Republic Act No.
7160: October 10, 1991 maintenance of ecological balance within their territorial
Setion 41(b) Amended by RA 8553
Setion 43 Amended by RA 8553
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
Philippines in Congress assembled:
BOOKI: GENERAL PROVISIONS
TITLEI: BASIC PRINCIPLES
CHAPTERI: The Code: Policy and Application
Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known and cited as the "Local
Government Code of 1991".
Section 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, nongovernmental and
people's organizations, and other concerned sectors of the
community before any project or program is implemented in
their respective jurisdictions.1awphil.net
Section 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, and dynamic 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 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
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 an 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
decentralization contributes to the continuing improvement of
the performance of local government units and the quality of
community life.
Section 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.
Section 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
presentation 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 the
controversies take place.
CHAPTER II
General Powers and Attributes of Local Government Units
Section 6. Authority to Create Local Government Units. - A local
government unit may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its
boundaries substantially altered either by law enacted by Congress in
the case of a province, city, municipality, or any other political
subdivision, or by ordinance passed by the sangguniang panlalawigan
or sangguniang panlungsod concerned in the case of a barangay
located within its territorial jurisdiction, subject to such limitations and
requirements prescribed in this Code.
Section 7. Creation and Conversion. - As a general rule, the creation of
a local government unit or its conversion from one level to another level
shall be based on verifiable indicators of viability and projected capacity
to provide services, to wit:
(a) Income. - It must be sufficient, based on acceptable
standards, to provide 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
 (c) Land Area. - It must be contiguous, unless it comprises two
or more islands or is separated by a local government unit
independent of the others; properly identified by metes and
bounds with technical descriptions; and sufficient to provide
for such basic services and facilities to meet the requirements
of its populace.
Compliance with the foregoing indicators shall be attested to
by the Department of Finance (DOF), the National Statistics
Office (NSO), and the Lands Management Bureau (LMB) of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR).
Section 8. Division and Merger. - Division and merger of existing local
government units shall comply with the same requirements herein
prescribed for their creation: Provided, however, That such division shall
not reduce the income, population, or land area of the local government
unit or units concerned to less than the minimum requirements
prescribed in this Code: Provided, further, That the income classification
of the original local government unit or units shall not fall below its
current classification prior to such division.
The income classification of local government units shall be updated
within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Code to reflect the
changes in their financial position resulting from the increased revenues
as provided herein.
Section 9. Abolition of Local Government Units. - A local government
unit may be abolished when its income, population, or land area has
been irreversibly reduced to less than the minimum standards
prescribed for its creation under Book III of this Code, as certified by the
national agencies mentioned in Section 7 hereof to Congress or to the
sangguniang concerned, as the case may be.
The law or ordinance abolishing a local government unit shall specify the
province, city, municipality, or barangay with which the local government
unit sought to be abolished will be incorporated or merged.
Section 10. Plebiscite Requirement. - No creation, division, merger,
abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government
units shall take effect unless approved by a majority of the votes cast in
a plebiscite called for the purpose in the political unit or units directly
affected. Said plebiscite shall be conducted by the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) within one hundred twenty (120) days from the
date of effectivity of the law or ordinance effecting such action, unless
said law or ordinance fixes another date.
Section 11. Selection and Transfer of Local Government Site, Offices
and Facilities. -
(a) The law or ordinance creating or merging local government
units shall specify the seat of government from where
governmental and corporate services shall be delivered. In
selecting said site, factors relating to geographical centrality,
accessibility, availability of transportation and communication
facilities, drainage and sanitation, development and economic
progress, and other relevant considerations shall be taken into
account.
(b) When conditions and developments in the local
government unit concerned have significantly changed
subsequent to the establishment of the seat of government,
its sanggunian may, after public hearing and by a vote of two-
thirds (2/3) of all its members, transfer the same to a site better
suited to its needs. Provided, however, That no such transfer
shall be made outside the territorial boundaries of the local
government unit concerned.
The old site, together with the improvements thereon, may be
disposed of by the sale or lease or converted to such other
use as the sangguniang concerned may deem beneficial to
the local government unit concerned and its inhabitants.
(c) Local government offices and facilities shall not be
transferred, relocated, or converted to other uses unless
public hearings are first conducted for the purpose and the
concurrence of the majority of all the members of the
sanggunian concerned is obtained.
Section 12. Government Centers. - Provinces, cities, and municipalities
shall endeavor to establish a government center where offices,
agencies, or branches of the national government, local government
units, or government-owned or controlled corporations may, as far as
practicable, be located. In designating such a center, the local
government unit concerned shall take into account the existing facilities
of national and local agencies and offices which may serve as the
government center as contemplated under this Section. The national
government, local government unit or government-owned or controlled
corporation concerned shall bear the expenses for the construction of its
buildings and facilities in the government center.
Section 13. Naming of Local Government Units and Public Places,
Streets and Structures. -
(a) The sangguniang panlalawigan may, in consultation with
the Philippine Historical Commission (PHC), change the name
of the following within its territorial jurisdiction:
(1) Component cities and municipalities, upon the
recommendation of the sanggunian concerned;
(2) Provincial roads, avenues, boulevards,
thoroughfares, and bridges;
(3) Public vocational or technical schools and other
post-secondary and tertiary schools;
(4) Provincial hospitals, health centers, and other
health facilities; and
(5) Any other public place or building owned by the
provincial government.
(b) The sanggunian of highly urbanized cities and of
component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from
voting for provincial elective officials, hereinafter referred to in
this Code as independent component cities, may, in
consultation with the Philippine Historical Commission,
change the name of the following within its territorial
jurisdiction:
(1) City barangays, upon the recommendation of
the sangguniang barangay concerned;
(2) City roads, avenues, boulevards, thoroughfares,
and bridges;
(3) Public elementary, secondary and vocational or
technical schools, community colleges and non-
chartered colleges;
(4) City hospitals, health centers and other health
facilities; and
(5) Any other public place or building owned by the
city government.
(c) The sanggunians of component cities and municipalities
may, in consultation with the Philippine Historical
Commission, change the name of the following within its
territorial jurisdiction:
(1) City and municipal barangays, upon
recommendation of the sangguniang barangay
concerned;
(2) City, municipal and barangay roads, avenues,
boulevards, thoroughfares, and bridges;
(3) City and municipal public elementary,
secondary and vocational or technical schools,
post- secondary and other tertiary schools;
(4) City and municipal hospitals, health centers and
other health facilities; and
(5) Any other public place or building owned by the
municipal government.
(d) None of the foregoing local government units, institutions,
places, or buildings shall be named after a living person, nor
may a change of name be made unless for a justifiable reason
and, in any case, not oftener than once every ten (10) years.
The name of a local government unit or a public place, street
or structure with historical, cultural, or ethnic significance shall
not be changed, unless by a unanimous vote of the
sanggunian concerned and in consultation with the PHC.
(e) A change of name of a public school shall be made only
upon the recommendation of the local school board
concerned.
(f) A change of name of public hospitals, health centers, and
other health facilities shall be made only upon the
recommendation of the local health board concerned.
(g) The change of name of any local government unit shall be
effective only upon ratification in a plebiscite conducted for the
purpose in the political unit directly affected.
(h) In any change of name, the Office of the President, the
representative of the legislative district concerned, and the
Bureau of Posts shall be notified.
Section 14. Beginning of Corporate Existence. - When a new local
government unit is created, its corporate existence shall commence
upon the election and qualification of its chief executive and a majority
of the members of its sanggunian, unless some other time is fixed
therefor by the law or ordinance creating it.
Section 15. Political and Corporate Nature of Local Government Units. -
Every local government unit created or recognized under this Code is a
body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in
conformity with law. As such, it shall exercise powers as a political
subdivision of the national government and as a corporate entity
representing the inhabitants of its territory.
Section 16. General Welfare. - Every local government unit shall
exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied
therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its
efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the
promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial
jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among
other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health
and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology,
encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant
scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance
economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among
their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and
convenience of their inhabitants.
Section 17. Basic Services and Facilities. -
(a) Local government units shall endeavor to be self-reliant
and shall continue exercising the powers and discharging the
duties and functions currently vested upon them. They shall
also discharge the functions and responsibilities of national
agencies and offices devolved to them pursuant to this Code.
Local government units shall likewise exercise such other
powers and discharge such other functions and
responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or incidental to
efficient and effective provisions of the basic services and
facilities enumerated herein.
(b) Such basic services and facilities include, but are not
limited to, the following:
(1) For Barangay:
(i) Agricultural support services which
include planting materials distribution
system and operation of farm produce
collection and buying stations;
(ii) Health and social welfare services
which include maintenance of barangay
health center and day-care center;
(iii) Services and facilities related to
general hygiene and sanitation,
beautification, and solid waste collection;
(iv) Maintenance of katarungang
pambarangay;
(v) Maintenance of barangay roads and
bridges and water supply systems;
(vi) Infrastructure facilities such as multi-
purpose hall, multipurpose pavement,
plaza, sports center, and other similar
facilities;
(vii) Information and reading center; and
(viii) Satellite or public market, where
viable;
(2) For a Municipality:
(i) Extension and on-site research
services and facilities related to
agriculture and fishery activities which
include dispersal of livestock and poultry,
fingerlings, and other seedling materials
for aquaculture; palay, corn, and
vegetable seed farms; medicinal plant
gardens; fruit tree, coconut, and other
kinds of seedling nurseries;
demonstration farms; quality control of
copra and improvement and
development of local distribution
channels, preferably through
cooperatives; interbarangay irrigation
system; water and soil resource
utilization and conservation projects; and
enforcement of fishery laws in municipal
waters including the conservation of
mangroves;
(ii) Pursuant to national policies and
subject to supervision, control and review
of the DENR, implementation of
community-based forestry projects which
include integrated social forestry
programs and similar projects;
management and control of communal
forests with an area not exceeding fifty
(50) square kilometers; establishment of
tree parks, greenbelts, and similar forest
development projects;
(iii) Subject to the provisions of Title Five,
Book I of this Code, health services which
include the implementation of programs
and projects on primary health care,
maternal and child care, and
communicable and non-communicable
disease control services, access to
secondary and tertiary health services;
purchase of medicines, medical supplies,
and equipment needed to carry out the
services herein enumerated;
(iv) Social welfare services which include
programs and projects on child and youth
welfare, family and community welfare,
women's welfare, welfare of the elderly
and disabled persons; community-based
rehabilitation programs for vagrants,
beggars, street children, scavengers,
juvenile delinquents, and victims of drug
abuse; livelihood and other pro-poor
projects; nutrition services; and family
planning services;
(v) Information services which include
investments and job placement
information systems, tax and marketing
information systems, and maintenance of
a public library;
(vi) Solid waste disposal system or
environmental management system and
services or facilities related to general
hygiene and sanitation;
(vii) Municipal buildings, cultural centers,
public parks including freedom parks,
playgrounds, and other sports facilities
and equipment, and other similar
facilities;
(viii) Infrastructure facilities intended
primarily to service the needs of the
residents of the municipality and which
are funded out of municipal funds
including but not limited to, municipal
roads and bridges; school buildings and
other facilities for public elementary and
secondary schools; clinics, health
centers and other health facilities
necessary to carry out health services;
communal irrigation, small water
impounding projects and other similar
projects; fish ports; artesian wells, spring
development, rainwater collectors and
water supply systems; seawalls, dikes,
drainage and sewerage, and flood
control; traffic signals and road signs;
and similar facilities;
(ix) Public markets, slaughterhouses and
other municipal enterprises;
(x) Public cemetery;
(xi) Tourism facilities and other tourist
attractions, including the acquisition of
equipment, regulation and supervision of
business concessions, and security
services for such facilities; and
(xii) Sites for police and fire stations and
substations and municipal jail;
(3) For a Province:
(i) Agricultural extension and on-site
research services and facilities which
include the prevention and control of
 plant and animal pests and diseases;
dairy farms, livestock markets, animal
breeding stations, and artificial
insemination centers; and assistance in
the organization of farmers and
fishermen's cooperatives, and other
collective organizations, as well as the
transfer of appropriate technology;
(ii) Industrial research and development
services, as well as the transfer of
appropriate technology;
(iii) Pursuant to national policies and
subject to supervision, control and review
of the DENR, enforcement of forestry
laws limited to community-based forestry
projects, pollution control law, small-
scale mining law, and other laws on the
protection of the environment; and mini-
hydroelectric projects for local purposes;
(iv) Subject to the provisions of Title Five,
Book I of this Code, health services which
include hospitals and other tertiary health
services;
(v) Social welfare services which include
programs and projects on rebel returnees
and evacuees; relief operations; and
population development services;
(vi) Provincial buildings, provincial jails,
freedom parks and other public assembly
areas and similar facilities;
(vii) Infrastructure facilities intended to
service the needs of the residence of the
province and which are funded out of
provincial funds including, but not limited
to, provincial roads and bridges; inter-
municipal waterworks, drainage and
sewerage, flood control, and irrigation
systems; reclamation projects; and
similar facilities;
(viii) Programs and projects for low-cost
housing and other mass dwellings,
except those funded by the Social
Security System (SSS), Government
Service Insurance System p. 172 (GSIS),
and the Home Development Mutual Fund
(HDMF): Provided, That national funds
for these programs and projects shall be
equitably allocated among the regions in
proportion to the ratio of the homeless to
the population;
(ix) Investment support services,
including access to credit financing;
(x) Upgrading and modernization of tax
information and collection services
through the use of computer hardware
and software and other means;
(xi) Inter-municipal telecommunications
services, subject to national policy
guidelines; and
(xii) Tourism development and promotion
programs;
(4) For a City:
All the services and facilities of the municipality and
province, and in addition thereto, the following:
(1) Adequate communication and
transportation facilities;
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) hereof,
public works and infrastructure projects and other facilities,
programs and services funded by the national government
under the annual General Appropriations Act, other special
laws, pertinent executive orders, and those wholly or partially
funded from foreign sources, are not covered under this
Section, except in those cases where the local government
unit concerned is duly designated as the implementing agency
for such projects, facilities, programs, and services.
(d) The designs, plans, specifications, testing of materials,
and the procurement of equipment and materials at P170 from
both foreign and local sources necessary for the provision of
the foregoing services and facilities shall be undertaken by the
local government unit concerned, based on national policies,
standards and guidelines.
(e) National agencies or offices concerned shall devolve to
local government units the responsibility for the provision of
basic services and facilities enumerated in this Section within
six (6) months after the effectivity of this Code.
As used in this Code, the term "devolution" refers to the act by
which the national government confers power and authority
upon the various local government units to perform specific
functions and responsibilities.
(f) The national government or the next higher level of local
government unit may provide or augment the basic services
and facilities assigned to a lower level of local government unit
when such services or facilities are not made available or, if
made available, are inadequate to meet the requirements of
its inhabitants.
(g) The basic services and facilities hereinabove enumerated
shall be funded from the share of local government units in the
proceeds of national taxes and other local revenues and
funding support from the national government, its
instrumentalities and government-owned or controlled
corporations which are tasked by law to establish and
maintain such services or facilities. Any fund or resource
available for the use of local government units shall be first
allocated for the provision of basic services or facilities
enumerated in subsection (b) hereof before applying the same
for other purposes, unless otherwise provided in this Code.
(h) Regional offices of national agencies or offices whose
functions are devolved to local government units as provided
herein shall be phased out within one (1) year from the
approval of this Code. Said national agencies and offices may
establish such field units as may be necessary for monitoring
purposes and providing technical assistance to local
government units. The properties, equipment, and other
assets of these regional offices shall be distributed to the local
government units in the region in accordance with the rules
and regulations issued by the oversight committee created
under this Code.
(i) The devolution contemplated in this Code shall include the
transfer to local government units of the records, equipment,
and other assets and personnel of national agencies and
offices corresponding to the devolved powers, functions, and
responsibilities.
Personnel of said national agencies or offices shall be
absorbed by the local government units to which they belong
or in whose areas they are assigned to the extent that it is
administratively viable as determined by the said oversight
committee: Provided, That the rights accorded to such
personnel pursuant to civil service law, rules and regulations
shall not be impaired: Provided, further, That regional
directors who are career executive service officers and other
officers of similar rank in the said regional offices who cannot
be absorbed by the local government unit shall be retained by
the national government, without any diminution of rank,
salary or tenure.
(j) To ensure the active participation of the private sector in
local governance, local government units may, by ordinance,
sell, lease, encumber, or otherwise dispose of public
economic enterprises owned by them in their proprietary
capacity.
Costs may also be charged for the delivery of basic services
or facilities enumerated in this Section.
Section 18. Power to Generate and Apply Resources. - Local
government units shall have the power and authority to establish an
organization that shall be responsible for the efficient and effective
implementation of their development plans, program objectives and
priorities; to create their own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees,
and charges which shall accrue exclusively for their use and disposition
and which shall be retained by them; to have a just share in national
taxes which shall be automatically and directly released to them without
need of any further action; to have an equitable share in the proceeds
from the utilization and development of the national wealth and
resources within their respective territorial jurisdictions including sharing
the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits; to acquire,
develop, lease, encumber, alienate, or otherwise dispose of real or
personal property held by them in their proprietary capacity and to apply
their resources and assets for productive, developmental, or welfare
purposes, in the exercise or furtherance of their governmental or
proprietary powers and functions and thereby ensure their development
into self-reliant communities and active participants in the attainment of
national goals.
Section 19. Eminent Domain. - A local government unit may, through its
chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power
of eminent domain for public use, or purpose or welfare for the benefit
of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation,
pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws:
Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be
exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to
the owner, and such offer was not accepted: Provided, further, That the
local government unit may immediately take possession of the property
upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a
deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair
market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the
property to be expropriated: Provided, finally, That, the amount to be
paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper
court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the
property.
Section 20. Reclassification of Lands. -
(a) A city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed
by the sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the
purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands
and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition in
the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to be
economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as
determined by the Department of Agriculture or (2) where the
land shall have substantially greater economic value for
residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined
by the sanggunian concerned: Provided, That such
reclassification shall be limited to the following percentage of
the total agricultural land area at the time of the passage of
the ordinance:
(1) For highly urbanized and independent
component cities, fifteen percent (15%);
(2) For component cities and first to the third class
municipalities, ten percent (10%); and
(3) For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five
percent (5%): Provided, further, That agricultural
lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries
pursuant to Republic Act Numbered Sixty-six
hundred fifty-seven (R.A. No. 6657). otherwise
known as "The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law", shall not be affected by the said
reclassification and the conversion of such lands
into other purposes shall be governed by Section
65 of said Act.
(b) The President may, when public interest so requires and
upon recommendation of the National Economic and
Development Authority, authorize a city or municipality to
reclassify lands in excess of the limits set in the next preceding
paragraph.
(c) The local government units shall, in conformity with
existing laws, continue to prepare their respective
comprehensive land use plans enacted through zoning
ordinances which shall be the primary and dominant bases for
the future use of land resources: Provided. That the
requirements for food production, human settlements, and
industrial expansion shall be taken into consideration in the
preparation of such plans.
(d) Where approval by a national agency is required for
reclassification, such approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld. Failure to act on a proper and complete application
for reclassification within three (3) months from receipt of the
same shall be deemed as approval thereof.
(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as repealing,
amending, or modifying in any manner the provisions of R.A.
No. 6657.
Section 21. Closure and Opening of Roads. -
(a) A local government unit may, pursuant to an ordinance,
permanently or temporarily close or open any local road, alley,
park, or square falling within its jurisdiction: Provided,
however, That in case of permanent closure, such ordinance
must be approved by at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the
members of the sanggunian, and when necessary, an
adequate substitute for the public facility that is subject to
closure is provided.
(b) No such way or place or any part thereof shall be
permanently closed without making provisions for the
maintenance of public safety therein. A property thus
permanently withdrawn from public use may be used or
conveyed for any purpose for which other real property
belonging to the local government unit concerned may be
lawfully used or conveyed: Provided, however, That no
freedom park shall be closed permanently without provision
for its transfer or relocation to a new site.
(c) Any national or local road, alley, park, or square may be
temporarily closed during an actual emergency, or fiesta
celebrations, public rallies, agricultural or industrial fairs, or an
undertaking of public works and highways,
telecommunications, and waterworks projects, the duration of
which shall be specified by the local chief executive
concerned in a written order: Provided, however, That no
national or local road, alley, park, or square shall be
temporarily closed for athletic, cultural, or civic activities not
officially sponsored, recognized, or approved by the local
government unit concerned.
(d) Any city, municipality, or barangay may, by a duly enacted
ordinance, temporarily close and regulate the use of any local
street, road, thoroughfare, or any other public place where
shopping malls, Sunday, flea or night markets, or shopping
areas may be established and where goods, merchandise,
foodstuffs, commodities, or articles of commerce may be sold
and dispensed to the general public.
Section 22. Corporate Powers. -
(a) Every local government unit, as a corporation, shall have
the following powers:
(1) To have continuous succession in its corporate
name;
(2) To sue and be sued;
(3) To have and use a corporate seal;
(4) To acquire and convey real or personal property;
(5) To enter into contracts; and
(6) To exercise such other powers as are granted
to corporations, subject to the limitations provided
in this Code and other laws.
(b) Local government units may continue using, modify, or
change their existing corporate seals: Provided, That newly
established local government units or those without corporate
seals may create their own corporate seals which shall be
registered with the Department of the Interior and Local
Government: Provided, further, That any change of corporate
seal shall also be registered as provided hereon.
(c) Unless otherwise provided in this Code, no contract may
be entered into by the local chief executive in behalf of the
local government unit without prior authorization by the
sanggunian concerned. A legible copy of such contract shall
be posted at a conspicuous place in the provincial capitol or
the city, municipal or barangay hall.
(d) Local government units shall enjoy full autonomy in the
exercise of their proprietary functions and in the limitations
provided in this Code and other applicable laws,
Section 23. Authority to Negotiate and Secure Grants. - Local chief
executives may, upon authority of the sanggunian, negotiate and secure
financial grants or donations in kind, in support of the basic services or
facilities enumerated under Section 17 hereof, from local and foreign
assistance agencies without necessity of securing clearance or approval
therefor from any department, agency, or office of the national
government of from any higher local government unit: Provided, That
projects financed by such grants or assistance with national security
implications shall be approved by the national agency concerned:
Provided, further, That when such national agency fails to act on the
request for approval within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, the same
shall be deemed approved.
The local chief executive shall, within thirty (30) days upon signing of
such grant agreement or deed of donation, report the nature, amount,
and terms of such assistance to both Houses of Congress and the
President.
Section 24. Liability for Damages. - Local government units and their
officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury to persons or
damage to property.
CASES:
Torio v Fontanilla
Facts: On October 21, 1958, the Municipal Council of Malasiqui,
Pangasinan, passed Resolution No. 159 whereby "it resolved to
manage the 1959 Malasiqui town fiesta celebration on January
21, 22, and 23, 1959." Resolution No. 182 was also passed
creating the "1959 Malasiqui 'Town Fiesta Executive
Committee" which in turn organized a sub-committee on
entertainment and stage, with Jose Macaraeg as Chairman.
The "zarzuela" entitled "Midas Extravaganza" was donated by
an association of Malasiqui employees of the Manila Railroad
Company in Caloocan, Rizal. The troupe arrived in the evening
of January 22 for the performance and one of the members of
the group was Vicente Fontanilla. The program started at about
10:15 o'clock that evening with some speeches, and many
persons went up the stage. The "zarzuela" then began but
before the dramatic part of the play was reached, the stage
collapsed and Vicente Fontanilla who was at the rear of the
stage was pinned underneath. Fontanilia was taken to tile San
Carlos General Hospital where he died in the afternoon of the
following day.
The heirs of Vicente Fontanilia filed a complaint with the Court
of First Instance of Manila on September 11, 1959 to recover
damages. Named party-defendants were the Municipality of
Malasiqui, the Municipal Council of Malasiqui and all the
individual members of the Municipal Council in 1959.
Answering the complaint defendant municipality invoked inter
alia the principal defense that as a legally and duly organized
public corporation it performs sovereign functions and the
holding of a town fiesta was an exercise of its governmental
functions from which no liability can arise to answer for the
negligence of any of its agents.
RTC ruled in favour of defendants as the stage collapsed
beyond the control of the committee which was revered by the
CA.
Issue: Whether or not the celebration of a town fiesta is a
governmental function in which there can be no recovery
for damages.
Ruling: The powers of a municipality are twofold in character
public, governmental or political on the one hand, and corporate,
private, or proprietary on the other. If it is a governmental
function no recovery, as a rule, can be. had so long as they
performed their duties honestly and in good faith or that they did
not act wantonly and maliciously. When it is proprietary
functions, the settled rule is that a municipal corporation can be
held liable to third persons ex contract 13 or ex delicto. 14
The celebration of a town fiesta by the Municipality of Malasiqui
was not a governmental function. The legal consequence
thereof is that the Municipality stands on the same footing as an
ordinary private corporation with the municipal council acting as
its board of directors.
Lastly, petitioner or appellant Municipality cannot evade ability
and/or liability under the c that it was Jose Macaraeg who
constructed the stage. The municipality acting through its
municipal council appointed Macaraeg as chairman of the sub-
committee on entertainment and in charge of the construction of
the "zarzuela" stage. Macaraeg acted merely as an agent of the
Municipality. Under the doctrine of respondent superior
mentioned earlier, petitioner is responsible or liable for the
negligence of its agent acting within his assigned tasks.
On these people We absolve Use municipal councilors from any
liability for the death of Vicente Fontanilla. The records do not
show that said petitioners directly participated in the defective
construction of the "zarzuela" stage or that they personally
permitted spectators to go up the platform.
Macasiano v Diokno
Facts: On June 13, 1990, the respondent municipality passed
Ordinance No. 86, Series of 1990 which authorized the closure
of J. Gabriel, G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Garcia Extension and
Opena Streets located at Baclaran, Parañaque, Metro Manila
and the establishment of a flea market thereon. Later on, the
council authorize the Parañaque Mayor Walfrido N. Ferrer to
enter into contract with Palanyag a service cooperative for the
establishment, operation, maintenance and management of flea
markets and/or vending areas. Consequently, market stalls were
put up by respondent Palanyag on the said streets.
On September 13, 1990, petitioner Brig. Gen. Macasiano, PNP
Superintendent of the Metropolitan Traffic Command, ordered
the destruction and confiscation of stalls along G.G. Cruz and J.
Gabriel St. in Baclaran.
Hence, on October 23, 1990, respondents municipality and
Palanyag filed with the trial court a joint petition for prohibition
and mandamus with damages and prayer for preliminary
injunction, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order to
enjoin petitioner from enforcing his letter-order and
subsequently held the ordinance to be valid. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not an ordinance or resolution issued by the
municipal council of Parañaque authorizing the lease and use of
public streets or thoroughfares as sites for flea markets is valid.
Ruling: We find the petition meritorious. In resolving the question
of whether the disputed municipal ordinance authorizing the flea
market on the public streets is valid, it is necessary to examine
the laws in force during the time the said ordinance was enacted,
namely, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, otherwise known as Local
Government Code, in connection with established principles
embodied in the Civil Code an property and settled
jurisprudence on the matter.
Based on the foregoing, J. Gabriel G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt.
Garcia Extension and Opena streets are local roads used for
public service and are therefore considered public properties of
respondent municipality. Properties of the local government
which are devoted to public service are deemed public and are
under the absolute control of Congress (Province of Zamboanga
del Norte v. City of Zamboanga, L-24440, March 28, 1968, 22
SCRA 1334). Hence, local governments have no authority
whatsoever to control or regulate the use of public properties
unless specific authority is vested upon them by Congress.
One such example of this authority given by Congress to the
local governments is the power to close roads as provided in
Section 10, Chapter II of the Local Government Code, however,
the aforestated legal provision which gives authority to local
government units to close roads and other similar public places
should be read and interpreted in accordance with basic
principles already established by law. These basic principles
have the effect of limiting such authority of the province, city or
municipality to close a public street or thoroughfare.
Article 424 of the Civil Code lays down the basic principle that
properties of public dominion devoted to public use and made
available to the public in general are outside the commerce of
man and cannot be disposed of or leased by the local
government unit to private persons.
Balacuit v CFI of Agusan
Facts: The Municipality of Butuan passed an ORDINANCE—
640. It is an oRDINANCE PENALIZING ANY PERSON, GROUP
OF PERSONS, ENTITY OR CORPORATION ENGAGED IN
THE BUSINESS OF SELLING ADMISSION TICKETS TO ANY
MOVIE OR OTHER PUBLIC EXHIBITIONS, GAMES,
CONTESTS OR OTHER PERFORMANCES TO REQUIRE
CHILDREN BETWEEN SEVEN (7) AND TWELVE (12) YEARS
OF AGE TO PAY FULL PAYMENT FOR TICKETS INTENDED
FOR ADULTS BUT SHOULD CHARGE ONLY ONE-HALF OF
THE SAID TICKET
Petitioners are Carlos Balacuit Lamberto Tan, and Sergio Yu
Carcel managers of the Maya and Dalisay Theaters, the Crown
Theater, and the Diamond Theater, respectively. Petitioners
attack the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 on
the grounds that it is ultra vires and an invalid exercise of police
power.
RTC ruled in favour of its validity. Petitioners filed their motion
for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this petition.
Petitioners contend that Ordinance No. 640 is not within the
power of' the Municipal Board to enact as provided for in Section
15(n) of Republic Act No. 523, the Charter of the City of Butuan,
which states:
Sec. 15. General powers and duties of the
Board — Except as otherwise provided by
law, and subject
Respondent City of Butuan, on the other hand, attempts to justify
the enactment of the ordinance by invoking the general welfare
clause
Issue: Whether or not Ordinance 640 is valid
Ruling: The ordinance is not justified by any necessity for the
public interest. The police power legislation must be firmly
grounded on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable
relation must exist between purposes and means.22 The
ordinance does not only make the petitioners suffer the loss of
earnings but it likewise penalizes them for failure to comply with
it.
We can see that the ordinance is clearly unreasonable if not
unduly oppressive upon the business of petitioners. Moreover,
there is no discernible relation between the ordinance and the
promotion of public health, safety, morals and the general
welfare.
Nonetheless, as to the question of the subject ordinance being
a valid exercise of police power, the same must be resolved in
the negative. While it is true that a business may be regulated,
it is equally true that such regulation must be within the bounds
of reason, that is, the regulatory ordinance must be reasonable,
and its provisions cannot be oppressive amounting to an
arbitrary interference with the business or calling subject of
regulation. A lawful business or calling may not, under the guise
of regulation, be unreasonably interfered with even by the
exercise of police power.33 A police measure for the regulation
of the conduct, control and operation of a business should not
encroach upon the legitimate and lawful exercise by the citizens
of their property rights.34 The right of the owner to fix a price at
which his property shall be sold or used is an inherent attribute
of the property itself and, as such, within the protection of the
due process clause."" Hence, the proprietors of a theater have
a right to manage their property in their own way, to fix what
prices of admission they think most for their own advantage, and
that any person who did not approve could stay away. 36
Tan v Comelec
Facts: The complainants are residents of Province of Negros
Occidental. This case is petition contesting the constitutionality
of RA No. 885, An Act Creating a New Province in the Island of
Negros to be known as the Province of Negros del Norte,
effective Dec. 3, 1985. Pursuant to and in implementation of this
law, the COMELEC scheduled a plebiscite for January 3, 1986
on the proposed new province. The plebiscite resulted in the
affirmative votes thus the proclamation of the new province
known as Negros del Norte.
Issue:
(1)This case question whether as residents of the parent
province, the citizens should be included in the plebiscite as the
constitution provides that it should be conducted in the affected
area
(2)They also question the constitutionality of the law as the
territory did not reach the required minimum of 2500 sq.km
Rulings:
(Issue 1): The Supreme Court held the citizens of the parent
province should also be included in the plebiscite as they are
also affected by the division of the province. This division will
cause an alteration to the parent province’s territorial
boundaries, political units as well as may have adverse
economic effects.
(Issue 2): Based on records, it was proved that the territorial
boundaries of the new province will not reach the required
minimum of 3500 sq.km. As such, the Supreme Court ruled that
RA No. 885 is unconstitutional.
padilla v Comelec
Facts: Thus, in this special civil action of certiorari, petitioner as
Governor of Camarines Norte, seeks to set aside the plebiscite
conducted on December 15, 1991 throughout the Municipality of
Labo and prays that a new plebiscite be undertaken as provided
by RA 7155. It is the contention of petitioner that the plebiscite
was a complete failure and that the results obtained were invalid
and illegal because the plebiscite, as mandated by COMELEC
Resolution No. 2312 should have been conducted only in the
political unit or units affected, i.e. the 12 barangays comprising
the new Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa namely Tulay-Na-Lupa,
Lugui, San Antonio, Mabilo I, Napaod, Benit, Bayan-Bayan,
Matanlang, Pag-Asa, Maot, and Calabasa. Petitioner stresses
that the plebiscite should not have included the remaining area
of the mother unit of the Municipality of Labo, Camarines
Norte. 4
In support of his stand, petitioner argues that with the approval
and ratification of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Article X,
Section 10, the ruling set forth in Tan v. COMELEC 5 relied
upon by respondent COMELEC is now passed, thus reinstating
the case of Paredes v. Executive Secretary 6 which held that
where a local unit is to be segregated from a parent unit, only
the voters of the unit to be segrated should be included in the
plebiscite. 7
ISSUE: Accordingly, the issue in this case is whether or not
respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
promulgating Resolution No. 2312 and, consequently, 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.
Ruling: We rule that respondent COMELEC did not commit
grave abuse in promulgating Resolution No. 2312 and that the
plebiscite, which rejected the creation of the proposed
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 phase "political units directly affected," is
the plurality of political units which would participate in the
plebiscite. 10 Logically, those to be included in such political
areas are the inhabitants of the 12 barangays of the proposed
Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa as well as those living in the
parent Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte. Thus, we
conclude that respondent COMELEC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in promulgating Resolution No. 2312.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
tatel v Municipality of Virac
Facts: AN ORDINANCE STRICTLY PROHIBITING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF WAREHOUSE IN ANY FORM NEAR A
BLOCK OF HOUSES EITHER IN POBLACION OR BARRIO
WITH NECESSARY DISTANCE TO AVOID GREAT LOSSES
OF PROPERTY AND LIVES BY FIRE ACCIDENT.
This is a Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction with
the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes filed by appellant,
Celestino Tatel, a businessman engaged in the import and
export of abaca and other products against the Municipal
Council of Virac, Catanduanes and its municipal officials
enjoining them from enforcing Resolution No 29 1 of the Council,
declaring the warehouse of petitioner in barrio Sta. Elena of the
said municipality a public nuisance within the purview of Article
694 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and directing the
petitioner to remove and transfer said warehouse to a more
suitable place within two (2) months from receipt of the said
resolution.
It appears from the records that on the basis of complaints
received from the residents of barrio Sta. Elena on March 18,
1966 against the disturbance caused by the operation of the
abaca bailing machine inside the warehouse of petitioner which
affected the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood due to
the smoke, obnoxious odor and dust emitted by the machine, a
committee was appointed by the municipal council of Virac to
investigate the matter. The committee noted the crowded nature
of the neighborhood with narrow roads and the surrounding
residential houses, so much so that an accidental fire within the
warehouse of the petitioner occasioned by the continuance of
the activity inside the warehouse and the storing of inflammable
materials created a danger to the lives and properties of the
people within the neighborhood.
Resultantly, Resolution No. 29 was passed by the Municipal
Council of Virac on April 22, 1966 declaring the warehouse
owned and operated by petitioner a public nuisance within the
purview of Article 694 of the New Civil Code.
Issue: The issue then boils down on whether petitioner's
warehouse is a nuisance within the meaning of Article 694 of the
Civil Code and whether Ordinance No. 13, S. 1952 of the
Municipality of Virac is unconstitutional and void.
Ruling: We find no merit in the Petition.
Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, was passed by the Municipal
Council of Virac in the exercise of its police power. It is a settled
principle of law that municipal corporations are agencies of the
State for the promotion and maintenance of local self-
government and as such are endowed with the police powers in
order to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared
objects of their creation. 3 Its authority emanates from the
general welfare clause under the Administrative Code, which
reads:
For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the
corporate powers of the municipality to enact but must also be
passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, and must
be in consonance with certain well established and basic
principles of a substantive nature. These principles require that
a municipal ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution
or any statute (2) must not be unfair or oppressive (3) must not
be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate
trade (5) must be general and consistent with public policy, and
(6) must not be unreasonable. 5 Ordinance No. 13, Series of
1952, meets these criteria.
In spite of its fractured syntax, basically, what is regulated by the
ordinance is the construction of warehouses wherein
inflammable materials are stored where such warehouses are
located at a distance of 200 meters from a block of houses and
not the construction per se of a warehouse. The purpose is to
avoid the loss of life and property in case of fire which is one of
the primordial obligation of the government.
Villacorta v Bernardo:
Facts: This is a petition for certiorari against a decision of the
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan annulling an ordinance
adopted by the municipal board of Dagupan City. "ORDINANCE
22: "AN ORDINANCE REGULATING SUBDIVISION PLANS
OVER PARCELS OF LAND IN THE CITY OF DAGUPAN.
"Section 1. Every proposed subdivision plan over any lot in the
City of Dagupan, shall, before the same is submitted for
approval and/or verification by the Bureau of Lands and/or the
Land Registration Commission, be previously submitted to the
City Engineer of the City who shall see to it that no
encroachment is made on any portion of the public domain, that
the zoning ordinance and all other pertinent rules and
regulations are observed.
"Section 3. It shall be unlawful for the Register of Deeds of
Dagupan City to allow the registration of a subdivision plan
unless there is prior written certification issued by the City
Engineer that such plan has already been submitted to his
office and that the same is in order.
Issue: Whether or not the ordinance is valid.
Lower court: In declaring the said ordinance null and void, the
court a quo declared:
"From the above-recited requirements, there is no showing that
would justify the enactment of the questioned ordinance. Section
1 of said ordinance clearly conflicts with Section 44 of Act 496,
because the latter law does not require subdivision plans to be
submitted to the City Engineer before the same is submitted for
approval to and verification by the General Land Registration
Office or by the Director of Lands as provided for in Section 58
of said Act. Section 2 of the same ordinance also contravenes
the provisions of Section 44 of Act 496, the latter being silent on
a service fee of P0.03 per square meter of every lot subject of
such subdivision application; Section 3 of the ordinance in
question also conflicts with Section 44 of Act 496, because the
latter law does not mention of a certification to be made by the
City Engineer before the Register of Deeds allows registration
of the subdivision plan; and the last section of said ordinance
imposes a penalty for its violation, which Section 44 of Act 496
does not impose. In other words, Ordinance 22 of the City of
Dagupan imposes upon a subdivision owner additional
conditions.
"The Court takes note of the laudable purpose of the ordinance
in bringing to a halt the surreptitious registration of lands
belonging to the government. But as already intimidated above,
the powers of the board in enacting such a laudable ordinance
cannot be held valid when it shall impede the exercise of rights
granted in a general law and/or make a general law
subordinated to a local ordinance."
Ruling: We affirm.
To sustain the ordinance would be to open the floodgates to
other ordinances amending and so violating national laws in the
guise of implementing them. Thus, ordinances could be passed
imposing additional requirements for the issuance of marriage
licenses, to prevent bigamy; the registration of vehicles, to
minimize carnaping; the execution of contracts, to forestall fraud;
the validation of passports, to deter imposture; the exercise of
freedom of speech, to reduce disorder; and so on. The list is
endless, but the means, even if the end be valid, would be ultra
vires.
This advice is especially addressed to the local governments
which exercise the police power only by virtue of a valid
delegation from the national legislature under the general
welfare clause. In the instant case, Ordinance No. 22 suffers
from the additional defect of violating this authority for legislation
in contravention of the national law by adding to its
requirements.
magtajas v Pryce
There was instant opposition when PAGCOR announced the
opening of a casino in Cagayan de Oro City. Civic organizations
angrily denounced the project. The religious elements echoed
the objection and so did the women's groups and the youth.
Demonstrations were led by the mayor and the city legislators.
The media trumpeted the protest, describing the casino as an
affront to the welfare of the city.
The trouble arose when in 1992, flush with its tremendous
success in several cities, PAGCOR decided to expand its
operations to Cagayan de Oro City. To this end, it leased a
portion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties Corporation,
Inc., one of the herein private respondents, renovated and
equipped the same, and prepared to inaugurate its casino there
during the Christmas season.
The reaction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de
Oro City was swift and hostile. On December 7, 1992, it enacted
Ordinance No. 3353 reading as follows: AN ORDINANCE
PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS PERMIT AND
CANCELLING EXISTING BUSINESS PERMIT TO ANY
ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE USING AND ALLOWING TO BE
USED ITS PREMISES OR PORTION THEREOF FOR THE
OPERATION OF CASINO.
Nor was this all. On January 4, 1993, it adopted a sterner
Ordinance No. 3375-93 reading as follows: AN ORDINANCE
PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OF CASINO AND
PROVIDING PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREFOR.
Pryce assailed the ordinances before the Court of Appeals,
where it was joined by PAGCOR as intervenor and
supplemental petitioner. Their challenge succeeded. On March
31, 1993, the Court of Appeals declared the ordinances invalid
and issued the writ prayed for to prohibit their
enforcement. 1 Reconsideration of this decision was denied on
July 13, 1993. 2
Cagayan de Oro City and its mayor are now before us in this
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 3 They
aver that the respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that:
Issue: whether or not the ordinances are valid
Ruling: PAGCOR is a corporation created directly by P.D. 1869
to help centralize and regulate all games of chance, including
casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines. In Basco v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming
Corporation, 4 this Court sustained the constitutionality of the
decree and even cited the benefits of the entity to the national
economy as the third highest revenue-earner in the government,
next only to the BIR and the Bureau of Customs.
The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. Gambling is
not illegal per se. While it is generally considered inimical to the
interests of the people, there is nothing in the Constitution
categorically proscribing or penalizing gambling or, for that
matter, even mentioning it at all. It is left to Congress to deal with
the activity as it sees fit. In the exercise of its own discretion, the
legislature may prohibit gambling altogether or allow it without
limitation or it may prohibit some forms of gambling and allow
others for whatever reasons it may consider sufficient. Thus, it
has prohibited jueteng and monte but permits lotteries,
cockfighting and horse-racing. In making such choices,
Congress has consulted its own wisdom, which this Court has
no authority to review, much less reverse.
The apparent flaw in the ordinances in question is that they
contravene P.D. 1869 and the public policy embodied therein
insofar as they prevent PAGCOR from exercising the power
conferred on it to operate a casino in Cagayan de Oro City.
Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869. This decree has
the status of a statute that cannot be amended or nullified by a
mere ordinance. Hence, it was not competent for the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City to enact
Ordinance No. 3353 prohibiting the use of buildings for the
operation of a casino and Ordinance No. 3375-93 prohibiting the
operation of casinos. For all their praiseworthy motives, these
ordinances are contrary to P.D. 1869 and the public policy
announced therein and are therefore ultra vires and void.
Cruz v Paras
Facts: Petitioners Vicente de la Cruz, et al. in Civil Case No.
4755-M had been previously issued licenses by the Municipal
Mayor of Bocaue-petitioner Jose Torres III, since 1958;
petitioner Vicente de la Cruz, since 1960; petitioner Renato
Alipio, since 1961 and petitioner Leoncio Corpuz, since 1972; 2.
That petitioners had invested large sums of money in their
businesses; 3. That the night clubs are well-lighted and have no
partitions, the tables being near each other; 4. That the
petitioners owners/operators of these clubs do not allow the
hospitality girls therein to engage in immoral acts and to go out
with customers; 5. That these hospitality girls are made to go
through periodic medical check-ups and not one of them is
suffering from any venereal disease and that those who fail to
submit to a medical check-up or those who are found to be
infected with venereal disease are not allowed to work; 6. That
the crime rate there is better than in other parts of Bocaue or in
other towns of Bulacan." 8 Then came on January 15, 1976 the
decision upholding the constitutionality and validity of Ordinance
No. 84 and dismissing the cases. Hence this petition for
certiorari by way of appeal.
An ordinance was passed and is known and may be cited as the
[Prohibition and Closure Ordinance] of Bocaue, Bulacan
Issue: The crucial question posed by this certiorari proceeding
is whether or not a municipal corporation, Bocaue, Bulacan,
represented by respondents, can, prohibit the exercise of a
lawful trade, the operation of night clubs, and the pursuit of a
lawful occupation, such clubs employing hostesses.
Ruling: The decision now under review refers to Republic Act
No. 938 as amended. 17 It was originally enacted on June 20,
1953. It is entitled: "AN ACT GRANTING MUNICIPAL OR CITY
BOARDS AND COUNCILS THE POWER TO REGULATE THE
ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF
CERTAIN PLACES OF AMUSEMENT WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS.' 1The power
granted remains that of regulation, not prohibition.
The municipal council shall enact such ordinances and make
such regulations, not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to
carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred
upon it by law and such as shall seem necessary and proper to
provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity,
improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort, and
convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and
for the protection of property therein." 10 It is practically a
reproduction of the former Section 39 of Municipal Code. 11 An
ordinance enacted by virtue thereof, according to Justice
Moreland, speaking for the Court in the leading case of United
States v. Abendan 12 "is valid, unless it contravenes the
fundamental law of the Philippine Islands, or an Act of the
Philippine Legislature, or unless it is against public policy, or is
unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating, or in
derogation of common right. Where the power to legislate upon
a given subject, and the mode of its exercise and the details of
such legislation are not prescribed, the ordinance passed
pursuant thereto must be a reasonable exercise of the power, or
it will be pronounced invalid." 13 15 If night clubs were merely
then regulated and not prohibited, certainly the assailed
ordinance would pass the test of validity.
Qc Govt v Erikta
Facts: This is a petition for review which seeks the reversal of
the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVIII
declaring Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64, of the Quezon
City Council null and void.
Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64, entitled "ORDINANCE
REGULATING THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATION OF PRIVATE MEMORIAL TYPE CEMETERY OR
BURIAL GROUND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF QUEZON
CITY AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION
THEREOF" provides:
Sec. 9. At least six (6) percent of the total area
of the memorial park cemetery shall be set
aside for charity burial of deceased persons
who are paupers and have been residents of
Quezon City for at least 5 years prior to their
death, to be determined by competent City
Authorities. The area so designated shall
immediately be developed and should be
open for operation not later than six months
from the date of approval of the application.
Petitioners argue that the taking of the respondent's property is
a valid and reasonable exercise of police power and that the land
is taken for a public use as it is intended for the burial ground of
paupers. They further argue that the Quezon City Council is
authorized under its charter, in the exercise of local police
power, " to make such further ordinances and resolutions not
repugnant to law as may be necessary to carry into effect and
discharge the powers and duties conferred by this Act and such
as it shall deem necessary and proper to provide for the health
and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace,
good order, comfort and convenience of the city and the
inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of property therein."
On the other hand, respondent Himlayang Pilipino, Inc.
contends that the taking or confiscation of property is obvious
because the questioned ordinance permanently restricts the use
of the property such that it cannot be used for any reasonable
purpose and deprives the owner of all beneficial use of his
property.
Issue: Whether or not the ordinance is valid as exercise of police
power
Ruling: The ordinance in question not only confiscates but also
prohibits the operation of a memorial park cemetery, because
under Section 13 of said ordinance, 'Violation of the provision
thereof is punishable with a fine and/or imprisonment and that
upon conviction thereof the permit to operate and maintain a
private cemetery shall be revoked or cancelled.'
There is no reasonable relation between the setting aside of at
least six (6) percent of the total area of an private cemeteries for
charity burial grounds of deceased paupers and the promotion
of health, morals, good order, safety, or the general welfare of
the people. The ordinance is actually a taking without
compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery to
benefit paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation.
Instead of building or maintaining a public cemetery for this
purpose, the city passes the burden to private cemeteries.
The expropriation without compensation of a portion of private
cemeteries is not covered by Section 12(t) of Republic Act 537,
the Revised Charter of Quezon City which empowers the city
council to prohibit the burial of the dead within the center of
population of the city and to provide for their burial in a proper
place subject to the provisions of general law regulating burial
grounds and cemeteries. When the Local Government Code,
Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 provides in Section 177 (q) that a
Sangguniang panlungsod may "provide for the burial of the dead
in such place and in such manner as prescribed by law or
ordinance" it simply authorizes the city to provide its own city
owned land or to buy or expropriate private properties to
construct public cemeteries. This has been the law and practise
in the past. It continues to the present. Expropriation, however,
requires payment of just compensation. The questioned
ordinance is different from laws and regulations requiring
owners of subdivisions to set aside certain areas for streets,
parks, playgrounds, and other public facilities from the land they
sell to buyers of subdivision lots. The necessities of public
safety, health, and convenience are very clear from said
requirements which are intended to insure the development of
communities with salubrious and wholesome environments. The
beneficiaries of the regulation, in turn, are made to pay by the
subdivision developer when individual lots are sold to home-
owners.
Ortigas v Feati
Facts: On March 4, 1952, Ortigas sold Lot 5 and 6, Block 31 of
the Highway Hills Subdivision at Mandaluyong to Augusto
Padilla y Angeles and Natividad Angeles. The latter transferred
their rights in favour of Emma Chavez, upon completion of
payment a deed was executed with stipulations, one of which is
that the use of the lots are to be exclusive for residential
purposes only. This was annotated in the Transfer Certificate of
Titles No. 101509 and 101511. Feati then acquired Lot 5 directly
from Emma Chavez and Lot 6 from Republic Flour Mills. On May
5, 1963, Feati started construction of a building on both lots to
be devoted for banking purposes but could also be for residential
use. Ortigas sent a written demand to stop construction but Feati
continued contending that the building was being constructed
according to the zoning regulations as stated in Municipal
Resolution 27 declaring the area along the West part of EDSA
to be a commercial and industrial zone. Civil case No. 7706 was
made and decided in favour of Feati.
Issue: Whether or not Resolution number 27 declaring Lot 5 and
6 to be part of an industrial and commercial zone is valid
considering the contract stipulation in the Transfer Certificate of
Titles.
Ruling: Resolution No. 27 prevails over the contract stipulations.
Section 3 of RA 2264 of the Local Autonomy Act empowers a
Municipal Council to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances
or regulations for the Municipality. Section 12 or RA 2264 states
that implied power of the municipality should be “liberally
construed in it’s favour”, “to give more power to the local
government in promoting economic conditions, social welfare,
and material progress in the community”. This is found in the
General Welfare Clause of the said act. Although non-
impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, it is not
absolute since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate exercise
of police power, e.g. the power to promote health, morals,
peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of
the people. Resolution No. 27 was obviously passed in exercise
of police power to safeguard health, safety, peace and order and
the general welfare of the people in the locality as it would not
be a conducive residential area considering the amount of traffic,
pollution, and noise which results in the surrounding industrial
and commercial establishments.
The only exceptions under Section 12 are existing vested rights
arising out of a contract between "a province, city or municipality
on one hand and a third party on the other," in which case the
original terms and provisions of the contract should govern. The
exceptions, clearly, do not apply in the case at bar.
Ardona
Facts: This is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction
challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 564,
the Revised Charter of the Philippine Tourism Authority, and
Proclamation No. 2052 declaring the barangays of Sibugay,
Malubog, Babag and Sirao including the proposed Lusaran Dam
in the City of Cebu and in the municipalities of Argao and
Dalaguete in the province of Cebu as tourist zones.
The Philippine Tourism Authority filed four (4) Complaints with
the Court of First Instance of Cebu City for the expropriation of
some 282 hectares of rolling land situated in barangays Malubog
and Babag, Cebu City, under PTA's express authority "to
acquire by purchase, by negotiation or by condemnation
proceedings any private land within and without the tourist
zones" for the purposes indicated in Section 5, paragraph B(2),
of its Revised Charter (PD 564), more specifically, for the
development into integrated resort complexes of selected and
well-defined geographic areas with potential tourism value. As
uniformly alleged in the complaints, the purposes of the
expropriation are:
xxx xxx xxx
V
Plaintiff, in line with the policy of the
government to promote tourism and
development of tourism projects will construct
in Barangays Malubog, Busay and Babag, all
of Cebu City, a sports complex (basketball
courts, tennis courts, volleyball courts, track
and field, baseball and softball diamonds, and
swimming pools), clubhouse, gold course,
children's playground and a nature area for
picnics and horseback riding for the use of the
public.
The development plan, covering
approximately 1,000 hectares, includes the
establishment of an electric power grid in the
area by the National Power Corporation, thus
assuring the supply of electricity therein for
the benefit of the whole community. Deep
wells will also be constructed to generate
water supply within the area. Likewise, a
complex sewerage and drainage system will
be devised and constructed to protect the
tourists and nearby residents from the
dangers of pollution.
Complimentary and support facilities for the
project will be constructed, including public
rest houses, lockers, dressing rooms, coffee
shops, shopping malls, etc. Said facilities will
create and offer employment opportunities to
residents of the community and further
generate income for the whole of Cebu City.
Plaintiff needs the property above described
which is directly covered by the proposed golf
court.
Issue: Whether or not the taking is for public use
Ruling: There can be no doubt that expropriation for such
traditions' purposes as the construction of roads, bridges, ports,
waterworks, schools, electric and telecommunications systems,
hydroelectric power plants, markets and slaughterhouses,
parks, hospitals, government office buildings, and flood control
or irrigation systems is valid. However, the concept of public use
is not limited to traditional purposes. Here as elsewhere the Idea
that "public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the
public" has been discarded.