Local Governance law Flashcards
May an elective official seek re-election after three consecutive terms?
After three consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot seek immediate reelection for a fourth term; Any subsequent election, like a recall election, is no longer covered by the prohibition.
Socrates vs. Commission on Elections, 391 SCRA 457, G.R. No. 154512, G.R. No. 154683, G.R. Nos. 155083-84 November 12, 2002
Discuss the nature of a recall election midway through the term of a third election
A recall election mid-way in the term following the third consecutive term is a subsequent election but not an immediate reelection after the third term
The winner in the recall election cannot be charged or credited with the full term of three years for purposes of counting the consecutiveness of an elective official’s terms in office
Socrates vs. Commission on Elections, 391 SCRA 457, G.R. No. 154512, G.R. No. 154683, G.R. Nos. 155083-84 November 12, 2002
Inherent Powers of an LGU
These are those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation such as:
- To have perpetual succession
- To sue and be sued
- To purchase, sell and hold property for the benefit of the municipal corporation
- to have a common seal
- to make by-laws and ordinances for the government and municipality
Powers devolved from the national government to LGU’s
- Public Works
- Health
- Agriculture
- Social Welfare
- Certain tourism functions
- Construction of school buildings
When should a petition for disqualification be filed?
a petition for disqualification should be filed “any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy (CoCs) but not later than the date of proclamation
Arnado vs. Commission on Elections, 767 SCRA 168, G.R. No. 210164 August 18, 2015
How may natural born Philippine Citizens who lost their citizenship run for office?
RA 9225 allowing natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization abroad to reacquire Philippine citizenship and to enjoy full civil and political rights upon compliance with the requirements of the law. They may now run for public office in the Philippines provided that they:
(1) meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws; and
(2) make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before any public officer authorized to administer an oath prior to or at the time of filing of their CoC.
Arnado vs. Commission on Elections, 767 SCRA 168, G.R. No. 210164 August 18, 2015
State the rule on the use of a passport after the execution of an affidavit of renunciation
COMELEC ruled that Arnado failed to comply with the second requisite of Section 5(2) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9225 because, as held in Maquiling v. Commission on Elections, 696 SCRA 420 (2013), his April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation was deemed withdrawn when he used his United States (US) passport after executing said affidavit.
Arnado vs. Commission on Elections, 767 SCRA 168, G.R. No. 210164 August 18, 2015
While the act of using a foreign passport is not one of the acts enumerated in Commonwealth Act No. 63 constituting renunciation and loss of Philippine citizenship, ** it is nevertheless an act which repudiates the very oath of renunciation required for a former Filipino citizen who is also a citizen of another country to be qualified to run for a local elective position **
Maquiling vs. Commission on Elections, 696 SCRA 420, G.R. No. 195649 April 16, 2013
Residence vs. Domicile
Residence, in its ordinary conception, implies the factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a given area, community or country. The essential distinction between residence and domicile in law is that residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. One may seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health.
If a person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is established it is residence. It is thus, quite perfectly normal for an individual to have different residences in various places. However, a person can only have a single domicile, unless, for various reasons, he successfully abandons his domicile in favor of another domicile of choice.
Romualdez-Marcos vs. Commission on Elections, 248 SCRA 300, G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995
What is the effect when a Punong Barangay runs for and wins a position in the Sangguniang Bayan
A Punong Barangay, in running for and winning as Sangguniang Bayan member and assuming said office is deemed to have voluntarily relinquished his office as Punong Barangay.
Bolos, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 581 SCRA 786, G.R. No. 184082 March 17, 2009
In the passing of an ordinance, are three readings allowed on one day?
There is nothing in the law which prohibits that the three readings of a proposed ordinance be held in just one session day.
Malonzo vs. Zamora, 323 SCRA 875, G.R. No. 137718 January 28, 2000
May an acting mayor approve an ordinance?
Yes. Geronimo Santiago at the time of approving the ordinance was de facto Mayor of the City of Manila and that, therefore, the first ground above stated could not be sustained
Rodriguez vs. City of Manila, 46 Phil. 171, No. 22206 September 13, 1924
When is publication required to be made before publication?
Where the publication of a proposed ordinance is made a condition precedent for its adoption, the statute is mandatory and the publication goes to the jurisdiction of the municipal council or board; ordinances adopted without such publication are therefore null and void.
Rodriguez vs. City of Manila, 46 Phil. 171, No. 22206 September 13, 1924
Who has jurisdiction over boundary disputes between 2 LGU’s?
“the respective legislative councils of the contending local government units (LGUs) jurisdiction over their boundary disputes
Boundary disputes involving municipalities or component cities of different provinces shall be jointly referred for settlement to the Sanggunians of the provinces concerned. Province of Antique vs. Calabocal, 793 SCRA 13, G.R. No. 209146 June 8, 2016
When may a local chief executive enter into a contract on behalf of an LGU?
What about projects which have appropriations in the annual budget?
The prior authorization for the local chief executive to enter into contracts on behalf of the local government unit may be in the form of an appropriation ordinance passed for the year which specifically covers the project, cost, or contract to be entered into by the local government unit.
A separate prior authorization is no longer required if the specific projects are covered by appropriations in the annual budget of the LGU. If the project or program is identified in the appropriation ordinance in sufficient detail, then there is no more need to obtain a separate or additional authority from the sanggunian
Verceles, Jr. vs. Commission on Audit, 802 SCRA 504, G.R. No. 211553 September 13, 2016
Doctrine of Rejection of Second Placers
Where one of two candidates for the position of mayor was disqualified by final judgment before election day, the remaining candidate, as the only candidate, was not a second placer even if he got lower number of votes—he was the sole and only placer, second to none
Cayat vs. Commission on Elections, 522 SCRA 23, G.R. No. 163776, G.R. No. 165736 April 24, 2007
Difference between Cayat and Labo cases
Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC, which enunciates the doctrine on the rejection of the second placer, does not apply to the present case **because in Labo there was no final judgment of disqualification before the elections. ** The doctrine on the rejection of the second placer was applied in Labo and a host of other cases because the judgment declaring the candidate’s disqualification in Labo and the other cases had not become final before the elections. To repeat, Labo and the other cases applying the doctrine on the rejection of the second placer have one common essential condition—the disqualification of the candidate had not become final before the elections. This essential condition does not exist in the present case.
Cayat vs. Commission on Elections, 522 SCRA 23, G.R. No. 163776, G.R. No. 165736 April 24, 2007
Effect of votes for disqualified candidates?
There is no disenfranchisement of the votes for a disqualified candidate—the voters are deemed by law to have deliberately voted for a non-candidate, and thus, their votes are stray and “shall not be counted”—to allow a candidate disqualified by final judgment 23 days before the elections to be voted for and have his votes counted is a blatant violation of a mandatory provision of the election law.
Cayat vs. Commission on Elections, 522 SCRA 23, G.R. No. 163776, G.R. No. 165736 April 24, 2007
When is a resolution effective as an ordinance?
It has been held that “even where the statute or municipal charter requires the municipality to act by ordinance, if a resolution is passed in the manner and with the statutory formality required in the enactment of an ordinance, it will be binding’ and effective as an ordinance.”
Such resolution may operate regardless of the name by which it is called. (62 CJS 787). Resolutions No. 132 and 215, Series of 1961, in question in the case at bar, were unanimously approved with all the councilors present and voting, carried the seal of the city council, were signed by the City Vice-Mayor, the Presiding Officer, approved by the City Mayor, and attested by the City Secretary. With the presumption of validity of the resolution and the other presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, the embattled resolutions are just a good as ordinance and have the same force. F
Favis vs. City of Baguio, 27 SCRA 1060, No. L-29910 April 25, 1969
Presiding Officers in the resignation of Sangguinian Members
Section 49. Presiding Officer.—(a) The vice-governor shall be the presiding officer of the sangguniang panlalawigan; ** the city vice-mayor, of the sangguniang panlungsod; the municipal vice-mayor, of the sangguniang bayan; and the punong barangay, of the sangguniang barangay. ** The presiding officer shall vote only to break a tie. **
La Carlota City, Negros Occidental vs. Rojo, 670 SCRA 482, G.R. No. 181367 April 24, 2012
What constitutes a quorum
Section 53. Quorum.—(a) A majority of all the members of the sanggunian who have been elected and qualified shall constitute a quorum to transact official business.
“Majority,” when required to constitute a quorum, means the number greater than half or more than half of any total. In fine, the entire membership must be taken into account in computing the quorum of the sanggunian
La Carlota City, Negros Occidental vs. Rojo, 670 SCRA 482, G.R. No. 181367 April 24, 2012
Composition of Sangguniang Panglungsod and its quorum
composed of the presiding officer, ten (10) regular members, and two (2) ex-officio members, or a total of thirteen (13) members. A majority of the 13 “members” of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, or at least seven (7) members, is needed to constitute a quorum to transact official business.
La Carlota City, Negros Occidental vs. Rojo, 670 SCRA 482, G.R. No. 181367 April 24, 2012
Income as a criteria for the conversion of an LGU
(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
the imposition of the P100 million average annual income requirement for the creation of component cities was arbitrarily made—there was no evidence or empirical data, such as inflation rates, to support the choice of this amount; The imposition of a very high income requirement of P100 million, increased from P20 million, was simply to make it extremely difficult for municipalities to become component cities
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission on Elections, 643 SCRA 150, G.R. No. 176951 February 15, 2011
Requisites before an LGU may exercise the power of eminent domain?
- An ordinance must be enacted by the local legislature authorizing the local chief executive, on behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of ED or pursue expropriation proceedings
- The power of ED is for public use, public welfare, or for the benefit of the poor or landless
- There is a payment of just compensation
- A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property and was rejected
RA 7929 - SEC. 9. Priorities in the Acquisition of Land
Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order:
(a) Those owned by the government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or -controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
(b) Alienable lands of the public domain;
(c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands;
(d) Those within the declared Areas for Priority Development, Zonal Improvement Program sites, and Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been acquired;
(e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement of Sites and Services or BLISS sites which have not yet been acquired; and
(f) Privately-owned lands.
Where on-site development is found more practicable and advantageous to the beneficiaries, the priorities mentioned in this section shall not apply. The local government units shall give budgetary priority to on-site development of government lands.
