• No results found

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In document Political Law Cases (Page 172-176)

EVALYN I. FETALINO and AMADO M. CALDERON, MANUEL A

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

SULTAN ALIMBUSAR P. LIMBONA, v. CONTE MANGELIN, SALIC ALI, SALINDATO ALI, PILIMPINAS CONDING, ACMAD TOMAWIS, GERRY TOMAWIS, JESUS ORTIZ, ANTONIO DELA FUENTE, DIEGO PALOMARES,

JR., RAUL DAGALANGIT, and BIMBO SINSUAT G.R. No. 80391, February 28, 1989, SARMIENTO, J.

An examination of the very Presidential Decree creating the autonomous governments of Mindanao persuades us that they were never meant to exercise autonomy in the second sense, that is, in which the central government commits an act of self-immolation.

Facts:

Sultan Limbona was elected Speaker of the Regional Legislative Assembly of Central Mindanao. The Chairman of the Committee on Muslim Affairs invited Limbona to attend the dialogues regarding the issues affecting the region. Consistent with the said invitation, Limbona announced that there will be no session for that day as their presence is required by the Committee. However, the Assembly held session in defiance of Limbona's advice. After declaring the presence of a quorum, all assemblymen moved to declare the seat of Speaker Limbona vacant.

Issue:

Are the so-called autonomous governments of Mindanao, as they are now constituted, subject to the jurisdiction of the national courts? In other words, what is the extent of self-government given to the two autonomous governments of Region IX and XII?

Ruling:

An examination of the very Presidential Decree creating the autonomous governments of Mindanao persuades us that they were never meant to exercise autonomy in the second sense, that is, in which the central government commits an act of self-immolation. Presidential Decree No. 1618, in the first place, mandates that “[t]he President shall have the power of general supervision and control over Autonomous Regions.”In the second place, the Sangguniang Pampook, their legislative arm, is made to discharge chiefly administrative services.

It was also held that the November 2 and 5, 1987 sessions were invalid. It is true that under Section 31 of the Region XII Sanggunian Rules,

"[s]essions shall not be suspended or adjourned except by direction of the Sangguniang Pampook," but it provides likewise that "the Speaker may, on [sic] his discretion, declare a recess of "short intervals." Of course, there is disagreement between the protagonists as to whether or not the recess called by the petitioner effective November 1 through 15, 1987 is the "recess of short intervals" referred to; the petitioner says that it is while the respondents insist that, to all intents and purposes, it was an adjournment and that "recess" as used by their Rules only refers to "a recess when arguments get heated up so that protagonists in a debate can talk things out informally and obviate dissenssion [sic] and disunity. The Court agrees with the respondents on this regard, since clearly, the Rules speak of "short intervals." Secondly, the Court likewise agrees that the Speaker could not have validly called a recess since the Assembly had yet to convene on November 1, the date session opens under the same Rules. Hence, there can be no recess to speak of that could possibly interrupt any session. But while this opinion is in accord with the respondents' own, we still invalidate the twin sessions in question, since at the time the petitioner called the "recess," it was not a settled matter whether or not he could. do so. In the second place, the invitation tendered by the Committee on Muslim Affairs of the House of Representatives provided a plausible reason for the intermission sought.

Thirdly, assuming that a valid recess could not be called, it does not appear that the respondents called his attention to this mistake. What appears is that instead, they opened the sessions themselves behind his back in an apparent act of mutiny. Under the circumstances, we find equity on his side. For this reason, we uphold the "recess" called on the ground of good faith.

CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY G.R. No. 184203, November 26, 2014, LEONEN, J.

Being an instrumentality of the national government, the PEZA cannot be taxed by local government units.

Facts:

PEZA was created to manage economic zones in the country. The City of Lapu-Lapu demanded real property taxes from PEZA’s properties in Mactan Economic Zone. The City anchors its demand on the Local Government Code which withdrew the real property tax exemptions previously granted to entities. Characterizing the PEZA as an agency of the National Government, the trial court ruled that the City had no authority to tax the PEZA under the Local Government Code.

Issue:

Whether or not the PEZA is an instrumentality of the national government, hence, exempt from payment of real property taxes.

Ruling:

Yes. An instrumentality is “any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter.” As an instrumentality of the national government, the PEZA is vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law. Congress created the PEZA to operate, administer, manage and develop special economic zones in the Philippines. Special economic zones are areas with highly developed or which have the potential to be developed into agro-industrial, industrial tourist/recreational, commercial, banking, investment and financial centers. By operating, administering, managing, and developing special economic zones which attract investments and promote use of domestic labor, the PEZA carries out the policy of the Government.

Being an instrumentality of the national government, the PEZA cannot be taxed by local government units. Although a body corporate vested with some corporate powers, the PEZA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation taxable for real property taxes.

BORACAY FOUNDATION, INC. v. THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN,

REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR CARLITO S. MARQUEZ, THE PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY, AND THE DENR-EMB (REGION VI)

G.R. No. 196870, June 26, 2012, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Two requisites must be met before a national project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be implemented: prior consultation with the affected local communities, and prior approval of the project by the appropriate sanggunian.

Facts:

Respondent Province decided to build a Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal at Barangay Caticlan to be the main gateway to Boracay in the Malay Municipality. However, Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan, Malay Municipality, issued a Resolution manifesting its strong opposition to said application. Consequently, Sangguniang Panlalawigan of respondent Province approved a resolution formally authorizing Governor Marquez to represent the renovation/rehabilitation of the Caticlan/Cagban Passenger Terminal Buildings and Jetty Ports; and (b) reclamation of a portion of Caticlan foreshore for commercial purposes. During the course of the negotiation, respondent Province deliberated on the possible expansion from its original proposed reclamation area of 2.64 hectares to forty (40) hectares in order to maximize the utilization of its resources and as a response to the findings of the Preliminary Geohazard Assessment study which showed that the

recession and retreat of the shoreline caused by coastal erosion and scouring should be the first major concern in the project site and nearby coastal area.

But still, the Sangguniang Bayan of Malay refused to give the favourable endorsement to the Province of Aklan. As a result, the petitioner contends that the respondent province failed to conduct the required consultation procedures as required by the Local Government Code.

Issue:

Whether or not the prior consultation is a requirement before a national project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be implemented.

Ruling:

Yes. Two requisites must be met before a national project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be implemented: prior consultation with the affected local communities, and prior approval of the project by the appropriate sanggunian. Absent either of these mandatory requirements, the projects implementation is illegal. Based on the above, therefore, prior consultations and prior approval are required by law to have been conducted and secured by the respondent Province.

The project in this case can be classified as a national project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities, because the commercial establishments to be built on phase 1, as described in the EPRMP quoted above, could cause pollution as it could generate garbage, sewage, and possible toxic fuel discharge. Hence, it is covered by the requirements found in Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code provisions that are quoted below:

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, and BONIFACIO S. TUMBOKON v. HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., in his

capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila, G.R. No. 156052, March 7, 2007, CORONA, J.

The Mayor has the ministerial duty under the Local Government Code to enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the city.

Facts:

Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus seeking to compel Manila Mayor Jose Atienza to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 which reclassified a certain area from industrial to commercial and directed the owners and operators of businesses disallowed under the reclassification to cease and desist from operating their businesses within six months from the date of effectivity of the ordinance. Among the businesses situated in the area and would be adversely affected are the so-called Pandacan Terminals of the oil companies.

Later on, the City of Manila and the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the oil companies.

They agreed that the scaling down of the Pandacan Terminals was the most viable and practicable option. The Sangguniang Panlungsod ratified the MOU in Resolution No. 97. In the same resolution, the Sanggunian declared that the MOU was effective only for a period of six months starting July 25, 2002.

Thereafter, the Sanggunian adopted Resolution No. 13 extending the validity of Resolution No. 97 to April 30, 2003 and authorizing the mayor of Manila to issue special business permits to the oil companies.

Issue:

Whether or not the petition for mandamus was proper.

Ruling:

Yes. Respondent had the ministerial duty under the Local Government Code (LGC) to enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the city, including Ordinance No. 8027. The court also held that the court need not resolve the issue of whether the MOU entered into by respondent with the oil companies and the subsequent resolutions passed by the Sanggunian could amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8027 since the resolutions which ratified the MOU and made it binding on the City of Manila expressly gave it full force and effect only until April 30, 2003.

In a later case (Social Justice Society v. Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, Feb.

13, 2008), the validity of Ordinance No. 8027 was questioned by the oil companies. But the Supreme Court held that it was a valid exercise of police power, because it was enacted for the purpose of promoting sound urban planning, ensuring health, public safety and general welfare of the residents of Manila. The Sanggunian was impelled to take measures to protect the residents of Manila from catastrophic devastation in case of a terrorist attack

on the Pandacan Terminals. Towards this objective,

the Sanggunian reclassified the area defined in the ordinance from industrial to commercial. The ordinance was intended to safeguard the rights to life, security and safety of all the inhabitants of Manila and not just of a particular class. The depot is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a representation of western interests which means that it is a terrorist target. As long as it there is such a target in their midst, the residents of Manila are not safe. It therefore became necessary to remove these terminals to dissipate the threat.

In document Political Law Cases (Page 172-176)