Article IX

Under the 1987 Constitution, Article 9 Consists of 4 Sub-divisions, A, B, C, and D.

A. Common Provisions – these are provisions that are common to the 3 Constitutional
Commissions, namely the Civil Service Commission, the COMELEC, and the Commission on
Audit.

Section 1: The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service
Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.

You will take note immediately that in Section 1, emphasized here is the word “independent”. The
Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are… And you go to the deliberation of the
Constitutional Commission.

Q: Why are these 3 bodies termed as Constitutional Commission when in fact the Commission on Human
Rights would be a Constitutional Commission?

A: Strictly speaking, the Sandigan Bayan under Article 11, would be a Constitutional Commission also, a
Constitutional body. These 3 commissions/bodies are made or termed as Constitutional Commissions
because they perform vital functions of government. It does not however, suggest that the other
constitutional commissions or commissions that are created under the constitution would not be
performing vital functions. Since they are performing vital functions, it is essential that their independence
be protected against outside influences and political pressures. As such, they enjoy independent power of
appointment, enjoy fiscal autonomy, salary of the commissioners may not be diminished during the
procurement of office. The commissioners have a fixed term, they have the power to promulgate their
own rules, no employee shall be appointed in an acting or temporary “capacity”, and they are removable
only by impeachment.

These which are enumerated are the succeeding sections in letter A, which are the common provisions.

Section 2: No member of the Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other
office or employment. Xxxxx

It is similar to the prohibitions on the other offices that we have taken up so far.

The practice of profession that is prohibited here does not include teaching.

Ex: So if Atty. Lara is appointed as a member of the Commission and teaches at UCV College of Law, he
is not prohibited to do that even if strictly speaking, teaching Law is a practice of a profession.

Insofar as the prohibition in the older sheet and control of management, only active management of a
business is prohibited. Owning a business is not prohibited.

Section 3: The salary of the chairman and the commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not
be decreased during their tenure.

Section 4: The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their officials and employees in
accordance with law.

“Law here means the Civil Service Law”.

Independent offices specifically authorized by the Constitution to appoint their officials must do so subject
to Civil Service Law rules and regulations. All matters pertaining the appointments or within the realm of
expertise of the CSC and all laws rules and regulations it issues on the appointments must be complied
with.

Ombudsman vs. CSC, 2005 Case

Section 5: The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations
shall be automatically and regularly released.

Q: What is meant by Fiscal Autonomy?

A: Fiscal Autonomy means that their approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly
released.

Going back to the enumeration of the provisions of the Constitution specifically sub section A, 9 A, the
constitutional guarantee of the independence of the commission.

Q: The Constitutional Commissions are independent, what are the constitutional basis of such
independence?

A:

1. Section 3, Article 9 – protects the salary of members.

2. Section 4, Article 9 A – they have the independent power to appoint their officials and employees.
3. Section 5, 9 A – They enjoy fiscal autonomy.
4. Section 6, 9 A – gives them power sitting en banc to promulgate their own rules of procedure.
5. Section 1, #2 Article 9 B, C, D – this means that you can find that provision in the 3 discussions of
the constitutional commissions in B, C, and D, namely CSC, COMELEC and COA. Members are
given a fixed term.
6. Section 2, Art 11 – they are removable only by impeachment.
7. Section 1, #2 Art 9 B, C, D – no member of the Commission may be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity.

Section 6: Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and
practice before it or before any of its offices. Such rules, however, shall not diminish, increase, or
modify substantive rights.

 The Supreme Court may not disapprove internal rules promulgated by the Commissions. They
act, because they are independent bodies. The power of the Supreme Court over rules issued by
quasi-judicial bodies which is found in Article 8, Section 5 #5 does not apply to them. As a
general rule, Article 8, Section 5 #5 thereof says, that the Supreme Court has the power over
rules issued by quasi-judicial bodies.
 This is an exception; the SC has no power over the rules issued by the Constitutional
Commissions. However, in appropriate cases, the SC may exercise judicial review over them.

Read: Macalintal vs. COMELEC, GR 157013, July 10, 2003

Section 7: Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its members any case o matter
brought before it within 60 days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. Xxxxxx

Q: Within what time frame?

A: Within 60 days

Q: When is the date of submission?

A: Upon the filing of the last pleading….

 There is a difference between this rule on how cases are decided by the commissions and from
that of how cases are decided by the SC. If you remember, we said that cases are decided in the
SC by the members who have participated in the discussion of the issues and voted thereon.
 Cases before the SC are decided by the majority vote of the members who participated in the
deliberation of the issues thereon and voted thereon.
  Insofar as the Commissions are concerned, it is a majority of the members:
o CSC – majority, 2, because there are 3.
o COA – there are only 3, majority of 2.
o COMELEC – there are 7, so majority is 4.
 Insofar as the commission en banc is concerned, that if it were a deliberation before a division,
because the COMELEC decides cases by divisions. If it is by division, the members of the
division is 3, therefore, the majority is 2. So remember that cases are decided by a commission
by majority of the members.

Take Note: The last sentence, “unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law
xxxxxxxxxx”.

Read: Dumayas vs. COMELEC, 2001 Case

 If there are only 4 members of the COMELEC, remain a 3-1 vote is a valid decision en banc.
Remember there are 7 members of the COMELEC, and if there are only 4 members remaining,
they can still decide a case and a 3-1 vote would be a valid decision of the Commission en banc.

Read: Reyes vs. RTC, May 5, 1995

 Certiorari to the SC under Rule 65 may be resorted to when there is no other place, PD, and
other adequate remedy.

Q: When is certiorari to the SC resorted to?

A: When there is no other place, PD, and other adequate remedy.

 A case before the COMELEC may be brought to the SC on certiorari only after the requisite
motion for reconsideration have been filed and resolved. Cases in the COMELEC are decided by
divisions, the 1st division and the 2nd division. A decision by a division is decision of the
COMELEC. If the aggrieved party wants to bring an issue to the SC, then he must first file a
motion for reconsideration of the decision of the division in the COMELEC en banc. So the
decision of the division will now be taken up by the COMELEC en banc with 7 members. It is only
then when the commission en banc have decided on the same issue raised that the aggrieved
party may bring the matter to the SC. As a rule, that is the general rule. It is necessary to file a
motion for reconsideration in the court of origin before invoking a certiorari jurisdiction on the SC.

 There are exceptions, among which, when the issue raised is one purely of law.

 Good example: Guzman vs. COMELEC, Ting and Garcia, GR 182380, August 28, 2009

o Background: During the election period where there are certain transactions that
shouldn’t be undertaken, Randolf Ting bought a cemetery. The Tings being the favorite of
the Guzmans, brought a case before the COMELEC. Then the COMELEC decided in
favor of the Tings, and dismissed the case. This was decided by a division of the
COMELEC.
o Guzman went to the SC directly, the Tings moved to dismiss the case, because
according to them, “you cannot bring a certiorari case against me unless you file a motion
for reconsideration before the en banc”. The SC decided that it is not necessary to file a
motion for reconsideration because it is one of the exceptions. The issue is purely one of
law.
 Since the petitioner, Guzman, only challenges the interpretation of the COMELEC of Section 261
V and W of the Omnibus Election Code, the issue is purely of law and is not required to seek first
the reconsideration of the assailed resolution.
  In the same case, the SC had the occasion to define public works. The issue here is the
acquisition of the cemetery, a public works act.

What is public works?

- Refers to any building or structure on land, or the structures such as roads and bridges in the
government for public uses. Therefore, the acquisition of lots for use as a cemetery within the
period of the election ban, cannot be considered as public works in violation of Section 261 V of
the Omnibus Election Code. (lusot ang Ting dito)

- However, the SC itself said, the issuance of Treasury Warrants during the election period, (Ting
used treasury warrant to pay for the cemetery – issued by the city treasurer) violates 261 W, sub-
paragraph B of the Omnibus Election Code. It is of no moment whether or not the treasury
warrant was intended for public works.

- The SC said, there is prima facie case against Randolph Ting and Garcia. The case was
remanded to the RTC of Tuguegarao, it was tried here.

- Comments from Atty. Lara: He thought it was an open shot case, and the only evidence needed
would be the treasury warrant and that it was issued within the election period. Yari ka ngayon
Randolph Ting, tapos ka na, but I was wrong. He was acquitted. He doesn’t know how.

 A case or matter referred to by the Constitution that may be brought to the SC on certiorari under
Section 7, Article 9C, are those that relayed to the exercise of adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
powers.

 The COMELEC exercises 2 powers:

1. Administrative – on matters of administration, like conduct and time of the election, where is
the election and printing of ballots
2. Adjudicatory – it is the body that is task with the duty to decide election contests. It is that of
the adjudicatory function of the COMELEC that may be brought to the SC on certiorari, not
the administrative function of the COMELEC.

Section 8: Each Commission shall perform such other functions as may be provided by law.

B. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

- The term Civil Service was borrowed from the British administration in India. The Americans
copied from the British in India, and later on inherited in the Philippines.
- It refers to the professional body of officials employed by the state, in non-military and non-judicial
services.

Section 1:

All 3 commissions stated the qualifications that these commissioners to be appointed must not have been
candidates for any elective positions prior to immediately preceding their appointment.

In Section 1, paragraph 1, there is no educational qualification. It does not require a college degree.

Section 2: The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of 7 years without reappointment.
Xxxxxxx
Staggard yan for 7 years. The first pax of the commissioners, they were appointed 7, 5, 3 for continuity.
So that when the 3 expires, the 7 will come in. That is the idea behind it.

Take note: without reappointment – that is the prohibition

Paragraph 1: Take note: including Government owned corporations.

Double Take note: with original charters. Not all GOCCs are subject to the CSC rules and regulations.

Paragraph 2: 1st qualification: Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and
fitness. To be determined as far as practicable by competitive examinations except policy determining,
primarily confidential, or highly technical.

Paragraph 3:

Paragraph 4:

Paragraph 5:

Paragraph 6:

 The scope of the CS system is provided for by Section 2, par 1. The test for determining whether
the GOCCs is subject to the civil service law is in the manner of its creation. Corporations created
by special charter are subject to the Civil Service whereas, corporations incorporated under the
corporation law are not.
 If a corporation is created by virtue of special law, example, Lasam Water District which is a
GOCC, are subject to civil service rules and regulations because it is governed by PD 198 which
was issued by Marcos in the 1970s. That corporation, the LWUA, is a corporation that was
created by virtue of a special law (PD 198), and therefore, it is subject to CSC Rules and
regulations.
Example: Local Water Utility Administration – governed by PD 198
 All GOCCs that are created by virtue of special law are subject to CS rules and regulations.
 Corporations or government corporations created by virtue of the Corporation code, then it is not
subject to CS rules and regulations.

Read: Davao City Water District vs CSC

PAGCOR – under the CSC since it is created by PD 1869

Read: PAGCOR vs. CA

 Section 2, paragraph 2. Provides the basis of classifying positions of the CS into competitive and
non-competitive. Appointments to both competitive and non-competitive positions are made
according to merit and fitness. Appointments to a competitive position must be determined by
competitive examination. It corresponds to career service. Non-competitive positions are those
which by their nature are policy determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical. No
competitive examination is required; it corresponds to non-career service.

Read: Lapili vs CSC

Aquino vs. CSC

- It tells us, demonstrates the role of the CSC in the appointing process.

 No officer or employee of the CSC shall be removed unless, except for cause provided by law.
  By law, means there should be an existing law governing that particular action. This means that
the law has already been existent when the act for president’s meeting subjected to disciplinary
action was committed.

Delos Santos vs Fallare

 Security of tenure did not extend to positions which were policy-determining, primarily
confidential or highly technical. In this case, if your appointment is for either policy-
determining, primarily confidential or highly technical, you may be removed at any time.

Corpuz vs Cuaderno

 Like the case of Corpuz after 15 years.

 Incorrected the ruling in Delos Santos, the constitutional enumeration of policy
determining, primarily confidential or highly technical positions, merely exempted such
positions from requirement of appointments through competitive examinations, but not
from the operation of the principle that the officer or employee of the CS shall be
dismissed or suspended except for causes provided by law.

In addition, we must remember that officers and employees occupying policy-determining, primarily
confidential or highly technical positions enjoy security of tenure. In Mallari, no security of tenure. In Delos
Santos, it is already present.

Q: How is security of tenure is exercised insofar as these positions are concerned?

A: The term of officials - the time provided for by law for an official to hold office as against the tenure.
The term of officials holding primarily confidential positions are of terminus with confidence and it is co-
terminus with confidence. They continue in office only for so long as the confidence in them endures.
They may be removed on the ground of loss of confidence because in that case, their cessation from
office is not removal but expiration of the term of office.

They are appointed because of the confidence of the appointing authority on them. That is also their term.
Once confidence in them is lost, then they may be removed, that is not removal, but expiration of the
term. The term which is confidence has expired, so they are still technically speaking, removed for cause.

Read: Lalin vs. Executive Secretary

 Partisan political activity is campaigning for a candidate, or for a party. The provision
does not prohibit a person from expressing his preferences as to candidates or as to
policy.
 “Gusto ko siya eh, gusto ko si Jeff Soriano”, I am merely expressing my preference for
Jeff Soriano, I am not campaigning.
 “Vote for Jeff Soriano”, I am campaigning.
 However, be careful, because the CSC thinks otherwise. If you have accompanied a
politician, it is considered that you are campaigning for that politician.

Comment of Atty. Lara: He disagrees. Because even if a teacher is the emcee for a political
rally provided she did not state “vote for..”, she’s not campaigning.

Section 3: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Section 4: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Section 5: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Section 6: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DILG – said consultancy is not allowed.

CSC en banc – also said that consultancy is not allowed.

Section 7: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There are 2 paragraphs, the 1 st paragraph is elective official. The prohibition is absolute. They shall not be
eligible for appointment or will not have capacity to any public position during his tenure.

Second paragraph pertains to appointive officials. They can hold another office if it is allowed by law.

 Unless otherwise allowed by law, or by the primary functions of his office, he shall be appointed
to any other positions.
 Exception: If there is a law passed allowing that particular appointive official to be appointed to
any another position, aside from his present position, then it can be. It does not violate the
constitution. However, insofar as elective officials, there is no exception. That’s the difference
between paragraph 1 and 2 of Section 7.
 Exception to the rule against the appointment of an elective official are the Vice President, who
may be appointed to be cabinet or to the draft board.

Comments of Atty. Lara: I thought all the while that Leni, the Vice President would not accept.
Everything about me says, do not accept, it is a trap. Kasi pauupuin ka lang diyan, magsalita ka, di ka
naman susundin, etc. On the other hand, if she can perform in her goal very well, then she can create
noise. Diba? Pag sabihin niya, ito yung gusto ko as co-chair, these are my suggestions, I don’t want
that policy, I’d like this policy, etc, and be noisy about it, and then the people know that it’s her
thinking and they don’t accept it, probably she may succeed in doing something. Abangan. Maganda
ito, maganda. Akala ni Digong makakaisa siya.

Difference between members of Congress from Elective Officials

 Let’s differentiate because there is once a prohibition to members of Congress from accepting
appointment. Elective sila, there is a prohibition for them to accept appointment like the cabinet
for example. Section 7, it prohibits elective officials from accepting appointment during their
tenure. If the elective official accepts an appointment without first resigning his elective position,
the appointment is invalid. Neither does he thereby forfeit his elective seat, so it’s not forfeiture,
it’s not like from that of congress that if you accept, you forfeit immediately.

If an elective public official accepts the position, then that appointment is invalid. He keeps his
elective position. The difference from that of Congress is that, when a member of Congress
accepts a position, then he forfeits his seat, and his appointment is valid. That’s the difference.

Read: Flores vs. Gordon, cited by Bernas

Section 8: No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or
indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept without the consent of
the Congress, any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign government.

Pensions and gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect

compensation.

 Study what is meant by additional or double compensation.

Read: Santos vs. CA, 2000 case, cited by Bernas
 C. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Section 1: There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and 6

Commissioners xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Paragraph 1: Qualifications. This time, it is specified that they must be holders of a College degree and
majority of whom must be Lawyers. The Chairman shall be a member of the BAR, however the majority of
the members including the Chairman shall be members of the Philippine BAR, and who have been
engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.

Take note: Chairman shall be engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.

Paragraph 2: The Chairman and the commissioners shall be appointed by the President xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Cayetano vs Monsod

 The engage in practice of law was defined. Monsod was appointed by Tita Cory to be the chair of
the COMELEC. Cayetano who was then a senator, went to court to question the qualification of
Monsod. He said, “hindi nga nakakatapak ng husgado yan e, pano siya magprapractice ng law?”
How could he have practice law, he doesn’t even know how a courtroom spence.
 SC said, engage in the practice of law means to engage in any activity in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, civil procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. Therefore,
Monsod is qualified.

Review: The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of Congress
whether both of tally or compulsory must have the appointments must be effective only until the
disapproval of the Commission on Appointments, or until the next adjournment of Congress.

Katigbak vs. Benipayo, cited by Bernas.

Benipayo, Goma and Tuazon were granted ad-interim appointments. Meaning to say, their appointments
were made by the President during the recess of Congress as commissioners of the COMELEC but they
were bypassed by the Commission on Appointments. They were subsequently re-appointed.

Q: Is an ad-interim appointment of the Commissioner be prohibited to temporary appointment?

A: No. Ad-interim appointments are not temporary appointment. They are permanent in character.

Q: Is the second appointment of Benipayo a prohibited re-appointment?

A: Commissioners may not be re-appointed. So when Benipayo, et al were bypassed by the Commission
on Appointments, they were re-appointed by the President.

Q: Is that appointment subsequently a re-appointment?

A: The SC said, it is not. The re-appointment is not prohibited because there were no previous
appointments that were confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Therefore, it is not permanent
and is not prohibited.

But didn’t we say that an appointment of ad-interim appointment, once it is given and accepted by the
appointee, he can already perform the functions of his office.
Comments from Atty. Lara: The former Dean of the College of Law, University of the Philippines, was
designated by the President as temporary chairman of the COMELEC. Brilliantes (the old man)
questioned the appointment. The SC said, mali.. Si Tita Cory na naman yata ito. The appointment is not
valid because you cannot appoint a Chairman temporarily. The designation of the Chairman temporarily is
not allowed. The choice of temporary Chairman must be among the members of the COMELEC.

Section 2: Powers of the COMELEC.

Paragraphs 1-9, no comments.

#6, 2nd paragraph: And when an appropriate prosecute cases of violation of election laws including acts
or omission constituting election frauds, offenses or malpractices, the question here is whether the
provincial fiscals will have also the authority to file election cases or election offenses in court, or
investigate.

 The old doctrine is exclusive on COMELEC. Then came a Presidential Decree issued during the
time of Marcos saying that the jurisdiction is concurrent. Then it was clarified that it should not be
concurrent, rather the jurisdiction of the COMELEC should be exclusive.
 Recently, there is again a clarification that Provincial fiscals may now file a preliminary
investigation and file cases even without the approval of the COMELEC officials.

Read: Case of Aggabao vs. COMELEC, 2005

 Before proclamation or question may be decided by the commission, once a minute has been
proclaimed by the COMELEC, the case shall be within already the jurisdiction of the house
(House of Representatives and electoral tribunal). So the question will be is, if there is already a
declaration, or if it shall be already the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives or electoral
tribunal.
 The election of SK Officers are not subject to this provision of the COMELEC.

Case: People vs. Judge Inting, July 25, 1990, GR 88919

 A preliminary investigation conducted by the COMELEC office doesn’t have to be forced through
the Provincial Prosecutor before the filing of the case in court. The prosecution of election
offenses is exclusively under the COMELEC.
 COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate prosecuted trial election offenses committed
by public officers.

Q: What are the powers that given to the COMELEC?

 The commission is not empowered to decide questions involving the right to vote. This being a
judicial question. So almost everything about elections are within the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC except the right to vote.
 The COMELEC shall sit en banc or it could be according to division to self-promulgate suits and
regulations. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division provided that motions
for reconsideration shall be decided by the commission en banc.
 Election cases are decided in a division.
 Motions for reconsideration are decided en banc. But a decision en banc is required only when
the subject for reconsideration is a decision and not a resolution of substantive issues.

Section 4: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

No comments.

Section 5: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No comments.

Section 6: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The open party system is actually before the 1987 Constitution, there are only 2 majority parties, the
Liberal and the Nacionalista. It is the 1987 Constitution that introduced the multi-party system under
Section 6.

Section 7: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This is the bloc vote. This was done before the 1987 Constitution. Done in 1980 (not sure), there was bloc
voting. “Yung election sa 1980, iboboto mo lang is DBL, all you have to do is write ABL in your ballot and
all the candidates of the DBL naboto mo narin”. That is bloc voting. Section 7 prohibits that.

Section 8: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

No comments.

Section 9: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Q: What is the difference between the election period and the campaign period?

A: According to the book of Bernas, election period refers to the period of time needed for administering
an election. It can thus go beyond the date for the casting of ballots. Section 9 sets it at 90 days before
the day of the election to 30 days thereafter. In special cases, however, COMELEC is authorized to fix a
different period. On the other hand, campaign period refers to the period if active solicitation of votes. This
may be set by the legislature for a period less than the election period in Section 9.

Section 10: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

No comments.

D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT

Section 1: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 Composition of the COA. It requires a college degree. Accountant or a member of the Philippine
BAR.

Section 2: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 Section 2, paragraph 1 provides for the power of the Commission on Audit.

 In this, you would take note that the COA has the power to conduct an audit, a pre and post audit.
Pre, insofar as the other agencies are concerned, and a post-audit basis of constitutional bodies,
commissions, and offices that are granted fiscal autonomy under the constitution, autonomous
state colleges and universities, other GOCCs and their subsidiaries, non-government based
receiving subsidy.
 A non-governmental entity even if it is private but which receives fund from the government, for
example, a cooperative, may ask for financing from financial institutions or even from politicians.
Insofar as that money that was given to these private entities is concerned, they are subject to
audit.
 When the internal control system of the audited agency is inadequate, the commission can adopt
such measures including special pre-audit as may be necessary.
 The Commission shall have exclusive authority to define the scope of it’s owning an examination.
  So therefore, the general function of the COA is to examine the accuracy of the records kept by
accountable officers and to determine whether expenditures has been made in conformity with
law.

Case: Ramos vs. Aquino

 The constitutional competence of the COA relates only to the administrative aspect of
expenditure of public funds. The Commission is no competence relative to the criminal aspect of
irregular expenditures. Hence, the commission’s approval of vouchers does not preclude an
inquiry by the provincial fiscal to determine whether criminal liability has been incurred.

Section 3: xxxxxxxx

No comments.

Section 4: xxxxxxxx

No comments.

ARTICLE X

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Section 1: The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the
provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.

 Section 1, Article 10 defines the territorial and political subdivisions of the Philippines. This
particular section is already contained in the 1973 Constitution, it was just copied.
 Section 1 also provided the creation of autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the
Cordilleras.

Q: True or false

 Since sitios and Puroks comprise a barangay and are parts and parcel thereof, they are also
political subdivisions.

A: False. Because the Constitution itself provided for the definition and the political subdivisions in the
country.

If you’re ask what is the Constitutional justification of your answer, then the justification is in Section 1,
Article 10.

 In a unitary system of government such as the government under the Constitution, local
government can only be an intra-sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation.
 Local government can only mean a measure of autonomy and decentralization of the functions of
the national government.

Section 2: The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.

There is a significance why the Constitution has come up with Section 2 and its mandate.

 The significance of Section 2 is to give the assurance that local autonomy shall not be for Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras only but for all local units, or the autonomy for LGU in general, will
be less than the autonomous regions.
 So that it will not be misinterpreted that autonomy is only given to the autonomous regions of Muslim
Mindanao and Cordilleras because there is a lot of elborum that is being given to these autonomous
regions, Section 2 was inserted there with that mandate that territorial and political subdivisions shall
enjoy local autonomy.

 Autonomy for Local Government should only be decentralization of administration as against the
concept of decentralization of power.
 The decentralization of administration is the bodies and government delegates administrative
powers to political subdivisions in order to prudently based government power and make local
government units more responsible and accountable as against the definition of decentralization
of power involves the abdication of political power in favor of local government units declared to
be autonomous. That is the kind of power that we are trying to give the autonomous regions.

Case: San Juan vs. CSC, cited by Bernas.

 This case was more cognizant of local autonomy because it provided that the authority to
appoint a provincial budget officer must come from a recommendation of the LGU. So
this case was lauded by the Local Government Units as being a true form of local
autonomy.

Case: Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties

 This case says that insofar as laws of national application is concerned, it controls over
laws that are enacted by the LGUs.
 The background of this case is that the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cagayan De Oro
City came up with an ordinance prohibiting PAGCOR to operate in CDO, and this
reached the SC. The SC said the city could not curtail PAGCOR’s authority. Ordinances
should not contravene a statute. Municipal governments are only agents of the national
government.

Read: LLDA vs. CA, GR 120865

 The SC denied to the municipalities around Laguna Lake the power to authorize the
construction or dismantling of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like in
Laguna Lake. Applying principles of Statutory Construction, the court ruled that the
specific power of the LLDA must prevail over the general power of Local Governments.
Moreover, the court pointed out that the power given by the Local Government code to
local governments was a revenue generating power and not a regulatory power. Hence,
the Court, while denying regulatory authority to the municipalities, recognized their
authority to impose fees for purposes of generating revenue.

Case: Tan vs. Perena, cited by Bernas

 A municipal ordinance which violated the statutory limit on the number of cockpits was
declared invalid.

Section 3: xxxxxxxxxxx

The mandate of the Constitution for Congress to enact a Local Government Code.

Nene Pimentel – one of the things he said he failed to do would be to increase or give more autonomy to
the local government units. He was always working for local autonomy of the local government. That is
also the reason why he also joined the bandwagon for Federalism out of his ambition to give more
autonomy to the LGU.

RA 7160 - The Local Government Code of 1991

  Enacted by Congress pursuant to this mandate.
 There is a provision there that provides for recall. Recall is an instrument affecting
immediate accountability where the tenure of an elective government official may be
terminated.
 The system of Recall in relation to the constitutional provision that must give chances to
more people to seek the political office.
 One of the innovations in the 1987 Constitution is to limit the term of government officials
to 3 years so that the turnover will be easier. “Mas madaling mapalitan ung mga elected
local government officials, kasama ang mga members Congress, kaasama ang mga
Senador”. The only thing that the framers of the Constitution did not think about is, there
are a lot of families of the elected officials that when they reach 3 terms, the wife can
takeover. Or what we call Political Dynasties.
 So one of those need that could limit, or give meaning to allowing more people or more
opportunities for public service is the system of recall.
 The term is only 3 years, but you can recall the elected government official. But you
cannot initiate a recall one year after an election, and one year before an election. So
doon sa 3 years, hindi pwede una, hindi pwede doon sa pangatlo, pwede lang doon sa
gitna. The second year, that is when you can initiate a recall.
 One also is the System of initiative and referendum.

Section 4: xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Example: EO – banning of live pigs in the jurisdiction of Isabela, Cagayan, Quirino and Nueva Vizcaya.

The making of this EO constitutes the legal basis: “Under the Local Government Code and under the
Constitution, LGUs may enact or adopt such measures which would dedown to the benefit of the general
welfare. So under the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code, these governors can issue
these Executive Orders.

About 2 weeks after that, the Secretary of the DILG came up with a memorandum to all Governors and
City Mayors, telling them that the EO’s they will issue must conform to that memorandum. And that
memorandum, he allows the entry of processed meat/pork in all the provinces of the Phils. including the
provinces of Cagayan Valley.

Comments of Atty Lara: I was asked to assist the Cagayan Valley Association of Swine Farmers dahil
katulad nila, ako rin ay puro kababuyan ang hanapbuhay. We wrote a letter to the Secretary of DILG, and
we said that it is within the power of the Executive Officer, the Governors to come up with EO’s. Under the
general welfare clause. The secretary of the DILG presumably in the exercise of the presidential
supervisory power over LGUs. That could be the only basis of the Secretary of DILG to come up with that
memorandum. Otherwise, he cannot. And that pahaging is in accordance with Section 4, of Article 10.
The president shall exercise general supervision over LGUs.

Definition of the Power of the President of General Supervision

 General Supervision is no more than ensuring that the laws are faithfully executed, or
that subordinate observes act within the law. It does not include the power to substitute
one’s judgment for that of a lower officer. So therefore, the president through the
secretary of DILG cannot substitute his thinking/decision to that of the decision of the
LGUs, specifically the executive officers, the governors under the general welfare clause.
Because the power of the secretary is only that of general supervision.

Section 5: Each Local Government Unit shall have the power to create its own sources of
revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations the
congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy, such taxes, fees, and
charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments.

Read: Manila Electric vs. Province of Laguna, cited by Bernas

 Under the now prevailing Constitution, where there is neither a grant nor a prohibition by
statute, the tax power must be deemed to exist although Congress may provide statutory
limitations and guidelines. The basic rationale of the current rule is to safeguard the
viability and self-sufficiency of LGUs by directly granting them general and broad tax
powers. Nevertheless, the fundamental law did not intend the delegation to be absolute
and unconditional; the constitutional objective obviously is to ensure that, while the LGUs
are being strengthened and made more autonomous, the legislature must still see to it
that (a) the taxpayer will not be over-burdened or saddled with multiple and reasonable
impositions; (b) each LGU will have its fair share of available resources; (c) the resources
of the national government will not be unduly disturbed; and (d) local taxation will be fair,
uniform, and just.

Section 6: Local Government Units shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national
taxes which shall be automatically released to them.

Take note: National Taxes – which shall be automatically released to them.

 Before, national taxes refers only to internal revenue taxes. Kasi era na naman, internal
revenue allotment. So the interpretation of the government before, the internal revenue
taxes only where the share of the LGUs will be taken. That was the old regulation/law.
But in July 4, 2018, the SC decided that just share of the national taxes means, shall be
sourced from all national taxes and not only national internal revenue taxes.

Case: Pimentel vs. Aguirre, cited by Bernas

 President Ramos came up with an EO, and withholding 10% of the internal revenue
allotments of the LGUs.

Comments of Atty. Lara: We contested this, but when I was Governor, this was already decided. So the
national government re-distributed, paid back the LGUs for the withheld eras.

Read these Articles:

 Min Lian Buan, Rappler, July 4, 2018

 Supreme Court orders devolution by Artemio Panganiban, Inquirer, July 22, 2018.
o It took up this matter the definition of internal revenue taxes.

Section 7: xxxxxxxxxx

Example: Magat Dam

Section 8: xxxxxxxxxx

Case: Borja vs. COMELEC, GR 133495

 This explains the 3-term meaning.

 For service to be counted as 1 term, for the purpose of the 3-term leave. Two essential elements
are required:
o The official must have been elected to the position 3 times.
o He must have served 3 full terms.
Section 9: xxxxxxxxxx

No comments.

Section 10: xxxxxxxxxx

Case: Tan vs. COMELEC, cited by Bernas

 The scope of the plebiscite, because in the merger, the creation, the operation of boundaries
before it can be implemented, there should be a plebiscite. And the plebiscite must be within the
affected barangays, municipalities, or provinces.

Section 11: xxxxxxxxxx

Example: MMDA

Component cities may group themselves together to form, or create a special metropolitan political
subdivision. But, the component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be
entitled to their own local executives and legislative assemblies.

Q: Then what for is this metropolitan political subdivision?

A: The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority, like the MMDA, shall be limited to basic services requiring
coordination like traffic, garbages, and water systems.

Section 12: xxxxxxxxxx

This section tells us the 3 kinds of cities.

Example: Santiago City

Section 13: xxxxxxxxxx

Does not require an enabling law to consolidate the efforts, services, and resources.

When the regional director of DILG, Director Brion when he was Director here in Region 02, he
championed the creation of aggrupation like for instance, aggrupation of Tuguegarao, Solana,
Penablanca and others.

These aggrupations have the purpose of consolidating and coordinating their efforts, services, resources
common to them.

Ex: Common garbage collection between Iguig and Penablanca.

Section 14: xxxxxxxxxx

Regional Development Councils – The purpose of this provision is to foster administrative decentralization
as a complement to political decentralization. This is meant to allow bottom-to-top planning rather than
the reverse. If it will be noted that the power to form these development councils is given to the President.
He does not need to wait for authorization from Congress.

AUTONOMOUS REGIONS

Section 15: xxxxxxxxxx

The autonomous region that where to be created in the 1987 Constitution have these criteria:
  Geographical areas must share common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage,
economic, and social structures and other relevant characteristics.

Q: What is the constitutional requisite for that creation to be in accordance with the constitution?

A: It must be within the framework of the constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial
integrity of the Republic of the Phils.

Comments: When BOL, Bangsamoro Organic Law was started to be discussed, one of those who
questioned the BOL was the late Miriam Defensor-Santiago. On the basis that it is violative of the
Constitution because it is not within the framework of the Constitution and national sovereignty as well as
territorial integrity. At the start, the BOL would seem to come up with a separate territorial territory, they
call that the Bangsamoro Territory. So Miriam said, it is not in accordance with the constitution as you’re
creating another territory. You are already separating from the Republic.

Q: Was/is the newly created Bangsamoro Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), in
accordance with this criteria?

Look for RA 11054, an act providing for the organic law of the BARMM.

Section 17:

Enumeration of the powers that are to be held back to the Republic of the Phils.

Enumeration of the powers that are to be given to the autonomous regions.

 National defense
 Foreign relations
 Foreign trade
 Customs and tariffs
 Quarantine
 Currency and Monetary Affairs
 Foreign Exchange
 Banking and Quasi-banking
 External borrowings
 Posts and Communication
 Air and Sea transport
 Immigration and deportation of citizens given naturalization
 Auditing

Section 18: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

By virtue of the 1987 constitution, RA 6734 was enacted by Congress and that created the organic act of
Muslim Mindanao. Out of the 13 provinces, only 5 favorably approved in a plebiscite called for the
purpose.

RA 11054 - an act providing for the organic law of the BARMM.

- Repealed RA 6734 as amended by RA 9054 – July 26, 2018

- BARMM Legal in the sense that it repealed the old organic law of the ARMM
- There is already a new organic law for the BARMM

As an organic act, the basic law abolished the ARMM, and provided for the basic structure of government
for the BARMM.
Complying for the constitutional requisites for the creation of an autonomous region, it provides in Article
1, Section 3 of RA 1104. To allow for meaningful self-governance within the framework of the constitution
and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Phils.

RA 6776 was also enacted after the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, and that was supposed to be the
organic law of the CAR, but when plebiscite came, it was only Ifugao that voted to adopt the autonomous
region of the Cordilleras. And since an autonomous region cannot comprise of only 1 province, it was
decided that the plebiscite was a failure, and the autonomous region for Cordillera was pushed through.

Take note of Section 20 : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Provides for legislative powers of autonomous regions

Section 21: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx