pubcorp full text

Upload: mika-arevalo

Post on 03-Jun-2018

231 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    1/78

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    2/78

    C7#7=+#7, the "etition is @#AN47D the challenged +rder dated2anuary 1, //0, in )ivil )ase No. /3$--, is *74 A*&D7 and the rit of"reliminary &n>unction issued on =ebruary , //3 is hereby madepermanent.

    =or want of sustainable substantiation, the Motion to )ite #oberto 8. del

    #osario in contempt is denied.

    0

    No pronouncement as to costs.

    *+ +#D7#7D. 3

    4he Motion for #econsideration of the decision was denied on *eptember1, //. Cence, this recourse.

    "etitioner MMDA raises the following questions5

    &

    CA* 4C7 M74#+"+8&4AN MAN&8A D7%78+"M7N4 A64C+#&4E'MMDA( 4C7 MANDA47 4+ +"7N N7"46N7 *4#774 4+ "6B8&)4#A==&) "6#*6AN4 4+ &4* #7@68A4+#E AND "+8&)7 "+7#*F

    &&

    &* 4C7 "A**A@7 += AN +#D&NAN)7 A )+ND&4&+N "#7)7D7N4B7=+#7 4C7 MMDA MAE +#D7# 4C7 +"7N&N@ += *6BD&%&*&+N#+AD* 4+ "6B8&) 4#A==&)F

    &&&

    &* #7*"+ND7N4 B78$A %&88A@7 A**+)&A4&+N, &N). 7*4+""7D=#+M D7NE&N@ +# A**A&8&N@ 4C7 A64C+#&4E += 4C7 MMDA 4++"7N 4C7 *6B27)4 *4#774F

    &%

    A* #7*"+ND7N4 D7"#&%7D += D67 "#+)7** D7*"&47 4C7*7%7#A8 M774&N@* C78D B7477N MMDA AND 4C7 A==7)47D778$A #7*&D7N4* AND BA%A +==&)7#*F

    %

    CA* #7*"+ND7N4 )+M7 4+ )+6#4 &4C 6N)87AN CAND*F 9

    Neptune *treet is owned by respondent BA%A. &t is a private road insideBel$Air %illage, a private residential subdivision in the heart of the

    financial and commercial district of Makati )ity. &t runs parallel to?alayaan Avenue, a national road open to the general public. Dividing thetwo '1( streets is a concrete perimeter wall appro!imately fifteen '0( feethigh. 4he western end of Neptune *treet intersects Nicanor @arcia,formerly #eposo *treet, a subdivision road open to public vehicular traffic,while its eastern end intersects Makati Avenue, a national road. Bothends of Neptune *treet are guarded by iron gates.

    "etitioner MMDA claims that it has the authority to open Neptune *treetto public traffic because it is an agent of the state endowed with policepower in the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. +ne of thesebasic services is traffic management which involves the regulation of the

    use of thoroughfares to insure the safety, convenience and welfare of thegeneral public. &t is alleged that the police power of MMDA was affirmedby this )ourt in the consolidated cases of #a'(a)a'( *.I'+r-/a+A))a+ $or+. =rom the premise that it has police power, it is nowurged that there is no need for the )ity of Makati to enact an ordinanceopening Neptune street to the public. /

    "olice power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. &t has been definedas the power vested by the )onstitution in the legislature to make, ordain,and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutesand ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the)onstitution, as they shall >udge to be for the good and welfare of the

    commonwealth, and for the sub>ects of the same. -4he power is plenaryand its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and >ustifying measures forpublic health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare.

    &t bears stressing that police power is lodged primarily in the National8egislature. 1&t cannot be e!ercised by any group or body of individualsnot possessing legislative power. 4he National 8egislature, however,-a )(a+ this power to the "resident and administrative boards aswell as the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or localgovernment units. :+nce delegated, the agents can e!ercise o') suchlegislative powers as are conferred on them by the national lawmakingbody. 0

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    3/78

    A )oca) (o*r'-'+ is a Gpolitical subdivision of a nation or state whichis constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs.G 34he8ocal @overnment )ode of // defines a local government unit as aGbody politic and corporate.G 9H one endowed with powers as a politicalsubdivision of the National @overnment and as a corporate entityrepresenting the inhabitants of its territory. 8ocal government units arethe provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays. /4hey are also theterritorial and political subdivisions of the state. 1-

    Or $o'(r )(a+ o)/c o4r +o +h )oca) (o*r'-'+'/+ /' +h Loca) Go*r'-'+ $o o 1991. 4his delegation isfound in *ection 3 of the same )ode, known as the general welfareclause, */5

    *ec. 3. G'ra) )ar. H 7very local government unit shall e!ercisethe powers e!pressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, aswell as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient andeffective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of

    the general welfare. ithin their respective territorial >urisdictions, localgovernment units shall ensure and support, among other things, thepreservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety,enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage andsupport the development of appropriate and self$reliant scientific andtechnological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economicprosperity and social >ustice, promote full employment among theirresidents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort andconvenience of their inhabitants. 1

    Loca) (o*r'-'+ '/+ 8rc/ o)/c o4r +hro(h +h/rrc+/* )(/)a+/* o/. 4he legislative body of the provincial

    government is the a'(('/a'( a')a)a4/(a', that of the citygovernment is the a'(('/a'( a')'(o, that of the municipalgovernment is the a'(('/a'( aa', and that of the barangay is thea'(('/a'( ara'(a. 4he 8ocal @overnment )ode of //empowers the a'(('/a'( a')a)a4/(a', a'(('/a'(a')'(o a' a'(('/a'( aa' to Genact ordinances, approveresolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the Iprovince,city or municipality, as the case may beJ, and its inhabitants pursuant to*ection 3 of the )ode and in the proper e!ercise of the corporatepowers of the Iprovince, city municipalityJ provided under the )ode . . . G 11

    4he same )ode gives the a'(('/a'( ara'(a the power to Genactordinances as may be necessary to discharge the responsibilities

    conferred upon it by law or ordinance and to promote the general welfareof the inhabitants thereon.G 1

    M+roo)/+a' or M+ro Ma'/)a / a o co-o o *ra) )oca)(o*r'-'+ '/+ H /.., twelve '1( cities and five '0( municipalities,namely, the cities of )aloocan, Manila, Mandaluyong, Makati, "asay,

    "asig, Kue;on, Muntinlupa, 8as "inas, Marikina, "aranaque and%alen;uela, and the municipalities of Malabon, Navotas, "ateros, *an2uan and 4aguig. /+h +h aa( o R)/c Ac+ :R. A.; No. 792c -a'a(-'+ 4h/ch /'c) +hor-)a+/o',coor/'a+/o', a' -o'/+or/'( o o)/c/, +a'ar,ro(ra- a' ro?c+ +o ra+/o'a)/ +h 8/+/'( +ra'or+

    ora+/o', /'ra+rc+r r@/r-'+, +h o +horo(har, a' ro-o+/o' o a a' co'*'/'+ -o*-'+o ro' a' (ooro*//o' or +h -a +ra'or+ +-a' +h /'+/++/o' o a +- +o r()a+ roa ra-/'/+ra+/o' a' /-)-'+a+/o' o a)) +ra>c 'orc-'+ora+/o', +ra>c '(/'r/'( r*/c a' +ra>c ca+/o'ro(ra-, /'c)/'( +h /'+/++/o' o a /'() +/c+/'( +- /'M+roo)/+a' Ma'/)aG 19

    I' +h )/*r o +h *' :7; a/c r*/c, +h MMDA ha +ho))o4/'( o4r a' 'c+/o'5

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    4/78

    *ec. 0. B'c+/o' a' o4r o +h M+ro Ma'/)a D*)o-'+A+hor/+. H 4he MMDA shall5

    'a( =ormulate, coordinate and regulate the implementation of medium andlong$term plans and programs for the delivery of metro$wide services,land use and physical development within Metropolitan Manila, consistent

    with national development ob>ectives and priorities

    'b( "repare, coordinate and regulate the implementation of medium$terminvestment programs for metro$wide services which shall indicate sourcesand uses of funds for priority programs and pro>ects, and which shallinclude the packaging of pro>ects and presentation to funding institutions

    'c( 6ndertake and manage on its own metro$wide programs and pro>ectsfor the delivery of specific services under its >urisdiction, sub>ect to theapproval of the )ouncil. =or this purpose, MMDA can create appropriatepro>ect management offices

    'd( )oordinate and monitor the implementation of such plans, programsand pro>ects in Metro Manila identify bottlenecks and adopt solutions toproblems of implementation

    :; Th MMDA ha)) + +h o)/c/ co'cr'/'( +ra>c /' M+roMa'/)a, a' ha)) coor/'a+ a' r()a+ +h /-)-'+a+/o' oa)) ro(ra- a' ro?c+ co'cr'/'( +ra>c -a'a(-'+,c/Cca)) r+a/'/'( +o 'orc-'+, '(/'r/'( a'ca+/o'. Uo' r@+, it ha)) 8+' a/+a'c a'coora+/o', /'c)/'( + 'o+ )/-/+ +o, a/('-'+ oro''), a)) o+hr (o*r'-'+ a('c/ a' o>cco'cr'

    :; I'+a)) a' a-/'/+r a /'() +/c+/'( +-, C8, /-oa' co))c+ C' a' 'a)+/ or a)) /' o */o)a+/o' o +ra>cr) a' r()a+/o', 4h+hr -o*/'( or 'o'"-o*/'( /' 'a+r ,a' co'Cca+ a' ' or r*o r/*r )/c' /' +h'orc-'+ o ch +ra>c )a4 a' r()a+/o' , +h ro*//o'o RA c 'orcr o )oca)(o*r'-'+ '/+, ) )/c' cr/+ (ar, or --r o

    'o'"(o*r'-'+a) or(a'/a+/o' +o 4ho- -a )(a+cr+a/' a+hor/+, ?c+ +o ch co'/+/o' a' r@/r-'+ a+h A+hor/+ -a /-o a'

    'g( "erform other related functions required to achieve the ob>ectives ofthe MMDA, including the undertaking of delivery of basic services to the

    local government units, when deemed necessary sub>ect to priorcoordination with and consent of the local government unit concerned.

    4he /-)-'+a+/o' of the MMDAs plans, programs and pro>ects isundertaken by the local government units, national government agencies,accredited peoples organi;ations, non$governmental organi;ations, andthe private sector as well as by the MMDA itself. =or this purpose, theMMDA has the power to enter into contracts, memoranda of agreementand other arrangements with these bodies for the delivery of the requiredservices Metro Manila. 1

    4he (o*r'/'( oar o +h MMDA / +h M+ro Ma'/)a $o'c/) .

    4he )ouncil is composed of the mayors of the component 1 cities and 0municipalities, the president of the Metro Manila %ice$Mayors 8eagueand the president of the Metro Manila )ouncilors 8eague. 1/4he )ouncilis headed by )hairman who is appointed by the "resident and vestedwith the rank of cabinet member. As the policy$making body of theMMDA, the Metro Manila )ouncil approves metro$wide plans, programsand pro>ects, and issues the necessary rules and regulations for theimplementation of said plans it approves the annual budget of the MMDAand promulgate the rules and regulations for the delivery of basicservices, collection of service and regulatory fees, fines and penalties.4hese functions are particularly enumerated as follows5

    #c. 6. B'c+/o' o +h M+ro Ma'/)a $o'c/). H

    'a( 4he )ouncil shall be the policy$making body of the MMDA

    'b( &t shall approve metro$wide plans, programs and pro>ects and issuerules and regulations deemed necessary by the MMDA to carry out thepurposes of this Act

    'c( &t may increase the rate of allowances and r /- of themembers of the )ouncil to be effective during the term of the succeeding)ouncil. &t shall fi! the compensation of the officers and personnel of the

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    5/78

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    6/78

    e ruled that since both +rdinances recogni;ed 2upiter *treet as theboundary between Bel$Air %illage and the commercial district, 2upiter*treet was not for the e!clusive benefit of Bel$Air residents. e also heldthat the perimeter wall on said street was constructed not to separate theresidential from the commercial blocks but simply for security reasons,hence, in tearing down said wall, Ayala )orporation did not violate theGdeed restrictionsG in the deeds of sale.

    e upheld the ordinances, specifically MM) +rdinance No. $-, as alegitimate e!ercise of police power. 94he power of the MM) and theMakati Municipal )ouncil to enact ;oning ordinances for the generalwelfare prevailed over the Gdeed restrictionsG.

    &n the second #a'(a)a'(a+ decision, we held that the opening of2upiter *treet was warranted by the demands of the common good interms of Gtraffic decongestion and public convenience.G 2upiter wasopened by the Municipal Mayor to alleviate traffic congestion along thepublic streets ad>acent to the %illage. 4he same reason was given for

    the opening to public vehicular traffic of +rbit *treet, a road inside thesame village. 4he destruction of the gate in +rbit *treet was also madeunder the police power of the municipal government. 4he gate, like theperimeter wall along 2upiter, was a public nuisance because it hinderedand impaired the use of property, hence, its summary abatement by themayor was proper and legal. /

    $o'+rar +o +/+/o'r c)a/-, +h +4o #a'(a)a'( ca o 'o+a) +o +h ca a+ ar. B/r+), both involved ;oning ordinancespassed by the municipal council of Makati and the MM). &n the instantcase, the basis for the proposed opening of Neptune *treet is containedin the notice of December 11, //0 sent by petitioner to respondent

    BA%A, through its president. 4he notice does not cite any ordinance orlaw, either by the *angguniang "anlungsod of Makati )ity or by theMMDA, as the legal basis for the proposed opening of Neptune *treet."etitioner MMDA simply relied on its authority under its charter Gtorationali;e the use of roads and

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    7/78

    . 4o act as a central government to establish and administer programsand provide services common to the area

    1. 4o levy and collect ta!es and special assessments, borrow and e!pendmoney and issue bonds, revenue certificates, and other obligations ofindebtedness. 7!isting ta! measures should, however, continue to beoperative until otherwise modified or repealed by the )ommission

    . 4o charge and collect fees for the use of public service facilities

    :. 4o appropriate money for the operation of the metropolitan governmentand review appropriations for the city and municipal units within its

    >urisdiction with authority to disapprove the same if found to be not inaccordance with the established policies of the )ommission, withoutpre>udice to any contractual obligation of the local government unitsinvolved e!isting at the time of approval of this Decree

    0. 4o review, amend, revise or repeal all ordinances, resolutions and acts

    of cities and municipalities within Metropolitan Manila

    3. 4o enact or approve ordinances, resolutions and to fi! penalties for anyviolation thereof which shall not e!ceed a fine of "-,---.-- orimprisonment of si! years or both such fine and imprisonment for a singleoffense

    9. 4o perform general administrative, e!ecutive and policy$makingfunctions

    . 4o establish a fire control operation center, which shall direct the fire

    services of the city and municipal governments in the metropolitan area

    /. 4o establish a garbage disposal operation center, which shall directgarbage collection and disposal in the metropolitan area

    -. 4o establish and operate a transport and traffic center, which shalldirect traffic activities

    . 4o coordinate and monitor governmental and private activitiespertaining to essential services such as transportation, flood control anddrainage, water supply and sewerage, social, health and environmentalservices, housing, park development, and others

    1. 4o insure and monitor the undertaking of a comprehensive social,economic and physical planning and development of the area

    . 4o study the feasibility of increasing barangay participation in theaffairs of their respective local governments and to propose to the"resident of the "hilippines definite programs and policies forimplementation

    :. 4o submit within thirty '-( days after the close of each fiscal year anannual report to the "resident of the "hilippines and to submit a periodicreport whenever deemed necessary and

    0. 4o perform such other tasks as may be assigned or directed by the"resident of the "hilippines.

    Th MM$ 4a +h Gc'+ra) (o*r'-'+G o M+ro Ma'/)a for thepurpose of establishing and administering programs providing servicescommon to the area. As a Gcentral governmentG it had the power to levy

    and collect ta!es and special assessments, the power to charge andcollect fees the power to appropriate money for its operation, and at thesame time, review appropriations for the city and municipal units within its

    >urisdiction. &t was bestowed the power to enact or approve ordinances,resolutions and fi! penalties for violation of such ordinances andresolutions. &t also had the power to review, amend, revise or repeal allordinances, resolutions and acts of any of the four ':( cities and thirteen'( municipalities comprising Metro Manila.

    ".D. No. 1: further provided5

    *ec. /. 6ntil otherwise provided, the governments of the four cities andthirteen municipalities in the Metropolitan Manila shall continue to e!ist intheir present form e!cept as may be inconsistent with this Decree.Th--r o +h 8/+/'( c/+ a' -'/c/a) co'c/) /'M+roo)/+a' Ma'/)a ha)), o' ro-)(a+/o' o +h/ Dcr, a''+/) Dc-r 31, 1975, co- --r o +h #a'(('/a'(!aa' 4h/ch / hr cra+ or *r c/+ a' -'/c/a)/+ oM+roo)/+a' Ma'/)a.

    &n addition, the *angguniang Bayan shall be composed of as manybarangay captains as may be determined and chosen by the)ommission, and such number of representatives from other sectors of

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    8/78

    the society as may be appointed by the "resident upon recommendationof the )ommission.

    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

    4he *angguniang Bayan may recommend to the )ommission

    ordinances, resolutions or such measures as it may adopt "rovided, thatno such ordinance, resolution or measure shall become effective, untilafter its approval by the )ommission and "rovided further, that the powerto impose ta!es and other levies, the power to appropriate money and thepower to pass ordinances or resolutions with penal sanctions shall bevested e!clusively in the )ommission.

    Th cra+/o' o +h MM$ a)o carr/ 4/+h /+ +h cra+/o' o +h#a'(('/a'( !aa'. 4his was composed of the members of thecomponent city and municipal councils, barangay captains chosen by theMM) and sectoral representatives appointed by the "resident. 4he#a'(('/a'( !aa' had the power to recommend to the MM) the

    adoption of ordinances, resolutions or measures. I+ 4a +h MM$ /+),ho4*r, +ha+ o )(/)a+/* o4r. All ordinances,resolutions and measures recommended by the #a'(('/a'( !aa'were sub>ect to the MM)s approval. Moreover, the power to imposeta!es and other levies, the power to appropriate money, and the power topass ordinances or resolutions with penal sanctions were vestede!clusively in the MM).

    4hus, Metropolitan Manila had a Gcentral government,G i.e., the MM)which fully possessed legislative police powers. hatever legislativepowers the component cities and municipalities had were all sub>ect toreview and approval by the MM).

    After "resident )ora;on Aquino assumed power, there was a clamor torestore the autonomy of the local government units in Metro Manila.Cence, *ections and 1 of Article of the /9 )onstitution provided5

    *ec. . 4he territorial and political subdivisions of the #epublic of the"hilippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays. 4hereshall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the )ordilleras asherein provided.

    *ec. 1. 4he territorial and political subdivisions shall en>oy localautonomy.

    4he )onstitution, however, recogni;ed the necessity of creatingmetropolitan regions not only in the e!isting National )apital #egion butalso in potential equivalents in the %isayas and Mindanao. :*ection ofthe same Article thus provided5

    *ec. . 4he )ongress may, by law, create special metropolitan politicalsubdivisions, sub>ect to a plebiscite as set forth in *ection - hereof. 4hecomponent cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy andshall be entitled to their own local e!ecutives and legislative assemblies.4he >urisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will thereby be createdshall be limited to basic services requiring coordination.

    )onstitution itself e!pressly provides that )ongress may, by law, createGspecial metropolitan political subdivisionsG which shall be sub>ect toapproval by a ma>ority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units

    directly affected the >urisdiction of this subdivision shall be limited tobasic services requiring coordination and the cities and municipalitiescomprising this subdivision shall retain their basic services requiringcoordination and the cities and municipalities comprising this subdivisionshall retain their basic autonomy and their own local e!ecutive andlegislative assemblies. ::"ending enactment of this law, the 4ransitory"rovisions of the )onstitution gave the "resident of the "hilippines thepower to constitute the Metropolitan Authority, */5

    *ec. . 6ntil otherwise provided by )ongress, the "resident mayconstitute the Metropolitan Authority to be composed of the heads of alllocal government units comprising the Metropolitan Manila area. :0

    &n //-, "resident Aquino issued 7!ecutive +rder '7. +.( No. /1 andconstituted the Metropolitan Manila Authority 'MMA(. 4he powers andfunctions of the MM) were devolved to the MMA. :3 &t ought to bestressed, however, that not all powers and functions of the MM) werepassed to the MMA. 4he MMAs power was limited to the Gdelivery ofbasic urban services requiring coordination in Metropolitan Manila.G :94heMMAs governing body, the Metropolitan Manila )ouncil, althoughcomposed of the mayors of the component cities and municipalities, wasmerely given power of5 '( formulation of policies on the delivery of basicservices requiring coordination and consolidation and '1( promulgation

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    9/78

    resolutions and other issuances, approval of a code of basic services andthe e!ercise of its rule$making power. :

    6nder the /9 )onstitution, the local government units became primarilyresponsible for the governance of their respective political subdivisions.4he MMA ?r//c+/o' 4a )/-/+ to addressing common problemsinvolving basic services that transcended local boundaries. I+ / 'o+ha* )(/)a+/* o4r. &ts power was merely to provide the localgovernment units technical assistance in the preparation of localdevelopment plans. Any semblance of legislative power it had wasconfined to a Greview IofJ legislation proposed by the local legislativeassemblies to ensure consistency among local governments and with thecomprehensive development plan of Metro Manila,G and to Gadvise thelocal governments accordingly.G :/

    hen #.A. No. 9/1: took effect, Metropolitan Manila became a Gspecialdevelopment and administrative regionG and the MMDA a Gspecialdevelopment authorityG whose functions were Gwithout pre>udice to the

    autonomy of the affected local government units.G 4he character of theMMDA was clearly defined in the legislative debates enacting its charter.

    #.A. No. 9/1: originated as Couse Bill No. :9-

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    10/78

    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0

    )learly, the MMDA is not a political unit of government. 4he powerdelegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila )ouncil topromulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation ofthe MMDAs functions. 4here is no grant of authority to enact ordinancesand regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of themetropolis. 4his was e!plicitly stated in the last )ommittee deliberationsprior to the bills presentation to )ongress. 4hus5

    4C7 )CAMAN5 Eeah, but we have to go over the suggested revision. &think this was already approved before, but it was reconsidered in view ofthe proposals, set$up, to make the MMDA stronger. +kay, so if there is noob>ection to paragraph GfG. . . And then ne!t is paragraph Gb,G under*ection 3. GI+ ha)) aro* -+ro"4/ )a', ro(ra- a'ro?c+ a' / or/'a'c or ro)+/o' - 'car +h MMDA +o carr o+ +h ro o +h/ Ac+ .G Do o ha*+h o4rF Do +h MMDA... ca +ha+ +a +h or- o a

    )oca) (o*r'-'+ '/+, a o)/+/ca) /*//o'.

    C+N. I=elicianoJ B78M+N475 Ees, & believe so, your Conor. hen wesay that it has the policies, its very clear that those policies must befollowed. +therwise, whats the use of empowering it to come out withpolicies. Now, the policies may be in the form of a resolution or it may bein the form of a ordinance. 4he term GordinanceG in this case really gives itmore teeth, your honor. +therwise, we are going to see a situation whereyou have the power to adopt the policy but you cannot really make it stickas in the case now, and & think here is )hairman Bunye. & think he willagree that that is the case now. Eouve got the power to set a policy, thebody wants to follow your policy, then we say lets call it an ordinance and

    see if they will not follow it.

    4C7 )CAMAN5 4hats very nice. & like that. Cowever, there is aconstitutional impediment.14h/1Eou are making this MMDA a politicalsubdivision. 4he creation of the MMDA would be sub>ect to a plebiscite.4hat is what &m trying to avoid. &ve been trying to avoid this kind ofpredicament. 6nder the )onstitution it states5 if it is a political subdivision,once it is created it has to be sub>ect to a plebiscite. &m trying to makethis as administrative. 4hats why we place the )hairman as a cabinetrank.

    C+N. B78M+N475 All right, Mr. )hairman, okay, what you are sayingthere is . . . . .

    4C7 )CAMAN5 &n setting up ordinances, it is a political e!ercise,Believe me.

    C+N. I7liasJ 8+"7L5 Mr. )hairman, it can be changed into issuances ofrules and regulations. 4hat would be . . . it shall also be enforced.

    C+N. B78M+N475 +kay, & will . . . .

    C+N. 8+"7L5 And you can also say that violation of such rule, youimpose a sanction. But you know, ordinance has a different legalconnotation.

    C+N. B78M+N475 All right, & defer to that opinion, your Conor.

    4C7 )CAMAN5 *o instead of ordinances, say rules and regulations.

    C+N. B78M+N475 +r resolutions. Actually, they are actually consideringresolutions now.

    4C7 )CAMAN5 #ules and resolutions.

    C+N. B78M+N475 #ules, regulations and resolutions. 01

    4he draft of C. B. No. :9-

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    11/78

    &t is thus beyond doubt that the MMDA is not a local government unit or apublic corporation endowed with legislative power. &t is not even aGspecial metropolitan political subdivisionG as contemplated in *ection ,

    Article of the )onstitution. 4he creation of a Gspecial metropolitanpolitical subdivisionG requires the approval by a ma>ority of the votes castin a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.G 03#. A. No. 9/1: wasnot submitted to the inhabitants of Metro Manila in a plebiscite. 4he

    )hairman of the MMDA is not an official elected by the people, butappointed by the "resident with the rank and privileges of a cabinetmember. &n fact, part of his function is to perform such other duties asmay be assigned to him by the "resident, 09whereas in local governmentunits, the "resident merely e!ercises supervisory authority. 4hisemphasi;es the administrative character of the MMDA.

    )learly then, the MM) under ".D. No. 1: is not the same entity as theMMDA under #.A. No. 9/1:. 6nlike the MM), the MMDA has no power toenact ordinances for the welfare of the community. &t is the localgovernment units, acting through their respective legislative councils, thatpossess legislative power and police power. &n the case at bar, the*angguniang "anlungsod of Makati )ity did not pass any ordinance orresolution ordering the opening of Neptune *treet, hence, its proposedopening by petitioner MMDA is illegal and the respondent )ourt of

    Appeals did not err in so ruling. e desist from ruling on the other issuesas they are unnecessary.

    e stress that this decision does not make light of the MMDAs nobleefforts to solve the chaotic traffic condition in Metro Manila. 7veryday,traffic >ams and traffic bottlenecks plague the metropolis. 7ven our oncesprawling boulevards and avenues are now crammed with cars while citystreets are clogged with motorists and pedestrians. 4raffic has become asocial malaise affecting our peoples productivity and the efficient deliveryof goods and services in the country. 4he MMDA was created to put someorder in the metropolitan transportation system but unfortunately thepowers granted by its charter are limited. &ts good intentions cannot >ustifythe opening for public use of a private street in a private subdivisionwithout any legal warrant. 4he promotion of the general welfare is notantithetical to the preservation of the rule of law.14h/1.'+

    &N %&7 C7#7+=, the petition is denied. 4he Decision and #esolutionof the )ourt of Appeals in )A$@.#. *" No. /0:/ are affirmed.

    *+ +#D7#7D.

    G.R. No. 93252 A(+ 5, 1991

    RODOLBO T. GANON, petitioner,

    vs.

    THE HONORA!LE $OURT OB APPEAL# a' LUI# T. #ANTO#,respondents.

    G.R. No. 937

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    12/78

    THE HONORA!LE $OURT OB APPEAL# a' LUI# T. #ANTO#, /' h/caac/+ a +h #cr+ar o +h Dar+-'+ o Loca)Go*r'-'+, respondents.

    N/co)a P. #o'a)a' or +/+/o'r /' 93252.

    Ro-o A. Groch/ or +/+/o'r /' 937

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    13/78

    was issued, 7rbite was arrested and detained at the )ity 2ail of &loilo )ityupon orders of petitioner. &n >ail, he was allegedly mauled by otherdetainees thereby causing in>uries Ce was released only the followingday. 3

    4he Mayor thereafter answered unction in the #egional 4rial )ourt,Branch of &loilo )ity. 4he second preventive suspension was notenforced. 5

    Amidst the two successive suspensions, Mayor @an;on instituted anaction for prohibition against the respondent *ecretary of 8ocal@overnment 'now, &nterior( in the #egional 4rial )ourt, &loilo )ity, wherehe succeeded in obtaining a writ of preliminary in>unction. "resently, heinstituted )A$@.#. *" No. 3:9, an action for prohibition, in therespondent )ourt of Appeals.

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    14/78

    Meanwhile, on May , //-, the respondent *ecretary issued anotherorder, preventively suspending Mayor @an;on for another si!ty days, thethird time in twenty months, and designating meantime %ice$MayorMansueto Malabor as acting mayor. 6ndaunted, Mayor @an;oncommenced )A$@.#. *" No. 1-93 of the )ourt of Appeals, a petition forprohibition, 6'Malabor it is to be noted, is one of the complainants, andhence, he is interested in seeing Mayor @an;on ousted.(

    +n *eptember 9, //, the )ourt of Appeals rendered >udgment,dismissing )A$@.#. *" No. 3:9. +n 2uly 0, //-, it likewisepromulgated a decision, dismissing )A$@.#. *" No. 1-93. &n a#esolution dated 2anuary 1:, //-, it issued a #esolution certifying thepetition of Mary Ann Artieda, who had been similary charged by therespondent *ecretary, to this )ourt.

    +n 2une 13,//-, we issued a 4emporary #estraining +rder, barring therespondent *ecretary from implementing the suspension orders, andrestraining the enforcement of the )ourt of Appeals two decisions.

    &n our #esolution of November 1/, //-, we consolidated all three cases.&n our #esolutions of 2anuary 0, //, we gave due course thereto.

    Mayor @an;on claims as a preliminary '@# No. /101(, that theDepartment of 8ocal @overnment in hearing the ten cases against him,had denied him due process of law and that the respondent *ecretaryhad been Gbiased, pre>udicial and hostileG towards him 7arising from his'Mayor @an;ons( alleged refusal to >oin the 8aban ng Demokratikong"ilipino party Jand the running political rivalry they maintained in the lastcongressional and local elections 9and his alleged refusal to operate alottery in &loilo )ity. 10Ce also alleges that he requested the *ecretary to

    lift his suspension since it had come ninety days prior to an election 'thebarangay elections of November :, /(, 11notwithstanding which, thelatter proceeded with the hearing and meted out two more suspensionorders of the aforementioned cases. 12 Ce likewise contends that hesought to bring the cases to &loilo )ity 'they were held in Manila( in orderto reduce the costs of proceeding, but the *ecretary re>ected his request.13Ce states that he asked for postponement on Gvalid and >ustifiableG 1oin the administrationparty and to operate a lottery in &loilo )ity. Again, although the *ecretary

    failed to rebut his allegations, we can not accept them, at face value,much more, as >udicial admissions as he would have us accept them 1J

    for the same reasons above$stated and furthermore, because his say soswere never corroborated by independent testimonies. As a responsiblepublic official, *ecretary *antos, in pursuing an official function, ispresumed to be performing his duties regularly and in the absence ofcontrary evidence, no ill motive can be ascribed to him.

    As to Mayor @an;ons contention that he had requested the respondent*ecretary to defer the hearing on account of the ninety$day banprescribed by *ection 31 of Batas Blg. 9, the )ourt finds the questionto be moot and academic since we have in fact restrained the *ecretary

    from further hearing the complaints against the petitioners.19

    As to his request, finally, for postponements, the )ourt is afraid that hehas not given any compelling reason why we should overturn the )ourt of

    Appeals, which found no convincing reason to overrule *ecretary *antosin denying his requests. Besides, postponements are a matter ofdiscretion on the part of the hearing officer, and based on Mayor@an;ons above story, we are not convinced that the *ecretary has beenguilty of a grave abuse of discretion.

    4he )ourt can not say, under these circumstances, that *ecretary *antosactuations deprived Mayor @an;on of due process of law.

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    15/78

    e come to the core question5 hether or not the *ecretary of 8ocal@overnment, as the "residents alter ego, can suspend andudice to the continuation of theproceedings against him until its termination. Cowever if the delay in theproceedings of the case is due to his fault, neglect or request, the time ofthe delay shall not be counted in computing the time of suspension. 25

    4he issue, as the )ourt understands it, consists of three questions5 '(

    Did the /9 )onstitution, in deleting the phrase Gas may be provided bylawG intend to divest the "resident of the power to investigate, suspend,discipline, and

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    16/78

    autonomy from congress and to break )ongress GcontrolG over localgovernment affairs. 4he )onstitution did not, however, intend, for thesake of local autonomy, to deprive the legislature of all authority overmunicipal corporations, in particular, concerning discipline.

    Autonomy does not, after all, contemplate making mini$states out of localgovernment units, as in the federal governments of the 6nited *tates of

    America 'or Bra;il or @ermany(, although 2efferson is said to havecompared municipal corporations euphemistically to Gsmall republics.G 26

    Autonomy, in the constitutional sense, is sub>ect to the guiding star,though not control, of the legislature, albeit the legislative responsibilityunder the )onstitution and as the Gsupervision clauseG itself suggest$is towean local government units from over$dependence on the centralgovernment.

    &t is noteworthy that under the )harter, Glocal autonomyG is not instantlyself$e!ecuting, but sub>ect to, among other things, the passage of a localgovernment code, 27a local ta! law, 2Jincome distribution legislation, 29

    and a national representation law,

    30

    and measures

    31

    designed to reali;eautonomy at the local level. &t is also noteworthy that in spite of autonomy,the )onstitution places the local government under the generalsupervision of the 7!ecutive. &t is noteworthy finally, that the )harterallows )ongress to include in the local government code provisions forremoval of local officials, which suggest that )ongress may e!erciseremoval powers, and as the e!isting 8ocal @overnment )ode has done,delegate its e!ercise to the "resident. 4hus5

    *ec. . 4he )ongress shall enact a local government code which shallprovide for a more responsive and accountable local governmentstructure instituted through a system of decentrali;ation with effective

    mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among thedifferent local government units their powers, responsibilities andresources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment andremoval, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials,and all other matters relating to the organi;ation and operation of the localunits. 32

    As hereinabove indicated, the deletion of Gas may be provided by lawGwas meant to stress, /)'c/o, the ob>ective of the framers tostrengthen local autonomy by severing congressional control of its affairs,as observed by the )ourt of Appeals, like the power of local legislation. 33

    4he )onstitution did nothing more, however, and insofar as e!isting

    legislation authori;es the "resident 'through the *ecretary of 8ocal@overnment( to proceed against local officials administratively, the)onstitution contains no prohibition.

    4he petitioners are under the impression that the )onstitution has left the"resident mere supervisory powers, which supposedly e!cludes thepower of investigation, and denied her control, which allegedly embracesdisciplinary authority. &t is a mistaken impression because legally,GsupervisionG is not incompatible with disciplinary authority as this )ourthas held, 3

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    17/78

    GalteringG. 4he impression is apparently e!acerbated by the )ourtspronouncements in at least three cases, Laco' *. Ro@, 39Hro' *.R,

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    18/78

    government units, or otherwise, to user in a regime of federalism. 4he)harter has not taken such a radical step. 8ocal governments, under the)onstitution, are sub>ect to regulation, however limited, and for no otherpurpose than precisely, albeit parado!ically, to enhance self$ government.

    As we observed in one case, 5

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    19/78

    cases, the accused 'the respondent( en>oys a presumption of innocenceunless and until found guilty.

    *uspension finally is temporary and as the 8ocal @overnment )odeprovides, it may be imposed for no more than si!ty days. As we held, 63alonger suspension is un>ust and unreasonable, and we might add, nothingless than tyranny.

    As we observed earlier, imposing 3-- days of suspension which is not aremote possibility Mayor @an;on is to all intents and purposes, to makehim spend the rest of his term in inactivity. &t is also to make, to all intentsand purposes, his suspension permanent.

    &t is also, in fact, to mete out punishment in spite of the fact that theMayors guilt has not been proven. orse, any absolution will be fornaught because needless to say, the length of his suspension wouldhave, by the time he is reinstated, wiped out his tenure considerably.

    4he )ourt is not to be mistaken for obstructing the efforts of therespondent *ecretary to see that >ustice is done in &loilo )ity, yet it ishardly any argument to inflict on Mayor @an;on successive suspensionswhen apparently, the respondent *ecretary has had sufficient time togather the necessary evidence to build a case against the Mayor withoutsuspending him a day longer. hat is intriguing is that the respondent*ecretary has been cracking down, so to speak, on the Mayor piecemealapparently, to pin him down ten times the pain, when he, the respondent*ecretary, could have pursued a consolidated effort.

    e reiterate that we are not precluding the "resident, through the*ecretary of &nterior from e!ercising a legal power, yet we are of the

    opinion that the *ecretary of &nterior is e!ercising that power oppressively,and needless to say, with a grave abuse of discretion.

    4he )ourt is aware that only the third suspension is under questions, andthat any talk of future suspensions is in fact premature. 4he fact remains,however, that Mayor @an;on has been made to serve a total of 1- daysof suspension and the possibility of si!ty days more is arguably aroundthe corner 'which amounts to a violation of the 8ocal @overnment )odewhich brings to light a pattern of suspensions intended to suspend theMayor the rest of his natural tenure. 4he )ourt is simply foreclosing whatappears to us as a concerted effort of the *tate to perpetuate an arbitraryact.

    As we said, we can not tolerate such a state of affairs.

    e are therefore allowing Mayor #odolfo @an;on to suffer the duration ofhis third suspension and lifting, for the purpose, the 4emporary#estraining +rder earlier issued. &nsofar as the seven remaining chargesare concerned, we are urging the Department of 8ocal @overnment, uponthe finality of this Decision, to undertake steps to e!pedite the same,sub>ect to Mayor @an;ons usual remedies of appeal, >udicial oradministrative, or certiorari, if warranted, and meanwhile, we areprecluding the *ecretary from meting out further suspensions based onthose remaining complaints, notwithstanding findings of r/-a ac/evidence.

    &n resume the )ourt is laying down the following rules5

    . 8ocal autonomy, under the )onstitution, involves a meredecentrali;ation of administration, not of power, in which local officialsremain accountable to the central government in the manner the law may

    provide

    1. 4he new )onstitution does not prescribe federalism

    . 4he change in constitutional language 'with respect to the supervisionclause( was meant but to deny legislative control over local governmentsit did not e!empt the latter from legislative regulations provided regulationis consistent with the fundamental premise of autonomy

    :. *ince local governments remain accountable to the national authority,the latter may, by law, and in the manner set forth therein, imposedisciplinary action against local officials

    0. G*upervisionG and GinvestigationG are not inconsistent termsGinvestigationG does not signify GcontrolG 'which the "resident does nothave(

    3. 4he petitioner, Mayor #odolfo @an;on. may serve the suspension sofar ordered, but may no longer be suspended for the offenses he wascharged originally provided5

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    20/78

    a( that delays in the investigation of those charges Gdue to his fault,neglect or request, 'the time of the delay( shall not be counted incomputing the time of suspension. I#ra, sec. 3'(J

    b( that if during, or after the e!piration of, his preventive suspension, thepetitioner commits another or other crimes and abuses for which propercharges are filed against him by the aggrieved party or parties, hisprevious suspension shall not be a bar to his being preventivelysuspended again, if warranted under subpar. '1(, *ection 3 of the 8ocal@overnment )ode.

    C7#7=+#7, premises considered, the petitions are D&*M&**7D. 4he4emporary #estraining +rder issued is 8&=47D. 4he suspensions of thepetitioners are A==M7D, provided that the petitioner, Mayor #odolfo@an;on, may not be made to serve future suspensions on account of anyof the remaining administrative charges pending against him for actscommitted prior to August , /. 4he *ecretary of &nterior is+#D7#7D to consolidate all such administrative cases pending againstMayor @an;on.

    4he si!ty$day suspension against the petitioner, Mary Ann #ivera Artieda,is A==M7D. No costs.

    *+ +#D7#7D.

    G.R. No. 91023 %) 13, 1990

    METROPOLITAN TRABBI$ $OMMAND E#T TRABBI$ DI#TRI$T,petitioner,

    vs.

    HON. AR#ENIO M. GONONG, /' h/ caac/+ a Pr//'( %( o+h R(/o'a) Tr/a) $or+, !ra'ch J a+ Ma'/)a, a' DANTE #.DAVID, respondents.

    Da'+ #. Da*/ or a' /' h/ o4' ha) a r/*a+ ro''+.

    $RU, %.&

    e deal here with a practice known to many motorists in Metro Manila5the removal of the license plates of illegally parked vehicles. 4his waschallenged by the private respondent in the regional trial court of Manila,

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    21/78

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    22/78

    Manila and 8+& : that is the general law because it was intended tooperate throughout the country. As for his allegation that the challengedpractice is a source of graft, he maintains that it was not improper todiscuss it in his memorandum because it was pertinent to the centralissue under consideration. =inally, he claims that removal andconfiscation of the license plate without notice and hearing violates dueprocess because such license plate is a form of property protected by the

    Bill of #ights against unlawful deprivation.

    &n its reply, the petitioner faults the private respondent for belatedly raisingthe constitutionality of 8+& :, suggesting faintly that this should not bepermitted. &n any case, it maintains, the license plate is not property in theconstitutional sense, being merely the identification of the vehicle, and itsGtemporary confiscationG does not deprive the owner of the use of thevehicle itself. Cence, there is no unlawful taking under the due processclause. 4he petitioner also takes issue with the contention that it is "D3-0 that should be considered the special law because of its limitedterritorial application. #epeal of 8+& : on that ground would run counterto the legislative intention as it is in fact in Metro Manila that the problem

    of illegal parking is most acute.

    8+& :, entitled Measures to 7ffect a )ontinuing =low of 4ransportationon *treets and Cighways, was issued on November 1, /91, with thefollowing pertinent provisions5

    Motor vehicles that stall on the streets and highways, streets andsidewalks, shall immediately be removed by their owners

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    23/78

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    24/78

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    25/78

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    26/78

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    27/78

    +%7#*&@C4 )+MM&4477 +N D7%+864&+N 4+ *74 A*&D7 47N4E"7#)7N4 '1-O( += 4C7 8+)A8 @+%7#NM7N4 *7#%&)77K6A8&LA4&+N =6ND '8@*7=( =+# 8+)A8 A==MA4&%7 A)4&+N"#+27)4* AND +4C7# "#&+#&4E &N&4&A4&%7* =+# 8@6s&N*4&464&+NA8 AND )A"AB&8&4E B6&8D&N@ &N A))+#DAN)7 &4C4C7 &M"87M7N4&N@ @6&D78&N7* AND M7)CAN&)* A*"#+M68@A47D BE 4C7 )+MM&4477.

    4hese +)D resolutions were approved by then "resident 7strada on+ctober 3, ///.

    6nder the allocation scheme adopted pursuant to #esolution No. +)D$//$--0, the five billion pesos 8@*7= was to be allocated as follows5

    . 4he "h": Billion of the 8@*7= shall be allocated in accordance withthe allocation scheme and implementing guidelines and mechanicspromulgated and adopted by the +)D. 4o wit5

    a. 4he first "h"1 Billion of the 8@*7= shall be allocated in accordancewith the codal formula sharing scheme as prescribed under the //8ocal @overnment )ode

    b. 4he second "h"1 Billion of the 8@*7= shall be allocated inaccordance with a modified //1 cost of devolution fund ')+D7=(sharing scheme, as recommended by the respective leagues ofprovinces, cities and municipalities to the +)D. 4he modified )+D7=sharing formula is as follows5

    "rovince 5 :-O

    )ities 5 1-O

    Municipalities 5 :-O

    4his is applied to the "1 Billion after the approved amounts granted toindividual provinces, cities and municipalities as assistance to coverdecrease in /// A share due to reduction in land area have beentaken out.

    1. 4he remaining "h" Billion of the 8@*7= shall be earmarked tosupport local affirmative action pro>ects and other priority initiatives

    submitted by 8@6s to the +versight )ommittee on Devolution forapproval in accordance with its prescribed guidelines as promulgated andadopted by the +)D.

    &n #esolution No. +)D$//$--, the +versight )ommittee set aside theone billion pesos or 1-O of the 8@*7= to support 8ocal Affirmative Action"ro>ects '8AA"s( of 8@6s. 4his remaining amount was intended to

    Grespond to the urgent need for additional funds assistance, otherwise notavailable within the parameters of other e!isting fund sources.G =or 8@6sto be eligible for funding under the one$billion$peso portion of the 8@*7=,the +)D promulgated the following5

    &&&. )#&47#&A =+# 78&@&B&8&4E5

    . 8@6s 'province, city, municipality, or barangay(, individually or bygroup or multi$8@6s or leagues of 8@6s, especially those belonging tothe 0th and 3th class, may access the fund to support any pro>ects oractivities that satisfy any of the aforecited purposes. A barangay may also

    access this fund directly or through their respective municipality or city.

    1. 4he proposed pro>ectects arising from, but notlimited to, the following areas of concern5

    a. delivery of local health and sanitation services, hospital services and

    other tertiary services

    b. delivery of social welfare services

    c. provision of socio$cultural services and facilities for youth andcommunity development

    d. provision of agricultural and on$site related research

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    28/78

    e. improvement of community$based forestry pro>ects and other localpro>ects on environment and natural resources protection andconservation

    f. improvement of tourism facilities and promotion of tourism

    g. peace and order and public safety

    h. construction, repair and maintenance of public works andinfrastructure, including public buildings and facilities for public use,especially those destroyed or damaged by man$made or naturalcalamities and disaster as well as facilities for water supply, flood controland river dikes

    i. provision of local electrification facilities

    >. livelihood and food production services, facilities and equipment

    k. other pro>ects that may be authori;ed by the +)D consistent with theaforementioned ob>ectives and guidelines

    :. 7!cept on e!tremely meritorious cases, as may be determined by the+versight )ommittee on Devolution, this portion of the 8@*7= shall notbe used in e!penditures for personal costs or benefits under e!isting lawsapplicable to governments. @enerally, this fund shall cover the followingob>ects of e!penditures for programs, pro>ects and activities arising fromthe implementation of devolved and regular functions and services5

    a. acquisitionects and activities

    b. repair andectsamong groups of municipalities, cities andect #equest'"#(, using +)D "ro>ect #equest =orm No. //$-1, that details thefollowing5

    'a( general description or brief of the pro>ect

    'b( ob>ectives and >ustifications for undertaking the pro>ect, which should

    highlight the benefits to the locality and the e!pected impact to the localprogramect arising from the full and efficient implementation of socialservices and facilities, at the local levels

    'c( target outputs or key result areas

    'd( schedule of activities and details of requirements

    'e( total cost requirement of the pro>ect

    'f( proponents counterpart funding share, if any, and identified source's(of counterpart funds for the full implementation of the pro>ect

    'g( requested amount of pro>ect cost to be covered by the 8@*7=.

    =urther, under the guidelines formulated by the +versight )ommittee ascontained in Attachment $ #esolution No. +)D$//$--, the 8@6s wererequired to identify the pro>ects eligible for funding under the one$billion$peso portion of the 8@*7= and submit the pro>ect proposals thereof andother documentary requirements to the D&8@ for appraisal. 4he pro>ectproposals that passed the D&8@s appraisal would then be submitted tothe +versight )ommittee for review, evaluation and approval. 6pon itsapproval, the +versight )ommittee would then serve notice to the DBM

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    29/78

    for the preparation of the *pecial Allotment #elease +rder '*A#+( andNotice of )ash Allocation 'N)A( to effect the release of funds to the said8@6s.

    4he 8@*7= in the @AA of 1---

    6nder #ep. Act No. 93-, otherwise known as the @AA of 1---, theamount of ",99,---,--- was allotted as the share of the 8@6s in theinternal revenue ta!es. As in the @AA of ///, the @AA of 1--- containeda proviso earmarking five billion pesos of the A for the 8@*7=. 4hisproviso, found in &tem No. , *pecial "rovisions, 4itle %&& A. &nternal#evenue Allotment, was similarly worded as that contained in the @AA of///.

    4he +versight )ommittee, in its #esolution No. +)D$1---$-1 dated2une 11, 1---, adopted the following allocation scheme governing thefive billion pesos 8@*7= for 1---5

    . 4he "h".0 Billion of the )E 1--- 8@*7= shall be allocated to andshared by the four levels of 8@6s, i.e., provinces, cities, municipalities,and barangays, using the following percentage$sharing formula agreedupon and >ointly endorsed by the various 8eagues of 8@6s5

    =or "rovinces 13O or " /-,---,---

    =or )ities 1O or -0,---,---

    =or Municipalities 0O or ,110,---,---

    =or Barangays 3O or 03-,---,---

    "rovided that the respective 8eagues representing the provinces, cities,municipalities and barangays shall draw up and adopt the hori;ontaldistributionect$based arrangement, such that the 8@*7= allocation for individual8@6 shall be released directly to the 8@6 concerned

    "rovided further that the individual 8@*7= shares to 8@6s are used inaccordance with the general purposes and guidelines promulgated by the+)D for the implementation of the 8@*7= at the local levels pursuant to

    #es. No. +)D$//$--3 dated +ctober 9, /// and pursuant to the8eagues guidelines and mechanism as approved by the +)D

    "rovided further that each of the 8eagues shall submit to the +)D for itsapproval their respective allocation scheme, the list of 8@6s with thecorresponding 8@*7= shares and the corresponding pro>ect categories ifpro>ect$based

    "rovided further that upon approval by the +)D, the lists of 8@6s shallbe endorsed to the DBM as the basis for the preparation of thecorresponding N)As, *A#+s, and related budget

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    30/78

    of the 8@6s therein and the proviso earmarking five billion pesos thereoffor the 8@*7=.

    +n 2anuary /, 1--1, the +versight )ommittee adopted #esolution No.+)D$1--1$-- allocating the five billion pesos 8@*7= for 1-- asfollows5

    Modif ied )odal =ormula " .--- bil lion

    "riority "ro>ects ./-- billion

    )apabili ty Building =und .-- bi ll ion

    " 0.--- billion

    #7*+8%7D =6#4C7#, that the ".- B of the )E 1-- 8@*7= which isto be allocated according to the modified codal formula shall be released

    to the four levels of 8@6s, i.e., provinces, cities, municipalities andbarangays, as follows5

    LGU Prc'+a( A-o'+

    "rovinces 10 " -.90- billion

    )ities 10 -.90-

    Municipalities 0 .-0-

    Barangays 0 -.:0-

    -- " .--- billion

    #7*+8%7D =6#4C7#, that the "./ B earmarked for priority pro>ectsshall be distributed according to the following criteria5

    .- =or pro>ects of the :th, 0th and 3th class 8@6s or

    1.- "ro>ects in consonance with the "residents *tate of the NationAddress '*+NA(

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    31/78

    8@6s share in the national ta!es Gshall be automatically released tothem.G 4he petitioner maintains that the use of the word GshallG must begiven a compulsory meaning.

    4o further buttress this argument, the petitioner contends that to vest the+versight )ommittee with the authority to determine the distribution andrelease of the 8@*7=, which is a part of the A of the 8@6s, is an

    anathema to the principle of local autonomy as embodied in the)onstitution and the 8ocal @overnment )ode of //. 4he petitioner citesas an e!ample the e!perience in 1-- when the release of the 8@*7=was long delayed because the +versight )ommittee was not able toconvene that year and no guidelines were issued therefor. =urther, thepossible disapproval by the +versight )ommittee of the pro>ect proposalsof the 8@6s would result in the diminution of the latters share in the A.

    Another infringement alleged to be occasioned by the assailed +)Dresolutions is the improper amendment to *ection 10 of the 8ocal@overnment )ode of // on the percentage sharing of the A amongthe 8@6s. *aid provision allocates the A as follows5 "rovinces 1O

    )ities 1O Municipalities :O and Barangays 1-O. 4his formulahas been improperly amended or modified, with respect to the five$billion$peso portion of the A allotted for the 8@*7=, by the assailed +)Dresolutions as they invariably provided for a different sharing scheme.

    4he modifications allegedly constitute an illegal amendment by thee!ecutive branch of a substantive law. Moreover, the petitioner mentionsthat in the 8etter dated December 0, 1-- of respondent 7!ecutive*ecretary #omulo addressed to respondent *ecretary Boncodin, theformer endorsed to the latter the release of funds to certain 8@6s fromthe 8@*7= in accordance with the handwritten instructions of "resident

    Arroyo. 4hus, the 8@6s are at a loss as to how a portion of the 8@*7= isactually allocated. =urther, there are still portions of the 8@*7= that, todate, have not been received by the petitioner hence, resulting indamage and in>ury to the petitioner.

    4he petitioner prays that the )ourt declare as unconstitutional and voidthe assailed provisos relating to the 8@*7= in the @AAs of ///, 1---and 1-- and the assailed +)D resolutions '#esolutions Nos. +)D$//$--, +)D$//$--0, +)D$//$--3, +)D$1---$-1, +)D$1--$-1/ and+)D$1--1$--( issued by the +versight )ommittee pursuant thereto.4he petitioner, likewise, prays that the )ourt direct the respondents torectify the unlawful and illegal distribution and releases of the 8@*7= for

    the aforementioned years and release the same in accordance with thesharing formula under *ection 10 of the 8ocal @overnment )ode of//. =inally, the petitioner urges the )ourt to declare that the entire Ashould be released automatically without further action by the 8@6s asrequired by the )onstitution and the 8ocal @overnment )ode of //.

    4he #espondents Arguments

    4he respondents, through the +ffice of the *olicitor @eneral, urge the)ourt to dismiss the petition on procedural and substantive grounds. +nthe latter, the respondents contend that the assailed provisos in the @AAsof ///, 1--- and 1-- and the assailed resolutions issued by the+versight )ommittee are not constitutionally infirm. 4he respondentsadvance the view that *ection 3, Article of the )onstitution does notspecify that the G>ust shareG of the 8@6s shall be determined solely by the8ocal @overnment )ode of //. Moreover, the phrase Gas determinedby lawG in the same constitutional provision means that there e!ists nolimitation on the power of )ongress to determine what is the G>ust shareGof the 8@6s in the national ta!es. &n other words, )ongress is the arbiter

    of what should be the G>ust shareG of the 8@6s in the national ta!es.

    4he respondents further theori;e that *ection 10 of the 8ocal@overnment )ode of //, which provides for the percentage sharing ofthe A among the 8@6s, was not intended to be a fi!ed determination oftheir G>ust shareG in the national ta!es. )ongress may enact other laws,including appropriations laws such as the @AAs of ///, 1--- and 1--,providing for a different sharing formula. *ection 10 of the 8ocal@overnment )ode of // was merely intended to be the Gdefault shareGof the 8@6s to do away with the need to determine annually by law theirG>ust share.G Cowever, the 8@6s have no vested right in a permanent orfi!ed percentage as )ongress may increase or decrease the G>ust shareGof the 8@6s in accordance with what it believes is appropriate for theiroperation. 4here is nothing in the )onstitution which prohibits )ongressfrom making such determination through the appropriations laws. &f theprovisions of a particular statute, the @AA in this case, are within theconstitutional power of the legislature to enact, they should be sustainedwhether the courts agree or not in the wisdom of their enactment.

    +n procedural grounds, the respondents urge the )ourt to dismiss thepetition outright as the same is defective. 4he petition allegedly raisesfactual issues which should be properly threshed out in the lower courts,not this )ourt, not being a trier of facts. *pecifically, the petitioners

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    32/78

    allegation that there are portions of the 8@*7= that it has not, to date,received, thereby causing it 'the petitioner( in>ury and damage, is sub>ectto proof and must be substantiated in the proper venue, i.e., the lowercourts.

    =urther, according to the respondents, the petition has already beenrendered moot and academic as it no longer presents a >usticiable

    controversy. 4he As for the years ///, 1--- and 1--, have alreadybeen released and the government is now operating under the 1--budget. &n support of this, the respondents submitted certifications issuedby officers of the DBM attesting to the release of the allocation or sharesof the petitioner in the 8@*7= for ///, 1--- and 1--. 4here is,therefore, nothing more to prohibit.

    =inally, the petitioner allegedly has no legal standing to bring the suitbecause it has not suffered any in>ury. &n fact, the petitioners G>ust shareGhas even increased. "ursuant to *ection 10 of the 8ocal @overnment)ode of //, the share of the provinces is 1O. +)D Nos. //$--0, //$--3 and //$-- gave the provinces :-O of "1 billion of the 8@*7=. +)D

    Nos. 1---$-1 and 1--$-1/ apportioned 13O of ".0 billion to theprovinces. +n the other hand, +)D No. 1--$-- allocated 10O of "billion to the provinces. 4hus, the petitioner has not suffered any in>ury inthe implementation of the assailed provisos in the @AAs of ///, 1---and 1-- and the +)D resolutions.

    4he #uling of the )ourt "rocedural &ssues

    Before resolving the petition on its merits, the )ourt shall first rule on thefollowing procedural issues raised by the respondents5 '( whether thepetitioner has legal standing or locus standi to file the present suit '1(

    whether the petition involves factual questions that are properlycogni;able by the lower courts and '( whether the issue had beenrendered moot and academic.

    4he petitioner has locus standi to maintain the present suit

    4he gist of the question of standing is whether a party has Galleged sucha personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure thatconcrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues uponwhich the court so largely depends for illumination of difficultconstitutional questions.G/Accordingly, it has been held that the interest ofa party assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and

    personal. *uch party must be able to show, not only that the law or anygovernment act is invalid, but also that he has sustained or is in imminentdanger of sustaining some direct in>ury as a result of its enforcement, andnot merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. &t must appearthat the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some rightor privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to besub>ected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act

    complained of.-

    4he )ourt holds that the petitioner possesses the requisite standing tomaintain the present suit. 4he petitioner, a local government unit, seeksrelief in order to protect or vindicate an interest of its own, and of the other8@6s. 4his interest pertains to the 8@6s share in the national ta!es orthe A. 4he petitioners constitutional claim is, in substance, that theassailed provisos in the @AAs of ///, 1--- and 1--, and the +)Dresolutions contravene *ection 3, Article of the )onstitution, mandatingthe Gautomatic releaseG to the 8@6s of their share in the national ta!es.=urther, the in>ury that the petitioner claims to suffer is the diminution of itsshare in the A, as provided under *ection 10 of the 8ocal @overnment

    )ode of //, occasioned by the implementation of the assailedmeasures. 4hese allegations are sufficient to grant the petitioner standingto question the validity of the assailed provisos in the @AAs of ///, 1---and 1--, and the +)D resolutions as the petitioner clearly has Ga plain,direct and adequate interestG in the manner and distribution of the Aamong the 8@6s.

    4he petition involves a significant legal issue

    4he cru! of the instant controversy is whether the assailed provisoscontained in the @AAs of ///, 1--- and 1--, and the +)D resolutionsinfringe the )onstitution and the 8ocal @overnment )ode of //. 4his isundoubtedly a legal question. +n the other hand, the following facts arenot disputed5

    . 4he earmarking of five billion pesos of the A for the 8@*7= in theassailed provisos in the @AAs of ///, 1--- and re$enacted budget for1--

    1. 4he promulgation of the assailed +)D resolutions providing for theallocation schemes covering the said five billion pesos and theimplementing rules and regulations therefor and

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    33/78

    . 4he release of the 8@*7= to the 8@6s only upon their compliance withthe implementing rules and regulations, including the guidelines andmechanisms, prescribed by the +versight )ommittee.

    )onsidering that these facts, which are necessary to resolve the legalquestion now before this )ourt, are no longer in issue, the same need notbe determined by a trial court. &n any case, the rule on hierarchy of

    courts will not prevent this )ourt from assuming >urisdiction over thepetition. 4he said rule may be rela!ed when the redress desired cannotbe obtained in the appropriate courts or where e!ceptional andcompelling circumstances >ustify availment of a remedy within and callingfor the e!ercise of this )ourts primary >urisdiction.1

    4he crucial legal issue submitted for resolution of this )ourt entails theproper legal interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions.Moreover, the Gtranscendental importanceG of the case, as it necessarilyinvolves the application of the constitutional principle on local autonomy,cannot be gainsaid. 4he nature of the present controversy, therefore,warrants the rela!ation by this )ourt of procedural rules in order to

    resolve the case forthwith.

    4he substantive issue needs to be resolved notwithstanding thesupervening events

    @ranting arguendo that, as contended by the respondents, the resolutionof the case had already been overtaken by supervening events as theA, including the 8@*7=, for ///, 1--- and 1--, had already beenreleased and the government is now operating under a newappropriations law, still, there is compelling reason for this )ourt toresolve the substantive issue raised by the instant petition. *upervening

    events, whether intended or accidental, cannot prevent the )ourt fromrendering a decision if there is a grave violation of the )onstitution.

    7ven in cases where supervening events had made the cases moot, the)ourt did not hesitate to resolve the legal or constitutional issues raised toformulate controlling principles to guide the bench, bar and public.:

    Another reason >ustifying the resolution by this )ourt of the substantiveissue now before it is the rule that courts will decide a question otherwisemoot and academic if it is Gcapable of repetition, yet evading review.G0

    =or the @AAs in the coming years may contain provisos similar to thosenow being sought to be invalidated, and yet, the question may not be

    decided before another @AA is enacted. &t, thus, behooves this )ourt tomake a categorical ruling on the substantive issue now.

    *ubstantive &ssue

    As earlier intimated, the resolution of the substantive legal issue in thiscase calls for the application of a most important constitutional policy andprinciple, that of local autonomy.3 &n Article && of the )onstitution, the*tate has e!pressly adopted as a policy that5

    *ection 10. 4he *tate shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.

    An entire article 'Article ( of the )onstitution has been devoted toguaranteeing and promoting the autonomy of 8@6s. *ection 1 thereofreiterates the *tate policy in this wise5

    *ection 1. 4he territorial and political subdivisions shall en>oy localautonomy.

    )onsistent with the principle of local autonomy, the )onstitution confinesthe "residents power over the 8@6s to one of general supervision.94hisprovision has been interpreted to e!clude the power of control. 4hedistinction between the two powers was enunciated in Drilon v. 8im5

    An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. &f they arenot followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re$done byhis subordinate or he may even decide to do it himself. *upervision doesnot cover such authority. 4he supervisor or superintendent merely sees toit that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules,nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them. &f the rules are

    not observed, he may order the work done or re$done but only to conformto the prescribed rules. Ce may not prescribe his own manner for doingthe act. Ce has no >udgment on this matter e!cept to see to it that therules are followed./

    4he 8ocal @overnment )ode of //1- was enacted to flesh out themandate of the )onstitution.1 4he *tate policy on local autonomy isamplified in *ection 1 thereof5

    *ec. 1. Declaration of "olicy. 'a( &t is hereby declared the policy of the*tate that the territorial and political subdivisions of the *tate shall en>oy

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    34/78

    genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain theirfullest development as self$reliant communities and make them moreeffective partners in the attainment of national goals. 4oward this end, the*tate shall provide for a more responsive and accountable localgovernment structure instituted through a system of decentrali;ationwhereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority,responsibilities, and resources. 4he process of decentrali;ation shall

    proceed from the National @overnment to the local government units.

    @uided by these precepts, the )ourt shall now determine whether theassailed provisos in the @AAs of ///, 1--- and 1--, earmarking foreach corresponding year the amount of five billion pesos of the A forthe 8@*7= and the +)D resolutions promulgated pursuant thereto,transgress the )onstitution and the 8ocal @overnment )ode of //.

    4he assailed provisos in the @AAs of ///, 1--- and 1-- and the +)Dresolutions violate the constitutional precept on local autonomy

    *ection 3, Article of the )onstitution reads5

    *ec. 3. 8ocal government units shall have a >ust share, as determined bylaw, in the national ta!es which shall be automatically released to them.

    hen parsed, it would be readily seen that this provision mandates that'( the 8@6s shall have a G>ust shareG in the national ta!es '1( the G>ustshareG shall be determined by law and '( the G>ust shareG shall beautomatically released to the 8@6s.

    4he 8ocal @overnment )ode of //, among its salient provisions,underscores the automatic release of the 8@6s G>ust shareG in this wise5

    *ec. . "ower to @enerate and Apply #esources. 8ocal governmentunits shall have the power and authority to establish an organi;ation thatshall be responsible for the efficient and effective implementation of theirdevelopment plans, program ob>ectives and priorities to create their ownsources of revenue and to levy ta!es, fees, and charges which shallaccrue e!clusively for their use and disposition and which shall beretained by them to have a >ust share in national ta!es which shall beautomatically and directly released to them without need of further action

    ...

    *ec. 13. Automatic #elease of *hares. 'a( 4he share of each localgovernment unit shall be released, without need of any further action,directly to the provincial, city, municipal or barangay treasurer, as thecase may be, on a quarterly basis within five '0( days after the end ofeach quarter, and which shall not be sub>ect to any lien or holdback thatmay be imposed by the national government for whatever purpose.

    'b( Nothing in this )hapter shall be understood to diminish the share oflocal government units under e!isting laws.

    ebsters 4hird New &nternational Dictionary defines GautomaticG asGinvoluntary either wholly or to a ma>or e!tent so that any activity of thewill is largely negligible of a refle! nature without volition mechanicallike or suggestive of an automaton.G =urther, the word GautomaticallyG isdefined as Gin an automatic manner5 without thought or consciousintention.G Being Gautomatic,G thus, connotes something mechanical,spontaneous and perfunctory. As such, the 8@6s are not required toperform any act to receive the G>ust shareG accruing to them from thenational coffers. As emphasi;ed by the 8ocal @overnment )ode of //,

    the G>ust shareG of the 8@6s shall be released to them Gwithout need offurther action.G )onstruing *ection 13 of the 8@), we held in "imentel,2r. v. Aguirre,11vi;5

    *ection : of A+ 91 cannot, however, be upheld. A basic feature of localfiscal autonomy is the automatic release of the shares of 8@6s in theNational internal revenue. 4his is mandated by no less than the)onstitution. 4he 8ocal @overnment )ode specifies further that therelease shall be made directly to the 8@6 concerned within five '0( daysafter every quarter of the year and Gshall not be sub>ect to any lien orholdback that may be imposed by the national government for whateverpurpose.G As a rule, the term G*CA88G is a word of command that must begiven a compulsory meaning. 4he provision is, therefore, &M"7#A4&%7.

    *ection : of A+ 91, however, orders the withholding, effective 2anuary, //, of - percent of the 8@6s A Gpending the assessment andevaluation by the Development Budget )oordinating )ommittee of theemerging fiscal situationG in the country. *uch withholding clearlycontravenes the )onstitution and the law. Although temporary, it isequivalent to a holdback, which means Gsomething held back or withheld,often temporarily.G Cence, the GtemporaryG nature of the retention by thenational government does not matter. Any retention is prohibited.

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    35/78

    &n sum, while *ection of A+ 91 may be upheld as an advisory effectedin times of national crisis, *ection : thereof has no color of validity at all.4he latter provision effectively encroaches on the fiscal autonomy of localgovernments. )oncededly, the "resident was well$intentioned in issuinghis +rder to withhold the 8@6s A, but the rule of law requires that eventhe best intentions must be carried out within the parameters of the)onstitution and the law. %erily, laudable purposes must be carried out by

    legal methods.1

    4he G>ust shareG of the 8@6s is incorporated as the A in theappropriations law or @AA enacted by )ongress annually. 6nder theassailed provisos in the @AAs of ///, 1--- and 1--, a portion of theA in the amount of five billion pesos was earmarked for the 8@*7=, andthese provisos imposed the condition that Gsuch amount shall be releasedto the local government units sub>ect to the implementing rules andregulations, including such mechanisms and guidelines for the equitableallocations and distribution of said fund among local government unitssub>ect to the guidelines that may be prescribed by the +versight)ommittee on Devolution.G "ursuant thereto, the +versight )ommittee,

    through the assailed +)D resolutions, apportioned the five billion pesos8@*7= such that5

    =or ///

    "1 billion $ allocated according to *ec. 10 8@)

    "1 billion $ Modified *haring =ormula '"rovinces :-O

    )ities 1-O Municipalities :-O(

    " billion pro>ects '8AA"( approved by +)D.1:

    =or 1---

    ".0 billion Modified *haring =ormula '"rovinces 13O

    )ities 1O Municipalities 0O Barangays 3O(

    ".0 billion pro>ects '8AA"( approved by the +)D.10

    =or 1--

    " billion Modified *haring =ormula '"rovinces 10O

    )ities 10O Municipalities 0O Barangays 0O(

    "./ billion priority pro>ects

    "-- million capability building fund.13

    *ignificantly, the 8@*7= could not be released to the 8@6s without the+versight )ommittees prior approval. =urther, with respect to the portionof the 8@*7= allocated for various pro>ects of the 8@6s '" billion for/// ".0 billion for 1--- and "1 billion for 1--(, the +versight)ommittee, through the assailed +)D resolutions, laid down guidelinesand mechanisms that the 8@6s had to comply with before they couldavail of funds from this portion of the 8@*7=. 4he guidelines required 'a(the 8@6s to identify the pro>ects eligible for funding based on the criteria

    laid down by the +versight )ommittee 'b( the 8@6s to submit theirpro>ect proposals to the D&8@ for appraisal 'c( the pro>ect proposals thatpassed the appraisal of the D&8@ to be submitted to the +versight)ommittee for review, evaluation and approval. &t was only upon approvalthereof that the +versight )ommittee would direct the DBM to release thefunds for the pro>ects.

    4o the )ourts mind, the entire process involving the distribution andrelease of the 8@*7= is constitutionally impermissible. 4he 8@*7= is partof the A or G>ust shareG of the 8@6s in the national ta!es. 4o sub>ect itsdistribution and release to the vagaries of the implementing rules andregulations, including the guidelines and mechanisms unilaterally

    prescribed by the +versight )ommittee from time to time, as sanctionedby the assailed provisos in the @AAs of ///, 1--- and 1-- and the+)D resolutions, makes the release not automatic, a flagrant violation ofthe constitutional and statutory mandate that the G>ust shareG of the 8@6sGshall be automatically released to them.G 4he 8@6s are, thus, placed atthe mercy of the +versight )ommittee.

    here the law, the )onstitution in this case, is clear and unambiguous, itmust be taken to mean e!actly what it says, and courts have no choicebut to see to it that the mandate is obeyed. 19 Moreover, as correctlyposited by the petitioner, the use of the word GshallG connotes a

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    36/78

    mandatory order. &ts use in a statute denotes an imperative obligation andis inconsistent with the idea of discretion.1

    &ndeed, the +versight )ommittee e!ercising discretion, even control, overthe distribution and release of a portion of the A, the 8@*7=, is ananathema to and subversive of the principle of local autonomy asembodied in the )onstitution. Moreover, it finds no statutory basis at all as

    the +versight )ommittee was created merely to formulate the rules andregulations for the efficient and effective implementation of the 8ocal@overnment )ode of // to ensure Gcompliance with the principles oflocal autonomy as defined under the )onstitution.G 1/ &n fact, its creationwas placed under the title of G4ransitory "rovisions,G signifying its ad hoccharacter. According to *enator Aquilino K. "imentel, the principal authorand sponsor of the bill that eventually became #ep. Act No. 93-, the)ommittees work was supposed to be done a year from the approval ofthe )ode, or on +ctober -, //1.-4he +versight )ommittees authorityis undoubtedly limited to the implementation of the 8ocal @overnment)ode of //, not to supplant or subvert the same. Neither can it e!ercisecontrol over the A, or even a portion thereof, of the 8@6s.

    4hat the automatic release of the A was precisely intended toguarantee and promote local autonomy can be gleaned from thediscussion below between Messrs. 2ose N. Nolledo and #egalado M.Maambong, then members of the /3 )onstitutional )ommission, to wit5

    M#. MAAMB+N@. 6nfortunately, under *ection / of the 8ocal@overnment )ode, the e!istence of subprovinces is still acknowledged bythe law, but the statement of the @entleman on this point will have to betaken up probably by the )ommittee on 8egislation. A second point, Mr."residing +fficer, is that under Article 1, *ection - of the /9)onstitution, we have a provision which states5

    4he *tate shall guarantee and promote the autonomy of local governmentunits, especially the barrio, to insure their fullest development as self$reliant communities.

    4his provision no longer appears in the present configuration does thismean that the concept of giving local autonomy to local governments isno longer adopted as far as this Article is concernedF

    M#. N+887D+. No. &n the report of the )ommittee on "reamble,National 4erritory, and Declaration of "rinciples, that concept is includedand widened upon the initiative of )ommissioner Bennagen.

    M#. MAAMB+N@. 4hank you for that.

    ith regard to *ection 3, sources of revenue, the creation of sources as

    provided by previous law was Gsub>ect to limitations as may be providedby law,G but now, we are using the term Gsub>ect to such guidelines asmay be fi!ed by law.G &n *ection 9, mention is made about the Gunique,distinct and e!clusive charges and contributions,G and in *ection , wetalk about Ge!clusivity of local ta!es and the share in the national wealth.G&ncidentally, & was one of the authors of this provision, and & am verythankful. Does this indicate local autonomy, or was the wording of the lawchanged to give more autonomy to the local government unitsF

    M#. N+887D+. Ees. &n effect, those words indicate alsoGdecentrali;ationG because local political units can collect ta!es, fees andcharges sub>ect merely to guidelines, as recommended by the league ofgovernors and city mayors, with whom & had a dialogue for almost twohours. 4hey told me that limitations may be questionable in the sense that)ongress may limit and in effect deny the right later on.

    M#. MAAMB+N@. Also, this provision on Gautomatic release of nationalta! shareG points to more local autonomy. &s this the intentionF

    M#. N+887D+. Ees, the )ommissioner is perfectly right. 1

    4he concept of local autonomy was e!plained in @an;on v. )ourt ofAppealsin this wise5

    As the )onstitution itself declares, local autonomy means a moreresponsive and accountable local government structure instituted througha system of decentrali;ation. 4he )onstitution, as we observed, doesnothing more than to break up the monopoly of the national governmentover the affairs of local governments and as put by political adherents, toGliberate the local governments from the imperialism of Manila.G

    Autonomy, however, is not meant to end the relation of partnership andinterdependence between the central administration and localgovernment units, or otherwise, to usher in a regime of federalism. 4he)harter has not taken such a radical step. 8ocal governments, under the

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    37/78

    )onstitution, are sub>ect to regulation, however limited, and for no otherpurpose than precisely, albeit parado!ically, to enhance self$government.

    As we observed in one case, decentrali;ation means devolution ofnational administration but not power to the local levels. 4hus5

    Now, autonomy is either decentrali;ation of administration or

    decentrali;ation of power. 4here is decentrali;ation of administrationwhen the central government delegates administrative powers to politicalsubdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and in theprocess to make local governments more responsive and accountableand ensure their fullest development as self$reliant communities andmake them more effective partners in the pursuit of national developmentand social progress. At the same time, it relieves the central governmentof the burden of managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate onnational concerns. 4he "resident e!ercises general supervision overthem, but only to ensure that local affairs are administered according tolaw. Ce has no control over their acts in the sense that he can substitutetheir >udgments with his own.

    Decentrali;ation of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication ofpolitical power in the IsicJ favor of local governments IsicJ units declaredto be autonomous. &n that case, the autonomous government is free tochart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention fromcentral authorities. According to a constitutional author, decentrali;ation ofpower amounts to self$immolation, since in that event, the autonomousgovernment becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to itsconstituency.:

    8ocal autonomy includes both administrative and fiscal autonomy. 4hefairly recent case of "imentel v. Aguirre 0 is particularly instructive. 4he)ourt declared therein that local fiscal autonomy includes the power ofthe 8@6s to, inter alia, allocate their resources in accordance with theirown priorities5

    6nder e!isting law, local government units, in addition to havingadministrative autonomy in the e!ercise of their functions, en>oy fiscalautonomy as well. =iscal autonomy means that local governments havethe power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to theirequitable share in the national ta!es released by the nationalgovernment, as well as the power to allocate their resources inaccordance with their own priorities. &t e!tends to the preparation of their

    budgets, and local officials in turn have to work within the constraintsthereof. 4hey are not formulated at the national level and imposed onlocal governments, whether they are relevant to local needs andresources or not ...3

    =urther, a basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the constitutionallymandated automatic release of the shares of 8@6s in the national internal

    revenue.9

    =ollowing this ratiocination, the )ourt in "imentel struck down asunconstitutional *ection : of Administrative +rder 'A.+.( No. 91 whichordered the withholding, effective 2anuary , //, of ten percent of the8@6s A Gpending the assessment and evaluation by the DevelopmentBudget )oordinating )ommittee of the emerging fiscal situation.G

    &n like manner, the assailed provisos in the @AAs of ///, 1--- and1--, and the +)D resolutions constitute a GwithholdingG of a portion ofthe A. 4hey put on hold the distribution and release of the five billionpesos 8@*7= and sub>ect the same to the implementing rules andregulations, including the guidelines and mechanisms prescribed by the+versight )ommittee from time to time. 8ike *ection : of A.+. 91, theassailed provisos in the @AAs of ///, 1--- and 1-- and the +)Dresolutions effectively encroach on the fiscal autonomy en>oyed by the8@6s and must be struck down. 4hey cannot, therefore, be upheld.

    4he assailed provisos in the @AAs of ///, 1---

    and 1-- and the +)D resolutions cannot amend

    *ection 10 of the 8ocal @overnment )ode of //

    *ection 1:of the 8ocal @overnment )ode provides that, beginning thethird year of its effectivity, the 8@6s share in the national internal revenueta!es shall be :-O. 4his percentage is fi!ed and may not be reducede!cept Gin the event the national government incurs an unmanageablepublic sector deficitG and only upon compliance with stringentrequirements set forth in the same section5

    *ec. 1:. ...

  • 8/11/2019 Pubcorp Full Text

    38/78

    "rovided, 4hat in the event that the national government incurs anunmanageable public sector deficit, the "resident of the "hilippines ishereby authori;ed, upon recommendation of *ecretary of =inance,*ecretary of &nterior and 8ocal @overnment and *ecretary of Budget andManagement, and sub>ect to consultation with the presiding officers ofboth Couses of )ongress and the presidents of the liga, to make thenecessary ad>ustments in the internal r