Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22

LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp

Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations


Appointive Local Officials (Discipline)

1) De Rama v CA (G.R. No. 131136. February 28, 2001)


Conrado L. De Rama, petitioner, vs.
The Court Of Appeals (Ninth Division, The Civil Service Commission), Eladio Martinez,
Divino De Jesus, Morell Ayala, Aristeo Catalla, Daisy Porta, Flordeliza Oriasel, Graciela
Glory, Felecidad Orinday, Ma. Petra Muffet Luce, Elsa Marino, Bernardita Mendoza,
Jane Macatangay, Adelfo Glodoviza and Florino Ramos, respondents.

Facts: Upon his assumption to the position of Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, petitioner
Conrado L. de Rama wrote a letter dated July 13, 1995 to the Civil Service
Commission (or CSC), seeking the recall of the appointments of fourteen (14)
municipal employees. Justifying his recall request on the allegation that the
appointments of the said employees were midnight appointments of the former
mayor, Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja, done in violation of Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987
Constitution. The CSC denied petitioners request for the recall of the appointments of
the fourteen employees, for lack of merit. The CSC upheld the validity of the
appointments on the ground that they had already been approved by the Head of the
CSC Field Office in Lucena City, and for petitioners failure to present evidence that
would warrant the revocation or recall of the said appointments.

Issue: Whether or not the recall made by petitioner is valid.

Ruling: No. It is the CSC that is authorized to recall an appointment initially approved,
but only when such appointment and approval are proven to be in disregard of
applicable provisions of the civil service law and regulations. Rule V, Section 9 of the
Omnibus Implementing Regulations of the Revised Administrative Code specifically
provides that an appointment accepted by the appointee cannot be withdrawn or
revoked by the appointing authority and shall remain in force and in effect until
disapproved by the Commission.

Accordingly, the appointments of the private respondents may only be recalled on the
following grounds: (a) Non-compliance with the procedures/criteria provided in the
agencys Merit Promotion Plan; (b) Failure to pass through the agencys
Selection/Promotion Board; (c) Violation of the existing collective agreement between
management and employees relative to promotion; or (d) Violation of other existing
civil service law, rules and regulations.

2) Plaza v CA (G.R. No. 138464, January 18, 2008)


READ FULL TEXT!

HON. GOVERNOR DEMOCRITO O. PLAZA (deceased, to be substituted by incumbent


GOVERNOR VALENTINA G. PLAZA), DANILO S. SAMSON, FE TAN-CEBRIAN, HONORABLE
SB MEMBER (now Vice Governor) VIRGINIA M. GETES, ADULFO A. LLAGAS (as
members of the Administrative Investigating Committee), FRANCISCO U. FERNANDEZ,
and JOSEFINA V. BAJADE, petitioners, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, GIL POL TAN, ELISA O. GILSANO, and EMMANUEL S. QUISMUNDO,
respondents.

1 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations

3) RAMON M. ATIENZA, in his capacity as VICE-GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE OF


OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, petitioner, vs.
JOSE T. VILLAROSA, in his capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE OF OCCIDENTAL
MINDORO, respondent.
May 10, 2005

Callejo, Sr., J.:

SUMMARY: Mindoro Occ. Governor Villarosa issued a memo requiring that all purchase orders
for supplies, equipment, etc. for the upkeep of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan be signed by him.
Vice Governor Atienza replied that such authority was vested in him by the LGC. In response,
Villarosa ordered the dismissal of almost 60 of Atienzas appointees in the provincial government.
Atienza asked Villarosa to reconsider both of his actions, but Villarosa refused. Atienza thus filed a
prohibition suit in the CA. CA dismissed the case and upheld Villarosas power to sign the
purchase orders, while ruling that the dismissal of the Atienza appointees can no longer be
stopped, as Villarosas order had already been implemented. Atienza appealed to the SC, which
ruled in his favor. SC held that under the LGC, the Vice Governor was given the authority to sign
warrants against the provincial treasury for all expenditures appropriated for the operation of the
SP. He was also designated as the Presiding Officer of the SP. As such, it is the Vice Governor
who has the authority to sign the purchase orders, pursuant to the specific mandate of LGC 344
that vouchers and payrolls shall be approved by the head of the department or office who has
administrative control over the fund concerned; and it is the Vice Governor who has such control
with respect to the SP. Applying the doctrine of necessary implication, SC held that the authority to
sign vouchers and warrants necessarily includes the authority to sign purchase orders, since the
vouchers serve as bases for the purchase orders. Regarding the dismissal of Atienzas
appointees, SC held that the Vice Governor has the sole power and authority to appoint officials
and employees of the SP and the Vice Governors Office who are paid from SP funds. Employees
paid from provincial funds are under the appointing power of the Governor. While the budget
source of the dismissed employees salaries was not known, SC still invalidated Villarosas memo
ordering their dismissal, because it encroached upon the appointing power of Vice Governor
Atienza by relegating him to a mere recommendatory role. SC held that the intent of the 1991
LGC was to separate the legislative and the executive at the LGU level, by making the vice-
governor presiding officer of the SP, and vesting him with authority to appoint its officials and
disburse its monies.

DOCTRINE: While RA 7160 is silent as to the matter, the authority granted to the Vice Governor
to sign all warrants drawn on the provincial treasury for all expenditures appropriated for the
operation of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan as well as to approve disbursement vouchers relating
thereto is greater and includes the authority to approve purchase orders for the procurement of

2 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
the supplies, materials and equipment necessary for the operation of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan.
The Vice Governors authority to appoint the officials and employees of the SP is based on the
fact that the salaries of SP employees are derived from the SPs appropriation. The budget
source of their salaries is what sets apart SP officials and employees from other provincial
employees and officials.
The appointing power of the Vice Governor is thus limited to employees of the SP and the Office
of the Vice Governor whose salaries are paid out of the SPs appropriated funds. An employee
who is detailed or assigned in the Office of the Vice Governor but is paid out of provincial funds is
still within the Governors appointing authority.
With RA 7160, the union of legislative and executive powers in the office of the local chief
executive under the BP 337 has been disbanded, so that either department now comprises
different and non-intermingling official personalities with the end in view of ensuring a better
delivery of public service and provide a system of check and balance between the two. The
avowed intent of RA 7160 is to vest the Sangguniang Panlalawigan with independence in the
exercise of its legislative functions vis-a-vis the discharge by the Governor of the executive
functions.

NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari. Original action for prohibition

FACTS:
June 25, 2002 Occidental Mindoro Governor Jose VILLAROSA issued a memorandum
concerning the authority to sign purchase orders of supplies, materials, equipment, and
repairs needed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The memo stated that all such
purchase orders must be signed by the Governor, citing as basis DILG Opinion 148, s.
1993.
Occidental Mindoro Vice Governor Ramon ATIENZA responded that such authority
properly pertains to him as Vice Governor, citing as bases DILG Opinion 96, s. 1995, as
affirmed by COA Opinions of Jun. 28, Apr. 11, and Feb. 9, 1994. He also cited LGC 466
and 468 as bases for the separation of the legislative and executive powers at the
provincial level.
July 1, 2002 Villarosa responded by issuing a memorandum terminating the casual and
job order employees recommended or hired by Atienza. These employees included 28 plus
clerks, 30 utility workers, and an x-ray technician. Villarosa claims that the employees were
redundant and that they bloated the bureaucracy.
July 3, 2002 Villarosa issued a memorandum reiterating the June 25 and July 3 memos
and enjoining strict compliance therewith.
July 9, 2002 In a letter to Villarosa, Atienza raised his objections to the 2 memoranda,
invoking the separation of powers at a provincial level, where the legislature is headed by
the Vice Governor and the executive is headed by the Governor.

3 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
o Villarosa insisted on the implementation of the 2 memoranda.
Atienza thus filed a petition for prohibition before the CA, assailing the 2 memoranda as
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. Atienza claimed that the memoranda
excluded him from the use and enjoyment of his office in violation of the pertinent provision
of the LGC. He prayed that Villarosa be enjoined from implementing the 2 memoranda.
Nov. 28, 2003 CA DECISION
o dismissed the petition.
o Under LGC 344, the governor has authority to approve the purchase orders on
question, since the provision states in part that "approval of the disbursement
voucher by the local chief executive himself shall be required whenever local funds
are disbursed."
o LGC 466(a)(1) relied upon by Atienza is inapplicable because the approval of
purchase orders is different from the power of the Vice Governor in 466(a)(1) to sign
warrants drawn against the public treasury.
o LGC 361 on requisitioning was also held inapplicable, thus: [R]equisitioning x x x is
the act of requiring that something be furnished. In the procurement function, it is
the submission of written requests for supplies and materials and the like. It could
be inferred that, in the scheme of things, approval of purchase requests is different
from approval of purchase orders.
o CA ruled that the question on the validity of the dismissal of the vice governors
employees was moot, as the act could no longer be enjoined.
Atienza filed the present petition with the SC.
Atienza and Villarosas terms have expired on June 30, 2004. Atienza did not seek re-
election, while Villarosa lost his re-election bid, so the case has become moot. SC revolved
to rule on the merits to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the
public.

ISSUES (HELD)
1) Who between the governor and the vice governor is authorized to approve purchase orders
issued in connection with the procurement of supplies, materials, equipment, including fuel,
repairs and maintenance of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (VICE GOVERNOR)
2) W/N the governor has the authority to terminate or cancel the appointments of casual/job order
employees of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan Members and the Office of the Vice Governor (NO)

RATIO
MANDATE OF LGC & PRINCIPLES OF DECENTRALIZATION
LGC was enacted to implement the constitutional mandate to provide for a more
responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of
decentralization with effective mechanism of recall, initiative and referendum, allocate
among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources,
and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries,
4 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
powers and functions and duties of local officials, and all matters relating to the
organization and operation of the local units.
The provisions of the LGC are anchored on the following principles of decentralization:
o Effective allocation among the different local government units of their respective
powers, functions, responsibilities, and resources;
o Establishment in every LGU of an accountable, efficient, and dynamic
organizational structure and operating mechanism that will meet the priority needs
and service requirements of its communities
o 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
o Strengthening of effective mechanisms for ensuring the accountability of local
government units to their respective constituents in order to upgrade continually the
quality of local leadership
1) AUTHORITY TO APPROVE PURCHASE ORDERS FOR PROCUREMENT OF SUPPLIES,
MATERIALS, etc. OF SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN IS VESTED IN THE VICE GOVERNOR
Under the LGC, local legislative power at the provincial level is exercised by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) and the Vice Governor is its Presiding Officer.
o The SP enacts ordinances and resolutions, and appropriates funds for the general
welfare of the province in accordance with the LGC.
LGC 466(a)(1) provides that the Vice Governor shall be the presiding officer of the
sangguniang panlalawigan and can sign all warrants drawn on the provincial treasury for
all expenditures appropriated for the operation of the sangguniang panlalawigan
ANALYSIS OF LGC 344
LGC 344 provides: Certification on, and Approval of, Vouchers. No money shall be
disbursed unless the local budget officer certifies to the existence of appropriation that has
been legally made for the purpose, the local accountant has obligated said appropriation,
and the local treasurer certifies to the availability of funds for the purpose. Vouchers and
payrolls shall be certified to and approved by the head of the department or office who has
administrative control of the fund concerned, as to validity, propriety and legality of the
claim involved. Except in cases of disbursements involving regularly recurring
administrative expenses such as payrolls for regular or permanent employees, expenses
for light, water, telephone and telegraph services, remittances to government creditor
agencies such as the GSIS, SSS, LBP, DBP, National Printing Office, Procurement Service
of the DBM and others, approval of the disbursement voucher by the local chief executive
himself shall be required whenever local funds are disbursed.
In cases of special or trust funds, disbursements shall be approved by the administrator of
the fund.

5 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
In case of temporary absence or incapacity of the department head or chief of office, the
officer next in rank shall automatically perform his function and he shall be fully responsible
therefor.
CAs reliance on the approval of the disbursement voucher by the local chief executive
clause is misplaced.
This clause cannot prevail over the more specific clause which provides that Vouchers and
payrolls shall be certified to and approved by the head of the department or office who has
administrative control of the fund concerned, as to validity, propriety and legality of the
claim involved.
As presiding officer of the SP, it is the Vice Governor which has administrative control over
its funds. Accordingly, the authority to approve disbursement vouchers for expenditures
appropriated for the operation of the SP rests with the Vice Governor.
39 of COAs New Manual on the Government Accounting System for LGUs even provides:
x x x Disbursement vouchers for expenditures appropriated for the operation of the
Sanggunian shall be approved by the provincial Vice Governor, the city Vice Mayor or the
municipal Vice Mayor, as the case may be.
VICE GOVERNORS AUTHORITY TO SIGN WARRANTS & APPROVE DISURSEMENT
VOUCHERS NECESSARILY INCLUDES AUTHORITY TO APPROVE PURCHASE ORDERS
COVERING SUCH VOUCHERS
While the LGC is silent on the matter, the authority granted to the Vice Governor to sign
warrants and approve disbursement vouchers relating thereto includes the authority to
approve purchase orders covering such vouchers, applying the doctrine of necessary
implication.
o Chua v. CSC: Every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all such
provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make
effective rights, powers, or privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all
such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred
from its terms. Ex necessitate legis.
Warrant an order directing the treasurer of the municipality to pay money out of funds in
city treasury which are or may become available for purpose specified to designated
persons (Protest of St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.).
o Warrants of a municipal corporation are generally orders payable when funds are
found. They are issued for the payment of general municipal debts and expenses
subject to the rule that they shall be paid in the order of presentation (Shelley v. St.
Charles County Court).
Voucher - a document which shows that services have been performed or expenses
incurred. It covers any acquittance or receipt discharging the person or evidencing
payment by him. When used in connection with disbursement of money, it implies some
instrument that shows on what account or by what authority a particular payment has been

6 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
made, or that services have been performed which entitle the party to whom it is issued to
payment (First National Bank of Chicago v. City of Elgin).
Purchase order - an authorization by the issuing party for the recipient to provide materials
or services for which issuing party agrees to pay; it is an offer to buy which becomes
binding when those things ordered have been provided (Smyth Worldwide Movers v. Little
Rock Packing).
o Contains the terms and conditions for the procurement of supplies, materials or
equipment, in particular.
o The tenor of a purchase order basically directs the supplier to deliver the articles
enumerated and subject to the terms and conditions specified therein.
When an authorized person approves a disbursement voucher, he certifies to the
correctness of the entries therein; that the expenses were necessary and lawful, and that
the supporting documents are complete and cash is available therefor. The person who
performed the service or delivered the goods becomes entitled to payment.
Thus, the express authority to approve disbursement vouchers in effect is also an authority
to approve the payment of money claims for supplies, materials and equipment; and from
this authority, the authority to approve purchase orders to cause the delivery of the
supplies, materials, and equipment is necessarily implied.
[T]he authority granted to the Vice Governor to sign all warrants drawn on the provincial
treasury for all expenditures appropriated for the operation of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan as well as to approve disbursement vouchers relating thereto is greater and
includes the authority to approve purchase orders for the procurement of the supplies,
materials and equipment necessary for the operation of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
2) GOVERNOR HAS NO AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE OR CANCEL THE APPOINTMENT OF
CASUAL OR JOB ORDER EMPLOYEES OF THE SP OR THE VICE GOVERNOR; INTENT OF
LGC ON SEPARATION OF POWERS
Concerning the appointing power of the Governor, LGC 465(b)(v) provides: For efficient,
effective and economical governance the purpose of which is the general welfare of the
province and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the provincial governor
shall appoint all officials and employees whose salaries and wages are wholly or mainly
paid out of provincial funds and whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in this
Code, as well as those he may be authorized by law to appoint.
As for the Vice Governor, LGC 466(2) provides: Subject to civil service law, rules and
regulations, appoint all officials and employees of the sangguniang panlalawigan, except
those whose manner of appointment is specifically provided in this Code.
Therefore, the appointing power of the Governor does not extend to officials and
employees of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan because the authority to appoint them is
vested in the Vice Governor. This includes casual and job order employees.
The Vice Governors authority to appoint the officials and employees of the SP is based on
the fact that the salaries of SP employees are derived from the SPs appropriation.

7 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
The budget source of their salaries is what sets apart SP officials and employees from
other provincial employees and officials.
The appointing power of the Vice Governor is thus limited to employees of the SP and the
Office of the Vice Governor whose salaries are paid out of the SPs appropriated funds. An
employee who is detailed or assigned in the Office of the Vice Governor but is paid out of
provincial funds is still within the Governors appointing authority.
CAB: The source of the appointees salaries is unclear. Nonetheless, the July 1 memo
cannot be upheld because it absolutely prohibited Atienza from exercising his authority to
appoint SP employees, limiting him to a recommendatory role. This is an encroachment on
the Vice Governors appointing power.
It must be noted that RA 7160 altered the balance of powers at the LGU level. Under BP
337 the governor was also presiding officer of the SP, in effect uniting executive and
legislative powers in the governor. RA 7160, dissolved this union and separated the
legislative from the executive. According to Sen. Pimentel, this was the intent behind
making the Vice Governor and the Vice Mayor the presiding officers of their respective
Sanggunian.
The idea is to distribute powers among elective local officials so that the legislative, which
is the Sanggunian, can properly check the executive, which is the Governor or the Mayor
and vice versa and exercise their functions without any undue interference from one by the
other. The avowed intent of RA 7160, therefore, is to vest on the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan independence in the exercise of its legislative functions vis-a-vis the
discharge by the Governor of the executive functions.
The 2 memoranda issued by Villarosa constituted undue interference with the SPs
functions. They therefore run counter to the intent of the LGC and their implementation
must be permanently enjoined.

DISPOSITION: Petition granted. Memoranda dated June 25, 2002 and July 1, 2002 issued by
Villarosa are NULL AND VOID.

4) PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN and VILLAPANDO


G.R. No. 164185, July 23, 2008

FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari filed by the Office of the Ombudsman towards
the decision1 of the Sandiganbayan, granting private respondent Alejandro A.
Villapandos Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting him of the crime of unlawful
appointment under Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code.
Mayor Villapando was the duly elected Municipal Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan when
the alleged crime was committed. On July 1998, the accused appointed Orlando
Tiape, who lost in May 1998 election, as Municipal Administrator of the said
municipality. However, respondents contend that the appointee possesses all the
qualifications stated in Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code.

8 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
On the other hand, petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division acted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because its
interpretation of Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code does not complement the
provision on the one-year prohibition found in the 1987 Constitution and the Local
Government Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, acted with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

RULING: The Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, in disregarding
basic rules of statutory construction, acted with grave abuse of discretion.The legal
maxim ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus. Basic is the rule in
statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not
distinguish. There should be no distinction in the application of a law where none is
indicated. The legal disqualification in Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code where
any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any public office any
person lacking the legal qualifications therefor, shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos simply means disqualification under the
law. Clearly, Section 6, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and Section 94(b) of the
Local Government Code of 1991 prohibits losing candidates within one year after such
election to be appointed to any office in the government or any government-owned or
controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries. A judgment rendered with
grave abuse of discretion or without due process is void, and thus, cannot be the
source of an acquittal.

The petition is granted. The assailed judgment is hereby declared null and void. The
Court ordered the record of the case to be remanded to Sandiganbayan for further
proceedings.

5) Sales v Carreon (G.R. No. 160791 February 13, 2007)


PATRICIO E. SALES, et al. Petitioners, vs.
HON. RODOLFO H. CARREON, JR., and THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF DAPITAN CITY,
represented by its Mayor, Hon. RODOLFO H. CARREON, JR., Respondents.

Doctrine:
The practice of outgoing local chief executives to issue midnight appointments,
especially after theirsuccessors have been proclaimed] does not only cause
animosities between the outgoing and the incomingofficials, but also affects
efficiency in local governance. Those appointed tend to devote their time and
energyin defending their appointments instead of attending to their functions.
However, not all midnightappointments are invalid. Each appointment must be
judged on the basis of the nature, character, and merits of the individual
appointment and the circumstances surrounding the same. It is only when the
appointments were made en masse by the outgoing administration and shown to
have been made through hurried maneuversand under circumstances departing
from good faith, morality, and propriety that this Court has struck down
midnight appointments.

9 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
FACTS: During the May 2001 elections, then Mayor Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz of
Dapitan City, running for re-election, was defeated by respondent Rodolfo H.
Carreon, Jr. On June 1, 18 and 27, 2001, his last month in office, then Dapitan City
Mayor Ruiz issued 83 appointments, including those of herein petitioners. On July
1, 2001, the newly elected Mayor, Rodolfo H. Carreon, Jr., herein respondent,
assumed office. On July 2, 2001, respondent issued Memorandum Orders Nos. 1
and 2 revoking the 83 appointments signed by his predecessor on the ground that
the latter violated Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 01-988 in
relation to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 2001, imposing a ban on
issuing appointments in the civil service during the election period. Thereupon,
respondent prohibited the release of the salaries and benefits of the 83
appointees. On July 10, 2001, Patricio Sales, one of herein petitioners, in his
capacity as president of the Dapitan City Government Employees Association,
wrote the CSC Regional Office No. IX requesting its ruling on the matter. On July
16 and August 3, 2001, respondent sent the said Office a position paper justifying
his action, contending that the questioned appointments were not only issued in
bulk but that there was no urgent need to fill those positions. On August 17, 2001,
the CSC Regional Office No. IX issued an Omnibus Order, the dispositive portion of
which reads: WHEREFORE, all premises considered: The eighty-three (83)
appointments issued by then Mayor Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz, including those issued
by the herein requesting parties, are, therefore not considered mass
appointments, as defined under CSC Resolution No. 01-0988 and are thus, VALID
and EFFECTIVE. Memorandum Orders Nos. 1 and 2, Series of 2001, issued by
Mayor Rodolfo H. Carreon, Jr., are hereby declared NULL and VOID, and
accordingly, The LGU-Dapitan is hereby directed to pay the salaries and other
emoluments to which the 83 appointments are entitled to pursuant to the
appointments issued to them.

On appeal by respondent, the CSC En Banc, on June 17, 2002, issued Resolution
No. 020828 reversing the assailed Omnibus Order of the CSC Regional Office No.
IX, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Omnibus Order dated August 17,
2001of the Civil Service Commission RegionalOffice No. IX is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Commission hereby rules, as follows: The approval of all 83
appointments issued by then Mayor J. Cedrick O. Ruiz is revoked for being
violative of Republic Act No. 7041, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 18 s. 1988, as
amended, CSC Resolution No. 963332 on its accreditation and CSC Resolution No.
01-0988.

All promoted employees are reverted to their previous position; and Memorandum
Order No. 1 and Memorandum Order No. 2 issued by incumbent Mayor Rodolfo H.
Carreon, Jr. are hereby declared null and void. The CSC En Banc held that the
positions in question were published and declared vacant prior to the existence of
any vacancy. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in
Resolution No. 030049 dated January 16, 2003 by the CSC En Banc. On February
13, 2003, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review. On
September 16, 2003, the appellate court rendered its Decision dismissing the
petition, sustaining the CSCs finding that the positions to which the petitioners

10 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
were appointed were already reported and published even before they had been
declared vacant, in violation of Sections 2 and 3 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7041;
[2] and that there was no first level representative to the Personnel Section Board
who should have participated in the screening of candidates for vacancy in the
first level. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was denied by
the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated November 17, 2003.

ISSUE:
W/N midnight appointments cause animosities between officials

HELD:
This case is a typical example of the practice of outgoing local chief executives to
issue midnight appointments, especially after their successors have been
proclaimed. It does not only cause animosities between the outgoing and the
incoming officials, but also affects efficiency in local governance. Those
appointed tend to devote their time and energy in defending heir appointments
instead of attending to their functions. However, not all midnight appointments
are invalid. Each appointment must be judged on the basis of the nature,
character, and merits of the individual appointment and the circumstances
surrounding the same. It is only when the appointments were made en masse by
the outgoing administration and shown to have been made through hurried
maneuvers and under circumstances departing from good faith, morality, and
propriety that this Court has struck down midnight appointments. It is State policy
that opportunities for government employment shall be open to all qualified
citizens and employees shall be selected on the basis of fitness to perform the
duties and assume the responsibilities of the positions. It was precisely in order to
ensure transparency and equal opportunity in the recruitment and hiring of
government personnel, that Republic Act No. 7041 was enacted. Section 2
provides:

SEC. 2. Duty of Personnel Officers. It shall be the duty of all Chief Personnel or
Administrative Officers of all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and
agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters, and local government units, to post in three
(3) conspicuous places of their offices for a period ten (10) days a complete list of
all existing vacant positions in their respective offices which are authorized to be
filled, and to transmit a copy of such list and the corresponding qualification
standards to the Civil Service Commission not later than the tenth day of every
month. Vacant positions shall not be filled until after publication: Provided,
however, that vacant and unfilled positions that are: a) primarily confidential;b)
policy-determining;c) highly technical;d) co-terminous with that of the appointing
authority; or e) limited to the duration of a particular project, shall be excluded
from the list required by law.

SEC. 3. Publication of Vacancies. The Chairman and members of the Civil Service
Commission shall publish once every quarter a complete list of all the existing
vacant positions in the Government throughout the country, including the
11 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
qualification standards required for each position and, thereafter, certify under
oath to the completion of publication. Copies of such publication shall be sold at
cost to the public and distributed free of charge to the various personnel office of
the government where they shall be available for inspection by the
public:Provided, That said publication shall be posted by the Chief Personnel or
Administrative Officer of all local government units in at least three (3) public and
conspicuous places in their respective municipalities and provinces: Provided,
further, That any vacant position published therein shall be open to any qualified
person who does not necessarily belong to the same office with the vacancy or
who occupies a position next-in-rank to the vacancy: Provided, finally, That the
Civil Service Commission shall not act on any appointment to fill up a vacant
position unless the same has been reported to and published by the Commission.
The foregoing provisions are clear and need no interpretation. The CSC is required
to publish the lists of vacant positions and such publication shall be posted by the
chief personnel or administrative officer of all local government units in the
designated places. The vacant positions may only be filled by the appointing
authority after they have been reported to the CSC as vacant and only after
publication. Here, the publication of vacancies was made even before the
positions involved actually became vacant. Clearly, respondents action violated
Section 2 of R.A. No. 7041 cited earlier. Moreover, the CSC found that there was
no first-level representative appointed to the Personnel Selection Board, which
deliberated on the appointments to first-level positions. CSC Memorandum
Circular No. 18, series of 1988, as amended, provides that the Personnel

Selection Board shall be composed of the following:


a. Official of department/agency directly responsible for personnel management;
b. Representative of management;
c.d. Representative of organizational unit which may be an office, department, or
division where the vacancy is;

Representative of rank-and-file employees, one (1) for the first-level and one (1)
for the second-level, who shall both be chosen by duly registered/accredited
employees association in the department or agency. The former shall sit during
the screening of candidates for vacancy in the first-level, while the latter shall
participate in the screening of candidates for vacancy in the second level. In case
where there is no employees association in the department or agency, the
representative shall be chosen at large by the employees through a general
election to be called for the purpose. Petitioners admitted that after the
retirement on April 22, 2000 of Beltran Faconete, the first-level representative to
the Personnel Selection Board, no other first-level representative to replace him
was chosen by the Dapitan City Government Employees Association. Yet, the city
government Personnel Selection Board proceeded to deliberate and recommend
theappointments of applicants to the 43 first-level positions. Petitioners contend,
however, that although there was no such representative, the action of the Board
is still valid.

12 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
6) LIZA M. QUIROG and RENE L. RELAMPAGOS, Petitioners, vs.
GOVERNOR ERICO B. AUMENTADO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 163443 November 11, 2008

FACTS:
On May 28, 2001, Bohol Provincial Governor Rene L. Relampagos permanently appointed
Liza M. Quirog as Provincial Government Department Head of the Office of the Bohol
Provincial Agriculture (PGDH-OPA). The appointment was confirmed by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan in Resolution No. 2001-199 1 on June 1, 2001. The Order pointed out that the
prohibition against the issuance of midnight appointments was already laid down as early as
February 29, 2000 in CSC Resolution No. 000550. They argued that the subject appointment
cannot be considered a midnight appointment because it was made days before the
expiration of Relampagos term, and that Quirog was already the acting Provincial Agriculturist
a year prior to said appointment or since June 19, 2000. Quirog had already taken her oath of
office, assumed her duties and collected her salary for the month of June, 2001, she had
already acquired a legal right to the position in question, which cannot be taken away from her
either by revocation of the appointment or by removal except for cause and with previous
notice and hearing. In a decision dated July 23, 2001, the CSCROVII denied Quirogs and
Relampagos motion for reconsideration for lack of legal personality to file such pleading, citing
Section 2, Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 40, series of 1998. Even if
Relampagos was the one who appointed Quirog, he could not file a motion for reconsideration
because his term as governor ha already expired. The CSC also declared that the
appointment of Quirog was not a midnight appointment as it was not hurriedly issued nor did it
subvert the policies of the incoming administration. Aumentado He insisted that Quirogs
appointment was a midnight appointment. Aumentado added that the selection board which
screened Quirogs qualifications was not validly constituted and that the subject appointment
was made more than six months from the time it was published on July 23, 2000 in violation
of CSC Resolution No. 0101142[17] dated January 10, 2001. Aumentado insisted that
Relampagos made 97, not 46, mass appointments on the eve of his term, 95 of which were
invalidated by the CSC Bohol Field Office and two, including that of Quirog, by the CSCROVII.
ISSUE:
W/n appointment of Quirog was a midnight appointment

HELD:

13 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
The appointment of Quirog cannot be categorized as a midnight appointment. For
it is beyond dispute that Quirog had been discharging and performing the duties
concomitant with the subject position for a year prior to her permanent
appointment thereto. Surely, the fact that she was only permanently appointed to
the position of PGDH-OPA after a year of being the Acting Provincial Agriculturist
more than adequately shows that the filling up of the position resulted from
deliberate action and a careful consideration of the need for the appointment and
the appointee's qualifications. The fact that Quirog had been the Acting Provincial
Agriculturist since June 2000 all the more highlights the public need for said
position to be permanently filled up. A careful evaluation of the circumstances
obtaining in the issuance of the appointment of Quirog shows the absence of the
element of hurriedness on the part of former Governor Relampagos which
characterizes a midnight appointment. There is also wanting in the records of the
case the subversion by the former governor of the policies of the incumbent
Governor Erico Aumentado as a logical consequence of the issuance of Quirogs
appointment by the latter. Both elements are the primordial considerations by the
Supreme Court when it laid down its ruling in prohibiting midnight appointments
in the landmark case of Aytona vs Castillo, et. al. In any event, respondent
Governor Aumentado, in a Memorandum3[36] dated March 4, 2003, has reinstated
Quirog to the permanent position of PGDH-OPA. Such act of respondent bespeaks
of his acceptance of the validity of Quirogs appointment and recognition that
indeed, the latter is qualified for the subject position.

7) MONTUERTO V. TY AND SANGGUNIANBAYAN (LOCAL GOVERNMENT)


G.R. No. 177736, 06 October 2008

SUMMARY: Montuerto was appointed as a budget officer by the mayor without


obtaining the concurrence of the SB. After 10 years, SB issued a resolution for the
revocation of Montuertos appointment. SB also sent to the CSC 201 file of Montuerto
to show that the SB did not concur to her appointment. Montuerto, on her part, send
to SB a joint affidavit of the majority of the Sanggunian showing that her appointment
was verbally concurred in in an SB Session. SC ruled that the law is clear and that
under Section 443(a) and (d) of the Local Government Code, the head of a
department or office in the municipal government, such as the Municipal Budget
Officer, shall be appointed by the mayor with the concurrence of the majority of all
Sangguniang Bayan members subject to civil service law, rules and regulations.

DOCTRINE: Verbal concurrence allegedly given by the Sanggunian is not the


concurrence required under R.A. No. 7160. TheSanggunian, as a body, acts through a
resolution or an ordinance. Absent such resolution of concurrence, the appointment of
petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 443(a) and (d)
of R.A. No. 7160.

FACTS:

14 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
1. March 17, 1992, Montuerto was issued an appointment as Municipal Budget
Officer by then Mayor Supremo Sabitsana of the Municipality of Almeria, Biliran.
On March 24, 1992, her appointment was approved as permanent by Gerardo
Corder, Acting Civil Service Commission Field Officer.
2. January 14, 2002, the Sangguniang Bayan of Almeria, Biliran a Resolution
entitled "A Resolution Requesting the Civil Service Commission Regional Office,
to Revoke the Appointment of Mrs. Melanie P. Montuerto, Municipal Budget
Officer of the Municipality of Almeria, Biliran for Failure to Secure the Required
Concurrence from the Sangguniang Bayan."
3. Municipality of Almeria, Biliran submitted the 201 file of Montuerto to Civil
Service Commission Regional Office(CSCRO) which showed that her
appointment lacked the required concurrence of the sanggunian. On the other
hand, Montuerto submitted to the same office a Joint-Affidavit by the majority
of the members of the Sangguniang Bayan which reads:
Since the regular session focused on the deliberations regarding the municipal
budget, the concurrence on the appointment of Municipal Budget Officer
Melanie P. Montuerto was not highlighted and the concurrence was
inadvertently omitted in the Minutes of the Regular Session for 2 March 1992.
But, we can still fully recall that there was really a verbal concurrence
on the appointment of Municipal Budget Officer Melanie P. Montuerto
x x x.
4. CSC Regional Office issued an order recalling the appointment of Montuerto on
the grounf that it lacked the required concurrence of the majority of all the
members of the Sangguniang Bayan.
5. Montuerto moved for reconsideration. Before resolving the motion, CSCRO
invited Marcelo Maceda, Jr., incumbent SB Secretary, to appear and bring with
him any document showing that Montuerto's appointment as Municipal Budget
Officer had been submitted to the SB for concurrence.
6. Maceda issued a Certification which reads:
This is to certify that as per records kept on file by this office, there is no
record that would show that the appointment of Mrs. Melanie P. Montuerto, as
Municipal Budget Officer of Almeria, Biliran was submitted to the Sangguniang
Bayan for concurrence from June 1992 up to the present.
However, the SB minutes of the March 2, 1992 regular session
pointed out the presence of a budget officer who explained fully the
details of the 1992 Municipal Annual Budget of Almeria, Biliran.
1. Likewise, Maceda submitted a copy of the SB Minutes of the regular session
held on March 2, 1992.
2. CSCRO No. VIII denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
7. CSC Central Office dismissed Montuertos appeal.
8. CA denied the appeal for lack of merit.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the appointment of Montuerto as Municipal Budget Officer,
without the written concurrence of the Sanggunian, but duly approved
by the CSC and after the appointee had served as such for almost ten
years without interruption, can still be revoked by the Commission? YES.

a. The law is clear. Under Section 443(a) and (d) of the Local Government
Code, the head of a department or office in the municipal government,
15 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
such as the Municipal Budget Officer, shall be appointed by the mayor
with the concurrence of the majority of all Sangguniang Bayan
members subject to civil service law, rules and regulations.
b. Per records, the appointment of Montuerto was never submitted to the
Sangguniang Bayan for its concurrence or, even if so submitted, no such
concurrence was obtained. Such factual finding of quasi-judicial agencies,
especially if adopted and affirmed by the CA, is deemed final and conclusive
and may not be reviewed on appeal by this Court.
c. Moreover, the ruling of the CA that the verbal concurrence allegedly given by
the Sanggunian is not the concurrence required under R.A. No. 7160.
The Sanggunian, as a body, acts through a resolution or an ordinance.
Absent such resolution of concurrence, the appointment of petitioner failed to
comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 443(a) and (d) of R.A. No.
7160. Without a valid appointment, Montuerto acquired no legal title to the
Office of Municipal Budget Officer, even if she had served as such for ten years.
d. Accordingly, the CSC has the authority to recall the appointment of the
petitioner.

Dispositive: Petition is DENIED.

Intergovernmental Relations

1) MMDA v Viron Transport G.R. No. 170656 August 15, 2007

FACTS: GMA declared Executive Order (E.O.) No. 179 operational, thereby creating the MMDA in
2003. Due to traffic congestion, the MMDA recommended a plan to decongest traffic by
eliminating the bus terminals now located along major Metro Manila thoroughfares and providing
more and convenient access to the mass transport system. The MMC gave a go signal for the
project. Viron Transit, a bus company assailed the move. They alleged that the MMDA didnt have
the power to direct operators to abandon their terminals. In doing so they asked the court to
interpret the extent and scope of MMDAs power under RA 7924. They also asked if the MMDA
law contravened the Public Service Act.
Another bus operator, Mencorp, prayed for a TRO for the implementation in a trial court. In the
Pre-Trial Order17 issued by the trial court, the issues were narrowed down to whether 1) the
MMDAs power to regulate traffic in Metro Manila included the power to direct provincial bus
operators to abandon and close their duly established and existing bus terminals in order to
conduct business in a common terminal; (2) the E.O. is consistent with the Public Service Act and
the Constitution; and (3) provincial bus operators would be deprived of their real properties without
due process of law should they be required to use the common bus terminals. The trial court
sustained the constitutionality.
Both bus lines filed for a MFR in the trial court. It, on September 8, 2005, reversed its Decision,
this time holding that the E.O. was "an unreasonable exercise of police power"; that the authority
of the MMDA under Section (5)(e) of R.A. No. 7924 does not include the power to order the

16 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
closure of Virons and Mencorps existing bus terminals; and that the E.O. is inconsistent with the
provisions of the Public Service Act.
MMDA filed a petition in the Supreme Court. Petitioners contend that there is no justiciable
controversy in the cases for declaratory relief as nothing in the body of the E.O. mentions or
orders the closure and elimination of bus terminals along the major thoroughfares of Metro Manila.
To them, Viron and Mencorp failed to produce any letter or communication from the Executive
Department apprising them of an immediate plan to close down their bus terminals.
And petitioners maintain that the E.O. is only an administrative directive to government agencies
to coordinate with the MMDA and to make available for use government property along EDSA and
South Expressway corridors. They add that the only relation created by the E.O. is that between
the Chief Executive and the implementing officials, but not between third persons.

Issues:
1. Is there a justiciable controversy?
2. Is the elimination of bus terminals unconstitutional?

Held: Yes to both. Petition dismissed.

Ratio:
1. Requisites: (a) there must be a justiciable controversy; (b) the controversy must be between
persons whose interests are adverse; (c) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal
interest in the controversy; and (d) the issue invoked must be ripe for judicial determination
It cannot be gainsaid that the E.O. would have an adverse effect on respondents. The closure of
their bus terminals would mean, among other things, the loss of income from the operation and/or
rentals of stalls thereat. Precisely, respondents claim a deprivation of their constitutional right to
property without due process of law.
Respondents have thus amply demonstrated a "personal and substantial interest in the case such
that [they have] sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of [the E.O.s] enforcement."
Consequently, the established rule that the constitutionality of a law or administrative issuance
can be challenged by one who will sustain a direct injury as a result of its enforcement has been
satisfied by respondents.
2. Under E.O. 125 A, the DOTC was given the objective of guiding government and private
investment in the development of the countrys intermodal transportation and communications
systems. It was also tasked to administer all laws, rules and regulations in the field of
transportation and communications.
It bears stressing that under the provisions of E.O. No. 125, as amended, it is the DOTC, and not
the MMDA, which is authorized to establish and implement a project such as the one subject of
the cases at bar. Thus, the President, although authorized to establish or cause the
implementation of the Project, must exercise the authority through the instrumentality of the DOTC
which, by law, is the primary implementing and administrative entity in the promotion,

17 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
development and regulation of networks of transportation, and the one so authorized to establish
and implement a project such as the Project in question.
By designating the MMDA as the implementing agency of the Project, the President clearly
overstepped the limits of the authority conferred by law, rendering E.O. No. 179 ultra vires. There
was no grant of authority to MMDA. It was delegated only to set the policies concerning traffic in
Metro Manila, and shall coordinate and regulate the implementation of all programs and projects
concerning traffic management, specifically pertaining to enforcement, engineering and education.
In light of the administrative nature of its powers and functions, the MMDA is devoid of authority to
implement the Project as envisioned by the E.O; hence, it could not have been validly designated
by the President to undertake the Project.
MMDAs move didnt satisfy police power requirements such as that (1) the interest of the public
generally, as distinguished from that of a particular class, requires its exercise; and (2) the means
employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals. Stated differently, the police power legislation must be firmly
grounded on public interest and welfare and a reasonable relation must exist between the
purposes and the means.
As early as Calalang v. Williams, this Court recognized that traffic congestion is a public, not
merely a private, concern. The Court therein held that public welfare underlies the contested
statute authorizing the Director of Public Works to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate
and control traffic on national roads.
Likewise, in Luque v. Villegas,46 this Court emphasized that public welfare lies at the bottom of
any regulatory measure designed "to relieve congestion of traffic, which is, to say the least, a
menace to public safety." As such, measures calculated to promote the safety and convenience of
the people using the thoroughfares by the regulation of vehicular traffic present a proper subject
for the exercise of police power.
Notably, the parties herein concede that traffic congestion is a public concern that needs to be
addressed immediately. Are the means employed appropriate and reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose. Are they not duly oppressive?
De la Cruz v. Paras- Bus terminals per se do not, however, impede or help impede the flow of
traffic. How the outright proscription against the existence of all terminals, apart from that
franchised to petitioner, can be considered as reasonably necessary to solve the traffic problem,
this Court has not been enlightened
In the subject ordinances, however, the scope of the proscription against the maintenance of
terminals is so broad that even entities which might be able to provide facilities better than the
franchised terminal are barred from operating at all.
Finally, an order for the closure of respondents terminals is not in line with the provisions of the
Public Service Act.
Consonant with such grant of authority, the PSC (now the LTFRB) was empowered to "impose
such conditions as to construction, equipment, maintenance, service, or operation as the public
interests and convenience may reasonably require" in approving any franchise or privilege. The

18 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations
law mandates the LTFRB to require any public service to establish, construct, maintain, and
operate any reasonable extension of its existing facilities.

2) MMDA v Garin (G.R. No. 130230. April 15, 2005)

FACTS: One day, Respondent, Dante O. Garin, a lawyer, was issued a traffic violation receipt
(TVR) and his drivers license was confiscated for parking illegally along Gandara Street,
Binondo, Manila, on 05 August 1995. Shortly before the expiration of the TVRs validity (which is
48 hours from date of apprehension), the respondent addressed a letter to then MMDA Chairman
Prospero Oreta requesting the return of his drivers license, and expressing his preference for his
case to be filed in court. Since there was no reply, Garin filed the original complaint with
application for preliminary injunction in Branch 260 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Paraaque, on 12 September 1995, contending that, in the absence of any implementing rules
and regulations, Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 grants the MMDA unbridled discretion to deprive
erring motorists of their licenses, pre-empting a judicial determination of the validity of the
deprivation, thereby violating the due process clause of the Constitution. The respondent further
contended that the provision violates the constitutional prohibition against undue delegation of
legislative authority, allowing as it does the MMDA to fix and impose unspecified and therefore
unlimited - fines and other penalties on erring motorists.

For its part, the MMDA, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, pointed out that the
powers granted to it bySec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 are limited to the fixing, collection and
imposition of fines and penalties for traffic violations, which powers are legislative and executive in
nature; the judiciary retains the right to determine the validity of the penalty imposed. The MMDA
also refuted Garins allegation that the Metro Manila Council, the governing board and policy
making body of the petitioner, has as yet to formulate the implementing rules for Sec. 5(f) of Rep.
ActNo. 7924 and directed the courts attention to MMDA Memorandum Circular No. TT-95-001
dated 15 April 1995which authorizes confiscation of drivers licenses upon issuance of a TVR.
Respondent Garin, however, questioned the validity of MMDA Memorandum Circular No. TT-95-
001, as he claims that it was passed by the Metro ManilaCouncil in the absence of a quorum.On
23 October 1995, the RTC granted the preliminary mandatory injunction which ordered the MMDA
to return the respondent's drivers license. On 14 August 1997, the RTC rendered the decision in
favor of the respondent.Meanwhile, on 12 August 2004, the MMDA, through its Chairman Bayani
Fernando, implemented MemorandumCircular No. 04, Series of 2004, outlining the procedures for
the use of the Metropolitan Traffic Ticket (MTT) scheme. Under the circular, erring motorists are
issued an MTT, which can be paid at any Metrobank branch. Traffic enforcers may no longer
confiscate drivers licenses as a matter of course in cases of traffic violations. All motorists within
redeemed TVRs were given seven days from the date of implementation of the new system to
pay their fines and redeem their license or vehicle platesAlthough this case was considered as
moot and academic by the implementation of Memorandum Circular No. 04,Series of 2004, the
Supreme Court believed that it was but proper to address the current issue for the proper
implementation of the petitioner's future programs.

ISSUE: Whether or not Section 5(f) of Republic Act No. 7924, which created the Metropolitan
Manila Development Authority (MMDA), authorizes the MMDA to confiscate and suspend or
revoke drivers licenses in the enforcement of traffic laws and regulations?

HELD: By virtue of the doctrine promulgated in the case of Metro Manila Development Authority v.
Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., Rep. Act No. 7924 does not grant the MMDA with police power,
let alone legislative power, and that all of its functions are administrative in nature.
19 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations

Police power, having been lodged primarily in the National Legislature, cannot be exercised by
any group or body of individuals not possessing legislative power. The National Legislature,
however, may delegate this power to the president and administrative boards as well as the
lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local government units (LGUs). Once delegated,
the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national
lawmaking body. Thus, as held in the aforementioned case, . . . [T]he powers of the MMDA are
limited to the following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation,
management, monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system and administration. There is
no syllable in R. A. No. 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power. Even
the Metro Manila Council has not been delegated any legislative power. Unlike the legislative
bodies of the local government units, there is no provision in R. A. No. 7924 that empowers the
MMDA or its Council to "enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the
general welfare" of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. The MMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, a
"development authority." It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and
coordinating with the various national government agencies, people's organizations, non-
governmental organizations and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of
basic services in the vast metropolitan area. All its functions are administrative in nature and these
are actually summed up in the charter itself, viz:..Although petitioner is not precluded and in
fact is duty-bound to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers licenses in the exercise of its
mandate of transport and traffic management, as well as the administration and implementation of
all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and traffic education programs, it
still needs a valid law, or ordinance, or regulation arising from a legitimate source. This is
consistent with the ruling in Bel-Air that the MMDA is a development authority created for the
purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with the various national government agencies,
peoples organizations, non-governmental organizations and the private sector, which may
enforce, but not enact, ordinances. Hence, the power of MMDA to confiscate and suspend or
revoke drivers licenses without need of any other legislative enactment, is an unauthorized
exercise of police power.

3) Province of Rizal vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 129546, December 13, 2005)
consultation to LGU regarding national projects

FACTS: This is a petition filed by the Province of Rizal, the municipality of San Mateo, and various
concerned citizens for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, denying, for
lack of cause of action, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for a
temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction assailing the legality and constitutionality
of Proclamation No. 635.

At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its environs, parts of the Marikina
Watershed Reservation were set aside by the Office of the President [President Ramos], through
Proclamation No. 635, for use as a sanitary landfill and similar waste disposal applications.

The petioners opposed the implementation of said order since the creation of dump site under the
territorial jurisdiction would compromise the health of their constutents. Moreso, the the dump site
is to be constructed in Watershed reservation.

Through their concerted efforts of the officials and residents of Province of Rizal and Municipality
of San Mateo, the dump site was closed. However, during the term of President Estrada in 2003,
the dumpsite was re-opened.

20 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations

A temporary restraining order was then filed. Although petitioners did not raised the question that
the project was not consulted and approved by their appropriate Sanggunian, the court take it into
consideration since a mere MOA does not guarantee the dump sites permanent closure.

ISSUE: Whether or not the consultation and approval of the Province of Rizal and municipality of
San Mateo is needed before the implementation of the project..

HELD: The court reiterated again that "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living.

Yes, as lucidly explained by the court: contrary to the averment of the respondents, Proclamation
No. 635, which was passed on 28 August 1995, is subject to the provisions of the Local
Government Code, which was approved four years earlier, on 10 October 1991.

Section 2(c) of the said law declares that it is the policy of the state- "to require all national
agencies and offices to conduct periodic consultation with appropriate local government units,
non-governmental and people's organization, and other concerned sectors of the community
before any project or program is implemented in their respective jurisdiction." Likewise Section 27
requires prior consultations before a program shall be implemented by government authorities ans
the prior approval of the Sanggunian is obtained." Corollarily as held in Lina , Jr. v. Pao, Section
2 (c), requiring consultations with the appropriate local government units, should apply to national
government projects affecting the environmental or ecological balance of the particular community
implementing the project.

Relative to the case, during the oral arguments at the hearing for the temporary restraining
order, Director Uranza of the MMDA Solid Waste Management Task Force declared before the
Court of Appeals that they had conducted the required consultations. However, the ambivalence
of his reply was brought to the fore when at the height of the protest rally and barricade made by
the residents of petitioners to stop dump trucks from reaching the site, all the municipal mayors of
the province of Rizal openly declared their full support for the rally and notified the MMDA that
they would oppose any further attempt to dump garbage in their province.

Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates the powers, duties and functions of the municipality,
grants the sangguniang bayan the power to, among other things, enact ordinances, approve
resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants
pursuant to Section 16 of th(e) Code. These include:

(1) Approving ordinances and passing resolutions to protect the environment and impose
appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment, such as dynamite fishing and
other forms of destructive fishing, illegal logging and smuggling of logs, smuggling of natural
resources products and of endangered species of flora and fauna, slash and burn farming, and
such other activities which result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or
of ecological imbalance; [Section 447 (1)(vi)]

(2) Prescribing reasonable limits and restraints on the use of property within the jurisdiction of the
municipality, adopting a comprehensive land use plan for the municipality, reclassifying land within
the jurisdiction of the city, subject to the pertinent provisions of this Code, enacting integrated
zoning ordinances in consonance with the approved comprehensive land use plan, subject to
existing laws, rules and regulations; establishing fire limits or zones, particularly in populous
centers; and regulating the construction, repair or modification of buildings within said fire limits or
zones in accordance with the provisions of this Code;[Section 447 (2)(vi-ix)]
21 of 22
LOCAL OFFICIALS Pub Corp
Appointive Local Officials (Discipline) - Intergovernmental Relations

(3) Approving ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and effective delivery of the basic
services and facilities as provided for under Section 17 of this Code, and in addition to said
services and facilities, providing for the establishment, maintenance, protection, and
conservation of communal forests and watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves, and other
similar forest development projects .and, subject to existing laws, establishing and providing for
the maintenance, repair and operation of an efficient waterworks system to supply water for the
inhabitants and purifying the source of the water supply; regulating the construction, maintenance,
repair and use of hydrants, pumps, cisterns and reservoirs; protecting the purity and quantity of
the water supply of the municipality and, for this purpose, extending the coverage of appropriate
ordinances over all territory within the drainage area of said water supply and within one hundred
(100) meters of the reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct, pumping station, or watershed used in
connection with the water service; and regulating the consumption, use or wastage of
water.[Section 447 (5)(i) & (vii)]

Briefly stated, under the Local Government Code, two requisites must be met before a national
project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be
implemented:
(1) prior consultation with the affected local communities, and
(2)prior approval of the project by the appropriate sanggunian.

Absent either of these mandatory requirements, the projects implementation is illegal.

22 of 22