulated at the national level andiposed on local overnents, whether they are relevantto local needs and resources or not ...I9+J

4urther, a !asic %eature o% local %iscal autonoyconstitutionally andated automatic release oshares o% ;G@s in the national internal revenue.I97J

4ollowin this ratiocination, the Court in Pimenteldown as unconstitutional 8ection o% AdinisOrder &A.O.' ?o. 976 which ordered the withhe%%ective >anuary ), )*, o% ten percent o% the ;GWpendin the assessent and evaluation !(evelopent #udet Coordinatin Coittee eerin %iscal situation.X

-n li$e anner, the assailed provisos in the GAAs o%

6<<< and 6<<), and the OC( resolutions constWwithholdinX o% a portion o% the -RA. They put othe distri!ution and release o% the %ive !illion pesosand su!ect the sae to the ipleentin rulereulations, includin the uidelines and echprescri!ed !y the Oversiht Coittee %ro titie. ;i$e 8ection o% A.O. 976, the assailed provthe GAAs o% ), 6<<< and 6<<) and theresolutions e%%ectively encroach on the %iscal autenoyed !y the ;G@s and ust !e struc$ downcannot, there%ore, !e upheld.

4he assailed provisos in the )s of +7 2666and 266+ and the 8&D resolutions cannot amend

%ection 23- of the 5ocal )overnment &ode of ++

8ection 6*I9*J o% the ;ocal Governent Code prthat, !einnin the third year o% its e%%ectivity, theshare in the national internal revenue ta2es sh<. This percentae is %i2ed and ay not !e ree2cept Win the event the national overnent incunanaea!le pu!lic sector de%icit" and onlycopliance with strinent re5uireents set %orth sae section:

8ec. 6*. ...

Provided, That in the event that the national overn

incurs an unanaea!le pu!lic sector de%icit, thePresident o% the Philippines is here!y authori/ed, uprecoendation o% 8ecretary o% 4inance, 8ecretary-nterior and ;ocal Governent and 8ecretary o% #udand 0anaeent, and su!ect to consultation with tpresidin o%%icers o% !oth ouses o% Conress and thpresidents o% the lia, to a$e the necessary adust



















in the internal revenue allotent o% local overnentunits !ut in no case shall the allotent !e less than thirtypercent &9<' o% the collection o% the national internalrevenue ta2es o% the third %iscal year precedin thecurrent %iscal year3 Provided, further That in the %irst yearo% the e%%ectivity o% this Code, the local overnent unitsshall, in addition to the thirty percent &9<' internalrevenue allotent which shall include the cost o%devolved %unctions %or essential pu!lic services, !eentitled to receive the aount e5uivalent to the cost o%devolved personnel services.

Thus, %ro the a!ove provision, the only possi!lee2ception to the andatory autoatic release o% the;G@sQ -RA is i% the national internal revenue collections %orthe current %iscal year is less than < percent o% thecollections o% the precedin third %iscal year, in whichcase what should !e autoatically released shall !e aproportionate aount o% the collections %or the current%iscal year. The adustent ay even !e ade on a5uarterly !asis dependin on the actual collections o%national internal revenue ta2es %or the 5uarter o% thecurrent %iscal year. -n the instant case, however, there isno alleation that the national internal revenue ta2collections %or the %iscal years ), 6<<< and 6<<) have%allen copared to the precedin three %iscal years.

8ection 6*B then speci%ies how the -RA shall !e allocated

aon the ;G@s:

8ec. 6*B. llocation to 5ocal )overnment Units. Theshare o% local overnent units in the internal revenueallotent shall !e allocated in the %ollowin anner:

&a' Provinces Twenty=three &69'&!' Cities Twenty=three percent &69'3&c' 0unicipalities Thirty=%our &9'3 and&d' #aranays Twenty percent &6<'.

owever, this percentae sharin is not %ollowed withrespect to the %ive !illion pesos ;G8F4 as the assailedOC( resolutions, ipleentin the assailed provisos inthe GAAs o% ), 6<<< and 6<<), provided %or a di%%erent

sharin schee. 4or e2aple, %or ), P6 !illion o% the;G8F4 was allocated as %ollows: Provinces <3 Cities 6<3 0unicipalities <.I9J 4or 6<<<, P9.B !illion o% the;G8F4 was allocated in this anner: Provinces 6+3Cities 693 0unicipalities 9B3 #aranays 6+.I<J 4or 6<<), P9 !illion o% the ;G8F4 was allocated, thus:

Provinces 6B3 Cities 6B3 0unicipalities 9B3#aranays )B.I)J

The respondents arue that this odi%ication is allowedsince the Constitution does not speci%y that the WustshareX o% the ;G@s shall only !e deterined !y the ;ocalGovernent Code o% )). That it is within the power o%Conress to enact other laws, includin the GAAs, toincrease or decrease the Wust shareX o% the ;G@s. Thiscontention is untena!le. The ;ocal Governent Code o%)) is a su!stantive law. And while it is conceded thatConress ay aend any o% the provisions therein, itay not do so throuh appropriations laws or GAAs. Any

aendent to the ;ocal Governent Code o% ))should !e done in a separate law, not in theappropriations law, !ecause Conress cannot include in aeneral appropriation !ill atters that should !e oreproperly enacted in a separate leislation.I6J

A eneral appropriations !ill is a special type o%leislation, whose content is liited to speci%ied sus o%oney dedicated to a speci%ic purpose or a separate%iscal unit.I9J Any provision therein which is intended toaend another law is considered an Winappropriateprovision.X The cateory o% Winappropriate provisionsXincludes unconstitutional provisions and provisions whichare intended to aend other laws, !ecause clearly these$inds o% laws have no place in an appropriations !ill. IJ

-ncreasin or decreasin the -RA o% the ;G@s or odi%yintheir percentae sharin therein, which are %i2ed in the;ocal Governent Code o% )), are atters o% eneraland su!stantive law. To perit Conress to underta$ethese aendents throuh the GAAs, as the respondentscontend, would !e to ive Conress the un!ridledauthority to unduly in%rine the %iscal autonoy o% the;G@s, and thus put the sae in eopardy everyyear. This, the Court cannot sanction.

-t is relevant to point out at this uncture that, unli$ethose o% ), 6<<< and 6<<), the GAAs o% 6<<6 and6<<9 do not contain provisos siilar to the hereinassailed provisos. -n other words, the GAAs o% 6<<6 and6<<9 have not earar$ed any aount o% the -RA %or the;G8F4. Conress had perhaps seen %it to discontinue the

practice as it reconi/es its in%irity. ?onetheless, asearlier entioned, this Court has deeed it necessary toa$e a de%initive rulin on the atter in order to preventits recurrence in %uture appropriations laws and that theprinciples enunciated herein would serve to uide the!ench, !ar and pu!lic.

&onclusion

-n closin, it is well to note that the principle oautonoy, while concededly e2pounded in reatein the present Constitution, dates !ac$ to the turncentury when President illia 0cKinley, -nstructions to the 8econd Philippine CoissionApril 7, )<<, ordered the new Governent Wto dtheir attention in the %irst instance to the esta!lishunicipal overnents in which the natives -slands, !oth in the cities and in the rural cou

shall !e a%%orded the opportunity to anae thea%%airs to the %ullest e2tent o% which they are capa!su!ect to the least deree o% supervision and conwhich a care%ul study o% their capacities and o!seo% the wor$ins o% native control show to !e conwith the aintenance o% law, order and loyalty.X IB

the )9B Constitution had no speci%ic article onautonoy, nonetheless, it liited the e2ecutive over local overnents to Weneral supervision ... a!e provided !y law.XI+J 8u!se5uently, the Constitution e2plicitly stated that WItJhe 8tateuarantee and proote the autonoy o%overnent units, especially the !aranay to ensur%ullest developent as sel%=reliant counitiesentire article on ;ocal Governent was incorptherein. The present Constitution, as earlier opine

!roadened the principle o% local autonoy. Tsections in Article thereo% ar$edly increaspowers o% the local overnents in order to accothe oal o% a ore eanin%ul local autonoy.

-ndeed, the value o% local overnents as institutdeocracy is easured !y the deree o% autonothey enoy.I*J As elo5uently put !y 0. (e Toc5uedistinuished 4rench political writer, WIlJocal asseo% citi/ens constitute the strenth o% %ree n

Township eetins are to li!erty what priary sare to science3 they !rin it within the peopleQs they teach en how to use and enoy it. A natioesta!lish a syste o% %ree overnents !ut withospirit o% unicipal institutions, it cannot have the sli!erty.XIJ

Our national o%%icials should not only coply wiconstitutional provisions on local autonoy !ut also appreciate the spirit and li!erty upon whichprovisions are !ased.IB<J

4HEREORE, the petition is GRA?TF(. The aprovisos in the General Appropriations Acts o% )

























and 6<<), and the assailed OC( Resolutions, are declared@?CO?8T-T@T-O?A;.

SULTAN OSOP B. CAMID, petitioner , vs. THE OICEO THE PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT O THE INTERIORAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AUTONOMOUS REGIONIN MUSLIM MINDANAO, DEPARTMENT o INANCE,DEPARTMENT o BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT,COMMISSION ON AUDIT, %n# &+! CONGRESS O THEPHILIPPINES (HOUSE o REPRESENTATIVES ANDSENATE),respondents.

D E C I S I O NTINGA, J.:

This Petition for &ertiorari presents this Court with theprospect o% our own (ri!adoonI)J—the unicipality o%Andon, ;anao del 8urZwhich li$e its counterpart in%ildo, is a town that is not supposed to e2ist yet isanyway insisted !y soe as actually alive and thrivin.

Eet unli$e in the ovies, there is nothin ystical,hostly or anythin even reotely charin a!out thepurported e2istence o% Andon. The creation o% theputative unicipality was declared void a# initio !y thisCourt %our decades ao, !ut the present petition insiststhat in spite o% this insurounta!le o!stacle Andonthrives on, and hence, its leal personality should !e

iven udicial a%%iration. e disaree.

The %actual antecedents derive %ro the proulation o%our rulin in Pelaez v* uditor )eneralI6J in )+B. Asdiscussed therein, then President (iosdado 0acapaalissued several F2ecutive OrdersI9J creatin thirty=three&99' unicipalities in 0indanao. Aon the was Andonin ;anao del 8ur which was created !y virtue o% F2ecutiveOrder ?o. )<7.IJ

These e2ecutive orders were issued a%ter leislative !ills%or the creation o% unicipalities involved in that case had%ailed to pass Conress.IBJ President (iosdado 0acapaal

usti%ied the creation o% these unicipalities citin hispowers under 8ection +* o% the Revised AdinistrativeCode. Then Vice=President Fanuel Pelae/ %iled a

special civil action %or a writ o% prohi!ition, allein inain that the F2ecutive Orders were null and void,8ection +* havin !een repealed !y Repu!lic Act ?o.697<,I+J and said orders constitutin an undue deleationo% leislative power.I7J

A%ter due deli!eration, the Court unaniously held thatthe challened F2ecutive Orders were null and void. A

aority o% %ive ustices, led !y the ponente, >ustice &laterChie% >ustice' Ro!erto Concepcion, ruled that 8ection +*o% the Revised Adinistrative Code did not eet the well=settled re5uireents %or a valid deleation o% leislativepower to the e2ecutive !ranch,I*J while three usticesopined that the nullity o% the issuances was theconse5uence o% the enactent o% the )9B Constitution,which reduced the power o% the Chie% F2ecutive over localovernents.IJ Pelaez was disposed in this wise:

FRF4ORF, the F2ecutive Orders in 5uestion aredeclared null and void a# initio and the respondent

peranently restrained %ro passin in audit anye2penditure o% pu!lic %unds in ipleentation o% saidF2ecutive Orders or any dis!urseent !y theunicipalities a!ove re%erred to. -t is so ordered.I)<J

Aon the F2ecutive Orders annulled was F2ecutiveOrder ?o. )<7 which created the 0unicipality o% Andon.?evertheless, the core issue presented in the presentpetition is the continued e%%icacy o% the udicial annulento% the 0unicipality o% Andon.

Petitioner 8ultan Osop #. Caid &Caid' representshisel% as a current resident o% Andon, I))J suin as aprivate citi/en and ta2payer whose locus standi Wis o%pu!lic and paraount interest especially to the people o%the 0unicipality o% Andon, Province o% ;anao del

8ur.XI)6J e allees that Andon Whas etaorphosed intoa %ull=!lown unicipality with a coplete set o% o%%icialsappointed to handle essential services %or theunicipality and its constituents,XI)9J even thouh heconcedes that since )+*, no person has !een appointed,elected or 5uali%ied to serve any o% the elective localovernent positions o% Andon.I)J ?onetheless, theunicipality o% Andon has its own hih school, #ureau o%Posts, a (epartent o% Fducation, Culture and 8portso%%ice, and at least seventeen &)7' W!aranay unitsX withtheir own respective chairen. I)BJ 4ro )+ until )76,accordin to Caid, the pu!lic o%%icials o% Andon Whave!een servin their constituents throuh the inialeans and resources with least &sic' honorariu andreconition %ro the O%%ice o% the then %orer President(iosdado 0acapaal.X 8ince the tie o% 0artial ;aw in)76, Andon has alleedly !een ettin !y despite thea!sence o% pu!lic %unds, with the W-nteri O%%icialsXservin their constituents Win their own little ways andeans.XI)+J

-n support o% his clai that Andon reains in e2istence,Caid presents to this Court a &ertification issued !y the

O%%ice o% the Counity Fnvironent and ?Resources &CF?RO' o% the (epartent o% Fnviroand ?atural Resources &(F?R' certi%yin the totarea o% the 0unicipality o% Andon, Wcreated F2ecutive Order ?o. )<7 issued IlastJ Octo)+.XI)7J e also su!its a &ertification issued Provincial 8tatistics O%%ice o% 0arawi City concernipopulation o% Andon, which is peed at %othousand %i%ty nine &),<B' stron. Caidenuerates a list o% overnental aencies and roups that alleedly reconi/e Andon, and noteother unicipalities have recoended to the 8pethe Reional ;eislative Asse!ly %or the iipleentation o% the revival or re=esta!lishAndon.I)*J

The petition assails a &ertification dated 6) ?ov6<<9, issued !y the #ureau o% ;ocal Gove8upervision o% the (epartent o% -nterior andGovernent &(-;G'.I)J The &ertification enueihteen &)*' unicipalities certi%ied as We2istin(-;G records. ?ota!ly, these eihteen &)*' unicipare aon the thirty=three &99', alon with Awhose creations were voided !y this Court in

These unicipalities are 0idaslip, Pitoo, ?aa#ayo in Ha!oana del 8ur3 8iayan and Pres. 0aRo2as in Ha!oana del ?orte3 0asaysay, 8ta.and ?ew Corella in (avao3 #adianan and 0ina in0auin in ;anao del 8ur3 Gloria in Oriental 00aasi in 8aranani3 Kalilanan and ;antap#u$idnon3 and 0aco in Copostela Valley. I6<J

Caid iputes rave a!use o% discretion on the the (-;G Win not classi%yin IAndonJ as a reular eunicipality and in not includin said unicipalityrecords and o%%icial data!ase as IanJ e2istin runicipality.XI6)J e characteri/es such non=classi%as une5ual treatent to the detrient o% Aespecially in liht o% the current reconition iven eihteen &)*' unicipalities siilarly annulled !y o% Pelaez . As appropriate relie%, Caid prays thCourt annul the (-;G &ertificationdated 6) ?ov6<<93 direct the (-;G to classi%y Andon as a Wre2istin unicipality3X all pu!lic respondents, to e

%ull reconition and support to Andon3 the (epart4inance and the (epartent o% #udet and 0anaeto iediately release the internal revenue allotAndon3 and the pu!lic respondents, particular(-;G, to reconi/e the W-nteri ;ocal O%%icialsX o% AI66J

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/161414.htm#_ftn1























































0oreover, Caid insists on the continuin validity o%F2ecutive Order ?o. )<7. e arues that Pelaez hasalready !een odi%ied !y supervenin events consistino% su!se5uent laws and urisprudence. Particularly cited isour Decision in /unicipality of %an :arciso v* ;on*/endez ,I69J wherein the Court a%%ired the uni5ue statuso% the unicipality o% 8an Andres in Lue/on as aWde facto unicipal corporation.XI6J 8iilar to Andon,the unicipality o% 8an Andres was created !y way o%e2ecutive order, precisely the anner which the Court inPelae/ had declared as unconstitutional.0oreover, %an :arciso cited, as Caid does, 8ection6&d' o% the ;ocal Governent Code o% )) as !asis %orthe current reconition o% the ipuned unicipality. Theprovision reads:

8ection 6. Re<uisites for &reation* = 222

&d' 0unicipalities e2istin as o% the date o% the e%%ectivityo% this Code shall continue to e2ist and operate as such.F2istin unicipal districts orani/ed pursuant topresidential issuances or e2ecutive orders and whichhave their respective sets o% elective unicipal o%%icialsholdin o%%ice at the tie o% the e%%ectivity o% &the' Codeshall hence%orth !e considered as reular unicipalities.I6BJ

There are several reasons why the petition ust !edisissed. These can !e !etter discerned upone2aination o% the proper scope and application o%8ection 6&d', which does not sanction the reconition o%

ust any unicipality. This point shall !e %urther e2plained%urther on.

?ota!ly, as pointed out !y the pu!lic respondents,throuh the O%%ice o% the 8olicitor General &O8G', the caseis not a %it su!ect %or the special civil actions o% certiorariand andaus, as it pertains to the de novo appreciationo% %actual 5uestions. There is indeed no way to con%irseveral o% CaidQs astonishin %actual alleationspertainin to the purported continuin operation o%Andon in the decades since it was annulled !y thisCourt. ?o trial court has had the opportunity to ascertain

the validity o% these %actual clais, the appreciation o%which is !eyond the %unction o% this Court since it is not atrier o% %acts.

The iportance o% proper %actual ascertainent cannot!e ainsaid, especially in liht o% the leal principlesovernin the reconition o% de facto unicipalcorporations. -t has !een opined that unicipal

corporations ay e2ist !y prescription where it is shownthat the counity has claied and e2ercised corporate%unctions, with the $nowlede and ac5uiescence o% theleislature, and without interruption or o!ection %orperiod lon enouh to a%%ord title !y prescription.I6+J

These unicipal corporations have e2ercised their powers%or a lon period without o!ection on the part o% theovernent that althouh no charter is in e2istence, it ispresued that they were duly incorporated in the %irstplace and that their charters had !een lost. I67J They areespecially coon in Fnland, which, as well=worthnotin, has e2isted as a state %or over a thousand years.

The reason %or the developent o% that rule in Fnland isunderstanda!le, since that country was settled lon!e%ore the Roan con5uest !y noadic Celtic tri!es,which could have hardly !een e2pected to o!tain aunicipal charter in the a!sence o% a national lealauthority.

-n the @nited 8tates, unicipal corporations !yprescription are less coon, !ut it has !een held thatwhen no charter or act o% incorporation o% a town can !e%ound, it ay !e shown to have claied and e2ercisedthe powers o% a town with the $nowlede and assent o%the leislature, and without o!ection or interruption %orso lon a period as to %urnish evidence o% a prescriptiveriht.I6*J

hat is clearly essential is a %actual deonstration o% the

continuous e2ercise !y the unicipal corporation o% itscorporate powers, as well as the ac5uiescence thereto !ythe other instruentalities o% the state. Caid does nothave the opportunity to a$e an initial %actualdeonstration o% those circustances !e%ore this Court.-ndeed, the %actual de%iciencies aside, CaidQs plaintshould have underone the usual adinistrative auntletand, once that was done, should have !een %iled %irst withthe Court o% Appeals, which at least would have had thepower to a$e the necessary %actual deterinations.CaidQs seein inorance o% the principles o%e2haustion o% adinistrative reedies and hierarchy o%courts, as well as the concoitant preaturity o% thepresent petition, cannot !e countenanced.

-t is also di%%icult to capture the sense and via!ility o%

CaidQs present action. The assailed issuance isthe &ertification issued !y the (-;G. #utsuch &ertification does not pretend to !ear the authorityto create or revalidate a unicipality. Certainly, theannulent o% the &ertification will really do nothin toserve CaidQs ultiate cause the reconition o% Andon.?either does the &ertification even e2pressly re%ute the

clai that Andon still e2ists, as there is nothin docuent that coents on the present staAndon. Perhaps the &ertification is assailed !e%oCourt i% only to present an actual issuance, rather lon=standin ha!it or pattern o% action that cannulled throuh the special civil action o% certiorathe relation o% the &ertification to CaidQs aruent is %orlornly strained.

These dis5uisitions aside, the central issue rewhether a unicipality whose creation !y e2ecutwas previously voided !y this Court ay reconition in the a!sence o% any curati

reipleentin statute. Apparently, the 5uestionever !een decided !e%ore, %an :arciso and its $cases pertainin as they did to unicipalities !ases o% creation were du!ious yet were never unulli%ied. The e%%ect o% 8ection 6&d' o% theGovernent Code on unicipalities such as Awarrants e2planation. #esides, the residents o% Awho !ela!or under the ipression that their towe2ists, uch less those who ay coport theselthe unicipalityQs W-nteri Governent,X would !served !y a rude awa$enin.

The Court can eploy a siplistic approach in rethe su!stantive aspect o% the petition, erely !y pout that the 0unicipality o% Andon never eI6J F2ecutive Order ?o. )<7, which esta!lished A

was declared Wnull and void a# initioX in )+B !Court in Pelaez , alon with thirty=three &99' e2ecutive orders. The phrase Wa# initioX eans W%ro!einnin,XI9<J Wat %irst,XI9)J W%ro inception.XI96J Pelaez was never reversed !y this!ut rather it was e2pressly a%%ired in the o% /unicipality of %an 9oa<uin v* %iva7I99J /unicipa/ala#an! v* (enito7I9J and /unicipality of =apal/oya.I9BJ ?o su!se5uent rulin !y this Court dePelae/ as overturned or inoperative. ?o su!sleislation has !een passed since )+B crea0unicipality o% Andon. Given these %acts, there is any reason to ela!orate why Andon does not e2iduly constituted unicipality.

This ratiocination does not adit to patent leal

and has the additional virtue o% !lessed austerity. 8sweepin adoption ay not !e advisedly approprliht o% 8ection 6&d' o% the ;ocal Governent Coour rulin in /unicipality of %an :arciso, !oth o%adit to the possi!ility o% de facto unicipal corpor





























To understand the applica!ility o% /unicipality of %an:arciso and 8ection 6&!' o% the ;ocal Governent Codeto the situation o% Andon, it is necessary aain toconsider the rai%ications o% our decision in Pelaez .

The einent leal doctrine enunciated in Pelaez was thatthe President was then, and still is, not epowered tocreate unicipalities throuh e2ecutive issuances. TheCourt therein reconi/ed Wthat the President has, %orany years, issued e2ecutive orders creatin unicipalcorporations, and that the sae have !een orani/ed andin actual operation . . . .XI9+J owever, the Courtultiately nulli%ied only those thirty=three &99'

unicipalities, includin Andon, created durin theperiod %ro 8epte!er to 6 Octo!er )+ whosee2istence petitioner Vice=President Pelae/ had speci%icallyassailed !e%ore this Court. ?o pronounceent was adeas to the other unicipalities which had !een previouslycreated !y the President in the e2ercise o% power theCourt deeed unlaw%ul.

Two years a%ter Pelaez was decided, the issue aain caeto %ore in /unicipality of %an 9oa<uin v* %iva.I97J The0unicipality o% ;awian was created !y virtue o%F2ecutive Order ?o. 9+ in )+). ;awian was not one o%the unicipalities ordered annulled in Pelaez . A petition%or prohi!ition was %iled contestin the leality o% thee2ecutive order, aain on the round that 8ection +* o%the Revised Adinistrative Code was unconstitutional.

The trial court disissed the petition, !ut the 8upreeCourt reversed the rulin and entered a new decisiondeclarin F2ecutive Order ?o. 9+ void a# initio. TheCourt reasoned without ela!oration that the issue hadalready !een s5uarely ta$en up and settledin Pelaez which areed with the aruent posed !y thechalleners to ;awianQs validity.I9*J

-n the )+ case o% /unicipality of /ala#an! v* (enito,I9J what was challened is the validity o% the constitutiono% the 0unicipality o% #ala!aan in ;anao del 8ur, alsocreated !y an e2ecutive order, I<J and which, siilar to;awian, was not one o% the unicipalities annulledin Pelaez . This tie, the o%%icials o% #ala!aan invo$ed defacto status as a unicipal corporation in order todissuade the Court %ro nulli%yin action. They alleed

that its status as a de facto corporation cannot !ecollaterally attac$ed !ut should !e in5uired into directlyin an action %or <uo "arranto at the instance o% the 8tate,and not !y a private individual as it was in that case. -nresponse, the Court conceded that an in5uiry into theleal e2istence o% a unicipality is reserved to the 8tate

in a proceedin %or <uo "arranto, !ut only i% the unicipalcorporation is a de facto corporation.I)J

@ltiately, the Court re%used to ac$nowlede #ala!aanas a de facto corporation, even thouh it had !eenorani/ed prior to the CourtQs decision in Pelaez . TheCourt declared void the e2ecutive order creatin#ala!aan and restrained its unicipal o%%icials %roper%orin their o%%icial duties and %unctions.I6J -t citedcon%lictin Aerican authorities on whether a defacto corporation can e2ist where the statute or chartercreatin it is unconstitutional.I9J #ut the CourtQs %inalconclusion was une5uivocal that #ala!aan was not a de

facto corporation.

-n the cases where a de facto unicipal corporation wasreconi/ed as such despite the %act that the statutecreatin it was later invalidated, the decisions could %airly!e ade to rest on the consideration that there was soeother valid law ivin corporate vitality to theorani/ation. ence, in the case at !ar, the ere %act that#ala!aan was orani/ed at a tie when the statute hadnot !een invalidated cannot conceiva!ly a$e it a defacto corporation, as, independently o% the AdinistrativeCode provision in 5uestion, there is no other valid statuteto ive color o% authority to its creation.IJ

The Court did clari%y in /ala#an! that the previous acts

done !y the unicipality in the e2ercise o% its corporatepowers were not necessarily a nullity. IBJ Caid devotesseveral paes o% his petition in citin this point, I+J yet therelevance o% the citation is unclear considerin thatCaid does not assert the validity o% any corporate act o%Andon prior to its udicial dissolution. ?otwithstandin,the Court in /ala#an! retained an ephatic attitude as tothe unconstitutionality o% the power o% the President tocreate unicipal corporations !y way o% presidentialproulations, as authori/ed under 8ection +* o% theRevised Adinistrative Code.

This principle was ost recently a%%ired in )**,in /unicipality of =apalon! v* /oya .I7J The unicipality o%8anto Toas, created !y President Carlos P. Garcia, %ileda coplaint aainst another unicipality, who challened

8anto ToasQs leal personality to institute suit. Aain,8anto Toas had not !een e2pressly nulli%ied !y prior

udicial action, yet the Court re%used to reconi/e its leale2istence. The !lunt !ut siple rulin: W?ow then, asruled in the Pelae/ case supra, the President has nopower to create a unicipality. 8ince I8anto ToasJ has

no leal personality, it can not !e a party to anaction.XI*J

?evertheless, when the Court decided /unicipality:arcisoIJ in )B, it indicated a shi%t i

urisprudential treatent o% unicipalities cthrouh presidential issuances. The 5uesunicipality o% 8an Andres, Lue/on was createdAuust )B !y F2ecutive Order ?o. 9B9 issuPresident Carlos P. Garcia. F2ecutive Order ?o. 9Bnot one o% the thirty=three issuances annulled !y Pe)+B. The leal status o% the 0unicipality o% 8an Awas %irst challened only in )*, throuh a p

%or<uo "arranto %iled with the Reional Trial CoGuaca, Lue/on, which did cite Pelaez as auIB<J The RTC disissed the petition %or lac$ o% caaction, and the petitioners therein elevated the athis Court.

-n disissin the petition, the Court delved in the o% the petition, i% only to resolve %urther dou!t on thstatus o% 8an Andres. -t noted a circustance whichpresent in the case at !ar—that 8an Andres we2istence %or nearly thirty &9<' years !e%ore its lewas challened. The Court did not declare the e2eorder creatin 8an Andres null and void. 8till, actthe preise that the said e2ecutive order was a conullity, the Court noted Wpeculiar circustancesX tto the conclusion that 8an Andres had attaine

uni5ue status o% a Wde %acto unicipal corporationnoted that Pelaez liited its nulli%icatory e%%ect othose e2ecutive orders speci%ically challened tdespite the %act that the Court then could have vee2tended the decision to invalidate 8an Andres as w

This stateent s5uarely contradicts CaidQs ro% %an :arciso that the creation o% 8an Andres, uAndon, had !een declared a coplete nullity sae round o% unconstitutional deleation o% leipower %ound inPelaez .IB9J

The Court also considered the applica!ility o% 86&d'IBJ o% the ;ocal Governent Code o% )clari%ied the iplication o% the provision as %ollows:

F5ually sini%icant is 8ection 6&d' o% the ;ocalGovernent Code to the e%%ect that unicipal distr"orani/ed pursuant to presidential issuances ore2ecutive orders and which have their respective seelective unicipal o%%icials holdin o%%ice at the tiethe e%%ectivity o% &the' Code shall hence%orth !econsidered as reular unicipalities." ?o pretensionunconstitutionality per se o% 8ection 6&d' o% the ;







































Governent Code is pre%erred. -t is dou!t%ul whether sucha prete2t, even i% ade, would succeed. T+! 'o*!r &or!%&! 'o$&%$ "u2#"on" " % un&on o &+!$!"$%&ur!. Conr!"" ## <u"& &+%& *+!n & +%"nor'or%&!# S!&on 776(#) n &+! Co#!. Curativelaws, which in essence are retrospective, and aied ativin "validity to acts done that would have !een invalidunder e2istin laws, as i% e2istin laws have !eencoplied with," are validly accepted in this urisdiction,su!ect to the usual 5uali%ication aainst ipairent o%vested rihts. &Fphasis supplied'IBBJ

The holdin in 8an ?arciso was su!se5uently a%%iredin /unicipality of &andi$ay v* &ourt of ppealsIB+J and/unicipality of 9imenez v* (az IB7J -n &andi$ay , the uridicalpersonality o% the 0unicipality o% Alicia, created in a )e2ecutive order, was attac$ed only !einnin in)*. Pelaez was aain invo$ed in support o% thechallene, !ut the Court re%used to invalidate theunicipality, citin %an :arciso at lenth. The Courtnoted that the situation o% the 0unicipality o% Alicia wasstri$inly siilar to that in %an :arciso3 hence, the townshould li$ewise W!ene%it %ro the e%%ects o% 8ection 6&d'o% the ;ocal Governent Code, and should I!eJconsidered as a reular, de $ure unicipality.X IB*J

The valid e2istence o% 0unicipality o% 8inaca!an, createdin a ) e2ecutive order, was aon the issues raised

in 9imenez . The Court, throuh >ustice 0endo/a, providedan e2pert suation o% the evolution o% the rule.

The principal !asis %or the view that 8inaca!an was notvalidly created as a unicipal corporation is the rulinin Pelaez v* uditor )eneral that the creation o% unicipalcorporations is essentially a leislative atter andthere%ore the President was without power to create !ye2ecutive order the 0unicipality o% 8inaca!an. The rulinin this case has !een reiterated in a nu!er o% cases laterdecided. owever, we have since held that where aunicipality created as such !y e2ecutive order is lateripliedly reconi/ed and its acts are accorded lealvalidity, its creation can no loner !e 5uestioned.-n /unicipality of %an :arciso7 >uezon v* /endez7 %r*, thisCourt considered the %ollowin %actors as havin validatedthe creation o% a unicipal corporation, which, li$e the0unicipality o% 8inaca!an, was created !y e2ecutive ordero% the President !e%ore the rulin in Pelaez v* uditor)eneral: &)' the %act that %or nearly 9< years the validityo% the creation o% the unicipality had never !eenchallened3 &6' the %act that %ollowin the rulin in Pelae/no <uo "arranto suit was %iled to 5uestion the validity o%

the e2ecutive order creatin such unicipality3 and &9'the %act that the unicipality was later classi%ied as a % i%thclass unicipality, orani/ed as part o% a unicipal circuitcourt and considered part o% a leislative district in theConstitution apportionin the seats in the ouse o%Representatives. A!ove all, it was held that whateverdou!t there iht !e as to the de $ure character o% theunicipality ust !e deeed to have !een put to rest !ythe ;ocal Governent Code o% )) &R. A. ?o. 7)+<',[6&d' o% which provides that "unicipal districtsorani/ed pursuant to presidential issuances or e2ecutiveorders and which have their respective sets o% electiveo%%icials holdin o%%ice at the tie o% the e%%ectivity o% thisCode shall hence%orth !e considered as reularunicipalities."

ere, the sae %actors are present so as to con%er on8inaca!an the status o% at least a de %acto unicipalcorporation in the sense that its leal e2istence has !eenreconi/ed and ac5uiesced pu!licly and o%%icially.8inaca!an had !een in e2istence %or si2teen yearswhen Pelaez v* uditor )eneral was decided on (ece!er6, )+B. Eet the validity o% F.O. ?o. 6B* creatin it hadnever !een 5uestioned. Created in ), it was only <years later that its e2istence was 5uestioned and only!ecause it had laid clai to an area that apparently isdesired %or its revenue. This %act ust !e underscored!ecause under Rule ++, [)+ o% the Rules o% Court, a <uo

"arranto suit aainst a corporation %or %or%eiture o% itscharter ust !e coenced within %ive &B' years %rothe tie the act coplained o% was done or coitted.On the contrary, the 8tate and even the 0unicipality o%

>iene/ itsel% have reconi/ed 8inaca!an1s corporatee2istence. @nder Adinistrative Order ?o. 99 dated >une)9, )7* o% this Court, as reiterated !y [9) o% the

>udiciary Reorani/ation Act o% )*< &#. P. #l. )6',8inaca!an is constituted part o% a unicipal circuit %orpurposes o% the esta!lishent o% 0unicipal Circuit TrialCourts in the country. 4or its part, >iene/ had earlierreconi/ed 8inaca!an in )B< !y enterin into anareeent with it reardin their coon !oundary. Theareeent was e!odied in Resolution ?o. 77 o% theProvincial #oard o% 0isais Occidental.

-ndeed 8inaca!an has attained de $ure status !y virtue o%the Ordinance appended to the )*7 Constitution,apportionin leislative districts throuhout the country,which considered 8inaca!an part o% the 8econd (istrict o%0isais Occidental. 0oreover, %ollowin the rulinin /unicipality of %an :arciso7 >uezon v* /endez7 %r .,

6&d' o% the ;ocal Governent Code o% )) ustdeeed to have cured any de%ect in the creation o%8inaca!an.IBJ

4ro this survey o% relevant urisprudence, we can the applica!le rules. Pelaez and its o%%sprin casesthat the President has no power to create unicipyet liited its nulli%icatory e%%ects to the paunicipalities challened in actual cases !e%orCourt. owever, with the proulation o% theGovernent Code in )), the leal cloud was li%tethe unicipalities siilarly created !y e2ecutive ord

not udicially annulled. The de facto status o%unicipalities as 8an Andres, Alicia and 8inaca!areconi/ed !y this Court, and 8ection 6&!' o% theGovernent Code deeed curative whateverde%ects to title these unicipalities had la!ored und

-s Andon siilarly entitled to reconition asfacto unicipal corporationN -t is not. There are edi%%erences !etween Andon and unicipalities s8an Andres, Alicia and 8inaca!an. 0ost proinent%act that the e2ecutive order creatin Andone2pressly annulled !y order o% this Court in )+Bwere to a%%ir AndonQs de facto status !y reasoalleed continued e2istence despite its nulli%icatiowould in e%%ect !e condonin de%iance o% a valid othis Court. Court decisions cannot o!viously los

e%%icacy due to the sheer de%iance !y the arieved.

-t !ears notin that !ased on CaidQs own adisAndon does not eet the re5uisites set %orth !y 86&d' o% the ;ocal Governent Code. 8ection re5uires that in order that the unicipality creae2ecutive order ay receive reconition, theyWhave their respective set o% elective unicipal oholdin o%%ice at the tie o% the e%%ectivity o% ItheGovernentJ Code.X Caid adits that Andonnever elected its unicipal o%%icers at all.incapacity ties in with the %act that Andon was uannulled in )+B. Out o% o!eisance to our rulin inthe national overnent ceased to reconi/e2istence o% Andon, deprivin it o% its share o% the

%unds, and re%usin to conduct unicipal elections void unicipality.

The %ailure to appropriate %unds %or Andon ana!sence o% elections in the unicipality in the ladecades are elo5uent indicia o% the non=reconitthe 8tate o% the e2istence o% the town. The certi%icrelied upon !y Caid, issued !y the (F?R=CF?RO a















?ational 8tatistics O%%ice, can hardly serve the purpose o%attestin to AndonQs leal e%%icacy. -n %act, !oth thesecerti%ications 5uali%y that they were issued upon there5uest o% Caid, Wto support the restoration or re=operation o% the 0unicipality o% Andon, ;anao del8ur,XI+)J thus o!viously concedin that the unicipality isat present inoperative.

e ay li$ewise pay attention to the Ordinanceappended to the )*7 Constitution, which had also !eenrelied upon in 9imenez and %an :arciso. This Ordinance,which apportioned the seats o% the ouse o%Representatives to the di%%erent leislative districts in the

Philippines, enuerates the various unicipalities thatare encopassed !y the various leislative districts.Andon is not listed therein as aon the unicipalitieso% ;anao del 8ur, or o% any other province %or that atter.I+6J On the other hand, the unicipalities o% 8an Andres,Alicia and 8inaca!an are entioned in the Ordinance aspart o% Lue/on,I+9J #ohol,I+J and 0isaisOccidentalI+BJ respectively.

ow a!out the eihteen &)*' unicipalities siilarlynulli%ied in Pelaez !ut certi%ied as e2istin in the(-;G &ertification presented !y CaidN The petition %ailsto ention that su!se5uent to the rul inin Pelaez7 leislation was enacted to reconstitute theseunicipalities.I++J -t is thus not surprisin that the (-;Gcerti%ied the e2istence o% these eihteen &)*'

unicipalities, or that these towns are aon theunicipalities enuerated in the Ordinance appended tothe Constitution. Andon has not !een siilarlyreesta!lished throuh statute. Clearly then, the %act thatthere are valid oranic statutes passed !y leislationrecreatin these eihteen &)*' unicipalities is su%%icientleal !asis to accord a di%%erent leal treatent toAndon as aainst these eihteen &)*' otherunicipalities.

e thus assert the proper purview to 8ection 6&d' o%the ;ocal Governent Code—that it does not serve toa%%ir or reconstitute the udicially dissolvedunicipalities such as Andon, which had !een previouslycreated !y presidential issuances or e2ecutive orders.

The provision a%%irs the leal personalities only o% those

unicipalities such as 8an ?arciso, Alicia, and 8inaca!an,which ay have !een created usin the sae in%ir leal!asis, yet were %ortunate enouh not to have !een

udicially annulled. On the other hand, the unicipalities udicially dissolved in cases such as Pelaez7 %an 9oa<uin7 and /ala#an!, reain ine2istent, unlessrecreated throuh speci%ic leislative enactents, as

done with the eihteen &)*' unicipalities certi%ied !y the(-;G. Those unicipalities derive their leal personalitynot %ro the presidential issuances or e2ecutive orderswhich oriinally created the or %ro 8ection 6&d', !ut%ro the respective leislative statutes which wereenacted to revive the.

And what now o% Andon and its residentsN Certainly,neither Pelaez or this decision has o!literated Andon intoa hole on the round. The leal e%%ect o% the nulli%icationo% Andon in Pelaez was to revert the constituent !arrioso% the voided town !ac$ into their oriinal unicipalities,naely the unicipalities o% ;u!atan, #uti and

Tu!aran.I+7J These three unicipalities su!sist to this dayas part o% ;anao del 8ur, I+*J and presua!ly continue toe2ercise corporate powers over the !arrios which once!eloned to Andon.

-% there is truly a stron ipulse callin %or thereconstitution o% Andon, the solution is throuh theleislature and not udicial con%iration o% void title. -%indeed the residents o% Andon have, all these years,!een overned not !y their proper unicipalovernents !ut !y a rata W-nteri Governent,X thenan e2pedient political and leislative solution is perhapsnecessary. Eet we can hardly sanction the retention o%AndonQs leal personality solely on the !asis o% collectiveanesia that ay have allowed Andon to soehowpretend itsel% into e2istence despite its udicial

dissolution. 0ay!e those who insist Andon still e2istspre%er to reain unpertur!ed in their !liss%ul inorance,li$e the inha!itants o% the cave in PlatoQs %aed alleory.#ut the tie has coe %or the liht to seep in, and %or thepetitioner and li$e=inded persons to awa$en to lealreality.

4HEREORE, the Petition is (-80-88F( %or lac$ o%erit. Costs aainst petitioner.

LEAGUE O CITIES O THE PHILIPPINES (LCP),r!'r!"!n&!# 23 LCP N%&on%$ Pr!"#!n& K!rr3 P.Tr!%"? CITY O CALBAYOG, r!'r!"!n&!# 23 M%3orM!$ S!n!n S. S%r!n&o? %n# KERRY P. TREAS, n+" '!r"on%$ %'%&3 %" T%1'%3!r,Petitioners,

= versus = COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS? MUNICIPALITY OBAYBAY, PROVINCE O LEYTE? MUNICIPALITY OBOGO, PROVINCE O CEBU? MUNICIPALITY OCATBALOGAN, PROVINCE O 4ESTERN SAMAR?

MUNICIPALITY O TANDAG, PROVINCE O SURDEL SUR? MUNICIPALITY O BORONGAN, PROVO EASTERN SAMAR? AND MUNICIPALITY OTAYABAS, PROVINCE O UEZON,

RESOLUTION BERSAMIN, J.:

e consider and resolve the d &autelam /oti

Reconsideration %iled !y the petitioners vis?@?

Resolution proulated on 4e!ruary )B, 6<)).

To recall, the Resolution proulated on 4e!rua

6<)) ranted the /otion for Reconsideration o

respondents presented aainst the Resolution

Auust 6, 6<)<, reversed the Resolution dated A

6, 6<)<, and declared the )+ Cityhood ;aws — Re

Acts ?os. 9*, 9<, 9), 96, 99, 9,

<, <B, <7, <*, <, 9, 9B, 9

) — constitutional.

?ow, the petitioners anchor their d &autelam /ot

Reconsideration upon the priordial round th

Court could no loner odi%y, alter, or ae

udent declarin the Cityhood ;aws unconstit

due to such udent havin lon !ecoe %in

e2ecutory. They su!it that the Cityhood ;aws v

8ection + and 8ection )< o% Article o% the Const

as well as the F5ual Protection Clause.

t > ti ; d A L i !i i l





















The petitioners speci%ically ascri!e to the Court the

%ol lowin errors in its proulation o% the

assailed 4e!ruary )B, 6<)) Resolution, to wit:

- . TF O?ORA#;F CO@RT A8 ?O

>@R-8(-CT-O? TO PRO0@;GATF TF RF8O;@T-O?O4 )B 4F#R@ARE 6<)) #FCA@8F TFRF -8 ?O;O?GFR A?E ACT@A; CA8F OR CO?TROVFR8E TO8FTT;F.--. TF RF8O;@T-O? CO?TRAVF?F8 TF )7

R@;F8 O4 C-V-; PROCF(@RF A?( RF;FVA?T8@PRF0F CO@RT -88@A?CF8. ---. TF RF8O;@T-O? @?(FR0-?F8 TF >@(-C-A;8E8TF0 -? -T8 (-8RFGAR( O4 TF PR-?C-P;F8 O4RF8 >@(-CATA A?( TF (OCTR-?F O4-00@TA#-;-TE O4 4-?A; >@(G0F?T8. -V. TF RF8O;@T-O? FRRO?FO@8;E R@;F( TAT

TF 8-TFF? &)+' C-TEOO( #-;;8 (O ?OTV-O;ATF ART-C;F , 8FCT-O?8 + A?( )< O4 TF)*7 CO?8T-T@T-O?. V. TF 8-TFF? &)+' C-TEOO( ;A8 V-O;ATF

TF FL@A; PROTFCT-O? C;A@8F O4 TFCO?8T-T@T-O? A?( TF R-GT O4 ;OCA;GOVFR?0F?T8 TO A >@8T 8ARF -? TF?AT-O?A; TAF8.

Ru$n

@pon thorouh consideration, we deny the d

&autelam /otion for Reconsideration %or its lac$ o% erit.

I.Pro!#ur%$ I""u!"

ith respect to the %irst, second, and third

assinents o% errors, supra, it appears that the

petitioners assail the urisdiction o% the Court in

proulatin the4e!ruary )B, 6<)) Resolution, claiin

that the decision herein had lon !ecoe %inal and

e2ecutory. They state that the Court there!y violated

rules o% procedure, and the principles o% res $udicata and

iuta!ility o% %inal udents.

The petitioners posit that the controversy on the

Cityhood ;aws ended with the April 6*, 6<< Resolution

denyin the respondentsQ second otion %orreconsideration vis?@?vis the ?ove!er )*, 6<<* (ecision

%or !ein a prohi!ited pleadin, and in view o% the

issuance o% the entry of $ud!ment on 0ay 6), 6<<.

The Court disarees with the petitioners.

-n the April 6*, 6<< Resolution, the Court ruled:

#y a vote o% +=+, the 0otion %or Reconsideration

o% the Resolution o% 9) 0arch 6<< is (F?-F( %orlac$ o% erit. The otion is denied since there isno aority that voted to overturn the Resolutiono% 9) 0arch 6<<.

The 8econd 0otion %or Reconsideration o% the(ecision o% )* ?ove!er 6<<* is (F?-F( %or!ein a prohi!ited pleadin, and the 0otion %or;eave to Adit Attached Petition in -nterventiondated 6< April 6<< and the Petition in-ntervention dated 6< April 6<< %iled !y counsel%or ;udivina T. 0as, et al. are also (F?-F( in viewo% the denial o% the second otion %orreconsideration. ?o %urther pleadins shall !eentertained. ;et entry o% udent !e ade indue course.

>ustice Pres!itero >. Velasco, >r. wrote a (issentinOpinion, oined !y >ustices Consuelo Enares=8antiao, Renato C. Corona, 0inita Chico=?a/ario,

Teresita ;eonardo=(e Castro, and ;ucas P.#ersain. Chie% >ustice Reynato 8. Puno and

>ustice Antonio Fduardo #. ?achura too$ no

part. >ustice ;eonardo A. Luisu!in is on leave.I)J

ithin )B days %ro receipt o% the April 6*

Resolution, the respondents %iled a /otion 4o

Resolution 8f pril 237 266 (y Declarin! Instea

RespondentsA B/otion for Reconsideration 8

Resolution 8f /arch C+7 266 nd B/otion .or 5e

.ile7 nd 4o dmit ttached %econd /otio

Reconsideration 8f 4he Decision Dated :ovem#

2663A Remain Unresolved nd 4o &onduct .

Proceedin!s 4hereon, aruin therein th

deterination o% the issue o% constitutionality o%

Cityhood ;aws upon a otion %or reconsideration

e5ually divided vote was not !indin on the Cou

valid precedent, citin the separate opinion o% then

>ustice Reynato 8. Puno in 5am#ino v* &ommiss

Elections.I6J

Thus, in its >une 6, 6<< Resolution, the Court issu

%ollowin clari%ication o% the April 6*, 6<< Resolutio

As a rule, a second otion %or reconsideration is aprohi!ited pleadin pursuant to 8ection 6, Rule B6o% the Rules o% Civil Procedure which providesthat: W?o second otion %or reconsideration o% a

udent or %inal resolution !y the sae partyshall !e entertained.X Thus, a decision !ecoes%inal and e2ecutory a%ter )B days %ro receipt o%the denial o% the %irst otion %or reconsideration.

Ho*!!r, *+!n % o&on or $!%! &o $!%n# %#& % "!on# o&on orr!on"#!r%&on " r%n&!# 23 &+! Cour&, &+!Cour& &+!r!or! %$$o*" &+! $n o &+!"!on# o&on or r!on"#!r%&on. In "u+% %"!, &+! "!on# o&on or

r!on"#!r%&on " no $on!r % 'ro+2&!# (eclarin -nstead that RespondentsQ Y0otion %or

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/176951.htm#_ftn1








r!on"#!r%&on " no $on!r % 'ro+2&!#'$!%#n. In &+! 'r!"!n& %"!, &+! Cour& o&!# on &+!"!on# o&on or r!on"#!r%&on $!# 23r!"'on#!n& &!". In !!&, &+! Cour&%$$o*!# &+! $n o &+! "!on# o&on orr!on"#!r%&on. T+u", &+! "!on# o&onor r!on"#!r%&on *%" no $on!r %'ro+2&!# '$!%#n. Ho*!!r, or $%@ o&+! r!>ur!# nu2!r o o&!" &o o!r&urn&+! / No!2!r 6 D!"on %n# /M%r+ 60 R!"o$u&on, &+! Cour& #!n!#

&+! "!on# o&on or r!on"#!r%&on n &"6 A'r$ 60 R!"o$u&on.I9J

As the result o% the a%orecited clari%ication, the Court

resolved to e2pune %ro the records several pleadins

and docuents, includin respondentsQ /otion 4o mend

Resolution 8f pril 237 266 etc.

The respondents thus %iled their /otion for

Reconsideration of the Resolution of 9une 27 266,

asseveratin that their /otion 4o mend Resolution 8f

pril 237 266 etc* was not another otion %or

reconsideration o% the ?ove!er )*, 6<<* (ecision,

!ecause it assailed the April 6*, 6<< Resolution with

respect to the tie=vote on the respondentsQ %econd

/otion .or Reconsideration. They pointed out that

the /otion 4o mend Resolution 8f pril 237 266

etc* was %iled on 0ay ), 6<<, which was within the )B=

day period %ro their receipt o% the April 6*, 6<<

Resolution3 thus, the entry of $ud!ment had !een

preaturely ade. They reiterated their aruents with

respect to a tie=vote upon an issue o% constitutionality.

-n the 8epte!er 6, 6<< Resolution,IJ the Court

re5uired the petitioners to coent on the /otion for

Reconsideration of the Resolution of 9une 27 266within

)< days %ro receipt.

As directed, the petitioners %iled their &omment d

&autelam With /otion to Epun!e.

The respondents %iled their /otion for 5eave to .ile and to

dmit ttached BReply to PetitionersA &omment d

&autelam With /otion to Epun!eA X, toether with

the Reply .

On ?ove!er )7, 6<<, the Court resolved to note the

petitionersQ &omment d &autelam With /otion to

Epun!e, to rant the respondentsQ /otion for 5eave to

.ile and dmit Reply to PetitionersA &omment d&autelam "ith /otion to Epun!e, and to note the

respondentsQ Reply to PetitionersA &omment d &autelam

"ith /otion to Epun!e.

On (ece!er 6), 6<<, the Court, resolvin the /otion

4o mend Resolution 8f pril 237 266 etc* and votin

anew on the %econd /otion .or Reconsideration in order

to reach a concurrence o% a aority, proulated its

(ecision rantin the otion and declarin the Cityhood

;aws as constitutional,IBJdisposin thus:

FRF4ORF, respondent ;G@sQ 0otion %orReconsideration dated >une 6, 6<<, their W0otionto Aend the Resolution o% April 6*, 6<< !y

(eclarin -nstead that Respondents 0otion %orReconsideration o% the Resolution o% 0arch 9),6<<Q and Y0otion %or ;eave to 4ile and to AditAttached 8econd 0otion %or Reconsideration o%the (ecision (ated ?ove!er )*, 6<<*Q Reain@nresolved and to Conduct 4urther Proceedins,Xdated 0ay ), 6<<, and their second 0otion %orReconsideration o% the (ecision dated ?ove!er)*, 6<<* areGRA?TF(. The >une 6, 6<<,the 0arch 9), 6<<, and April 9),6<< Resolutions are RFVFR8F( and 8FTA8-(F. The entry o% udent ade on 0ay 6),6<< ust accordinly !eRFCA;;F(.

The instant consolidated petitions and petitions=in=intervention are (-80-88F(. The cityhood laws,naely Repu!lic Act ?os. 9*, 9<, 9),96, 99, 9, 9*, <, <B, <7, <*,<, 9, 9B, 9+, and ) aredeclared VA;-( and CO?8T-T@T-O?A;. 8O OR(FRF(.

On >anuary B, 6<)<, the petitioners %iled an d &au

/otion for Reconsideration aainst the (ece!

6<< (ecision.I+J On the sae date, the petitione

%iled a /otion to nnul Decision of 2+ Decem#er 26

On >anuary )6, 6<)<, the Court directed the respo

to coent on the otions o% the petitioners.I*J

On 4e!ruary , 6<)<, pet

intervenors City o% 8antiao, City o% ;ea/pi, an

o% -ria %iled their separate /anifestations

%upplemental d &autelam /otions for Reconside

IJ 8iilar ani%estations with suppleental otio

reconsideration were %iled !y other petitioner=interv

speci%ically: City o% Cadi/ on 4e!ruary )B, 6<)<3I




















o% #atanas on 4e!ruary )7, 6<)<3I))J and City

o% Oro5uieta on 4e!ruary 6, 6<)<.I)6J The Court re5uired

the adverse parties to coent on the otions.I)9J As

directed, the respondents coplied.

On Auust 6, 6<)<, the Court issued its Resolution

reinstatin the ?ove!er )*, 6<<* (ecision.I)J

On 8epte!er ), 6<)<, the respondents tiely

%iled a /otion for Reconsideration of the BResolution

Dated u!ust 217 26+6.I)BJ They %ollowed this !y %ilin

on 8epte!er 6<, 6<)< a /otion to %et B/otion for

Reconsideration of the ResolutionA dated u!ust 217

26+6 for ;earin!.I)+J On ?ove!er ), 6<)<, the

petitioners sent in their 8pposition F4o the B/otion for

Reconsideration of ResolutionA dated u!ust 217 26+6G.

I)7J

On ?ove!er 9<, 6<)<,I)*J

the Court noted, aonothers, the petitionersQ 8pposition.

On >anuary )*, 6<)),I)J the Court denied the

respondentsQ /otion to %et B/otion for Reconsideration of

the ResolutionA dated u!ust 217 26+6 for ;earin!.

Therea%ter, on 4e!ruary )B, 6<)), the Court issued

the Resolution !ein now challened.

-t can !e leaned %ro the %oreoin that, as the

>une 6, 6<< Resolution clari%ied, the

respondentsQ %econd /otion .or

Reconsideration was not a prohi!ited pleadin in view o%

the CourtQs votin and actin on it havin the e%%ect

o% allo"in! the %econd /otion .or Reconsideration3 and

that when the respondents %iled their/otion for

Reconsideration of the Resolution of 9une 27

266 5uestionin the e2punin o% their /otion 4o

mend Resolution 8f pril 237 266 etc* &which had !een

%iled within the )B=day period %ro receipt o% the April 6*,

6<< Resolution', the Court opted to act on the /otion for

Reconsideration of the Resolution of 9une 27 266 !y

directin the adverse parties throuh its 8epte!er 6,

6<< Resolution to coent. The sae perittin e%%ect

occurred when the Court, !y its ?ove!er )7, 6<<

Resolution, ranted the respondentsQ /otion for 5eave to

.ile and dmit Reply to PetitionersA &omment d

&autelam "ith /otion to Epun!e, and noted the

attached Reply .

0oreover, !y issuin the Resolutions dated 8epte!er

6, 6<< and ?ove!er )7, 6<<, the Court: &a'

rendered ineffective the tie=vote under the Resolution o%

April 6*, 6<< and the ensuin denial o% the /otion for

Reconsideration of the Resolution of /arch C+7 266 %or

lac$ o% a aority to overturn3 &#'7 re=opened the (ecision

o% ?ove!er )*, 6<<* %or a second loo$ under

reconsideration3 and &c' li%ted the directive that no %urther

pleadins would !e entertained. The Court in %act

entertained and acted on the respondentsQ /otion for

Reconsideration of the Resolution of 9une 27 266.

Therea%ter, the Court proceeded to deli!erate anew on

the respondentsQ %econd /otion for Reconsideration and

ended up with the proulation o% the (ece!

6<< (ecision &declarin the Cityhood ;aws val

constitutional'.

-t is also inaccurate %or the petitioners to insi

the (ece!er 6), 6<< (ecision ove

the ?ove!er )*, 6<<* (ecision on the !asis

ereReflections o% the 0e!ers o% the Court. To !ethe Reflections were the leal opinions o% the 0e

and %ored part o% the deli!erations o% the Cou

re%erence in the (ece!er 6), 6<< (ecis

the Reflections pointed out that there was still a p

incident a%ter the April 6*, 6<< Resolution that ha

tiely %iled within )B days %ro its receipt, I6<J purs

8ection )<, Rule B),I6)J in relation to 8ection ), Ru

I66J o% the Rules of &ourt . Aain, the Court did a

deli!erate upon this pendin incident, leadin issuance o% the (ece!er 6), 6<< (ecision &de

the Cityhood ;aws %ree %ro constitutional in%ir

was therea%ter that the Court rendered its Auu

6<)< Resolution &reinstatin the ?ove!er )*,

(ecision', to correct which the respondentsQ/ot

Reconsideration of the BResolution Dated u!u

26+6 was %iled. And, %inally, the Court issued its 4e

)B, 6<)) Resolution, reversin and settin

the Auust 6, 6<)< Resolution.

-t is worth repeatin that the actions ta$en

were ade !y the Court en #anc strictly in acco

with the Rules of &ourt and its internal procedures



























has !een no irreularity attendin or taintin the

proceedins.

-t also relevant to state that the Court has

%re5uently disencu!ered itsel% under e2traordinary

circustances %ro the shac$les o% technicality in order

to render ust and e5uita!le relie%.I69J

On whether the principle o% iuta!ility o% udents

and !ar !y res $udicata apply herein, su%%ice it to state

that the succession o% the events recounted herein

indicates that the controversy a!out the )+ Cityhood

;aws has not yet !een resolved with %inality. As such, the

operation o% the principle o% iuta!ility o% udents

did not yet coe into play. 4or the sae reason is an

adherence to the doctrine o% res $udicata not yet

warranted, especially considerin that the precedentialrulin %or this case needed to !e revisited and set with

certainty and %inality.

II.

Su2"&%n&! I""u!"

The petitioners reiterate their position that the Cityhood

;aws violate 8ection + and 8ection )< o% Article o% the

Constitution, the F5ual Protection Clause, and the riht o%

local overnents to a ust share in the national ta2es.

The Court di%%ers.

Conress clearly intended that the local overnent units

covered !y the Cityhood ;aws !e e2epted %ro the

coverae o% R.A. ?o. <<. The apprehensions o% the

then 8enate President with respect to the considera!le

disparity !etween the incoe re5uireent o% P6< illion

under the ;ocal Governent Code &;GC' prior to its

aendent, and the P)<< illion under the aendent

introduced !y R.A. ?o. << were de%initively articulatedin his interpellation o% 8enator Pientel durin the

deli!erations on 8enate #ill ?o. 6)B7. The then 8enate

President was coni/ant o% the %act that there were

unicipalities that then had pendin conversion !ills

durin the ))th Conress prior to the adoption o% 8enate

#ill ?o. 6)B7 as R.A. ?o. <<,I6J includin the

unicipalities covered !y the Cityhood ;aws. -t is worthy

o% ention that the pertinent deli!erations on 8enate #ill

?o. 6)B7 occurred on Octo!er B, 6<<< while the))th Conress was in session, and the conversion !ills

were then pendin in the 8enate. Thus, the responses o%

8enator Pientel ade it o!vious that R.A. ?o. <<

would not apply to the conversion !ills then pendin

deli!eration in the 8enate durin the ))th Conress.

R.A. ?o. << too$ e%%ect on >une 9<, 6<<), when the

)6th Conress was incipient. #y reason o% the clear

leislative intent to e2ept the

unicipalities covered !y the conversion !ills pendin

durin the ))th

Conress, the ouse o% Representatives adopted >oint

Resolution ?o. 6, entitled 9oint Resolution to Eempt

&ertain /unicipalities Em#odied in (ills .iled in &o

#efore 9une C67 266+ from the covera!e of Repu#

:o* 66. owever, the 8enate %ailed to act o

Resolution ?o. 6. Fven so, the ouse o% Represen

readopted >oint Resolution ?o. 6 as

>oint Resolution ?o. ) durin the )6th Conress,

%orwarded >oint Resolution ?o. ) to the 8ena

approval. Aain, the 8enate %ailed to approveResolution ?o. ).

At this uncture, it is worthwhile to conside

ani%estation o% 8enator Pientel with respect t

Resolution ?o. ), to wit:

0A?-4F8TAT-O? O4 8F?ATOR P-0F?TF;

ouse >oint Resolution ?o. ) see$s toe2ept certain unicipalities see$in conversioninto cities %ro the re5uireent that they usthave at least P)<< illion in incoe o% locallyenerated revenue, e2clusive o% the internalrevenue share that they received %ro the centralovernent as re5uired under Repu!lic Act ?o.<<.

The procedure %ollowed !y the ouse is5uestiona!le, to say the least. The ouse wantsthe 8enate to do away with the incoere5uireent o% P)<< illion so that, en asse,the unicipalities they want e2epted could now%ile !ills speci%ically convertin the intocities. The reason they want the 8enate to do it%irst is that Con. (odo 0acias, chair o% the ouseCoittee on ;ocal Governents, - a told, will

not entertain any !ill %or the conversion o%unicipalities into cities unless the issue o%incoe re5uireent is %irst hurdled. The ouseleadership there%ore wants to shi%t the !urden o%e2eptin certain unicipalities %ro the incoere5uireent to the 8enate rather than do it itsel%.

That is ost unusual !ecause, in e%%ect, the %n#, &+!3 *%n& &o %@! !r&%n








, ,ouse wants the 8enate to pass a !lan$etresolution that would 5uali%y the unicipalitiesconcerned %or conversion into cities on the attero% incoe alone. Then, at a later date, the ousewould pass speci%ic !ills convertin theunicipalities into cities. owever, incoe is notonly the re5uireent %or unicipalities to !ecoecities. There are also the re5uireents onpopulation and land area.

-n e%%ect, the ouse wants the 8enate totac$le the 5uali%ication o% the unicipalities they

want converted into cities pieceeal andseparately, %irst is the incoe under the ointresolution, then the other re5uireents when the!ills are %ile to convert speci%ic unicipalities intocities. To repeat, this is a ost unusual annero% creatin cities.

0y respect%ul suestion is %or the 8enate tore5uest the ouse to do what they want to doreardin the applications o% certainunicipalities to !ecoe cities pursuant to there5uireents o% the ;ocal Governent Code. -%the ouse wants to e2ept certain unicipalities%ro the re5uireents o% the ;ocal GovernentCode to !ecoe cities, !y all eans, let the dotheir thin. 8peci%ically, they should act onspeci%ic !ills to create cities and cite the reasonswhy the unicipalities concerned are 5uali%ied to!ecoe cities. Only a%ter the ouse shall havecopleted what they are e2pected to do underthe law would it !e proper %or the 8enate to acton speci%ic !ills creatin cities.

-n other words, the ouse should !ere5uested to %inish everythin that needs to !edone in the atter o% convertin unicipalitiesinto cities and not do it pieceeal as they arenow tryin to do under the oint resolution.

-n y lon years in the 8enate, this is the%irst tie that a resort to this su!ter%ue is !ein

underta$en to %avor the creation o% certaincities. I % no& "%3n &+%& &+!3 %r! no&>u%$!#. A$$ I % "%3n ", &+! Hou"!*%n&" &o '%"" %n# r!%&! &!" ou& o!r&%n un'%$&!", 23 %$$ !%n" $!& &+!#o &+%&. Bu& &+!3 "+ou$# #o & o$$o*n &+!r!>ur!!n&" o &+! Lo%$ Go!rn!n& Co#!

, 3!1!'&on", &+!3 %n %$"o #o &+%& &oo. Bu&&+!3 "+ou$# no& u"! &+! S!n%&! %" % '$o3 &o!& &+n" #on! *++ &+!3 &+!"!$!""+ou$# #o.

-ncidentally, - have recoended this odeo% action ver!ally to soe leaders o% theouse. ad they %ollowed the recoendation,%or all - $now, the unicipalities they hadenvisioned to !e covered !y ouse >ointResolution ?o. ) would, !y now i% not all, atleast soe have !een converted into

cities. ouse >oint Resolution ?o. ), the ouse, ine%%ect, caused the delay in the approval in theapplications %or cityhood o% the unicipalitiesconcerned.

;astly, - do not have an aendent toouse >oint Resolution ?o. ). hat - asuestin is %or the 8enate to re5uest the ouseto %ollow the procedure outlined in the ;ocalGovernent Code which has !een respected allthrouh the years. #y doin so, we uphold therule o% lawand inii/e the possi!ilities o% power play in theapproval o% !ills convertin unicipalities intocities.I6+J

Therea%ter, the conversion !ills o% the respondents

were individually

%iled in the ouse o% Representatives, and were all

unaniously and

%avora!ly voted upon !y the 0e!ers o% the ouse o%

Representatives.I67J The !ills, when %orwarded to the

8enate, were li$ewise unaniously approved !y the

8enate.I6*J The acts o% !oth Cha!ers o% Conress show

that the e2eption clauses ultiately incorporated in the

Cityhood ;aws are !ut the e2press articulations o% the

clear leislative intent to e2ept the

respondents, "ithout eception, %ro the cover

R.A. ?o. <<. There!y, R.A. ?o. <<, and, !y nec

the ;GC, were aended, not !y repeal !ut !y way

e2press e2eptions !ein e!odied in the e2e

clauses.

The petitioners %urther contend that the

incoe re5uireent o% P)<< illion %ro enerated sources is not ar!itrary !ecause it

di%%icult to coply with3 that there are s

unicipalities that have already coplied wi

re5uireent and have, in %act, !een converted into

such as 8ta. Rosa in ;auna &R.A. ?o 6+', ?avota

?o. 9*7' and 8an >uan &R.A. ?o. 9**' in 0etro 0

(asari\as in Cavite &R.A. ?o. 769', and #i

;auna &R.A. ?o. 7<'3 and that several

unicipalities have supposedly reached the io% P)<< illion %ro locally enerated sources, s

#auan in #atanas, 0a!alacat in Papana, and

in Cavite.

The contention o% the petitioners doe

persuade.

As indicated in the Resolution o% 4e!ruary )B, 6<))

nine &B' e2istin cities had %ailed as o% 6<<+ to p

averae annual incoe o% P)<< illion !ased o

%iures contained in the certi%ication dated (ece

6<<* !y the #ureau o% ;ocal Governent. The

nu!er o% e2istin cities, virtually B< o% the

!l t l ith th P)<< illi th h ld iS!n%&or P!n&!$. -n %act, 0r. President, the S!n%&or O"!% III. 0r. President, - will not










una!le to coply with the P)<< illion threshold incoe

%ive years a%ter R.A. ?o. << too$ e%%ect renders it

%allacious and pro!a!ly unwarranted %or the petitioners to

clai that the P)<< illion incoe re5uireent is not

di%%icult to coply with.

-n this reard, the deli!erations on 8enate #ill ?o.

6)B7 ay prove enlihtenin, thus: S!n%&or O"!% III. And could the entleanhelp clari%y why a unicipality would want to !econverted into a cityN S!n%&or P!n&!$. There is only one reason,0r. President, and it is not hidden. -t is the %actthat once converted into a city, the unicipalitywill have rouhly ore than three ties the sharethat it would !e receivin over the internalrevenue allotent than it would have i% it were toreain a unicipality. 8o ore or less threeties or ore.

S!n%&or O"!% III. -s it the additional %undinthat they will !e a!le to enoy %ro a larer share%ro the internal revenue allocationsN S!n%&or P!n&!$. Ees, 0r. President. S!n%&or O"!% III. ?ow, could the entleanclari%y, 0r. President, why in the oriinal Repu!licAct ?o. 7)+<, $nown as the ;ocal GovernentCode o% )), such a wide ap was ade!etween a unicipality—what a unicipalitywould earn—and a cityN #ecause essentially, to apersonQs ind, even with this new re5uireent, i%approved !y Conress, i% a unicipality is earninP)<< illion and has a population o% ore than)B<,<<< inha!itants !ut has less than )<< s5uare

$iloeters, it would not 5uali%y as a city. S!n%&or P!n&!$. Ees. S!n%&or O"!% III. ?ow would that not !e5uite ar!itrary on the part o% the unicipalityN

ouse version restores the WorX. 8o, this is aatter that we can very well ta$e up as a policyissue. The chair o% the coittee does not saythat we should, as we $now, not listen toaruents %or the restoration o% the word WorX inthe population or territorial re5uireent. S!n%&or O"!% III. 0r. President, y point isthat, - aree with the entleanQs WandX, !utperhaps we should !rin down the area. Thereare certainly very crowded places in this countrythat are less than )<,<<< hectares—)<< s5uare

$iloeters is )<,<<< hectares. There iht only!e ,<<< hectares or *,<<< hectares. And itwould !e un%air i% these unicipalities alreadyearnin P)<<,<<<,<<< in locally enerated %undsand have a population o% over )B<,<<< would not!e 5uali%ied !ecause o% the siple %act that thephysical area does not cover )<,<<< hectares. S!n%&or P!n&!$. 0r. President, in %act, in0etro 0anila there are any nu!er o%unicipalities. 8an >uan is a speci%ic e2aplewhich, i% we apply the present re5uireents,would not 5uali%y: )<< s5uare $iloeters and apopulation o% not less than )B<,<<<.

#ut y reply to that, 0r. President, is thatthey do not have to !ecoe a cityN S!n%&or O"!% III. #ecause o% the incoe. S!n%&or P!n&!$. #ut they are already earnina lot, as the entlean said. O&+!r*"!, &+!#%n!r +!r!, *! 2!o! $%1 n &+!r!>ur!!n&", " &+! !&ro'o$"-$o%&!#$o%$ o!rn!n&" *ou$# +%! or! 'ror&3n &!r" o un#n 2!%u"! &+!3 *ou$#+%! or! >u%$%&on" &o 2!o! % &3o'%r!# &o %r-$un %r!%" n Mn#%n%o orn &+! Cor#$$!r%", or *+%&!!r.

There%ore, - thin$ we should not pro!a!ly

ease up on the re5uireents. 0ay!e we canrestore the word WorX so that i% they do not havethe )<< s5uare $iloeters o% territory, then i% they5uali%y in ters o% population and incoe, thatwould !e all riht, 0r. President.

!ela!or the point at this tie. - $now that thedistinuished entlean is considerin severalaendents to the ;ocal GovernentCode. Perhaps this is soethin that could !e%urther re%ined at a later tie, with hisperission.

8o - would li$e to than$ the entlean %orhis raciousness in answerin our 5uestions. S!n%&or P!n&!$. - also than$ the entlean,0r. President.I6J

The Court ta$es note o% the %act tha

unicipalities cited !y the petitioners as

enerated the threshold incoe o% P)<< illion %ro

sources, includin those already converted into citi

either in 0etro 0anila or in provinces close to

0anila. -n coparison, the unicipalities covered

Cityhood ;aws are spread out in the di%%erent provi

the Phil ippines, includin the Coand 0indanao reions, and are considera!ly very

%ro 0etro 0anila. This reality underscores the d

the enactent o% R.A. ?o. << souht to preve

that Wthe etropolis=located local overnents

have ore priority in ters o% %undin !ecaus

would have ore 5uali%ications to !ecoe

copared to the %ar=%lun areas in 0indanao or

Cordilleras, or whatever,X actually resultin %ro

a!rupt increase in the incoe re5uireent. Veriresult is antithetical to what the Constitution an

have no!ly envisioned in %avor o% coun

developent and national rowth. #esides, this

should !e arrested early to avoid the unwanted divisiverespective provinces3 #ay!ay and #ayuan are





should !e arrested early, to avoid the unwanted divisive

e%%ect on the entire country due to the local overnent

units closer to the ?ational Capital Reion !ein a%%orded

easier access to the !ier share in the national co%%ers

than other local overnent units.

There should also !e no 5uestion that the local

overnent units covered !y the Cityhood ;aws !elonto a class o% their own. They have proven theselves

via!le and capa!le to !ecoe coponent cities o% their

respective provinces. They are and have !een centers o%

trade and coerce, points o% converence o%

transportation, rich havens o% aricultural, ineral, and

other natural resources, and %lourishin touris spots. -n

his speech delivered on the %loor o% the 8enate to sponsor

ouse >oint Resolution ?o. ), 8enator ;i reconi/ed

such uni5ue traits,

I9<J

vizH -t ust !e noted that e2cept %or Tanda and;aitan, which are !oth second=classunicipalities in ters o% incoe, all the rest arecateori/ed !y the (epartent o% 4inance as%irst=class unicipalities with ross incoe o% atleast P7< illion as per Coission o% AuditReport %or 6<<B. 0oreover, Tanda and ;aitan,toether with #oronan, Cat!aloan, and Ta!u$,are all provincial capitals.

The ore recent incoe %iures o% the )6unicipalities, which would have increased%urther !y this tie, indicate their readiness to

ta$e on the responsi!ilities o% cityhood. 0oreover, the unicipalities under considerationare leadin localities in their respectiveprovinces. #oronan, Cat!aloan, Tanda, #atacand Ta!u$ are ran$ed nu!er one in ters o%incoe aon all the unicipalities in their

nu!er two3 #oo and ;aitan are nu!er three3Carcar, nu!er %our3 and Taya!as, nu!erseven. ?ot only are they pacesetters in theirrespective provinces, they are also aon the%rontrunners in their reions #ay!ay, #ayuanand Ta!u$ are nu!er two incoe=earners inReions V---, ---, and CAR, respectively3Cat!aloan and #atac are nu!er three inReions V--- and -, respectively3 #oo, nu!er %ivein Reion V--3 #oronan and Carcar are !othnu!er si2 in Reions V--- and V--,respectively. This siply shows that these

unicipalities are via!le.

Petitioner ;eaue o% Cities arues that there e2ists no

issue with respect to the cityhood o% its e!er cities,

considerin that they !ecae cities in %ull copliance

with the criteria %or conversion at the tie o% their

creation.

The Court considers the aruent too sweepin. hat

we pointed out was that the previous incoe re5uireento% P6< illion was de%initely not insu%%icient to provide the

essential overnent %acilities, services, and special

%unctions vis?@?vis the population o% a coponent

city. e also stressed that the increased incoe

re5uireent o% P)<< illion was not the only

conclusive indicator %or any unicipality to survive and

reain via!le as a coponent city. These o!servations

were unerrinly re%lected in the respective incoes o% the

%i%ty=nine &B' e!ers o% the ;eaue o% Cities that havestill %ailed, rear$a!ly enouh, to !e copliant with the

new re5uireent o% the P)<< illion threshold incoe

%ive years a%ter R.A. ?o. << !ecae law.

@ndou!tedly, the iposition o% the i

re5uireent o% P)<< illion %ro local sources und

?o. << was ar!itrary. hen the sponsor o% th

chose the speci%ic %iure o% P)<< illion, no resea

epirical data !uttressed the %iure. ?or was ther

that the proposal too$ into account the a%ter=e%%ec

were li$ely to arise. As already entioned, evedaner the passae o% R.A. ?o. << souht to p

iht soon !ecoe a reality. hile the Const

andates that the creation o% local overnen

ust coply with the criteria laid down in the ;

cannot !e usti%ied to insist that the Constitution

have to yield to every aendent to the ;GC d

such aendent iinently producin e%%ects co

to the oriinal thrusts o% the ;GC to proote auto

decentrali/ation, countryside developent, anconcoitant national rowth.

0oreover, i% we were now to adopt the str

interpretation o% the Constitution the petitione

espousin, we ay have to apply the sae rest

yardstic$ aainst the recently converted cities ci

the petitioners, and %ind two o% the whose conv

laws have also to !e struc$ down %or

unconstitutional. The two laws are R.A. ?o. 9*7

R.A. ?o. 9**,I96J respectively convertin

unicipalities o% 8an >uan and ?avotas into

ur!ani/ed cities. A cursory readin o% the laws in

that there is no indication o% copliance wi

re5uireents iposed !y the ;GC %or althouh the two The petitionersQ contention that the Cityhood ;aws their conversion into coponent cities they will h







re5uireents iposed !y the ;GC, %or, althouh the two

local overnent units concerned presua!ly coplied

with the incoe re5uireent o% PB< illion under 8ection

B6 o% the ;GC and the incoe re5uireent o% P)<<

illion under the aended 8ection B< o% the ;GC, they

o!viously did not eet the re5uireents set %orth under

8ection B9 o% the ;GC, to wit:

8ection B9. Duty to Declare ;i!hly Ur#anized%tatus.—-t shall !e the duty o% the President todeclare a city as hihly ur!ani/ed within thirty&9<' days a%ter it shall have et the iniure5uireents prescri!ed in the iediatelyprecedin 8ection, upon proper applicationthere%or and rati%ication in a ple!iscite !y the5uali%ied voters therein.

-ndeed, R.A. ?o. 9*7 and R.A. ?o. 9** evidently show

that the President had not classi%ied 8an >uan and

?avotas as hihly ur!ani/ed cities upon properapplication and rati%ication in a ple!iscite !y the 5uali%ied

voters therein. A %urther perusal o% R.A. ?o. 9*7 reveals

that 8an >uan did not 5uali%y as a hihly ur!ani/ed city

!ecause it had a population o% only )6B,BB*,

contravenin the re5uired iniu population o%

6<<,<<< under 8ection B6 o% the ;GC. 8uch non=

5uali%ication as a coponent city was conceded even !y

8enator Pientel durin the deli!erations on 8enate #ill

?o. 6)B7.

The petitioners contention that the Cityhood ;aws

violated their riht to a ust share in the national ta2es is

not accepta!le.

-n this reard, it su%%ices to state that the share o% local

overnent units is a atter o% percentae under 8ection

6*B o% the ;GC, not a speci%ic aount. 8peci%ically, the

share o% the cities is 69, deterined on the !asis o%population &B<', land area &6B', and e5ual sharin

&6B'. This share is also dependent on the nu!er o%

e2istin cities, such that when the nu!er o% cities

increases, then ore will divide and share the allocation

%or cities. owever, we have to note that the allocation !y

the ?ational Governent is not a constant, and can either

increase or decrease. ith every newly converted city

!ecoin entitled to share the allocation %or cities, the

percentae o% internal revenue allotent &-RA'

entitleent o% each city will decrease, althouh the actual

aount received ay !e ore than that received in the

precedin year. That is a necessary conse5uence o%

8ection 6*B and 8ection 6*+ o% the ;GC.

As ela!orated here and in the assailed 4e!ruary )B, 6<))

Resolution, the Cityhood ;aws were not violative o% the

Constitution and the ;GC. The respondents are thus also

entitled to their ust share in the -RA allocation %or cities.

They have deonstrated their via!ility as coponent

cities o% their respective provinces and are developin

continuously, al!eit slowly, !ecause they had previously

to share the -RA with a!out ),B<< unicipalities. ith

their conversion into coponent cities, they will h

share with only around )6< cities.

;ocal overnent units do not su!sist only on

enerated incoe, !ut also depend on the -RA to s

their developent. They can spur their

developents and there!y reali/e their reat pote

encourain trade and coerce in the %ar=%lun ro% the country. Eet their potential will e%%ectiv

stunted i% those already earnin ore will still rec

!ier share %ro the national co%%ers, and i% co

activity will !e ore or less concentrated only in an

0etro 0anila.

III.

Con$u"on

e should not ever lose siht o% the %act that the )+covered !y the Cityhood ;aws not only had conv

!ills pendin durin the ))th Conress, !ut hav

coplied with the re5uireents o% the ;GC pre

prior to its aendent !y R.A. ?o. <<. Co

undenia!ly ave these cities all the consideration

ustice and %air play deanded. ence, this Court

do no less !y stapin its imprimatur to the cle

unista$a!le leislative intent and !y duly reco

the certain collective wisdo o% Conress.

4HEREORE, the d &autelam 0otion %orcoprisin a territory o% ,<).B s5uare $iloeters oreor less

re5uireents under this section. The territory needcontiuous i% it coprises two or ore islands



4HEREORE, the d &autelam 0otion %or

Reconsideration &o% the (ecision dated )B 4e!ruary 6<))'

is denied with %inality.

PATRICIO TAN, ELI ERRER, KUAN M. HAGAD,SERGIO HILADO, VIRGILIO GASTON, CONCHITAMINAYA, TERESITA ESTACIO, DESIDERIO DEERIA,ROMEO GAMBOA, ALBERTO LACSON, E HOILENA,EMILY KISON, NIEVES LOPEZ AND CECILIAMAGSAYSAY, petitioners,

vs.THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS %n# THEPROVINCIAL TREASURER O NEGROSOCCIDENTAL,respondents.

)am#oa ;ofileJa 5a" 8ffice for petitioners*

ALAMPAY, J.:

Propted !y the enactent o% #atas Pa!ansa #l. **B=An Act Creatin a ?ew Province in the -sland o% ?eros to!e $nown as the Province o% ?eros del ?orte, which too$e%%ect on (ece!er 9, )*B, Petitioners herein, who areresidents o% the Province o% ?eros Occidental, in thevarious cities and unicipalities therein, on (ece!er 69,)*B, %iled with this Court a case %or Prohi!ition %or thepurpose o% stoppin respondents Coission onFlections %ro conductin the ple!iscite which, pursuantto and in ipleentation o% the a%oresaid law, wasscheduled %or >anuary 9, )*+. 8aid law provides:

8FCT-O? ). The Cities o% 8ilay, Cadi/, and 8an Carlos andthe unicipalities o% Calatrava, Ta!oso, Fscalante, 8aay,0anapla, Victorias, F.R. 0aalona3 and 8alvador#enedicto, all in the northern portion o% the -sland o%?eros, are here!y separated %ro the province to !e$nown as the Province o% ?eros del ?orte.

8FC. 6. The !oundaries o% the new province shall !e thesouthern liits o% the City o% 8ilay, the 0unicipality o%8alvador #enedicto and the City o% 8an Carlos on thesouth and the territorial liits o% the northern portion tothe -sland o% ?eros on the west, north and east,

or less.

8FC. 9. The seat o% overnent o% the new province shall!e the City o% Cadi/.

8FC. . A ple!iscite shall !e conducted in the proposednew province which are the areas a%%ected within a periodo% one hundred and twenty days %ro the approval o% thisAct. A%ter the rati%ication o% the creation o% the Province o%?eros del ?orte !y a aority o% the votes cast in suchple!iscite, the President o% the Philippines shall appoint

the %irst o%%icials o% the province.

8FC. B. The Coission on Flections shall conduct andsupervise the ple!iscite herein provided, the e2penses %orwhich shall !e chared to local %unds.

8FC. +. This Act shall ta$ee%%ect upon its approval.&Rollo,pp. 69=6'

Petitioners contend that #atas Pa!ansa #l. **B isunconstitutional and it is not in coplete accord with the;ocal Governent Code as in Article -, 8ection 9 o% ourConstitution, it is e2pressly andated that—

8ee. 9. ?o province, city, unicipality or !arrio ay !ecreated, divided, ered, a!olished, or its !oundarysu!stantially altered, e2cept in accordance with thecriteria esta!lished in the local overnent code, andsu!ect to the approval !y a aority o% the votes in aple!iscite in the unit or units a%%ected.

8ection )7 o% the ;ocal Governent Code enueratesthe conditions which ust e2ist to provide the leal !asis%or the creation o% a provincial unit and these re5uisitesare:

8FC. )7. Re<uisites for &reation. A province ay !ecreated i% it has a territory o% at least three thousand %ivehundred s5uare $iloeters, a population o% at least %ivehundred thousand persons, an averae estiated annualincoe, as certi%ied !y the 0inistry o% 4inance, o% not lessthan ten illion pesos %or the last three consecutiveyears, and its creation shall not reduce the populationand incoe o% the other province or provinces at thetie o% said creation to less than the iniu

contiuous i% it coprises two or ore islands.

The averae estiated annual incoe shall includeincoe alloted %or !oth the eneral and in%rastructu%unds, e2clusive o% trust %unds, trans%ers and nonrecincoe. &Rollo, p. +'

(ue to the constraints !rouht a!out !y the supervChristas holidays durin which the Court was in reand una!le to tiely consider the petition, asuppleental pleadin was %iled !y petitioners on >a

, )*+, averrin therein that the ple!iscite souht restrained !y the was held on >anuary 9, )*+ asscheduled !ut that there are still serious issues raisthe instant case a%%ectin the leality, constitutionaand validity o% such e2ercise which should properly passed upon and resolved !y this Court.

The ple!iscite was con%ined only to the inha!itants territory o% ?eros del ? rte, naely: the Cities o% 8

Cadi/, and 8an Carlos, and the unicipalities o%Calatrava, Ta!oso, Fscalante, 8aay, 0anapla, VictoF.#. 0aalona and (on 8alvador #enedicto. #ecausthe e2clusions o% the voters %ro the rest o% the proo% ?eros Occidental, petitioners %ound need to chathe prayer o% their petition "to the end that theconstitutional issues which they have raised in the awill !e ventilated and iven %inal resolution.1"At the tie, they as$ed that the e%%ects o% the ple!iscite wthey souht to stop !e suspended until the 8upreCourt shall have rendered its decision on the very%undaental and %ar=reachin 5uestions that petitiohave !rouht out.

Ac$nowledin in their suppleental petition thatsupervenin events rendered oot the prayer in thinitial petition that the ple!iscite scheduled %or >anu)*+, !e enoined, petitioners plead, nevertheless,

... a writ o% Prohi!ition !e issued, directed to ResponCoission on Flections to desist %ro issuin o%%icproclaation o% the results o% the ple!iscite held on

>anuary 9, )*+.

4indin that the e2clusion and non=participation o% tvoters o% the Province o% ?eros Occidental other ththose livin within the territory o% the new province ?eros del ?orte to !e not in accordance with the

Constitution, that a writ o% andaus !e issued, directedto the respondent Coission on Flections to schedule

Respondents arue that the reainin cities andunicipalities o% the Province o% ?eros Occidental not

units. To rule as this Tri!unal does is to %ollow anaccepted principle o% constitutional construction th



to the respondent Coission on Flections, to schedulethe holdin o% another ple!iscite at which all the 5uali%iedvoters o% the entire Province o% ?eros Occidental as nowe2istin shall participate, at the sae tie a$inpronounceent that the ple!iscite held on >anuary 9,)*+ has no leal e%%ect, !ein a patent leal nullity3

And that a siilar writ o% Prohi!ition !e issued, directed tothe respondent Provincial Treasurer, to desist %roorderin the release o% any local %unds to answer %ore2penses incurred in the holdin o% such ple!iscite untilordered !y the Court. &Rollo pp. =)<'.

Petitioners %urther prayed that the respondent CO0F;FChold in a!eyance the issuance o% any o%%icial proclaationo% the results o% the a%orestated ple!iscite.

(urin the pendency o% this case, a otion that he !eallowed to appear as aicus curiae in this case &dated(ece!er 67, )*B and %iled with the Court on >anuary 6,)*+' was su!itted !y %orer 8enator A!rosio Padilla.8aid otion was ranted in Our resolution o% >anuary 6,)*+.

Actin on the petition, as well as on the suppleentalpetition %or prohi!ition with preliinary inunction with

prayer %or restrainin order, the Court, on >anuary 7, )*+resolved, without ivin due course to the sae, tore5uire respondents to coent, not to %ile a otion todisiss. Coplyin with said resolution, pu!licrespondents, represented !y the O%%ice o% the 8olicitorGeneral, on >anuary ), )*+, %iled their Coent,aruin therein that the challened statute.=#atasPa!ansa **B, should !e accorded the presuption o%leality. They su!it that the said law is not void on its%ace and that the petition does not show a clear,cateorical and undenia!le deonstration o% thesupposed in%rineent o% the Constitution. Respondentsstate that the powers o% the #atasan=Pa!ansa to enactthe assailed law is !eyond 5uestion. They clai that#atas Pa!ansa #i. **B does not in%rine theConstitution !ecause the re5uisites o% the ;ocal

Governent Code have !een coplied with. 4urtherore,they su!it that this case has now !ecoe oot andacadeic with the proclaation o% the new Province o%?eros del ?orte.

unicipalities o% the Province o% ?eros Occidental notincluded in the area o% the new Province o% ?eros del?orte, de not %all within the eanin and scope o% theter "unit or units a%%ected", as re%erred to in 8ection 9 o%Art. - o% our Constitution. On this reasonin, respondentsaintain that #atas Pa!ansa #l. **B does not violatethe Constitution, invo$in and citin the case o% )overnor

Kosimo Paredes versus the ;onora#le Eecutive%ecretary to the President7 et al* &G.R. ?o. BB+6*, 0arch6, )* &)6* 8CRA +)', particularly the pronounceentstherein, hereunder 5uoted:

). Adittedly,this is one o% those cases where thediscretion o% the Court is allowed considera!le leeway.

There is indeed an eleent o% a!iuity in the use o% thee2pression 1unit or units a%%ected1. -t is plausi!le to assertas petitioners do that when certain #aranays areseparated %ro a parent unicipality to %or a new one,all the voters therein are a%%ected. -t is uch orepersuasive, however, to contend as respondents do thatthe accepta!le construction is %or those voters, who arenot %ro the !aranays to !e separated, should !ee2cluded in the ple!iscite.

6. 4or one thin, it is in accordance with the settleddoctrine that !etween two possi!le constructions, oneavoidin a %indin o% unconstitutionality and the other

yieldin such a result, the %orer is to !e pre%erred. Thatwhich will save, not that which will destroy, coendsitsel% %or acceptance. A%ter all, the !asic presuption allthese years is one o% validity. ...

9. ... Adherence to such philosophy copels theconclusion that when there are indications that theinha!itants o% several !aranays are inclined to separate%ro a parent unicipality they should !e allowed to doso. hat is ore loical than to ascertain their will in aple!iscite called %or that purpose. -t is they, and theyalone, who shall constitute the new unit. ?ewresponsi!ilities will !e assued. ?ew !urdens will !eiposed. A new unicipal corporation will coe intoe2istence. -ts !irth will !e a atter o% choice=their choice.

They should !e le%t alone then to decide %or theselves. To allow other voters to participate will not yield a truee2pression o% their will. They ay even %rustrate it, Thatcertainly will !e so i% they vote aainst it %or sel%ishreasons, and they constitute the aority. That is not toa!ide !y the %undaental principle o% the Constitution toproote local autonoy, the pre%erence !ein %or saller

accepted principle o% constitutional construction, thascertainin the eanin o% a particular provision tay ive rise to dou!ts, the intent o% the %raers athe people ay !e leaned %ro provisions in parimateria.

Respondents su!it that said rulin in the a%orecitecase applies e5ually with %orce in the case at !ar.Respondents also aintain that the re5uisites unde;ocal Governent Code &P.(. 997' %or the creation new province o% ?eros del ?orte have all !een dulycoplied with, Respondents discredit petitioners1

alleations that the re5uisite area o% 9,B<< s5uare$iloeters as so prescri!ed in the ;ocal GovernenCode %or a new province to !e created has not !eensatis%ied. Petitioners insist that the area which woulcoprise the new province o% ?eros del ?orte, wouonly !e a!out 6,*B+.B+ s5uare $iloeters and whicevidently would !e lesser than the iniu areaprescri!ed !y the overnin statute. Respondents, reard, point out and stress that 8ection 6 o% #atasPa!ansa #l. **B creatin said new province plaindeclares that the territorial !oundaries o% ?eros de?orte coprise an area o% ,<).B s5uare $iloeteore or less.

As a %inal aruent, respondents insist that instant

petition has !een rendered oot and acadeicconsiderin that a ple!iscite has !een already condon >anuary 9, )*+3 that as a result thereo%, thecorrespondin certi%icate o% canvass indicated that o)B,)9 total votes cast in said ple!iscite, )+,79 in %avor o% the creation o% ?eros del ?orte and 9<,were aainst it3 and !ecause "the a%%irative votes represented a aority o% the total votes cast in saidple!iscite, the Chairan o% the #oard o% Canvassersproclaied the new province which shall !e $nown "?eros del ?orte". Thus, respondents stress the %a%ollowin the proclaation o% ?eros del ?orte provthe appointents o% the o%%icials o% said province crwere announced. On these considerations, respondure that this case should !e disissed %or havin !rendered oot and acadeic as the creation o% theprovince is now a "%ait accopli."

-n resolvin this case, it will !e use%ul to note andephasi/e the %acts which appear to !e areed to !parties herein or stand unchallened.

4irstly, there is no disareeent that the ProvincialTreasurer o% the Province o% ?eros Occidental has not

F5ually accepted !y the parties is the %act that under thecerti%ication issued !y Provincial Treasurer >ulian ;.

.Calatrava..................................................................



Treasurer o% the Province o% ?eros Occidental has notdis!ursed, nor was re5uired to dis!urse any pu!lic %undsin connection with the ple!iscite held on >anuary 9, )*+as so disclosed in the Coent to the Petition %iled !y therespondent Provincial Treasurer o% ?eros Occidentaldated >anuary 6<, )*+ &Rollo, pp. 9+=97'. Thus, theprayer o% the petitioners that said Provincial Treasurer !edirected !y this Court to desist %ro orderin the releaseo% any pu!lic %unds on account o% such ple!iscite shouldnot loner deserve %urther consideration.

8econdly, in Parliaentary #ill ?o. 9+ which led to the

enactent o% #atas Pa!ansa #l. **B and the creationo% the new Province o% ?eros del ?orte, it e2presslydeclared in 8ec. 6 o% the a%oreentioned Parliaentary#ill, the %ollowin:

8FC. 6. The !oundaries o% the new province shall !e thesouthern liits o% the City o% 8ilay, the 0unicipality o%8alvador #enedicto and the City o% 8an Carlos on the8outh and the natural !oundaries o% the northern portiono% the -sland o% ?eros on the est, ?orth andFast, containin! an area of 23-7,-, hectares more orless. &Fphasis supplied'.

owever, when said Parliaentary #ill ?o. 9+ was very5uic$ly enacted into #atas Pa!ansa #l. **B, the

!oundaries o% the new Province o% ?eros del ?orte werede%ined therein and its !oundaries then stated to !e as%ollows:

8FCT-O? ). The Cities o% 8ilay, Cadi/, and 8an Carlos andthe unicipalities o% Calatrava, To!oso, Fscalante, 8aay,0anapla, Victorias, F.R. 0aalona3 and 8alvador#enedicto, all in the northern portion o% the -sland o%?eros, are here!y separated %ro the Province o%?eros Occidental and constituted into a new province to!e $nown as the Province o% ?eros del ?orte.

8FC. ). The !oundaries o% the new province shall !e thesouthern liits o% the City o% 8ilay, the 0unicipality o%8alvador #enedicto and the City o% 8an Carlos on the

south and the territorial liits o% the northern portion o%the -sland o% ?eros on the est, ?orth and Fast,coprisin a territory o% ,<).B s5uare $iloeters oreor less.

certi%ication issued !y Provincial Treasurer >ulian ;.Raire/ o% the Province o% ?eros Occidental, dated >uly)+, )*B, it was therein certi%ied as %ollows:

222 222 222

This is to certi%y that the %ollowin cities andunicipalities o% ?eros Occidental have the land area asindicated hereunder !ased on the 8pecial Report ?o. 9,Philippines )*<, Population, ;and Area and (ensity:)7<, )7B and )*< !y the ?ational Census and

8tatistics O%%ice, 0anila.

;and Area

&85. K.'

). 8ilayCity ...................................................................6).*

6. F.#.0aalona............................................................))9.9

9.Victorias.....................................................................)99.

.0anapla......................................................................))6.

B. Cadi/City ..................................................................B)+.B

+.8aay .........................................................................9*.+

7.Fscalante ....................................................................)6.<

*. To!oso.......................................................................)69.

Calatrava..................................................................B

)<. 8an CarlosCity...........................................................B).9

)). (on 8alvador #enedicto.................................... &availa!le'

This certi%ication is issued upon the re5uest o% (r. P E. Tan %or whatever purpose it ay serve hi.

&8G(.' >@;-A? ;. RA0-RFH

Provincial Treasurer &F2h. "C" o% Petition, Rollo, p.

Althouh in the a!ove certi%ication it is stated that tland area o% the relatively new unicipality o% (on8alvador #enedicto is not availa!le, it is anuncontradicted %act that the area coprisin (on8alvador unicipality, one o% the coponent units onew province, was derived %ro the City o% 8an Carand %ro the 0unicipality o% Calatrava, ?erosOccidental, and added thereto was a portion o% a!oone=%ourth the land area o% the town o% 0urcia, ?eOccidental. -t is sini%icant to note the uncontrovert

su!ission o% petitioners that the total land area o%entire unicipality o% 0urcia, ?eros Occidental isonly C22* s<uare kilometers &F2h. "(", Rollo, p. )%ourth o% this total land area o% 0urcia that was addthe portions derived %ro the land area o% Calatrava?eros Occidental and 8an Carlos City &?erosOccidental' would constitute, there%ore, only *<.6 s5$iloeters. This area o% *<.6 s5uare $iloeters i% thadded to 6,+*B.6 s5uare $iloeters, representin thtotal land area o% the Cities o% 8ilay, 8an Carlos andand the 0unicipalities o% F.R. 0aalona, Victorias,0anapla, 8aay, Fscalante, Ta!oso and Calatrava, wresult in appro2iately an area o% only 6,7+B. s5ua$iloeters usin as !asis the 8pecial Report, Philipp)*<, Population, ;and Area and (ensity: )7<, )7

)*< o% the ?ational Census and 8tatistics O%%ice, 0&see F2hi!it "C", Rollo, p. <'.

?o controversion has !een ade !y respondent witrespect to the alleations o% petitioners that the oriprovision in the dra%t leislation, Parliaentary #ill 9+, reads:

8FC. . A ple!iscite shall !e conducted in the areasa%%ected within a period o% one hundred and twenty days

a!stain %ro entertainin %uture challenes to their acts i%they anae to !rin a!out a fait accompli*

parent province o% ?eros Occidental !ecause its!oundaries would !e su!stantially altered. The othe



p y y%ro the approval o% this Act. A%ter the rati%ication o% thecreation o% the Province o% ?eros del ?orte !y a aorityo% the votes cast in such ple!iscite, the President shallappoint the %irst o%%icials o% the new province.

owever, when #atas Pa!ansa #l. **B was enacted,there was a sini%icant chane in the a!ove provision. Thestatute, as odi%ied, provides that the re5uisite ple!iscite"shall !e conducted in the proposed new province whichare the areas a%%ected."

-t is this leislative deterination liitin the ple!iscitee2clusively to the cities and towns which would coprisethe new province that is assailed !y the petitioners asviolative o% the provisions o% our Constitution. Petitionerssu!it that 8ec. 9, ART - thereo%, conteplates aple!iscite that would !e held in the unit or units a%%ected!y the creation o% the new province as a result o% theconse5uent division o% and su!stantial alteration o% the!oundaries o% the e2istin province. -n this instance, thevoters in the reainin areas o% the province o% ?erosOccidental should have !een allowed to participate in the5uestioned ple!iscite.

Considerin that the leality o% the ple!iscite itsel% ischallened %or non=copliance with constitutional

re5uisites, the %act that such ple!iscite had !een held anda new province proclaied and its o%%icials appointed, thecase !e%ore @s cannot truly !e viewed as already ootand acadeic. Continuation o% the e2istence o% this newlyproclaied province which petitioners stronly pro%ess tohave !een illeally !orn, deserves to !e in5uired into !ythis Tri!unal so that, i% indeed, illeality attaches to itscreation, the coission o% that error should not providethe very e2cuse %or perpetuation o% such wron. 4or thisCourt to yield to the respondents1 urin that, as therehas !een fait accompli then this Court should passivelyaccept and accede to the prevailin situation is anunaccepta!le suestion. (isissal o% the instantpetition, as respondents so propose is a proposition%rauht with ischie%. Respondents1 su!ission will

create a danerous precedent. 8hould this Court declinenow to per%or its duty o% interpretin and indicatinwhat the law is and should !e, this iht tept aainthose who strut a!out in the corridors o% power torec$lessly and with ulterior otives, create, ere, divideandDor alter the !oundaries o% political su!divisions, either!ra/enly or stealthily, con%ident that this Court will

y p

-n the liht o% the %acts and circustances alluded to !ypetitioners as attendin to the unusually rapid creation o%the instant province o% ?eros del ?orte a%ter a swi%tlyscheduled ple!iscite, this Tri!unal has the duty torepudiate and discourae the coission o% acts whichrun counter to the andate o% our %undaental law, done!y whatever !ranch o% our overnent. This Court ivesnotice that it will not loo$ with %avor upon those who ay!e herea%ter inclined to ra throuh all sorts o% leislativeeasures and then ipleent the sae with indecent

haste, even i% such acts would violate the Constitutionand the prevailin statutes o% our land. -t is illoical to as$that this Tri!unal !e !lind and dea% to protests on theround that what is already done is done. To suchuntena!le aruent the reply would !e that, !e this so,the Court, nevertheless, still has the duty and riht tocorrect and recti%y the wron !rouht to its attention.

On the erits o% the case.

Aside %ro the sipler %actual issue relative to the landarea o% the new province o% ?eros del ?orte, the oresini%icant and pivotal issue in the present case revolvesaround in the interpretation and application in the case at!ar o% Article -, 8ection 9 o% the Constitution, which

!ein !rie% and %or convenience, e aain 5uote:

8FC. 9. ?o province, city, unicipality or !arrio ay !ecreated, divided, ered a!olished, or its !oundarysu!stantially altered, e2cept in accordance with thecriteria esta!lished in the local overnent code, andsu!ect to the approval !y a aority o% the votes in aple!iscite in the unit or units a%%ected.

-t can !e plainly seen that the a%orecited constitutionalprovision a$es it iperative that there !e %irst o!tained"the approval o% a aority o% votes in the ple!iscite in theunit or units a%%ected" whenever a province is created,divided or ered and there is su!stantial alteration o%the !oundaries. -t is thus inescapa!le to conclude that the

!oundaries o% the e2istin province o% ?eros Occidentalwould necessarily !e su!stantially altered !y the divisiono% its e2istin !oundaries in order that there can !ecreated the proposed new province o% ?eros del ?orte.Plain and siple loic will deonstrate than that twopolitical units would !e a%%ected. The %irst would !e the

ya%%ected entity would !e coposed o% those in the asu!tracted %ro the other province to constitute tproposed province o% ?eros del ?orte.

e %ind no way to reconcile the holdin o% a ple!iscthat should con%or to said constitutional re5uire!ut eliinates the participation o% either o% these twcoponent political units. ?o aount o% rhetorical%lourishes can usti%y e2clusion o% the parent provincthe ple!iscite !ecause o% an alleed intent on the pthe authors and ipleentors o% the challened sta

to carry out what is claied to !e a andate touarantee and proote autonoy o% local overnunits. The alleed ood intentions cannot prevail anoverrule the cardinal precept that what our Constitucateorically directs to !e done or iposes as are5uireent ust %irst !e o!served, respected andcoplied with. ?o one should !e allowed to pay hoto a supposed %undaental policy intended to uarand proote autonoy o% local overnent units !the sae tie transress, inore and disreard whConstitution coands in Article - 8ection 9 thereRespondents would !e no di%%erent %ro one who huto pray at the teple !ut then spits at the -dol there

e %ind no erit in the su!ission o% the responde

that the petition should !e disissed !ecause the and wisdo in enactin the law ay not !e challenpetitioners. The principal point raised !y the petitionot the wisdo and otive in enactin the law !ut in%rineent o% the Constitution which is a proper so% udicial in5uiry.

Petitioners1 discussion reardin the otives !ehindenactent o% #.P. #l. **B to say the least, are osenlihtenin and provo$in !ut are %actual issues thCourt cannot properly pass upon in this case. 0entipetitioners o% the une2plained chanes or di%%erencthe proposed Parliaentary #ill ?o. 9+ and the e#atas Pa!ansa #l. **B3 the swi%t and surreptitiouanner o% passae and approval o% said law3 the a!

schedulin o% the ple!iscite3 the re%erence to newsarticles reardin the 5uestiona!le conduct o% the sple!iscite held on >anuary 9, )*+3 all serve as interreadin !ut are not the decisive atters which shourec$oned in the resolution o% this case.

hat the Court considers the only sini%icant su!issionslendin a little support to respondents1 case is their

o% Emilio &* 5opez7 9r*7 versus the ;onora#le &ommissionon Elections7 5?-,6227 /ay C+7 +3-7 +C, %&R ,CC7 this

!e leaned %ro the provisions in pari materia*"Parliaentary #ill ?o. 9+ which proposed the cre



reliance on the rulins and pronounceents ade !y thisCourt in the case o% Governor Hosio Paredes versus Theonora!le F2ecutive 8ecretary to the President, et al.,G.R. ?o. BB+6*, 0arch 6, )* &)6* 8CRA +'. -n said caserelatin to a ple!iscite held to rati%y the creation o% a newunicipality %ro e2istin !aranays, this Court upheldthe leality o% the ple!iscite which was participated ine2clusively !y the people o% the !aranay that wouldconstitute the new unicipality.

This Court is not unind%ul o% this solitary case alluded to

!y respondents. hat is, however, hihly sini%icant arethe pre%atory stateents therein statin that said case is"one o% those cases where the discretion o% the Court isallowed considera!le leeway" and that "there is indeed aneleent o% a!iuity in the use o% the e2pression unit orunits a%%ected." The rulin rendered in said case was!ased on a claied preroative o% the Court then toe2ercise its discretion on the atter. -t did not resolve the5uestion o% how the pertinent provision o% theConstitution should !e correctly interpreted.

The rulin in the a%orestated case o% Paredes vs* 4he;onora#le Eecutive %ecretary7 et al* LsupraM should not!e ta$en as a doctrinal or copellin precedent when it isac$nowleded therein that "it is plausi!le to assert, as

petitioners do, that when certain #aranays areseparated %ro a parent unicipality to %or a new one,all the voters therein are a%%ected."

-t is relevant and ost proper to ention that in thea%orecited case o% Paredes vs* Eecutive%ecretary7 invo$ed !y respondents, e %ind very lucidlye2pressed the stron dissentin view o% >ustice VicenteA!ad 8antos, a distinuished e!er o% this Court, as hetherein voiced his opinion, which e hereunder 5uote:

6. ... when the Constitution spea$s o% "the unit or unitsa%%ected" it eans all o% the people o% the unicipality i%the unicipality is to !e divided such as in the case at !aror an o% the people o% two or ore unicipalities i% there

!e a erer. - see no a!iuity in the Constitutionalprovision.

This dissentin opinion o% >ustice Vicente A!ad 8antos isthe— %orerunner o% the rulin which e now considerapplica!le to the case at !ar, -n the analoous case

dissent was reiterated !y >ustice A!ad 8antos as hetherein assailed as su%%erin %ro a constitutionalin%irity a re%erendu which did not include all thepeople o% #ulacan and Ri/al, when such re%erendu wasintended to ascertain i% the people o% said provinces werewillin to ive up soe o% their towns to 0etropolitan0anila. is dissentin opinion served as a use%ul uidelinein the instant case.

Opportunity to re=e2aine the views %orerly held in saidcases is now a%%orded the present Court. The reasons in

the entioned cases invo$ed !y respondents herein were%orerly considered accepta!le !ecause o% the viewsthen ta$en that local autonoy would !e !etter prootedowever, even this consideration no loner retainspersuasive value.

The environental %acts in the case !e%ore @s readilydisclose that the su!ect atter under consideration is o%reater anitude with concoitant ulti%ariouscoplicated pro!les. -n the earlier case, what wasinvolved was a division o% a !aranay which is thesallest political unit in the ;ocal Governent Code.@nderstanda!ly, %ew and lesser pro!les are involved. -nthe case at !ar, creation o% a new province relates to thelarest political unit conteplated in 8ection 9, Art. - o%

the Constitution. To %or the new province o% ?eros del?orte no less than three cities and eiht unicipalitieswill !e su!tracted %ro the parent province o% ?erosOccidental. This will result in the reoval o%appro2iately 6,7+*. s5uare $iloeters %ro the landarea o% an e2istin province whose !oundaries will !econse5uently su!stantially altered. -t !ecoes easy toreali/e that the conse5uent e%%ects c% the division o% theparent province necessarily will a%%ect all the people livinin the separate areas o% ?eros Occidental and theproposed province o% ?eros del ?orte. The econoy o%the parent province as well as that o% the new provincewill !e inevita!ly a%%ected, either %or the !etter or %or theworse. hatever !e the case, either or !oth o% thesepolitical roups will !e a%%ected and they are, there%ore,the unit or units re%erred to in 8ection 9 o% Article - o% the

Constitution which ust !e included in the ple!isciteconteplated therein.

-t is a well accepted rule that "in ascertainin theeanin o% a particular provision that ay ive rise todou!ts, the intent o% the %raers and o% the people, ay

o% the new province o% ?eros del ?orte recites in 8thereo% that "the ple!iscite shall !e conducted inthe areas a%%ected within a period o% one hundred atwenty days %ro the approval o% this Act." As this dleislation spea$s o% "areas," what was conteplateevidently are plurality of areas to participate in theple!iscite. ;oically, those to !e included in suchple!iscite would !e the people livin in the area o% tproposed new province and those livin in the pareprovince. This assuption will !e consistent with thre5uireents set %orth in the Constitution.

e %ail to %ind any leal !asis %or the une2plained cade when Parliaentary #ill ?o. 9+ was enacte#atas Pa!ansa #l. **B so that it is now providedsaid ena!lin law that the ple!iscite "shall !e conduin the proposed new province which are the areasa%%ected." e are not disposed to aree that !y eleislative %iat the unit or units a%%ected re%erred in t%undaental law can !e diinished or restricted !y#atasan Pa!ansa to cities and unicipalitiescoprisin the new province, there!y inorin theevident reality that there are other people necessara%%ected.

-n the ind o% the Court, the chane ade !y those

responsi!le %or the enactent o% #atas Pa!ansa #**B !etrays their own isivins. They ust haveentertained apprehensions that !y holdin the ple!only in the areas o% the new proposed province, thiswill !e tainted with illeality. -n anticipation o% a posstron challene to the leality o% such a ple!iscite was, there%ore, deli!erately added in the enacted sta sel%=servin phrase that the new province constituthe area a%%ected. 8uch additional stateent servesuse%ul purpose %or the sae is isleadin, erroneou%ar %ro truth. The reainin portion o% the parentprovince is as uch an area a%%ected. The su!stantalteration o% the !oundaries o% the parent province,ention the other adverse econoic e%%ects it ihsu%%er, elo5uently arue the points raised !y thepetitioners.

Petitioners have averred without contradiction that the creation o% ?eros del ?orte, the province o% ?eOccidental would !e deprived o% the lon esta!lisheCities o% 8ilay, Cadi/, and 8an Carlos, as well as theunicipality o% Victorias. ?o controversion has !een

reardin petitioners1 assertion that the areas o% theProvince o% ?eros Occidental will !e diinished !y a!out6*B +B+ h d i ill l % h %i%

-n their suppleental petition, dated >anuary , )*+, it isprayed %or !y petitioners that a writ o% andaus !ei d di i h d C i i

su!itted, disclosin that the land area o% the newprovince cannot !e ore than 9,B<< s5uare $iloe! i l d ld ! l !



6*B,+B+ hectares and it will lose seven o% the %i%teensuar ills which contri!ute to the econoy o% the wholeprovince. -n the lanuae o% petitioners, "to create ?erosdel ?orte, the e2istin territory and political su!division$nown as ?eros Occidental has to !e partitioned anddise!ered. hat was involved was no 1!irth1 !ut"aputation." e aree with the petitioners that in thecase o% ?eros what was involved was a division, aseparation3 and conse5uently, as 8ec. 9 o% Article - o%the Constitution anticipates, a su!stantial alteration o%!oundary.

As contended !y petitioners,—

-ndeed, the ters 1created1, 1divided1, 1ered1,1a!olished1 as used in the constitutional provision do notconteplate distinct situation isolated %ro the utuallye2clusive to each other. A Province ay!e created wherean e2istin province is divided or two provinces ered.8uch cases necessarily will involve e2istin unit orunits a#olished and de%initely the !oundary !einsu!stantially altered.

-t would thus !e inaccurate to state that where ane2istin political unit is divided or its !oundarysu!stantially altered, as the Constitution provides, only

soe and not all the voters in the whole unit whichsu%%ers dise!erent or su!stantial alteration o% its!oundary are a%%ected. Rather, the contrary is true.

-t is also Our considered view that even hypotheticallyassuin that the erits o% this case can depend on theere discretion that this Court ay e2ercise,nevertheless, it is the petitioners1 case that deserve to !e%avored.

-t is now tie %or this Court to set aside the e5uivocationsand the indecisive pronounceents in the adverted caseo% Paredes vs. the onora!le F2ecutive 8ecretary, et al.&supra'. 4or the reasons already here e2press, e nowstate that the rulin in the two entioned cases

sanctionin the e2clusion o% the voters !elonin to ane2istin political unit %ro which the new political unit will!e derived, %ro participatin in the ple!iscite conducted%or the purpose o% deterinin the %oration o% anothernew political unit, is here!y a!andoned.

issued, directin the respondent Coission onFlections, to schedule the holdin o% another ple!iscite atwhich all the 5uali%ied voters o% the entire province o%?eros Occidental as now e2istin shall participate andthat this Court a$e a pronounceent that the ple!isciteheld on >anuary 9, )*+ has no leal e%%ect %or !ein apatent nullity.

The Court is prepared to declare the said ple!iscite heldon >anuary 9, )*+ as null and void and violative o% theprovisions o% 8ec. 9, Article - o% the Constitution. The

Court is not, however, disposed to direct the conduct o% anew ple!iscite, !ecause e %ind no leal !asis to do so.ith constitutional in%irity attachin to the su!ect#atas Pa!ansa #i. **B and also !ecause the creationo% the new province o% ?eros del ?orte is not inaccordance with the criteria esta!lished in the ;ocalGovernent Code, the %actual and leal !asis %or thecreation o% such new province which should usti%y theholdin o% another ple!iscite does not e2ist.

hatever clai it has to validity and whateverreconition has !een ained !y the new province o%?eros del ?orte !ecause o% the appointent o% theo%%icials thereo%, ust now !e erased. That ?eros del?orte is !ut a leal %iction should !e announced. -ts

e2istence should !e put to an end as 5uic$ly as possi!le,i% only to settle the coplications currently attendin toits creation. As has !een ani%ested, the parent provinceo% ?eros del ?orte has !een ipleaded as the de%endantin a suit %iled !y the new Province o% ?eros del ?orte,!e%ore the Reional Trial Court o% ?eros &del ?orte',doc$eted as Civil Case ?o. )+=C, %or the iediateallocation, distri!ution and trans%er o% %unds !y the parentprovince to the new province, in an aount claied to !eat least P)<,<<<,<<<.<<.

The %inal nail that puts to rest whatever pretension thereis to the leality o% the province o% ?eros del ?orte is thesini%icant %act that this created province does not evensatis%y the area re5uireent prescri!ed in 8ection )7 o%the ;ocal Governent Code, as earlier discussed.

-t is o% course claied !y the respondents in theirCoent to the e2hi!its su!itted !y the petitioners&F2hs. C and (, Rollo, pp. ) and )', that the newprovince has a territory o% ,<).B s5uare $iloeters,ore or less. This assertion is ade to neate the proo%s

!ecause its land area would, at ost, !e only a!outs5uare $iloeters, ta$in into account overnentstatistics relative to the total area o% the cities andunicipalities constitutin ?eros del ?orte. Respoinsist that when 8ection )7 o% the ;ocal GoverneCode spea$s o% the territory o% the province to !e crand re5uires that such territory !e at least 9,B<< s5$iloeters, what is conteplated is not only the lan!ut also the land and water over which the said prohas urisdiction and control. -t is even the su!issiothe respondents that in this reard the arinal sea

within the three ile liit should !e considered indeterinin the e2tent o% the territory o% the newprovince. 8uch an interpretation is strained, incorreand %allacious.

The last sentence o% the %irst pararaph o% 8ection )ost revealin. As so stated therein the 0territory nnot #e conti!uous if it comprises t"o or moreislands*0 The use o% the word territory in this particuprovision o% the ;ocal Governent Code and in the last sentence thereo%, clearly re%lects that 0territorytherein used, has re%erence only to the ass o% landand e2cludes the waters over which the political une2ercises control.

8aid sentence states that the "territory need not !econtiuous." Contiuous eans &a' in physical cont&!' touchin alon all or ost o% one side3 &c' near, or adacent &e!ster1s ?ew orld (ictionary, )76 9<7'. "Contiuous", when eployed as an adectivethe a!ove sentence, is only used when it descri!esphysical contact, or a touchin o% sides o% two solidasses o% atter. The eanin o% particular ters statute ay !e ascertained !y re%erence to wordsassociated with or related to the in the statute &AnRescue ;eaue vs. Assessors, )9* A.;.R. p. ))<'.

There%ore, in the conte2t o% the sentence a!ove, whneed not !e "contiuous" is the "territory" the physass o% land area. There would arise no need %or thleislators to use the word contiuous i% they hadintended that the ter "territory" e!race not only

area !ut also territorial waters. -t can !e sa%ely concthat the word territory in the %irst pararaph o% 8ect)7 is eant to !e synonyous with "land area" on

The words and phrases used in a statute should !e the eanin intended !y the leislature &*6 C.>.8., p+9+'. The sense in which the words are used %urnish

the rule o% construction &-n re inton ;u!er Co., +9 p.6d., p. ++'.

historic province. They were inspired undou!tedly !y their%aith%ul coitent to our Constitution which they wishto !e respected and o!eyed (espite the set!ac$s and

!e ta$e out o% the Continent 4und under the curren%iscal year appropriations3



The distinction !etween "territory" and "land area" whichrespondents a$e is an arti%icial or strained constructiono% the disputed provision where!y the words o% thestatute are arrested %ro their plain and o!vious eaninand ade to !ear an entirely di%%erent eanin to usti%yan a!surd or unust result. The plain eanin in thelanuae in a statute is the sa%est uide to %ollow inconstruin the statute. A construction !ased on a %orcedor arti%icial eanin o% its words and out o% harony o%the statutory schee is not to !e %avored &elverin vs.

utchins, *B ;. Fd., p. <'.

-t would !e rather preposterous to aintain that aprovince with a sall land area !ut which has a lon,narrow, e2tended coast line, &such as ;a @nion province'can !e said to have a larer territory than a land=loc$edprovince &such as -%uao or #enuet' whose land areaani%estly e2ceeds the province %irst entioned.

Alleations have !een ade that the enactent o% the5uestioned state was arred !y "dirty tric$s", in theintroduction and passin o% Parliaentary #ill ?o. 9+"in secret haste" pursuant to sinister desins to achieve"pure and siple erryanderin3 "that recenthappenins ore than aply deonstrate that %ar %ro

uaranteein its autonoy it &?eros del ?orte' has!ecoe the %ie%do o% a local stronan" &Rollo, p. 93ephasis supplied'.

-t is not %or this Court to a%%ir or reect such atters notonly !ecause the erits o% this case can !e resolvedwithout need o% ascertainin the real otives and wisdoin the a$in o% the 5uestioned law. ?o proper challeneon those rounds can also !e ade !y petitioners in thisproceedin. ?either ay this Court venture to uess theotives or wisdo in the e2ercise o% leislative powers.Repudiation o% iproper or unwise actions ta$en !y toolso% a political achinery rests ultiately, as recent eventshave shown, on the electorate and the power o% a viilantpeople.

Petitioners herein deserve and should receive theratitude o% the people o% the Province o% ?erosOccidental and even !y our ?ation. Coenda!le is thepatriotis displayed !y the in darin to institute thiscase in order to preserve the continued e2istence o% their

to !e respected and o!eyed. (espite the set!ac$s andthe hardships which petitioners aver con%ronted the,they valiantly and un%alterinly pursued a worthy cause.A happy destiny %or our ?ation is assured as lon asaon our people there would !e e2eplary citi/enssuch as the petitioners herein.

FRF4ORF, #atas Pa!ansa #l. **B is here!ydeclared unconstitutional. The proclaation o% the newprovince o% ?eros del ?orte, as well as the appointento% the o%%icials thereo% are also declared null and void.

HON. ROY A. PADILLA, KR., In +" %'%&3 %"Go!rnor o &+! Pron! o C%%rn!"Nor&!, petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

R F 8 O ; @ T - O ?

ROMERO, J.:

Pursuant to Repu!lic Act ?o. 7)BB, the Coission on

Flections proulated on ?ove!er )9, )), Resolution?o. 69)6 which reads as %ollows:

FRFA8, Repu!lic Act ?o. 7)BB approved on 8epte!er+, )) creates the 0unicipality o% Tulay=?a=;upa in theProvince o% Caarines ?orte to !e coposed o%#aranays Tulay=?a=;upa, ;uui, 8an Antonio, 0a!ilo -,?apaod, #enit, #ayan=#ayan, 0atanlan, Pa=Asa, 0aot,and Cala!asa, all in the 0unicipality o% ;a!o, saeprovince.

FRFA8 under 8ection )<, Article o% the )*7Constitution / the creation o% a unicipality shall !esu!ect to approval !y a aority o% votes cast in aple!iscite in the political units directly a%%ected, and

pursuant to 8ection )9 o% the ;ocal Governent Code&#atas Pa!ansa #l. 997' 6 said ple!iscite shall !econducted !y the Coission on Flections3

FRFA8, 8ection + o% said Repu!lic Act ?o. 7)BBprovides that the e2penses in holdin the ple!iscite shall

?O, TFRF4ORF, #F -T RF8O;VF(, as the Coishere!y resolves, to proulated &sic' the %ollowinuidelines to overn the conduct o% said ple!iscite:

). The ple!iscite shall !e held on (ece!er )B, )the areas or units a%%ected, naely the !aranayscoprisin he proposed 0unicipality o% Tulay=?a=;uand the reainin areas o% the other 0unicipality;a!or, Caarines ?orte &Tan vs. CO0F;FC, G.R. ?o79)BB, >uly )), )*+'.

222 222 222

-n the ple!iscite held on (ece!er )B, )) throuthe 0unicipality o% ;a!o, only 6,*< votes %avored itcreation while 9,9 voters voted aainst the creatthe 0unicipality o% Tulay=?a=;upa. Conse5uently, tha%ter the political e2ercise, the Ple!iscite #oard o%Canvassers declared the reection and disapproval oindependent 0unicipality o% Tulay=?a=;upa !y a ao% votes.

Thus, in this special civil action o% certiorari, petitionGovernor o% Caarines ?orte, see$s to set aside the

ple!iscite conducted on (ece!er )B, )) throuthe 0unicipality o% ;a!o and prays that a new ple!is!e underta$en as provided !y RA 7)BB. -t is thecontention o% petitioner that the ple!iscite was acoplete %ailure and that the results o!tained wereinvalid and illeal !ecause the ple!iscite, as andaCO0F;FC Resolution ?o. 69)6 should have !eenconducted only in the political unit or unitsa%%ected, i*e* the )6 !aranays coprisin the new0unicipality o% Tulay=?a=;upa naely Tulay=?a=;up;uui, 8an Antonio, 0a!ilo -, ?apaod, #enit, #ayan=0atanlan, Pa=Asa, 0aot, and Cala!asa. Petitionerstresses that the ple!iscite should not have includereainin area o% the other unit o% the 0unicipalit;a!o, Caarines ?orte. 7

-n support o% his stand, petitioner arues that with tapproval and rati%ication o% the )*7 Constitution,particularly Article , 8ection )<, the rulin set %orthin 4an v . &8/E5E& relied upon !y respondent CO0is now passe, thus reinstatin the case o% Paredesv . Eecutive %ecretary which held that where a loc

is to !e sereated %ro a parent unit, only the voters o%the unit to !e serated should !e included in theple!iscite 5

0r. (avide: I "ould o#$ect . I precisely asked for thedeletion of the "ords 0unit or0 #ecause in the ple#isciteto #e conducted it must involve all the units affected If it

hether or not there was a coplete %ailure o% elecGuiaras.



ple!iscite.

Accordinly, the issue in this case is whether or notrespondent CO0F;FC coitted rave a!use o%discretion in proulatin Resolution ?o. 69)6 and,conse5uently, whether or not the ple!iscite conducted inthe areas coprisin the proposed 0unicipality o% Tulay=?a=;upa and the reainin areas o% the other0unicipality o% ;a!o is valid.

e rule that respondent CO0F;FC did not coit ravea!use in proulatin Resolution ?o. 69)6 and that theple!iscite, which reected the creation o% the proposed0unicipality o% Tulay=?a=;upa, is valid.

Petitioner1s contention that our rulin in 4anvs. &8/E5E& has !een superseded with the rati%ication o%the )*7 Constitution, thus reinstatin our earlier rulinin Paredes vs. &8/E5E& is untena!le. Petitioner opinesthat since4an vs. &8/E5E& was !ased on 8ection 9 o%Article - o% the )79 Constitution our rulin in said caseis no loner applica!le under 8ection )< o% Article o% the)*7 Constitution, especially since the latter provisiondeleted the words "unit or."

e do not aree. The deletion o% the phrase "unit or" in8ection )<, Article o% the )*7 Constitution %ro itsprecursor, 8ection 9 o% Article - o% the )79 Constitutionnot a%%ected our rulin in 4an vs. &omelec as e2plained !ythen CO?CO0 Coissioner, now y distinuishedcolleaue, Associate >ustice ilario (avide, durin thede!ates in the )*+ Constitutional Coission, to wit:

0r. 0aa!on: hile we have already approved thedeletion o% "unit or," - would li$e to in%or the Coitteethat under the %orulation in the present ;ocalGovernent Code, the words used are actually "politicalunit or units." owever, - do not $now the iplication o%the use o% these words. 0ay!e there will !e no su!stantialdi%%erence, !ut - ust want to in%or the Coittee a!outthis.

0r. ?olledo: Can we not adhere to the oriinal "unit orunits"N ill there !e no o!ection on the part o% the twoGentleen %ro the %loorN

to #e conducted7 it must involve all the units affected. If itis the creation of a #aran!ay ple#iscite #ecause it isaffected. It "ould mean a loss of a territory . 0 &Fphasissupplied'

-t stands to reason that when the law states that theple!iscite shall !e conducted "in the political units directlya%%ected," it eans that residents o% the political entitywho would !e econoically dislocated !y the separationo% a portion thereo% have a riht to vote in said ple!iscite.Fvidently, what is conteplated !y the phase "political

units directly a%%ected," is the plurality o% political unitswhich would participate in the ple!iscite. / ;oically,those to !e included in such political areas are theinha!itants o% the )6 !aranays o% the proposed0unicipality o% Tulay=?a=;upa as well as those livin inthe parent 0unicipality o% ;a!o, Caarines ?orte. Thus,we conclude that respondent CO0F;FC did not coitrave a!use o% discretion in proulatin Resolution ?o.69)6.

FRF4ORF, the instant petition is here!y (-80-88F(.

Case (iest = Flection ;aw, ;ocal Governent

Gri\o vs. CO0F;FC

G.R. ?o. )<B)6< 8epte!er 6, )6

4ACT8:

Gri\o and his ;(P political party %iled a certiorari caseaainst CO0F;FC in relation to the 0ay )), )6 election.Gri\o is a candidate %or Governor o% -loilo where the su!=province o% Guiaras is located. ;GC o% )) too$ e%%ectre5uirin the conversion o% e2istin su!=provinces intoreular provinces, and Guiaras is one such su!=provinces, upon approval !y aority o% votes cast in aple!iscite. The ple!iscite %avored the conversion o%

Guiaras into a reular province !utpetitioner 5uestioned the CO0F;FC that !allots shouldhave contained spaces to allow votin %or Gov, Vice Govand e!ers o% the 8anunian o% -loilo.

-88@F:

F;(:

The court held that CO0F;FC was under presuption that under the ;GC o% )), whetherthe conversion o% Guiaras into a reular provrati%ied !y the people in ple!iscite, the Presideappoint provincial o%%icials. owever, the voters %a%or the conversion o% Guiaras into a reular provthere was need to undo what CO0F;FC has d

ple!iscite. There !allots in Guiaras shouldcontained spaces %or Gov and Vice Gov. etc. !ut 8now considered the case oot and acadeicaority voted in the a%%irative %or the conversGuiaras.

G.R. No. L-66 M%3 /, /0

GEMILIANO C. LOPEZ, KR., or +"!$ %n# %$$ on&!r!"&!# '%r&!" "$%r$3 "&u%&!# nM!&ro'o$&%n M%n$%, petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ONELECTIONS, respondent.

G.R. No. L-/67 M%3 /, /0

GEMILIANO C. LOPEZ, KR. %n# REYNALDO B.ARALAR, or &+!"!$!" %n# %$$ o&+!r n&!r!"&'%r&!" "$%r$3 "&u%&!# %" &+!"!$!" nM!&ro'o$&%n M%n$%, petitioners,vs.THE HONORABLE METROPOLITAN MANILACOMMISSION, respondent.

Reynaldo (* ralar for and in his o"n #ehalf*

9acinto D* 9imenez for petitioner )* 5opez7 9r*

ERNANDO, C.J.:

Presidential (ecree ?o. *6 / was a response to a %eltneed %or a "central overnent to esta!lish andadinister prora and provide services coon to" the

0etropolitan 0anila, those elected or selected %ro thevarious sectors as ay !e provided !y law, and thosechosen !y the President %ro 0e!ers o% the Ca!inet

standards." / The %oreoin constitutes the usti%ica%or and the o!ective o% such Presidential (ecree.



adinister prora and provide services coon to thecities o% 0anila, Lue/on, Pasay, and Caloocan as well asthirteen unicipalities 6 in the surroundin area. -t isworth notin that such a pro!le was !y no eansuni5ue and con%ined to the Philippines. Recent decadeshave witnessed a rowin erosion in pu!lic con%idence inthe a!ility o% local overnent units as traditionallyorani/ed to %ul%ill their responsi!ilities and discharetheir %unctions e%%ectively, e%%iciently, andsatis%actorily. The rowth in population in 0anila, thethree other cities, and the adacent unicipalities has

!een unchec$ed since the end o% orld ar --. There waso% course the !riht proise o% a !etter %i%e especially sowith the proli%eration o% coercial %irs and theesta!lishent o% industries. The lure has thus provedirresisti!le. The result has !een the ever increasinina!ility o% the separate local overnents to cope withthe ensuin serious pro!les. A pu!lic corporation wasthus created "to !e $nown as the 0etropolitan 0anila,vested with powers and attri!utes o% a corporationincludin the power to a$e contracts, sue and !e sued,ac5uire, purchase, e2propriate, hold, trans%er and disposeo% property and such other powers as are necessary tocarry out its purposes." 7 -t is adinistered !y aCoission.

Petitioners in the second o% the a!ove cases 5 assail theconstitutionality o% Presidential (ecree ?o. *6. They relyon this provision: "?o province, city, unicipality, or!arrio ay !e created, divided, ered, a!olished, or its!oundary su!stantially altered, e2cept in accordance withthe criteria esta!lished in the local overnent code, andsu!ect to the approval !y a aority o% the votes cast ina ple!iscite in the unit or units a%%ected." The ;ocalGovernent Code was not enacted until )*9. 0

4or reasons to !e set %orth, it will !e ade apparent thatsuch a challene is %ar %ro %orida!le. -t does not su%%iceto call %or a declaration o% unconstitutionality. 0oreover,the last vestie o% dou!t has !een reoved !y thepresent constitutional provision adopted in the ple!isciteon >anuary 67, )*. Thus in the Article on #atasan

Pa!ansa it is e2pressly provided: "The #atasanPa!ansa which shall !e coposed o% not ore than 6<<0e!ers unless otherwise provided !y law, shall includerepresentatives elected %ro the di%%erent provinces withtheir coponent cities, hihly ur!ani/ed cities as ay !edeclared !y or pursuant to law, and districts in

chosen !y the President %ro 0e!ers o% the Ca!inet.Fach district in 0etropolitan 0anila shall coprise, as %aras practica!le, contiuous, copact and adacentterritory. The elective representatives shall !eapportioned !y law aon the provinces with theircoponent cities, hihly ur!ani/ed cities, and the districtso% 0etropolitan 0anila in accordance with the nu!er o%their respective inha!itants and on the !asis o% a uni%orand proressive ratio, !ut the provinces with coponentcities and hihly ur!ani/ed cities shall have at least onerepresentative each. The provinces and cities shall have

at least the sae total nu!er o% representatives asunder the )9B Constitution." /

The reconition o% the e2istence to 0etropolitan 0anilacannot !e e2pressed any clearer. There can !e no leal

usti%ication then %or a declaration o% unconstitutionality.Presidential (ecree ?o. *6 is not tainted withconstitutional in%irity.

). -n Presidential (ecree ?o *6 re%erence was ade to"the re%erendu held on 4e!ruary 67, )7B IwhereinJ theresidents o% the Greater 0anila Area authori/ed thePresident to restructure the local overnents o% the %ourcities and )9 unicipalities thereo% into an interated unito% the anaer or coission %or o% overnent," with

the ters and conditions !ein le%t to the discretion o%the President. // -t was then pointed out that "the rapidrowth o% population and the correspondin increase o%social and econoic re5uireents in the contiuouscounities re%erred to a!ove has !rouht into !ein alare area that calls %or Idevelopent !othJ siultaneousand uni%ied." /6 4or "any pu!lic services IthenJ rendered!y local overnents separately %or theselves IouhttoJ !e ad. inistered ore e%%iciently and oreeconoically, to the coon !ene%it o% the cities andunicipalities in the area, i% they are interated andharoni/ed, under a syste o% central plannin Itreatinas a coon pro!le theJ separate unicipalneeds." / -t "is Vital to the survival and rowth o% thea%oreentioned Greater 0anila Area that a wor$a!le ande%%ective syste !e esta!lished %or the coordination,

interation and uni%ied anaeent o% such localovernent services or %unctions" /7 therein, There isnecessity %or "the uni%ied etropolitan services or%unctions ItoJ !e planned, adinistered, and operatedI!ased onJ the hihest pro%essional technical

6. There is relevance to this openin pararaph in trecent case o% Paredes v. F2ecutive 8ecretary: / "Tconstitutional 5uestion raised in this declaratory relproceedin treated as a special civil action %or prohone o% %irst ipression, arose %ro the issuance o% aproclaation !y the President, directin that a ple!!e conducted in certain !aranays, all within theunicipality o% 0ayoyao, Province o% -%uao, sereunder a #atas Pa!ansa, "to deterine whether th!aranays shall !ecoe a new unicipality !e $now

the 0unicipality o% Auinaldo, Province o% -%uao." -nproclaation, respondent Coission on Flections chared with the duty o% supervisin the conduct o%ple!iscite and epowered to proulate the necesrules and reulations to ipleent the proclaatioalleed that #atas Pa!ansa #l. *+ is unconstituti%or !ein violative o% Article -, 8ection 9 o% theConstitution. The !asis %or such contention is that thstatute e2cluded %ro the ple!iscite the voters %ropo!lacion and other !aranays o% the 0unicipality o0ayoyao e2cept those entioned in the Act." /5 Theproclaation was issued on ?ove!er )), )*<, atthree years !e%ore the enactent o% the local overcode. The petition !ased on Article -, 8ection 9 o% tConstitution, the very sae provision relied upon incase, was disissed. There were twelve &)6' votes %avor o% such disissal, two o% the >ustices / votindisiss the petition on the round that it had !ecooot and acadeic, the ple!iscite havin !een dulyand the certi%icate o% canvass and proclaation discthat out o% the 6,< total votes !ein cast in theple!iscite, 6,9+* were cast in %avor o% the creation onew unicipality./0 >ustice A!ad 8antos dissented oround that the people in the !aranay o% theunicipality o% Auinaldo should li$ewise have votethe ple!iscite, not only those o% the !aranays thatconstituted the new unicipality. The Court did ta$o% the plausi!ility o% such an approach !ut cae to tconclusion that the constitutional provision on the n%or a aority o% the votes cast in the ple!iscite in thor units a%%ected would !e satis%ied even i% "those vo

who are not %ro the !aranay to !e separated Iwee2cluded in the ple!iscite." 6-t cannot !e aruedthere%ore that the ple!iscite held in the areas a%%ectconstitute 0etropolitan 0anila, havin ani%ested twill, the constitutional provision relied upon !y petithas !een satis%ied. -t is to !e noted li$ewise that at

tie o% such ple!iscite in 4e!ruary, )7B, there was no;ocal Governent Code.

the concept o% e5ual protection in these words: "Theapplica!le standard to avoid the chare that there is adenial o% this constitutional andate whether the assailed

that under the conditions then e2istin — still preseand, with the continued rowth o% population, attenwith ore cople2ity — what was done a response



9. ?or is there any 5uestion as to the Presidentialauthority to issue Presidential (ecree ?o. *6 creatin0etropolitan 0anila in )7B. There was at the tieno interim #atasan Pa!ansa. -t was the President whowas then entrusted with such responsi!ility. 8o it washeld in A5uino, >r. v. Coission on Flections, 6/ decidedin >anuary o% )7B. The ponencia o% >ustice 0a$asiardispelled "all dou!ts as to the leality o% such law=a$inauthority !y the President durin the period o% 0artial;aw, ] ] ]." 66 As the opinion went on to state: "The entire

pararaph o% 8ection 9&6' is not a rant o% authority toleislate, !ut a reconition o% such power as alreadye2istin in %avor o% the incu!ent President durin theperiod o% 0artial ;aw." 6

. The sole petitioner in the other case 67 is li$ewise nowAsse!lyan Geiliano C ;ope/, >r, o% 0etropolitan0anila. -t is a andaus petition to re5uire respondentCoission on Flections to order the elections %ore!ers o% the 8anunian Panlunsod and8anunian #ayan in the %our cities and thirteen townso% 0etropolitan 0anila. As was ,stated in the0eorandu o% the 8olicitor General Fstelito P. 0endo/a,the %act that it is a suit %or andaus is an adission o%the validity o% Presidential (ecree ?o. *6. 6 ?or would

andaus lie, it !ein provided therein that "the8anunian #ayan shall !e coposed o% as any!aranay captains as ay !e deterined and chosen !ythe Coission, and such nu!er o% representatives%ro other sectors o% the society as ay !e appointed !ythe President upon recoendation o% theCoission." 6 The 8olicitor General can, there%oreplausi!ly assert: "This deonstrates that the petition1schare, that there is no duly constituted 8anunian#ayan, in 0etro 0anila Area is untrue, and that theciti/enry therein do have a voice in decision=a$in,throuh the respective 8anunian #ayans o% each o%the political units therein." 65 The (ecree itsel% thussupplies the re%utation to the contention o% petitioner.

B. The point has !een raised, however, that unlessPresidential (ecree ?o. *6 !e construed in such a waythat alon with the rest o% the other cities andunicipalities, there should !e elections %or the8anunian #ayan, then there is a denial o% the e5ualprotection provision o% the Constitution. The point is notwell=ta$en. -n a recent decision, 6 this Court reiterated

denial o% this constitutional andate whether the assailedact is in the e2ercise o% the police power or the power o%einent doain is to deonstrate "that the overnentact assailed, %ar %ro !ein inspired !y the attainent o%the coon weal was propted !y the spirit o% hostility,or at the very least, discriination that %inds no support inreason. -t su%%ices then that the laws operate e5ually anduni%orly on all persons under siilar circustances orthat all persons ust !e treated in the sae anner, theconditions not !ein di%%erent, !oth in the priveleescon%erred and the lia!ilities iposed. 4avoritis and

undue pre%erence cannot !e allowed. 4or the principle isthat e5ual protection and security shall !e iven to everyperson under circustances, which, i% not -dentical, areanaloous. -% law !e loo$ed upon in ters o% !urden orchares, those that %all within a class should !e treated inthe sae %ashion, whatever restrictions cast on soe inthe roup e5ually !indin on the rest." That sae%orulation applies as well to ta2ation easures. Thee5ual protection clause is, o% course, inspired !y theno!le concept o% appro2iatin the -deal o% the law1s!ene%its !ein availa!le to all and the a%%airs o% en!ein !y the serene and ipartial uni%ority, which is o%the very essence o% the -dea o% law. There is, however,wisdo, as well as realis, in these words o% >ustice4ran$%urther: "The e5uality at which the "e5ualprotection" clause ais is not a dise!odied e5uality.

The 4ourteenth Aendent enoins "the e5ual protectiono% the laws, and the laws are not a!stract propositions. They do not relate to a!stract units A, # and C, !ut aree2pressions o% policy arisin out o% speci%ic di%%iculties,addressed to the attainent o% speci%ic ends !y the use o%speci%ic reedies. The Constitution does not re5uirethins which are di%%erent in %act or opinion to !e treatedin law as thouh they were the sae." 60 -t is clear thatunder the e5ual protection clause, classi%ication is not%or!idden. As was so well put !y >ustice ;aurelas ponente in the leadin case People v* Ver a: "Classleislation discriinatin aainst soe and %avorinothers is prohi!ited. #ut classi%ication on a reasona!le!asis, and not ade ar!itrarily or capriciously isperitted. ] ] ] The classi%ication, however, to !ereasona!le ust !e !ased on su!stantial distinctionwhich a$e real di%%erences3 it ust !e erane to thepurposes o% the law3 it ust not !e liited to e2istinconditions only, and ust apply e5ually to each e!ero% the class." / All such eleents are present. There is noneed to set %orth anew the copellin reasons that called%or the creation o% 0etropolitan 0anila. -t is 5uite o!vious

with ore cople2ity what was done a responsereat pu!lic need. The overnent was called uponact. Presidential (ecree ?o. *6 was the result. -t iscondition %or the validity o% the 8anunian #ayanprovided %or in the %our cities and the thirteenunicipalities that the e!ership !e -dentical witthose o% other cities or unicipalities. There is ap

usti%ication %or such a distinction. -t does not !y anyeans coe under the cateory o% what Pro%essorGunther calls suspect classi%ication. 6 There is thuswarrant %or the view that the e5ual protection uara

was violated.

+ Re%erence was ade earlier to Article V---, 8ectionthe Constitution where there is e2press reconition

uridical entity $nown as 0etropolitan 0anila. 8uche2press constutional a%%iration o% its e2istence in t%undaental law calls, as earlier noted, %or the diso% these petitions, there !ein no leal usti%ication declaration o% unconstitutionality o% Presidential (ec?o. *6. ?or was it the %irst tie that there has !eeac$nowledent in law o% the creation o% 0anila. Thaccordin to the Flection Code o% )7*, "there shall)+< reional representatives to the interi #atasanPa!ansa apportioned aon the thirteen reions nation in accordance with the nu!er o% their respeinha!itants and on the !asis o% a uni%or and prorratio" with Reion -V. with ) representatives cop"0etro 0anila as %ollows: Cities o% 0anila, Lue/on,Caloocan, and Pasay3 and the unicipalities o%Valen/uela, 0ala!on, ?avotas, 0a$ati, Parana5ue, ;Pinas, 0andaluyon, 8an >uan, Pasi, 0untinlupa,0ari$ina, Pateros, and Taui." Then there is thisprovision %ound in Presidential (ecree ?o. )9+ crethe 0inistry o% uan 8ettleents" "8FC. 9.Fsta!lishent o% the ?ational Capital Reion — -n vthe critical iportance o% the 0etropolitan 0anila Rin huan settleent developent. it is here!y decand esta!lished as the ?ational Capital Reion o% thRepu!lic o% the Philippines, and its adinistration ais here!y vested in the 8ecretary o% uan 8ettle

The pertinent provisions o% Presidential (ecree ?o.

creatin the 0etropolitan 0anila Coission, are haccordinly aended." 7 The %act o% such reionalrepresentation was once aain ade clear in the Ap)*) aendents to the Constitution. Thus: "8FC. #atasan Pa!ansa which shall !e coposed o% nothan 6<< e!ers unless provided !y law, shall increpresentatives elected %ro the reions o% the

Philippines, those elected or selected %ro various sectorsas ay !e provided !y law, and those chosen !y thePresident %ro the e!ers o% the Ca!inet. Reional

case, the validity o% Repu!lic Act ?o. 676 o% thePhilippine ;eislature, popularly $nown as the Chinese#oo$$eepin ;aw, was 5uestioned. Accordin to the

avoid any dou!t as to its validity reains a %undacanon.



representatives shall !e apportioned aon the reionsin accordance with the nu!er o% their respectiveinha!itants and on the !asis o% a uni%or and proressiveration." ;astly, in addition to Article V---, 8ection 6 o% theConstitution as approved on >anuary 67, )*, itsaccopanyin ordinance reads as %ollows: "8FCT-O? ).4or purposes o% the election o% 0e!ers o% the reular#atasan Pa!ansa on the second 0onday o% 0ay )*and su!se5uent elections and until otherwise provided !ylaw, the 0e!ers o% the #atasan Pa!ansa, other than

the sectoral representatives and those chosen !y thePresident %ro the Ca!inet, shall !e apportioned to thedi%%erent provinces with their coponent cities, hihlyur!ani/ed cities and the representatives districts o%0etropolitan 0anila as %ollows: "?ational Capital Reion:0anila si2 &+' Lue/on City, %our &'3 Caloocan, two &6'3Pasay, one &)'3 0a$ati, one &)'3 0ala!on, one &)'3 ?avotasand Valen/uela, two &6'3 8an >uan and 0andaluyon, one&)'3 Taui, Pateros and 0untinlupa, one &)'." -t would!e, there%ore, as contended !y respondent Coission toshow lac$ o% the %idelity to the Constitution i% the prayer%or the a!olition o% the 0etropolitan 0anila, which ise2pressly authori/ed and reconi/ed !y the %undaentallaw, !e ranted.

7 One last point. -t is undenia!le, there%ore, that the

creation o% the 0etropolitan 0anila Coission is %ree%ro any constitutional o!ection. There is, however, a5uestion that ay arise in connection with the powers o%the President over the Coission. Accordin toPresidential (ecree ?o. *6: "The Coission, theGeneral 0anaer and any o%%icial o% the Coission shall!e under the direct supervision and control o% thePresident. ?otwithstandin any provision in this (ecree,the President shall the power to revo$e, aend or odi%yany ordinance, resolution or act o% the Coission, theGeneral and the Coissioners." 5 -t ay ive rise todou!ts as to its validity inso%ar as it con%ers the power o%control on the President. That control he certainlye2ercises under the present Constitution over theinistries. is power over local overnents does not

o that %ar. -t e2tends no %urther than eneralsupervision. 0 These dou!ts, however, do not su%%ice tonulli%y such a provision. They can !e set at rest. Eu ConFn v. Trinidad 7 shows the way. A%ter reiteratin theclassic doctrine o% the presuption !ein always in %avoro% constitutionality, >ustice 0alcol, as ponente,cateorically declared: "To dou!t is to sustain." 7/ -n this

p 5 opinion o% >ustice 0alcol: "A literal application o% the lawwould a$e it unlaw%ul %or any Chinese erchant to $eephis account !oo$s in any lanuae other than Fnlish,8panish, or oral dialect. The petitioner say the law issuscepti!le o% that interpretation iht, and pro!a!lywould, cause us to hold the law unconstitutional." 76 Theconstruction adopted to which the Court consideredperissi!le is "that the law only intended to re5uire the$eepin o% such !oo$s as were necessary in order to%acilitate overnental inspection %or ta2

purposes"

7

8uch a conclusion was reached !y theinvocation o% "an eleentary, a %undaental, and auniversal rule o% construction, applied when considerinconstitutional 5uestions, that when a law is suscepti!le o%two constructions one o% which will aintain and theother constructions one o% which will aintain and theother destroy it, the courts will always adopt the%orer." 778uccinctly put, that construction that wouldsave is to !e pre%erred as aainst one that will destroy. Asphrased !y Chie% >ustices uhes in Crowell v.#enson, 7 "i% a serious dou!t o% constitutionality israised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will %irstascertain whether a construction o% the statute is %airlypossi!le !y which the 5uestion ay !e avoided." 7 ? rdoes it arue aainst the authoritative character o% >ustice0alco1s ponencia in Eu Con Fn that it was reversed in

appeal to the @nited 8tates 8upree Court.75

(urin theperiod o% Aerican sovereinty, such urisdiction validly!e e2ercised. -ts decision then nulli%yin the Chinese#oo$$eepin ;aw is the law o% the case. it does not %ollow,however, that the reasonin on which the Philippinedecisions was !ased is !ere%t o% any leal sini%icance. -tdoes not adit o% dou!t that >ustice 0alcol and his!rethren considered %ully the precise pro!le presentedand the need %or such a easure to assure that the ta2esto which the Philippine overnent was entitled would !e%ully paid. -t cannot !e said that the Aerican 8upreeCourt — in this as in other cases o% Philippine oriin —was as well=in%ored. -t did not possess — it could notpossess — %ull awareness o% the conditions then e2istinin this country. A%ter >uly , )+, when the Philippinedeclared its independence, there%ore, it is not only

understanda!le !ut also proper that there !e less relianceon Aerican 8upree Court decisions. hat isundenia!le as shown !y the %oreoin citations o% case —!oth Philippine and Aerican — is that approach %ollowed!y >ustice 0alco in the interpretation o% statutes to

* To show %idelity to his !asic principle o% constructto lend su!stance to the e5ually !asic doctrine thatconstitution enters into and %ors part o% everystatute. 7 Accordinly, the presidential power o% coover acts o% the 0etro 0anila Coission is liitedthose that ay !e considered national in charactercan !e no valid o!ection to such e2ercise o% authoris undisputed that !y virtue o% the )*) aendenthe Constitution, once aain, "there is one purpose is crystal=clear and is the esta!lishent o% a sinle,

plural, F2ecutive."70

8o it was a%%ired in .ree 4eleWorkers Union v* /inister of 5a#or . There is sini%to the %act that the ;ocal Governent Code / does include the 0etro 0anila Coission. That is clearreconition that soe o% its attri!utes are those o% anational character. here, however, the acts o% the0anila Coission ay !e considered as properlyappertainin to local overnent %unctions, the powthe President is con%ined to eneral supervision. As construed, 8ection )9 clearly appears to !e %ree %roconstitutional in%irity.

FRF4ORF, the petition in G.R. ?o. B+<66entitled )emiliano &* 5opez7 9r* v* &ommission onElections, and the petition in G.R. ?o. B+)6

entitled )emiliano &* 5opez7 9r* and Reynaldo (* ra/etropolitan /anila &ommission, are disissed. ?o

KUANITO MARIANO, KR. !& %$., petitioners,vs.THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THEMUNICIPALITY O MAATI, HON. KEKOMAR BINATHE MUNICIPAL TREASURER, AND SANGGUNIABAYAN O MAATI, respondents.

G.R. No. //65 M%r+ 5, /00

KOHN R. OSMEA, petitioner,vs.THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE

MUNICIPALITY O MAATI, HON. KEKOMAR BINAMUNICIPAL TREASURER, AND SANGGUNIANGBAYAN O MAATI, respondents.

PUNO, J.:

At !ench are two &6' petitions assailin certain provisions

Petitioner assails section B6 o% R.A. ?o. 7*B asunconstitutional on the sae rounds as a%orestated.

Given the %acts o% the cases at !ench, we cannot pehow this evil can !e !rouht a!out !y the descriptioade in section 6 o% R.A. ?o. 7*B, Petitioners have



At !ench are two &6' petitions assailin certain provisionso% Repu!lic Act ?o. 7*B as unconstitutional. R.A. ?o.7*B as unconstitutional. R.A. ?o. 7*B is entitled, "AnAct Convertin the 0unicipality o% 0a$ati -nto a ihly@r!ani/ed City to !e $nown as the City o% 0a$ati." /

G.R. ?o. ))*B77 involves a petition %or prohi!ition anddeclaratory relie%. -t was %iled !y petitioners >uanito0ariano, >r., ;iaya 8. #autista, Teresita Ti!ay, Cailo8antos, 4ran$ie Cru/, Ricardo Pascual, Teresita A!an,Valentina Pitalvero, Ru%ino Caldo/a, 4lorante Al!a, and

Per%ecto Al!a. O% the petitioners, only 0ariano, >r., is aresident o% 0a$ati. The others are residents o% -!ayo@susan, Taui, 0etro 0anila. 8uin as ta2payers, theyassail as unconstitutional sections 6, B), and B6 o% R.A.?o. 7*B on the %ollowin rounds:

). 8ection 6 o% R.A. ?o. 7*B did not properly identi%y theland area or territorial urisdiction o% 0a$ati !y etes and!ounds, with technical descriptions, in violation o% 8ection)<, Article o% the Constitution, in relation to 8ections 7and B< o% the ;ocal Governent Code3

6. 8ection B) o% R.A. ?o. 7*B attepts to alter or restartthe "three consecutive ter" liit %or local electiveo%%icials, in violation o% 8ection *, Article and 8ection 7,

Article V- o% the Constitution.

9. 8ection B6 o% R.A. ?o. 7*B is unconstitutional %or:

&a' it increased the leislative district o% 0a$ati only !yspecial law &the Charter in violation o% the constitutionalprovision re5uirin a eneral reapportionent law to !epassed !y Conress within three &9' years %ollowin thereturn o% every census3

&!' the increase in leislative district was not e2pressed inthe title o% the !ill3 and

&c' the addition o% another leislative district in 0a$ati is

not in accord with 8ection B &9', Article V- o% theConstitution %or as o% the latest survey &)< census', thepopulation o% 0a$ati stands at only B<,<<<.

G.R. ?o. ))*+67 was %iled !y the petitioner >ohn .Ose\a as senator, ta2payer, and concerned citi/en.

e %ind no erit in the petitions.

-

8ection 6, Article - o% R.A. ?o. 7*B delineated the landareas o% the proposed city o% 0a$ati, thus:

8ec. 6. 4he &ity of /akati. — The 0unicipality o% 0a$atishall !e converted into a hihly ur!ani/ed city to !e

$nown as the City o% 0a$ati, hereina%ter re%erred to as theCity, "hich shall comprise the present territory of the/unicipality of /akati in /etropolitan /anila rea overwhich it has urisdiction !ounded on the northeast !yPasi River and !eyond !y the City o% 0andaluyon andthe 0unicipality o% Pasi3 on the southeast !y theunicipalities o% Pateros and Taui3 on the southwest !ythe City o% Pasay and the 0unicipality o% Taui3 and, onthe northwest, !y the City o% 0anila.

The %oreoin provision shall !e "ithout pre$udice to theresolution #y the appropriate a!ency or forum of eistin!#oundary disputes or cases involvin! <uestions ofterritorial $urisdiction #et"een the &ity of /akati and thead$oinin! local !overnment units. &Fphasis supplied'

-n G.R. ?o. ))*B77, petitioners clai that this delineationviolates sections 7 and B< o% the ;ocal GovernentCode which re5uire that the area o% a local overnentunit should !e ade !y etes and !ounds with technicaldescriptions. 6

The iportance o% drawin with precise stro$es theterritorial !oundaries o% a local unit o% overnent cannot!e overephasi/ed. The !oundaries ust !e clear %orthey de%ine the liits o% the territorial urisdiction o% alocal overnent unit. -t can leitiately e2ercise powerso% overnent only within the liits, its acts are ultravires. ?eedless to state, any uncertainty in the!oundaries o% local overnent units will sow costly

con%licts in the e2ercise o% overnental powers whichultiately will preudice the people1s wel%are. This is theevil souht to avoided !y the ;ocal Governent Code inre5uirin that the land area o% a local overnent unitust !e spelled out in etes and !ounds, with technicaldescriptions.

deonstrated that the delineation o% the land area proposed City o% 0a$ati will cause con%usion as to it!oundaries. e note that said delineation did not cheven !y an inch the land area previously covered !y0a$ati as a unicipality. 8ection 6 did not add, su!divide, or ultiply the esta!lished land area o% 0a$lanuae that cannot !e any clearer, section 6 statethat, the city1s land area "shall coprisethe present territory o% the unicipality."

The deli!erations o% Conress will reveal that there leitiate reason why the land area o% the proposeo% 0a$ati was not de%ined !y etes and !ounds, witechnical descriptions. At the tie o% the consideratR.A. ?o. 7*B, the territorial dispute !etween theunicipalities o% 0a$ati and Taui over 4ort #oni%awas under court litiation. Out o% a !ecoin senserespect to co=e5ual departent o% overnent,leislators %elt that the dispute should !e le%t to the to decide. They did not want to %oreclose the disputa$in a leislative %indin o% %act which could deciissue. This would have ensued i% they de%ined the laarea o% the proposed city !y its e2act etes and !owith technical descriptions. e ta$e udicial notice%act that Conress has also re%rained %ro usin theetes and !ounds description o% land areas o% othe

overnent units with unsettled !oundary disputes

e hold that the e2istence o% a !oundary dispute dnot per se present an insurounta!le di%%iculty whicprevent Conress %ro de%inin with reasona!le certhe territorial urisdiction o% a local overnent unitthe cases at !ench, Conress aintained the e2isti!oundaries o% the proposed City o% 0a$ati !ut as an%airness, ade the su!ect to the ultiate resolutthe courts. Considerin these peculiar circustanceare not prepared to hold that section 6 o% R.A. ?o. 7unconstitutional. e sustain the su!ission o% the8olicitor General in this reard, viz .:

Goin now to 8ections 7 and B< o% the ;ocal Gover

Code, it is !eyond cavil that the re5uireent statedtherein, viz .: "the territorial urisdiction o% newly creor converted cities should !e descri!ed !y eted a!ounds, with technical descriptions" — was ade into provide a eans !y which the area o% said cities !e reasona!ly ascertained. -n other words, the

re5uireent on etes and !ounds was eant erely astool in the esta!lishent o% local overnent units. -t isnot an end in itsel%. Er!o, so lon as the territorial i di ti % it ! !l t i d i

8ec. B). 8fficials of the &ity of /akati. — The representelective o%%icials o% the 0unicipality o% 0a$ati shallcontinue as the o%%icials o% the City o% 0a$ati and shall

i th i d % ti til h ti th t

%urther arue that should 0ayor #inay decide to runeventually win as city mayor in the coin electioncan still run %or the sae position in )* and see$

th th ti t i hi i



urisdiction o% a city ay !e reasona!ly ascertained, i.e.,!y re%errin to coon !oundaries with neih!orinunicipalities, as in this case, then, it ay !e concludedthat the leislative intent !ehind the law has !eensu%%iciently served.

Certainly, Conress did not intends that laws creatinnew cities ust contain therein detailed technicaldescriptions siilar to those appearin in Torrens titles,as petitioners see to iply. To re5uire such description

in the law as a condition sine <ua non %or its validitywould !e to de%eat the very purpose which the ;ocalGovernent Code to see$s to serve. The ani%est intento% the Code is to epower local overnent units and toive the their riht%ul due. -t see$s to a$e localovernents ore responsive to the needs o% theirconstituents while at the sae tie servin as a vital coin national developent. To invalidate R.A. ?o. 7*B onthe ere round that no cadastral type o% description wasused in the law would serve the letter !ut de%eat the spirito% the Code. -t then !ecoes a case o% the aster servinthe slave, instead o% the other way around. This could not!e the intendent o% the law.

Too well settled is the rule that laws ust !e en%orcedwhen ascertained, althouh it ay not !e consistent withthe strict letter o% the statute. Courts will not %ollow theletter o% the statute when to do so would depart %ro thetrue intent o% the leislature or would otherwise yieldconclusions inconsistent with the eneral purpose o% theact. &Torres v. ;iap, B+ Phil., ))3 Ta\ada v. Cuenco,)<9 Phil. )<B)3 idalo v. idalo, 99 8CRA ))<B'.;eislation is an active instruent o% overnent, which,%or purposes o% interpretation, eans that laws have endsto achieve, and statutes should !e so construed as not tode%eat !ut to carry out such ends and purposes &#ocol!ov. Fstanislao, 76 8CRA B6<'. The sae rule ustindu!ita!ly apply to the case at !ar.

--

Petitioners in G.R. ?o. ))*B77 also assail theconstitutionality o% section B), Article o% R.A. ?o. 7*B.8ection B) states:

e2ercise their powers and %unctions until such tie that anew election is held and the duly elected o%%icials shallhave already 5uali%ied and assue theiro%%ices: Provided, 4he ne" city "ill ac<uire a ne"corporate eistence. The appointive o%%icials andeployees o% the City shall li$ewise continues e2ercisintheir %unctions and duties and they shall !e autoaticallya!sor!ed !y the city overnent o% the City o% 0a$ati.

They contend that this section collides with section *,

Article and section 7, Article V- o% the Constitution whichprovide:

8ec. *. The ter o% o%%ice o% elective local o%%icials, e2cept!aranay o%%icials, which shall !e deterined !y law, shall!e three years and no such official shall serve for morethan three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation o%the o%%ice %or any lenth o% tie shall not !e consideredas an interruption in the continuity o% his service %or the%ull ter %or which he was elected.

222 222 222

8ec. 7. The 0e!ers o% the ouse o% Representativesshall !e elected %or a ter o% three years which shall

!ein, unless otherwise provided !y law, at noon on thethirtieth day o% >une ne2t %ollowin their election.

?o 0e!er o% the ouse o% Representatives shall serve%or ore than three consecutive ters. Voluntaryrenunciation o% the o%%ice %or any lenth o% tie shall not!e considered as an interruption in the continuity o% hisservice %or the %ull ter %or which he was elected.

Petitioners stress that under these provisions, electivelocal officials7 includin! /em#ers of the ;ouse ofRepresentative7 have a term of three &C' years and are

prohi#ited from servin! for more thanthree &C' consecutive terms. They arue that !y providinthat the new city shall ac5uire a ne" corporate eistence,

section B) o% R.A. ?o. 7*B restarts the ter o% thepresent unicipal elective o%%icials o% 0a$ati anddisreards the ters previously served !y the. -nparticular, petitioners point that section B) %avors theincu!ent 0a$ati 0ayor, respondent >eoar #inay, whohas already served %or two &6' consecutive ters. They

another three=year consecutive ter since his previthree=year consecutive ter as municipal mayor wonot !e counted. Thus, petitioners conclude that saidsection B) has !een conveniently cra%ted to suit thepolitical a!itions o% respondent 0ayor #inay.

e cannot entertain this challene to the constitutio% section B). The re5uireents !e%ore a litiant cachallene the constitutionality o% a law are welldelineated. They are: )' there ust !e an actual ca

controversy3 &6' the 5uestion o% constitutionality uraised !y the proper party3 &9' the constitutional 5uust !e raised at the earliest possi!le opportunity3 &' the decision on the constitutional 5uestion ustnecessary to the deterination o% the case itsel%.

Petitioners have %ar %ro coplied with thesere5uireents. The petition is preised on the occuo% any continent events, i.e., that 0ayor #inay waain in this coin ayoralty elections3 that he wo!e re=elected in said elections3 and that he would seelection %or the sae position in the )* electionsConsiderin that these continencies ay or ay nhappen, petitioners erely pose a hypothetical issuwhich has yet to ripen to an actual case or controvePetitioners who are residents o% Taui &e2cept 0arare not also the proper parties to raise this a!stractorse, they hoist this %uturistic issue in a petition %odeclaratory relie% over which this Court has no

urisdiction.

---

4inally, petitioners in the two &6' cases at !ench assconstitutionality o% section B6, Article o% R.A. ?o. 78ection B6 o% the Charter provides:

8ec. B6. 5e!islative Districts. — @pon its conversionhihly=ur!ani/ed city, 0a$ati shall therea%ter have aleast t"o L2M le!islative districts that shall initially

correspond to the two &6' e2istin districts created 8ection 9&a' o% Repu!lic Act. ?o. 7)++ as ipleenthe Coission on Flections to coence at the nnational elections to !e held a%ter the e%%ectivity o% Act. ence%orth, !aranays 0aallanes, (asari\a4or!es shall !e with the %irst district, in lieu o% #aran

Guadalupe=Vieo which shall %or part o% the seconddistrict. &ephasis supplied'

L2-67666M shall !e entitled to at least one con!ressionalrepresentative. /7

this Court in Pelaez v* uditor )eneral 6 and /unicipof %an 9oa<uin v* %iva. 9



They contend. that the addition o% another leislativedistrict in 0a$ati is unconstitutional %or: &)'reapportionent cannot ade !y a special law, &6' theaddition o% a leislative district is not e2pressed in thetitle o% the !ill 5 and &9' 0a$ati1s population, as per the)< census, stands at only %our hundred %i%ty thousand&B<,<<<'.

These issues have !een laid to rest in the recent caseo% 4o#ias v . #alos. -n said case, we ruled that

reapportionent o% leislative districts ay !e adethrouh a special law, such as in the charter o% a new city.

The Constitution 0 clearly provides that Conress shall !ecoposed o% not ore than two hundred %i%ty &6B<'e!ers, unless other"ise fied #y la". As thus worded,the Constitution did not preclude Conress %roincreasin its e!ership !y passin a law, other than aeneral reapportionent o% the law. This is its e2actlywhat was done !y Conress in enactin R.A. ?o. 7*Band providin %or an increase in 0a$ati1s leislativedistrict. 0oreover, to hold that reapportionent can only!e ade throuh a eneral apportionent law, with areview o% all the leislative districts allotted to each localovernent unit nationwide, would create an ine5uita!lesituation where a new city or province created !yConress will !e denied leislative representation %or anindeterinate period o% tie. / The intolera!le situationswill deprive the people o% a new city or province a particleo% their sovereinty. // 8overeinty cannot adit o% any$ind o% su!traction. -t is indivisi!le. -t ust !e %oreverwhole or it is not sovereinty.

Petitioners cannot insist that the addition o% anotherleislative district in 0a$ati is not in accord with sectionB&9', Article V- /6 o% the Constitution %or as o% the latestsurvey &)< census', the population o% 0a$ati stands atonly %our hundred %i%ty thousand &B<,<<<'. / 8aidsection provides, inter alia, that a city with a populationo% at least t"o hundred fifty thousand &6B<,<<<' shallhave at least one representative. Fven rantin that thepopulation o% 0a$ati as o% the )< census stood at %our

hundred %i%ty thousand &B<,<<<', its leislative districtay still !e increased since it has et the iniupopulation re5uireent o% two hundred %i%ty thousand&6B<,<<<'. -n %act, section 9 o% the Ordinance appended tothe Constitution provides that a city whose populationhas increased to more than t"o hundred fifty thousand

4inally, we do not %ind erit in petitioners1 contention thatthe creation o% an additional leislative district in 0a$atishould have !een e2pressly stated in the title o% the !ill.-n the sae case o% 4o#ias v . #alos7 op cit ., wereiterated the policy o% the Court %avorin a li!eralconstruction o% the "one title?one su#$ect " rule so as notto ipede leislation. To !e sure, with Constitution doesnot coand that the title o% a law should e2actly irror,%ully inde2, or copletely cataloue all its details. ence,we ruled that "it should !e su%%icient copliance i% the

title e2presses the eneral su!ect and all the provisionsare erane to such eneral su!ect."

FRF4ORF, the petitions are here!y (-80-88F( %or lac$o% erit ?o costs.

THE MUNICIPALITY O MALABANG, LANAO DEL SUR,%n# AMER MACAORAO BALINDONG, petitioners,vs.PANGANDAPUN BENITO, HADKI NOPODINMACAPUNUNG, HADKI HASAN MACARAMPAD,REDERIC V. DUKERTE MONDACO ONTAL,MARONSONG ANDOY, MACALABA INDARLAO. respondents.

5* mores and R* )onzales for petitioners* 9ose W* Diokno for respondents*

CASTRO, J.:

The petitioner Aer 0acaorao #alindon is theayor o% 0ala!an, ;anao del 8ur, while the respondentPanandapun #onito is the ayor, and the rest o% therespondents are the councilors, o% the unicipality o%#ala!aan o% the sae province. #ala!aan was %orerlya part o% the unicipality o% 0ala!an, havin !eencreated on 0arch )B, )+<, !y F2ecutive Order 9*+ o% thethen President Carlos P. Garcia, out o% !arrios andsitios ) o% the latter unicipality.

The petitioners !rouht this action %or prohi!itionto nulli%y F2ecutive Order 9*+ and to restrain therespondent unicipal o%%icials %ro per%orin the%unctions o% their respective o%%ice relyin on the rulin o%

-n Pelaez this Court, throuh 0r. >ustice &now >ustice' Concepcion, ruled: &)' that section 69 o% ReAct 697< I#arrio Charter Act, approved >anuary ), )!y vestin the power to create #arrios in the provin!oard, is a "statutory denial o% the presidential authto create a new #arrio IandJ iplies a neation o%the #i!!er power to create unicipalities," and &6' tsection +* o% the Adinistrative Code, inso%ar as it the President the power to create unicipalities, isunconstitutional &a' !ecause it constitutes an undue

deleation o% leislative power and &!' !ecause it o%aainst section )< &)' o% article V-- o% the Constitutiowhich liits the President1s power over local overnto ere supervision. As this Court sued up itsdiscussion: "-n short, even i% it did not entail an unddeleation o% leislative powers, as it certainly doessection +*, as part o% the Revised Adinistrative Coapproved on 0arch )<, ))7, ust !e deeed repe!y the su!se5uent adoption o% the Constitution, in )which is utterly incopati!le and inconsistent with statutory enactent."

On the other hand, the respondents, whileadittin the %acts alleed in the petition, neverthearue that the rule announced in Pelaez can have napplication in this case !ecause unli$e the unicipainvolved in Pelaez , the unicipality o% #ala!aan isleast a de facto corporation, havin !een orani/edcolor o% a statute !e%ore this was declaredunconstitutional, its o%%icers havin !een either elecappointed, and the unicipality itsel% havin dischaits corporate %unctions %or the past %ive years precedthe institution o% this action. -t is contended that as facto corporation, its e2istence cannot !e collateralattac$ed, althouh it ay !e in5uired into directly iaction %or <uo "arranto at the instance o% the 8tatenot o% an individual li$e the petitioner #alindon.

-t is indeed true that, enerally, an in5uiry inleal e2istence o% a unicipality is reserved to the 8in a proceedin %or <uo "arranto or other direct

proceedin, and that only in a %ew e2ceptions ay aprivate person e2ercise this %unction o% overnentthe rule disallowin collateral attac$s applies only wthe unicipal corporation is at least a defacto corporations. B 4or where it is neither acorporation de $ure nor de facto, !ut a nullity, the ru

that its e2istence ay !e, 5uestioned collaterally ordirectly in any action or proceedin !y any one whoserihts or interests ate a%%ected there!y, includin theciti/ens o% the territory incorporated unless they are

$ure or de facto unicipal corporation upon the saeterritory3 in the one case the %act would iply theiputation o% !ad %aith, in the other the new orani/ationust !e rearded as a ere usurper

unicipality was created in )+), !e%ore section +*Adinistrative Code, under which the President hadacted, was invalidated. 1O% course the issue o% defactounicipal corporation did not arise in that case



citi/ens o% the territory incorporated unless they areestopped !y their conduct %ro doin so. +

And so the threshold 5uestion is whether theunicipality o% #ala!aan is a de facto corporation. Asearlier stated, the clai that it is rests on the %act that itwas orani/ed !e%ore the proulation o% this Court1sdecision inPelaez . 7

Accordinly, we address ourselves to the 5uestion

whether a statute can lend color o% validity to anattepted orani/ation o% a unicipality despite the %actthat such statute is su!se5uently declaredunconstitutional.la"phi+*Jet

This has !een a litiiously proli%ic 5uestion,sharply dividin courts in the @nited 8tates. Thus, soehold that a de facto corporation cannot e2ist where thestatute or charter creatin it is unconstitutional !ecausethere can !e no de facto corporation where there can !eno de $ure one, * while others hold otherwise on the theorythat a statute is !indin until it is condened asunconstitutional.

An early article in the Eale ;aw >ournal o%%ers the

%ollowin analysis:

-t appears that the true !asis %or denyin to thecorporation a de facto status lay in the a!sence o% anyleislative act to ive vitality to its creation. Ane2aination o% the cases holdin, soe o% theunreservedly, that a de facto o%%ice or unicipalcorporation can e2ist under color o% an unconstitutionalstatute will reveal that in no instance did the invalid active li%e to the corporation, !ut that either in other validacts or in the constitution itsel% the o%%ice or thecorporation was potentially created....

The principle that color o% title under anunconstitutional statute can e2ist only where there is

soe other valid law under which the orani/ation ay!e e%%ected, or at least an authority in potentia !y thestate constitution, has its counterpart in the neativepropositions that there can !e no color o% authority in anunconstitutional statute that plainly so appears on its %aceor that attepts to authori/e the oustin o% a de

ust !e rearded as a ere usurper....

As a result o% this analysis o% the cases the%ollowin principles ay !e deduced which see toreconcile the apparently con%lictin decisions:

-. The color o% authority re5uisite to the orani/ation o%a de facto unicipal corporation ay !e:

). A valid law enacted !y the leislature.

6. An unconstitutional law, valid on its %ace, which haseither &a' !een upheld %or a tie !y the courts or &!' notyet !een declared void3 provided that a warrant %or itscreation can !e %ound in soe other valid law or in thereconition o% its potential e2istence !y the eneral lawsor constitution o% the state.

--. There can !e no de facto unicipal corporation unlesseither directly or potentially, such a de $urecorporation isauthori/ed !y soe leislative %iat.

---. There can !e no color o% authority in anunconstitutional statute alone, the invalidity o% which is

apparent on its %ace.

-V. There can !e no de facto corporation createdto ta$e the place o% an e2istin de $ure corporation, assuch orani/ation would clearly !e a usurper.)<

-n the cases where a de facto unicipalcorporation was reconi/ed as such despite the %act thatthe statute creatin it was later invalidated, the decisionscould %airly !e ade to rest on the consideration thatthere was soe other valid law ivin corporate vitality tothe orani/ation. ence, in the case at !ar, the ere %actthat #ala!aan was orani/ed at a tie when the statutehad not !een invalidated cannot conceiva!ly a$e it a defacto corporation, as, independently o% the Adinistrative

Code provision in 5uestion, there is no other valid statuteto ive color o% authority to its creation. -ndeed,in /unicipality of %an 9oa<uin v* %iva, )) this Court ranteda siilar petition %or prohi!ition and nulli%ied an e2ecutiveorder creatin the unicipality o% ;awian in -loilo on the!asis o% the Pelaez rulin, despite the %act that the

factounicipal corporation did not arise in that case

-n :orton v* %hel#y &ount , )6 0r. >ustice 4ield"An unconstitutional act is not a law3 it con%ers no rit iposes no duties3 it a%%ords no protection3 it creaoffice3 it is, in leal conteplation, as inoperative athouh it had never !een passed." Accordinly, he that !onds issued !y a !oard o% coissioners creaunder an invalid statute were unen%orcea!le.

F2ecutive Order 9*+ "created no o%%ice." Thnot to say, however, that the acts done !y theunicipality o% #ala!aan in the e2ercise o% its corppowers are a nullity !ecause the e2ecutive order "isleal conteplation, as inoperative as thouh it hadnever !een passed." 4or the e2istence o% F2ecutive9*+ is "an operative %act which cannot ustly !e inoAs Chie% >ustice uhes e2plained in &hicot &ountyDraina!e District v* (ater %tate (ank : )9

The courts !elow have proceeded on the thethat the Act o% Conress, havin !een %ound to !eunconstitutional, was not a law3 that it was inoperatcon%errin no rihts and iposin no duties, and hea%%ordin no !asis %or the challened decree. ?orton

8hel!y County, ))* @.8. 6B, 63 Chicao, -. M ;. Rv. ac$ett, 66* @.8. BB, B++. -t is 5uite clear, howethat such !road stateents as to the e%%ect o% adeterination o% unconstitutionality ust !e ta$en 5uali%ications. The actual e2istence o% a statute, priosuch a deterination, is an operative %act and ay conse5uences which cannot ustly !e inored. The pcannot always !e erased !y a new udicial declarati

The e%%ect o% the su!se5uent rulin as to invalidity have to !e considered in various aspects — with resto particular relations, individual and corporate, andparticular conduct, private and o%%icial. Luestions o%claied to have !ecoe vested, o% status o% priordeterinations deeed to have %inality and acted uaccordinly, o% pu!lic policy in the liht o% the naturo% the statute and o% its previous application, dea

e2aination. These 5uestions are aon the ostdi%%icult o% those which have enaed the attention courts, state and %ederal, and it is ani%est %ronuerous decisions that an all=inclusive stateent principle o% a!solute retroactive invalidity cannot !e

usti%ied.

There is then no !asis %or the respondents1apprehension that the invalidation o% the e2ecutive ordercreatin #ala!aan would have the e%%ect o% unsettlinany an act done in reliance upon the validity o% the

su!divisions — intervened in the case. 0oreover,Attorneys Fnri5ue 0. 4ernando and Fa Luisu!in=4ernando were allowed to and did appear asamici curiae.

consists o% several !arrios. The coency and %orce oaruent is too o!vious to !e denied or even 5uest4ounded upon loic and e2perience, it cannot !e o%e2cept !y a clear ani%estation o% the intent o% Con



any an act done in reliance upon the validity o% thecreation o% that unicipality. )

ACCOR(-?G;E, the petition is ranted, F2ecutiveOrder 9*+ is declared void, and the respondents arehere!y peranently restrained %ro per%orin theduties and %unctions o% their respective o%%ices. ?opronounceent as to costs.

EMMANUEL PELAEZ, petitioner,

vs.THE AUDITOR GENERAL, respondent.

Kulueta7 )onzales7 Paculdo and ssociates for petitioner*8ffice of the %olicitor )eneral for respondent*

CONCEPCION, J.:

(urin the period %ro 8epte!er to Octo!er 6, )+the President o% the Philippines, purportin to actpursuant to 8ection +* o% the Revised AdinistrativeCode, issued F2ecutive Orders ?os. 9 to )6), )6 and)6+ to )63 creatin thirty=three &99' unicipalitiesenuerated in the arin.) 8oon a%ter the date last

entioned, or on ?ove!er )<, )+ petitionerFanuel Pelae/, as Vice President o% the Philippines andas ta2payer, instituted the present special civil action, %ora writ o% prohi!ition with preliinary inunction, aainstthe Auditor General, to restrain hi, as well as hisrepresentatives and aents, %ro passin in audit anye2penditure o% pu!lic %unds in ipleentation o% saide2ecutive orders andDor any dis!urseent !y saidunicipalities.

Petitioner allees that said e2ecutive orders are null andvoid, upon the round that said 8ection +* has !eenipliedly repealed !y Repu!lic Act ?o. 697< andconstitutes an undue deleation o% leislative power.Respondent aintains the contrary view and avers thatthe present action is preature and that not all proper

parties — re%errin to the o%%icials o% the new politicalsu!divisions in 5uestion — have !een ipleaded.8u!se5uently, the ayors o% several unicipalitiesadversely a%%ected !y the a%oreentioned e2ecutiveorders — !ecause the latter have ta$en away %ro the%orer the !arrios coposin the new political

The third pararaph o% 8ection 9 o% Repu!lic Act ?o.697<, reads:

#arrios shall not !e created or their !oundaries alterednor their naes chaned e2cept under the provisions o%this Act or !y Act o% Conress.

Pursuant to the %irst two &6' pararaphs o% the sae8ection 9:

All !arrios e2istin at the tie o% the passae o% this Actshall coe under the provisions hereo%.

@pon petition o% a aority o% the voters in the areasa%%ected, a new !arrio ay !e created or the nae o% ane2istin one ay !e chaned !y the provincial !oard o%the province, upon recoendation o% the council o% theunicipality or unicipalities in which the proposed!arrio is stipulated. The recoendation o% the unicipalcouncil shall !e e!odied in a resolution approved !y atleast two=thirds o% the entire e!ership o% the saidcouncil: Provided, however, That no new !arrio ay !ecreated i% its population is less than %ive hundred persons.

ence, since >anuary ), )+<, when Repu!lic Act ?o.697< !ecae e%%ective, !arrios ay "not !e created ortheir !oundaries altered nor their naes chaned" e2cept!y Act o% Conress or o% the correspondin provincial!oard "upon petition o% a aority o% the voters in theareas a%%ected" and the "recoendation o% the councilo% the unicipality or unicipalities in which theproposed !arrio is situated." Petitioner arues,accordinly: "-% the President, under this new law, cannoteven create a !arrio, can he create a unicipality whichis coposed o% several #arrios, since #arrios are units o%unicipalitiesN"

Respondent answers in the a%%irative, upon the theorythat a new unicipality can !e created without creatinnew !arrios, such as, !y placin old !arrios under the

urisdiction o% the new unicipality. This theory overloo$s,however, the ain iport o% the petitioner1s aruent,which is that the statutory denial o% the presidentialauthority to create a new !arrio iplies a neation o% the!ier power to create unicipalities, each o% which

e2cept !y a clear ani%estation o% the intent o% Conto the contrary, and no such ani%estation, su!se5uthe passae o% Repu!lic Act ?o. 697, has !een !roto our attention.

0oreover, section +* o% the Revised Adinistrative upon which the disputed e2ecutive orders are !aseprovides:

The &Governor=General' President o% the Philippines

!y e2ecutive order de%ine the !oundary, or !oundaany province, su!province, unicipality, ItownshipJunicipal district, or other political su!division, andincrease or diinish the territory coprised thereindivide any province into one or ore su!provinces,separate any political division other than a provincesuch portions as ay !e re5uired, ere any o% sucsu!divisions or portions with another, nae any newsu!division so created, and ay chane the seat o%overnent within any su!division to such place thas the pu!lic wel%are ay re5uire: Provided, That thauthori/ation o% the &Philippine ;eislature' Conresthe Philippines shall %irst !e o!tained whenever the!oundary o% any province or su!province is to !e deor any province is to !e divided into one or oresu!provinces. hen action !y the &Governor=GenerPresident o% the Philippines in accordance herewith necessary a chane o% the territory under the urisdo% any adinistrative o%%icer or any udicial o%%icer, t&Governor=General' President o% the Philippines, witrecoendation and advice o% the head o% the(epartent havin e2ecutive control o% such o%%icerredistrict the territory o% the several o%%icers a%%ecteassin such o%%icers to the new districts so %ored.

@pon the chanin o% the liits o% political divisionspursuance o% the %oreoin authority, an e5uita!ledistri!ution o% the %unds and o!liations o% the divisthere!y a%%ected shall !e ade in such anner as recoended !y the &-nsular Auditor' Auditor Geneand approved !y the &Governor=General' President

Philippines.

Respondent allees that the power o% the Presidentcreate unicipalities under this section does not ato an undue deleation o% leislative power, relyinupon /unicipality of &ardona vs* /unicipality of

(inaJ!onan &9+ Phil. B7', which, he clais, has settledit. 8uch clai is untena!le, %or said case involved, not thecreation o% a new unicipality, !ut a ere transfer ofterritory — %ro an already eistin! unicipality

powers and the syste o% chec$s and !alances, and,conse5uently, underinin the very %oundation o% ourRepu!lican syste.

involved therein, outside o% which they do not constprecedents and have no !indin e%%ect. The lawconstrued in the Calalan case con%erred upon the(irector o% Pu!lic or$s, with the approval o% the



territory %ro an already eistin! unicipality&Cardona' to another unicipality &#ina\onan', like"ise7eistin! at the time of and prior to said transfer &8eeGov1t o% the P.-. e2 rel. 0unicipality o% Cardona vs.0unicipality, o% #ina\onan I9 Phil. B)*, B)=B6<)' — inconse5uence o% the %i2in and de%inition, pursuant to Act?o. )7*, o% the coon !oundaries o% twounicipalities.

-t is o!vious, however, that, whereas the power to %i2

such coon !oundary, in order to avoid or settlecon%licts o% urisdiction !etween adoinin unicipalities,ay parta$e o% an administrative nature — involvin, as itdoes, the adoption o% eans and ways to carry intoeffect the law creatin said unicipalities — the authorityto create unicipal corporations isessentially le!islative in nature. -n the lanuae o% othercourts, it is "strictly a leislative %unction" &8tate e2 rel.iins vs. Aic$len, )) 8. 6B, >anuary 6, )B' or"solely and eclusively the e2ercise o% le!islative power"&@dall vs. 8evern, 0ay 6, )9*, 7 P. 6d 97=9'. Asthe 8upree Court o% ashinton has put it &Territory e2rel. Kelly vs. 8tewart, 4e!ruary )9, )*<, 69 Pac. <B,<', "unicipal corporations are purely the creatures ofstatutes."

Althouh)a Conress ay deleate to another !ranch o%the Governent the power to %ill in the details in thee2ecution, en%orceent or adinistration o% a law, it isessential, to %orestall a violation o% the principle o%separation o% powers, that said law: &a' !e coplete initsel% — it ust set %orth therein the policy to !ee2ecuted, carried out or ipleented !y the deleate6 —and &!' %i2 a standard — the liits o% which aresu%%iciently deterinate or deterina!le — to which thedeleate ust con%or in the per%orance o% his%unctions.6a -ndeed, without a statutory declaration o%policy, the deleate would in e%%ect, a$e or %orulatesuch policy, which is the essence o% every law3 and,without the a%oreentioned standard, there would !e noeans to deterine, with reasona!le certainty, whether

the deleate has acted within or !eyond the scope o% hisauthority.6! ence, he could there!y arroate uponhisel% the power, not only to a$e the law, !ut, also —and this is worse — to una$e it, !y adoptin easuresinconsistent with the end souht to !e attained !y the Acto% Conress, thus nulli%yin the principle o% separation o%

8ection +* o% the Revised Adinistrative Code does noteet these well settled re5uireents %or a validdeleation o% the power to %i2 the details in theen%orceent o% a law. -t does not enunciate any policy to!e carried out or ipleented !y the President. ?eitherdoes it ive a standard su%%iciently precise to avoid theevil e%%ects a!ove re%erred to. -n this connection, we donot overloo$ the %act that, under the last clause o% the%irst sentence o% 8ection +*, the President:

... ay chane the seat o% the overnent within anysu!division to such place therein as the pu#lic "elfaremay re<uire.

-t is apparent, however, %ro the lanuae o% this clause,that the phrase "as the pu!lic wel%are ay re5uire"5uali%ied, not the clauses precedin the one ust 5uoted,!ut only the place to which the seat o% the overnentay !e trans%erred. This %act !ecoes ore apparentwhen we consider that said 8ection +* was oriinally8ection ) o% Act ?o. )7*,9 which provided that,"whenever in the udent o% the Governor=Generalthe pu#lic "elfare re5uires, he ay, !y e2ecutive order,"e%%ect the chanes enuerated therein &as in said section

+*', includin the chane o% the seat o% the overnent"to such place ... as the pu#lic interest re<uires." Theopenin stateent o% said 8ection ) o% Act ?o. )7* —which was not included in %ection +* o% the RevisedAdinistrative Code — overned the tie at which, or theconditions under which, the powers therein con%erredcould !e e2ercised3 whereas the last part o% the %irstsentence o% said section re%erred eclusively tothe place to which the seat o% the overnent was to !etrans%erred.

At any rate, the conclusion would !e the sae, inso%ar asthe case at !ar is concerned, even i% we assued that thephrase "as the pu!lic wel%are ay re5uire," in said8ection +*, 5uali%ies all other clauses thereo%. -t is truethat in &alalan! vs* Williams &7< Phil. 76+' and People vs*Rosenthal &+* Phil. 96*', this Court had upheld "pu!licwel%are" and "pu!lic interest," respectively, as su%%icientstandards %or a valid deleation o% the authority toe2ecute the law. #ut, the doctrine laid down in thesecases — as all udicial pronounceents — ust !econstrued in relation to the speci%ic %acts and issues

(irector o% Pu!lic or$s, with the approval o% the8ecretary o% Pu!lic or$s and Counications, thepower to issue rules and reulations to promote safetransit upon national roads and streets. @pon the othand, the Rosenthal case re%erred to the authority o-nsular Treasurer, under Act ?o. 6B*), to issue and certi%icates or perits %or the sale o% speculativesecurities. #oth cases involved rantsto administrative o%%icers o% powers related to thee2ercise o% their adinistrative %unctions, callin %odeterination o% 5uestions o% fact .

8uch is not the nature o% the powers dealt with in se+*. As a!ove indicated, the creation o% unicipalitienot an administrative %unction, !ut one which isessentially and eminently le!islative in character. T5uestion o% whether or not "pu!lic interest" deande2ercise o% such power is not one o% fact . it is " purele!islative5uestion "&Carolina=Virinia Coastal ihwCoastal Turnpi$e Authority, 7 8.F. 6d. 9)<=9)9, 9)9)*', or a political 5uestion &@dall vs. 8evern, 7 P. 697=9'. As the 8upree Court o% isconsin has acharacteri/ed it, "the 5uestion as to whetherincorporation is %or the #est interest o% the counany case is ephatically a <uestion of pu#lic policystatecraft " &-n re Villae o% ?orth 0ilwau$ee, +7 ?.

)<99, )<9B=)<97'.

4or this reason, courts o% ustice have annulled, asconstitutin undue deleation o% leislative powers,laws rantin the udicial departent, the power todeterine whether certain territories should !e annto a particular unicipality &@dall vs. 8evern, supra9B'3 or vestin in a Coission the riht to deterthe plan and %rae o% overnent o% proposed villaand what %unctions shall !e e2ercised !y the sae,althouh the powers and %unctions o% the villae arespeci%ically liited !y statute &-n re 0unicipal ChartAtl. 9<7=9<*'3 or con%errin upon courts the authorideclare a iven town or villae incorporated, anddesinate its etes and !ounds, upon petition o% a

aority o% the ta2a!le inha!itants thereo%, settin %the area desired to !e included in such villae &Terre2 rel Kelly vs. 8tewart, 69 Pac. <B=<'3 or authorthe territory o% a town, containin a iven area andpopulation, to !e incorporated as a town, on certain!ein ta$en !y the inha!itants thereo% and on certa

deterination !y a court and su!se5uent vote o% theinha!itants in %avor thereo%, inso%ar as the court isallowed to deterine whether the lands e!raced in thepetition "ouht ustly" to !e included in the villae, and

con%erred is an unconstitutional deleation o% leislativepower.

-% the ter "un%air copetition" is so !road as to vest in

unicipal council has %ailed or re%used to pass, evehad there!y violated a duty iposed thereto !y lawalthouh he ay see to it that the correspondinprovincial o%%icials ta$e appropriate disciplinary acti



p y whether the interest o% the inha!itants will !e prooted!y such incorporation, and to enlare and diinish the!oundaries o% the proposed villae "as ustice ayre5uire" &-n re Villaes o% ?orth 0ilwau$ee, +7 ?.. )<9B=)<97'3 or creatin a 0unicipal #oard o% Control whichshall deterine whether or not the layin out,construction or operation o% a toll road is in the "pu!licinterest" and whether the re5uireents o% the law had!een coplied with, in which case the !oard shall enteran order creatin a unicipal corporation and %i2in thenae o% the sae &Carolina=Virinia Coastal ihway vs.Coastal Turnpi$e Authority, 7 8.F. 6d. 9)<'.

-nso%ar as the validity o% a deleation o% power !yConress to the President is concerned, the caseo% %chechter Poultry &orporation vs* U*%* &7 ;. Fd. )B7<'is 5uite relevant to the one at !ar. The 8chechter caseinvolved the constitutionality o% 8ection 9 o% the ?ational-ndustrial Recovery Act authori/in the President o% the@nited 8tates to approve "codes o% %air copetition"su!itted to hi !y one or ore trade or industrialassociations or corporations which "ipose no ine5uita!lerestrictions on adission to e!ership therein and aretruly representative," provided that such codes are notdesined "to proote onopolies or to eliinate or

oppress sall enterprises and will not operate todiscriinate aainst the, and will tend to e%%ectuate thepolicy" o% said Act. The 4ederal 8upree Court held:

To suari/e and conclude upon this point: 8ec. 9 o% theRecovery Act is without precedent. -t supplies nostandards %or any trade, industry or activity. -t does notunderta$e to prescri!e rules o% conduct to !e applied toparticular states o% %act deterined !y appropriateadinistrative procedure. -nstead o% prescri!in rules o%conduct, it authori/es the a$in o% codes to prescri!ethe. 4or that leislative underta$in, 8ec. 9 sets up nostandards, aside %ro the stateent o% the eneral aiso% reha!ilitation, correction and e2pansion descri!ed in8ec. ). -n view o% the scope o% that !road declaration, and

o% the nature o% the %ew restrictions that are iposed, thediscretion o% the President in approvin or prescri!incodes, and thus enactin laws %or the overnent o%trade and industry throuhout the country, is virtuallyun%ettered. e thin$ that the code a$in authority thus

-% the ter un%air copetition is so !road as to vest inthe President a discretion that is "virtually un%ettered."and, conse5uently, tantaount to a deleation o%leislative power, it is o!vious that "pu!lic wel%are," whichhas even a !roader connotation, leads to the sae result.-n %act, i% the validity o% the deleation o% powers ade in8ection +* were upheld, there would no loner !e anyleal ipedient to a statutory rant o% authority to thePresident to do anythin which, in his opinion, ay !ere5uired !y pu!lic wel%are or pu!lic interest. 8uch rant

o% authority would !e a virtual a!dication o% the powers o%Conress in %avor o% the F2ecutive, and would !rin a!outa total collapse o% the deocratic syste esta!lished !your Constitution, which it is the special duty and privileeo% this Court to uphold.

-t ay not !e aiss to note that the eecutive orders in<uestion "ere issued after the le!islative #ills for thecreation of the municipalities involved in this case hadfailed to pass &on!ress. A !etter proo% o% the %act that theissuance o% said e2ecutive orders entails the e2ercise o%purely leislative %unctions can hardly !e iven.

Aain, 8ection )< &)' o% Article V-- o% our %undaental lawordains:

The President shall have control o% all the e2ecutivedepartents, !ureaus, or o%%ices, e2ercise eneralsupervision over all local overnents as ay !eprovided !y law, and ta$e care that the laws !e %aith%ullye2ecuted.

The power o% control under this provision iplies the rihto% the President to inter%ere in the e2ercise o% suchdiscretion as ay !e vested !y law in the o%%icers o% thee2ecutive departents, !ureaus, or o%%ices o% the nationalovernent, as well as to act in lieu o% such o%%icers. Thispower is denied !y the Constitution to the F2ecutive,inso%ar as local overnents are concerned. ith respectto the latter, the %undaental law perits hi to wield no

ore authority than that o% chec$in whether said localovernents or the o%%icers thereo% per%or their dutiesas provided !y statutory enactents. ence, thePresident cannot inter%ere with local overnents, solon as the sae or its o%%icers act ithin the scope o%their authority. e ay not enact an ordinance which the

p pp p p ythere%or. ?either ay he vote, set aside or annul anordinance passed !y said council within the scope o

urisdiction, no atter how patently unwise it ay !ay not even suspend an elective o%%icial o% a reulunicipality or ta$e any disciplinary action aainst e2cept on appeal %ro a decision o% the correspondprovincial !oard.B

@pon the other hand i% the President could create a

unicipality, he could, in e%%ect, reove any o% itso%%icials, !y creatin a new unicipality and includitherein the #arrio in which the o%%icial concerned re%or his o%%ice would there!y !ecoe vacant.+ Thus, erely !randishin the power to create a newunicipality &i% he had it', without actually creatin could copel local o%%icials to su!it to his dictationthere!y, in e%%ect, e2ercisin over the the power ocontrol denied to hi !y the Constitution.

Then, also, the power o% control o% the President ove2ecutive departents, !ureaus or o%%ices iplies nmorethan the authority to assue directly the %unctthereo% or to inter%ere in the e2ercise o% discretion !o%%icials. 0ani%estly, such control does not include thauthority either to a#olish an eecutive department

#ureau7 or to create a ne" one. As a conse5uence, alleed power o% the President to create unicipalcorporations would necessarily connote the e2ercishi o% an authority even reater than that o% controwhich he has over the e2ecutive departents, !ureo%%ices. -n other words, 8ection +* o% the RevisedAdinistrative Code does not erely %ail to coply the constitutional andate a!ove 5uoted. -nstead oivin the President less power over local overnethan that vested in hi over the e2ecutive depart!ureaus or o%%ices, it reverses the process and doesthe eact opposite, !y con%errin upon hi more poover unicipal corporations than that which he hassaid e2ecutive departents, !ureaus or o%%ices.

-n short, even i% it did entail an undue deleation o%leislative powers, as it certainly does, said 8ectionpart o% the Revised Adinistrative Code, approved 0arch )<, ))7, ust !e deeed repealed !y thesu!se5uent adoption o% the Constitution, in )9B, w

utterly incopati!le and inconsistent with said statutoryenactent.5

There are only two &6' other points le%t %or consideration,



There are only two &6' other points le%t %or consideration,naely, respondent1s clai &a' that "not all the properparties" — re%errin to the o%%icers o% the newly createdunicipalities — "have !een ipleaded in this case," and&!' that "the present petition is preature."

As reards the %irst point, su%%ice it to say that the recordsdo not show, and the parties do not clai, that theo%%icers o% any o% said unicipalities have !een appointedor elected and assued o%%ice. At any rate, the 8olicitor

General, who has appeared on !ehal% o% respondentAuditor General, is the o%%icer authori/ed !y law "to actand represent the Governent o% the Philippines, itso%%ices and aents, in any o%%icial investiation,proceedin or atter re5uirin the services o% a lawyer"&8ection )++), Revised Adinistrative Code', and, inconnection with the creation o% the a%oreentionedunicipalities, which involves a political, not proprietary,%unction, said local o%%icials, i% any, are ere aents orrepresentatives o% the national overnent. Their interestin the case at !ar has, accordinly, !een, in e%%ect, dulyrepresented.*

ith respect to the second point, respondent allees thathe has not as yet acted on any o% the e2ecutive order M in

5uestion and has not intiated how he would act inconnection therewith. -t is, however, a atter o% coon,pu!lic $nowlede, su!ect to udicial coni/ance, that thePresident has, %or any years, issued e2ecutive orderscreatin unicipal corporations and that the sae have!een orani/ed and in actual operation, thus indicatin,without peradventure o% dou!t, that the e2pendituresincidental thereto have !een sanctioned, approved orpassed in audit !y the General Auditin O%%ice and itso%%icials. There is no reason to !elieve, there%ore, thatrespondent would adopt a di%%erent policy as reards thenew unicipalities involved in this case, in the a!sence o%an alleation to such e%%ect, and none has !een ade !yhi.

FRF4ORF, the F2ecutive Orders in 5uestion are here!ydeclared null and void a# initio and the respondentperanently restrained %ro passin in audit anye2penditure o% pu!lic %unds in ipleentation o% saidF2ecutive Orders or any dis!urseent !y theunicipalities a!ove re%erred to. -t is so ordered.

Local Government Code (Full Cases)

Documents

Transcript of Local Government Code (Full Cases)