PUBCORP_MEETING1

8/10/2019 PUBCORP_MEETING1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pubcorpmeeting1 1/10

Sections 1 to 10 of the Local Government Code

Note: You may use any book for the subject

Cases:

Torralba vs. Sibagat, 147 SCRA 390

City of Pasig vs. Comelec, 314 SCRA 179

Sarangani vs. Comelec, 334 SCRA 379

Padilla vs. Comelec, 214 SCRA 735

Tobias vs. Abalos, 238 SCRA 106

TORRALBA V. MUN. OF SIBAGAT (1987)

Facts:

BP 56, creating the Municipality of Sibagat, Province of Agusan del Sur, is being challenged as violative of

Section 3 Article XI of the 1973 Constitution2. Petitioners are residents and taxpayers of Butuan City,

with petitioner, Clementino Torralba, being a member of the Sangguniang Panglunsod of the same City.

Respondent municipal officers are the local public officials of the new Municipality.

According to the petitioners, the Local Government Code must first be enacted to determine the criteria

for the creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of the boundary of any province,

city, municipality, or barrio; and that since no Local Government Code had as yet been enacted as of the

date BP 56 was passed, that statute could not have possibly complied with any criteria when respondent

Municipality was created, hence, it is null and void.

Issue:

WON BP 56 is invalid

Held:

No Ratio: The absence of the Local Government Code at the time of its enactment did not curtail norwas it intended to cripple legislative competence to create municipal corporations. Section 3, Article XI

of the 1973 Constitution does not proscribe nor prohibit the modification of territorial and political

subdivisions before the enactment of the LGC. It contains no requirement that the LGC a condition sine

quanon for the creation of a municipality, in much the same way that the creation of a new municipality

does not preclude the enactment of a LGC. What the Constitutional provision means is that once said

Code is enacted, the creation, modification or dissolution of local government units should conform with

the criteria thus laid down. In the interregnum, before the enactment of such Code, the legislative

power remains plenary except that the creation of the new local government unit should be approved

by the people concerned in a plebiscite called for the purpose. The creation of the new Municipality of

Sibagat conformed to said requisite. A plebiscite was conducted and the people of the unit/units

affected endorsed and approved the creation of the new local government unit. The officials of the

new Municipality have effectively taken their oaths of office and are performing their functions. A de

jure entity has thus been created. It is a long-recognized principle that the power to create a municipal

corporation is essentially legislative in nature. In the absence of any constitutional limitations, a

legislative body may create any corporation it deems essential for the more efficient administration of

government.The creation of the new Municipality of Sibagat was a valid exercise of legislative power

then vested by the 1973 Constitution in the Interim Batasang Pambansa. There are significant

differences, however, in Tan vs Comelec and in this case: in the Tan case, the LGC already existed at the

time that the challenged statute was enacted on 3 December 1985; not so in the case at bar. Secondly,



BP 885 in the Tan case confined the plebiscite to the "proposed new province" to the exclusion of the

voters in the remaining areas, in contravention of the Constitutional mandate and of the LGC that the

plebiscite should be held "in the unit or units affected." In contrast, BP 56 specifically provides for a

plebiscite "in the area or areas affected." Thirdly, in the Tan case, even the requisite area for the

creation of a new province was not complied with in BP Blg. 885. No such issue in the creation of the

new municipality has been raised here. And lastly, "indecent haste" attended the enactment of BP Blg.

885 and the holding of the plebiscite thereafter in the Tan case; on the other hand, BP 56 creating the

Municipality of Sibagat, was enacted in the normal course of legislation, and the plebiscite was held

within the period specified in that law.

Footnote 2 "Sec. 3. No province, city, municipality, or barrio may be created, divided, merged, abolished,

or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the Local

Government Code, and subject to the approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the unit

or units affected."

Pasig v COMELEC

Facts:

On April 22, 1996, upon petition of the residents of Karangalan Village that they be segregated from its

mother Barangays Manggahan and Dela Paz, City of Pasig, and to be converted and separated into a

distinct barangay to be known as Barangay Karangalan, the City Council of Pasig passed and approved

Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1996, creating Barangay Karangalan in Pasig City.[1] Plebiscite on the

creation of said barangay was thereafter set for June 22, 1996. Meanwhile, on September 9, 1996, the

City of Pasig similarly issued Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1996, creating Barangay Napico in Pasig

City.[2] Plebiscite for this purpose was set for March 15, 1997. Immediately upon learning of such

Ordinances, the Municipality of Cainta moved to suspend or cancel the respective plebiscites scheduled,

and filed Petitions with the Commission on Elections (hereinafter referred to as COMELEC) on June 19,

1996 (UND No. 96-016)[3] and March 12, 1997 (UND No. 97-002), respectively. In both Petitions, the

Municipality of Cainta called the attention of the COMELEC to a pending case before the Regional Trial

Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74, for settlement of boundary dispute.[4] According to the Municipalityof Cainta, the proposed barangays involve areas included in the boundary dispute subject of said

pending case; hence, the scheduled plebiscites should be suspended or cancelled until after the said

case shall have been finally decided by the court. In UND No. 96-016, the COMELEC accepted the

position of the Municipality of Cainta and ordered the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay Karangalan

to be held in abeyance until after the court has settled with finality the boundary dispute involving the

two municipalities.[5] Hence, the filing of G.R. No. 125646 by the City of Pasig. The COMELEC, however,

ruled differently in UND No. 97-002, dismissing the Petition for being moot in view of the holding of the

plebiscite as scheduled on March 15, 1997 where the creation of Barangay Napico was ratified and

approved by the majority of the votes cast therein.[6] Hence, the filing of G.R. No. 128663 by the

Municipality of Cainta.

Issue:

Whether or not the plebiscites scheduled for the creation of Barangays Karangalan and Napico should

be suspended or cancelled in view of the pending boundary dispute between the two local

governments.

Held:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/125646.htm#_edn1


























A requisite for the creation of a barangay is for its territorial jurisdiction to be properly identified by

metes and bounds or by more or less permanent natural boundaries. Precisely because territorial

jurisdiction is an issue raised in the pending civil case, until and unless such issue is resolved with finality,

to define the territorial jurisdiction of the proposed barangays would only be an exercise in futility. The

Court also would be paving the way for potentially ultra vires acts of such barangays. Furthermore, the

Court did not agree that merely because a plebiscite had already been held in the case of the proposed

Barangay Napico, the petition of the Municipality of Cainta has already been rendered moot and

academic. The Supreme Court, therefore, ruled that the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay

Karangalan should be held in abeyance pending final resolution of the boundary dispute between the

City of Pasig and Municipality of Cainta by the RTC of Antipolo City. In the same vein, the plebiscite held

to ratify the creation of Barangay Napico, Pasig City, should be annulled and set aside.

Saranggani v COMELEC

Facts:

On September 15, 1997, a petition for annulment of several precincts and annulment of book of voters

in Madalum, Lanao Del Sur was filed with the COMELEC by, among others, Hadji Oblais R. Omar thru

counsel Atty. Nasib D. Yasin, herein private respondents. Among the precincts sought to be annulled was

Padian Torogan, subject matter of the present petition for certiorari. On September 18, 1997, the

COMELEC, thru the Clerk of the Commission sent telegrams to the respective Board of Election

Inspectors (BEI) of the questioned precincts in Madalum, Lanao Del Sur, including Padian Torogan, to file

their answer to the petition for abolition of precincts and annulment of book of voters. On October 31,

1997, the incumbent mayor of Madalum, Lanao Del Sur, Usman T. Sarangani, herein petitioner, together

with other oppositors who were allegedly barangay chairmen of the twenty- three (23) barangays the

"Books of Voters" and precincts of which were sought to be annulled and abolished, respectively, filed

an "Answer in Opposition" which included the affidavits of the barangay chairmen of the affected

precincts attesting to the fact that the move to annul the book of voters and abolish the questioned

election precincts were for the purpose of diminishing the bailiwicks of the incumbent mayor of

Madalum, Lanao del Sur. After hearing and submission of formal offer of exhibits and memoranda bythe parties, the COMELEC issued an Order dated February 11, 1998, referring the case to its Law

Department for appropriate investigation. The COMELEC - Law Department conformably issued a

memorandum dated April 29, 1998 directing Atty. Muslemin Tahir, the Provincial Election Supervisor of

Marawi City, Lanao del Sur "to conduct a rigorous incisive investigation on the alleged ghost precincts

and thereafter submit a report on the investigation conducted." Consequently, Atty. Tahir created a

TASK FORCE INVESTIGATION TEAM by virtue of a memorandum dated June 13, 1998 directing Election

Officers Casan Macadato, Sacrain Guro and Anuar Datudacula "to conduct ocular inspection on the

alleged twelve (12) ghost barangays in the Municipality of Madalum, Lanao Del Sur."

On June 18, 1998, an ocular inspection was conducted on the alleged ghost precincts yielding the

following results –

"At 12:10 pm, the Task Force Investigation Team from the COMELEC accompanied by traditional leaders,

political leaders, many concerned residents of this town, a representative from the Lanao del Sur

Provincial Statistics Office, Mr. Lacson Abdullah, and a Team from the DILG-ARMM, Lanao del Sur,

arrived in the area supposedly Barangay Padian Torogan with these comments and observations:



"It appears that in this area there are only two structures: One is a concrete house with no roof, and the

other is a wooden structure without walls and roof. This obviously mean that no single human being

could possibly reside in these two structures.

"Also, it came out that the name Padian-Torogan means a cemetery not a residential place. So this

contradicts the records being brought by the COMELEC Team from the Census saying that the area has

45 households with a total population of 285. (Ref. Municipal census Report as of September 1, 1995).

"Besides, no less than the Chairman of the COMELEC Investigating Team asked the people around who

among them is a resident or a registered voter in the so-called Barangay Padian-Torogan, and no one

answered affirmatively.

"Then at 12:50 PM, the COMELEC Investigating Team still with the people mentioned above are in

Barangay Lumbac to look for the other supposed Barangay named Rakutan, and found this observations.

x x x.....x x x.....x x x

"By the way, unfortunately, at the peak of this ocular inspection, the Madalum Municipal Chief of Police

Mahdi Mindalano, armed with UZI pistolized Machine Gun, arrived at the scene at exactly 12:55 pmboarding an orange Mitsubishi car with four armed bodyguards, the (sic) confronted the Team Leader of

the COMELEC Investigating Group and angrily insisted to stop the ocular inspection.

"This STACOM Mindalano, in warning a photographer not to take a shot on him, pointed his pistolized

Rifle to this man when the photographer positioned his camera to take a picture of him while he is

arguing with the investigating leader, Mr. CASAN MACADATO.

"Moving camera film and several pictures are added hereto for further information and as exhibits. Also

attached hereof are the names and signatures of among the more-or-less one hundred people who

observed the conduct of this ocular inspection.

(NOTE: This writer, Mr. Khalil Y. Alawi, is a member of the five (5) man Committee from the DILG-ARMM,Lanao del Sur created in respect to the Memo/Invitation from the COMELEC Provincial Office of Lanao

del Sur dated June 15, 1998 signed by Mr. CASAN MACADATO, EO II, Chief Investigation Team. Mr.

Macadato designated verbally and in public Mr. ALAWI to be his Secretary during this investigation, and

of course, the (sic) with the consent of the DILG Team).

"I hereby certify that the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Prepared by: (sgd) Khalil Y. Alawi

Member, DILG Team

Submitted by: (sgd) Casan Macadato

Election Officer II

Chairman, Task Force Investigation Team"

On the basis of the foregoing, Election Officer Casan Macadato submitted to the Provincial Election

Supervisor of COMELEC in Marawi City its 1st Indorsement dated June 19, 1998 reporting the results of

the ocular inspection that Padian Torogan and Rakutan were uninhabited.



On June 29, 1998, the COMELEC issued the assailed Order finding "Padian Torogan as ghost precinct."

The dispositive portion of the COMELEC Order reads:

"ACCORDINGLY, the Commission En Banc:

(1) resolves to GRANT the request and hereby:

(a).....DIRECTS the Task Force Investigating Team created pursuant to the Order of the Commission en

banc dated February 11, 1998, to continue the conduct of ocular inspection and investigation as

contained in the original directive of the Law Department dated April 29, 1998;

(b).....RECOMMENDS to the PNP Director and the Regional Director of the Philippine National police, (1)

to immediately relieve and transfer Chief of Police Mahdi Mindalano of Madalum, Lanao del Sur and

transfer him to an area where it will be extremely difficult for him to return to Mandalum and do further

damage to effort of the Commission to investigate ghost precincts in said area considering the urgency

of said investigation. (2) to look into the possibility of involvement of other policement (sic) in Madalum

in the aforestated criminal mischief of the Police Station Commander or their possible partisanship.

(c).....RECOMMENDS to AFP Regional Command, Armed Forces of the Philippines, to immediately assignsufficient number of men to maintain peace and order in the Municipality of Madalum, Lanao del Sur,

and to escort and secure the safety of the COMELEC Investigating Team during the conduct of ocular

inspections and investigations.

(2) finds Padian Torogan as ghost precinct and shall be excluded from the special election to be

conducted in Madalum.

(3) Order the Investigating Team, thru Macadatu, to immediately resume the investigation, the

remaining ghost precincts in Madalum and to submit its findings to the Commission with dispatch,

allowing it to submit partial findings if necessary.

The Law Department of this Commission is hereby directed to implement this order.

SO ORDERED." (emphasis supplied)

On November 3, 1998, Sultan Usman Sarangani, Soraida M. Sarangani and Hadji Nor Hassan, in their

respective capacity as former Municipal Mayor, incumbent Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Madalum filed the

instant petition for certiorari and mandamus urging us to nullify the Order issued by the COMELEC, for

having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. Likewise, petitioners moved to consolidate this case

with G.R. No. 134456 entitled "Sultan Sarangani, et. al vs. COMELEC, et. al" alleging that G.R. No. 134456

also involves a COMELEC decision declaring the precinct corresponding to eight (8) barangays in

Madalum, Lanao del Sur as ghosts precincts.

In a resolution issued by this Court on January 19, 1999, we denied the motion to consolidate,

considering that G.R. No. 134456 had already been dismissed in our resolutions of August 4, 1998 and

August 18, 1998.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Padian-

Torogan as ghost precinct.

Held:



It must be noted that under the Omnibus Election Code, there should be at least one precinct per

barangay.[13] In designating election precincts, the COMELEC usually refers to them by number.

Nevertheless, the determination of whether a certain election precinct actually exists or not and

whether the voters registered in said precinct are real voters is a factual matter. On such issue, it is a

time-honored precept that factual findings of the COMELEC based on its own assessments and duly

supported by evidence, are conclusive upon this Court, more so, in the absence of a substantiated attack

on the validity of the same.[14] Upon review of the records, the Court finds that the COMELEC had

exerted efforts to investigate the facts and verified that there were no public or private buildings in the

said place, hence its conclusion that there were no inhabitants. If there were no inhabitants, a fortiori,

there can be no registered voters, or the registered voters may have left the place. It is not impossible

for a certain barangay not to actually have inhabitants considering that people migrate. A barangay may

officially exist on record and the fact that nobody resides in the place does not result in its automatic

cessation as a unit of local government. Under the Local Government Code of 1991, the abolition of a

local government unit (LGU) may be done by Congress in the case of a province, city, municipality, or

any other political subdivision.[15] In the case of a barangay, except in Metropolitan Manila area and in

cultural communities, it may be done by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan or Sangguniang

Panglungsod concerned subject to the mandatory requirement of a plebiscite[16] conducted for the

purpose in the political units affected. The findings of the administrative agency cannot be reversed onappeal or certiorari particularly when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been

overlooked or disregarded which when considered would have substantially affected the outcome of

the case. The COMELEC has broad powers to ascertain the true results of an election by means available

to it.[17] The assailed order having been issued pursuant to COMELEC’s administrative powers and in

the absence of any finding of grave abuse of discretion in declaring a precinct as non-existent, said order

shall stand. Judicial interference is unnecessary and uncalled for.[18] No voter is disenfranchised

because no such voter exist. The sacred right of suffrage guaranteed by the Constitution[19]is not

tampered when a list of fictitious voters is excluded from an electoral exercise. Suffrage is conferred by

the Constitution only on citizens who are qualified to vote and are not otherwise disqualified by law. On

the contrary, such exclusion of non-existent voters all the more protects the validity and credibility of

the electoral process as well as the right of suffrage because the "electoral will" would not be renderednugatory by the inclusion of some ghost votes. Election laws should give effect to, rather than frustrate

the will of the people.

Padilla v COMELEC

Facts:

Pursuant to RA 7155, creating the Municipality of Tulay na Lupa in the province of Camarines Norte to

be composed of Barangays Tulay-naLupa, Lugui, San Antonio, Mabilo I, Napaod, Bayan-bayn, Mataulang,

Pag-asa, Maot, and Calabasa, all in the Municipalty of Labo, some province, COMELEC scheduled a

plebiscite was conducted throughout the municipality of Labo and majority voted against the creation of

the Municipality of Tulay-na-Lupa. Petitioner prayed that the plebiscite conducted to set aside with the

contention that such plebiscite was a complete failure.

Issue:

Whether or not the plebiscite conducted in the areas comprising the proposed Municipality of Tulay na

Lupa and the remaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo is valid.

Held:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/june2000/135927.htm#_ftn13





























COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and the result of the plebiscite rejecting the creation

of the new municipality of Tulay-na-Lupa is valid. It stands to reason that when the law states that the

plebiscite shall be conducted “in the political units directly affected,” it means that residents of the

political entity who would be economically dislocated by the separation of a portion thereof have a right

to vote in said plebiscite. Evidently, what is contemplated by the phrase “political units directly affected”

is the plurality of the political units which would participate in the plebiscite.

Tobias v Abalos

Facts:

Invoking their rights as taxpayers and as residents of Mandaluyong, herein petitioners assail the

constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7675, otherwise known as "An Act Converting the Municipality of

Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong." Prior to the

enactment of the assailed statute, the municipalities of Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only

one legislative district. Hon. Ronaldo Zamora, the incumbent congressional representative of this

legislative district, sponsored the bill which eventually became R.A. No. 7675. President Ramos signed

R.A. No. 7675 into law on February 9, 1994. Pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991, a

plebiscite was held on April 10, 1994. The people of Mandaluyong were asked whether they approved of

the conversion of the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city as provided under R.A.

No. 7675. The turnout at the plebiscite was only 14.41% of the voting population. Nevertheless, 18,621

voted "yes" whereas 7,911 voted "no." By virtue of these results, R.A. No. 7675 was deemed ratified and

in effect. Petitioners now come before this Court, contending that R.A. No. 7675, specifically Article VIII,

Section 49 thereof, is unconstitutional for being violative of three specific provisions of the Constitution.

Issue:

WON RA 7675 is in:

1. Violation of Article VI, Section 26(1) of the Constitution regarding 'one subject one bill rule".

2. Violation of Article VI, Sections 5(1) and (4) as to the number of members of the Congress to 250 and

reappropriating the legislative districts.

Held:

Applying liberal construction the Supreme Court dismissed the contention of constitutionality pertaining

to Art VI 26(1) saying "should be given a practical rather than a technical construction. It should be

sufficient compliance with such requirement if the title expresses the general subject and all the

provisions are germane to that general subject." As to Article VI Sec 5(1), the clause "unless otherwise

provided by law" was enforced justifying the act of the legislature to increase the number of the

members of the congress. Article VI Sec 5 (4) was also overruled as it was the Congress itself which

drafted the bill reapportioning the legislative district. In view of the foregoing facts, the petition was

dismissed for lack of merit.

CHAPTER 1. - THE CODE: POLICY AND APPLICATION

SECTION 1. Title. - This Act shall be known and cited as the "Local Government Code of 1991".

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. –

(a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political subdivisions of

the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their



fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the

attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and

accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization

whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and

resources. The process of decentralization shall proceed from the national government to the

local government units.

(b) It is also the policy of the State to ensure the accountability of local government units

through the institution of effective mechanisms of recall, initiative and referendum.

(c)It is likewise the policy of the State to require all national agencies and offices to conduct

periodic consultations with appropriate local government units, non-governmental and people's

organizations, and other concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is

implemented in their respective jurisdictions.

SEC. 3. Operative Principles of Decentralization. - The formulation and implementation of policies and

measures on local autonomy shall be guided by the following operative principles:

(a) There shall be an effective allocation among the different local government units of their

respective powers, functions, responsibilities, and resources;

(b) There shall be established in every local government unit an accountable, efficient, anddynamic organizational structure and operating mechanism that will meet the priority needs

and service requirements of its communities;

(c) Subject to civil service law, rules and regulations, local officials and employees paid wholly or

mainly from local funds shall be appointed or removed, according to merit and fitness, by the

appropriate appointing authority;

(d) The vesting of duty, responsibility, and accountability in local government units shall be

accompanied with provision for reasonably adequate resources to discharge their powers and

effectively carry out their functions; hence, they shall have the power to create and broaden

their own sources of revenue and the right to a just share in national taxes and an equitable

share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their

respective areas;(e) Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities

with respect to component barangays, shall ensure that the acts of their component units are

within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions;

(f) Local government units may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts,

services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them;

(g) The capabilities of local government units, especially the municipalities and barangays, shall

be enhanced by providing them with opportunities to participate actively in the implementation

of national programs and projects;

(h) There shall be a continuing mechanism to enhance local autonomy not only by legislative

enabling acts but also by administrative and organizational reforms;

(i) Local government units shall share with the national government the responsibility in the

management and maintenance of ecological balance within their territorial jurisdiction, subject

to the provisions of this Code and national policies;

(j) Effective mechanisms for ensuring the accountability of local government units to their

respective constituents shall be strengthened in order to upgrade continually the quality of local

leadership;

(k) The realization of local autonomy shall be facilitated through improved coordination of

national government policies and programs and extension of adequate technical and material

assistance to less developed and deserving local government units;



(l) The participation of the private sector in local governance, particularly in the delivery of basic

services, shall be encouraged to ensure the viability of local autonomy as an alternative strategy

for sustainable development; and

(m) The national government shall ensure that decentralizatioontributes to the continuing

improvement of the performance of local government units and the quality of community life.

SEC. 4. Scope of Application. - This Code shall apply to all provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays, and

other political subdivisions as may be created by law, and, to the extent herein provided, to officials,

offices, or agencies of the national government.

SEC. 5. Rules of Interpretation. - In the interpretation of the provisions of this Code, the following rules

shall apply:

(a)Any provision on a power of a local government unit shall be liberally interpreted in its favor,

and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of powers

and of the lower local government unit. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the

power shall be interpreted in favor of the local government unit concerned;

(b) In case of doubt, any tax ordinance or revenue measure shall be construed strictly against

the local government unit enacting it, and liberally in favor of the taxpayer. Any tax exemption,incentive or relief granted by any local government unit pursuant to the provisions of this Code

shall be construed strictly against the person claiming it.

(c) The general welfare provisions in this Code shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers

to local government units in accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of

life for the people in the community;

(d) Rights and obligations existing on the date of effectivity of this Code and arising out of

contracts or any other source of prestation involving a local government unit shall be governed

by the original terms and conditions of said contracts or the law in force at the time such rights

were vested; and

(e)In the resolution of controversies arising under this Code where no legal provision or

jurisprudence applies, resort may be had to the customs and traditions in the place where thecontroversies take place.

CHAPTER 2. - GENERAL POWERS AND ATTRIBUTES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

SEC. 6. Authority to Create Local Government Units. - A local government unit may be created, divided,

merged, abolished, or its boundaries substantially altered either by law enacted by Congress in the case

of a province, city, municipality, or any other political subdivision, or by ordinance passed by the

sangguniang panlalawigan or sangguniang panlungsod concerned in the case of a barangay located

within its territorial jurisdiction, subject to such limitations and requirements prescribed in this Code.

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

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

projected capacity to provide services, to wit:

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

government facilities and services and special functions commensurate with the size of its

population, as expected of the local government unit concerned;

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

jurisdiction of the local government unit concerned; and

PUBCORP_MEETING1

Documents

Transcript of PUBCORP_MEETING1