SALIENT PROVISIONS

OF THE LGC,
RELEVANT CASE LAW
AND LEGAL OPINIONS
 LGC IN GENERAL
 R.A. 7160 or the LGC of 1991
 Approved on October 10, 1991
 January 1, 1992 (Effectivity)
 Divided into Four (4) Books

Book 1- General Provisions

Book 2- Local Taxation and Fiscal Matters
Book 3- Local Government Units
Book 4- Miscellaneous and Final
Provisions
 Policy Declaration
 It is 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.
 Decentralization

 Meaning
Transfer of power and authority from central
institution to lower or local levels of a government
system.
Equates with the principle of local autonomy where
it does not constitute local governments sovereign
within the state or an imperium in imperio (Basco vs.
Pagcor, 197, SCRA)
 Operative Principles
 There shall be an effective allocation among the different local government
units of their respective powers, functions, responsibilities, and resources;
 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;
 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;
 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
 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;
 Local government units may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their
efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them;
 The capabilities of local government units shall be enhanced by
providing them with opportunities to participate actively in the
implementation of national programs and projects;

 There shall be a continuing mechanism to enhance local autonomy

not only by legislative enabling acts but also by administrative and
organizational reforms;

 Local government units shall share with the national government the
responsibility in the management and maintenance of ecological
balance within their territorial jurisdiction.

 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;
 The realization of local autonomy shall be facilitated through improved
coordination of national government policies and programs;

 The participation of the private sector in local governance, particularly

in the delivery of basic services, shall be encouraged;

 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.
Basco vs. Pagcor, May 14,
1991
 Atty. Humberto Basco and several other lawyers assailed the
validity of the law creating PAGCOR. They claim that PD
1869 is unconstitutional because a) it violates the equal
protection clause and b) it violates the local autonomy clause
of the constitution.
 Basco et al argued that PD 1869 violates the equal protection
clause because it legalizes PAGCOR-conducted gambling,
while most other forms of gambling are outlawed, together
with prostitution, drug trafficking and other vices.
 Basco’s Further Claim
 Anent the issue of local autonomy, Basco et al
contend that P.D. 1869 forced cities like Manila to
waive its right to impose taxes and legal fees as far
as PAGCOR is concerned; that Section 13 par. (2) of
P.D. 1869 which exempts PAGCOR, as the franchise
holder from paying any “tax of any kind or form,
income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or
levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local”
is violative of the local autonomy principle.
 Ruling
 The law creating PAGCOR did not
violate local autonomy (particularly on
taxing powers) as it was clearly stated
that the taxing power of LGUs are
subject to such guidelines and
limitation as Congress may provide
 Continuation………
 Further still, local governments have no power
to tax instrumentalities of the National
Government. PAGCOR is a government owned
or controlled corporation with an original
charter, PD 1869. All of its shares of stocks are
owned by the National Government.
Otherwise, its operation might be burdened,
impeded or subjected to control by a mere
local government.
 Limbona vs. Mangelin, February 28,
1989
 Petitioner, Sultan Alimbusar Limbona, was elected Speaker
of the Regional Legislative Assembly or Batasang
Pampook of Central Mindanao (Assembly).
 On October 21, 1987 Congressman Datu Guimid Matalam,
Chairman of the Committee on Muslim Affairs of the House
of Representatives, invited petitioner in his capacity as
Speaker of the Assembly of Region XII in a
consultation/dialogue with local government officials.
 Petitioner accepted the invitation and informed the
Assembly members through the Assembly Secretary that
there shall be no session in November as his presence
was needed in the house committee hearing of Congress.
However, on November 2, 1987, the Assembly held a
session in defiance of the Limbona's advice, where he was
unseated from his position.
 Petitioner (Limbona) prays that the session's
proceedings be declared null and void and be it
declared that he was still the Speaker of the
Assembly. Pending further proceedings of the case,
the SC received a resolution from the Assembly
expressly expelling petitioner's membership
therefrom.
Issue: Whether or not the courts of law have jurisdiction over the autonomous governments or regions. What is the extent of
self-government given to the autonomous governments of Region XII?

 Held: YES. Autonomy is either decentralization of

administration or decentralization of power. There is
decentralization of administration when the central
government delegates administrative powers to
political subdivisions in order to broaden the base of
government power and in the process to make local
governments "more responsive and accountable". At
the same time, it relieves the central government of the
burden of managing local affairs and enables it to
concentrate on national concerns.
 Decentralization of power, on the other hand,
involves an abdication of political power in favor of
local governments units declared to be autonomous.
In that case, the autonomous government is free to
chart its own destiny and shape its future with
minimum intervention from central authorities.
GENERAL POWERS and
ATTRIBUTES OF LGUs
 CREATION
 Congress
 Sangguniang Panlalawigan/Panlungsod
 Process applies to creation, division,
merger, abolition or substantial alteration
of boundaries (Sec. 6)
 Creation is based on verifiable indicators
of IPL (Sec. 7)
 Plebiscite requirement (Sec. 10)
Relationship Between NG and LGUs
 General Supervision
 President – P/HUC/ICC; Province –
CC/CM and City and Munucipality-
Barangays (Sec. 25)
 Duty of National Government Agencies in
the Maintenance of Ecological Balance
(Sec. 26)
 Prior Consultations Required (Sec. 27)
 Qualifications
 Filipino citizen
 Registered voter
 Resident of the LGU or district concerned

for at least 1 year immediately preceding

the election
 Able to read and write Filipino or any other
local language or dialect. (Sec. 39)
 Refer to paragraphs (b),(c),(d) and (e) for
specific qualifications
 Disqualifications
 Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral
turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of
imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;
 Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
 Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance
to the Republic;
 Those with dual citizenship;
 Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or
abroad;
 Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired
the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after
the effectivity of this Code; and
 The insane or feeble-minded. (Sec. 40)
 Vacancies and Succession
 Section 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the
Governor, Vice-Governor, Mayor, and Vice-Mayor.
 If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the
punong barangay, the highest ranking sanggunian
barangay member or, in case of his permanent inability,
the second highest ranking sanggunian member, shall
become the punong barangay.
 The successors as defined herein shall serve only the
unexpired terms of their predecessors.
 A permanent vacancy arises when an elective local
official fills a higher vacant office, refuses to assume
office, fails to qualify, dies, is removed from office,
voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise permanently
incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office.
 For purposes of succession as provided in this Chapter,
ranking in the sanggunian shall be determined on the
basis of the proportion of votes obtained by each winning
candidate to the total number of registered voters in
each district in the immediately preceding local election.
 Section 45. Permanent Vacancies in the Sanggunian. – (a)
Permanent vacancies in the sanggunian where automatic
succession provided above do not apply shall be filled by
appointment in the following manner:
 (1) The President, through the Executive Secretary, in the case of
the sangguniang panlalawigan and the sangguniang panlungsod of
highly urbanized cities and independent component cities;
 (2) The governor, in the case of the sangguniang panlungsod of
component cities and the sangguniang bayan;
 (3) The city or municipal mayor, in the case of sangguniang
barangay, upon recommendation of the sangguniang barangay
concerned.
 Except for the sangguniang barangay, only the nominee of the
political party under which the sanggunian member concerned had
been elected and whose elevation to the position next higher in rank
created the last vacancy in the sanggunian shall be appointed in the
manner hereinabove provided.
 In the appointment herein mentioned, a nomination and a certificate
of membership of the appointee from the highest official of the
political party concerned are conditions sine qua non, and any
appointment without such nomination and certification shall be null
and void ab initio and shall be a ground for administrative action
against the official responsible therefor.
 In case the permanent vacancy is caused by a
sanggunian member who does not belong to any political
party, the local chief executive shall, upon
recommendation of the sanggunian concerned, appoint
a qualified person to fill the vacancy.
 In case of vacancy in the representation of the youth and
the barangay in the sanggunian, said vacancy shall be
filled automatically by the official next in rank of the
organization concerned.
 Section 46. Temporary Vacancy in the Office of the Local Chief
Executive. – (a) When the governor, city or municipal mayor, or
punong barangay is temporarily incapacitated to perform his duties
for physical or legal reasons such as, but not limited to, leave of
absence, travel abroad, and suspension from office, the vice-
governor, city or municipal vice-mayor, or the highest ranking
sangguniang barangay member shall automatically exercise the
powers and perform the duties and functions of the local chief
executive concerned, except the power to appoint, suspend, or
dismiss employees which can only be exercised if the period of
temporary incapacity exceeds thirty (30) working days.
 Section 46
 When the incumbent local chief executive is traveling within the country but
outside his territorial jurisdiction for a period not exceeding three (3)
consecutive days, he may designate in writing the officer-in-charge of the
said office. Such authorization shall specify the powers and functions that
the local official concerned shall exercise in the absence of the local chief
executive except the power to appoint, suspend, or dismiss employees.

 In the event, however, that the local chief executive concerned fails or
refuses to issue such authorization, the vice-governor, the city or municipal
vice-mayor, or the highest ranking sangguniang barangay member, as the
case may be, shall have the right to assume the powers, duties, and
functions of the said office on the fourth (4th) day of absence.
 GENERAL WELFARE (police
power) (Sec. 16 RA 7160):
 Every local government unit shall
exercise the powers expressly granted,
those necessarily implied therefrom, as
well as powers necessary, appropriate, or
incidental to its efficient and effective
governance, and those which are
essential to the promotion of the general
welfare. Xxx
 Limitations on the exercise of
the power:
 Exercisable only within
territorial limits of the LGU
 Equal protection clause
 Due process clause
 Must not be contrary to the
Constitution and the laws.
 G.R. No. 111097 July 20, 1994
MAYOR PABLO P. MAGTAJAS & THE CITY OF CAGAYAN DE ORO, petitioners, VS. PRYCE PROPERTIES
CORPORATION, INC. & PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT & GAMING CORPORATION

 FACTS: There was instant opposition when PAGCOR announced the opening of a casino in
Cagayan de Oro City. Civic organizations angrily denounced the project.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.he reaction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de
Oro City was swift and hostile. On December 7, 1992, it enacted Ordinance No. 3353.Nor was
this all. On January 4, 1993, it adopted a sterner Ordinance No. 3375-93Pryce 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

ISSUE: WON Ordinance 3353 and 3375-93 valid

 Continuation…………
 HELD: No
 Under the LGC, local government units are authorized to prevent
or suppress, among others, "gambling and other prohibited
games of chance." Obviously, this provision excludes games of
chance which are not prohibited but are in fact permitted by law.
The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not
contravene a statute is obvious. 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.
 Lina v. Paño
G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001

Facts:

Private respondent Tony Calvento, was appointed agent by PCSO to install a terminal for the operation of
lotto, applied for a mayor’s permit to operate a lotto outlet in San Pedro, Laguna. It was denied on the ground that
an ordinance entitled Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, Taon1995 of the SP of Laguna prohibited gambling in the province
including the operation of lotto. With the denial of his application, private respondent filed
an action for declaratory relief with prayer for preliminary injunction and  temporary restraining order. The trial
court rendered judgment in favor of private respondent enjoining petitioners from implementing or enforcing
the subject resolution.

Issue:
Whether Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna and the denial of Mayor’s
Permit based thereon are valid?
 Held:
 No.
 Ordinances should not contravene statutes as municipal governments are
merelyagents
 of the national government. The local councils exercise onlydelegated
legislative powers which have been conferred on them by Congress.
The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher
than those of the latter. This being the case, these councils, as delegates,
cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those
of the latter. The question of whether gambling should be permitted is for
Congress to determine, taking into account national and local interests.
Since Congress has allowed the PCSO to operate lotteries which PCSO
seeks to conduct in Laguna, pursuant to its legislative grant of authority,
the province's Sangguniang Panlalawigan cannot nullify the exercise of
said authority by preventing something already allowed by Congress
 BATANGAS CATV, INC. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE
BATANGAS CITY SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD and BATANGAS
CITY MAYOR [G.R. No. 138810. September 29, 2004]

 FACTS: 
On July 28, 1986, respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Resolution No. 210
granting petitioner a permit to construct, install, and operate a CATV system in Batangas
City. Section 8 of the Resolution provides that petitioner is authorized to charge its
subscribers the maximum rates specified therein, “provided, however, that any increase of
rates shall be subject to the approval of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.

Sometime in November 1993, petitioner increased its subscriber rates from P88.00 to
P180.00 per month. As a result, respondent Mayor wrote petitioner a letter threatening to
cancel its permit unless it secures the approval of respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod.

Petitioner then filed with the RTC, Branch 7, Batangas City, a petition for injunction
alleging that respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod has no authority to regulate the
subscriber rates charged by CATV operators because under Executive Order No. 205, the
National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) has the sole authority to regulate the
CATV operation in the Philippines.
 CONTINUATION………
ISSUE : 
May a local government unit (LGU) regulate the subscriber rates charged by CATV operators within its territorial jurisdiction? 

HELD: No.

xxx

The logical conclusion, therefore, is that in light of the above laws and E.O. No. 436, the NTC exercises regulatory power over
CATV operators to the exclusion of other bodies.

xxx

Like any other enterprise, CATV operation maybe regulated by LGUs under the general welfare clause. This is primarily because
the CATV system commits the indiscretion of crossing public properties. (It uses public properties in order to reach subscribers.)
The physical realities of constructing CATV system – the use of public streets, rights of ways, the founding of structures, and the
parceling of large regions – allow an LGU a certain degree of regulation over CATV operators.
xxx
 STILL ON BATANGAS
CATV
 But, while we recognize the LGUs’ power under
the general welfare clause, we cannot sustain
Resolution No. 210. We are convinced that
respondents strayed from the well recognized
limits of its power. The flaws in Resolution No.
210 are: (1) it violates the mandate of existing
laws and (2) it violates the State’s deregulation
policy over the CATV industry.

LGUs must recognize that technical matters

concerning CATV operation are within the exclusive
regulatory power of the NTC.
 TANO VS. SOCRATES, GR No. 110249; August 21,
1997

FACTS:
On Dec 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Puerto Princesa enacted an ordinance banning
the shipment of all live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princesa City from January 1, 1993 to January
1, 1998. Subsequently the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Provincial Government of Palawan enacted a
resolution prohibiting the catching , gathering, possessing, buying, selling, and shipment of a several
species of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms for 5 years, in and coming from Palawan
waters.
Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, praying that the court declare the
said ordinances and resolutions as unconstitutional on the ground that the said ordinances deprived
them of the due process of law, their livelihood, and unduly restricted them from the practice of their
trade, in violation of Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution.
ISSUE:
Are the challenged ordinances unconstitutional?
 POWER TO GENERATE AND APPLY
RESOURCES (SEC. 18, RA 7160).
 create their own sources of revenue and
to levy taxes, fees, and charges
 have a just share in the national taxes
which shall be automatically and
directly released to them without need
of any further action
 have an equitable share in the proceeds
from the utilization and development of
the national wealth and resources
within their respective territorial
jurisdictions
Mandanas vs. Ochoa, Jr. July 3, 2018
 Petitioners in this case challenged the manner in
which the just share in the national taxes of the
LGUs is computed. Challenge showed that certain
collection of NIRT by the BOC are excluded from the
base amounts for the computation of the IRA.
 Thus, issues are:

1. Procedural – W/N the remedy of mandamus is

proper?
2. Substantive – W/N Sec. 284 of the LGC is
unconstitutional for being repugnant to
Sec. 6. Article 10 of the Constitution.
 Supreme Court ruled that….
 Mandamus is improper as this remedy
applies only to compel a ministerial act.
Determination of the just share of LGUs in
the national taxes under the Constitution is a
discretionary in nature.
 Sec. 284 of the LGC deviates from the
language of Sec. 6, Article 10 of the
Constitution. Verba legis non est
recedendum (from the words of the statute
there should ber departure)
 EMINENT DOMAIN
(SEC. 19, RA 7160)
 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
 What is Eminent Domain?

 thepower of the local

government unit, subject to
conditions prescribed by
law, to take away private
properties for public use
upon payment of just
compensation
 Conditions for the Exercise of
Eminent Domain
 a valid and definite offer which was not
accepted
 if the LGU decides to immediately take
possession of the property, it has to institute
the necessary expropriation proceedings and
deposit 15 % of the fair market value
 the amount to be paid for the expropriated
property shall be determined by the proper
court
 amount is based on the fair market value at the
time of the taking of the property
 Additional Limitations and/or
Conditions under RA 7160
 Exercised only by the local chief
executive, acting pursuant to a valid
ordinance;
 For public use or purpose or welfare, for
the benefit of the poor and the landless;
 Only after a valid and definite offer had
been made to, and not accepted by, the
owner.
 RECLASSIFICATION OF LANDS
(SEC. 20, RA 7160)
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
 RECLASSIFICATION OF LANDS
(SEC. 20, RA 7160)
Cases where reclassification is allowed:
 when the land ceases to be economically
feasible and  sound for agricultural
purposes as determined by the
Department of Agriculture or
 where the land shall have substantially
greater economic value for residential,
commercial, or industrial purposes, as
determined by the sanggunian concerned
 Percentage of the
Total Agricultural Land Area
that can be Reclassified
 15% - for highly urbanized and
independent component cities
 10% - for component cities and first
to third class municipalities
 5% - for fourth to sixth class
municipalities
 CLOSURE AND OPENING OF
ROADS (SEC. 21, RA 7160)
 An LGU may, pursuant to an ordinance, permanently or
temporarily close or open any local road, alley, park, or
square falling within its jurisdiction
 Conditions for permanent closure:
 ordinance must be approved by at least 2/3 of all the
members of the sanggunian
 an adequate substitute for the public facility shall be
provided, when necessary.
 Additional limitations in case of
permanent closure
 Adequate provision for the maintenance of
public safety must be made
 No freedom park shall be closed
permanently without provision for its transfer
or relocation to a new suite

Temporary closure may be made during an

actual emergency, fiesta celebrations, public
rallies, etc.
AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE AND SECURE
GRANTS
(SEC. 23, RA 7160)

 LCEs may, upon authority of the

Sanggunian, negotiate and
secure financial grants and
donations in kind in support of
basic services or facilities
 Products of
Legislative Action
1.Ordinance-prescribes a permanent
rule of conduct.
2.Resolution- of temporary character,
or expresses sentiment
 Requisites for Validity
 Must not contravene the Constitution and any
statute;
 Must not be unfair or oppressive;
 Must not be partial or discriminatory;
 Must not prohibit, but may regulate trade;
 Must not be unreasonable;
 Must be general in application and consistent with
public policy.
 Additional Requisites
 Cannot allow those which are prohibited by
law;
 Cannot prohibit those which are allowed by
law.
 Requisites for Validity
 Must not contravene the Constitution and any
statute;
 Must not be unfair or oppressive;
 Must not be partial or discriminatory;
 Must not prohibit, but may regulate trade;
 Must not be unreasonable;
 Must be general in application and consistent with
public policy.
 Statutory Rules on Ordinance and
Resolution
 No ordinance/ resolution shall be considered on 2nd reading
unless reported out by the proper committee or certified to as
urgent.
 Any legislative matter certified to as urgent, whether or not
included in the calendar of business, may be considered and
presented by the body at the same meeting without
suspending the rules.
 Secretary to the sanggunian shall prepare copies of the
proposed ordinance/resolution in the form it was passed on
second reading.
 The ordinance/resolution shall be approved by a majority of
the members present there being a quorum. Ordinance/
resolution, however, authorizing or directing the payment of
money or creating liability, shall require the affirmative vote
of a majority of all the sanggunian members for its passage.
 Parts of an Ordinance
 Title
 Enacting or Ordaining Clause
 Body
 Penalty Clause
 Repealing Clause
 Separability Clause
 Applicability Clause
 Effectivity Clause
 Title of an Ordinance
 Must not embrace more than one subject which
must be expressed in the title thereof
 Must be clearly presented/stated

 Example:
AN ORDINANCE BANNING
SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES
 Enacting or Ordaining
Clause

 Indicates the enacting or ordaining authority or the

source of the ordinance
 Formally declares the intent and decree of the
ordinance
 Presented as “ Be it ordained or Be it enacted”
 Phrase “Be it ordained is preferred in the LGU
considering that the phrase “Be it enacted is used
more in statutes passed by Congress
 Body of the Ordinance
 Example:
Section 1. Regulated Acts. No person shall SMOKE
in any public place within the jurisdiction of this
barangay.
Section 2. Definition. As used in this Ordinance:
“Public Place” – includes all kinds of roads,
parks, plaza, resorts and such other place open to
the public.
 Penalty Clause
 Provides for specific penalties
 Sanngunian can only impose penalties prescribed
by law
 Example:
Section 3. Penalty. Violation of any provision of
this Ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not
less than ______but not more than ______ or
imprisonment of not less than ____ but not more
than ______, or both fine and imprisonment at the
discretion of the court.
THE THREE READING RULE
IN THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
Recent Legal
Opinions
 DILG Legal Opinion No. 83-2019
(11/14/19)
 The Mayor of Sagay, Camiguin requests guidance on how to
treat the case of a former barangay official and now an
incumbent member of the SB’s claim for backwages, where
after being dismissed from service by the Ombudsman was
reinstated by the CA on the ground of the condonation
principle following Templonuevo vs. OMB
 We held in the negative.
 OMB’s guidance espouses that there are 2 conditions for the
grant of backwages under the foregoing condition, viz:
1. Employee must be found innocent of the charges;
2. His suspension is unjustified.
DILG Legal Opinion No. 82-2019,
(11/14/19)
 Mando Rugas and Manda Raya were elected Gov.
and VG of the province in 2013. When Rugas was
disqualified for overspending, Raya assumed as
governor from 2014 to 2016. In the subsequent 2016
and 2019 elections, Gov. Manda Raya was elected
and re-elected, respectively.
 Query raised was W/N the tenure of Gov. Manda
Raya from 2014-2016 considered one term for
purposes of applying the 3 consecutive term limit
rule?
 In Borja vs. Comelec, the SC underscored
the following conditions for the application of
the 3 consecutive term limit rule, viz:
1. official concerned has been elected for 3
consecutive terms in the same local
government position, and
2. he has fully served 3 consecutive terms.
 QUORUM AND VOTES
 Opinion No. 48 S. 2001
 Two ways of determining majority to
constitute quorum
 The Vice Governor is included in the
determination of quorum
 Opinion No. 123 S. 1999
 Rule in treating a fraction in quorum
 QUORUM AND VOTES
 Opinion No. 20 S. 2005
 A Sanggunian member who is
preventively suspended is not included
in the determination of the quorum.
 Opinion No. 107 S. 2003
 If the LGC does not mention the required
vote for the passage of the measure,
then the same has to be treated as an
ordinary business transaction and has to
be approved by a simple majority only
 DILG OPINION NO. 20 S. 2000

 Public hearing shall be initiated by the

Sanggunian
 The LG Code, however, does not
prohibit the LCE and the Sanggunian to
coordinate and consolidate their efforts
in initiating the public hearing
 The procedure may follow Art. 276 par.
B of the IRR of RA 7160
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIZATION IN
ENTERING A CONTRACT
 Opinion No. 144 S. 2002
 Contract entered into by the LCE
without prior authorization from the
Sanggunian is not void ab initio but
unenforceable
 Such unenforceable contract may be
ratified by the local sanggunian
through a resolution in order to cure its
defects
 LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIZATION IN
ENTERING A CONTRACT
 Opinion No. 53 S. 2002
 Newly elected SB members cannot withdraw an
authorization previously granted to the Mayor to
enter into a contract on the ground that such
incumbents were not members of the previous
SB
 Opinion No. 40 S. 2003
 Legislative authorization is required before the
LCE can renew a contract of consultancy
DILG Legal Opinion No. 22. s. 2015 (July 7,
2015)

 Can the LCE enter into a contract sans

authority from the Sangguniang Bayan?
 Yes, under the condition provided under Sec.
22, of the LGC. That means that the same
should be done upon (a) authority of the
sanggunian, or (2) pursuant to law or ordinance
 Apropos, if the law or ordinance
already authorizes the Mayor to enter
into a contract, prior authorization
from the sanggunian is not anymore
required. This is the exception
referred to in Sec. 22 of the LGC
 SESSIONS AND READINGS
 Opinion No. 76 S. 2002
 Requisites for a valid special session:

1. A valid call
2. Personal written notice served to the individual
Sanggunian member at his usual place of
residence
3. Notice shall be served at least 24 hours before
the special session
4. The agenda must be specified in the written
notice
 The requirements above are mandatory and not merely
directory.
 REPEAL OF A MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCE BY THE SP
 Opinion No. 43 S. 2004
 SP cannot repeal a municipal ordinance as the same
is ultra vires
 The province and a component municipality can
enact an ordinance of the same subject matter albeit
with different penalties
 Repealing clause of a provincial ordinance has no
effect to the municipal ordinance
 The power of an SP to repeal an ordinance is
pursuant to its plenary legislative power and not to
its reviewing power
 DILG OPINION NO. 22, S.
2012
 The exercise of the powers and
performance of the duties and functions
of the Mayor by the VM during the time of
the former’s temporary incapacity to do
the same creates a corresponding
temporary vacancy in the latter’s office
during such contingency.
DILG OPINION NO. 19. S. OF
2017
 A query was raised in relation to the
filling-up of position in the Sangguniang
Bayan of Bulan, Sorsogon as a result of
the previous dismissal of Mayor de
Castro by the Office of the Ombudsman.
 Does the vacancy created by the OMB dismissal be considered
permanent or temporary and does such vacancy should be filled-
up immediately despite the appeal of Mayor Castro?

 The vacancy is merely temporary because Mayor Castro has

availed various legal remedies before the OMB and the Court of
Appeals assailing her dismissal. Said remedies are still for
resolution by the said office or court.
 Thus, Sec 46 of the LGC on temporary vacancy due to legal
reasons is the applicable provision and not Sec 44, since the
elected VM’s assumption to the Office of the Mayor is still subject
to the outcome of her remedies.
 Continuation……
 Under Sec 46 (a), when there is a temporary vacancy in the Office
of the Mayor, the same is automatically filled-up by the VM. There
is nothing under the LGC, however, providing for the manner of
filling-up temporary vacancies in the office of the VM and
sanggunian. Section 45 (a) provides for the procedure in the filling-
up of permanent vacancies only.
 This problem, however, was resolved by Menzon vs. Petilla (May
20, 1991) where the SC held that the mode of succession for
permanent vacancies may likewise be observed in case of a
temporary vacancy in the same office, and recently by
Administrative Order No. 15 series of 2018.
 Who caused the vacancy? And what
political party should nominate following
Sec 45?
 The vacancy is neither that one caused by the elevation of
the VM to the Office of the Mayor nor the vacancy left by
the last ranking sanggunian member when he was elevated
to the 7th ranking position but rather is that vacancy
caused by the elevation of the ist ranking sanggunian to
member to the next higher rank.
 The appointee shall come from the same political party as
that of the sanggunian member who caused the last
vacancy and who was elevated to the position next higher
in rank.
DILG OPINION NO 49,
S. 2018 (Aug. 8, 2018)
 The Acting VMayor of Ozamiz City
sought our opinion on W/N he can
exercise the powers and functions
inherent in the Office of the VM. This
was prompted when Hon. Luansing took
her oath as VM of Ozamiz on October
24, 2017 and proclaimed herself as the
VM and the Acting City Mayor at the
same time.
 CONTINUATION…
 Clearly, VM Luansing cannot simultaneously
perform the function and duties on both offices
because it would intermingle 2 separate powers, in
derogation of the principle of separation of powers
which has been delineated by law to 2 separate
offices for purposes of checks and balances
thereby ensuring better delivery of public service.
 The highest ranking SP member as
Acting VM can perform all the duties and
powers pertaining to the office of the VM
because a designation in an acting
capacity entails the exercise of the
ministerial functions attached to the
position as well as the exercise of
discretion. (CSC Reso No. 0007778
dated March 24, 200)
DILG LEGAL OPINION NO. 57, S. 2018
(Aug. 22, 2018)
 The SB Sec.of Loreto, Agusan del Sur
is requesting opinion on the validity of
an ordinance under review by the Prov.
Council but was returned with the
information that it cannot be treated in
the absence of a resolution overriding
the veto of the municipal mayor.
 Ordinance is deemed consistent
with law and perforce valid. Sec.
56 of the LGC provides that the
action to be taken during review
by the SPanlalawigan should be
to approve or disapprove the
measure in whole or in part of the
ordinance submitted for review.
DILG LEGAL OPINION NO 52, S.
2018 (AUG. 9, 2018)

 Query of Acting Mayor Yapha, Jr. of

Toledo, Cebu, on who has the authority
to appoint job order employees in the
Vice Mayor’s office.
 Same question was raised re authority
to sign obligation request, disbursement
vouchers, purchase orders, requisitions
 While the governors has the authority to
appoint officials and employees whose
salaries are paid out of provincial funds,
this does not extend to officials and
employees of the SP because such
authority is lodged with the Vice Governor
relative to employees and officials whose
salaries are paid out of the funds
appropriated for the SP.
 SIGNIFICANT
JURISPRUDENCE/
CASE LAW
PARANAQUE VS. V.M. REALTY
CORP. (July 20, 1998)

 The enabling instrument

authorizing the mayor to exercise
the power of eminent domain and
to file the expropriation case in
court must be contained in an
ordinance and not in a resolution.
This is the specific requirement
under Section 19 of the Local
Government Code.
PURTO J. NAVARRO and DANNY B. TAMAYO, petitioner, vs. 
COURT OF APPEALS et al., G.R. No. 141307. March 28, 2001

Facts:
 On March 25, 1999, Mayor Cesar Calimlim died. A
vacancy was thus created in the Office of the Mayor so
by operation of law, Section 44 of Republic Act 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of
1991, then Vice-Mayor Baltazar Aquino succeeded
him. Accordingly, the highest ranking member of the
Sangguniang Bayan, i.e. the one who garnered the
highest number of votes, was elevated to the position of
the Vice-Mayor, pursuant to the same law. This was
petitioner Danny B. Tamayo who belonged to the
REFORMA-LM political party.
 Since a vacancy occurred in the Sangguniang Bayan by
the elevation of petitioner Tamayo to the office of the
Vice-Mayor, Governor Victor Agbayani of Pangasinan
appointed herein petitioner Purto J. Navarro as Member
of the Sangguniang Bayan. Navarro belonged to the
same political party as that of petitioner Tamayo.
 Private respondents argued before the Court of Appeals that it was
the former vice-mayor, succeeding to the position of the mayor, who
created the permanent vacancy in the Sanggunian Bayan because
under the law he was also a member of the Sanggunian. Thus, the
appointee must come from said former vice-mayor's political party, in
this case, the Lakas-NUCD-Kampi.

 Petitioners, on the other hand, contended that it was the elevation of

petitioner Tamayo, who was the highest-ranking member of the
Sanggunian Bayan, to the office of the Vice-Mayor which resulted in a
permanent vacancy in the Sanggunian Bayan. Pursuant to Section
45 (b) of RA 7160, the person to be appointed to the position vacated
by him should come from the same political party affiliation as that of
petitioner Tamayo. Hence, the appointment extended by Governor
Agbayani to petitioner Navarro, who was a member of and
recommended by the REFORMA-LM, is valid.
 RULING
 The reason behind the right given to a political party to
nominate a replacement where a permanent vacancy occurs in
the Sanggunian is to maintain the party representation as willed
by the people in the election.

 With the elevation of petitioner Tamayo, who belonged to

REFORMA-LM, to the position of Vice-Mayor, a vacancy
occurred in the Sanggunian that should be filled up with
someone who should belong to the political party of petitioner
Tamayo. Otherwise, REFORMA-LM's representation in the
Sanggunian would be diminished. 

 The last vacancy was caused by a member of the Reforma Party

 RAMIR R. PABLICO vs. ALEJANDRO A.
VILLAPANDO, 
G.R. No. 147870. July 31, 2002

 On August 5, 1999, Solomon B. Maagad, and Renato M.

Fernandez, both members of the Sangguniang Bayan of San
Vicente, Palawan, filed with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Palawan an administrative complaint against respondent
Alejandro A. Villapando, then Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan,
for abuse of authority and culpable violation of the
Constitution.[3] Complainants alleged that respondent, on
behalf of the municipality, entered into a consultancy
agreement with Orlando M. Tiape, a defeated mayoralty
candidate in the May 1998 elections. They argue that the
consultancy agreement amounted to an appointment to a
government position within the prohibited one-year period
under Article IX-B, Section 6, of the 1987 Constitution.
 In his answer, respondent countered that he did not appoint
Tiape, rather, he merely hired him. He invoked Opinion No. 106,
s. 1992, of the Department of Justice dated August 21, 1992,
stating that the appointment of a defeated candidate within one
year from the election as a consultant does not constitute an
appointment to a government office or position as prohibited
by the Constitution.

February 1, 2000, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan

found respondent guilty of the administrative charge and
imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from service.[4]
 Respondent appealed to the Office of the President which, on
May 29, 2000, affirmed the decision of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Palawan.
May local legislative bodies and/or the Office of the President, on
appeal, validly impose the penalty of dismissal from service on
erring elective local officials?

 Section 60. Grounds for Disciplinary Actions. An elective local

official may be disciplined, suspended, or removed from office on
any of the following grounds:
 x x x x x x x x x
 An elective local official may be removed from office on the
grounds enumerated above by order of the proper court.
(Emphasis supplied)

 It is clear from the last paragraph of the aforecited provision that

the penalty of dismissal from service upon an erring elective local
official may be decreed only by a court of law. Thus, in Salalima,
et al. v. Guingona, et al., we held that [t]he Office of the President
is without any power to remove elected officials, since such
power is exclusively vested in the proper courts as expressly
provided for in the last paragraph of the afore-quoted Section 60.
 ALDOVINO VS. COMELEC,
December 23, 2009
FACTS:
Lucena City councilor Wilfredo F. Asilo was elected to the said office for three consecutive
terms: 1998-2001, 2001-2004, and 2004-2007. In September 2005, during his third term of
office, the Sandiganbayan issued an order of 90-day preventive suspension against him in
relation to a criminal case. The said suspension order was subsequently lifted by the Court,
and Asilo resumed the performance of the functions of his office.
Asilo then filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position in 2007. His
disqualification was sought by herein petitioners on the ground that he had been elected
and had served for three consecutive terms, in violation of the three-term Constitutional
limit.
ISSUE: W/N the suspensive condition interrupts the three-term limitation rule of
COMELEC?
RULING:

NO. The preventive suspension of public officials does not

interrupt their term for purposes of the three-term limit rule
under the Constitution and the Local Government Code (RA
7160).

Thecandidacy of Lucena City Councilor Wilfredo F. Asilo for a

fourth term in the 2007 elections was in contravention of the
three-term limit rule of Art. X, sec. 8 of the Constitution since his
2004-2007 term was not interrupted by the preventive
suspension imposed on him, the SC granted the petition of
Simon B. Aldovino, Danilo B. Faller, and Ferdinand N. Talabong
seeking Asilo’s disqualification.
 RAYMUNDO ADORMEO VS. COMELEC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 147927. February 4, 2002

 Facts: Respondent Talaga was elected Mayor of

Lucena City in 1992, re-elected in 1995, but lost
to Tagarao in 1998 elections. Tagarao was
recalled and in the May 12, 2000 recall elections,
Talaga won and served the unexpired term of
Tagarao until June 30, 2001. Talaga was
candidate for Mayor in the May 14, 2001
elections, and a petition for cancellation of his
certificate of candidacy was filed on the ground
that he has served as Mayor for three
consecutive terms.
 Issue: Whether or not Talaga has served as
Mayor of Lucena City for three consecutive
terms.

 Held: The term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to
the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective
position. Consequently, it is not enough that an individual has served
three consecutive terms in an elective local office. He must also have
been elected to the same position for the same number of times
before the disqualification can apply.
In the case at bar, Talaga did not serve for 3 consecutive terms. For
nearly 2 years, he was a private citizen. The continuity of his
mayorship was disrupted by his defeat in the 1998 elections.
“If one is elected representative to serve the unexpired term of
another, that unexpired term, no matter how short, will be considered
one term for the purpose of computing the number of successive
terms allowed”—this comment of Constitutional Commissioner Fr.
Bernas applies only to members of the House of Representatives.
Unlike government officials, there is no recall election for members of
Congress.
 La Carlota City et al vs. Atty. Rojo et al., April 24,
2012

 On March 18, 2004, [the] then Vice-Mayor Rex R. Jalandoon of La

Carlota City, Negros Occidental appointed Atty. Rex G. Rojo (or Rojo)
who had just tendered his resignation as member of
the Sangguniang Panlungsod the day preceding such appointment,
as Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretary. The CSCFO rejected the
appointment where an appeal was filed by VM Jalandoon to CSCRO.
During the appeal La Carlota City through its Mayor and V-Mayor
intervened and raised challenge therein .
 In a Decision dated September 20, 2004, the CSC Regional Office No.
6 reversed and set aside the CSCFOs earlier ruling. Petitioners went
to the Court of Appeals, after their remedy with CSC was denied.
Court of Appeals ruled that there was no sufficient reason for the
Commission to disapprove respondents appointment.
 Therafter, petitioners elevated their case before the Supreme Court.
 Whether or not the vice governor as the presiding officer is
included in the count in determining the majority of all the
members of the sangguniang panlalawigan to validly pass an
appropriation ordinance?

 Yes. In ruling on the affirmative SC relied in the case of Zamora

vs. Caballero. the 2004 case of Zamora v. Governor Caballero, in
which the Court interpreted Section 53 of RA 7160 to mean that
the entire membership must be taken into account in computing
the quorum of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. In stating that
there were fourteen (14) members
the SangguniangPanlalawigan of Compostela Valley, the Court
in Zamora clearly included the Vice- Governor, as presiding
officer, as part of the entire membership of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan which must be taken into account
in computing the quorum.
Javier vs Cadiao, August 3, 2016
 Should the Vice Governor, as the presiding
officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, be
counted in the determination of what number
constitutes as the majority?
 The Vice Governor, as the Presiding Officer,
shall be considered a part of the SP for
purposes of ascertaining if a quorum exists. In
determining the number which constitutes as
the majority vote, the Vice Governor is
excluded. The Vice Governor's right to vote is
merely contingent and arises only when there
is a tie to break.
 Ruling
 When the Combong Resolution was passed, 14
were present, to wit, 13 SP members and Vice
Governor Cadiao. The 13 SP members voted, with
seven (7) voting for and six (6) against the
Combong Resolution. A majority was already
obtained; hence, there was no need for Vice
Governor Cadiao's vote as there was no tie to
break.
 To illustrate, in disciplining members of the sanggunian where
the penalty involved is suspension or expulsion, the LGC
requires the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of all the members
of the sanggunian. If the Sanggunian has thirteen (13) regular
members (excluding the presiding officer), the votes needed to
impose either of the penalty is eight. However, should the
presiding officer be also included, therefore raising the
membership to fourteen (14), - on the premise that he is
also sanggunian member - even if he cannot vote in this
instance, an additional one vote is required - i.e., nine votes are
required - before the penalty is imposed. The presiding officer's
innocuous inclusion as sanggunian member negatively
impacts on the prohibition against him from voting since his
mere inclusion affects the numerical value of the required
voting level on a matter where generally and by law he has no
concern
 MANUEL ZAMORA VS. GOV. JOSE
CABALLERO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 147767. January 14, 2002

 Facts: Manuel Zamora, a member of the Sangguniang

Panlalawigan of Compostela Valley, filed before the RTC a
petition to invalidate all acts executed and resolutions
issued by the Sanggunian during its sessions held on
February 8 and 26, 2001 for lack of quorum. Said
sessions noted the resignation letter of Board Member
Sotto, declared the entire province under a state of
calamity and approved the Governor to enter into the
contract with the Allado Company.
 Zamora, the petitioner, argued that the Sanggunian, during its
February 26 session, conducted official business without a
quorum since only 7 out of the 14 members were present. He
further questioned the February 8 session’s validity arguing
that only 7 members were present and the failure to provide
written notice to all members at least 24 hours before the
holding of the special session. Respondents argued that Board
Member Sotto was in the United States during such sessions
and that the actual number of Board Members in the country
was only 13 which, they claimed, should be the basis for the
determination of a quorum. Such petition raised by Zamora was
dismissed by the RTC but reversed and granted by the
Supreme Court.
 ISSUES:
 1) Whether or not Section 53 (a) of the LGC
provides and specifies applicable rule
regarding the determination of a quorum.

2) Whether or not Sanggunian Members who

are abroad should not be included in the
counting of the entire Sangguniang body.

3) Whether or not the approved decisions

during the sessions, alleged to be without
quorum, is deemed to be valid.
 Held:
 Section 53 (a) of the LGC states that : “A majority of all
members of the Sanggunian who have been elected and
qualified shall constitute a quorum to transact official
business.” Quorum is defined as the “number of members
of a body which, when legally assembled, will enable the
body to transact its proper business or that number which
makes a lawful body and gives it power to pass upon a law
or ordinance or do any valid act.” When required to
constitute a quorum, “majority” means the number greater
than half or more than half of the total.
As further stated, it requires the majority of ALL members
of the Sanggunian. Quorum should, thus, be based on the
total number of members regardless of whether or not a
member is said to be abroad.
Therefore, in cases where decisions have been made during
sessions deemed to have not met the required quorum,
such sessions and decisions shall be considered void.
 ACAAC ET AL. VS. AZCUNA,
BONALES ET AL. (Sept. 30, 2013)

 FACTS:
PETAL Foundation is a non-governmental
organization, which is engaged in the
protection and conservation of ecology,
tourism, and livelihood projects within Misamis
Occidental. PETAL built some cottages on
Capayas Island which it rented out to the public
and became the source of livelihood of its
beneficiaries, among whom are petitioners
Hector Acaac and Romeo Bulawin.
 Respondents Mayor Azcuna and Building Official
Bonales issued Notices of Illegal Construction
against PETAL for its failure to apply for a building
permit prior to the construction of its buildings in
violation of the Building Code ordering it to stop
all illegal building activities on Capayas Island. On
July 8, 2002 the Sangguniang Bayan of Jaena
Lopez adopted a Municipal Ordinance which
prohibited, among others : (a) the entry of any
entity, association, corporation or organization
inside the sanctuaries;and (b) the construction of
any structures, permanent or temporary, on the
premises, except if authorized by the local
government.
 On July 12, 2002, Azcuna approved the subject
ordinance; hence, the same was submitted to the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Misamis Occidental (SP),
which in turn, conducted a joint hearing on the
matter. The RTC declared the ordinance as invalid/void.

On appeal, the CA held that the subject ordinance was

deemed approved upon failure of the SP to declare the
same invalid within 30 days after its submission in
accordance with Section 56 of the LGC. Having
enacted the subject ordinance within its powers as a
municipality and in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by law, the CA pronounced that the subject
ordinance is valid.
 RULING:
 Ordinance is valid.
Par. (d) of Sec. 56 of the LGC should be read in
conjunction with par. (c), in order to arrive at the
meaning of the disputed word, "action." It is clear,
based on the foregoing provision, that the action
that must be entered in the minutes of the
sangguniang panlalawigan is the declaration of
the sangguniang panlalawigan that the ordinance
is invalid in whole or in part. x x x.
Tan et al. vs Perea, Feb. 18, 2005
 On 8 November 1995, petitioner Leonardo Tan (Tan) applied
with the Municipal Gamefowl Commission for the issuance
of a permit/license to establish and operate a cockpit in
Sitio Combado, Bagay, in Daanbantayan.
 At the time of his application, there was already another
cockpit in operation in Daanbantayan, operated by
respondent Socorro Y. Perea (Perea), who was the duly
franchised and licensed cockpit operator in the
municipality since the 1970s. Pereas franchise, per records,
was valid until 2002
 Perea filed a complaint with
the court for damages and
injunction.
 RTC dismissed the
complaint.
 Perea appealed to the C.A.
which reversed the RTC
Reason of the CA for the
Reversal
 The provision vesting unto the sangguniang
bayan the power to authorize and license the
establishment of cockpits did not do away with
the Cockfighting Law, as these two laws are not
necessarily inconsistent with each other. What
the provision of the Local Government Code
did, according to the Court of Appeals, was to
transfer to the sangguniang bayan powers that
were previously conferred on the Municipal
Gamefowl Commission
 LTO vs. City of Butuan,
January 20, 2000
 Facts:
    Relying on the  fiscal autonomy granted to LGU's by
the Constitution and the provisions of the Local
Government Code, the Sangguniang Panglunsod of the
City of Butuan enacted an ordinance "Regulating the
Operation of Tricycles-for-Hire, providing mechanism
for the issuance of Franchise, Registration and Permit,
and Imposing Penalties for Violations thereof and for
other Purposes."  The ordinance provided for, among
other things, the payment of franchise fees for the grant
of the franchise of tricycles-for-hire, fees for the
registration of the vehicle, and fees for the issuance of
a permit for the driving thereof. 
 Petitioner LTO explains that one of the functions of
the national government that, indeed, has been
transferred to local government units is the
franchising authority over tricycles-for-hire of the
Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory
Board ("LTFRB") but not, it asseverates, the authority
of LTO to register all motor vehicles and to issue to
qualified persons of licenses to drive such vehicles.

    The RTC and CA ruled that the power to give

registration and license for driving tricycles has been
devolved to LGU's.
 Issue
 Whether or not, the registration of
tricycles was given to LGU's, hence the
ordinance is a valid exercise of police
power.
 Ruling
 No, based on the-"Guidelines to Implement the
Devolution of LTFRBs Franchising Authority over
Tricycles-For-Hire to Local Government units
pursuant to the Local Government Code"- the newly
delegated powers to LGU's pertain to the franchising
and regulatory powers exercised by the LTFRB and
not to the functions of the LTO relative to the
registration of motor vehicles and issuance of
licenses for the driving thereof. Corollarily, the
exercised of a police power must be through a valid
delegation. In this case the police power of
registering tricycles was not delegated to the LGU’s,
but remained in the LTO.
 Thank You for
Listening…
ATTY. ROMEO P. BENITEZ
DIRECTOR IV
Legal Service Legislative Liaison
Service (LLLS)
Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG)