G.R. No.

135962 March 27, 2000

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIT, petitioner,
vs.
!EL"AIR VILLAGE A##O$IATION, IN$., respondent.
PUNO, %.&
Not infrequently, the government is tempted to take legal shortcuts solve
urgent problems of the people. But even when government is armed with
the best of intention, we cannot allow it to run roughshod over the rule of
law. Again, we let the hammer fall and fall hard on the illegal attempt of
the MMDA to open for public use a private road in a private subdivision.
hile we hold that the general welfare should be promoted, we stress
that it should not be achieved at the e!pense of the rule of law.
"etitioner MMDA is a government agency tasked with the delivery of
basic services in Metro Manila. #espondent Bel$Air %illage Association,
&nc. 'BA%A( is a non$stock, non$profit corporation whose members are
homeowners in Bel$Air %illage, a private subdivision in Makati )ity.
#espondent BA%A is the registered owner of Neptune *treet, a road
inside Bel$Air %illage.
+n December ,-, .//0, respondent received from petitioner, through its
)hairman, a notice dated December 11, .//0 requesting respondent to
open Neptune *treet to public vehicular traffic starting 2anuary 1, .//3.
4he notice reads5
*6B27)45 N+4&)7 of the +pening of Neptune *treet to 4raffic.
Dear "resident 8indo,
"lease be informed that pursuant to the mandate of the MMDA law or
#epublic Act No. 9/1: which requires the Authority to rationali;e the use
of roads and<or thoroughfares for the safe and convenient movement of
persons, Neptune *treet shall be opened to vehicular traffic effective
2anuary 1, .//3.
&n view whereof, the undersigned requests you to voluntarily open the
points of entry and e!it on said street.
4hank you for your cooperation and whatever assistance that may be
e!tended by your association to the MMDA personnel who will be
directing traffic in the area.
=inally, we are furnishing you with a copy of the handwritten instruction of
the "resident on the matter.
%ery truly yours,
"#+*"7#+ &. +#74A
)hairman
.
+n the same day, respondent was apprised that the perimeter wall
separating the subdivision from the ad>acent ?alayaan Avenue would be
demolished.
+n 2anuary 1, .//3, respondent instituted against petitioner before the
#egional 4rial )ourt, Branch .,3, Makati )ity, )ivil )ase No. /3$--. for
in>unction. #espondent prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and preliminary in>unction en>oining the opening of Neptune *treet
and prohibiting the demolition of the perimeter wall. 4he trial court issued
a temporary restraining order the following day.
+n 2anuary 1,, .//3, after due hearing, the trial court denied issuance of
a preliminary in>unction.
1
#espondent questioned the denial before the
)ourt of Appeals in )A$@.#. *" No. ,/0:/. 4he appellate court
conducted an ocular inspection of Neptune *treet
,
and on =ebruary .,,
.//3, it issued a writ of preliminary in>unction en>oining the
implementation of the MMDAAs proposed action.
:
+n 2anuary 1B, .//9, the appellate court rendered a Decision on the
merits of the case finding that the MMDA has no authority to order the
opening of Neptune *treet, a private subdivision road and cause the
demolition of its perimeter walls. &t held that the authority is lodged in the
)ity )ouncil of Makati by ordinance. 4he decision disposed of as follows5
C7#7=+#7, the "etition is @#AN47DD the challenged +rder dated
2anuary 1,, .//0, in )ivil )ase No. /3$--., is *74 A*&D7 and the rit of
"reliminary &n>unction issued on =ebruary .,, .//3 is hereby made
permanent.
=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 *eptember
1B, .//B. 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)7D7N4
B7=+#7 4C7 MMDA MAE +#D7# 4C7 +"7N&N@ += *6BD&%&*&+N
#+AD* 4+ "6B8&) 4#A==&)F
&&&
&* #7*"+ND7N4 B78$A&# %&88A@7 A**+)&A4&+N, &N). 7*4+""7D
=#+M D7NE&N@ +# A**A&8&N@ 4C7 A64C+#&4E += 4C7 MMDA 4+
+"7N 4C7 *6B27)4 *4#774F
&%
A* #7*"+ND7N4 D7"#&%7D += D67 "#+)7** D7*"&47 4C7
*7%7#A8 M774&N@* C78D B7477N MMDA AND 4C7 A==7)47D
778$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 inside
Bel$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 the
two '1( streets is a concrete perimeter wall appro!imately fifteen '.0( feet
high. 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. Both
ends of Neptune *treet are guarded by iron gates.
"etitioner MMDA claims that it has the authority to open Neptune *treet
to public traffic because it is an agent of the state endowed with police
power in the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. +ne of these
basic services is traffic management which involves the regulation of the
use of thoroughfares to insure the safety, convenience and welfare of the
general public. &t is alleged that the police power of MMDA was affirmed
by this )ourt in the consolidated cases of #a'(a)a'( *. I'+,r-,./a+,
A00,))a+, $o1r+.
B
=rom the premise that it has police power, it is now
urged that there is no need for the )ity of Makati to enact an ordinance
opening Neptune street to the public.
/
"olice power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. &t has been defined
as the power vested by the )onstitution in the legislature to make, ordain,
and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes
and 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 plenary
and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and >ustifying measures for
public health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare.
..
&t bears stressing that police power is lodged primarily in the National
8egislature.
.1
&t cannot be e!ercised by any group or body of individuals
not possessing legislative power.
.,
4he National 8egislature, however,
-a2 .,),(a+, this power to the "resident and administrative boards as
well as the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local
government units.
.:
+nce delegated, the agents can e!ercise o')2 such
legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking
body.
.0
A )oca) (o*,r'-,'+ is a Gpolitical subdivision of a nation or state which
is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs.G
.3
4he
8ocal @overnment )ode of .//. defines a local government unit as a
Gbody politic and corporate.G
.9
H one endowed with powers as a political
subdivision of the National @overnment and as a corporate entity
representing the inhabitants of its territory.
.B
8ocal government units are
the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays.
./
4hey are also the
territorial and political subdivisions of the state.
1-
O1r $o'(r,33 .,),(a+,. 0o)/c, 0o4,r +o +h, )oca) (o*,r'-,'+
1'/+3 /' +h, Loca) Go*,r'-,'+ $o., o5 1991. 4his delegation is
found in *ection .3 of the same )ode, known as the general welfare
clause, */65
*ec. .3. G,',ra) 7,)5ar,. H 7very local government unit shall e!ercise
the powers e!pressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as
well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and
effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of
the general welfare. ithin their respective territorial >urisdictions, local
government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the
preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety,
enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and
support the development of appropriate and self$reliant scientific and
technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic
prosperity and social >ustice, promote full employment among their
residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and
convenience of their inhabitants.
1.
Loca) (o*,r'-,'+ 1'/+3 ,8,rc/3, 0o)/c, 0o4,r +hro1(h +h,/r
r,30,c+/*, ),(/3)a+/*, 9o./,3. 4he legislative body of the provincial
government is the 3a'((1'/a'( 0a')a)a4/(a', that of the city
government is the 3a'((1'/a'( 0a')1'(3o., that of the municipal
government is the 3a'((1'/a'( 9a2a', and that of the barangay is the
3a'((1'/a'( 9ara'(a2. 4he 8ocal @overnment )ode of .//.
empowers the 3a'((1'/a'( 0a')a)a4/(a', 3a'((1'/a'(
0a')1'(3o. a'. 3a'((1'/a'( 9a2a' to Genact ordinances, approve
resolutions 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 corporate
powers of the Iprovince, city municipalityJ provided under the )ode . . . G
11
4he same )ode gives the 3a'((1'/a'( 9ara'(a2 the power to Genact
ordinances as may be necessary to discharge the responsibilities
conferred upon it by law or ordinance and to promote the general welfare
of the inhabitants thereon.G
1,
M,+ro0o)/+a' or M,+ro Ma'/)a /3 a 9o.2 co-0o3,. o5 3,*,ra) )oca)
(o*,r'-,'+ 1'/+3 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, *an
2uan and 4aguig. 7/+h +h, 0a33a(, o5 R,019)/c Ac+ :R. A.; No. 792<
1:
/' 1995, M,+ro0o)/+a' Ma'/)a 4a3 .,c)ar,. a3 a G30,c/a)
.,*,)o0-,'+ a'. a.-/'/3+ra+/*, r,(/o'G a'. +h, A.-/'/3+ra+/o'
o5 G-,+ro"4/.,G 9a3/c 3,r*/c,3 a=,c+/'( +h, r,(/o' 0)ac,. 1'.,r
Ga .,*,)o0-,'+ a1+hor/+2G r,5,rr,. +o a3 +h, MMDA.
10
GM,+ro"4/., 3,r*/c,3G are those Gservices which have metro$wide
impact and transcend local political boundaries or entail huge
e!penditures such that it would not be viable for said services to be
provided by the individual local government units comprising Metro
Manila.G
13
4here are seven '9( basic metro$wide services and the scope
of these services cover the following5 '.( development planningD '1(
transport and traffic managementD ',( solid waste disposal and
managementD ':( flood control and sewerage managementD '0( urban
renewal, ;oning and land use planning, and shelter servicesD '3( health
and sanitation, urban protection and pollution controlD and '9( public
safety. 4he basic service of transport and traffic management includes the
following5
:9; Tra'30or+ a'. +ra>c -a'a(,-,'+ 4h/ch /'c)1., +h,
5or-1)a+/o', coor./'a+/o', a'. -o'/+or/'( o5 0o)/c/,3, 3+a'.ar.3,
0ro(ra-3 a'. 0ro?,c+3 +o ra+/o'a)/6, +h, ,8/3+/'( +ra'30or+
o0,ra+/o'3, /'5ra3+r1c+1r, r,@1/r,-,'+3, +h, 13, o5
+horo1(h5ar,3, a'. 0ro-o+/o' o5 3a5, a'. co'*,'/,'+ -o*,-,'+
o5 0,r3o'3 a'. (oo.3D 0ro*/3/o' 5or +h, -a33 +ra'30or+ 323+,-
a'. +h, /'3+/+1+/o' o5 a 323+,- +o r,(1)a+, roa. 13,r3D
a.-/'/3+ra+/o' a'. /-0),-,'+a+/o' o5 a)) +ra>c ,'5orc,-,'+
o0,ra+/o'3, +ra>c ,'(/',,r/'( 3,r*/c,3 a'. +ra>c ,.1ca+/o'
0ro(ra-3, /'c)1./'( +h, /'3+/+1+/o' o5 a 3/'(), +/cA,+/'( 323+,- /'
M,+ro0o)/+a' Ma'/)aDG
19
I' +h, .,)/*,r2 o5 +h, 3,*,' :7; 9a3/c 3,r*/c,3, +h, MMDA ha3 +h,
5o))o4/'( 0o4,r3 a'. 51'c+/o'35
*ec. 0. B1'c+/o'3 a'. 0o4,r3 o5 +h, M,+ro Ma'/)a D,*,)o0-,'+
A1+hor/+2. H 4he MMDA shall5
'a( =ormulate, coordinate and regulate the implementation of medium and
long$term plans and programs for the delivery of metro$wide services,
land use and physical development within Metropolitan Manila, consistent
with national development ob>ectives and prioritiesD
'b( "repare, coordinate and regulate the implementation of medium$term
investment programs for metro$wide services which shall indicate sources
and uses of funds for priority programs and pro>ects, and which shall
include the packaging of pro>ects and presentation to funding institutionsD
'c( 6ndertake and manage on its own metro$wide programs and pro>ects
for the delivery of specific services under its >urisdiction, sub>ect to the
approval of the )ouncil. =or this purpose, MMDA can create appropriate
pro>ect management officesD
'd( )oordinate and monitor the implementation of such plans, programs
and pro>ects in Metro ManilaD identify bottlenecks and adopt solutions to
problems of implementationD
:,; Th, MMDA 3ha)) 3,+ +h, 0o)/c/,3 co'c,r'/'( +ra>c /' M,+ro
Ma'/)a, a'. 3ha)) coor./'a+, a'. r,(1)a+, +h, /-0),-,'+a+/o' o5
a)) 0ro(ra-3 a'. 0ro?,c+3 co'c,r'/'( +ra>c -a'a(,-,'+,
30,c/Cca))2 0,r+a/'/'( +o ,'5orc,-,'+, ,'(/',,r/'( a'.
,.1ca+/o'. U0o' r,@1,3+, it 3ha)) 9, ,8+,'.,. a33/3+a'c, a'.
coo0,ra+/o', /'c)1./'( 91+ 'o+ )/-/+,. +o, a33/('-,'+ o5
0,r3o'',), 92 a)) o+h,r (o*,r'-,'+ a(,'c/,3 a'. o>c,3
co'c,r',.D
:5; I'3+a)) a'. a.-/'/3+,r a 3/'(), +/cA,+/'( 323+,-, C8, /-0o3,
a'. co)),c+ C',3 a'. 0,'a)+/,3 5or a)) A/'.3 o5 */o)a+/o'3 o5 +ra>c
r1),3 a'. r,(1)a+/o'3, 4h,+h,r -o*/'( or 'o'"-o*/'( /' 'a+1r,,
a'. co'C3ca+, a'. 3130,'. or r,*oA, .r/*,r3D )/c,'3,3 /' +h,
,'5orc,-,'+ o5 31ch +ra>c )a43 a'. r,(1)a+/o'3, +h, 0ro*/3/o'3
o5 RA <136 a'. PD 1605 +o +h, co'+rar2 'o+4/+h3+a'./'(. Bor
+h/3 01r0o3,, +h, A1+hor/+2 3ha)) /-0o3, a)) +ra>c )a43 a'.
r,(1)a+/o'3 /' M,+ro Ma'/)a, +hro1(h /+3 +ra>c o0,ra+/o' c,'+,r,
a'. -a2 .,01+/6, -,-9,r3 o5 +h, PNP, +ra>c ,'5orc,r3 o5 )oca)
(o*,r'-,'+ 1'/+3, .1)2 )/c,'3,. 3,c1r/+2 (1ar.3, or -,-9,r3 o5
'o'"(o*,r'-,'+a) or(a'/6a+/o'3 +o 4ho- -a2 9, .,),(a+,.
c,r+a/' a1+hor/+2, 319?,c+ +o 31ch co'./+/o'3 a'. r,@1/r,-,'+3 a3
+h, A1+hor/+2 -a2 /-0o3,D a'.
'g( "erform other related functions required to achieve the ob>ectives of
the MMDA, including the undertaking of delivery of basic services to the
local government units, when deemed necessary sub>ect to prior
coordination with and consent of the local government unit concerned.
4he /-0),-,'+a+/o' of the MMDAAs plans, programs and pro>ects is
undertaken by the local government units, national government agencies,
accredited peopleAs organi;ations, non$governmental organi;ations, and
the private sector as well as by the MMDA itself. =or this purpose, the
MMDA has the power to enter into contracts, memoranda of agreement
and other arrangements with these bodies for the delivery of the required
services Metro Manila.
1B
4he (o*,r'/'( 9oar. o5 +h, MMDA /3 +h, M,+ro Ma'/)a $o1'c/).
4he )ouncil is composed of the mayors of the component .1 cities and 0
municipalities, the president of the Metro Manila %ice$MayorsA 8eague
and the president of the Metro Manila )ouncilorsA 8eague.
1/
4he )ouncil
is headed by )hairman who is appointed by the "resident and vested
with the rank of cabinet member. As the policy$making body of the
MMDA, the Metro Manila )ouncil approves metro$wide plans, programs
and pro>ects, and issues the necessary rules and regulations for the
implementation of said plansD it approves the annual budget of the MMDA
and promulgate the rules and regulations for the delivery of basic
services, collection of service and regulatory fees, fines and penalties.
4hese functions are particularly enumerated as follows5
#,c. 6. B1'c+/o'3 o5 +h, M,+ro Ma'/)a $o1'c/). H
'a( 4he )ouncil shall be the policy$making body of the MMDAD
'b( &t shall approve metro$wide plans, programs and pro>ects and issue
rules and regulations deemed necessary by the MMDA to carry out the
purposes of this ActD
'c( &t may increase the rate of allowances and 0,r ./,-3 of the
members of the )ouncil to be effective during the term of the succeeding
)ouncil. &t shall fi! the compensation of the officers and personnel of the
MMDA, and approve the annual budget thereof for submission to the
Department of Budget and Management 'DBM(D
'd( &t shall promulgate rules and regulations and set policies and
standards for metro$wide application governing the delivery of basic
services, prescribe and collect service and regulatory fees, and impose
and collect fines and penalties.
)learly, the scope of the MMDAAs function is limited to the delivery of the
seven '9( basic services. +ne of these is transport and traffic
management which includes the formulation and monitoring of policies,
standards and pro>ects to rationali;e the e!isting transport operations,
infrastructure requirements, the use of thoroughfares and promotion of
the safe movement of persons and goods. &t also covers the mass
transport system and the institution of a system of road regulation, the
administration of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering
services and traffic education programs, including the institution of a
single ticketing system in Metro Manila for traffic violations. 6nder the
service, the MMDA is e!pressly authori;ed Gto set the policies concerning
trafficG and Gcoordinate and regulate the implementation of all traffic
management programs.G &n addition, the MMDA may Ginstall and
administer a single ticketing system,G fi!, impose and collect fines and
penalties for all traffic violations.
&t will be noted that the powers of the MMDA are limited to the following
acts5 formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation,
management, monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system and
administration. Th,r, /3 'o 32))a9), /' R.A. No. 792< +ha+ (ra'+3 +h,
MMDA 0o)/c, 0o4,r, ),+ a)o', ),(/3)a+/*, 0o4,r. E*,' +h, M,+ro
Ma'/)a $o1'c/) ha3 'o+ 9,,' .,),(a+,. a'2 ),(/3)a+/*, 0o4,r.
6nlike the legislative bodies of the local government units, there is no
provision in #.A. No. 9/1: that empowers the MMDA or its )ouncil to
Genact ordinances, approve resolutions appropriate funds for the general
welfareG of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. 4he MMDA is, as termed in
the charter itself, Gdevelopment authority.G
,-
&t is an agency created for
the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with the various
national government agencies, peopleAs organi;ations, non$governmental
organi;ations and the private sector for the efficient and e!peditious
delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area. A)) /+3 51'c+/o'3
ar, a.-/'/3+ra+/*, /' 'a+1r, and these are actually summed up in the
charter itself, */65
*ec. 1. $r,a+/o' o5 +h, M,+ro0o)/+a' Ma'/)a D,*,)o0-,'+
A1+hor/+2. H . . . .
4he MMDA shall perform 0)a''/'(, -o'/+or/'( a'. coor./'a+/*,
51'c+/o'3, and in the process e!ercise r,(1)a+or2 a'. 310,r*/3or2
a1+hor/+2 over the delivery of metro$wide services within Metro Manila,
without diminution of the autonomy of the local government units
concerning purely local matters.
,.
"etitioner cannot seek refuge in the cases of #a'(a)a'( *.
I'+,r-,./a+, A00,))a+, $o1r+
,1
where we upheld a ;oning ordinance
issued by the Metro Manila )ommission 'MM)(, the predecessor of the
MMDA, as an e!ercise of police power. 4he first #a'(a)a'( decision
was on the merits of the petition,
,,
while the second decision denied
reconsideration of the first case and in addition discussed the case of
a91+ *. $o1r+ o5 A00,a)3.
,:
#a'(a)a'( *. IA$ involved five '0( consolidated petitions filed by
respondent BA%A and three residents of Bel$Air %illage against other
residents of the %illage and the Ayala )orporation, formerly the Makati
Development )orporation, as the developer of the subdivision. 4he
petitioners sought to enforce certain restrictive easements in the deeds of
sale over their respective lots in the subdivision. 4hese were the
prohibition on the setting up of commercial and advertising signs on the
lots, and the condition that the lots be used only for residential purposes.
"etitioners alleged that respondents, who were residents along 2upiter
*treet of the subdivision, converted their residences into commercial
establishments in violation of the Gdeed restrictions,G and that respondent
Ayala )orporation ushered in the full commerciali;ationG of 2upiter *treet
by tearing down the perimeter wall that separated the commercial from
the residential section of the village.
,0
4he petitions were dismissed based on +rdinance No. B. of the Municipal
)ouncil of Makati and +rdinance No. B.$-. of the Metro Manila
)ommission 'MM)(. Municipal +rdinance No. B. classified Bel$Air %illage
as a )lass A #esidential Lone, with its boundary in the south e!tending to
the center line of 2upiter *treet. 4he Municipal +rdinance was adopted by
the MM) under the )omprehensive Loning +rdinance for the National
)apital #egion and promulgated as MM) +rdinance No. B.$-.. Bel$Air
%illage was indicated therein as bounded by 2upiter *treet and the block
ad>acent thereto was classified as a Cigh &ntensity )ommercial Lone.
,3
e ruled that since both +rdinances recogni;ed 2upiter *treet as the
boundary between Bel$Air %illage and the commercial district, 2upiter
*treet was not for the e!clusive benefit of Bel$Air residents. e also held
that the perimeter wall on said street was constructed not to separate the
residential from the commercial blocks but simply for security reasons,
hence, in tearing down said wall, Ayala )orporation did not violate the
Gdeed restrictionsG in the deeds of sale.
e upheld the ordinances, specifically MM) +rdinance No. B.$-., as a
legitimate e!ercise of police power.
,9
4he power of the MM) and the
Makati Municipal )ouncil to enact ;oning ordinances for the general
welfare prevailed over the Gdeed restrictionsG.
&n the second #a'(a)a'(Ea91+ decision, we held that the opening of
2upiter *treet was warranted by the demands of the common good in
terms of Gtraffic decongestion and public convenience.G 2upiter was
opened by the Municipal Mayor to alleviate traffic congestion along the
public streets ad>acent to the %illage.
,B
4he same reason was given for
the opening to public vehicular traffic of +rbit *treet, a road inside the
same village. 4he destruction of the gate in +rbit *treet was also made
under the police power of the municipal government. 4he gate, like the
perimeter wall along 2upiter, was a public nuisance because it hindered
and impaired the use of property, hence, its summary abatement by the
mayor was proper and legal.
,/
$o'+rar2 +o 0,+/+/o',rD3 c)a/-, +h, +4o #a'(a)a'( ca3,3 .o 'o+
a00)2 +o +h, ca3, a+ 9ar. B/r3+)2, both involved ;oning ordinances
passed by the municipal council of Makati and the MM). &n the instant
case, the basis for the proposed opening of Neptune *treet is contained
in the notice of December 11, .//0 sent by petitioner to respondent
BA%A, through its president. 4he notice does not cite any ordinance or
law, either by the *angguniang "anlungsod of Makati )ity or by the
MMDA, as the legal basis for the proposed opening of Neptune *treet.
"etitioner MMDA simply relied on its authority under its charter Gto
rationali;e the use of roads and<or thoroughfares for the safe and
convenient movement of persons.G #ationali;ing the use of roads and
thoroughfares is one of the acts that fall within the scope of transport and
traffic management. By no stretch of the imagination, however, can this
be interpreted as an e!press or implied grant of ordinance$making power,
much less police power.
*econdly, the MMDA is not the same entity as the MM) in *angalang.
Although the MM) is the forerunner of the present MMDA, an
e!amination of "residential Decree '". D.( No. B1:, the charter of the
MM), shows that the latter possessed greater powers which were not
bestowed on the present MMDA.
Metropolitan Manila was first created in ./90 by "residential Decree
'".D.( No. B1:. &t comprised the @reater Manila Area composed of the
contiguous four ':( cities of Manila, Kue;on, "asay and )aloocan, and
the thirteen '.,( municipalities of Makati, Mandaluyong, *an 2uan, 8as
"inas, Malabon, Navotas, "asig, "ateros, "aranaque, Marikina,
Muntinlupa and 4aguig in the province of #i;al, and %alen;uela in the
province of Bulacan.
:-
Metropolitan Manila was created as a response to
the finding that the rapid growth of population and the increase of social
and economic requirements in these areas demand a call for
simultaneous and unified developmentD that the public services rendered
by the respective local governments could be administered more
efficiently and economically if integrated under a system of central
planningD and this coordination, Gespecially in the maintenance of peace
and order and the eradication of social and economic ills that fanned the
flames of rebellion and discontent IwereJ part of reform measures under
Martial 8aw essential to the safety and security of the *tate.G
:.
Metropolitan Manila was established as a Gpublic corporationG with the
following powers5
*ec. .. $r,a+/o' o5 +h, M,+ro0o)/+a' Ma'/)a. H 4here is hereby
created a 019)/c cor0ora+/o', to be known as the Metropolitan Manila,
*,3+,. 4/+h 0o4,r3 a'. a++r/91+,3 o5 a cor0ora+/o' /'c)1./'( +h,
0o4,r +o -aA, co'+rac+3, 31, a'. 9, 31,., ac@1/r,, 01rcha3,,
,80ro0r/a+,, ho)., +ra'35,r a'. ./30o3, o5 0ro0,r+2 a'. 31ch
o+h,r 0o4,r3 a3 ar, ',c,33ar2 +o carr2 o1+ /+3 01r0o3,3. 4he
)orporation shall be administered by a )ommission created under this
Decree.
:1
4he administration of Metropolitan Manila was placed under the Metro
Manila )ommission 'MM)( vested with the following powers5
*ec. :. Po4,r3 a'. B1'c+/o'3 o5 +h, $o--/33/o'. H 4he
)ommission shall have the following powers and functions5
.. 4o act as a central government to establish and administer programs
and provide services common to the areaD
1. 4o levy and collect ta!es and special assessments, borrow and e!pend
money and issue bonds, revenue certificates, and other obligations of
indebtedness. 7!isting ta! measures should, however, continue to be
operative until otherwise modified or repealed by the )ommissionD
,. 4o charge and collect fees for the use of public service facilitiesD
:. 4o appropriate money for the operation of the metropolitan government
and review appropriations for the city and municipal units within its
>urisdiction with authority to disapprove the same if found to be not in
accordance with the established policies of the )ommission, without
pre>udice to any contractual obligation of the local government units
involved e!isting at the time of approval of this DecreeD
0. 4o review, amend, revise or repeal all ordinances, resolutions and acts
of cities and municipalities within Metropolitan ManilaD
3. 4o enact or approve ordinances, resolutions and to fi! penalties for any
violation thereof which shall not e!ceed a fine of ".-,---.-- or
imprisonment of si! years or both such fine and imprisonment for a single
offenseD
9. 4o perform general administrative, e!ecutive and policy$making
functionsD
B. 4o establish a fire control operation center, which shall direct the fire
services of the city and municipal governments in the metropolitan areaD
/. 4o establish a garbage disposal operation center, which shall direct
garbage collection and disposal in the metropolitan areaD
.-. 4o establish and operate a transport and traffic center, which shall
direct traffic activitiesD
... 4o coordinate and monitor governmental and private activities
pertaining to essential services such as transportation, flood control and
drainage, water supply and sewerage, social, health and environmental
services, housing, park development, and othersD
.1. 4o insure and monitor the undertaking of a comprehensive social,
economic and physical planning and development of the areaD
.,. 4o study the feasibility of increasing barangay participation in the
affairs of their respective local governments and to propose to the
"resident of the "hilippines definite programs and policies for
implementationD
.:. 4o submit within thirty ',-( days after the close of each fiscal year an
annual report to the "resident of the "hilippines and to submit a periodic
report whenever deemed necessaryD and
.0. 4o perform such other tasks as may be assigned or directed by the
"resident of the "hilippines.
Th, MM$ 4a3 +h, Gc,'+ra) (o*,r'-,'+G o5 M,+ro Ma'/)a for the
purpose of establishing and administering programs providing services
common to the area. As a Gcentral governmentG it had the power to levy
and collect ta!es and special assessments, the power to charge and
collect feesD the power to appropriate money for its operation, and at the
same 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 and
resolutions. &t also had the power to review, amend, revise or repeal all
ordinances, resolutions and acts of any of the four ':( cities and thirteen
'.,( municipalities comprising Metro Manila.
".D. No. B1: further provided5
*ec. /. 6ntil otherwise provided, the governments of the four cities and
thirteen municipalities in the Metropolitan Manila shall continue to e!ist in
their present form e!cept as may be inconsistent with this Decree. Th,
-,-9,r3 o5 +h, ,8/3+/'( c/+2 a'. -1'/c/0a) co1'c/)3 /'
M,+ro0o)/+a' Ma'/)a 3ha)), 10o' 0ro-1)(a+/o' o5 +h/3 D,cr,,, a'.
1'+/) D,c,-9,r 31, 1975, 9,co-, -,-9,r3 o5 +h, #a'((1'/a'(
!a2a' 4h/ch /3 h,r,92 cr,a+,. 5or ,*,r2 c/+2 a'. -1'/c/0a)/+2 o5
M,+ro0o)/+a' Ma'/)a.
&n addition, the *angguniang Bayan shall be composed of as many
barangay captains as may be determined and chosen by the
)ommission, and such number of representatives from other sectors of
the society as may be appointed by the "resident upon recommendation
of the )ommission.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
4he *angguniang Bayan may recommend to the )ommission
ordinances, resolutions or such measures as it may adoptD "rovided, that
no such ordinance, resolution or measure shall become effective, until
after its approval by the )ommissionD and "rovided further, that the power
to impose ta!es and other levies, the power to appropriate money and the
power to pass ordinances or resolutions with penal sanctions shall be
vested e!clusively in the )ommission.
Th, cr,a+/o' o5 +h, MM$ a)3o carr/,. 4/+h /+ +h, cr,a+/o' o5 +h,
#a'((1'/a'( !a2a'. 4his was composed of the members of the
component city and municipal councils, barangay captains chosen by the
MM) and sectoral representatives appointed by the "resident. 4he
#a'((1'/a'( !a2a' had the power to recommend to the MM) the
adoption of ordinances, resolutions or measures. I+ 4a3 +h, MM$ /+3,)5,
ho4,*,r, +ha+ 0o33,33,. ),(/3)a+/*, 0o4,r3. All ordinances,
resolutions and measures recommended by the #a'((1'/a'( !a2a'
were sub>ect to the MM)As approval. Moreover, the power to impose
ta!es and other levies, the power to appropriate money, and the power to
pass ordinances or resolutions with penal sanctions were vested
e!clusively in the MM).
4hus, Metropolitan Manila had a Gcentral government,G i.e., the MM)
which fully possessed legislative police powers. hatever legislative
powers the component cities and municipalities had were all sub>ect to
review and approval by the MM).
After "resident )ora;on Aquino assumed power, there was a clamor to
restore the autonomy of the local government units in Metro Manila.
Cence, *ections . and 1 of Article M of the ./B9 )onstitution provided5
*ec. .. 4he territorial and political subdivisions of the #epublic of the
"hilippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays. 4here
shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the )ordilleras as
herein provided.
*ec. 1. 4he territorial and political subdivisions shall en>oy local
autonomy.
4he )onstitution, however, recogni;ed the necessity of creating
metropolitan regions not only in the e!isting National )apital #egion but
also in potential equivalents in the %isayas and Mindanao.
:,
*ection .. of
the same Article M thus provided5
*ec. ... 4he )ongress may, by law, create special metropolitan political
subdivisions, sub>ect to a plebiscite as set forth in *ection .- hereof. 4he
component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and
shall be entitled to their own local e!ecutives and legislative assemblies.
4he >urisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will thereby be created
shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination.
)onstitution itself e!pressly provides that )ongress may, by law, create
Gspecial metropolitan political subdivisionsG which shall be sub>ect to
approval by a ma>ority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units
directly affectedD the >urisdiction of this subdivision shall be limited to
basic services requiring coordinationD and the cities and municipalities
comprising this subdivision shall retain their basic services requiring
coordinationD and the cities and municipalities comprising this subdivision
shall retain their basic autonomy and their own local e!ecutive and
legislative assemblies.
::
"ending enactment of this law, the 4ransitory
"rovisions of the )onstitution gave the "resident of the "hilippines the
power to constitute the Metropolitan Authority, */65
*ec. B. 6ntil otherwise provided by )ongress, the "resident may
constitute the Metropolitan Authority to be composed of the heads of all
local government units comprising the Metropolitan Manila area.
:0
&n .//-, "resident Aquino issued 7!ecutive +rder '7. +.( No. ,/1 and
constituted the Metropolitan Manila Authority 'MMA(. 4he powers and
functions of the MM) were devolved to the MMA.
:3
&t ought to be
stressed, however, that not all powers and functions of the MM) were
passed to the MMA. 4he MMAAs power was limited to the Gdelivery of
basic urban services requiring coordination in Metropolitan Manila.G
:9
4he
MMAAs governing body, the Metropolitan Manila )ouncil, although
composed of the mayors of the component cities and municipalities, was
merely given power of5 '.( formulation of policies on the delivery of basic
services requiring coordination and consolidationD and '1( promulgation
resolutions and other issuances, approval of a code of basic services and
the e!ercise of its rule$making power.
:B
6nder the ./B9 )onstitution, the local government units became primarily
responsible for the governance of their respective political subdivisions.
4he MMAD3 ?1r/3./c+/o' 4a3 )/-/+,. to addressing common problems
involving basic services that transcended local boundaries. I+ ./. 'o+
ha*, ),(/3)a+/*, 0o4,r. &ts power was merely to provide the local
government units technical assistance in the preparation of local
development plans. Any semblance of legislative power it had was
confined to a Greview IofJ legislation proposed by the local legislative
assemblies to ensure consistency among local governments and with the
comprehensive development plan of Metro Manila,G and to Gadvise the
local governments accordingly.G
:/
hen #.A. No. 9/1: took effect, Metropolitan Manila became a Gspecial
development and administrative regionG and the MMDA a Gspecial
development authorityG whose functions were Gwithout pre>udice to the
autonomy of the affected local government units.G 4he character of the
MMDA was clearly defined in the legislative debates enacting its charter.
#.A. No. 9/1: originated as Couse Bill No. .:.9-<....3 and was
introduced by several legislators led by Dante 4inga, #oilo @ole; and
=eliciano Belmonte. &t was presented to the Couse of #epresentatives by
the )ommittee on 8ocal @overnments chaired by )ongressman )iriaco
#. Alfelor. 4he bill was a product of )ommittee consultations with the local
government units in the National )apital #egion 'N)#(, with former
)hairmen of the MM) and MMA,
0-
and career officials of said agencies.
hen the bill was first taken up by the )ommittee on 8ocal @overnments,
the following debate took place5
4C7 )CA&#MAN ICon. )iriaco AlfelorJ5 +kay, 8et me e!plain. 4his has
been debated a long time ago, you know. &tAs a special . . . we can create
a special metropolitan political subdivision.
Actually, there are only si! '3( political subdivisions provided for in the
)onstitution5 barangay, municipality, city, province, and we have the
Autonomous #egion of Mindanao and we have the )ordillera. *o we
have 3. Now. . . . .
C+N. I7liasJ 8+"7L5 May & interrupt, Mr. )hairman. &n the case of the
Autonomous #egion, that is also specifically mandated by the
)onstitution.
4C7 )CA&#MAN5 4hatAs correct. But it is considered to be a political
subdivision. hat is the meaning of a political subdivisionF Meaning to
say, that it has its own government, it has its own political personality, it
has the power to ta!, and all governmental powers5 police power and
everything. All right. Authority is differentD because it does not have its
own government. &t is only a council, it is an organi;ation of political
subdivision, powers, Gno, which is not imbued with any political power.
&f you go over *ection 3, where the powers and functions of the Metro
Manila Development Authority, it is purely coordinative. And it provides
here that the council is policy$making. All right.
6nder the )onstitution is a Metropolitan Authority with coordinative power.
Meaning to say, it coordinates all of the different basic services which
have to be delivered to the constituency. All right.
4here is now a problem. 7ach local government unit is given its
respective . . . as a political subdivision. ?alookan has its powers, as
provided for and protected and guaranteed by the )onstitution. All right,
the e!ercise. Cowever, in the e!ercise of that power, it might be
deleterious and disadvantageous to other local government units. *o, we
are forming an authority where all of these will be members and then set
up a policy in order that the basic services can be effectively coordinated.
All right.
+f course, we cannot deny that the MMDA has to survive. e have to
provide some funds, resources. But it does not possess any political
power. e do not elect the @overnor. e do not have the power to ta!.
As a matter of fact, & was trying to intimate to the author that it must have
the power to sue and be sued because it coordinates. All right. &t
coordinates practically all these basic services so that the flow and the
distribution of the basic services will be continuous. 8ike traffic, we cannot
deny that. &tAs before our eyes. *ewerage, flood control, water system,
peace and order, we cannot deny these. &tAs right on our face. e have to
look for a solution. hat would be the right solutionF All right, we envision
that there should be a coordinating agency and it is called an authority. All
right, if you do not want to call it an authority, itAs alright. e may call it a
council or maybe a management agency.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0.
)learly, the MMDA is not a political unit of government. 4he power
delegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila )ouncil to
promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation of
the MMDAAs functions. 4here is no grant of authority to enact ordinances
and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the
metropolis. 4his was e!plicitly stated in the last )ommittee deliberations
prior to the billAs presentation to )ongress. 4hus5
4C7 )CA&#MAN5 Eeah, but we have to go over the suggested revision. &
think this was already approved before, but it was reconsidered in view of
the proposals, set$up, to make the MMDA stronger. +kay, so if there is no
ob>ection to paragraph GfG. . . And then ne!t is paragraph Gb,G under
*ection 3. GI+ 3ha)) a00ro*, -,+ro"4/., 0)a'3, 0ro(ra-3 a'.
0ro?,c+3 a'. /331, or./'a'c,3 or r,3o)1+/o'3 .,,-,. ',c,33ar2
92 +h, MMDA +o carr2 o1+ +h, 01r0o3,3 o5 +h/3 Ac+.G Do 2o1 ha*,
+h, 0o4,r3F Do,3 +h, MMDA... 9,ca13, +ha+ +aA,3 +h, 5or- o5 a
)oca) (o*,r'-,'+ 1'/+, a 0o)/+/ca) 319./*/3/o'.
C+N. I=elicianoJ B78M+N475 Ees, & believe so, your Conor. hen we
say that it has the policies, itAs very clear that those policies must be
followed. +therwise, whatAs the use of empowering it to come out with
policies. Now, the policies may be in the form of a resolution or it may be
in the form of a ordinance. 4he term GordinanceG in this case really gives it
more teeth, your honor. +therwise, we are going to see a situation where
you have the power to adopt the policy but you cannot really make it stick
as in the case now, and & think here is )hairman Bunye. & think he will
agree that that is the case now. EouAve got the power to set a policy, the
body wants to follow your policy, then we say letAs call it an ordinance and
see if they will not follow it.
4C7 )CA&#MAN5 4hatAs very nice. & like that. Cowever, there is a
constitutional impediment.1G40h/1 Eou are making this MMDA a political
subdivision. 4he creation of the MMDA would be sub>ect to a plebiscite.
4hat is what &Am trying to avoid. &Ave been trying to avoid this kind of
predicament. 6nder the )onstitution it states5 if it is a political subdivision,
once it is created it has to be sub>ect to a plebiscite. &Am trying to make
this as administrative. 4hatAs why we place the )hairman as a cabinet
rank.
C+N. B78M+N475 All right, Mr. )hairman, okay, what you are saying
there is . . . . .
4C7 )CA&#MAN5 &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 of
rules 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, you
impose a sanction. But you know, ordinance has a different legal
connotation.
C+N. B78M+N475 All right, & defer to that opinion, your Conor.
4C7 )CA&#MAN5 *o instead of ordinances, say rules and regulations.
C+N. B78M+N475 +r resolutions. Actually, they are actually considering
resolutions now.
4C7 )CA&#MAN5 #ules and resolutions.
C+N. B78M+N475 #ules, regulations and resolutions.
01
4he draft of C. B. No. .:.9-<....3 was presented by the )ommittee to
the Couse of #epresentatives. 4he e!planatory note to the bill stated that
the proposed MMDA is a Gdevelopment authorityG which is a Gnational
agency, not a political government unit.G
0,
4he e!planatory note was
adopted as the sponsorship speech of the )ommittee on 8ocal
@overnments. No interpellations or debates were made on the floor and
no amendments introduced. 4he bill was approved on second reading on
the same day it was presented.
0:
hen the bill was forwarded to the *enate, several amendments were
made.1G40h/1 4hese amendments, however, did not affect the nature of
the MMDA as originally conceived in the Couse of #epresentatives.
00
&t is thus beyond doubt that the MMDA is not a local government unit or a
public corporation endowed with legislative power. &t is not even a
Gspecial metropolitan political subdivisionG as contemplated in *ection ..,
Article M of the )onstitution. 4he creation of a Gspecial metropolitan
political subdivisionG requires the approval by a ma>ority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.G
03
#. A. No. 9/1: was
not submitted to the inhabitants of Metro Manila in a plebiscite. 4he
)hairman of the MMDA is not an official elected by the people, but
appointed by the "resident with the rank and privileges of a cabinet
member. &n fact, part of his function is to perform such other duties as
may be assigned to him by the "resident,
09
whereas in local government
units, the "resident merely e!ercises supervisory authority. 4his
emphasi;es the administrative character of the MMDA.
)learly then, the MM) under ".D. No. B1: is not the same entity as the
MMDA under #.A. No. 9/1:. 6nlike the MM), the MMDA has no power to
enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. &t is the local
government units, acting through their respective legislative councils, that
possess legislative power and police power. &n the case at bar, the
*angguniang "anlungsod of Makati )ity did not pass any ordinance or
resolution ordering the opening of Neptune *treet, hence, its proposed
opening by petitioner MMDA is illegal and the respondent )ourt of
Appeals did not err in so ruling. e desist from ruling on the other issues
as they are unnecessary.
e stress that this decision does not make light of the MMDAAs noble
efforts to solve the chaotic traffic condition in Metro Manila. 7veryday,
traffic >ams and traffic bottlenecks plague the metropolis. 7ven our once
sprawling boulevards and avenues are now crammed with cars while city
streets are clogged with motorists and pedestrians. 4raffic has become a
social malaise affecting our peopleAs productivity and the efficient delivery
of goods and services in the country. 4he MMDA was created to put some
order in the metropolitan transportation system but unfortunately the
powers granted by its charter are limited. &ts good intentions cannot >ustify
the opening for public use of a private street in a private subdivision
without any legal warrant. 4he promotion of the general welfare is not
antithetical to the preservation of the rule of law.1G40h/1.'H+
&N %&7 C7#7+=, the petition is denied. 4he Decision and #esolution
of the )ourt of Appeals in )A$@.#. *" No. ,/0:/ are affirmed.
*+ +#D7#7D.
G.R. No. 93252 A1(13+ 5, 1991
RODOLBO T. GANION, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORA!LE $OURT OB APPEAL# a'. LUI# T. #ANTO#,
respondents.
G.R. No. 937<6 A1(13+ 5,1991
MAR ANN RIVERA ARTIEDA, petitioner,
vs.
HON. LUI# #ANTO#, /' h/3 ca0ac/+2 a3 #,cr,+ar2 o5 +h,
D,0ar+-,'+ o5 Loca) Go*,r'-,'+, NI$ANOR M. PATRI$IO, /' h/3
ca0ac/+2 a3 $h/,5, L,(a) #,r*/c, o5 +h, D,0ar+-,'+ o5 Loca)
Go*,r'-,'+ a'. #ALVADOR $A!ALUNA %R., respondents.
G.R. No. 952<5 A1(13+ 5,1991
RODOLBO T. GANION, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORA!LE $OURT OB APPEAL# a'. LUI# T. #ANTO#, /' h/3
ca0ac/+2 a3 +h, #,cr,+ar2 o5 +h, D,0ar+-,'+ o5 Loca)
Go*,r'-,'+, respondents.
N/co)a3 P. #o'a)a' 5or 0,+/+/o',r /' 93252.
Ro-,o A. G,roch/ 5or 0,+/+/o',r /' 937<6.
E1(,'/o Or/(/'a) 5or 0,+/+/o',r /' 952<5.

#ARMIENTO, %.&0
4he petitioners take common issue on the power of the "resident 'acting
through the *ecretary of 8ocal @overnment(, to suspend and<or remove
local officials.
4he petitioners are the Mayor of &loilo )ity '@.#. Nos. /,101 and /01:0(
and a member of the *angguniang "anglunsod thereof '@.#. No. /,9:3(,
respectively.
4he petitions of Mayor @an;on originated from a series of administrative
complaints, ten in number, filed against him by various city officials
sometime in ./BB, on various charges, among them, abuse of authority,
oppression, grave misconduct, disgraceful and immoral conduct,
intimidation, culpable violation of the )onstitution, and arbitrary detention.
1
4he personalities involved are 2oceleehn )abaluna, a clerk at the city
health officeD *alvador )abaluna, her husbandD Dr. =elicidad +rtigo;a,
Assistant )ity Cealth +fficerD Mansueto Malabor, %ice$MayorD #olando
Dabao, Dan Dalido, @erman @on;ales, 8arry +ng, and 7duardo "efia
#edondo members of the *angguniang "anglunsodD and "ancho 7rbite,
a barangay tanod. 4he complaints against the Mayor are set forth in the
opinion of the respondent )ourt of Appeals.
2
e quote5
!!! !!! !!!
&n her verified complaint 'Anne! A(, Mrs. )abaluna, a clerk assigned to
the )ity Cealth, +ffice of &loilo )ity charged that due to political reasons,
having supported the rival candidate, Mrs. #osa -. )aram, the petitioner
)ity Mayor, using as an e!cuse the e!igency of the service and the
interest of the public, pulled her out from rightful office where her
qualifications are best suited and assigned her to a work that should be
the function of a non$career service employee. 4o make matters worse, a
utility worker in the office of the "ublic *ervices, whose duties are alien to
the complainantAs duties and functions, has been detailed to take her
place. 4he petitionerAs act are pure harassments aimed at luring her away
from her permanent position or force her to resign.
&n the case of Dra. =elicidad +rtigo;a, she claims that the petitioner
handpicked her to perform task not befitting her position as Assistant )ity
Cealth +fficer of &loilo )ityD that her office was padlocked without any
e!planation or >ustificationD that her salary was withheld without cause
since April ., ./BBD that when she filed her vacation leave, she was given
the run$around treatment in the approval of her leave in connivance with
Dr. #odolfo %illegas and that she was the ob>ect of a well$engineered
trumped$up charge in an administrative complaint filed by Dr. #odolfo
%illegas 'Anne! B(.
+n the other hand, Mansuelo Malabor is the duly elected %ice$Mayor of
&loilo )ity and complainants #olando Dabao, Dan Dalido, @erman
@on;ales, 8arry +ng and 7duardo "efia "edondo are members of the
*angguniang "anglunsod of the )ity of &loilo. 4heir complaint arose out
from the case where )ouncilor 8arry +ng, whose key to his office was
unceremoniously and without previous notice, taken by petitioner. ithout
an office, )ouncilor +ng had to hold office at "la;a 8ibertad, 4he %ice$
Mayor and the other complainants sympathi;ed with him and decided to
do the same. Cowever, the petitioner, together with its fully$armed
security men, forcefully drove them away from "la;a 8ibertad. )ouncilor
+ng denounced the petitionerAs actuations the following day in the radio
station and decided to hold office at the =reedom @randstand at &loilo )ity
and there were so many people who gathered to witness the incident.
Cowever, before the group could reach the area, the petitioner, together
with his security men, led the firemen using a firetruck in do;ing water to
the people and the bystanders.
Another administrative case was filed by "ancho 7rbite, a barangay
tanod, appointed by former mayor #osa +. )aram. +n March .,, ./BB,
without the benefit of charges filed against him and no warrant of arrest
was issued, 7rbite was arrested and detained at the )ity 2ail of &loilo )ity
upon orders of petitioner. &n >ail, he was allegedly mauled by other
detainees thereby causing in>uries Ce was released only the following
day.
3
4he Mayor thereafter answered
<
and the cases were shortly set for
hearing. 4he opinion of the )ourt of Appeals also set forth the succeeding
events5
!!! !!! !!!
4he initial hearing in the )abaluna and +rtigo;a cases were set for
hearing on 2une 1-$1., ./BB at the #egional +ffice of the Department of
8ocal @overnment in &loilo )ity. Notices, through telegrams, were sent to
the parties 'Anne! 8( and the parties received them, including the
petitioner. 4he petitioner asked for a postponement before the scheduled
date of hearing and was represented by counsel, Atty. *amuel )astro.
4he hearing officers, Atty. *alvador Kuebral and Atty. Marino Bermude;
had to come all the way from Manila for the two$day hearings but was
actually held only on 2une 1-,./BB in view of the inability and
unpreparedness of petitionerAs counsel.
4he ne!t hearings were re$set to 2uly 10, 13, 19,./BB in the same venue$
&loilo )ity. Again, the petitioner attempted to delay the proceedings and
moved for a postponement under the e!cuse that he had >ust hired his
counsel. Nonetheless, the hearing officers denied the motion to postpone,
in view of the fact that the parties were notified by telegrams of the
scheduled hearings 'Anne! M(.
&n the said hearings, petitionerAs counsel cross$e!amined the
complainants and their witnesses.
=inding probable grounds and reasons, the respondent issued a
preventive suspension order on August .., ./BB to last until +ctober
..,./BB for a period of si!ty '3-( days.
4hen the ne!t investigation was set on *eptember 1., ./BB and the
petitioner again asked for a postponement to *eptember 13,./BB. +n
*eptember 13, ./BB, the complainants and petitioner were present,
together with their respective counsel. 4he petitioner sought for a
postponement which was denied. &n these hearings which were held in
Mala the petitioner testified in Adm. )ase No. )$.-1/B and .-1//.
4he investigation was continued regarding the Malabor case and the
complainants testified including their witnesses.
+n +ctober .-, ./BB, petitionerAs counsel, Atty. +riginal moved for a
postponement of the +ctober 1:, ./BB hearing to November 9 to ..,
./BB which was granted. Cowever, the motion for change of venue as
denied due to lack of funds. At the hearing on November 9, ./BB, the
parties and counsel were present. "etitioner reiterated his motion to
change venue and moved for postponement anew. 4he counsel
discussed a proposal to take the deposition of witnesses in &loilo )ity so
the hearing was indefinitely postponed. Cowever, the parties failed to
come to terms and after the parties were notified of the hearing, the
investigation was set to December ., to .0, ./BB.
4he petitioner sought for another postponement on the ground that his
witnesses were sick or cannot attend the investigation due to lack of
transportation. 4he motion was denied and the petitioner was given up to
December .:, ./BB to present his evidence.
+n December .:,./BB, petitionerAs counsel insisted on his motion for
postponement and the hearing officers gave petitioner up to December
.0, ./BB to present his evidence. +n December .0, ./BB, the petitioner
failed to present evidence and the cases were considered submitted for
resolution.
&n the meantime, a prima facie evidence was found to e!ist in the arbitrary
detention case filed by "ancho 7rbite so the respondent ordered the
petitionerAs second preventive suspension dated +ctober .., ./BB for
another si!ty '3-( days. 4he petitioner was able to obtain a restraining
order and a writ of preliminary in>unction in the #egional 4rial )ourt,
Branch ,, of &loilo )ity. 4he second preventive suspension was not
enforced.
5
Amidst the two successive suspensions, Mayor @an;on instituted an
action for prohibition against the respondent *ecretary of 8ocal
@overnment 'now, &nterior( in the #egional 4rial )ourt, &loilo )ity, where
he succeeded in obtaining a writ of preliminary in>unction. "resently, he
instituted )A$@.#. *" No. .3:.9, an action for prohibition, in the
respondent )ourt of Appeals.
Meanwhile, on May ,, .//-, the respondent *ecretary issued another
order, preventively suspending Mayor @an;on for another si!ty days, the
third time in twenty months, and designating meantime %ice$Mayor
Mansueto Malabor as acting mayor. 6ndaunted, Mayor @an;on
commenced )A$@.#. *" No. 1-9,3 of the )ourt of Appeals, a petition for
prohibition,
6
'Malabor it is to be noted, is one of the complainants, and
hence, he is interested in seeing Mayor @an;on ousted.(
+n *eptember 9, ./B/, the )ourt of Appeals rendered >udgment,
dismissing )A$@.#. *" No. .3:.9. +n 2uly 0, .//-, it likewise
promulgated a decision, dismissing )A$@.#. *" No. 1-9,3. &n a
#esolution dated 2anuary 1:, .//-, it issued a #esolution certifying the
petition of Mary Ann Artieda, who had been similary charged by the
respondent *ecretary, to this )ourt.
+n 2une 13,.//-, we issued a 4emporary #estraining +rder, barring the
respondent *ecretary from implementing the suspension orders, and
restraining the enforcement of the )ourt of AppealsA 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 the
Department of 8ocal @overnment in hearing the ten cases against him,
had denied him due process of law and that the respondent *ecretary
had been Gbiased, pre>udicial and hostileG towards him
7
arising from his
'Mayor @an;onAs( alleged refusal to >oin the 8aban ng Demokratikong
"ilipino party
J
and the running political rivalry they maintained in the last
congressional and local electionsD
9
and his alleged refusal to operate a
lottery in &loilo )ity.
10
Ce also alleges that he requested the *ecretary to
lift his suspension since it had come ninety days prior to an election 'the
barangay elections of November .:, ./BB(,
11
notwithstanding which, the
latter proceeded with the hearing and meted out two more suspension
orders of the aforementioned cases.
12
Ce likewise contends that he
sought to bring the cases to &loilo )ity 'they were held in Manila( in order
to reduce the costs of proceeding, but the *ecretary re>ected his request.
13
Ce states that he asked for postponement on Gvalid and >ustifiableG
1<
grounds, among them, that he was suffering from a heart ailment which
required confinementD that his GvitalG
15
witness was also hospitali;ed
16
but that the latter unduly denied his request.
17
Mayor @an;onAs primary argument '@.#. Nos. /,101 and /01:0( is that
the *ecretary of 8ocal @overnment is devoid, in any event, of any
authority to suspend and remove local officials, an argument reiterated by
the petitioner Mary Ann #ivera Artieda '@.#. No. /,9:3(.
As to Mayor @an;onAs charges of denial of due process, the records do
not show very clearly in what manner the Mayor might have been
deprived of his rights by the respondent *ecretary. Cis claims that he and
*ecretary 8uis$*antos were 'are( political rivals and that his GpersecutionG
was politically motivated are pure speculation and although the latter
does not appear to have denied these contentions 'as he, Mayor @an;on,
claims(, we can not take his word for it the way we would have under less
political circumstances, considering furthermore that Gpolitical feudG has
often been a good e!cuse in contesting complaints.
4he Mayor has failed furthermore to substantiate his say$soAs that
*ecretary *antos had attempted to seduce him to >oin the administration
party and to operate a lottery in &loilo )ity. Again, although the *ecretary
failed to rebut his allegations, we can not accept them, at face value,
much more, as >udicial admissions as he would have us accept them
1J
for the same reasons above$stated and furthermore, because his say soAs
were never corroborated by independent testimonies. As a responsible
public official, *ecretary *antos, in pursuing an official function, is
presumed to be performing his duties regularly and in the absence of
contrary evidence, no ill motive can be ascribed to him.
As to Mayor @an;onAs contention that he had requested the respondent
*ecretary to defer the hearing on account of the ninety$day ban
prescribed by *ection 31 of Batas Blg. ,,9, the )ourt finds the question
to be moot and academic since we have in fact restrained the *ecretary
from further hearing the complaints against the petitioners.
19
As to his request, finally, for postponements, the )ourt is afraid that he
has not given any compelling reason why we should overturn the )ourt of
Appeals, which found no convincing reason to overrule *ecretary *antos
in denying his requests. Besides, postponements are a matter of
discretion on the part of the hearing officer, and based on Mayor
@an;onAs above story, we are not convinced that the *ecretary has been
guilty of a grave abuse of discretion.
4he )ourt can not say, under these circumstances, that *ecretary *antosA
actuations deprived Mayor @an;on of due process of law.
e come to the core question5 hether or not the *ecretary of 8ocal
@overnment, as the "residentAs alter ego, can suspend and<or remove
local officials.
&t is the petitionersA argument that the ./B9 )onstitution
20
no longer
allows the "resident, as the ./,0 and ./9, )onstitutions did, to e!ercise
the power of suspension and<or removal over local officials. According to
both petitioners, the )onstitution is meant, first, to strengthen self$rule by
local government units and second, by deleting the phrase
21
as may be
provided by law to strip the "resident of the power of control over local
governments. &t is a view, so they contend, that finds support in the
debates of the )onstitutional )ommission. 4he provision in question
reads as follows5
*ec. :. 4he "resident of the "hilippines shall e!ercise general
supervision over local governments. "rovinces with respect to component
cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to
component barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units
are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.
22
&t modifies a counterpart provision appearing in the ./,0 )onstitution,
which we quote5
*ec. .-. 4he "resident shall have control of all the e!ecutive
departments, bureaus, or offices, e!ercise general supervision over all
8ocal governments as may be provided by law, and take care that the
laws be faithfully e!ecuted.
23
4he petitioners submit that the deletion 'of Gas may be provided by lawG(
is significant, as their argument goes, since5 '.( the power of the
"resident is Gprovided by lawG and '1( hence, no law may provide for it
any longer.
&t is to be noted that in meting out the suspensions under question, the
*ecretary of 8ocal @overnment acted in consonance with the specific
legal provisions of Batas Blg. ,,9, the 8ocal @overnment )ode, we
quote5
*ec. 31. No+/c, o5 H,ar/'(. K ithin seven days after the complaint is
filed, the Minister of local @overnment, or the sanggunian concerned, as
the case may be, shall require the respondent to submit his verified
answer within seven days from receipt of said complaint, and commence
the hearing and investigation of the case within ten days after receipt of
such answer of the respondent. No investigation shall be held within
ninety days immediately prior to an election, and no preventive
suspension shall be imposed with the said period. &f preventive
suspension has been imposed prior to the aforesaid period, the
preventive suspension shall be lifted.
2<
*ec. 3,. Pr,*,'+/*, #130,'3/o'. H '.( "reventive suspension may be
imposed by the Minister of 8ocal @overnment if the respondent is a
provincial or city official, by the provincial governor if the respondent is an
elective municipal official, or by the city or municipal mayor if the
respondent is an elective barangay official.
'1( "reventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues
are >oined, when there is reasonable ground to believe that the
respondent has committed the act or acts complained of, when the
evidence of culpability is strong, when the gravity of the offense so
warrants, or when the continuance in office of the respondent could
influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the
records and other evidence. &n all cases, preventive suspension shall not
e!tend beyond si!ty days after the start of said suspension.
',( At the e!piration of si!ty days, the suspended official shall be deemed
reinstated in office without pre>udice to the continuation of the
proceedings against him until its termination. Cowever A if the delay in the
proceedings of the case is due to his fault, neglect or request, the time of
the 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 ./B9 )onstitution, in deleting the phrase Gas may be provided by
lawG intend to divest the "resident of the power to investigate, suspend,
discipline, and<or remove local officialsF '1( Cas the )onstitution repealed
*ections 31 and 3, of the 8ocal @overnment )odeF ',( hat is the
significance of the change in the constitutional languageF
&t is the considered opinion of the )ourt that notwithstanding the change
in the constitutional language, the charter did not intend to divest the
legislature of its right or the "resident of her prerogative as conferred by
e!isting legislation to provide administrative sanctions against local
officials. &t is our opinion that the omission 'of Gas may be provided by
lawG( signifies nothing more than to underscore local governmentsA
autonomy from congress and to break )ongressA GcontrolG over local
government affairs. 4he )onstitution did not, however, intend, for the
sake of local autonomy, to deprive the legislature of all authority over
municipal corporations, in particular, concerning discipline.
Autonomy does not, after all, contemplate making mini$states out of local
government units, as in the federal governments of the 6nited *tates of
America 'or Bra;il or @ermany(, although 2efferson is said to have
compared municipal corporations euphemistically to Gsmall republics.G
26
Autonomy, in the constitutional sense, is sub>ect to the guiding star,
though not control, of the legislature, albeit the legislative responsibility
under the )onstitution and as the Gsupervision clauseG itself suggest$is to
wean local government units from over$dependence on the central
government.
&t is noteworthy that under the )harter, Glocal autonomyG is not instantly
self$e!ecuting, but sub>ect to, among other things, the passage of a local
government code,
27
a local ta! law,
2J
income distribution legislation,
29
and a national representation law,
30
and measures
31
designed to reali;e
autonomy at the local level. &t is also noteworthy that in spite of autonomy,
the )onstitution places the local government under the general
supervision of the 7!ecutive. &t is noteworthy finally, that the )harter
allows )ongress to include in the local government code provisions for
removal of local officials, which suggest that )ongress may e!ercise
removal 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 shall
provide for a more responsive and accountable local government
structure instituted through a system of decentrali;ation with effective
mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the
different local government units their powers, responsibilities and
resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and
removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials,
and all other matters relating to the organi;ation and operation of the local
units.
32
As hereinabove indicated, the deletion of Gas may be provided by lawG
was meant to stress, 319 3/),'c/o, the ob>ective of the framers to
strengthen 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 the
power of investigation, and denied her control, which allegedly embraces
disciplinary authority. &t is a mistaken impression because legally,
GsupervisionG is not incompatible with disciplinary authority as this )ourt
has held,
3<
thus5
!!! !!! !!!
&t is true that in the case of Mondano vs. *ilvosa, 0. +ff. @a;., No. 3 p.
1BB:, this )ourt had occasion to discuss the scope and e!tent of the
power of supervision by the "resident over local government officials in
contrast to the power of control given to him over e!ecutive officials of our
government wherein it was emphasi;ed that the two terms, control and
supervision, are two different things which differ one from the other in
meaning and e!tent. 4hus in that case the )ourt has made the following
digression5 G&n administration law supervision means overseeing or the
power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform
their duties. &f the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them the former may take
such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their
duties. )ontrol, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter
or modify or nullify of set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute the >udgment of the former for
that of the latter.G But from this pronouncement it cannot be reasonably
inferred that the power of supervision of the "resident over local
government officials does not include the power of investigation when in
his opinion the good of the public service so requires, as postulated in
*ection 3:'c( of the #evised Administrative )ode. ...
35
!!! !!! !!!
G)ontrolG has been defined as Gthe power of an officer to alter or modify or
nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute the >udgment of the former for
test of the latter.G
36
G*upervisionG on the other hand means Goverseeing
or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers
perform their duties.
37
As we held,
3J
however, GinvestigatingG is not
inconsistent with GoverseeingG, although it is a lesser power than
GalteringG. 4he impression is apparently e!acerbated by the )ourtAs
pronouncements in at least three cases, Lac3o' *. Ro@1,,
39
H,9ro' *.
R,2,3,
<0
and Mo'.a'o *. #/)*o3a,
<1
and possibly, a fourth one, "elae;
v. Auditor @eneral.
<2
&n Lac3o', this )ourt said that the "resident
en>oyed no control powers but only supervision Gas may be provided by
law,G
<3
a rule we reiterated in H,9ro', and Mo'.a'o. &n P,)a,6, we
stated that the "resident Gmay not . . . suspend an elective official of a
regular municipality or take any disciplinary action against him, e!cept on
appeal from a decision of the corresponding provincial board.G
<<
Cowever, neither Lac3o' nor H,9ro' nor Mo'.a'o categorically
banned the )hief 7!ecutive from e!ercising acts of disciplinary authority
because she did not e!ercise control powers, but because no law allowed
her to e!ercise disciplinary authority. 4hus, according to Lac3o'5
4he contention that the "resident has inherent power to remove or
suspend municipal officers is without doubt not well taken. #emoval and
suspension of public officers are always controlled by the particular law
applicable and its proper construction sub>ect to constitutional limitations.
<5
&n H,9ro' we stated5
Accordingly, when the procedure for the suspension of an officer is
specified by law, the same must be deemed mandatory and adhered to
strictly, in the absence of e!press or clear provision to the contrary$which
does not et with respect to municipal officers ...
<6
&n Mo'.a'o, the )ourt held5
... 4he )ongress has e!pressly and specifically lodged the provincial
supervision over municipal officials in the provincial governor who is
authori;ed to Greceive and investigate complaints made under oath
against municipal officers for neglect of duty, oppression, corruption or
other form of maladministration of office, and conviction by final >udgment
of any crime involving moral turpitude.G And if the charges are serious,
Ghe shall submit written charges touching the matter to the provincial
board, furnishing a copy of such charges to the accused either personally
or by registered mail, and he may in such case suspend the officer 'not
being the municipal treasurer( pending action by the board, if in his
opinion the charge by one affecting the official integrity of the officer in
question.G *ection B3 of the #evised Administration )ode adds nothing to
the power of supervision to be e!ercised by the Department Cead over
the administration of ... municipalities ... . &f it be construed that it does
and such additional power is the same authority as that vested in the
Department Cead by section 9/'c( of the #evised Administrative )ode,
then such additional power must be deemed to have been abrogated by
*ection ..-'l(, Article %&& of the )onstitution.
<7
!!! !!! !!!
&n P,)a,6, we stated that the "resident can not impose disciplinary
measures on local officials e!cept on appeal from the provincial board
pursuant to the Administrative )ode.
<J
4hus, in those case that this )ourt denied the "resident the power 'to
suspend<remove( it was not because we did not think that the "resident
can not e!ercise it on account of his limited power, but because the law
lodged the power elsewhere. But in those cases ii which the law gave him
the power, the )ourt, as in Ga'6o' *. La2a'a', found little difficulty in
sustaining him.
<9
4he )ourt does not believe that the petitioners can rightfully point to the
debates of the )onstitutional )ommission to defeat the "residentAs
powers. 4he )ourt believes that the deliberations are by themselves
inconclusive, because although )ommissioner 2ose Nolledo would
e!clude the power of removal from the "resident,
50
)ommissioner Blas
+ple would not.
51
4he )ourt is consequently reluctant to say that the new )onstitution has
repealed the 8ocal @overnment )ode, Batas Blg. ,9. As we said,
GsupervisionG and GremovalG are not incompatible terms and one may
stand with the other notwithstanding the stronger e!pression of local
autonomy under the new )harter. e have indeed held that in spite of the
approval of the )harter, Batas Blg. ,,9 is still in force and effect.
52
As the )onstitution itself declares, local autonomy means Ga more
responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through
a system of decentrali;ation.G
53
4he )onstitution as we observed, does
nothing more than to break up the monopoly of the national government
over the affairs of local governments and as put by political adherents, to
Gliberate the local governments from the imperialism of Manila.G
Autonomy, however, is not meant to end the relation of partnership and
inter$dependence between the central administration and local
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 other
purpose than precisely, albeit parado!ically, to enhance self$ government.
As we observed in one case,
5<
decentrali;ation means devolution of
national 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 administration
when the central government delegates administrative powers to political
subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and in the
process to make local governments Gmore responsive and accountable,G
and Gensure their fullest development as self$reliant communities and
make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national development
and social progress.G At the same time, it relieves the central government
of the burden of managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate on
national concerns. 4he "resident e!ercises Ggeneral supervisionG over
them, but only to Gensure that local affairs are administered according to
law.G Ce has no control over their acts in the sense that he can substitute
their >udgments with his own.
Decentrali;ation of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of
political power in the favor of local governments units declared to be
autonomous, &n that case, the autonomous government is free to chart its
own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central
authorities. According to a constitutional author, decentrali;ation of power
amounts to Gself$immolation,G since in that event, the autonomous
government becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to its
constituency.
55
4he successive si!ty$day suspensions imposed on Mayor #odolfo
@an;on is albeit another matter. hat bothers the )ourt, and what indeed
looms very large, is the fact that since the Mayor is facing ten
administrative charges, the Mayor is in fact facing the possibility of 3--
days of suspension, in the event that all ten cases yield 0r/-a 5ac/,
findings. 4he )ourt is not of course tolerating misfeasance in public office
'assuming that Mayor @an;on is guilty of misfeasance( but it is certainly
another question to make him serve 3-- days of suspension, which is
effectively, to suspend him out of office. As we held5
56
1. "etitioner is a duly elected municipal mayor of 8ianga, *urigao del *ur.
Cis term of office does not e!pire until ./B3. ere it not for this
information and the suspension decreed by the *andiganbayan according
to the Anti$@raft and )orrupt "ractices Act, he would have been all this
while in the full discharge of his functions as such municipal mayor. Ce
was elected precisely to do so. As of +ctober 13, ./B,, he has been
unable to. it is a basic assumption of the electoral process implicit in the
right of suffrage that the people are entitled to the services of elective
officials of their choice. =or misfeasance or malfeasance, any of them
could, of course, be proceeded against administratively or, as in this
instance, criminally. &n either case, Ms culpability must be established.
Moreover, if there be a criminal action, he is entitled to the constitutional
presumption of innocence. A preventive suspension may be >ustified. &ts
continuance, however, for an unreasonable length of time raises a due
process question. =or even if thereafter he were acquitted, in the
meanwhile his right to hold office had been nullified. )learly, there would
be in such a case an in>ustice suffered by him. Nor is he the only victim.
4here is in>ustice inflicted likewise on the people of 8ianga 4hey were
deprived of the services of the man they had elected to serve as mayor.
&n that sense, to paraphrase 2ustice )ardo;o, the protracted continuance
of this preventive suspension had outrun the bounds of reason and
resulted in sheer oppression. A denial of due process is thus quite
manifest. &t is to avoid such an unconstitutional application that the order
of suspension should be lifted.
57
4he plain truth is that this )ourt has been ill at ease with suspensions, for
the above reasons,
5J
and so also, because it is out of the ordinary to
have a vacancy in local government. 4he sole ob>ective of a suspension,
as we have held,
59
is simply Gto prevent the accused from hampering the
normal cause of the investigation with his influence and authority over
possible witnessesG
60
or to keep him off Gthe records and other evidence.
61
&t is a means, and no more, to assist prosecutors in firming up a case, if
any, against an erring local official. 6nder the 8ocal @overnment )ode, it
can not e!ceed si!ty days,
62
which is to say that it need not be e!actly
si!ty days long if a shorter period is otherwise sufficient, and which is also
to say that it ought to be lifted if prosecutors have achieved their purpose
in a shorter span.
*uspension is not a penalty and is not unlike preventive imprisonment in
which the accused is held to insure his presence at the trial. &n both
cases, the accused 'the respondent( en>oys a presumption of innocence
unless and until found guilty.
*uspension finally is temporary and as the 8ocal @overnment )ode
provides, it may be imposed for no more than si!ty days. As we held,
63
a
longer suspension is un>ust and unreasonable, and we might add, nothing
less than tyranny.
As we observed earlier, imposing 3-- days of suspension which is not a
remote possibility Mayor @an;on is to all intents and purposes, to make
him spend the rest of his term in inactivity. &t is also to make, to all intents
and purposes, his suspension permanent.
&t is also, in fact, to mete out punishment in spite of the fact that the
MayorAs guilt has not been proven. orse, any absolution will be for
naught because needless to say, the length of his suspension would
have, by the time he is reinstated, wiped out his tenure considerably.
4he )ourt is not to be mistaken for obstructing the efforts of the
respondent *ecretary to see that >ustice is done in &loilo )ity, yet it is
hardly any argument to inflict on Mayor @an;on successive suspensions
when apparently, the respondent *ecretary has had sufficient time to
gather the necessary evidence to build a case against the Mayor without
suspending him a day longer. hat is intriguing is that the respondent
*ecretary has been cracking down, so to speak, on the Mayor piecemeal
apparently, 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, and
that 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- days
of suspension and the possibility of si!ty days more is arguably around
the corner 'which amounts to a violation of the 8ocal @overnment )ode
which brings to light a pattern of suspensions intended to suspend the
Mayor the rest of his natural tenure. 4he )ourt is simply foreclosing what
appears to us as a concerted effort of the *tate to perpetuate an arbitrary
act.
As we said, we can not tolerate such a state of affairs.
e are therefore allowing Mayor #odolfo @an;on to suffer the duration of
his third suspension and lifting, for the purpose, the 4emporary
#estraining +rder earlier issued. &nsofar as the seven remaining charges
are concerned, we are urging the Department of 8ocal @overnment, upon
the finality of this Decision, to undertake steps to e!pedite the same,
sub>ect to Mayor @an;onAs usual remedies of appeal, >udicial or
administrative, or certiorari, if warranted, and meanwhile, we are
precluding the *ecretary from meting out further suspensions based on
those remaining complaints, notwithstanding findings of 0r/-a 5ac/,
evidence.
&n resume the )ourt is laying down the following rules5
.. 8ocal autonomy, under the )onstitution, involves a mere
decentrali;ation of administration, not of power, in which local officials
remain accountable to the central government in the manner the law may
provideD
1. 4he new )onstitution does not prescribe federalismD
,. 4he change in constitutional language 'with respect to the supervision
clause( was meant but to deny legislative control over local governmentsD
it did not e!empt the latter from legislative regulations provided regulation
is consistent with the fundamental premise of autonomyD
:. *ince local governments remain accountable to the national authority,
the latter may, by law, and in the manner set forth therein, impose
disciplinary action against local officialsD
0. G*upervisionG and GinvestigationG are not inconsistent termsD
GinvestigationG does not signify GcontrolG 'which the "resident does not
have(D
3. 4he petitioner, Mayor #odolfo @an;on. may serve the suspension so
far ordered, but may no longer be suspended for the offenses he was
charged originallyD provided5
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 in
computing the time of suspension. I#10ra, sec. 3,',(J
b( that if during, or after the e!piration of, his preventive suspension, the
petitioner commits another or other crimes and abuses for which proper
charges are filed against him by the aggrieved party or parties, his
previous suspension shall not be a bar to his being preventively
suspended again, if warranted under subpar. '1(, *ection 3, of the 8ocal
@overnment )ode.
C7#7=+#7, premises considered, the petitions are D&*M&**7D. 4he
4emporary #estraining +rder issued is 8&=47D. 4he suspensions of the
petitioners are A==&#M7D, provided that the petitioner, Mayor #odolfo
@an;on, may not be made to serve future suspensions on account of any
of the remaining administrative charges pending against him for acts
committed prior to August .., ./BB. 4he *ecretary of &nterior is
+#D7#7D to consolidate all such administrative cases pending against
Mayor @an;on.
4he si!ty$day suspension against the petitioner, Mary Ann #ivera Artieda,
is A==&#M7D. No costs.
*+ +#D7#7D.
G.R. No. 91023 %1)2 13, 1990
METROPOLITAN TRABBI$ $OMMAND 7E#T TRABBI$ DI#TRI$T,
petitioner,
vs.
HON. AR#ENIO M. GONONG, /' h/3 ca0ac/+2 a3 Pr,3/./'( %1.(, o5
+h, R,(/o'a) Tr/a) $o1r+, !ra'ch J a+ Ma'/)a, a'. DANTE #.
DAVID, respondents.
Da'+, #. Da*/. 5or a'. /' h/3 o4' 9,ha)5 a3 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+.

$RUI, %.&
e deal here with a practice known to many motorists in Metro Manila5
the removal of the license plates of illegally parked vehicles. 4his was
challenged by the private respondent in the regional trial court of Manila,
which held the practice unlawful. 4he petitioner is now before us, urging
reversal of the decision for grave abuse of discretion.
4he original complaint was filed with the said court on August .-, ./B/,
by Dante *. David, a lawyer, who claimed that the rear license plate, of
his car was removed by the Metropolitan 4raffic )ommand while the
vehicle was parked on 7scolta. Ce questioned the petitionerAs act on the
ground not only that the car was not illegally parked but, more importantly,
that there was no ordinance or law authori;ing such removal. Ce asked
that the practice be permanently en>oined and that in the meantime a
temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary in>unction be issued.
2udge Arsenio M. @onong issued a temporary restraining order on August
.:, ./B/, and hearings on the writ of preliminary in>unction were held on
August .B, 1,, and 10, ./B/. 4he writ was granted on this last date. 4he
parties also agreed to submit the case for resolution on the sole issue of
whether there was a law or ordinance authori;ing the removal of the
license plates of illegally parked vehicles. 4he parties then submitted
simultaneous memoranda in support of their respective positions,
following which the respondent >udge rendered the assailed decision.
&n ruling for the complainant, 2udge @onong held that 8+& :,, which the
defendant had invoked, did not empower it Gto detach, remove and
confiscate vehicle plates of motor vehicles illegally parked and
unattended as in the case at bar. &t merely authori;es the removal of said
vehicles when they are obstacles to free passage or continued flow of
traffic on streets and highways.G At any rate, he said, the 8+& had been
repealed by "D .3-0. Moreover, the defendant had not been able to point
to any MM) rule or regulation or to any city ordinance to >ustify the
questioned act. +n the allegation that the practice was Gthe root cause of
graft and corruption or at the very least the equivalent of street racket
among defendantAs deployed agents,G Cis Conor made the following
pointed observations5
At this >uncture, it may not be amiss to say, that if the arbitrary and
capricious detachment and confiscation of vehicles plates illegally parked
and unattended as in the act complained of in the instant case, the image
of the man clothed in a traffic or police uniform will be greatly impaired if
not cursed with disrespect on the part of those who have suffered at his
hands. orse, he will cease 'if he had not already ceased( to be the law$
abiding, courageous and valiant protector of a citi;en of the #epublic that
he is meant to be, and instead his real oppressor and enemy, thereby
fortifying the contemporaneous public perception that he is a dyed$in$the$
wool e!tortionist if not an unmitigated chiseler.
1
&t bears noting that this petition should have been filed first with the )ourt
of Appeals, which has concurrent >urisdiction with this )ourt on decisions
of the regional trial courts involving questions of law. Cowever, in view of
the importance of the issue raised, we have decided to take cogni;ance
thereof under #ule 30 of the #ules of )ourt so we can address and
resolve the question directly.
6pon the filing of this petition, we issued a temporary restraining order
dated =ebruary 3, .//-, to prevent enforcement of the said decision until
further orders from this )ourt. 4hereafter, we required a comment from
the private respondent, to which the petitioner filed a reply as also
directed.
4he petitioner reiterates and reinforces its argument in the court below
and insists that 8+& :, remains in force despite the issuance of "D .3-0.
&t contends that there is no inconsistency between the two measures
because the former deals with illegally parked vehicles anywhere in the
"hilippines whereas the latter deals with the regulation of the flow of
traffic in the Metro Manila area only. 4he two measures may be enforced
together because implied repeals are not favored and, furthermore, to
look at them another way, 8+& :, is the special law dealing only with
illegal parking while "D .3-0 is the general law dealing with all other
kinds of traffic violations. 4he special law must of course prevail over the
general law. 4he petitioner also deplores the above$quoted remarks of the
trial >udge, pointing out that the parties had agreed to limit the issue to
whether there was a statutory basis for the act complained of. And even
assuming that abuses have been committed in the enforcement of 8+&
:,, the remedy is not to disregard it or consider it revoked but to
prosecute the guilty parties.
&n his comment, the private respondent argues that 8+& :, has been
repealed by "D .3-0, which specifies all the sanctions available against
the various traffic violations, including illegal parking. Ce stresses that
removal and confiscation of the license plates of illegally parked vehicles
is not one of them, the penalties being limited in the decree to imposition
of fine and suspension or revocation of driverAs licenses or certificates of
public convenience, etc. E80r,33/o 1'/13 ,3+ ,8c)13/o a)+,r/13. Ce
agrees that the special law prevails over the general law but maintains it
is "D .3-0 that is the special law because it is applicable only on Metro
Manila and 8+& :, that is the general law because it was intended to
operate throughout the country. As for his allegation that the challenged
practice is a source of graft, he maintains that it was not improper to
discuss it in his memorandum because it was pertinent to the central
issue under consideration. =inally, he claims that removal and
confiscation of the license plate without notice and hearing violates due
process 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 raising
the constitutionality of 8+& :,, suggesting faintly that this should not be
permitted. &n any case, it maintains, the license plate is not property in the
constitutional sense, being merely the identification of the vehicle, and its
Gtemporary confiscationG does not deprive the owner of the use of the
vehicle itself. Cence, there is no unlawful taking under the due process
clause. 4he petitioner also takes issue with the contention that it is "D
.3-0 that should be considered the special law because of its limited
territorial application. #epeal of 8+& :, on that ground would run counter
to 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 4ransportation
on *treets and Cighways, was issued on November 1B, ./91, with the
following pertinent provisions5
Motor vehicles that stall on the streets and highways, streets and
sidewalks, shall immediately be removed by their owners<usersD
otherwise said vehicles shall be dealt with and disposed in the manner
stated hereunderD
.. =or the first offense the stalled or illegally parked vehicle shall be
removed, towed and impounded at the e!pense of the owner, user or
claimantD
1. =or the second and subsequent offenses, the registry plates of the
vehicles shall be confiscated and the ownerAs certificate of registration
cancelled. '7mphasis supplied(.
"D .3-0 '@ranting the Metropolitan Manila )ommission )entral "owers
#elated to 4raffic Management, "roviding "enalties, and for +ther
"urposes( was issued, also by "resident Marcos, on November 1., ./9B,
and pertinently provides5
*ection .. 4he Metropolitan Manila )ommission shall have the power to
impose fines and otherwise discipline drivers and operators of motor
vehicles for violations of traffic laws, ordinances, rules and regulations in
Metropolitan Manila in such amounts and under such penalties as are
herein prescribed. =or his purpose, the powers of the 8and 4ransportation
)ommission and the Board of 4ransportation under e!isting laws over
such violations and punishment thereof are hereby transferred to the
Metropolitan Manila )ommission. hen the proper penalty to be imposed
is suspension or revocation of driverAs license or certificate of public
convenience, the Metropolitan Manila )ommission or its representatives
shall suspend or revoke such license or certificate. 4he suspended or
revoked driverAs license or the report of suspension or revocation of the
certificate of public convenience shall be sent to the 8and 4ransportation
)ommission or the Board of 4ransportation, as the case may be, for their
records update.
!!! !!! !!!
*ection ,. %iolations of traffic laws, ordinances, rules and regulations,
committed within a twelve$month period, reckoned from the date of birth
of the licensee, shall sub>ect the violator to graduated fines as follows5
".-.-- for the first offense, "1-.-- for the second offense, "0-.-- for the
third offense, a one$year suspension of driverAs license for the fourth
offense, and a revocation of the driverA license for the fifth offense5
"rovided, 4hat the Metropolitan Manila )ommission may impose higher
penalties as it may deem proper for violations of its ordinances prohibiting
or regulating the use of certain public roads, streets or thoroughfares in
Metropolitan Manila.
!!! !!! !!!
*ection 0. &n case of traffic violations, the driverAs license shall not be
confiscated but the erring driver shall be immediately issued a traffic
citation ticket prescribed by the Metropolitan Manila )ommission which
shall state the violation committed, the amount of fine imposed for the
violation and an advice that he can make payment to the city or municipal
treasurer where the violation was committed or to the "hilippine National
Bank or "hilippine %eterans Bank or their branches within seven days
from the date of issuance of the citation ticket.
&f the offender fails to pay the fine imposed within the period herein
prescribed, the Metropolitan Manila )ommission or the law enforcement
agency concerned shall endorse the case to the proper fiscal for
appropriate proceedings preparatory to the filing of the case with the
competent traffic court, city or municipal court.
&f at the time a driver renews his driverAs license and records show that he
has an unpaid fine, his driverAs license shall not be renewed until he has
paid the fine and corresponding surcharges.
!!! !!! !!!
*ection B. &nsofar as the Metropolitan Manila area is concerned, all laws,
decrees, orders, ordinances, rules and regulations, or parts thereof
inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
'7mphasis supplied(.
A careful reading of the above decree will show that removal and
confiscation of the license plate of any illegally parked vehicle is not
among the specified penalties. Moreover, although the Metropolitan
Manila )ommission is authori;ed by the decree to Gotherwise disciplineG
and Gimpose higher penaltiesG on traffic violators, whatever sanctions it
may impose must be Gin such amounts and under such penalties as are
herein prescribed.G 4he petitioner has not pointed to any such additional
sanctions, relying instead on its argument that the applicable authority for
the questioned act is 8+& :,.
4he petitioner stresses that under the decree, Gthe powers of the 8and
4ransportation )ommission and the Board of 4ransportation over such
violations and punishment thereof are 'hereby( transferred to the
Metropolitan Manila )ommission,G and one of such laws is 8+& :,. 4he
penalties prescribed by the 8+& are therefore deemed incorporated in "D
.3-0 as additional to the other penalties therein specified.
&t would appear that what the 8+& punishes is not a traffic violation but a
traffic obstruction, which is an altogether different offense. A violation
imports an intentional breach or disregard of a rule, as where a driver
leaves his vehicle in a no$parking area against a known and usually
visible prohibition. )ontrary to the common impression, 8+& :, does not
punish illegal parking 0,r 3, but parking of stalled vehicles, i.e., those
that involuntarily stop on the road due to some une!pected trouble such
as engine defect, lack of gasoline, punctured tires, or other similar cause.
4he vehicle is deemed illegally parked because it obstructs the flow of
traffic, but only because it has stalled. 4he obstruction is not deliberate. &n
fact, even the petitioner recogni;es that Gthere is a world of difference
between a stalled vehicle and an illegally parked and unattended oneG
and suggests a different treatment for either. G4he first means one which
stopped unnecessarily or broke down while the second means one which
stopped to accomplish something, including temporary rest.
2
8+& :, deals with motor vehicles Gthat stall on the streets and highwaysA
and not those that are intentionally parked in a public place in violation of
a traffic law or regulation. 4he purpose of the 8+& evidently is to discipline
the motorist into keeping his vehicle in good condition before going out
into the streets so as not to cause inconvenience to the public when the
car breaks down and blocks other vehicles. 4hat is why, for the first
offense, the stalled vehicle is immediately towed at the ownerAs e!pense
to clear the street of the traffic obstruction. here it appears that the
owner has not learned from his first e!perience because the vehicle has
stalled again, presumably due to his failure to repair it, the penalty shall
be confiscation of the license plate and cancellation of the certificate of
registration petition.
&t is worth noting that it is not the driverAs license that is confiscated and
canceled when the vehicle stalls on a public street. 4he 8+& goes against
the vehicle itself. 4he ob>ect of the measure is to ensure that only motor
vehicles in good condition may use the public streets, and this is effected
by confiscating the license plates and canceling the certificates of
registration of those vehicles that are not roadworthy.
&n the case of the private respondent, it is not alleged or shown that his
vehicle stalled on a public thoroughfare and obstructed the flow of traffic.
4he charge against him is that he purposely parked his vehicle in a no
parking area 'although this is disputed by him(./M+Mc"aN3) 4he act, if true,
is a traffic violation that may not be punished under 8+& :,. 4he
applicable law is "D .3-0, which does not include removal and
confiscation of the license plate of the vehicle among the imposable
penalties.
&ndeed, even if 8+& :, were applicable, the penalty of confiscation would
still not be >ustified as it has not been alleged, much less shown, that the
illegal parking was a second or subsequent offense. 4hat circumstance
must be established at a trial before a court of >ustice where the vehicle
owner shall have a right to be heard in his defense. 4he second or
subsequent offense cannot be simply pronounced by the traffic authorities
without hearing and without proof. )onfiscation of the registry plate
without a >udicial finding that the offense charge is a second or
subsequent one would, unless the owner concedes this point, be invalid.
hile it is true that the license plate is strictly speaking not a property
right, it does not follow that it may be removed or confiscated without
lawful cause. Due process is a guaranty against all forms of official
arbitrariness. 6nder the principle that ours is a government of laws and
not of men, every official must act by and within the authority of a valid
law and cannot >ustify the lack of it on the prete!t alone of good
intentions. &t is recalled that more than seventy years ago, the mayor of
Manila deported one hundred seventy prostitutes to Davao for the
protection of the morals and health of the city. 4his )ourt acknowledged
his praiseworthy purpose but >ust the same annulled his unauthori;ed act,
holding that no one could take the law into his own hands.
3
e can rule
no less in the case before us.
e find that there is no inconsistency between 8+& :, and "D .3-0,
whichever is considered the special law either because of its sub>ect or its
territorial application. 4he former deals with motor vehicles that have
stalled on a public road while the latter deals with motor vehicles that
have been deliberately parked in a no$parking areaD and while both cover
illegal parking of motor vehicles, the offense is accidental under the first
measure and intentional under the second. 4his e!plains why the
sanctions are different. 4he purpose of the 8+& is to discourage the use of
the public streets by motor vehicles that are likely to break down while
that of the decree is to penali;e the driver for his defiance of the traffic
laws.
As it has not been shown that the private respondentAs motor vehicle had
stalled because of an engine defect or some other accidental cause and,
no less importantly, that it had stalled on the road for a second or
subsequent time, confiscation of the license plate cannot be >ustified
under 8+& :,. And neither can that sanction be sustained under "D .3-0,
which clearly provides that Gin case of traffic violations, 'even( the driverAs
license shall not be confiscated,G let alone the license plate of the motor
vehicle. &f at all, the private respondent may be held liable for illegal
parking only and sub>ected to any of the specific penalties mentioned in
*ection , of the decree.
e recogni;e the problem of the traffic policeman who comes upon an
illegally parked and unattended vehicle and is unable to serve a citation
on the offending driver who is nowhere in sight. But that problem is not
addressed to the courtsD it is for the legislative and administrative
authorities to solve. hat is clear to the )ourt is that the difficulty cannot
be avoided by the removal of the license plate of the offending vehicle
because the petitioner has not shown that this penalty is authori;ed by a
valid law or ordinance.
4he petitioner complains that the respondent >udge did not confine
himself to the issue agreed upon by the parties and made gratuitous
accusations that were not only irrelevant but virtually condemned the
whole traffic force as corrupt. Assuming that this issue was indeed not
properly raised at the trial, the )ourt is nevertheless not inhibited from
considering it in this proceeding, on the basis of its own impressions on
the matter.
4his )ourt is not isolated from the mainstream of society and secluded in
a world of its own, unconcerned with the daily lives of the rest of the
nation. +n the contrary, the members of this )ourt mi! with the people
and know their problems and complaints. And among these are the
alleged abuses of the police in connection with the issue now before us.
&t is claimed that the removal of the license plates of illegally parked motor
vehicles in Metro Manila has become a veritable gold mine for some
police officers. 4o be sure, we do not have hard, provable facts at hand
but only vague and unsubstantiated rumors that could be no more than
malicious and invented charges. Nevertheless, these accusations have
become too prevalent and apparently too persuasive that they cannot be
simply swept under the rug.
4he widespread report is that civilian Gagents,G mostly street urchins
under the control and direction of certain policemen, remove these
license plates from illegally parked vehicles and later discreetly suggest to
the owners that these may be retrieved for an unofficial fee. 4his ranges
from "0-.-- to "1--.--, depending on the type of vehicle. &f the owner
agrees, payment is usually made and the license plate returned at a
private rende;vous. No official receipt is issued. 7verything is done
quietly. 4he owners, it is said, prefer this kind of fast settlement to the
inconvenience of an official proceeding that may entail not only the
payment of a higher fine but also other administrative impositions, like
attendance at a traffic seminar.
4he )ourt is not saying that these reports are true nor is it stigmati;ing
the entire police force on the basis of these unsubstantiated charges. But
it does believe and stress that the proper authorities should take official
notice of these reports instead of blandly dismissing them as mere
canards that do not deserve their attention and concern. An inquiry is in
our view indicated. 4he old adage that where thereAs smoke thereAs fire is
not necessarily true and can hardly be the rationale of a >udicial
conclusionD but the )ourt feels >ust the same that serious steps should be
taken, especially because of the persistence of these charges, to
determine the source of the smoke.
e reali;e the seriousness of our traffic problems, particularly in Metro
Manila, and commend the earnest efforts of the police to effect a
smoother flow of vehicles in the public thoroughfares for the comfort and
convenience of the people. But we must add, as a reminder that must be
made, that such efforts must be authori;ed by a valid law, which must
clearly define the offenses proscribed and as clearly specify the penalties
prescribed.
C7#7=+#7, the petition is D&*M&**7D. 4he )ourt holds that 8+& :, is
valid but may be applied only against motor vehicles that have stalled in
the public streets due to some involuntary cause and not those that have
been intentionally parked in violation of the traffic laws. 4he challenged
decision of the trial court is A==&#M7D in so far as it en>oins confiscation
of the private respondentAs license plate for alleged deliberate illegal
parking, which is sub>ect to a different penalty. 4he temporary restraining
order dated =ebruary 3, .//-, is 8&=47D.
*+ +#D7#7D.
G.R. No. 15277< Ma2 27, 200<
THE PROVIN$E OB !ATANGA#, r,0r,3,'+,. 92 /+3 Go*,r'or,
HERMILANDO I. MANDANA#, petitioner,
vs.
HON. AL!ERTO G. ROMULO, E8,c1+/*, #,cr,+ar2 a'. $ha/r-a'
o5 +h, O*,r3/(h+ $o--/++,, o' D,*o)1+/o'O HON. EMILIA
!ON$ODIN, #,cr,+ar2, D,0ar+-,'+ o5 !1.(,+ a'. Ma'a(,-,'+O
HON. %O#E D. LINA, %R., #,cr,+ar2, D,0ar+-,'+ o5 I'+,r/or a'.
Loca) Go*,r'-,'+, respondents.
D 7 ) & * & + N
$ALLE%O, #R., %.&
4he "rovince of Batangas, represented by its @overnor, Cermilando &.
Mandanas, filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus under #ule 30 of the #ules of )ourt, as amended, to declare
as unconstitutional and void certain provisos contained in the @eneral
Appropriations Acts '@AA( of .///, 1--- and 1--., insofar as they
uniformly earmarked for each corresponding year the amount of five
billion pesos '"0,---,---,---.--( of the &nternal #evenue Allotment '&#A(
for the 8ocal @overnment *ervice 7quali;ation =und '8@*7=( and
imposed conditions for the release thereof.
Named as respondents are 7!ecutive *ecretary Alberto @. #omulo, in his
capacity as )hairman of the +versight )ommittee on Devolution,
*ecretary 7milia Boncodin of the Department of Budget and Management
'DBM( and *ecretary 2ose 8ina of the Department of &nterior and 8ocal
@overnment 'D&8@(.
!acA(ro1'.
+n December 9, .//B, then "resident 2oseph 7>ercito 7strada issued
7!ecutive +rder '7.+.( No. :B entitled G7*4AB8&*C&N@ A "#+@#AM
=+# D7%+864&+N AD26*4M7N4 AND 7K6A8&LA4&+N.G 4he program
was established to Gfacilitate the process of enhancing the capacities of
local government units '8@6s( in the discharge of the functions and
services devolved to them by the National @overnment Agencies
concerned pursuant to the 8ocal @overnment )ode.G
.
4he +versight
)ommittee 'referred to as the Devolution )ommittee in 7.+. No. :B(
constituted under *ection 0,,'b( of #epublic Act No. 9.3- '4he 8ocal
@overnment )ode of .//.( has been tasked to formulate and issue the
appropriate rules and regulations necessary for its effective
implementation.
1
=urther, to address the funding shortfalls of functions
and services devolved to the 8@6s and other funding requirements of the
program, the GDevolution Ad>ustment and 7quali;ation =undG was
created.
,
=or .//B, the DBM was directed to set aside an amount to be
determined by the +versight )ommittee based on the devolution status
appraisal surveys undertaken by the D&8@.
:
4he initial fund was to be
sourced from the available savings of the national government for )E
.//B.
0
=or ./// and the succeeding years, the corresponding amount
required to sustain the program was to be incorporated in the annual
@AA.
3
4he +versight )ommittee has been authori;ed to issue the
implementing rules and regulations governing the equitable allocation and
distribution of said fund to the 8@6s.
9
Th, LG#EB /' +h, GAA o5 1999
&n #epublic Act No. B9:0, otherwise known as the @AA of .///, the
program was renamed as the 8+)A8 @+%7#NM7N4 *7#%&)7
7K6A8&LA4&+N =6ND '8@*7=(. 6nder said appropriations law, the
amount of "/3,9B-,---,--- was allotted as the share of the 8@6s in the
internal revenue ta!es. &tem No. ., *pecial "rovisions, 4itle MMM%& N A.
&nternal #evenue Allotment of #ep. Act No. B9:0 contained the following
proviso5
... "#+%&D7D, 4hat the amount of =&%7 B&88&+N "7*+*
'"0,---,---,---( shall be earmarked for the 8ocal @overnment *ervice
7quali;ation =und for the funding requirements of pro>ects and activities
arising from the full and efficient implementation of devolved functions
and services of local government units pursuant to #.A. No. 9.3-,
otherwise known as the 8ocal @overnment )ode of .//.5 "#+%&D7D,
=6#4C7#, 4hat such amount shall be released to the local government
units sub>ect to the implementing rules and regulations, including such
mechanisms and guidelines for the equitable allocations and distribution
of said fund among local government units sub>ect to the guidelines that
may be prescribed by the +versight )ommittee on Devolution as
constituted pursuant to Book &%, 4itle &&&, *ection 0,,'b( of #.A. No. 9.3-.
4he &nternal #evenue Allotment shall be released directly by the
Department of Budget and Management to the 8ocal @overnment 6nits
concerned.
+n 2uly 1B, .///, the +versight )ommittee 'with then 7!ecutive
*ecretary #onaldo B. Lamora as )hairman( passed #esolution Nos.
+)D$//$--,, +)D$//$--0 and +)D$//$--3 entitled as follows5
+)D$//$--0
#7*+864&+N AD+"4&N@ 4C7 A88+)A4&+N *)C7M7 =+# 4C7 "h"0
B&88&+N )E ./// 8+)A8 @+%7#NM7N4 *7#%&)7 7K6A8&LA4&+N
=6ND '8@*7=( AND #7K67*4&N@ C&* 7M)7887N)E "#7*&D7N4
2+*7"C 727#)&4+ 7*4#ADA 4+ A""#+%7 *A&D A88+)A4&+N
*)C7M7.
+)D$//$--3
#7*+864&+N AD+"4&N@ 4C7 A88+)A4&+N *)C7M7 =+# 4C7
"h":.- B&88&+N += 4C7 ./// 8+)A8 @+%7#NM7N4 *7#%&)7
7K6A8&LA4&+N =6ND AND &4* )+N)+M&4AN4 @7N7#A8
=#AM7+#?, &M"87M7N4&N@ @6&D78&N7* AND M7)CAN&)* =+#
&4* &M"87M7N4A4&+N AND #787A*7, A* "#+M68@A47D BE 4C7
+%7#*&@C4 )+MM&4477 +N D7%+864&+N.
+)D$//$--,
#7*+864&+N #7K67*4&N@ C&* 7M)7887N)E "#7*&D7N4 2+*7"C
727#)&4+ 7*4#ADA 4+ A""#+%7 4C7 #7K67*4 += 4C7
+%7#*&@C4 )+MM&4477 +N D7%+864&+N 4+ *74 A*&D7 47N4E
"7#)7N4 '1-O( += 4C7 8+)A8 @+%7#NM7N4 *7#%&)7
7K6A8&LA4&+N =6ND '8@*7=( =+# 8+)A8 A==&#MA4&%7 A)4&+N
"#+27)4* AND +4C7# "#&+#&4E &N&4&A4&%7* =+# 8@6s
&N*4&464&+NA8 AND )A"AB&8&4E B6&8D&N@ &N A))+#DAN)7 &4C
4C7 &M"87M7N4&N@ @6&D78&N7* AND M7)CAN&)* A*
"#+M68@A47D BE 4C7 )+MM&4477.
4hese +)D resolutions were approved by then "resident 7strada on
+ctober 3, .///.
6nder the allocation scheme adopted pursuant to #esolution No. +)D$
//$--0, the five billion pesos 8@*7= was to be allocated as follows5
.. 4he "h": Billion of the 8@*7= shall be allocated in accordance with
the allocation scheme and implementing guidelines and mechanics
promulgated and adopted by the +)D. 4o wit5
a. 4he first "h"1 Billion of the 8@*7= shall be allocated in accordance
with the codal formula sharing scheme as prescribed under the .//.
8ocal @overnment )odeD
b. 4he second "h"1 Billion of the 8@*7= shall be allocated in
accordance with a modified .//1 cost of devolution fund ')+D7=(
sharing scheme, as recommended by the respective leagues of
provinces, cities and municipalities to the +)D. 4he modified )+D7=
sharing formula is as follows5
"rovince 5 :-O
)ities 5 1-O
Municipalities 5 :-O
4his is applied to the "1 Billion after the approved amounts granted to
individual provinces, cities and municipalities as assistance to cover
decrease in ./// &#A share due to reduction in land area have been
taken out.
1. 4he remaining "h". Billion of the 8@*7= shall be earmarked to
support local affirmative action pro>ects and other priority initiatives
submitted by 8@6s to the +versight )ommittee on Devolution for
approval in accordance with its prescribed guidelines as promulgated and
adopted by the +)D.
&n #esolution No. +)D$//$--,, the +versight )ommittee set aside the
one billion pesos or 1-O of the 8@*7= to support 8ocal Affirmative Action
"ro>ects '8AA"s( of 8@6s. 4his remaining amount was intended to
Grespond to the urgent need for additional funds assistance, otherwise not
available within the parameters of other e!isting fund sources.G =or 8@6s
to be eligible for funding under the one$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 by
group or multi$8@6s or leagues of 8@6s, especially those belonging to
the 0th and 3th class, may access the fund to support any pro>ects or
activities that satisfy any of the aforecited purposes. A barangay may also
access this fund directly or through their respective municipality or city.
1. 4he proposed pro>ect<activity should be need$based, a local priority,
with high development impact and are congruent with the socio$cultural,
economic and development agenda of the 7strada Administration, such
as food security, poverty alleviation, electrification, and peace and order,
among others.
,. 7ligible for funding under this fund are pro>ects arising from, but not
limited to, the following areas of concern5
a. delivery of local health and sanitation services, hospital services and
other tertiary servicesD
b. delivery of social welfare servicesD
c. provision of socio$cultural services and facilities for youth and
community developmentD
d. provision of agricultural and on$site related researchD
e. improvement of community$based forestry pro>ects and other local
pro>ects on environment and natural resources protection and
conservationD
f. improvement of tourism facilities and promotion of tourismD
g. peace and order and public safetyD
h. construction, repair and maintenance of public works and
infrastructure, including public buildings and facilities for public use,
especially those destroyed or damaged by man$made or natural
calamities and disaster as well as facilities for water supply, flood control
and river dikesD
i. provision of local electrification facilitiesD
>. livelihood and food production services, facilities and equipmentD
k. other pro>ects that may be authori;ed by the +)D consistent with the
aforementioned ob>ectives and guidelinesD
:. 7!cept on e!tremely meritorious cases, as may be determined by the
+versight )ommittee on Devolution, this portion of the 8@*7= shall not
be used in e!penditures for personal costs or benefits under e!isting laws
applicable to governments. @enerally, this fund shall cover the following
ob>ects of e!penditures for programs, pro>ects and activities arising from
the implementation of devolved and regular functions and services5
a. acquisition<procurement of supplies and materials critical to the full and
effective implementation of devolved programs, pro>ects and activitiesD
b. repair and<or improvement of facilitiesD
c. repair and<or upgrading of equipmentD
d. acquisition of basic equipmentD
e. construction of additional or new facilitiesD
f. counterpart contribution to >oint arrangements or collective pro>ects
among groups of municipalities, cities and<or provinces related to
devolution and delivery of basic services.
0. 4o be eligible for funding, an 8@6 or group of 8@6 shall submit to the
+versight )ommittee on Devolution through the Department of &nterior
and 8ocal @overnments, within the prescribed schedule and timeframe, a
8etter #equest for =unding *upport from the Affirmative Action "rogram
under the 8@*7=, duly signed by the concerned 8@6's( and endorsed by
cooperators and<or beneficiaries, as well as the duly signed #esolution of
7ndorsement by the respective *anggunian's( of the 8@6s concerned.
4he 8@6$proponent shall also be required to submit the "ro>ect #equest
'"#(, using +)D "ro>ect #equest =orm No. //$-1, that details the
following5
'a( general description or brief of the pro>ectD
'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 local
program<pro>ect arising from the full and efficient implementation of social
services and facilities, at the local levelsD
'c( target outputs or key result areasD
'd( schedule of activities and details of requirementsD
'e( total cost requirement of the pro>ectD
'f( proponentAs counterpart funding share, if any, and identified source's(
of counterpart funds for the full implementation of the pro>ectD
'g( requested amount of pro>ect cost to be covered by the 8@*7=.
=urther, under the guidelines formulated by the +versight )ommittee as
contained in Attachment $ #esolution No. +)D$//$--,, the 8@6s were
required 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 and
other documentary requirements to the D&8@ for appraisal. 4he pro>ect
proposals that passed the D&8@As appraisal would then be submitted to
the +versight )ommittee for review, evaluation and approval. 6pon its
approval, the +versight )ommittee would then serve notice to the DBM
for the preparation of the *pecial Allotment #elease +rder '*A#+( and
Notice of )ash Allocation 'N)A( to effect the release of funds to the said
8@6s.
4he 8@*7= in the @AA of 1---
6nder #ep. Act No. B93-, otherwise known as the @AA of 1---, the
amount of "...,99B,---,--- was allotted as the share of the 8@6s in the
internal revenue ta!es. As in the @AA of .///, the @AA of 1--- contained
a proviso earmarking five billion pesos of the &#A for the 8@*7=. 4his
proviso, found in &tem No. ., *pecial "rovisions, 4itle MMM%&& N A. &nternal
#evenue Allotment, was similarly worded as that contained in the @AA of
.///.
4he +versight )ommittee, in its #esolution No. +)D$1---$-1, dated
2une 11, 1---, adopted the following allocation scheme governing the
five billion pesos 8@*7= for 1---5
.. 4he "h",.0 Billion of the )E 1--- 8@*7= shall be allocated to and
shared by the four levels of 8@6s, i.e., provinces, cities, municipalities,
and barangays, using the following percentage$sharing formula agreed
upon and >ointly endorsed by the various 8eagues of 8@6s5
=or "rovinces 13O or " /.-,---,---
=or )ities 1,O or B-0,---,---
=or Municipalities ,0O or .,110,---,---
=or Barangays .3O or 03-,---,---
"rovided that the respective 8eagues representing the provinces, cities,
municipalities and barangays shall draw up and adopt the hori;ontal
distribution<sharing schemes among the member 8@6s whereby the
8eagues concerned may opt to adopt direct financial assistance or
pro>ect$based arrangement, such that the 8@*7= allocation for individual
8@6 shall be released directly to the 8@6 concernedD
"rovided further that the individual 8@*7= shares to 8@6s are used in
accordance 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 the
8eaguesA guidelines and mechanism as approved by the +)DD
"rovided further that each of the 8eagues shall submit to the +)D for its
approval their respective allocation scheme, the list of 8@6s with the
corresponding 8@*7= shares and the corresponding pro>ect categories if
pro>ect$basedD
"rovided further that upon approval by the +)D, the lists of 8@6s shall
be endorsed to the DBM as the basis for the preparation of the
corresponding N)As, *A#+s, and related budget<release documents.
1. 4he remaining ".,0--,---,--- of the )E 1--- 8@*7= shall be
earmarked to support the following initiatives and local affirmative action
pro>ects, to be endorsed to and approved by the +versight )ommittee on
Devolution in accordance with the +)D agreements, guidelines,
procedures and documentary requirements5
+n 2uly 0, 1---, then "resident 7strada issued a Memorandum
authori;ing then 7!ecutive *ecretary Lamora and the DBM to implement
and release the 1.0 billion pesos 8@*7= for 1--- in accordance with
#esolution No. +)D$1---$-1,.
4hereafter, the +versight )ommittee, now under the administration of
"resident @loria Macapagal$Arroyo, promulgated #esolution No. +)D$
1--.$1/ entitled GAD+"4&N@ #7*+864&+N N+. +)D$1---$-1, &N 4C7
A88+)A4&+N, &M"87M7N4A4&+N AND #787A*7 += 4C7 #7MA&N&N@
"1.0 B&88&+N 8@*7= =+# )E 1---.G 6nder this resolution, the amount
of one billion pesos of the 8@*7= was to be released in accordance with
paragraph . of #esolution No. +)D$1---$1,, to complete the ,.0 billion
pesos allocated to the 8@6s, while the amount of ..0 billion pesos was
allocated for the 8AA". Cowever, out of the latter amount, ":--,---,---
was to be allocated and released as follows5 "0-,---,--- as financial
assistance to the 8AA"s of 8@6sD "190,,3-,119 as financial assistance
to cover the decrease in the &#A of 8@6s concerned due to reduction in
land areaD and "9:,3,/,99, for the 8@*7= )apability$Building =und.
4he 8@*7= in the @AA of 1--.
&n view of the failure of )ongress to enact the general appropriations law
for 1--., the @AA of 1--- was deemed re$enacted, together with the &#A
of the 8@6s therein and the proviso earmarking five billion pesos thereof
for 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--. as
follows5
Modified )odal =ormula " ,.--- billion
"riority "ro>ects ../-- billion
)apability Building =und ..-- billion
" 0.--- billion
#7*+8%7D =6#4C7#, that the ",.- B of the )E 1--. 8@*7= which is
to be allocated according to the modified codal formula shall be released
to the four levels of 8@6s, i.e., provinces, cities, municipalities and
barangays, as follows5
LGU3 P,rc,'+a(, A-o1'+
"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>ects
shall be distributed according to the following criteria5
..- =or pro>ects of the :th, 0th and 3th class 8@6sD or
1.- "ro>ects in consonance with the "residentAs *tate of the Nation
Address '*+NA(<summit commitments.
#7*+8%7D =6#4C7#, that the remaining ".-- million 8@*7=
capability building fund shall be distributed in accordance with the
recommendation of the 8eagues of "rovinces, )ities, Municipalities and
Barangays, and approved by the +)D.
6pon receipt of a copy of the above resolution, @ov. Mandanas wrote to
the individual members of the +versight )ommittee seeking the
reconsideration of #esolution No. +)D$1--1$--.. Ce also wrote to "res.
Macapagal$Arroyo urging her to disapprove said resolution as it violates
the )onstitution and the 8ocal @overnment )ode of .//..
+n 2anuary 10, 1--1, "res. Macapagal$Arroyo approved #esolution No.
+)D$1--1$--..
4he "etitionerAs )ase
4he petitioner now comes to this )ourt assailing as unconstitutional and
void the provisos in the @AAs of .///, 1--- and 1--., relating to the
8@*7=. *imilarly assailed are the +versight )ommitteeAs #esolutions
Nos. +)D$//$--,, +)D$//$--0, +)D$//$--3, +)D$1---$-1,, +)D$
1--.$-1/ and +)D$1--1$--. issued pursuant thereto. 4he petitioner
submits that the assailed provisos in the @AAs and the +)D resolutions,
insofar as they earmarked the amount of five billion pesos of the &#A of
the 8@6s for .///, 1--- and 1--. for the 8@*7= and imposed
conditions for the release thereof, violate the )onstitution and the 8ocal
@overnment )ode of .//..
*ection 3, Article M of the )onstitution is invoked as it mandates that the
G>ust shareG of the 8@6s shall be automatically released to them. *ections
.B and 1B3 of the 8ocal @overnment )ode of .//., which en>oin that the
G>ust shareG of the 8@6s shall be Gautomatically and directlyG released to
them Gwithout need of further actionG are, likewise, cited.
4he petitioner posits that to sub>ect the distribution and release of the
five$billion$peso portion of the &#A, classified as the 8@*7=, to
compliance by the 8@6s with the implementing rules and regulations,
including the mechanisms and guidelines prescribed by the +versight
)ommittee, contravenes the e!plicit directive of the )onstitution that the
8@6sA share in the national ta!es Gshall be automatically released to
them.G 4he petitioner maintains that the use of the word GshallG must be
given a compulsory meaning.
4o further buttress this argument, the petitioner contends that to vest the
+versight )ommittee with the authority to determine the distribution and
release 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 cites
as 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 to
convene that year and no guidelines were issued therefor. =urther, the
possible disapproval by the +versight )ommittee of the pro>ect proposals
of the 8@6s would result in the diminution of the latterAs share in the &#A.
Another infringement alleged to be occasioned by the assailed +)D
resolutions is the improper amendment to *ection 1B0 of the 8ocal
@overnment )ode of .//. on the percentage sharing of the &#A among
the 8@6s. *aid provision allocates the &#A as follows5 "rovinces N 1,OD
)ities N 1,OD Municipalities N ,:OD and Barangays N 1-O.
B
4his formula
has been improperly amended or modified, with respect to the five$billion$
peso portion of the &#A allotted for the 8@*7=, by the assailed +)D
resolutions as they invariably provided for a different sharing scheme.
4he modifications allegedly constitute an illegal amendment by the
e!ecutive branch of a substantive law. Moreover, the petitioner mentions
that in the 8etter dated December 0, 1--. of respondent 7!ecutive
*ecretary #omulo addressed to respondent *ecretary Boncodin, the
former endorsed to the latter the release of funds to certain 8@6s from
the 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= is
actually allocated. =urther, there are still portions of the 8@*7= that, to
date, have not been received by the petitionerD hence, resulting in
damage and in>ury to the petitioner.
4he petitioner prays that the )ourt declare as unconstitutional and void
the 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 to
rectify the unlawful and illegal distribution and releases of the 8@*7= for
the aforementioned years and release the same in accordance with the
sharing formula under *ection 1B0 of the 8ocal @overnment )ode of
.//.. =inally, the petitioner urges the )ourt to declare that the entire &#A
should be released automatically without further action by the 8@6s as
required by the )onstitution and the 8ocal @overnment )ode of .//..
4he #espondentsA Arguments
4he respondents, through the +ffice of the *olicitor @eneral, urge the
)ourt to dismiss the petition on procedural and substantive grounds. +n
the latter, the respondents contend that the assailed provisos in the @AAs
of .///, 1--- and 1--. and the assailed resolutions issued by the
+versight )ommittee are not constitutionally infirm. 4he respondents
advance the view that *ection 3, Article M of the )onstitution does not
specify that the G>ust shareG of the 8@6s shall be determined solely by the
8ocal @overnment )ode of .//.. Moreover, the phrase Gas determined
by lawG in the same constitutional provision means that there e!ists no
limitation on the power of )ongress to determine what is the G>ust shareG
of 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 1B0 of the 8ocal
@overnment )ode of .//., which provides for the percentage sharing of
the &#A among the 8@6s, was not intended to be a fi!ed determination of
their 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 1B0 of the 8ocal
@overnment )ode of .//. was merely intended to be the Gdefault shareG
of the 8@6s to do away with the need to determine annually by law their
G>ust share.G Cowever, the 8@6s have no vested right in a permanent or
fi!ed percentage as )ongress may increase or decrease the G>ust shareG
of the 8@6s in accordance with what it believes is appropriate for their
operation. 4here is nothing in the )onstitution which prohibits )ongress
from making such determination through the appropriations laws. &f the
provisions of a particular statute, the @AA in this case, are within the
constitutional power of the legislature to enact, they should be sustained
whether the courts agree or not in the wisdom of their enactment.
+n procedural grounds, the respondents urge the )ourt to dismiss the
petition outright as the same is defective. 4he petition allegedly raises
factual issues which should be properly threshed out in the lower courts,
not this )ourt, not being a trier of facts. *pecifically, the petitionerAs
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>ect
to proof and must be substantiated in the proper venue, i.e., the lower
courts.
=urther, according to the respondents, the petition has already been
rendered moot and academic as it no longer presents a >usticiable
controversy. 4he &#As for the years .///, 1--- and 1--., have already
been released and the government is now operating under the 1--,
budget. &n support of this, the respondents submitted certifications issued
by officers of the DBM attesting to the release of the allocation or shares
of 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 suit
because it has not suffered any in>ury. &n fact, the petitionerAs G>ust shareG
has even increased. "ursuant to *ection 1B0 of the 8ocal @overnment
)ode of .//., the share of the provinces is 1,O. +)D Nos. //$--0, //$
--3 and //$--, gave the provinces :-O of "1 billion of the 8@*7=. +)D
Nos. 1---$-1, and 1--.$-1/ apportioned 13O of ",.0 billion to the
provinces. +n the other hand, +)D No. 1--.$--. allocated 10O of ",
billion to the provinces. 4hus, the petitioner has not suffered any in>ury in
the 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 the
following procedural issues raised by the respondents5 '.( whether the
petitioner has legal standing or locus standi to file the present suitD '1(
whether the petition involves factual questions that are properly
cogni;able by the lower courtsD and ',( whether the issue had been
rendered 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 such
a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that
concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon
which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult
constitutional questions.G
/
Accordingly, it has been held that the interest of
a 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 any
government act is invalid, but also that he has sustained or is in imminent
danger of sustaining some direct in>ury as a result of its enforcement, and
not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. &t must appear
that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right
or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be
sub>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 to
maintain the present suit. 4he petitioner, a local government unit, seeks
relief in order to protect or vindicate an interest of its own, and of the other
8@6s. 4his interest pertains to the 8@6sA share in the national ta!es or
the &#A. 4he petitionerAs constitutional claim is, in substance, that the
assailed provisos in the @AAs of .///, 1--- and 1--., and the +)D
resolutions contravene *ection 3, Article M of the )onstitution, mandating
the 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 its
share in the &#A, as provided under *ection 1B0 of the 8ocal @overnment
)ode of .//., occasioned by the implementation of the assailed
measures. 4hese allegations are sufficient to grant the petitioner standing
to 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 &#A
among the 8@6s.
4he petition involves a significant legal issue
4he cru! of the instant controversy is whether the assailed provisos
contained in the @AAs of .///, 1--- and 1--., and the +)D resolutions
infringe the )onstitution and the 8ocal @overnment )ode of .//.. 4his is
undoubtedly a legal question. +n the other hand, the following facts are
not disputed5
.. 4he earmarking of five billion pesos of the &#A for the 8@*7= in the
assailed provisos in the @AAs of .///, 1--- and re$enacted budget for
1--.D
1. 4he promulgation of the assailed +)D resolutions providing for the
allocation schemes covering the said five billion pesos and the
implementing rules and regulations thereforD and
,. 4he release of the 8@*7= to the 8@6s only upon their compliance with
the implementing rules and regulations, including the guidelines and
mechanisms, prescribed by the +versight )ommittee.
)onsidering that these facts, which are necessary to resolve the legal
question now before this )ourt, are no longer in issue, the same need not
be determined by a trial court.
..
&n any case, the rule on hierarchy of
courts will not prevent this )ourt from assuming >urisdiction over the
petition. 4he said rule may be rela!ed when the redress desired cannot
be obtained in the appropriate courts or where e!ceptional and
compelling circumstances >ustify availment of a remedy within and calling
for the e!ercise of this )ourtAs primary >urisdiction.
.1
4he crucial legal issue submitted for resolution of this )ourt entails the
proper legal interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions.
Moreover, the Gtranscendental importanceG of the case, as it necessarily
involves 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 the
supervening events
@ranting arguendo that, as contended by the respondents, the resolution
of the case had already been overtaken by supervening events as the
&#A, including the 8@*7=, for .///, 1--- and 1--., had already been
released and the government is now operating under a new
appropriations law, still, there is compelling reason for this )ourt to
resolve the substantive issue raised by the instant petition. *upervening
events, whether intended or accidental, cannot prevent the )ourt from
rendering 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 to
formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, bar and public.
.:
Another reason >ustifying the resolution by this )ourt of the substantive
issue now before it is the rule that courts will decide a question otherwise
moot and academic if it is Gcapable of repetition, yet evading review.G
.0
=or the @AAs in the coming years may contain provisos similar to those
now being sought to be invalidated, and yet, the question may not be
decided before another @AA is enacted. &t, thus, behooves this )ourt to
make a categorical ruling on the substantive issue now.
*ubstantive &ssue
As earlier intimated, the resolution of the substantive legal issue in this
case calls for the application of a most important constitutional policy and
principle, 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 M( of the )onstitution has been devoted to
guaranteeing and promoting the autonomy of 8@6s. *ection 1 thereof
reiterates the *tate policy in this wise5
*ection 1. 4he territorial and political subdivisions shall en>oy local
autonomy.
)onsistent with the principle of local autonomy, the )onstitution confines
the "residentAs power over the 8@6s to one of general supervision.
.9
4his
provision has been interpreted to e!clude the power of control. 4he
distinction between the two powers was enunciated in Drilon v. 8im5
.B
An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. &f they are
not followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re$done by
his subordinate or he may even decide to do it himself. *upervision does
not cover such authority. 4he supervisor or superintendent merely sees to
it 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$done but only to conform
to the prescribed rules. Ce may not prescribe his own manner for doing
the act. Ce has no >udgment on this matter e!cept to see to it that the
rules are followed.
./
4he 8ocal @overnment )ode of .//.
1-
was enacted to flesh out the
mandate of the )onstitution.
1.
4he *tate policy on local autonomy is
amplified in *ection 1 thereof5
*ec. 1. Declaration of "olicy. N 'a( &t is hereby declared the policy of the
*tate that the territorial and political subdivisions of the *tate shall en>oy
genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their
fullest development as self$reliant communities and make them more
effective partners in the attainment of national goals. 4oward this end, the
*tate shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local
government structure instituted through a system of decentrali;ation
whereby 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 the
assailed provisos in the @AAs of .///, 1--- and 1--., earmarking for
each corresponding year the amount of five billion pesos of the &#A for
the 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 +)D
resolutions violate the constitutional precept on local autonomy
*ection 3, Article M of the )onstitution reads5
*ec. 3. 8ocal government units shall have a >ust share, as determined by
law, 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!esD '1( the G>ust
shareG shall be determined by lawD and ',( the G>ust shareG shall be
automatically released to the 8@6s.
4he 8ocal @overnment )ode of .//., among its salient provisions,
underscores the automatic release of the 8@6sA G>ust shareG in this wise5
*ec. .B. "ower to @enerate and Apply #esources. 8ocal government
units shall have the power and authority to establish an organi;ation that
shall be responsible for the efficient and effective implementation of their
development plans, program ob>ectives and prioritiesD to create their own
sources of revenue and to levy ta!es, fees, and charges which shall
accrue e!clusively for their use and disposition and which shall be
retained by themD to have a >ust share in national ta!es which shall be
automatically and directly released to them without need of further actionD
...
*ec. 1B3. Automatic #elease of *hares. 'a( 4he share of each local
government unit shall be released, without need of any further action,
directly to the provincial, city, municipal or barangay treasurer, as the
case may be, on a quarterly basis within five '0( days after the end of
each quarter, and which shall not be sub>ect to any lien or holdback that
may be imposed by the national government for whatever purpose.
'b( Nothing in this )hapter shall be understood to diminish the share of
local government units under e!isting laws.
ebsterAs 4hird New &nternational Dictionary defines GautomaticG as
Ginvoluntary either wholly or to a ma>or e!tent so that any activity of the
will is largely negligibleD of a refle! natureD without volitionD mechanicalD
like or suggestive of an automaton.G =urther, the word GautomaticallyG is
defined as Gin an automatic manner5 without thought or conscious
intention.G Being Gautomatic,G thus, connotes something mechanical,
spontaneous and perfunctory. As such, the 8@6s are not required to
perform any act to receive the G>ust shareG accruing to them from the
national 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 of
further action.G )onstruing *ection 1B3 of the 8@), we held in "imentel,
2r. v. Aguirre,
11
vi;5
*ection : of A+ ,91 cannot, however, be upheld. A basic feature of local
fiscal autonomy is the automatic release of the shares of 8@6s in the
National internal revenue. 4his is mandated by no less than the
)onstitution. 4he 8ocal @overnment )ode specifies further that the
release shall be made directly to the 8@6 concerned within five '0( days
after every quarter of the year and Gshall not be sub>ect to any lien or
holdback that may be imposed by the national government for whatever
purpose.G As a rule, the term G*CA88G is a word of command that must be
given a compulsory meaning. 4he provision is, therefore, &M"7#A4&%7.
*ection : of A+ ,91, however, orders the withholding, effective 2anuary
., .//B, of .- percent of the 8@6sA &#A Gpending the assessment and
evaluation by the Development Budget )oordinating )ommittee of the
emerging fiscal situationG in the country. *uch withholding clearly
contravenes the )onstitution and the law. Although temporary, it is
equivalent to a holdback, which means Gsomething held back or withheld,
often temporarily.G Cence, the GtemporaryG nature of the retention by the
national government does not matter. Any retention is prohibited.
&n sum, while *ection . of A+ ,91 may be upheld as an advisory effected
in times of national crisis, *ection : thereof has no color of validity at all.
4he latter provision effectively encroaches on the fiscal autonomy of local
governments. )oncededly, the "resident was well$intentioned in issuing
his +rder to withhold the 8@6sA &#A, but the rule of law requires that even
the 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 the
appropriations law or @AA enacted by )ongress annually. 6nder the
assailed provisos in the @AAs of .///, 1--- and 1--., a portion of the
&#A in the amount of five billion pesos was earmarked for the 8@*7=, and
these provisos imposed the condition that Gsuch amount shall be released
to the local government units sub>ect to the implementing rules and
regulations, including such mechanisms and guidelines for the equitable
allocations and distribution of said fund among local government units
sub>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 pesos
8@*7= such that5
=or .///
"1 billion $ allocated according to *ec. 1B0 8@)
"1 billion $ Modified *haring =ormula '"rovinces N :-OD
)ities N 1-OD Municipalities N :-O(
". billion N pro>ects '8AA"( approved by +)D.
1:
=or 1---
",.0 billion N Modified *haring =ormula '"rovinces N 13OD
)ities N 1,OD Municipalities N ,0OD Barangays N .3O(D
"..0 billion N pro>ects '8AA"( approved by the +)D.
10
=or 1--.
", billion N Modified *haring =ormula '"rovinces N 10OD
)ities N 10OD Municipalities N ,0OD Barangays N .0O(
"../ billion N priority pro>ects
".-- million N capability building fund.
13
*ignificantly, the 8@*7= could not be released to the 8@6s without the
+versight )ommitteeAs prior approval. =urther, with respect to the portion
of the 8@*7= allocated for various pro>ects of the 8@6s '". billion for
.///D "..0 billion for 1--- and "1 billion for 1--.(, the +versight
)ommittee, through the assailed +)D resolutions, laid down guidelines
and mechanisms that the 8@6s had to comply with before they could
avail 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 )ommitteeD 'b( the 8@6s to submit their
pro>ect proposals to the D&8@ for appraisalD 'c( the pro>ect proposals that
passed the appraisal of the D&8@ to be submitted to the +versight
)ommittee for review, evaluation and approval. &t was only upon approval
thereof that the +versight )ommittee would direct the DBM to release the
funds for the pro>ects.
4o the )ourtAs mind, the entire process involving the distribution and
release of the 8@*7= is constitutionally impermissible. 4he 8@*7= is part
of the &#A or G>ust shareG of the 8@6s in the national ta!es. 4o sub>ect its
distribution and release to the vagaries of the implementing rules and
regulations, including the guidelines and mechanisms unilaterally
prescribed by the +versight )ommittee from time to time, as sanctioned
by the assailed provisos in the @AAs of .///, 1--- and 1--. and the
+)D resolutions, makes the release not automatic, a flagrant violation of
the constitutional and statutory mandate that the G>ust shareG of the 8@6s
Gshall be automatically released to them.G 4he 8@6s are, thus, placed at
the mercy of the +versight )ommittee.
here the law, the )onstitution in this case, is clear and unambiguous, it
must be taken to mean e!actly what it says, and courts have no choice
but to see to it that the mandate is obeyed.
19
Moreover, as correctly
posited by the petitioner, the use of the word GshallG connotes a
mandatory order. &ts use in a statute denotes an imperative obligation and
is inconsistent with the idea of discretion.
1B
&ndeed, the +versight )ommittee e!ercising discretion, even control, over
the distribution and release of a portion of the &#A, the 8@*7=, is an
anathema to and subversive of the principle of local autonomy as
embodied in the )onstitution. Moreover, it finds no statutory basis at all as
the +versight )ommittee was created merely to formulate the rules and
regulations for the efficient and effective implementation of the 8ocal
@overnment )ode of .//. to ensure Gcompliance with the principles of
local autonomy as defined under the )onstitution.G
1/
&n fact, its creation
was placed under the title of G4ransitory "rovisions,G signifying its ad hoc
character. According to *enator Aquilino K. "imentel, the principal author
and sponsor of the bill that eventually became #ep. Act No. 9.3-, the
)ommitteeAs work was supposed to be done a year from the approval of
the )ode, or on +ctober .-, .//1.
,-
4he +versight )ommitteeAs authority
is undoubtedly limited to the implementation of the 8ocal @overnment
)ode of .//., not to supplant or subvert the same. Neither can it e!ercise
control over the &#A, or even a portion thereof, of the 8@6s.
4hat the automatic release of the &#A was precisely intended to
guarantee and promote local autonomy can be gleaned from the
discussion below between Messrs. 2ose N. Nolledo and #egalado M.
Maambong, then members of the ./B3 )onstitutional )ommission, to wit5
M#. MAAMB+N@. 6nfortunately, under *ection ./B of the 8ocal
@overnment )ode, the e!istence of subprovinces is still acknowledged by
the law, but the statement of the @entleman on this point will have to be
taken 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 government
units, especially the barrio, to insure their fullest development as self$
reliant communities.
4his provision no longer appears in the present configurationD does this
mean that the concept of giving local autonomy to local governments is
no 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 included
and 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 provided
by law,G but now, we are using the term Gsub>ect to such guidelines as
may 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 B, we
talk 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 very
thankful. Does this indicate local autonomy, or was the wording of the law
changed to give more autonomy to the local government unitsF
,.
M#. N+887D+. Ees. &n effect, those words indicate also
Gdecentrali;ationG because local political units can collect ta!es, fees and
charges sub>ect merely to guidelines, as recommended by the league of
governors and city mayors, with whom & had a dialogue for almost two
hours. 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 national
ta! 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 of
Appeals
,,
in this wise5
As the )onstitution itself declares, local autonomy Ameans a more
responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through
a system of decentrali;ation.A 4he )onstitution, as we observed, does
nothing more than to break up the monopoly of the national government
over the affairs of local governments and as put by political adherents, to
Gliberate the local governments from the imperialism of Manila.G
Autonomy, however, is not meant to end the relation of partnership and
interdependence between the central administration and local
government units, or otherwise, to usher 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 other
purpose than precisely, albeit parado!ically, to enhance self$government.
As we observed in one case, decentrali;ation means devolution of
national administration N but not power N to the local levels. 4hus5
Now, autonomy is either decentrali;ation of administration or
decentrali;ation of power. 4here is decentrali;ation of administration
when the central government delegates administrative powers to political
subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and in the
process to make local governments Amore responsive and accountableA
and Aensure their fullest development as self$reliant communities and
make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national development
and social progress.A At the same time, it relieves the central government
of the burden of managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate on
national concerns. 4he "resident e!ercises Ageneral supervisionA over
them, but only to Aensure that local affairs are administered according to
law.A Ce has no control over their acts in the sense that he can substitute
their >udgments with his own.
Decentrali;ation of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of
political power in the IsicJ favor of local governments IsicJ units declared
to be autonomous. &n that case, the autonomous government is free to
chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from
central authorities. According to a constitutional author, decentrali;ation of
power amounts to Aself$immolation,A since in that event, the autonomous
government becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to its
constituency.
,:
8ocal autonomy includes both administrative and fiscal autonomy. 4he
fairly recent case of "imentel v. Aguirre
,0
is particularly instructive. 4he
)ourt declared therein that local fiscal autonomy includes the power of
the 8@6s to, inter alia, allocate their resources in accordance with their
own priorities5
6nder e!isting law, local government units, in addition to having
administrative autonomy in the e!ercise of their functions, en>oy fiscal
autonomy as well. =iscal autonomy means that local governments have
the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to their
equitable share in the national ta!es released by the national
government, as well as the power to allocate their resources in
accordance with their own priorities. &t e!tends to the preparation of their
budgets, and local officials in turn have to work within the constraints
thereof. 4hey are not formulated at the national level and imposed on
local governments, whether they are relevant to local needs and
resources or not ...
,3
=urther, a basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the constitutionally
mandated automatic release of the shares of 8@6s in the national internal
revenue.
,9
=ollowing this ratiocination, the )ourt in "imentel struck down as
unconstitutional *ection : of Administrative +rder 'A.+.( No. ,91 which
ordered the withholding, effective 2anuary ., .//B, of ten percent of the
8@6sA &#A Gpending the assessment and evaluation by the Development
Budget )oordinating )ommittee of the emerging fiscal situation.G
&n like manner, the assailed provisos in the @AAs of .///, 1--- and
1--., and the +)D resolutions constitute a GwithholdingG of a portion of
the &#A. 4hey put on hold the distribution and release of the five billion
pesos 8@*7= and sub>ect the same to the implementing rules and
regulations, including the guidelines and mechanisms prescribed by the
+versight )ommittee from time to time. 8ike *ection : of A.+. ,91, the
assailed provisos in the @AAs of .///, 1--- and 1--. and the +)D
resolutions effectively encroach on the fiscal autonomy en>oyed by the
8@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 1B0 of the 8ocal @overnment )ode of .//.
*ection 1B:
,B
of the 8ocal @overnment )ode provides that, beginning the
third year of its effectivity, the 8@6sA share in the national internal revenue
ta!es shall be :-O. 4his percentage is fi!ed and may not be reduced
e!cept Gin the event the national government incurs an unmanageable
public sector deficitG and only upon compliance with stringent
requirements set forth in the same section5
*ec. 1B:. ...
"rovided, 4hat in the event that the national government incurs an
unmanageable public sector deficit, the "resident of the "hilippines is
hereby authori;ed, upon recommendation of *ecretary of =inance,
*ecretary of &nterior and 8ocal @overnment and *ecretary of Budget and
Management, and sub>ect to consultation with the presiding officers of
both Couses of )ongress and the presidents of the liga, to make the
necessary ad>ustments in the internal revenue allotment of local
government units but in no case shall the allotment be less than thirty
percent ',-O( of the collection of the national internal revenue ta!es of
the third fiscal year preceding the current fiscal yearD "rovided, further
4hat in the first year of the effectivity of this )ode, the local government
units shall, in addition to the thirty percent ',-O( internal revenue
allotment which shall include the cost of devolved functions for essential
public services, be entitled to receive the amount equivalent to the cost of
devolved personnel services.
4hus, from the above provision, the only possible e!ception to the
mandatory automatic release of the 8@6sA &#A is if the national internal
revenue collections for the current fiscal year is less than :- percent of
the collections of the preceding third fiscal year, in which case what
should be automatically released shall be a proportionate amount of the
collections for the current fiscal year. 4he ad>ustment may even be made
on a quarterly basis depending on the actual collections of national
internal revenue ta!es for the quarter of the current fiscal year. &n the
instant case, however, there is no allegation that the national internal
revenue ta! collections for the fiscal years .///, 1--- and 1--. have
fallen compared to the preceding three fiscal years.
*ection 1B0 then specifies how the &#A shall be allocated among the
8@6s5
*ec. 1B0. Allocation to 8ocal @overnment 6nits. N 4he share of local
government units in the internal revenue allotment shall be allocated in
the following manner5
'a( "rovinces N 4wenty$three '1,O(
'b( )ities N 4wenty$three percent '1,O(D
'c( Municipalities N 4hirty$four ',:O(D and
'd( Barangays N 4wenty percent '1-O(.
Cowever, this percentage sharing is not followed with respect to the five
billion pesos 8@*7= as the assailed +)D resolutions, implementing the
assailed provisos in the @AAs of .///, 1--- and 1--., provided for a
different sharing scheme. =or e!ample, for .///, "1 billion of the 8@*7=
was allocated as follows5 "rovinces N :-OD )ities N 1-OD Municipalities N
:-O.
,/
=or 1---, ",.0 billion of the 8@*7= was allocated in this manner5
"rovinces N 13OD )ities N 1,OD Municipalities N ,0OD Barangays N
13O.
:-
=or 1--., ", billion of the 8@*7= was allocated, thus5 "rovinces
N 10OD )ities N 10OD Municipalities N ,0OD Barangays N .0O.
:.
4he respondents argue that this modification is allowed since the
)onstitution does not specify that the G>ust shareG of the 8@6s shall only
be determined by the 8ocal @overnment )ode of .//.. 4hat it is within
the power of )ongress to enact other laws, including the @AAs, to
increase or decrease the G>ust shareG of the 8@6s. 4his contention is
untenable. 4he 8ocal @overnment )ode of .//. is a substantive law. And
while it is conceded that )ongress may amend any of the provisions
therein, it may not do so through appropriations laws or @AAs. Any
amendment to the 8ocal @overnment )ode of .//. should be done in a
separate law, not in the appropriations law, because )ongress cannot
include in a general appropriation bill matters that should be more
properly enacted in a separate legislation.
:1
A general appropriations bill is a special type of legislation, whose content
is limited to specified sums of money dedicated to a specific purpose or a
separate fiscal unit.
:,
Any provision therein which is intended to amend
another law is considered an Ginappropriate provision.G 4he category of
Ginappropriate provisionsG includes unconstitutional provisions and
provisions which are intended to amend other laws, because clearly these
kinds of laws have no place in an appropriations bill.
::
&ncreasing or decreasing the &#A of the 8@6s or modifying their
percentage sharing therein, which are fi!ed in the 8ocal @overnment
)ode of .//., are matters of general and substantive law. 4o permit
)ongress to undertake these amendments through the @AAs, as the
respondents contend, would be to give )ongress the unbridled authority
to unduly infringe the fiscal autonomy of the 8@6s, and thus put the same
in >eopardy every year. 4his, the )ourt cannot sanction.
&t is relevant to point out at this >uncture that, unlike those of .///, 1---
and 1--., the @AAs of 1--1 and 1--, do not contain provisos similar to
the herein assailed provisos. &n other words, the @AAs of 1--1 and 1--,
have not earmarked any amount of the &#A for the 8@*7=. )ongress had
perhaps seen fit to discontinue the practice as it recogni;es its infirmity.
Nonetheless, as earlier mentioned, this )ourt has deemed it necessary to
make a definitive ruling on the matter in order to prevent its recurrence in
future appropriations laws and that the principles enunciated herein would
serve to guide the bench, bar and public.
)onclusion
&n closing, it is well to note that the principle of local autonomy, while
concededly e!pounded in greater detail in the present )onstitution, dates
back to the turn of the century when "resident illiam Mc?inley, in his
&nstructions to the *econd "hilippine )ommission dated April 9, ./--,
ordered the new @overnment Gto devote their attention in the first
instance to the establishment of municipal governments in which the
natives of the &slands, both in the cities and in the rural communities, shall
be afforded the opportunity to manage their own affairs to the fullest
e!tent of which they are capable, and sub>ect to the least degree of
supervision and control in which a careful study of their capacities and
observation of the workings of native control show to be consistent with
the maintenance of law, order and loyalty.G
:0
hile the ./,0 )onstitution
had no specific article on local autonomy, nonetheless, it limited the
e!ecutive power over local governments to Ggeneral supervision ... as
may be provided by law.G
:3
*ubsequently, the ./9, )onstitution e!plicitly
stated that GItJhe *tate shall guarantee and promote the autonomy of local
government units, especially the barangay to ensure their fullest
development as self$reliant communities.G
:9
An entire article on 8ocal
@overnment was incorporated therein. 4he present )onstitution, as
earlier opined, has broadened the principle of local autonomy. 4he .:
sections in Article M thereof markedly increased the powers of the local
governments in order to accomplish the goal of a more meaningful local
autonomy.
&ndeed, the value of local governments as institutions of democracy is
measured by the degree of autonomy that they en>oy.
:B
As eloquently put
by
M. De 4ocqueville, a distinguished =rench political writer, GIlJocal
assemblies of citi;ens constitute the strength of free nations. 4ownship
meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to scienceD they bring it
within the peopleAs reachD they teach men how to use and en>oy it. A
nation may establish a system of free governments but without the spirit
of municipal institutions, it cannot have the spirit of liberty.G
:/
+ur national officials should not only comply with the constitutional
provisions on local autonomy but should also appreciate the spirit and
liberty upon which these provisions are based.
0-
C7#7=+#7, the petition is @#AN47D. 4he assailed provisos in the
@eneral Appropriations Acts of .///, 1--- and 1--., and the assailed
+)D #esolutions, are declared 6N)+N*4&464&+NA8.
*+ +#D7#7D.
G.R. No. 12<37< D,c,-9,r 15, 1999
I#MAEL A. MATHA %R., /' h/3 ca0ac/+2 a3 MAOR OB PUEION
$IT, 0,+/+/o',r,
*3.
$OURT OB APPEAL#, $IVIL #ERVI$E $OMMI##ION, EDUARDO A.
TAN, LOURDE# M. DE GUIMAN, MANUEL $HUA, AN#ELMO
MATEO, $HRI#TOPHER #ANTO#, !UENAVENTURA PUNA, ENRI$O
!ANDILLA, BELINO $AMA$HO, DANTE E. DEOPUINO, %AIME P.
UR$IA, %E#U# !. REGONDOLA, ROMUALDO LI!ERATO, $E#AR
BRAN$I#$O, 7ILLIAM PANTI, %R., MI$HAEL A. %A$INTO a'. $E#AR
DA$IO, r,30o'.,'+3.
G.R. No. 12635< D,c,-9,r 15, 1999
$IVIL #ERVI$E $OMMI##ION, 0,+/+/o',r,
*3.
THE HON. $OURT OB APPEAL# a'. I#MAEL A. MATHA, %R.,
r,30o'.,'+3.
G.R. No. 126366 D,c,-9,r 15, 1999
I#MAEL A. MATHA, %R., /' h/3 ca0ac/+2 a3 MAOR OB PUEION
$IT, 0,+/+/o',r,
*3.
$OURT OB APPEAL#, $IVIL #ERVI$E $OMMI##ION a'. #AND $.
MARPUEI, r,30o'.,'+3.

NARE#"#ANTIAGO, %.&
!,5or, +h/3 $o1r+ ar, +hr,,, co'3o)/.a+,. 0,+/+/o'3
1
C),. 1'.,r
R1), <5 o5 +h, R,*/3,. R1),3 o5 $o1r+.
Th, 5ac+3 9,h/'. +h, co'3o)/.a+,. 0,+/+/o'3 ar, 1'./301+,..
D1r/'( h/3 +,r- a3 Ma2or o5 P1,6o' $/+2, Mr. !r/(/.o R. #/-o'
a00o/'+,. 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3
2
+o 0o3/+/o'3 /' +h, $/*/) #,r*/c,
U'/+ :Q$#UQ; o5 +h, )oca) (o*,r'-,'+ o5 P1,6o' $/+2. $/*/)
#,r*/c, U'/+3 4,r, cr,a+,. 01r31a'+ +o Pr,3/.,'+/a) D,cr,, No.
51 4h/ch 4a3 a)),(,.)2 3/(',. /'+o )a4 o' No*,-9,r 15 or 16,
1972.
O' B,9r1ar2 23, 1990, +h, #,cr,+ar2 o5 %13+/c, r,'.,r,. O0/'/o'
No. 33, 3+a+/'( +ha+ Pr,3/.,'+/a) D,cr,, No. 51 4a3 ',*,r
019)/3h,. /' +h, O>c/a) Ga6,++,. Th,r,5or,, co'5or-a9)2 4/+h
o1r r1)/'( /' Ta'a.a *3. T1*,ra
3
+h, 0r,3/.,'+/a) .,cr,, /3
.,,-,. ',*,r Q/' 5orc, or ,=,c+ a'. +h,r,5or, ca''o+ a+
0r,3,'+, 9, a 9a3/3 5or ,3+a9)/3h-,'+ o5 +h, $#U3 . . . .Q
<
O' %1', <, 1990, +h, $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o' /331,.
M,-ora'.1- $/rc1)ar No. 30, ./r,c+/'( a)) $/*/) #,r*/c, R,(/o'a)
or B/,). O>c,3 +o r,ca)), r,*oA, a'. ./3a00ro*, 4/+h/' o', 2,ar
5ro- /331a'c, o5 +h, 3a/. M,-ora'.1-, a)) a00o/'+-,'+3 /'
$#U3 cr,a+,. 01r31a'+ +o Pr,3/.,'+/a) D,cr,, No. 51 o' +h,
(ro1'. +ha+ +h, 3a-, ',*,r 9,ca-, )a4. A-o'( +ho3, a=,c+,.
92 +h, r,*oca+/o' o5 a00o/'+-,'+3 ar, 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3 /'
+h,3, +hr,, 0,+/+/o'3.
Bor P1,6o' $/+2 $#U ,-0)o2,,3, +h, ,=,c+3 o5 +h, c/rc1)ar 4,r,
+,-0orar/)2 c13h/o',. 92 +h, ,'ac+-,'+ o5 $/+2 Or./'a'c, No.
N$"1<0, #,r/,3 o5 1990, 4h/ch ,3+a9)/3h,. +h, D,0ar+-,'+ o5
P19)/c Or.,r a'. #a5,+2 :QDPO#Q;.
A+ +h, h,ar+ o5 +h,3, 0,+/+/o'3 /3 #,c+/o' 3 o5 +h, Or./'a'c,
4h/ch 0ro*/.,3&
#,c. 3. Th, 0r,3,'+ 0,r3o'',) o5 +h, $/*/) #,c1r/+2 U'/+, Tra>c
Ma'a(,-,'+ U'/+, A'+/"#@1a++/'( a'. #1r*,/))a'c, a'.
E'5orc,-,'+ T,a-, a'. D/3a3+,r $oor./'a+/'( $o1'c/) ar,
h,r,92 a93or9,. /'+o +h, .,0ar+-,'+ o5 019)/c or.,r a'. 3a5,+2
,3+a9)/3h,. 1'.,r #,c+/o' o', h,r,o5 +o 9, (/*,' a00ro0r/a+,
0o3/+/o' +/+),3 4/+ho1+ r,.1c+/o' /' 3a)ar2, 3,'/or/+2 r/(h+3 a'.
o+h,r 9,',C+3. B1'.3 0ro*/.,. 5or /' +h, 1990 !1.(,+ 5or +h,
a93or9,. o>c,3 3ha)) 9, 13,. a3 +h, /'/+/a) 91.(,+ar2 a))oca+/o'
o5 +h, D,0ar+-,'+. :E-0ha3/3 o1r3;.
D,30/+, +h, 0ro*/3/o' o' a93or0+/o', +h, r,(1)ar a'. 0,r-a','+
0o3/+/o'3 /' +h, DPO# 4,r, 'o+ C)),. .1, +o )acA o5 51'.3 5or +h,
',4 DPO# a'. +h, /'31>c/,'c2 o5 r,(1)ar a'. 0,r-a','+
0o3/+/o'3 cr,a+,..
Ma2or !r/(/.o R. #/-o' r,-,./,. +h, 3/+1a+/o' 92 o=,r/'(
0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3 co'+rac+1a) a00o/'+-,'+3 5or +h, 0,r/o. o5
%1', 5, 1991 +o D,c,-9,r 31, 1991. Th, a00o/'+-,'+3 4,r,
r,',4,. 92 Ma2or #/-o' 5or +h, 0,r/o. o5 %a'1ar2 1, 1992 +o
%1', 30, 1992.
O' Ma2 11, 1992, 0,+/+/o',r I3-a,) A. Ma+ha2, %r. 4a3 ,),c+,.
Ma2or o5 P1,6o' $/+2. O' %1)2 1, 1992, Ma2or Ma+ha2 a(a/'
r,',4,. +h, co'+rac+1a) a00o/'+-,'+3 o5 a)) 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3
,=,c+/*, %1)2 1 +o %1)2 31, 1992. U0o' +h,/r ,80/r2, +h,3,
a00o/'+-,'+3, ho4,*,r, 4,r, 'o )o'(,r r,',4,..
Th, 'o'"r,',4a) 92 P1,6o' $/+2 Ma2or I3-a,) A. Ma+ha2, %r. o5
0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3D a00o/'+-,'+3 9,ca-, +h, 3,,. o5
./3co'+,'+ 5ro- 4h/ch +h,3, +hr,, co'3o)/.a+,. 0,+/+/o'3 (r,4.
7, ./3c133 +h, -,r/+3 o5 +h, 0,+/+/o'3 o5 Ma2or I3-a,) A.
Ma+ha2, %r. ?o/'+)2.
G.R. No. 12<37< a'. G.R. No. 126366
A5+,r +h, 'o'"r,',4a) o5 +h,/r a00o/'+-,'+3, 0r/*a+,
r,30o'.,'+3 /' +h,3, +4o 0,+/+/o'3 a00,a),. +o +h, $/*/) #,r*/c,
$o--/33/o'. Th, $#$ /331,. 3,0ara+, r,3o)1+/o'3 ho)./'( +ha+
+h, r,a00o/'+-,'+ o5 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3 +o +h, DPO# 4a3
a1+o-a+/c, 01r31a'+ +o +h, 0ro*/3/o' o' a93or0+/o' /' P1,6o'
$/+2 Or./'a'c, No. N$"1<0, #,r/,3 o5 1990,
5
a'. or.,r/'( +h,/r
r,/'3+a+,-,'+ +o +h,/r 5or-,r 0o3/+/o'3 /' +h, DPO#.
6
P,+/+/o',r
9ro1(h+ 0,+/+/o'3 5or c,r+/orar/ +o +h/3 $o1r+,
7
+o a''1) +h,
r,3o)1+/o'3 91+, /' accor.a'c, 4/+h R,*/3,. A.-/'/3+ra+/*,
$/rc1)ar No. 1"95, +h, 0,+/+/o' 4,r, r,5,rr,. +o +h, $o1r+ o5
A00,a)3. A3 3+a+,., +h, $o1r+ o5 A00,a)3 ./3-/33,. +h, 0,+/+/o'3
5or c,r+/orar/.
I' +h, /'3+a'+ 0,+/+/o' 5or r,*/,4, 0,+/+/o',r a33,r+3 +ha+ +h,
$o1r+ o5 A00,a)3 ,rr,. 4h,' /+ r1),. +ha+ r,30o'.,'+ $/*/)
#,r*/c, $o--/33/o' ha3 +h, a1+hor/+2 +o ./r,c+ h/- +o
Qr,/'3+a+,Q 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3 /' +h, DPO#.
7, a(r,, 4/+h 0,+/+/o',r.
Th, )a4 a00)/ca9), /3 !.P. 337 or +h, o). Loca) Go*,r'-,'+ $o.,
a'. 'o+ +h, Loca) Go*,r'-,'+ $o., o5 1992 4h/ch 9,ca-,
,=,c+/*, o')2 o' %a'1ar2 1, 1992, 4h,' +h, -a+,r/a) ,*,'+3 /'
+h/3 ca3, +ra'30/r,..
A00)2/'( +h, 3a/. )a4, 4, C'. +ha+ +h, $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o'
,rr,. 4h,' /+ a00)/,. +h, ./r,c+/*,3 o5 Or./'a'c, N$"1<0 a'. /'
3o .o/'( or.,r,. 0,+/+/o',r +o Qr,/'3+a+,Q 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3 +o
0o3/+/o'3 /' +h, DPO#. #,c+/o' 3 o5 +h, 3a/. Or./'a'c, /3 /'*a)/.
5or 9,/'( /'co'3/3+,'+ 4/+h !.P. 337. 7, 'o+, +ha+ #,c+/o' 3 o5
+h, @1,3+/o',. Or./'a'c, ./r,c+3 +h, a93or0+/o' o5 +h,
0,r3o'',) o5 +h, .,51'c+ $#U /'+o +h, ',4 DPO#. Th, Or./'a'c,
r,5,r3 +o 0,r3o'',) a'. 'o+ +o 0o3/+/o'3. H,'c,, +h, c/+2 co1'c/)
or 3a'((1'/a', +hro1(h +h, Or./'a'c,, /3 /' ,=,c+ ./c+a+/'( 4ho
3ha)) occ102 +h, ',4)2 cr,a+,. DPO# 0o3/+/o'3. Ho4,*,r, a
r,*/,4 o5 +h, 0ro*/3/o'3 o5 !.P. 337 3ho43 +ha+ +h, 0o4,r +o
a00o/'+ r,3+3 ,8c)13/*,)2 4/+h +h, )oca) ch/,5 ,8,c1+/*, a'. +h13
ca''o+ 9, 131r0,. 92 +h, c/+2 co1'c/) or 3a'((1'/a' +hro1(h +h,
3/-0), ,80,./,'+ o5 ,'ac+/'( or./'a'c,3 +ha+ 0ro*/., 5or +h,
Qa93or0+/o'Q o5 30,c/Cc 0,r3o'3 +o c,r+a/' 0o3/+/o'3.
I' 10ho)./'( +h, 0ro*/3/o'3 o5 +h, Or./'a'c, o' +h, a1+o-a+/c
a93or0+/o' o5 +h, 0,r3o'',) o5 +h, $#U /'+o +h, DPO# 4/+ho1+
a))o4a'c, 5or +h, ,8,rc/3, o5 ./3cr,+/o' o' +h, 0ar+ o5 +h, $/+2
Ma2or, +h, $o1r+ o5 A00,a)3 -aA,3 +h, 34,,0/'( 3+a+,-,'+ +ha+
Q+h, .oc+r/', o5 3,0ara+/o' o5 0o4,r3 /3 'o+ a00)/ca9), +o )oca)
(o*,r'-,'+3.Q
J
7, ar, 1'a9), +o a(r,,. Th, 0o4,r3 o5 +h, c/+2
co1'c/) a'. +h, c/+2 -a2or ar, ,80r,33)2 ,'1-,ra+,. 3,0ara+,)2
a'. .,)/',a+,. 92 !.P. 337.
Th, 0ro*/3/o'3 o5 !.P. 337 ar, c),ar. A3 3+a+,. a9o*,, +h, 0o4,r
+o a00o/'+ /3 *,3+,. /' +h, )oca) ch/,5 ,8,c1+/*,.
9
Th, 0o4,r o5
+h, c/+2 co1'c/) or 3a'((1'/a', o' +h, o+h,r ha'., /3 )/-/+,. +o
cr,a+/'(, co'3o)/.a+/'( a'. r,or(a'/6/'( c/+2 o>c,r3 a'.
0o3/+/o'3 3100or+,. 92 )oca) 51'.3. Th, c/+2 co1'c/) ha3 'o
0o4,r +o a00o/'+. Th/3 /3 c),ar 5ro- #,c+/o' 177 o5 !.P. 337
4h/ch )/3+3 +h, 0o4,r3 o5 +h, 3a'((1'/a'. Th, 0o4,r +o a00o/'+
/3 'o+ o', o5 +h,-. E80r,33/o /'/13 ,3+ ,8c)13/o a)+,r/13.
10
Ha.
$o'(r,33 /'+,'.,. +o (ra'+ +h, 0o4,r +o a00o/'+ +o 9o+h +h, c/+2
co1'c/) a'. +h, )oca) ch/,5 ,8,c1+/*,, /+ 4o1). ha*, 3a/. 3o /' 'o
1'c,r+a/' +,r-3.
!2 or.,r/'( 0,+/+/o',r +o Qr,/'3+a+,Q 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3
01r31a'+ +o
#,c+/o' 3 o5 +h, Or./'a'c,, +h, $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o'
3193+/+1+,. /+3 o4' ?1.(-,'+ 5or +ha+ o5 +h, a00o/'+/'( 0o4,r.
Th/3 ca''o+ 9, .o',. I' a )o'( )/', o5 ca3,3,
11
4, ha*,
co'3/3+,'+)2 r1),. +ha+ +h, $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o'D3 0o4,r /3
)/-/+,. +o a00ro*/'( or ./3a00ro*/'( a' a00o/'+-,'+. I+ .o,3 'o+
ha*, +h, a1+hor/+2 +o ./r,c+ +ha+ a' a00o/'+-,'+ o5 a 30,c/Cc
/'./*/.1a) 9, -a.,. O'c, +h, $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o' a++,3+3
4h,+h,r +h, 0,r3o' cho3,' +o C)) a *aca'+ 0o3/+/o' /3 ,)/(/9),, /+3
ro), /' +h, a00o/'+-,'+ 0roc,33 ',c,33ar/)2 ,'.3. Th, $/*/)
#,r*/c, $o--/33/o' ca''o+ ,'croach 10o' +h, ./3cr,+/o' *,3+,.
/' +h, a00o/'+/'( a1+hor/+2.
Th, $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o' ar(1,3 +ha+ /+ /3 'o+ 3193+/+1+/'( /+3
?1.(-,'+ 5or +ha+ o5 +h, a00o/'+/'( 0o4,r a'. +ha+ /+ /3 -,r,)2
/-0),-,'+/'( #,c+/o' 3 o5 Or./'a'c, N$"1<0.
Th, Or./'a'c, r,5,r3 +o +h, Q0,r3o'',) o5 +h, $#UQ, +h,
/.,'+/+/,3 o5 4h/ch co1). 'o+ 9, -/3+aA,'. Th, r,3o)1+/o'3 o5 +h,
$/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o' )/A,4/3, ca)) 5or +h, r,/'3+a+,-,'+ o5
'a-,. /'./*/.1a)3. Th,r, 9,/'( 'o /331, a3 +o 4ho ar, +o 3/+ /'
+h, ',4)2 cr,a+,. DPO#, +h,r, /3 +h,r,5or, 'o roo- ),5+ 5or +h,
,8,rc/3, o5 ./3cr,+/o'. I' Bar/'a3 *3. !ar9a,
12
4, h,). +ha+ +h,
a00o/'+/'( a1+hor/+2 /3 'o+ 9o1'. +o a00o/'+ a'2o',
r,co--,'.,. 92 +h, 3a'((1'/a' co'c,r',., 3/'c, +h, 0o4,r o5
a00o/'+-,'+ /3 a ./3cr,+/o'ar2 0o4,r.
7h,' +h, $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o' or.,r,. +h, r,/'3+a+,-,'+ o5
0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3, /+ +,ch'/ca))2 /331,. a ',4 a00o/'+-,'+.
13
Th/3 +a3A, /.,. o5 a00o/'+-,'+, /3 ,33,'+/a))2 ./3cr,+/o'ar2 a'.
ca''o+ 9, co'+ro)),. ,*,' 92 +h, co1r+3 a3 )o'( a3 /+ /3 0ro0,r)2
a'. 'o+ ar9/+rar/)2 ,8,rc/3,. 92 +h, a00o/'+/'( a1+hor/+2.
I' A01r/))o *3. $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o', 4, h,). +ha+
Qa00o/'+-,'+ /3 ,33,'+/a))2 a ./3cr,+/o'ar2 0o4,r a'. -13+ 9,
0,r5or-,. 92 +h, o>c,r /' 4h/ch /+ /3 *,3+,..Q
1<
Th, a9o*, 0r,-/3,3 co'3/.,r,., 4, r1), +ha+ +h, $/*/) #,r*/c,
$o--/33/o' ha3 'o 0o4,r +o or.,r 0,+/+/o',r I3-a,) A. Ma+ha2,
%r., +o r,/'3+a+, 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3.
P,+/+/o',r 3/-/)ar)2 a33a/)3 a3 ,rror +h, $o1r+ o5 A00,a)3D r1)/'(
+ha+ 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3 3ho1). 9, a1+o-a+/ca))2 a93or9,. /'
+h, DPO# 01r31a'+ +o #,c+/o' 3 o5 +h, Or./'a'c,.
I' /+3 .,c/3/o' o5 March 21, 1996 +h, $o1r+ o5 A00,a)3 h,).&
I+ /3 c),ar ho4,*,r, +ha+ Or./'a'c, No. N$"1<0, a93or9/'( +h,
Q0r,3,'+ 0,r3o'',) o5 +h, $/*/) #,c1r/+2 A(,'+ U'/+Q /' +h, DPO#
4a3 ,ar)/,r ,'ac+,., 0ar+/c1)ar)2 o' March 27, 1990, +h13,
0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3 4,r, 3+/)) ho).,r3 o5 ., ?1r, a00o/'+-,'+3 a3
0,r-a','+ r,(1)ar ,-0)o2,,3 a+ +h, +/-,, a'. +h,r,5or,, 92
o0,ra+/o' o5 3a/. Or./'a'c, 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3 4,r,
a1+o-a+/ca))2 a93or9,. /' +h, DPO# ,=,c+/*,)2 a3 o5 March 27,
1990.
15
:E-0ha3/3 o1r3.;
Th, .,c/3/o' /3 9a3,. o' +h, 4ro'( 0r,-/3,.
E*,' a331-/'( +h, *a)/./+2 o5 #,c+/o' 3 o5 +h, Or./'a'c,, +h,
a93or0+/o' co'+,-0)a+,. +h,r,/' /3 'o+ 0o33/9),. #/'c, +h, $#U
',*,r ),(a))2 ca-, /'+o ,8/3+,'c,, +h, 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3
',*,r h,). 0,r-a','+ 0o3/+/o'3. Accor./'()2, a3 0,+/+/o',r
corr,c+)2 0o/'+3 o1+,
16
+h, 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3D a00o/'+-,'+3 /'
+h, .,51'c+ $#U K
4,r, /'*a)/. a9 /'/+/o. Th,/r 3,'/or/+2 a'. 0,r-a','+ 3+a+13 ./.
'o+ ar/3, 3/'c, +h,2 ha*, 'o *a)/. a00o/'+-,'+. Bor +h,' +o
,'+,r +h, $/*/) #,r*/c, a5+,r +h, r,*oca+/o' a'. ca'c,))a+/o' o5
+h,/r /'*a)/. a00o/'+-,'+, +h,2 ha*, +o 9, ,8+,'.,. a' or/(/'a)
a00o/'+-,'+, 319?,c+ a(a/' +o +h, a++,3+/'( 0o4,r o5 +h, $/*/)
#,r*/c, $o--/33/o'.
!,/'( +h,' 'o+ -,-9,r3 o5 +h, $/*/) #,r*/c, a3 o5 %1', <, 1991,
+h,2 ca''o+ 9, a1+o-a+/ca))2
a93or9,.Er,a00o/'+,.Ea00o/'+,.Er,/'3+a+,. /'+o +h, ',4)2
cr,a+,. DPO#. :E-0ha3/3 o1r3;.
I+ /3 a8/o-a+/c +ha+ +h, r/(h+ +o ho). 019)/c o>c, /3 'o+ a 'a+1ra)
r/(h+. Th, r/(h+ ,8/3+3 o')2 92 */r+1, o5 a )a4 ,80r,33)2 or
/-0)/,.)2 cr,a+/'( a'. co'5,rr/'( /+.
17
#/'c, Pr,3/.,'+/a) D,cr,,
51 cr,a+/'( +h, $#U ',*,r 9,ca-, )a4, /+ co1). 'o+ 9, a 3o1rc,
o5 r/(h+3. N,/+h,r co1). /+ /-0o3, .1+/,3. I+ co1). 'o+ a=or. a'2
0ro+,c+/o'. I+ ./. 'o+ cr,a+, a' o>c,. I+ /3 a3 /'o0,ra+/*, a3
+ho1(h /+ 4a3 ',*,r 0a33,..
I' D,91)(a.o *3. $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o'
1J
4, h,). +ha+ Qa
*o/. a00o/'+-,'+ ca''o+ (/*, r/3, +o 3,c1r/+2 o5 +,'1r, o' +h,
0ar+ o5 +h, ho).,r o5 +h, a00o/'+-,'+.Q
7h/), +h, $o1r+ o5 A00,a)3 4a3 corr,c+ 4h,' /+ 3+a+,. +ha+ Q+h,
a9o)/+/o' o5 a' o>c, .o,3 'o+ -,a' +h, /'*a)/./+2 o5
a00o/'+-,'+3 +h,r,+o,Q
19
+h/3 ca''o+ a00)2 +o +h, ca3, a+ 9ar. I'
+h/3 ca3,, +h, $#U 4a3 'o+ a9o)/3h,.. I+ 3/-0)2 ./. 'o+ co-, /'+o
,8/3+,'c, a3 +h, Pr,3/.,'+/a) D,cr,, cr,a+/'( /+ ',*,r 9,ca-,
)a4.
A+ +h, -o3+, 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3 h,). +,-0orar2 a'.
co'+rac+1a) a00o/'+-,'+3. Th, 'o'"r,',4a) o5 +h,3,
a00o/'+-,'+3 ca''o+ +h,r,5or, 9, +aA,' a(a/'3+ 0,+/+/o',r. I'
Ro-1a).,6 III *3. $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o'
20
4, +r,a+,.
+,-0orar2 a00o/'+-,'+3 a3 5o))o43&
Th, acc,0+a'c, 92 +h, 0,+/+/o',r o5 a +,-0orar2 a00o/'+-,'+
r,31)+,. /' +h, +,r-/'a+/o' o5 o>c/a) r,)a+/o'3h/0 4/+h h/3 5or-,r
0,r-a','+ 0o3/+/o'. 7h,' +h, +,-0orar2 a00o/'+-,'+ 4a3 'o+
r,',4,., +h, 0,+/+/o',r ha. 'o ca13, +o .,-a'. r,/'3+a+,-,'+
+h,r,+o. :E-0ha3/3 o1r3.;
A'o+h,r ar(1-,'+ a(a/'3+ +h, co'c,0+ o5 a1+o-a+/c a93or0+/o'
/3 +h, 0h23/ca) a'. ),(a) /-0o33/9/)/+2 (/*,' +h, '1-9,r o5
a*a/)a9), 0o3/+/o'3 /' +h, DPO# a'. +h, '1-9,r o5 0,r3o'',) +o
9, a93or9,..
21
7, 'o+, +ha+ #,c+/o' 1 o5 Or./'a'c, N$"1<0
0ro*/.,3&
Th,r, /3 h,r,92 ,3+a9)/3h,. /' +h, P1,6o' $/+2 Go*,r'-,'+ +h,
D,0ar+-,'+ o5 P19)/c Or.,r a'. #a5,+2 4ho3, or(a'/6a+/o',
3+r1c+1r,, .1+/,3, 51'c+/o'3 a'. r,30o'3/9/)/+/,3 ar, a3 0ro*/.,.
or .,C',. /' +h, a++ach,. 3100or+/'( .oc1-,'+3 co'3/3+/'( o5
,/(h+,,' :1J; 0a(,3 4h/ch ar, -a., /'+,(ra) 0ar+3 o5 +h/3
Or./'a'c,.
A r,*/,4 o5 +h, 3100or+/'( .oc1-,'+3 3ho43 +ha+ Or./'a'c, No.
N$"1<0 a))o4,. o')2 +4o 3)o+3 5or +h, 0o3/+/o' o5 #,c1r/+2 O>c,r
II 4/+h a -o'+h)2 3a)ar2 o5 P<,<1J.00 a'. 5o1r 3)o+3 5or +h,
0o3/+/o' o5 #,c1r/+2 A(,'+ 4/+h a -o'+h)2 3a)ar2 o5 P3,102.00.
Th, )/-/+,. '1-9,r o5 3)o+3 0ro*/.,. /' +h, Or./'a'c, r,'.,r3
a1+o-a+/c a93or0+/o' 1'a++a/'a9),, co'3/.,r/'( +ha+ /' +h,
.,51'c+ $#U +h,r, ar, +4,'+2 #,c1r/+2 O>c,r3 4/+h a -o'+h)2
3a)ar2 o5 P<,<1J.00 a'. 3/8 #,c1r/+2 A(,'+3 4/+h a -o'+h)2
3a)ar2 o5 P3,102.00. $),ar)2, +h, 0o3/+/o'3 cr,a+,. /' +h, DPO#
ar, 'o+ 31>c/,'+ +o acco--o.a+, +h, 0,r3o'',) o5 +h, .,51'c+
$#U, -aA/'( a1+o-a+/c a93or0+/o' /-0o33/9),.
$o'3/.,r/'( +ha+ 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+3 ./. 'o+ ),(a))2 ho). *a)/.
0o3/+/o'3 /' +h, $#U, 5or )acA o5 a )a4 cr,a+/'( /+, or +h, DPO#,
5or )acA o5 a 0,r-a','+ a00o/'+-,'+ +o +h, 3a/. a(,'c2, /+
9,co-,3 1'',c,33ar2 +o ./3c133 4h,+h,r +h,/r acc,0+a'c, o5
+h, co'+rac+1a) a00o/'+-,'+3 co'3+/+1+,3 a' Qa9a'.o'-,'+Q or
Q4a/*,rQ o5 31ch 0o3/+/o'3. I+ ,3ca0,3 13 ho4 o', ca'
Qr,)/'@1/3hQ or Qr,'o1'c,Q a r/(h+ o', ',*,r 0o33,33,.. A 0,r3o'
4a/*/'( -13+ ac+1a))2 ha*, +h, r/(h+ 4h/ch h, /3 r,'o1'c/'(.
G.R. 12635<
I' +h/3 ca3,, 0,+/+/o',r, $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o' 3,,A3 +h,
r,*,r3a) o5 +h, .,c/3/o' o5 +h, $o1r+ o5 A00,a)3 o5 %1)2 5, 1996,
4h/ch o*,r+1r',. $#$ R,3o)1+/o' No3. 9550<0 a'. 932732 a'.
h,). +ha+ +h, $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o' ha3 'o a1+hor/+2 +o
co-0,) +h, -a2or o5 P1,6o' $/+2 +o Qr,/'3+a+,Q %o*/+o $. La9a?o
+o +h, DPO#.
Th, 3+a'./'( o5 0,+/+/o',r $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o' +o 9r/'( +h/3
0r,3,'+ a00,a) /3 @1,3+/o'a9),.
7, 'o+, +ha+ +h, 0,r3o' a.*,r3,)2 a=,c+,. 92 +h, $o1r+ o5
A00,a)3 .,c/3/o', %o*/+o $. La9a?o ha3 o0+,. 'o+ +o a00,a).
!a3/c /3 +h, r1), +ha+ Q,*,r2 ac+/o' -13+ 9, 0ro3,c1+,. or
.,5,'.,. /' +h, 'a-, o5 +h, r,a) 0ar+2 /' /'+,r,3+.Q
22
A r,a)
0ar+2 /' /'+,r,3+ /3 +h, 0ar+2 4ho 3+a'.3 +o 9, 9,',C+,. or
/'?1r,. 92 +h, ?1.(-,'+ /' +h, 31/+, or +h, 0ar+2 ,'+/+),. +o +h,
a*a/)3 o5 +h, 31/+.
I' Ra))a *3. Ra))a 4, .,C',. /'+,r,3+ a3 Q-a+,r/a) /'+,r,3+, a'
/'+,r,3+ /' /331, a'. +o 9, a=,c+,. 92 +h, .,cr,,, a3
./3+/'(1/3h,. 5ro- -,r, /'+,r,3+ /' +h, @1,3+/o' /'*o)*,., or
-,r, /'c/.,'+a) /'+,r,3+.Q
23
A3 a (,',ra) r1),, o', ha*/'( 'o
r/(h+ or /'+,r,3+ +o 0ro+,c+ ca''o+ /'*oA, +h, ?1r/3./c+/o' o5 +h,
co1r+ a3 a 0ar+2"0)a/'+/= /' a' ac+/o'.
I' +h, ca3, a+ 9ar, /+ /3 ,*/.,'+ +ha+ %o*/+o $. La9a?o, 'o+ +h, $/*/)
#,r*/c, $o--/33/o', /3 +h, r,a) 0ar+2 /' /'+,r,3+. I+ /3 %o*/+o $.
La9a?o 4ho 4/)) 9, 9,',C+,. or /'?1r,. 92 h/3 r,/'3+a+,-,'+ or
'o'"r,/'3+a+,-,'+.
7, ar, a4ar, o5 o1r 0ro'o1'c,-,'+3 /' +h, r,c,'+ ca3, o5 $/*/)
#,r*/c, $o--/33/o' *. P,.ro Daco2co2
2<
4h/ch o*,r+1r',. o1r
r1)/'(3 /' Par,.,3 *3. $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o'
25
M,'.,6 *3.
$/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o'
26
a'. Ma(0a), *3. $/*/) #,r*/c,
$o--/33/o'.
27
I' Daco2co2, 4, a>r-,. +h, r/(h+ o5 +h, $/*/)
#,r*/c, $o--/33/o' +o 9r/'( a' a00,a) a3 +h, a((r/,*,. 0ar+2
a=,c+,. 92 a r1)/'( 4h/ch -a2 3,r/o13)2 0r,?1./c, +h, c/*/)
3,r*/c, 323+,-.
Th, a5or,-,'+/o',. ca3,, ho4,*,r, /3 ./=,r,'+ 5ro- +h, ca3, a+
9ar. Daco2co2 4a3 a' a.-/'/3+ra+/*, ca3, /'*o)*/'( ',0o+/3-
4ho3, .,),+,r/o13 ,=,c+ o' (o*,r'-,'+ ca''o+ 9, o*,r
,-0ha3/6,.. Th, 319?,c+ o5 +h, 0r,3,'+ ca3,, o' +h, o+h,r ha'.,
/3 Qr,/'3+a+,-,'+.Q
7, 5a/) +o 3,, ho4 +h, 0r,3,'+ 0,+/+/o', /'*o)*/'( a3 /+ .o,3 +h,
r,/'3+a+,-,'+ or 'o'"r,/'3+a+,-,'+ o5 o', o9*/o13)2 r,)1c+a'+
+o )/+/(a+,, ca' /-0a/r +h, ,=,c+/*,',33 o5 (o*,r'-,'+.
Accor./'()2, +h, r1)/'( /' Daco2co2 .o,3 'o+ a00)2.
To 9, 31r,, 4h,' +h, r,3o)1+/o'3 o5 +h, $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o'
4,r, 9ro1(h+ 9,5or, +h, $o1r+ o5 A00,a)3, +h, $/*/) #,r*/c,
$o--/33/o' 4a3 /'c)1.,. o')2 a3 a 'o-/'a) 0ar+2. A3 a @1a3/"
?1./ca) 9o.2, +h, $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o' ca' 9, )/A,',. +o a
?1.(, 4ho 3ho1). Q.,+ach h/-3,)5 5ro- ca3,3 4h,r, h/3 .,c/3/o'
/3 a00,a),. +o a h/(h,r co1r+ 5or r,*/,4.Q
2J
I' /'3+/+1+/'( G.R. No. 12635<, +h, $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o'
.a'(,ro13)2 .,0ar+,. 5ro- /+3 ro), a3 a.?1./ca+or a'. 9,ca-,
a' a.*oca+,. I+3 -a'.a+,. 51'c+/o'3 /3 +o Qh,ar a'. .,c/.,
a.-/'/3+ra+/*, ca3,3 /'3+/+1+,. 92 or 9ro1(h+ 9,5or, /+ ./r,c+)2 or
o' a00,a), /'c)1./'( co'+,3+,. a00o/'+-,'+3 a'. +o r,*/,4
.,c/3/o'3 a'. ac+/o'3 o5 /+3 o>c,3 a'. a(,'c/,3,Q
29
'o+ +o
)/+/(a+,.
Th,r,5or,, 4, r1), +ha+ +h, $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o' ha3 'o
),(a) 3+a'./'( +o 0ro3,c1+, G.R. No. 12635<.
7HEREBORE, +h, 0,+/+/o'3 o5 I3-a,) A. Ma+ha2 /' G.R. No.
12<37< a'. G.R. No. 126366 ar, GRANTED a'. +h, .,c/3/o'3 o5
+h, $o1r+ o5 A00,a)3 .a+,. March 21, 1996 a'. %a'1ar2 15,
1996 ar, REVER#ED a'. #ET A#IDE.
Th, 0,+/+/o' o5 +h, $/*/) #,r*/c, $o--/33/o' /' G.R. No. 12635<
/3 DI#MI##ED 5or )acA o5 ),(a) 3+a'./'( +o 31,. Th, a33a/),.
.,c/3/o' o5 +h, r,30o'.,'+ $o1r+ o5 A00,a)3 .a+,. %1)2 5, 1996 /3
ABBIRMED.
No co3+3.
#O ORDERED.
RG.R. No. 9305< & D,c,-9,r <, 1990.S
192 #$RA 100
$or./)),ra R,(/o'a) A33,-9)2 M,-9,r ALETANDER P. ORDILLO,
:!a'a1,;, I51(ao Pro*/'c/a) !oar. M,-9,r $ORAION MONTINIG,
:Ma2o2ao;, Bor-,r V/c,"Ma2or MARTIN UDAN :!a'a1,;,
M1'/c/0a) $o1'c/)or3 MARTIN GANO, :La(a4,;, a'. TEODORO
HE7E, :H/'(2o';, !ara'(a2 $o1'c/)-a' PEDRO 7. DULAG
:La-1+;O A(1/'a).o r,3/.,'+3 #AND !. $HANGI7AN, a'.
DONATO TIMAGOO La-1+ r,3/.,'+ RE ANTONIOO L/a'(a'
r,3/.,'+3 ORLANDO PUGUON, a'. RENAND DULDULAOO
La(a4, r,3/.,'+3 TOMA# LIMAONG, GREGORIO DANGO,
GEORGE !. !A7ONG, a'. VI$ENTE LUNAGO H/'(2o' r,3/.,'+3
PA!LO M. DULNUAN a'. $ON#TAN$IO GANOO Ma2o2ao r,3/.,'+3
PEDRO M. !AOANG, LEONARDO IGADNA, a'. MATIMO IGADNAO
a'. !a'a1, r,3/.,'+3 PUMA"A $ULHI, LATAON !UTTIG, MIGUEL
PUMEL!AN, ANDRE# ORDILLO, BEDERI$O MARIANO, #AND
!INOMNGA, GA!RIEL LIMMANG, ROMEO TONGALI, RU!EN
!AHATAN, MHOMD GA!RIEL, a'. NADRE# GHAMANG,
P,+/+/o',r3, *3. THE $OMMI##ION ON ELE$TION#O Th,
Ho'ora9), BRANLLIN M. DRILON, #,cr,+ar2 o5 %13+/c,O Ho'.
$ATALINO MA$ARAIG, E8,c1+/*, #,cr,+ar2O Th, $a9/',+ O>c,r
5or R,(/o'a) D,*,)o0-,'+O Ho'. GUILLERMO $ARAGUE,
#,cr,+ar2 o5 !1.(,+ a'. Ma'a(,-,'+O a'. Ho'. RO#ALINA #.
$A%U$OM, OI$, Na+/o'a) Tr,a31r,r, R,30o'.,'+3.

D E $ I # I O N

GUTIERREI, %R., %.&

4he question raised in this petition is whether or not the province of
&fugao, being the only province which voted favorably for the creation of
the )ordillera Autonomous #egion can, alone, legally and validly
constitute such #egion.
4he antecedent facts that gave rise to this petition are as follows5
+n 2anuary ,-, .//-, the people of the provinces of Benguet, Mountain
"rovince, &fugao, Abra and ?alinga$Apayao and the city of Baguio cast
their votes in a plebiscite held pursuant to #epublic Act No. 3933 entitled
GAn Act "roviding for an +rganic Act for the )ordillera Autonomous
#egion.G
4he official )ommission on 7lections ')+M787)( results of the plebiscite
showed that the creation of the #egion was approved by a ma>ority of
0,BB/ votes in only the &fugao "rovince and was overwhelmingly re>ected
by .:B,393 votes in the rest of the provinces and city above$mentioned.
)onsequently, the )+M787), on =ebruary .:, .//-, issued #esolution
No. 110/ stating that the +rganic Act for the #egion has been approved
and<or ratified by ma>ority of the votes cast only in the province of &fugao.
+n the same date, the *ecretary of 2ustice issued a memorandum for the
"resident reiterating the )+M787) resolution and provided5
G. . . IAJnd considering the proviso in *ec. .,'A( that only the provinces
and city voting favorably shall be included in the )A#, the province of
&fugao being the only province which voted favorably H then, alone,
legally and validly constitutes the )A#.G '#ollo, p. 9(
As a result of this, on March B, .//-, )ongress enacted #epublic Act No.
3B3. setting the elections in the )ordillera Autonomous #egion of &fugao
on the first Monday of March .//..5 nad
7ven before the issuance of the )+M787) resolution, the 7!ecutive
*ecretary on =ebruary 0, .//- issued a Memorandum granting authority
to wind up the affairs of the )ordillera 7!ecutive Board and the )ordillera
#egional Assembly created under 7!ecutive +rder No. 11-.
+n March /, .//-, the petitioner filed a petition with )+M787) to
declare the non$ratification of the +rganic Act for the #egion. 4he
)+M787) merely noted said petition.
+n March ,-, .//-, the "resident issued Administrative +rder No. .3-
declaring among others that the )ordillera 7!ecutive Board and )ordillera
#egional Assembly and all the offices created under 7!ecutive +rder No.
11- were abolished in view of the ratification of the +rganic Act.$ nad
4he petitioners maintain that there can be no valid )ordillera Autonomous
#egion in only one province as the )onstitution and #epublic Act No.
3933 require that the said #egion be composed of more than one
constituent unit.
4he petitioners, then, pray that the )ourt5 '.( declare null and void
)+M787) resolution No. 110/, the memorandum of the *ecretary of
2ustice, the memorandum of the 7!ecutive *ecretary, Administrative
+rder No. .3-, and #epublic Act No. 3B3. and prohibit and restrain the
respondents from implementing the same and spending public funds for
the purpose and '1( declare 7!ecutive +rder No. 11- constituting the
)ordillera 7!ecutive Board and the )ordillera #egional Assembly and
other offices to be still in force and effect until another organic law for the
Autonomous #egion shall have been enacted by )ongress and the same
is duly ratified by the voters in the constituent units. e treat the
)omments of the respondents as an answer and decide the case.
4his petition is meritorious.
4he sole province of &fugao cannot validly constitute the )ordillera
Autonomous #egion.
&t is e!plicit in Article M, *ection .0 of the ./B9 )onstitution that5
G*ection .0. 4here shall be created autonomous regions in
Muslim Mindanao and in the )ordillera consisting of provinces,
cities, municipalities and geographical areas sharing common
and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and
social structures, and other relevant characteristics within the
framework of this )onstitution and the national sovereignty as
well as territorial integrity of the #epublic of the "hilippines.G
'7mphasis *upplied(
4he keywords H provinces, cities, municipalities and geographical areas
connote that GregionG is to be made up of more than one constituent unit.
4he term GregionG used in its ordinary sense means two or more
provinces. 4his is supported by the fact that the thirteen '.,( regions into
which the "hilippines is divided for administrative purposes are groupings
of contiguous provinces. '&ntegrated #eorgani;ation "lan './91(, which
was made as part of the law of the land by ".D. No. .D ".D. No. 9:1(
&fugao is a province by itself. 4o become part of a region, it must >oin other
provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas. &t >oins other
units because of their common and distinctive historical and cultural
heritage, economic and social structures and other relevant
characteristics. 4he )onstitutional requirements are not present in this
case.$ nad
4he well$established rule in statutory construction that the language of the
)onstitution, as much as possible should be understood in the sense it
has in common use and that the words used in constitutional provisions
are to be given their ordinary meaning e!cept where technical terms are
employed, must then, be applied in this case. '*ee Baranda v. @ustilo,
.30 *)#A 909, 99-, I./BBJD 2.M. 4uason P )o., &nc. v. 8and 4enure
Administration, ,. *)#A :.,, :11$:1, I./9-J(.
Aside from the ./B9 )onstitution, a reading of the provisions of #epublic
Act No. 3933 strengthens the petitionerAs position that the #egion cannot
be constituted from only one province.
Article &&&, *ections . and 1 of the *tatute provide that the )ordillera
Autonomous #egion is to be administered by the )ordillera government
consisting of the #egional @overnment and local government units. &t
further provides that5
G*7)4&+N 1. 4he #egional @overnment shall e!ercise powers
and functions necessary for the proper governance and
development of all provinces, cities, municipalities, and
barangay or ili within the Autonomous #egion . . .G
=rom these sections, it can be gleaned that )ongress never intended that
a single province may constitute the autonomous region. +therwise, we
would be faced with the absurd situation of having two sets of officials, a
set of provincial officials and another set of regional officials e!ercising
their e!ecutive and legislative powers over e!actly the same small area.
Article %, *ections . and : of #epublic Act 3933 vest the legislative power
in the )ordillera Assembly whose members shall be elected from regional
assembly districts apportioned among provinces and the cities composing
the Autonomous #egion. chanrobles virtual law library
&f we follow the respondentAs position, the members of such )ordillera
Assembly shall then be elected only from the province of &fugao creating
an awkward predicament of having two legislative bodies H the )ordillera
Assembly and the *angguniang "anlalawigan H e!ercising their
legislative powers over the province of &fugao. And since &fugao is one of
the smallest provinces in the "hilippines, population$wise, it would have
too many government officials for so few people.5$cralaw
Article M&&, *ection .- of the law creates a #egional "lanning and
Development Board composed of the )ordillera @overnor, all the
provincial governors and city mayors or their representatives, two
members of the )ordillera Assembly, and members representing the
private sector. 4he Board has a counterpart in the provincial level called
the "rovincial "lanning and Development )oordinator. 4he BoardAs
functions 'Article M&&, *ection .-, par. 1, #epublic Act No. 3933( are
almost similar to those of the "rovincial )oordinatorAs '4itle =our, )hapter
,, Article .-, *ection 11- ':(, Batas "ambansa Blg. ,,9 H 8ocal
@overnment )ode(. &f it takes only one person in the provincial level to
perform such functions while on the other hand it takes an entire Board to
perform almost the same tasks in the regional level, it could only mean
that a larger area must be covered at the regional level. 4he respondentAs
theory of the Autonomous #egion being made up of a single province
must, therefore, fail.
Article MM&, *ection ., 'B( 'c( alloting the huge amount of 4en Million
"esos '".-,---,---.--( to the #egional @overnment for its initial
organi;ational requirements cannot be construed as funding only a lone
and small province.
4hese sections of #epublic Act No. 3933 show that a one province
)ordillera Autonomous #egion was never contemplated by the law
creating it.
4he province of &fugao makes up only ..O of the total population of the
areas enumerated in Article &, *ection 1 'b( of #epublic Act No. 3933
which include Benguet, Mountain "rovince, Abra, ?alinga$Apayao and
Baguio )ity. &t has the second smallest number of inhabitants from among
the provinces and city above mentioned. 4he )ordillera population is
distributed in round figures as follows5 Abra, .B0,---D Benguet, :B3,---D
&fugao, .:/,---D ?alinga$Apayao, 1.:,---D Mountain "rovince, ..3,---D
and Baguio )ity, .B,,---D 4otal population of these five provinces and
one cityD .,,,1,--- according to the .//- )ensus 'Manila *tandard,
*eptember ,-, .//-, p. .:(.
4here are other provisions of #epublic Act No. 3933 which are either
violated or which cannot be complied with. *ection .3 of Article % calls for
a #egional )ommission on Appointments with the *peaker as )hairman
and are '3( members coming from different provinces and cities in the
#egion. 6nder the respondentsA view, the )ommission would have a
)hairman and only one member. &t would never have a quorum. *ection ,
of Article %& calls for cabinet members, as far as practicable, to come from
various provinces and cities of the #egion. *ection . of Article %&& creates
a system of tribal courts for the various indigenous cultural communities
of the #egion. *ection / of Article M% requires the development of a
common regional language based upon the various languages and
dialects in the region which regional language in turn is e!pected to
enrich the national language.
4he entirety of #epublic Act No. 3933 creating the )ordillera Autonomous
#egion is infused with provisions which rule against the sole province of
&fugao constituting the #egion.5$cralaw
4o contemplate the situation envisioned by the respondent would not only
violate the letter and intent of the )onstitution and #epublic Act No. 3933
but would also be impractical and illogical.
+ur decision in Abbas, et al. v. )+M787), '@.#. No. B/30., November
.-, ./3/(, is not applicable in the case at bar contrary to the view of the
*ecretary of 2ustice.
4he Abbas case laid down the rate on the meaning of ma>ority in the
phrase Gby ma>ority of the votes cast by the constituent units called for the
purposeG found in the )onstitution, Article M, *ection .B. &t stated5
! ! !
G. . . I&Jt is thus clear that what is required by the )onstitution is
simple ma>ority of votes approving the +rganic Act in individual
constituent units and not a double ma>ority of the votes in all
constituent units put together, as well as in the individual
constituent units.G
4his was the pronouncement applied by the *ecretary of 2ustice in
arriving at his conclusion stated in his Memorandum for the "resident
that5
! ! !
G. . . IiJt is believed that the creation of the )ordillera
Autonomous #egion ')A#( as mandated by #.A. No. 3933
became effective upon its approval by the ma>ority of the votes
cast in the province of &fugao. And considering the proviso in
*ection ., 'a( that only the provinces and city voting favorably
shall be included in the )A#, the province of &fugao being the
only province which voted favorably H can, alone, legally and
validly constitute the )A#.G '#ollo. p. :-(.
4he plebiscites mandated by the )onstitution and #epublic Act No. 3933
for the )ordillera and #epublic Act No. 39,: for the Autonomous #egion
in Muslim Mindanao determine H '.( whether there shall be an
autonomous region in the )ordillera and in Muslim Mindanao and '1(
which provinces and cities, among those enumerated in the two #epublic
Acts, shall comprise said Autonomous #egions. '*ee &&&, #ecord of the
)onstitutional )ommission, :B9$:/1 I./B3J(.
4he Abbas case established the rule to follow on which provinces and
cities shall comprise the autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao which
is, consequently, the same rule to follow with regard to the autonomous
region in the )ordillera. Cowever, there is nothing in the Abbas decision
which deals with the issue on whether an autonomous region, in either
Muslim Mindanao or )ordillera could e!ist despite the fact that only one
province or one city is to constitute it.chanrobles virtual law library
*tated in another way, the issue in this case is whether the sole province
of &fugao can validly and legally constitute the )ordillera Autonomous
#egion. 4he issue is not whether the province of &fugao is to be included
in the )ordillera Autonomous #egion. &t is the first issue which the )ourt
answers in the instant case.
C7#7=+#7, the petition is hereby @#AN47D. #esolution No. 110/ of
the )ommission on 7lections, insofar as it upholds the creation of an
autonomous region, the =ebruary .:, .//- memorandum of the
*ecretary of 2ustice, the =ebruary 0, .//- memorandum of the 7!ecutive
*ecretary, Administrative +rder No. .3-, and #epublic Act No. 3B3. are
declared null and void while 7!ecutive +rder No. 11- is declared to be
still in force and effect until properly repealed or amended.
*+ +#D7#7D.
G.R. No. J9651 No*,-9,r 10, 19J9
DATU BIRDAU#I I.. A!!A#, DATU !LO UMPAR ADIONG, DATU
MA$ALIMPO7A$ DELANGALEN, $EL#O PALMA, ALI MONTANA
!A!AO, %ULMUNIR %ANNARAL, RA#HID #A!ER, a'. DATU %AMAL
A#HLE A!!A#, r,0r,3,'+/'( +h, o+h,r +a80a2,r3 o5 M/'.a'ao,
petitioners,
vs.
$OMMI##ION ON ELE$TION#, a'. HONORA!LE GUILLERMO $.
$ARAGUE, DEPARTMENT #E$RETAR OB !UDGET AND
MANAGEMENT, respondents.
G.R. No. J9965 No*,-9,r 10, 19J9
ATT. A!DULLAH D. MAMA"O, petitioner,
vs.
HON. GUILLERMO $ARAGUE, /' h/3 ca0ac/+2 a3 +h, #,cr,+ar2 o5
+h, !1.(,+, a'. +h, $OMMI##ION ON ELE$TION#, respondents.
A99a3, A99a3, A-ora, A),?a'.ro"A99a3 U A33oc/a+,3 5or
0,+/+/o',r3 /' G.R. No3. J9651 a'. J9965.
A9.1))ah D. Ma-a"o 5or a'. /' h/3 o4' 9,ha)5 /' J9965.

$ORTE#, %.&
4he present controversy relates to the plebiscite in thirteen '.,( provinces
and nine '/( cities in Mindanao and "alawan,
1
scheduled for November
./, ./B/, in implementation of #epublic Act No. 39,:, entitled GAn Act
"roviding for an +rganic Act for the Autonomous #egion in Muslim
Mindanao.G
4hese consolidated petitions pray that the )ourt5 '.( en>oin the
)ommission on 7lections ')+M787)( from conducting the plebiscite and
the *ecretary of Budget and Management from releasing funds to the
)+M787) for that purposeD and '1( declare #.A. No. 39,:, or parts
thereof, unconstitutional .
After a consolidated comment was filed by *olicitor @eneral for the
respondents, which the )ourt considered as the answer, the case was
deemed submitted for decision, the issues having been >oined.
*ubsequently, petitioner Mama$o filed a GManifestation with Motion for
8eave to =ile #eply on #espondentsA )omment and to +pen +ral
Arguments,G which the )ourt noted.
4he arguments against #.A. 39,: raised by petitioners may generally be
categori;ed into either of the following5
'a( that #.A. 39,:, or parts thereof, violates the )onstitution, and
'b( that certain provisions of #.A. No. 39,: conflict with the 4ripoli
Agreement.
4he 4ripoli Agreement, more specifically, the Agreement Between the
government of the #epublic of the "hilippines of the "hilippines and Moro
National 8iberation =ront with the "articipation of the Kuadripartie
Ministerial )ommission Members of the &slamic )onference and the
*ecretary @eneral of the +rgani;ation of &slamic )onferenceG took effect
on December 1,, ./93. &t provided for GItJhe establishment of Autonomy
in the southern "hilippines within the realm of the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the #epublic of the "hilippinesG and enumerated the
thirteen '.,( provinces comprising the Gareas of autonomy.G
2
&n ./B9, a new )onstitution was ratified, which the for the first time
provided for regional autonomy, Article M, section .0 of the charter
provides that GItJhere shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim
Mindanao and in the )ordilleras consisting of provinces, cities,
municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive
historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other
relevant characteristics within the framework of this )onstitution and the
national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the #epublic of the
"hilippines.G
4o effectuate this mandate, the )onstitution further provides5
*ec. .3. 4he "resident shall e!ercise general supervision over
autonomous regions to ensure that the laws are faithfully e!ecuted.
*ec. .9. All powers, functions, and responsibilities not granted by this
)onstitution or by law to the autonomous regions shall be vested in the
National @overnment.
*ec. .B. 4he )ongress shall enact an organic act for each autonomous
region with the assistance and participation of the regional consultative
commission composed of representatives appointed by the "resident
from a list of nominees from multisectoral bodies. 4he organic act shall
define the basic structure of government for the region consisting of the
e!ecutive and representative of the constituent political units. 4he organic
acts shall likewise provide for special courts with personal, family, and
property law >urisdiction consistent with the provisions of this )onstitution
and national laws.
4he creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when approved
by ma>ority of the votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite called
for the purpose, provided that only the provinces, cities, and geographic
areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the
autonomous region.
*ec. ./ 4he first )ongress elected under this )onstitution shall, within
eighteen months from the time of organi;ation of both Couses, pass the
organic acts for the autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the
)ordilleras.
*ec. 1-. ithin its territorial >urisdiction and sub>ect to the provisions of
this )onstitution and national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions
shall provide for legislative powers over5
'.( Administrative organi;ationD
'1( )reation of sources of revenuesD
',( Ancestral domain and natural resourcesD
':( "ersonal, family, and property relationsD
'0( #egional urban and rural planning developmentD
'3( 7conomic, social and tourism developmentD
'9( 7ducational policiesD
'B( "reservation and development of the cultural heritageD and
'/( *uch other matters as may be authori;ed by law for the promotion of
the general welfare of the people of the region.
*ec. 1.. 4he preservation of peace and order within the regions shall be
the responsibility of the local police agencies which shall be organi;ed,
maintained, supervised, and utili;ed in accordance with applicable laws.
4he defense and security of the region shall be the responsibility of the
National @overnment.
"ursuant to the constitutional mandate, #.A. No. 39,: was enacted and
signed into law on August ., ./B/.
.. 4he )ourt shall dispose first of the second category of arguments
raised by petitioners, i.e. that certain provisions of #.A. No. 39,: conflict
with the provisions of the 4ripoli Agreement.
"etitioners premise their arguments on the assumption that the 4ripoli
Agreement is part of the law of the land, being a binding international
agreement . 4he *olicitor @eneral asserts that the 4ripoli Agreement is
neither a binding treaty, not having been entered into by the #epublic of
the "hilippines with a sovereign state and ratified according to the
provisions of the ./9, or ./B9 )onstitutions, nor a binding international
agreement.
e find it neither necessary nor determinative of the case to rule on the
nature of the 4ripoli Agreement and its binding effect on the "hilippine
@overnment whether under public international or internal "hilippine law.
&n the first place, it is now the )onstitution itself that provides for the
creation of an autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao. 4he standard for
any inquiry into the validity of #.A. No. 39,: would therefore be what is so
provided in the )onstitution. 4hus, any conflict between the provisions of
#.A. No. 39,: and the provisions of the 4ripoli Agreement will not have
the effect of en>oining the implementation of the +rganic Act. Assuming
for the sake of argument that the 4ripoli Agreement is a binding treaty or
international agreement, it would then constitute part of the law of the
land. But as internal law it would not be superior to #.A. No. 39,:, an
enactment of the )ongress of the "hilippines, rather it would be in the
same class as the latter I*A8+N@A, "6B8&) &N47#NA4&+NA8 8A ,1-
':th ed., ./9:(, citing Cead Money )ases, ..1 6.*. 0B- '.BB:( and
=oster v. Nelson, 1 "et. 10, '.B1/(J. 4hus, if at all, #.A. No. 39,: would
be amendatory of the 4ripoli Agreement, being a subsequent law. +nly a
determination by this )ourt that #.A. No. 39,: contravened the
)onstitution would result in the granting of the reliefs sought.
3
1. 4he )ourt shall therefore only pass upon the constitutional questions
which have been raised by petitioners.
"etitioner Abbas argues that #.A. No. 39,: unconditionally creates an
autonomous region in Mindanao, contrary to the aforequoted provisions
of the )onstitution on the autonomous region which make the creation of
such region dependent upon the outcome of the plebiscite.
&n support of his argument, petitioner cites Article &&, section .'.( of #.A.
No. 39,: which declares that GItJhere is hereby created the Autonomous
#egion in Muslim Mindanao, to be composed of provinces and cities
voting favorably in the plebiscite called for the purpose, in accordance
with *ection .B, Article M of the )onstitution.G "etitioner contends that the
tenor of the above provision makes the creation of an autonomous region
absolute, such that even if only two provinces vote in favor of autonomy,
an autonomous region would still be created composed of the two
provinces where the favorable votes were obtained.
4he matter of the creation of the autonomous region and its composition
needs to be clarified.
=irs, the questioned provision itself in #.A. No. 39,: refers to *ection .B,
Article M of the )onstitution which sets forth the conditions necessary for
the creation of the autonomous region. 4he reference to the constitutional
provision cannot be glossed over for it clearly indicates that the creation
of the autonomous region shall take place only in accord with the
constitutional requirements. *econd, there is a specific provision in the
4ransitory "rovisions 'Article M&M( of the +rganic Act, which incorporates
substantially the same requirements embodied in the )onstitution and fills
in the details, thus5
*7). .,. 4he creation of the Autonomous #egion in Muslim Mindanao
shall take effect when approved by a ma>ority of the votes cast by the
constituent units provided in paragraph '1( of *ec. . of Article && of this Act
in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than ninety '/-( days or later
than one hundred twenty '.1-( days after the approval of this Act5
Pro*/.,., 4hat only the provinces and cities voting favorably in such
plebiscite shall be included in the Autonomous #egion in Muslim
Mindanao. 4he provinces and cities which in the plebiscite do not vote for
inclusion in the Autonomous #egion shall remain the e!isting
administrative determination, merge the e!isting regions.
4hus, under the )onstitution and #.A. No 39,:, the creation of the
autonomous region shall take effect only when approved by a ma>ority of
the votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite, and only those
provinces and cities where a ma>ority vote in favor of the +rganic Act shall
be included in the autonomous region. 4he provinces and cities wherein
such a ma>ority is not attained shall not be included in the autonomous
region. &t may be that even if an autonomous region is created, not all of
the thirteen '.,( provinces and nine '/( cities mentioned in Article &&,
section . '1( of #.A. No. 39,: shall be included therein. 4he single
plebiscite contemplated by the )onstitution and #.A. No. 39,: will
therefore be determinative of '.( whether there shall be an autonomous
region in Muslim Mindanao and '1( which provinces and cities, among
those enumerated in #.A. No. 39,:, shall compromise it. I*ee &&&
#7)+#D += 4C7 )+N*4&464&+NA8 )+MM&**&+N :B1$:/1 './B3(J.
As provided in the )onstitution, the creation of the Autonomous region in
Muslim Mindanao is made effective upon the approval Gby ma>ority of the
votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite called for the purposeG
IArt. M, sec. .BJ. 4he question has been raised as to what this ma>ority
means. Does it refer to a ma>ority of the total votes cast in the plebiscite in
all the constituent units, or a ma>ority in each of the constituent units, or
bothF
e need not go beyond the )onstitution to resolve this question.
&f the framers of the )onstitution intended to require approval by a
ma>ority of all the votes cast in the plebiscite they would have so
indicated. 4hus, in Article M%&&&, section 19, it is provided that GItJhis
)onstitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a ma>ority
of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose ... )omparing this
with the provision on the creation of the autonomous region, which reads5
4he creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when approved
by ma>ority of the votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite called
for the purpose, provided that only provinces, cities and geographic areas
voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous
region. IArt. M, sec, .B, para, 1J.
it will readily be seen that the creation of the autonomous region is made
to depend, not on the total ma>ority vote in the plebiscite, but on the will of
the ma>ority in each of the constituent units and the proviso underscores
this. for if the intention of the framers of the )onstitution was to get the
ma>ority of the totality of the votes cast, they could have simply adopted
the same phraseology as that used for the ratification of the )onstitution,
i.e. Gthe creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when
approved by a ma>ority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the
purpose.G
&t is thus clear that what is required by the )onstitution is a simple
ma>ority of votes approving the organic Act in individual constituent units
and not a double ma>ority of the votes in all constituent units put together,
as well as in the individual constituent units.
More importantly, because of its categorical language, this is also the
sense in which the vote requirement in the plebiscite provided under
Article M, section .B must have been understood by the people when they
ratified the )onstitution.
&nvoking the earlier cited constitutional provisions, petitioner Mama$o, on
the other hand, maintains that only those areas which, to his view, share
common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and
social structures, and other relevant characteristics should be properly
included within the coverage of the autonomous region. Ce insists that
#.A. No. 39,: is unconstitutional because only the provinces of Basilan,
*ulu, 4awi$4awi, 8anao del *ur, 8anao del Norte and Maguindanao and
the cities of Marawi and )otabato, and not all of the thirteen '.,(
provinces and nine '/( cities included in the +rganic Act, possess such
concurrence in historical and cultural heritage and other relevant
characteristics. By including areas which do not strictly share the same
characteristics. By including areas which do not strictly share the same
characteristic as the others, petitioner claims that )ongress has
e!panded the scope of the autonomous region which the constitution
itself has prescribed to be limited.
"etitionerAs argument is not tenable. 4he )onstitution lays down the
standards by which )ongress shall determine which areas should
constitute the autonomous region. @uided by these constitutional criteria,
the ascertainment by )ongress of the areas that share common attributes
is within the e!clusive realm of the legislatureAs discretion. Any review of
this ascertainment would have to go into the wisdom of the law. 4his the
)ourt cannot do without doing violence to the separation of governmental
powers. IAngara v. 7lectoral )ommission, 3, "hil .,/ './,3(D Morfe v.
Mutuc, @.#. No. 8$1-,B9, 2anuary ,., ./3B, 11 *)#A :1:J.
After assailing the inclusion of non$Muslim areas in the +rganic Act for
lack of basis, petitioner Mama$o would then adopt the e!treme view that
other non$Muslim areas in Mindanao should likewise be covered. Ce
argues that since the +rganic Act covers several non$Muslim areas, its
scope should be further broadened to include the rest of the non$Muslim
areas in Mindanao in order for the other non$Muslim areas denies said
areas equal protection of the law, and therefore is violative of the
)onstitution.
"etitionerAs contention runs counter to the very same constitutional
provision he had earlier invoked. Any determination by )ongress of what
areas in Mindanao should compromise the autonomous region, taking
into account shared historical and cultural heritage, economic and social
structures, and other relevant characteristics, would necessarily carry with
it the e!clusion of other areas. As earlier stated, such determination by
)ongress of which areas should be covered by the organic act for the
autonomous region constitutes a recogni;ed legislative prerogative,
whose wisdom may not be inquired into by this )ourt.
Moreover, equal protection permits of reasonable classification I"eople v.
%era, 30 "hil. 03 './3,(D 8aurel v. Misa, 93 "hil. ,91 './:3(D 2.M. 4uason
and )o. v. 8and tenure Administration, @.#. No. 8$1.-3:, =ebruary .B,
./9-, ,. *)#A :.,J. &n D1-)ao *. $o--/33/o' o' E),c+/o'3 @.#.
No. 011:0, 2anuary 11, ./B-, /0 *)#A ,/1J, the )ourt ruled that once
class may be treated differently from another where the groupings are
based on reasonable and real distinctions. 4he guarantee of equal
protection is thus not infringed in this case, the classification having been
made by )ongress on the basis of substantial distinctions as set forth by
the )onstitution itself.
Both petitions also question the validity of #.A. No. 39,: on the ground
that it violates the constitutional guarantee on free e!ercise of religion
IArt. &&&, sec. 0J. 4he ob>ection centers on a provision in the +rganic Act
which mandates that should there be any conflict between the Muslim
)ode I".D. No. .-B,J and the 4ribal )ode 'still be enacted( on the one
had, and the national law on the other hand, the *hariAah courts created
under the same Act should apply national law. "etitioners maintain that
the islamic law '*hariAah( is derived from the ?oran, which makes it part
of divine law. 4hus it may not be sub>ected to any Gman$madeG national
law. "etitioner Abbas supports this ob>ection by enumerating possible
instances of conflict between provisions of the Muslim )ode and national
law, wherein an application of national law might be offensive to a
MuslimAs religious convictions.
As enshrined in the )onstitution, >udicial power includes the duty to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable. IArt. %&&&, *ec. ... As a condition precedent for the power to
be e!ercised, an actual controversy between litigants must first e!ist
IAngara v. 7lectoral )ommission, 310raO 4an v. Macapagal, @.#. No. 8$
,:.3., =ebruary 1/, ./91, :, *)#A 399J. &n the present case, no actual
controversy between real litigants e!ists. 4here are no conflicting claims
involving the application of national law resulting in an alleged violation of
religious freedom. 4his being so, the )ourt in this case may not be called
upon to resolve what is merely a perceived potential conflict between the
provisions the Muslim )ode and national law.
"etitioners also impugn the constitutionality of Article M&M, section ., of
#.A. No. 39,: which, among others, states5
. . . Pro*/.,., 4hat only the provinces and cities voting favorably in such
plebiscite shall be included in the Autonomous #egion in Muslim
Mindanao. 4he provinces and cities which in the plebiscite do not vote for
inclusion in the Autonomous #egion shall remain in the e!isting
administrative regions5 Pro*/.,., ho4,*,r, that the "resident may, by
administrative determination, merge the e!isting regions.
According to petitioners, said provision grants the "resident the power to
merge regions, a power which is not conferred by the )onstitution upon
the "resident. 4hat the "resident may choose to merge e!isting regions
pursuant to the +rganic Act is challenged as being in conflict with Article
M, *ection .- of the )onstitution which provides5
No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided,
merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, e!cept in
accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and
sub>ect to approval by a ma>ority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the
political units directly affected.
&t must be pointed out that what is referred to in #.A. No. 39,: is the
merger of administrative regions, i.e. #egions & to M&& and the National
)apital #egion, which are mere groupings of contiguous provinces for
administrative purposes I&ntegrated #eorgani;ation "lan './91(, which
was made as part of the law of the land by "res. dec. No. ., "res. Dec.
No. 9:1J. Administrative regions are not territorial and political
subdivisions like provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays Isee Art.
M, sec. . of the )onstitutionJ. hile the power to merge administrative
regions is not e!pressly provided for in the )onstitution, it is a power
which has traditionally been lodged with the "resident to facilitate the
e!ercise of the power of general supervision over local governments Isee
Art. M, sec. : of the )onstitutionJ. 4here is no conflict between the power
of the "resident to merge administrative regions with the constitutional
provision requiring a plebiscite in the merger of local government units
because the requirement of a plebiscite in a merger e!pressly applies
only to provinces, cities, municipalities or barangays, not to administrative
regions.
"etitioners likewise question the validity of provisions in the +rganic Act
which create an +versight )ommittee to supervise the transfer to the
autonomous region of the powers, appropriations, and properties vested
upon the regional government by the organic Act IArt. M&M, *ecs. , and
:J. *aid provisions mandate that the transfer of certain national
government offices and their properties to the regional government shall
be made pursuant to a schedule prescribed by the +versight )ommittee,
and that such transfer should be accomplished within si! '3( years from
the organi;ation of the regional government.
&t is asserted by petitioners that such provisions are unconstitutional
because while the )onstitution states that the creation of the autonomous
region shall take effect upon approval in a plebiscite, the requirement of
organi;ing an +versight committee tasked with supervising the transfer of
powers and properties to the regional government would in effect delay
the creation of the autonomous region.
6nder the )onstitution, the creation of the autonomous region hinges only
on the result of the plebiscite. if the +rganic Act is approved by ma>ority of
the votes cast by constituent units in the scheduled plebiscite, the
creation of the autonomous region immediately takes effect delay the
creation of the autonomous region.
6nder the constitution, the creation of the autonomous region hinges only
on the result of the plebiscite. if the +rganic Act is approved by ma>ority of
the votes cast by constituent units in the scheduled plebiscite, the
creation of the autonomous region immediately takes effect. 4he
questioned provisions in #.A. No. 39,: requiring an oversight )ommittee
to supervise the transfer do not provide for a different date of effectivity.
Much less would the organi;ation of the +versight )ommittee cause an
impediment to the operation of the +rganic Act, for such is evidently
aimed at effecting a smooth transition period for the regional government.
4he constitutional ob>ection on this point thus cannot be sustained as
there is no bases therefor.
7very law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality IEu )ong
7ng v. 4rinidad, :9 "hil. ,B9 './10(D *alas v. 2arencio, @.#. No. 8$1/9BB,
August ,-, ./9/, :3 *)#A 9,:D Morfe v. Mutuc, 310raO "eralta v.
)+M787), @.#. No. 8$:999., March .., ./9B, B1 *)#A ,-J. 4hose who
petition this )ourt to declare a law, or parts thereof, unconstitutional must
clearly establish the basis for such a declaration. otherwise, their petition
must fail. Based on the grounds raised by petitioners to challenge the
constitutionality of #.A. No. 39,:, the )ourt finds that petitioners have
failed to overcome the presumption. 4he dismissal of these two petitions
is, therefore, inevitable.
C7#7=+#7, the petitions are D&*M&**7D for lack of merit.
*+ +#D7#7D.
G.R. No. 91023 %1)2 13, 1990
METROPOLITAN TRABBI$ $OMMAND 7E#T TRABBI$ DI#TRI$T,
petitioner,
vs.
HON. AR#ENIO M. GONONG, /' h/3 ca0ac/+2 a3 Pr,3/./'( %1.(, o5
+h, R,(/o'a) Tr/a) $o1r+, !ra'ch J a+ Ma'/)a, a'. DANTE #.
DAVID, respondents.
Da'+, #. Da*/. 5or a'. /' h/3 o4' 9,ha)5 a3 0r/*a+, r,30o'.,'+.

$RUI, %.&
e deal here with a practice known to many motorists in Metro Manila5
the removal of the license plates of illegally parked vehicles. 4his was
challenged by the private respondent in the regional trial court of Manila,
which held the practice unlawful. 4he petitioner is now before us, urging
reversal of the decision for grave abuse of discretion.
4he original complaint was filed with the said court on August .-, ./B/,
by Dante *. David, a lawyer, who claimed that the rear license plate, of
his car was removed by the Metropolitan 4raffic )ommand while the
vehicle was parked on 7scolta. Ce questioned the petitionerAs act on the
ground not only that the car was not illegally parked but, more importantly,
that there was no ordinance or law authori;ing such removal. Ce asked
that the practice be permanently en>oined and that in the meantime a
temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary in>unction be issued.
2udge Arsenio M. @onong issued a temporary restraining order on August
.:, ./B/, and hearings on the writ of preliminary in>unction were held on
August .B, 1,, and 10, ./B/. 4he writ was granted on this last date. 4he
parties also agreed to submit the case for resolution on the sole issue of
whether there was a law or ordinance authori;ing the removal of the
license plates of illegally parked vehicles. 4he parties then submitted
simultaneous memoranda in support of their respective positions,
following which the respondent >udge rendered the assailed decision.
&n ruling for the complainant, 2udge @onong held that 8+& :,, which the
defendant had invoked, did not empower it Gto detach, remove and
confiscate vehicle plates of motor vehicles illegally parked and
unattended as in the case at bar. &t merely authori;es the removal of said
vehicles when they are obstacles to free passage or continued flow of
traffic on streets and highways.G At any rate, he said, the 8+& had been
repealed by "D .3-0. Moreover, the defendant had not been able to point
to any MM) rule or regulation or to any city ordinance to >ustify the
questioned act. +n the allegation that the practice was Gthe root cause of
graft and corruption or at the very least the equivalent of street racket
among defendantAs deployed agents,G Cis Conor made the following
pointed observations5
At this >uncture, it may not be amiss to say, that if the arbitrary and
capricious detachment and confiscation of vehicles plates illegally parked
and unattended as in the act complained of in the instant case, the image
of the man clothed in a traffic or police uniform will be greatly impaired if
not cursed with disrespect on the part of those who have suffered at his
hands. orse, he will cease 'if he had not already ceased( to be the law$
abiding, courageous and valiant protector of a citi;en of the #epublic that
he is meant to be, and instead his real oppressor and enemy, thereby
fortifying the contemporaneous public perception that he is a dyed$in$the$
wool e!tortionist if not an unmitigated chiseler.
1
&t bears noting that this petition should have been filed first with the )ourt
of Appeals, which has concurrent >urisdiction with this )ourt on decisions
of the regional trial courts involving questions of law. Cowever, in view of
the importance of the issue raised, we have decided to take cogni;ance
thereof under #ule 30 of the #ules of )ourt so we can address and
resolve the question directly.
6pon the filing of this petition, we issued a temporary restraining order
dated =ebruary 3, .//-, to prevent enforcement of the said decision until
further orders from this )ourt. 4hereafter, we required a comment from
the private respondent, to which the petitioner filed a reply as also
directed.
4he petitioner reiterates and reinforces its argument in the court below
and insists that 8+& :, remains in force despite the issuance of "D .3-0.
&t contends that there is no inconsistency between the two measures
because the former deals with illegally parked vehicles anywhere in the
"hilippines whereas the latter deals with the regulation of the flow of
traffic in the Metro Manila area only. 4he two measures may be enforced
together because implied repeals are not favored and, furthermore, to
look at them another way, 8+& :, is the special law dealing only with
illegal parking while "D .3-0 is the general law dealing with all other
kinds of traffic violations. 4he special law must of course prevail over the
general law. 4he petitioner also deplores the above$quoted remarks of the
trial >udge, pointing out that the parties had agreed to limit the issue to
whether there was a statutory basis for the act complained of. And even
assuming that abuses have been committed in the enforcement of 8+&
:,, the remedy is not to disregard it or consider it revoked but to
prosecute the guilty parties.
&n his comment, the private respondent argues that 8+& :, has been
repealed by "D .3-0, which specifies all the sanctions available against
the various traffic violations, including illegal parking. Ce stresses that
removal and confiscation of the license plates of illegally parked vehicles
is not one of them, the penalties being limited in the decree to imposition
of fine and suspension or revocation of driverAs licenses or certificates of
public convenience, etc. E80r,33/o 1'/13 ,3+ ,8c)13/o a)+,r/13. Ce
agrees that the special law prevails over the general law but maintains it
is "D .3-0 that is the special law because it is applicable only on Metro
Manila and 8+& :, that is the general law because it was intended to
operate throughout the country. As for his allegation that the challenged
practice is a source of graft, he maintains that it was not improper to
discuss it in his memorandum because it was pertinent to the central
issue under consideration. =inally, he claims that removal and
confiscation of the license plate without notice and hearing violates due
process 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 raising
the constitutionality of 8+& :,, suggesting faintly that this should not be
permitted. &n any case, it maintains, the license plate is not property in the
constitutional sense, being merely the identification of the vehicle, and its
Gtemporary confiscationG does not deprive the owner of the use of the
vehicle itself. Cence, there is no unlawful taking under the due process
clause. 4he petitioner also takes issue with the contention that it is "D
.3-0 that should be considered the special law because of its limited
territorial application. #epeal of 8+& :, on that ground would run counter
to 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 4ransportation
on *treets and Cighways, was issued on November 1B, ./91, with the
following pertinent provisions5
Motor vehicles that stall on the streets and highways, streets and
sidewalks, shall immediately be removed by their owners<usersD
otherwise said vehicles shall be dealt with and disposed in the manner
stated hereunderD
.. =or the first offense the stalled or illegally parked vehicle shall be
removed, towed and impounded at the e!pense of the owner, user or
claimantD
1. =or the second and subsequent offenses, the registry plates of the
vehicles shall be confiscated and the ownerAs certificate of registration
cancelled. '7mphasis supplied(.
"D .3-0 '@ranting the Metropolitan Manila )ommission )entral "owers
#elated to 4raffic Management, "roviding "enalties, and for +ther
"urposes( was issued, also by "resident Marcos, on November 1., ./9B,
and pertinently provides5
*ection .. 4he Metropolitan Manila )ommission shall have the power to
impose fines and otherwise discipline drivers and operators of motor
vehicles for violations of traffic laws, ordinances, rules and regulations in
Metropolitan Manila in such amounts and under such penalties as are
herein prescribed. =or his purpose, the powers of the 8and 4ransportation
)ommission and the Board of 4ransportation under e!isting laws over
such violations and punishment thereof are hereby transferred to the
Metropolitan Manila )ommission. hen the proper penalty to be imposed
is suspension or revocation of driverAs license or certificate of public
convenience, the Metropolitan Manila )ommission or its representatives
shall suspend or revoke such license or certificate. 4he suspended or
revoked driverAs license or the report of suspension or revocation of the
certificate of public convenience shall be sent to the 8and 4ransportation
)ommission or the Board of 4ransportation, as the case may be, for their
records update.
!!! !!! !!!
*ection ,. %iolations of traffic laws, ordinances, rules and regulations,
committed within a twelve$month period, reckoned from the date of birth
of the licensee, shall sub>ect the violator to graduated fines as follows5
".-.-- for the first offense, "1-.-- for the second offense, "0-.-- for the
third offense, a one$year suspension of driverAs license for the fourth
offense, and a revocation of the driverA license for the fifth offense5
"rovided, 4hat the Metropolitan Manila )ommission may impose higher
penalties as it may deem proper for violations of its ordinances prohibiting
or regulating the use of certain public roads, streets or thoroughfares in
Metropolitan Manila.
!!! !!! !!!
*ection 0. &n case of traffic violations, the driverAs license shall not be
confiscated but the erring driver shall be immediately issued a traffic
citation ticket prescribed by the Metropolitan Manila )ommission which
shall state the violation committed, the amount of fine imposed for the
violation and an advice that he can make payment to the city or municipal
treasurer where the violation was committed or to the "hilippine National
Bank or "hilippine %eterans Bank or their branches within seven days
from the date of issuance of the citation ticket.
&f the offender fails to pay the fine imposed within the period herein
prescribed, the Metropolitan Manila )ommission or the law enforcement
agency concerned shall endorse the case to the proper fiscal for
appropriate proceedings preparatory to the filing of the case with the
competent traffic court, city or municipal court.
&f at the time a driver renews his driverAs license and records show that he
has an unpaid fine, his driverAs license shall not be renewed until he has
paid the fine and corresponding surcharges.
!!! !!! !!!
*ection B. &nsofar as the Metropolitan Manila area is concerned, all laws,
decrees, orders, ordinances, rules and regulations, or parts thereof
inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
'7mphasis supplied(.
A careful reading of the above decree will show that removal and
confiscation of the license plate of any illegally parked vehicle is not
among the specified penalties. Moreover, although the Metropolitan
Manila )ommission is authori;ed by the decree to Gotherwise disciplineG
and Gimpose higher penaltiesG on traffic violators, whatever sanctions it
may impose must be Gin such amounts and under such penalties as are
herein prescribed.G 4he petitioner has not pointed to any such additional
sanctions, relying instead on its argument that the applicable authority for
the questioned act is 8+& :,.
4he petitioner stresses that under the decree, Gthe powers of the 8and
4ransportation )ommission and the Board of 4ransportation over such
violations and punishment thereof are 'hereby( transferred to the
Metropolitan Manila )ommission,G and one of such laws is 8+& :,. 4he
penalties prescribed by the 8+& are therefore deemed incorporated in "D
.3-0 as additional to the other penalties therein specified.
&t would appear that what the 8+& punishes is not a traffic violation but a
traffic obstruction, which is an altogether different offense. A violation
imports an intentional breach or disregard of a rule, as where a driver
leaves his vehicle in a no$parking area against a known and usually
visible prohibition. )ontrary to the common impression, 8+& :, does not
punish illegal parking 0,r 3, but parking of stalled vehicles, i.e., those
that involuntarily stop on the road due to some une!pected trouble such
as engine defect, lack of gasoline, punctured tires, or other similar cause.
4he vehicle is deemed illegally parked because it obstructs the flow of
traffic, but only because it has stalled. 4he obstruction is not deliberate. &n
fact, even the petitioner recogni;es that Gthere is a world of difference
between a stalled vehicle and an illegally parked and unattended oneG
and suggests a different treatment for either. G4he first means one which
stopped unnecessarily or broke down while the second means one which
stopped to accomplish something, including temporary rest.
2
8+& :, deals with motor vehicles Gthat stall on the streets and highwaysA
and not those that are intentionally parked in a public place in violation of
a traffic law or regulation. 4he purpose of the 8+& evidently is to discipline
the motorist into keeping his vehicle in good condition before going out
into the streets so as not to cause inconvenience to the public when the
car breaks down and blocks other vehicles. 4hat is why, for the first
offense, the stalled vehicle is immediately towed at the ownerAs e!pense
to clear the street of the traffic obstruction. here it appears that the
owner has not learned from his first e!perience because the vehicle has
stalled again, presumably due to his failure to repair it, the penalty shall
be confiscation of the license plate and cancellation of the certificate of
registration petition.
&t is worth noting that it is not the driverAs license that is confiscated and
canceled when the vehicle stalls on a public street. 4he 8+& goes against
the vehicle itself. 4he ob>ect of the measure is to ensure that only motor
vehicles in good condition may use the public streets, and this is effected
by confiscating the license plates and canceling the certificates of
registration of those vehicles that are not roadworthy.
&n the case of the private respondent, it is not alleged or shown that his
vehicle stalled on a public thoroughfare and obstructed the flow of traffic.
4he charge against him is that he purposely parked his vehicle in a no
parking area 'although this is disputed by him(./M+Mc"aN3) 4he act, if true,
is a traffic violation that may not be punished under 8+& :,. 4he
applicable law is "D .3-0, which does not include removal and
confiscation of the license plate of the vehicle among the imposable
penalties.
&ndeed, even if 8+& :, were applicable, the penalty of confiscation would
still not be >ustified as it has not been alleged, much less shown, that the
illegal parking was a second or subsequent offense. 4hat circumstance
must be established at a trial before a court of >ustice where the vehicle
owner shall have a right to be heard in his defense. 4he second or
subsequent offense cannot be simply pronounced by the traffic authorities
without hearing and without proof. )onfiscation of the registry plate
without a >udicial finding that the offense charge is a second or
subsequent one would, unless the owner concedes this point, be invalid.
hile it is true that the license plate is strictly speaking not a property
right, it does not follow that it may be removed or confiscated without
lawful cause. Due process is a guaranty against all forms of official
arbitrariness. 6nder the principle that ours is a government of laws and
not of men, every official must act by and within the authority of a valid
law and cannot >ustify the lack of it on the prete!t alone of good
intentions. &t is recalled that more than seventy years ago, the mayor of
Manila deported one hundred seventy prostitutes to Davao for the
protection of the morals and health of the city. 4his )ourt acknowledged
his praiseworthy purpose but >ust the same annulled his unauthori;ed act,
holding that no one could take the law into his own hands.
3
e can rule
no less in the case before us.
e find that there is no inconsistency between 8+& :, and "D .3-0,
whichever is considered the special law either because of its sub>ect or its
territorial application. 4he former deals with motor vehicles that have
stalled on a public road while the latter deals with motor vehicles that
have been deliberately parked in a no$parking areaD and while both cover
illegal parking of motor vehicles, the offense is accidental under the first
measure and intentional under the second. 4his e!plains why the
sanctions are different. 4he purpose of the 8+& is to discourage the use of
the public streets by motor vehicles that are likely to break down while
that of the decree is to penali;e the driver for his defiance of the traffic
laws.
As it has not been shown that the private respondentAs motor vehicle had
stalled because of an engine defect or some other accidental cause and,
no less importantly, that it had stalled on the road for a second or
subsequent time, confiscation of the license plate cannot be >ustified
under 8+& :,. And neither can that sanction be sustained under "D .3-0,
which clearly provides that Gin case of traffic violations, 'even( the driverAs
license shall not be confiscated,G let alone the license plate of the motor
vehicle. &f at all, the private respondent may be held liable for illegal
parking only and sub>ected to any of the specific penalties mentioned in
*ection , of the decree.
e recogni;e the problem of the traffic policeman who comes upon an
illegally parked and unattended vehicle and is unable to serve a citation
on the offending driver who is nowhere in sight. But that problem is not
addressed to the courtsD it is for the legislative and administrative
authorities to solve. hat is clear to the )ourt is that the difficulty cannot
be avoided by the removal of the license plate of the offending vehicle
because the petitioner has not shown that this penalty is authori;ed by a
valid law or ordinance.
4he petitioner complains that the respondent >udge did not confine
himself to the issue agreed upon by the parties and made gratuitous
accusations that were not only irrelevant but virtually condemned the
whole traffic force as corrupt. Assuming that this issue was indeed not
properly raised at the trial, the )ourt is nevertheless not inhibited from
considering it in this proceeding, on the basis of its own impressions on
the matter.
4his )ourt is not isolated from the mainstream of society and secluded in
a world of its own, unconcerned with the daily lives of the rest of the
nation. +n the contrary, the members of this )ourt mi! with the people
and know their problems and complaints. And among these are the
alleged abuses of the police in connection with the issue now before us.
&t is claimed that the removal of the license plates of illegally parked motor
vehicles in Metro Manila has become a veritable gold mine for some
police officers. 4o be sure, we do not have hard, provable facts at hand
but only vague and unsubstantiated rumors that could be no more than
malicious and invented charges. Nevertheless, these accusations have
become too prevalent and apparently too persuasive that they cannot be
simply swept under the rug.
4he widespread report is that civilian Gagents,G mostly street urchins
under the control and direction of certain policemen, remove these
license plates from illegally parked vehicles and later discreetly suggest to
the owners that these may be retrieved for an unofficial fee. 4his ranges
from "0-.-- to "1--.--, depending on the type of vehicle. &f the owner
agrees, payment is usually made and the license plate returned at a
private rende;vous. No official receipt is issued. 7verything is done
quietly. 4he owners, it is said, prefer this kind of fast settlement to the
inconvenience of an official proceeding that may entail not only the
payment of a higher fine but also other administrative impositions, like
attendance at a traffic seminar.
4he )ourt is not saying that these reports are true nor is it stigmati;ing
the entire police force on the basis of these unsubstantiated charges. But
it does believe and stress that the proper authorities should take official
notice of these reports instead of blandly dismissing them as mere
canards that do not deserve their attention and concern. An inquiry is in
our view indicated. 4he old adage that where thereAs smoke thereAs fire is
not necessarily true and can hardly be the rationale of a >udicial
conclusionD but the )ourt feels >ust the same that serious steps should be
taken, especially because of the persistence of these charges, to
determine the source of the smoke.
e reali;e the seriousness of our traffic problems, particularly in Metro
Manila, and commend the earnest efforts of the police to effect a
smoother flow of vehicles in the public thoroughfares for the comfort and
convenience of the people. But we must add, as a reminder that must be
made, that such efforts must be authori;ed by a valid law, which must
clearly define the offenses proscribed and as clearly specify the penalties
prescribed.
C7#7=+#7, the petition is D&*M&**7D. 4he )ourt holds that 8+& :, is
valid but may be applied only against motor vehicles that have stalled in
the public streets due to some involuntary cause and not those that have
been intentionally parked in violation of the traffic laws. 4he challenged
decision of the trial court is A==&#M7D in so far as it en>oins confiscation
of the private respondentAs license plate for alleged deliberate illegal
parking, which is sub>ect to a different penalty. 4he temporary restraining
order dated =ebruary 3, .//-, is 8&=47D.
*+ +#D7#7D.
G.R. No. 91649 May 14, 1991
ATTORNEYS HUMBERTO BASCO, EDILBERTO BALCE, SOCRATES
MARANAN AND LORENZO SANCHEZ, petitioners, vs.PHILIPPINE
AMUSEMENTS AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR),
respondent.
H.B. Basco & Associates for petitioners.
Valmonte Law Offices collaborating counsel for petitioners.
Aguirre, Laborte and Capule for respondent PAGCO.

PARAS, J.:p
A 4% ad proudly announces5
G4he new "A@)+# H responding through responsible gaming.G
But the petitioners think otherwise, that is why, they filed the instant
petition seeking to annul the "hilippine Amusement and @aming
)orporation '"A@)+#( )harter H "D .B3/, because it is allegedly
contrary to morals, public policy and order, and because H
A. &t constitutes a waiver of a right pre>udicial to a third person with a right
recogni;ed by law. &t waived the Manila )ity governmentAs right to impose
ta!es and license fees, which is recogni;ed by lawD
B. =or the same reason stated in the immediately preceding paragraph,
the law has intruded into the local governmentAs right to impose local
ta!es and license fees. 4his, in contravention of the constitutionally
enshrined principle of local autonomyD
). &t violates the equal protection clause of the constitution in that it
legali;es "A@)+# H conducted gambling, while most other forms of
gambling are outlawed, together with prostitution, drug trafficking and
other vicesD
D. &t violates the avowed trend of the )ory government away from
monopolistic and crony economy, and toward free enterprise and
privati;ation. 'p. 1, Amended "etitionD p. 9, ollo(
&n their *econd Amended "etition, petitioners also claim that "D .B3/ is
contrary to the declared national policy of the Gnew restored democracyG
and the peopleAs will as e!pressed in the ./B9 )onstitution. 4he decree is
said to have a Ggambling ob>ectiveG and therefore is contrary to *ections
.., .1 and ., of Article &&, *ec. . of Article %&&& and *ection , '1( of Article
M&%, of the present )onstitution 'p. ,, *econd Amended "etitionD p. 1.,
ollo(.
4he procedural issue is whether petitioners, as ta!payers and practicing
lawyers 'petitioner Basco being also the )hairman of the )ommittee on
8aws of the )ity )ouncil of Manila(, can question and seek the annulment
of "D .B3/ on the alleged grounds mentioned above.
4he "hilippine Amusements and @aming )orporation '"A@)+#( was
created by virtue of ".D. .-39$A dated 2anuary ., ./99 and was granted
a franchise under ".D. .-39$B also dated 2anuary ., ./99 Gto establish,
operate and maintain gambling casinos on land or water within the
territorial >urisdiction of the "hilippines.G &ts operation was originally
conducted in the well known floating casino G"hilippine 4ourist.G 4he
operation was considered a success for it proved to be a potential source
of revenue to fund infrastructure and socio$economic pro>ects, thus, ".D.
.,// was passed on 2une 1, ./9B for "A@)+# to fully attain this
ob>ective.
*ubsequently, on 2uly .., ./B,, "A@)+# was created under ".D. .B3/
to enable the @overnment to regulate and centrali;e all games of chance
authori;ed by e!isting franchise or permitted by law, under the following
declared policy H
*ec. .. !eclaration of Polic". H &t is hereby declared to be the policy of
the *tate to centrali;e and integrate all games of chance not heretofore
authori;ed by e!isting franchises or permitted by law in order to attain the
following ob>ectives5
'a( 4o centrali;e and integrate the right and authority to operate and
conduct games of chance into one corporate entity to be controlled,
administered and supervised by the @overnment.
'b( 4o establish and operate clubs and casinos, for amusement and
recreation, including sports gaming pools, 'basketball, football, lotteries,
etc.( and such other forms of amusement and recreation including games
of chance, which may be allowed by law within the territorial >urisdiction of
the "hilippines and which will5 '.( generate sources of additional revenue
to fund infrastructure and socio$civic pro>ects, such as flood control
programs, beautification, sewerage and sewage pro>ects, 4ulungan ng
Bayan )enters, Nutritional "rograms, "opulation )ontrol and such other
essential public servicesD '1( create recreation and integrated facilities
which will e!pand and improve the countryAs e!isting tourist attractionsD
and ',( minimi;e, if not totally eradicate, all the evils, malpractices and
corruptions that are normally prevalent on the conduct and operation of
gambling clubs and casinos without direct government involvement.
'*ection ., ".D. .B3/(
4o attain these ob>ectives "A@)+# is given territorial >urisdiction all over
the "hilippines. 6nder its )harterAs repealing clause, all laws, decrees,
e!ecutive orders, rules and regulations, inconsistent therewith, are
accordingly repealed, amended or modified.
&t is reported that "A@)+# is the third largest source of government
revenue, ne!t to the Bureau of &nternal #evenue and the Bureau of
)ustoms. &n ./B/ alone, "A@)+# earned ",.:, Billion, and directly
remitted to the National @overnment a total of "1.0 Billion in form of
franchise ta!, governmentAs income share, the "residentAs *ocial =und
and Cost )itiesA share. &n addition, "A@)+# sponsored other socio$
cultural and charitable pro>ects on its own or in cooperation with various
governmental agencies, and other private associations and organi;ations.
&n its , .<1 years of operation under the present administration, "A@)+#
remitted to the government a total of "3.1 Billion. As of December ,.,
./B/, "A@)+# was employing :,:/: employees in its nine '/( casinos
nationwide, directly supporting the livelihood of =our 4housand =our
Cundred Ninety$=our ':,:/:( families.
But the petitioners, are questioning the validity of ".D. No. .B3/. 4hey
allege that the same is Gnull and voidG for being Gcontrary to morals, public
policy and public order,G monopolistic and tends toward Gcrony economyG,
and is violative of the equal protection clause and local autonomy as well
as for running counter to the state policies enunciated in *ections ..
'"ersonal Dignity and Cuman #ights(, .1 '=amily( and ., '#ole of Eouth(
of Article &&, *ection . '*ocial 2ustice( of Article M&&& and *ection 1
'7ducational %alues( of Article M&% of the ./B9 )onstitution.
4his challenge to ".D. No. .B3/ deserves a searching and thorough
scrutiny and the most deliberate consideration by the )ourt, involving as it
does the e!ercise of what has been described as Gthe highest and most
delicate function which belongs to the >udicial department of the
government.G '*tate v. Manuel, 1- N.). .::D 8o;ano v. Martine;, .:3
*)#A ,1,(.
As e enter upon the task of passing on the validity of an act of a co$
equal and coordinate branch of the government e need not be
reminded of the time$honored principle, deeply ingrained in our
>urisprudence, that a statute is presumed to be valid. 7very presumption
must be indulged in favor of its constitutionality. 4his is not to say that e
approach +ur task with diffidence or timidity. here it is clear that the
legislature or the e!ecutive for that matter, has over$stepped the limits of
its authority under the constitution, e should not hesitate to wield the
a!e and let it fall heavily, as fall it must, on the offending statute '8o;ano
v. Martine;, supra(.
&n Victoriano #. $li%alde ope &or'ers( )nion, et al, 0/ *)#A 0:, the
)ourt thru Mr. 2ustice Laldivar underscored the H
. . . thoroughly established principle which must be followed in all cases
where questions of constitutionality as obtain in the instant cases are
involved. All presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionalityD one
who attacks a statute alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity
beyond a reasonable doubtD that a law may work hardship does not
render it unconstitutionalD that if any reasonable basis may be conceived
which supports the statute, it will be upheld and the challenger must
negate all possible basisD that the courts are not concerned with the
wisdom, >ustice, policy or e!pediency of a statute and that a liberal
interpretation of the constitution in favor of the constitutionality of
legislation should be adopted. 'Danner v. Cass, ./: N.. *nd 0,:, 0,/D
*purbeck v. *tatton, .-3 N.. *nd 33-, 33,D 0/ *)#A 33D see also e.g.
*alas v. 2arencio, :3 *)#A 9,:, 9,/ I./9-JD "eralta v. )ommission on
7lections, B1 *)#A ,-, 00 I./9BJD and Ceirs of +rdona v. #eyes, .10
*)#A 11-, 1:.$1:1 I./B,J cited in )iti;ens Alliance for )onsumer
"rotection v. 7nergy #egulatory Board, .31 *)#A 01., 0:-(
+f course, there is first, the procedural issue. 4he respondents are
questioning the legal personality of petitioners to file the instant petition.
)onsidering however the importance to the public of the case at bar, and
in keeping with the )ourtAs duty, under the ./B9 )onstitution, to
determine whether or not the other branches of government have kept
themselves within the limits of the )onstitution and the laws and that they
have not abused the discretion given to them, the )ourt has brushed
aside technicalities of procedure and has taken cogni;ance of this
petition. '?apatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa "amahalaan ng "ilipinas &nc.
v. 4an, .3, *)#A ,9.(
ith particular regard to the requirement of proper party as applied in the
cases before us, e hold that the same is satisfied by the petitioners and
intervenors because each of them has sustained or is in danger of
sustaining an immediate in>ury as a result of the acts or measures
complained of. And even if, strictly speaking they are not covered by the
definition, it is still within the wide discretion of the )ourt to waive the
requirement and so remove the impediment to its addressing and
resolving the serious constitutional questions raised.
&n the first 7mergency "owers )ases, ordinary citi;ens and ta!payers
were allowed to question the constitutionality of several e!ecutive orders
issued by "resident Kuirino although they were involving only an indirect
and general interest shared in common with the public. 4he )ourt
dismissed the ob>ection that they were not proper parties and ruled that
Gthe transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that
they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must
technicalities of procedure.G e have since then applied the e!ception in
many other cases. 'Association of *mall 8andowners in the "hilippines,
&nc. v. *ec. of Agrarian #eform, .90 *)#A ,:,(.
Caving disposed of the procedural issue, e will now discuss the
substantive issues raised.
@ambling in all its forms, unless allowed by law, is generally prohibited.
But the prohibition of gambling does not mean that the @overnment
cannot regulate it in the e!ercise of its police power.
4he concept of police power is well$established in this >urisdiction. &t has
been defined as the Gstate authority to enact legislation that may interfere
with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare.G
'7du v. 7ricta, ,0 *)#A :B., :B9( As defined, it consists of '.( an
imposition or restraint upon liberty or property, '1( in order to foster the
common good. &t is not capable of an e!act definition but has been,
purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all$comprehensive
embrace. '"hilippine Association of *ervice 7!porters, &nc. v. Drilon, .3,
*)#A ,B3(.
&ts scope, ever$e!panding to meet the e!igencies of the times, even to
anticipate the future where it could be done, provides enough room for an
efficient and fle!ible response to conditions and circumstances thus
assuming the greatest benefits. '7du v. 7ricta, supra(
&t finds no specific )onstitutional grant for the plain reason that it does not
owe its origin to the charter. Along with the ta!ing power and eminent
domain, it is inborn in the very fact of statehood and sovereignty. &t is a
fundamental attribute of government that has enabled it to perform the
most vital functions of governance. Marshall, to whom the e!pression has
been credited, refers to it succinctly as the plenary power of the state Gto
govern its citi;ensG. '4ribe, American )onstitutional 8aw, ,1,, ./9B(. 4he
police power of the *tate is a power co$e!tensive with self$protection and
is most aptly termed the Glaw of overwhelming necessity.G '#ubi v.
"rovincial Board of Mindoro, ,/ "hil. 33-, 9-B( &t is Gthe most essential,
insistent, and illimitable of powers.G '*mith Bell P )o. v. National, :- "hil.
.,3( &t is a dynamic force that enables the state to meet the agencies of
the winds of change.
hat was the reason behind the enactment of ".D. .B3/F
".D. .B3/ was enacted pursuant to the policy of the government to
Gregulate and centrali;e thru an appropriate institution all games of
chance authori;ed by e!isting franchise or permitted by lawG '.st whereas
clause, "D .B3/(. As was subsequently proved, regulating and
centrali;ing gambling operations in one corporate entity H the "A@)+#,
was beneficial not >ust to the @overnment but to society in general. &t is a
reliable source of much needed revenue for the cash strapped
@overnment. &t provided funds for social impact pro>ects and sub>ected
gambling to Gclose scrutiny, regulation, supervision and control of the
@overnmentG ':th hereas )lause, "D .B3/(. ith the creation of
"A@)+# and the direct intervention of the @overnment, the evil practices
and corruptions that go with gambling will be minimi;ed if not totally
eradicated. "ublic welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of "D
.B/3.
"etitioners contend that ".D. .B3/ constitutes a waiver of the right of the
)ity of Manila to impose ta!es and legal feesD that the e!emption clause
in ".D. .B3/ is violative of the principle of local autonomy. 4hey must be
referring to *ection ., par. '1( of ".D. .B3/ which e!empts "A@)+#, as
the franchise holder from paying any Gta! of any kind or form, income or
otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether
National or 8ocal.G
'1( +ncome and ot,er ta-es. H a( =ranchise Colder5 No ta! of any kind or
form, income or otherwise as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever
nature, whether National or 8ocal, shall be assessed and collected under
this franchise from the )orporationD nor shall any form or ta! or charge
attach in any way to the earnings of the )orporation, e!cept a franchise
ta! of five '0O( percent of the gross revenues or earnings derived by the
)orporation from its operations under this franchise. *uch ta! shall be
due and payable quarterly to the National @overnment and shall be in lieu
of all kinds of ta!es, levies, fees or assessments of any kind, nature or
description, levied, established or collected by any municipal, provincial or
national government authority '*ection ., I1J(.
4heir contention stated hereinabove is without merit for the following
reasons5
'a( 4he )ity of Manila, being a mere Municipal corporation has no
inherent right to impose ta!es '&card v. )ity of Baguio, B, "hil. B9-D )ity of
&loilo v. %illanueva, .-0 "hil. ,,9D *antos v. Municipality of )aloocan, 9
*)#A 3:,(. 4hus, Gthe )harter or statute must plainly show an intent to
confer that power or the municipality cannot assume itG 'Medina v. )ity of
Baguio, .1 *)#A 31(. &ts Gpower to ta!G therefore must always yield to a
legislative act which is superior having been passed upon by the state
itself which has the Ginherent power to ta!G 'Bernas, the #evised I./9,J
"hilippine )onstitution, %ol. ., ./B, ed. p. ::0(.
'b( 4he )harter of the )ity of Manila is sub>ect to control by )ongress. &t
should be stressed that Gmunicipal corporations are mere creatures of
)ongressG '6nson v. 8acson, @.#. No. 9/-/, 2anuary .B, ./09( which
has the power to Gcreate and abolish municipal corporationsG due to its
Ggeneral legislative powersG 'Asuncion v. Eriantes, 1B "hil. 39D Merdanillo
v. +randia, 0 *)#A 0:.(. )ongress, therefore, has the power of control
over 8ocal governments 'Cebron v. #eyes, @.#. No. /.1:, 2uly 1, ./0-(.
And if )ongress can grant the )ity of Manila the power to ta! certain
matters, it can also provide for e!emptions or even take back the power.
'c( 4he )ity of ManilaAs power to impose license fees on gambling, has
long been revoked. As early as ./90, the power of local governments to
regulate gambling thru the grant of Gfranchise, licenses or permitsG was
withdrawn by ".D. No. 99. and was vested e!clusively on the National
@overnment, thus5
*ec. .. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the authority
of chartered cities and other local governments to issue license, permit or
other form of franchise to operate, maintain and establish horse and dog
race tracks, >ai$alai and other forms of gambling is hereby revoked.
*ec. 1. Cereafter, all permits or franchises to operate, maintain and
establish, horse and dog race tracks, >ai$alai and other forms of gambling
shall be issued by the national government upon proper application and
verification of the qualification of the applicant . . .
4herefore, only the National @overnment has the power to issue Glicenses
or permitsG for the operation of gambling. Necessarily, the power to
demand or collect license fees which is a consequence of the issuance of
Glicenses or permitsG is no longer vested in the )ity of Manila.
'd( 8ocal governments have no power to ta! instrumentalities of the
National @overnment. "A@)+# is a government owned or controlled
corporation with an original charter, "D .B3/. All of its shares of stocks
are owned by the National @overnment. &n addition to its corporate
powers '*ec. ,, 4itle &&, "D .B3/( it also e!ercises regulatory powers
thus5
*ec. /. egulator" Power. H 4he )orporation shall maintain a #egistry of
the affiliated entities, and shall e!ercise all the powers, authority and the
responsibilities vested in the *ecurities and 7!change )ommission over
such affiliating entities mentioned under the preceding section, including,
but not limited to amendments of Articles of &ncorporation and By$8aws,
changes in corporate term, structure, capitali;ation and other matters
concerning the operation of the affiliated entities, the provisions of the
)orporation )ode of the "hilippines to the contrary notwithstanding,
e!cept only with respect to original incorporation.
"A@)+# has a dual role, to operate and to regulate gambling casinos.
4he latter role is governmental, which places it in the category of an
agency or instrumentality of the @overnment. Being an instrumentality of
the @overnment, "A@)+# should be and actually is e!empt from local
ta!es. +therwise, its operation might be burdened, impeded or sub>ected
to control by a mere 8ocal government.
4he states have no power by ta!ation or otherwise, to retard, impede,
burden or in any manner control the operation of constitutional laws
enacted by )ongress to carry into e!ecution the powers vested in the
federal government. 'M) )ulloch v. Marland, : heat ,.3, : 8 7d. 09/(
4his doctrine emanates from the GsupremacyG of the National
@overnment over local governments.
2ustice Colmes, speaking for the *upreme )ourt, made reference to the
entire absence of power on the part of the *tates to touch, in that way
'ta!ation( at least, the instrumentalities of the 6nited *tates '2ohnson v.
Maryland, 10: 6* 0.( and it can be agreed that no state or political
subdi#ision can regulate a federal instrumentalit" in suc, a wa" as to
pre#ent it from consummating its federal responsibilities, or e#en to
seriousl" burden it in t,e accomplis,ment of t,em. 'Antieau, Modern
)onstitutional 8aw, %ol. 1, p. .:-, emphasis supplied(
+therwise, mere creatures of the *tate can defeat National policies thru
e!termination of what local authorities may perceive to be undesirable
activities or enterprise using the power to ta! as Ga tool for regulationG
'6.*. v. *anche;, ,:- 6* :1(.
4he power to ta! which was called by 2ustice Marshall as the Gpower to
destroyG 'Mc )ulloch v. Maryland, supra( cannot be allowed to defeat an
instrumentality or creation of the very entity which has the inherent power
to wield it.
'e( "etitioners also argue that the 8ocal Autonomy )lause of the
)onstitution will be violated by ".D. .B3/. 4his is a pointless argument.
Article M of the ./B9 )onstitution 'on 8ocal Autonomy( provides5
*ec. 0. 7ach local government unit shall have the power to create its own
source of revenue and to levy ta!es, fees, and other charges sub.ect to
suc, guidelines and limitation as t,e congress ma" pro#ide, consistent
with the basic policy on local autonomy. *uch ta!es, fees and charges
shall accrue e!clusively to the local government. 'emphasis supplied(
4he power of local government to Gimpose ta!es and feesG is always
sub>ect to GlimitationsG which )ongress may provide by law. *ince "D
.B3/ remains an GoperativeG law until Gamended, repealed or revokedG
'*ec. ,, Art. M%&&&, ./B9 )onstitution(, its Ge!emption clauseG remains as
an e!ception to the e!ercise of the power of local governments to impose
ta!es and fees. &t cannot therefore be violative but rather is consistent
with the principle of local autonomy.
Besides, the principle of local autonomy under the ./B9 )onstitution
simply means Gdecentrali;ationG '&&& #ecords of the ./B9 )onstitutional
)ommission, pp. :,0$:,3, as cited in Bernas, 4he )onstitution of the
#epublic of the "hilippines, %ol. &&, =irst 7d., ./BB, p. ,9:(. &t does not
make local governments sovereign within the state or an Gimperium in
imperio.G
8ocal @overnment has been described as a political subdivision of a
nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of
local affairs. &n a unitary system of government, such as the government
under the "hilippine )onstitution, local governments can only be an intra
so#ereign subdi#ision of one so#ereign nation, it cannot be an imperium
in imperio. 8ocal government in such a system can only mean a measure
of decentrali;ation of the function of government. 'emphasis supplied(
As to what state powers should be Gdecentrali;edG and what may be
delegated to local government units remains a matter of policy, which
concerns wisdom. &t is therefore a political question. ')iti;ens Alliance for
)onsumer "rotection v. 7nergy #egulatory Board, .31 *)#A 0,/(.
hat is settled is that the matter of regulating, ta!ing or otherwise dealing
with gambling is a *tate concern and hence, it is the sole prerogative of
the *tate to retain it or delegate it to local governments.
As gambling is usually an offense against t,e /tate, legislati#e grant or
e-press c,arter power is generall" necessar" to empower t,e local
corporation to deal wit, t,e sub.ect. . . . &n the absence of e!press grant
of power to enact, ordinance pro#isions on t,is sub.ect w,ic, are
inconsistent wit, t,e state laws are #oid. '8igan v. @adsden, Ala App. .-9
*o. 9,, 7!$"arte *olomon, /, )als. ::-, 19 "A) 909 following in re Ah
Eou, BB )al. //, 10 "A) /9:, 11 Am *t. #ep. 1B-, .. 8#A :B-, as cited in
Mc Kuinllan %ol. , +bid, p. 0:B, emphasis supplied(
"etitioners ne!t contend that ".D. .B3/ violates the equal protection
clause of the )onstitution, because Git legali;ed "A@)+# H conducted
gambling, while most gambling are outlawed together with prostitution,
drug trafficking and other vicesG 'p. B1, ollo(.
e, likewise, find no valid ground to sustain this contention. 4he
petitionersA posture ignores the well$accepted meaning of the clause
Gequal protection of the laws.G 4he clause does not preclude classification
of individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law as
long as the classification is not unreasonable or arbitrary '&tchong v.
Cernande;, .-. "hil. ..00(. A law does not have to operate in equal force
on all persons or things to be conformable to Article &&&, *ection . of the
)onstitution 'D7)* v. *an Diego, @.#. No. B/091, December 1., ./B/(.
4he Gequal protection clauseG does not prohibit the 8egislature from
establishing classes of individuals or ob>ects upon which different rules
shall operate '8aurel v. Misa, :, +.@. 1B:9(. 4he )onstitution does not
require situations which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law
as though they were the same '@ome; v. "alomar, 10 *)#A B19(.
2ust how ".D. .B3/ in legali;ing gambling conducted by "A@)+# is
violative of the equal protection is not clearly e!plained in the petition. 4he
mere fact that some gambling activities like cockfighting '".D ::/( horse
racing '#.A. ,-3 as amended by #A /B,(, sweepstakes, lotteries and
races '#A ..3/ as amended by B.". :1( are legali;ed under certain
conditions, while others are prohibited, does not render the applicable
laws, ".D. .B3/ for one, unconstitutional.
&f the law presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be
overthrown because there are other instances to which it might have
been applied. '@ome; v. "alomar, 10 *)#A B19(
4he equal protection clause of the .:t, Amendment does not mean that
all occupations called by the same name must be treated the same wayD
the state may do what it can to prevent which is deemed as evil and stop
short of those cases in which harm to the few concerned is not less than
the harm to the public that would insure if the rule laid down were made
mathematically e!act. 'Dominican Cotel v. Ari;ona, 1:/ 6* 130.(.
Anent petitionersA claim that "D .B3/ is contrary to the Gavowed trend of
the )ory @overnment away from monopolies and crony economy and
toward free enterprise and privati;ationG suffice it to state that this is not a
ground for this )ourt to nullify ".D. .B3/. &f, indeed, "D .B3/ runs counter
to the governmentAs policies then it is for the 7!ecutive Department to
recommend to )ongress its repeal or amendment.
4he >udiciary does not settle policy issues. 4he )ourt can only declare
what the law is and not what the law should be. 6nder our system of
government, policy issues are within the domain of the political branches
of government and of the people themselves as the repository of all state
power. '%almonte v. Belmonte, 2r., .9- *)#A 103(.
+n the issue of Gmonopoly,G however, the )onstitution provides that5
*ec. ./. 4he *tate shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when public
interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair
competition shall be allowed. 'Art. M&&, National 7conomy and "atrimony(
&t should be noted that, as the provision is worded, monopolies are not
necessarily prohibited by the )onstitution. 4he state must still decide
whether public interest demands that monopolies be regulated or
prohibited. Again, this is a matter of policy for the 8egislature to decide.
+n petitionersA allegation that ".D. .B3/ violates *ections .. '"ersonality
Dignity( .1 '=amily( and ., '#ole of Eouth( of Article &&D *ection ., '*ocial
2ustice( of Article M&&& and *ection 1 '7ducational %alues( of Article M&% of
the ./B9 )onstitution, suffice it to state also that these are merely
statements of principles and, policies. As such, they are basically not self$
e!ecuting, meaning a law should be passed by )ongress to clearly define
and effectuate such principles.
&n general, therefore, the ./,0 provisions were not intended to be self$
e!ecuting principles ready for enforcement through the courts. 4hey were
rather directives addressed to the e!ecutive and the legislature. &f the
e!ecutive and the legislature failed to heed the directives of the articles
the available remedy was not >udicial or political. 4he electorate could
e!press their displeasure with the failure of the e!ecutive and the
legislature through the language of the ballot. 'Bernas, %ol. &&, p. 1(
7very law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality 'Eu )ong
7ng v. 4rinidad, :9 "hil. ,B9D *alas v. 2arencio, :B *)#A 9,:D "eralta v.
)omelec, B1 *)#A ,-D Abbas v. )omelec, .9/ *)#A 1B9(. 4herefore, for
"D .B3/ to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and
unequivocal breach of the )onstitution, not merely a doubtful and
equivocal one. &n other words, the grounds for nullity must be clear and
beyond reasonable doubt. '"eralta v. )omelec, supra( 4hose who petition
this )ourt to declare a law, or parts thereof, unconstitutional must clearly
establish the basis for such a declaration. +therwise, their petition must
fail. Based on the grounds raised by petitioners to challenge the
constitutionality of ".D. .B3/, the )ourt finds that petitioners have failed to
overcome the presumption. 4he dismissal of this petition is therefore,
inevitable. But as to whether ".D. .B3/ remains a wise legislation
considering the issues of Gmorality, monopoly, trend to free enterprise,
privati;ation as well as the state principles on social >ustice, role of youth
and educational valuesG being raised, is up for )ongress to determine.
As this )ourt held in Citi%ens( Alliance for Consumer Protection #. $nerg"
egulator" Board, .31 *)#A 01. H
"residential Decree No. ./03, as amended by 7!ecutive +rder No. .,9
has, in any case, in its favor the presumption of validity and
constitutionality which petitioners %almonte and the ?M6 have not
overturned. "etitioners have not undertaken to identify the provisions in
the )onstitution which they claim to have been violated by that statute.
4his )ourt, however, is not compelled to speculate and to imagine how
the assailed legislation may possibly offend some provision of the
)onstitution. 4he )ourt notes, further, in this respect that petitioners have
in the main put in question the wisdom, >ustice and e!pediency of the
establishment of the +"*=, issues which are not properly addressed to
this )ourt and which this )ourt may not constitutionally pass upon. 4hose
issues should be addressed rather to the political departments of
government5 the "resident and the )ongress.
"arenthetically, e wish to state that gambling is generally immoral, and
this is precisely so when the gambling resorted to is e!cessive. 4his
e!cessiveness necessarily depends not only on the financial resources of
the gambler and his family but also on his mental, social, and spiritual
outlook on life. Cowever, the mere fact that some persons may have lost
their material fortunes, mental control, physical health, or even their lives
does not necessarily mean that the same are directly attributable to
gambling. Gambling ma" ,a#e been t,e antecedent, but certainl" not
necessaril" t,e cause. =or the same consequences could have been
preceded by an overdose of food, drink, e!ercise, work, and even se!.
C7#7=+#7, the petition is D&*M&**7D for lack of merit.
*+ +#D7#7D.
G.R. No. 1119! "#$y %, 1994
MAYOR PABLO P. MAGTA"AS & THE CITY O' CAGAYAN DE ORO,
petitioners, vs.PRYCE PROPERTIES CORPORATION, INC. &
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION,
respondents.
A0uilino G. Pimentel, 1r. and Associates for petitioners.
.. 2orralba & Associates for pri#ate respondent.

CRUZ, J.:
4here was instant opposition when "A@)+# announced the opening of a
casino in )agayan de +ro )ity. )ivic organi;ations angrily denounced the
pro>ect. 4he religious elements echoed the ob>ection and so did the
womenAs groups and the youth. Demonstrations were led by the mayor
and the city legislators. 4he media trumpeted the protest, describing the
casino as an affront to the welfare of the city.
4he trouble arose when in .//1, flush with its tremendous success in
several cities, "A@)+# decided to e!pand its operations to )agayan de
+ro )ity. 4o this end, it leased a portion of a building belonging to "ryce
"roperties )orporation, &nc., one of the herein private respondents,
renovated and equipped the same, and prepared to inaugurate its casino
there during the )hristmas season.
4he reaction of the *angguniang "anlungsod of )agayan de +ro )ity
was swift and hostile. +n December 9, .//1, it enacted +rdinance No.
,,0, reading as follows5
+#D&NAN)7 N+. ,,0,
AN +#D&NAN)7 "#+C&B&4&N@ 4C7 &**6AN)7 += B6*&N7**
"7#M&4 AND )AN)788&N@ 7M&*4&N@ B6*&N7** "7#M&4 4+ ANE
7*4AB8&*CM7N4 =+# 4C7 6*&N@ AND A88+&N@ 4+ B7 6*7D &4*
"#7M&*7* +# "+#4&+N 4C7#7+= =+# 4C7 +"7#A4&+N +=
)A*&N+.
B7 &4 +#DA&N7D by the *angguniang "anlungsod of the )ity of
)agayan de +ro, in session assembled that5
*ec. .. H 4hat pursuant to the policy of the city banning the operation of
casino within its territorial >urisdiction, no business permit shall be issued
to any person, partnership or corporation for the operation of casino
within the city limits.
*ec. 1. H 4hat it shall be a violation of e!isting business permit by any
persons, partnership or corporation to use its business establishment or
portion thereof, or allow the use thereof by others for casino operation
and other gambling activities.
*ec. ,. H "7NA84&7*. H Any violation of such e!isting business permit
as defined in the preceding section shall suffer the following penalties, to
wit5
a( *uspension of the business permit for si!ty '3-( days for the first
offense and a fine of ".,---.--<day
b( *uspension of the business permit for *i! '3( months for the second
offense, and a fine of ",,---.--<day
c( "ermanent revocation of the business permit and imprisonment of +ne
'.( year, for the third and subsequent offenses.
*ec. :. H 4his +rdinance shall take effect ten '.-( days from publication
thereof.
Nor was this all. +n 2anuary :, .//,, it adopted a sterner +rdinance No.
,,90$/, reading as follows5
+#D&NAN)7 N+. ,,90$/,
AN +#D&NAN)7 "#+C&B&4&N@ 4C7 +"7#A4&+N += )A*&N+ AND
"#+%&D&N@ "7NA84E =+# %&+8A4&+N 4C7#7=+#.
C7#7A*, the )ity )ouncil established a policy as early as .//-
against )A*&N+ under its #esolution No. 11/0D
C7#7A*, on +ctober .:, .//1, the )ity )ouncil passed another
#esolution No. 139,, reiterating its policy against the establishment of
)A*&N+D
C7#7A*, subsequently, thereafter, it likewise passed +rdinance No.
,,0,, prohibiting the issuance of Business "ermit and to cancel e!isting
Business "ermit to any establishment for the using and allowing to be
used its premises or portion thereof for the operation of )A*&N+D
C7#7A*, under Art. ,, section :0B, No. ':(, sub paragraph %& of the
8ocal @overnment )ode of .//. '#ep. Act 9.3-( and under Art. //, No.
':(, "aragraph %& of the implementing rules of the 8ocal @overnment
)ode, the )ity )ouncil as the 8egislative Body shall enact measure to
suppress any activity inimical to public morals and general welfare of the
people and<or regulate or prohibit such activity pertaining to amusement
or entertainment in order to protect social and moral welfare of the
communityD
N+ 4C7#7=+#7,
B7 &4 +#DA&N7D by the )ity )ouncil in session duly assembled that5
*ec. .. H 4he operation of gambling )A*&N+ in the )ity of )agayan de
+ro is hereby prohibited.
*ec. 1. H Any violation of this +rdinance shall be sub>ect to the following
penalties5
a( Administrative fine of "0,---.-- shall be imposed against the
proprietor, partnership or corporation undertaking the operation, conduct,
maintenance of gambling )A*&N+ in the )ity and closure thereofD
b( &mprisonment of not less than si! '3( months nor more than one '.(
year or a fine in the amount of "0,---.-- or both at the discretion of the
court against the manager, supervisor, and<or any person responsible in
the establishment, conduct and maintenance of gambling )A*&N+.
*ec. ,. H 4his +rdinance shall take effect ten '.-( days after its
publication in a local newspaper of general circulation.
"ryce assailed the ordinances before the )ourt of Appeals, where it was
>oined by "A@)+# as intervenor and supplemental petitioner. 4heir
challenge succeeded. +n March ,., .//,, the )ourt of Appeals declared
the ordinances invalid and issued the writ prayed for to prohibit their
enforcement.
1
#econsideration of this decision was denied on 2uly .,,
.//,.
%
)agayan de +ro )ity and its mayor are now before us in this petition for
review under #ule :0 of the #ules of )ourt.
(
4hey aver that the
respondent )ourt of Appeals erred in holding that5
.. 6nder e!isting laws, the *angguniang "anlungsod of the )ity of
)agayan de +ro does not have the power and authority to prohibit the
establishment and operation of a "A@)+# gambling casino within the
)ityAs territorial limits.
1. 4he phrase Ggambling and other prohibited games of chanceG found in
*ec. :0B, par. 'a(, sub$par. '.( H 'v( of #.A. 9.3- could only mean Gillegal
gambling.G
,. 4he questioned +rdinances in effect annul ".D. .B3/ and are therefore
invalid on that point.
:. 4he questioned +rdinances are discriminatory to casino and partial to
cockfighting and are therefore invalid on that point.
0. 4he questioned +rdinances are not reasonable, not consonant with the
general powers and purposes of the instrumentality concerned and
inconsistent with the laws or policy of the *tate.
3. &t had no option but to follow the ruling in the case of Basco, et al. #.
PAGCO, @.#. No. /.3:/, May .:, .//., ./9 *)#A 0, in disposing of
the issues presented in this present case.
"A@)+# is a corporation created directly by ".D. .B3/ to help centrali;e
and regulate all games of chance, including casinos on land and sea
within the territorial >urisdiction of the "hilippines. &n Basco #. P,ilippine
Amusements and Gaming Corporation,
4
this )ourt sustained the
constitutionality of the decree and even cited the benefits of the entity to
the national economy as the third highest revenue$earner in the
government, ne!t only to the B&# and the Bureau of )ustoms.
)agayan de +ro )ity, like other local political subdivisions, is empowered
to enact ordinances for the purposes indicated in the 8ocal @overnment
)ode. &t is e!pressly vested with the police power under what is known as
the @eneral elfare )lause now embodied in *ection .3 as follows5
*ec. .3. H @eneral elfare. H 7very local government unit shall
e!ercise the powers e!pressly granted, those necessarily implied
therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its
efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the
promotion of the general welfare. ithin their respective territorial
>urisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among
other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health
and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology,
encourage and support the development of appropriate and self$reliant
scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance
economic prosperity and social >ustice, promote full employment among
their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and
convenience of their inhabitants.
&n addition, *ection :0B of the said )ode specifically declares that5
*ec. :0B. H "owers, Duties, =unctions and )ompensation. H 'a( 4he
*angguniang "anlungsod, as the legislative body of the city, shall enact
ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general
welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to *ection .3 of this )ode
and in the proper e!ercise of the corporate powers of the city as provided
for under *ection 11 of this )ode, and shall5
'.( Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient
and effective city government, and in this connection, shall5
!!! !!! !!!
'v( 7nact ordinances intended to prevent, suppress and impose
appropriate penalties for habitual drunkenness in public places, vagrancy,
mendicancy, prostitution, establishment and maintenance of houses of ill
repute, gambling and other prohibited games of chance, fraudulent
devices and ways to obtain money or property, drug addiction,
maintenance of drug dens, drug pushing, >uvenile delinquency, the
printing, distribution or e!hibition of obscene or pornographic materials or
publications, and such other activities inimical to the welfare and morals
of the inhabitants of the cityD
4his section also authori;es the local government units to regulate
properties and businesses within their territorial limits in the interest of the
general welfare.
)
4he petitioners argue that by virtue of these provisions, the *angguniang
"anlungsod may prohibit the operation of casinos because they involve
games of chance, which are detrimental to the people. @ambling is not
allowed by general law and even by the )onstitution itself. 4he legislative
power conferred upon local government units may be e!ercised over all
kinds of gambling and not only over Gillegal gamblingG as the respondents
erroneously argue. 7ven if the operation of casinos may have been
permitted under ".D. .B3/, the government of )agayan de +ro )ity has
the authority to prohibit them within its territory pursuant to the authority
entrusted to it by the 8ocal @overnment )ode.
&t is submitted that this interpretation is consonant with the policy of local
autonomy as mandated in Article &&, *ection 10, and Article M of the
)onstitution, as well as various other provisions therein seeking to
strengthen the character of the nation. &n giving the local government
units the power to prevent or suppress gambling and other social
problems, the 8ocal @overnment )ode has recogni;ed the competence
of such communities to determine and adopt the measures best e!pected
to promote the general welfare of their inhabitants in line with the policies
of the *tate.
4he petitioners also stress that when the )ode e!pressly authori;ed the
local government units to prevent and suppress gambling and other
prohibited games of chance, like craps, baccarat, black>ack and roulette,
it meant all forms of gambling without distinction. )bi le- non distinguit,
nec nos distinguere debemos.
6
+therwise, it would have e!pressly
e!cluded from the scope of their power casinos and other forms of
gambling authori;ed by special law, as it could have easily done. 4he fact
that it did not do so simply means that the local government units are
permitted to prohibit all kinds of gambling within their territories, including
the operation of casinos.
4he adoption of the 8ocal @overnment )ode, it is pointed out, had the
effect of modifying the charter of the "A@)+#. 4he )ode is not only a
later enactment than ".D. .B3/ and so is deemed to prevail in case of
inconsistencies between them. More than this, the powers of the
"A@)+# under the decree are e!pressly discontinued by the )ode
insofar as they do not conform to its philosophy and provisions, pursuant
to "ar. 'f( of its repealing clause reading as follows5
'f( All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, e!ecutive
orders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or part or parts
thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this )ode are
hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
&t is also maintained that assuming there is doubt regarding the effect of
the 8ocal @overnment )ode on ".D. .B3/, the doubt must be resolved in
favor of the petitioners, in accordance with the direction in the )ode
calling for its liberal interpretation in favor of the local government units.
*ection 0 of the )ode specifically provides5
*ec. 0. #ules of &nterpretation. H &n the interpretation of the provisions of
this )ode, the following rules shall apply5
'a( An" pro#ision on a power of a local go#ernment unit s,all be liberall"
interpreted in its fa#or, and in case of doubt, an" 0uestion t,ereon s,all
be resol#ed in fa#or of de#olution of powers and of t,e lower local
go#ernment unit. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the e!istence of the
power shall be interpreted in favor of the local government unit
concernedD
!!! !!! !!!
'c( 2,e general welfare pro#isions in t,is Code s,all be liberall"
interpreted to gi#e more powers to local go#ernment units in accelerating
economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the people in
the communityD . . . '7mphasis supplied.(
=inally, the petitioners also attack gambling as intrinsically harmful and
cite various provisions of the )onstitution and several decisions of this
)ourt e!pressive of the general and official disapprobation of the vice.
4hey invoke the *tate policies on the family and the proper upbringing of
the youth and, as might be e!pected, call attention to the old case of )./.
#. /ala#eria,
!
which sustained a municipal ordinance prohibiting the
playing of panguingue. 4he petitioners decry the immorality of gambling.
4hey also impugn the wisdom of ".D. .B3/ 'which they describe as Ga
martial law instrumentG( in creating "A@)+# and authori;ing it to operate
casinos Gon land and sea within the territorial >urisdiction of the
"hilippines.G
4his is the opportune time to stress an important point.
4he morality of gambling is not a >usticiable issue. @ambling is not illegal
per se. hile it is generally considered inimical to the interests of the
people, there is nothing in the )onstitution categorically proscribing or
penali;ing gambling or, for that matter, even mentioning it at all. &t is left to
)ongress to deal with the activity as it sees fit. &n the e!ercise of its own
discretion, the legislature may prohibit gambling altogether or allow it
without limitation or it may prohibit some forms of gambling and allow
others for whatever reasons it may consider sufficient. 4hus, it has
prohibited .ueteng and monte but permits lotteries, cockfighting and
horse$racing. &n making such choices, )ongress has consulted its own
wisdom, which this )ourt has no authority to review, much less reverse.
ell has it been said that courts do not sit to resolve the merits of
conflicting theories.
*
4hat is the prerogative of the political departments.
&t is settled that questions regarding the wisdom, morality, or practicibility
of statutes are not addressed to the >udiciary but may be resolved only by
the legislative and e!ecutive departments, to which the function belongs
in our scheme of government. 4hat function is e!clusive. hichever way
these branches decide, they are answerable only to their own conscience
and the constituents who will ultimately >udge their acts, and not to the
courts of >ustice.
4he only question we can and shall resolve in this petition is the validity of
+rdinance No. ,,00 and +rdinance No. ,,90$/, as enacted by the
*angguniang "anlungsod of )agayan de +ro )ity. And we shall do so
only by the criteria laid down by law and not by our own convictions on
the propriety of gambling.
4he tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of
decisions
9
has held that to be valid, an ordinance must conform to the
following substantive requirements5
.( &t must not contravene the constitution or any statute.
1( &t must not be unfair or oppressive.
,( &t must not be partial or discriminatory.
:( &t must not prohibit but may regulate trade.
0( &t must be general and consistent with public policy.
3( &t must not be unreasonable.
e begin by observing that under *ec. :0B of the 8ocal @overnment
)ode, local government units are authori;ed to prevent or suppress,
among others, Ggambling and ot,er prohibited games of chance.G
+bviously, this provision e!cludes games of chance which are not
prohibited but are in fact permitted by law. 4he petitioners are less than
accurate in claiming that the )ode could have e!cluded such games of
chance but did not. &n fact it does. 4he language of the section is clear
and unmistakable. 6nder the rule of noscitur a sociis, a word or phrase
should be interpreted in relation to, or given the same meaning of, words
with which it is associated. Accordingly, we conclude that since the word
GgamblingG is associated with Gand ot,er prohibited games of chance,G the
word should be read as referring to only illegal gambling which, like the
ot,er prohibited games of chance, must be prevented or suppressed.
e could stop here as this interpretation should settle the problem quite
conclusively. But we will not. 4he vigorous efforts of the petitioners on
behalf of the inhabitants of )agayan de +ro )ity, and the earnestness of
their advocacy, deserve more than short shrift from this )ourt.
4he apparent flaw in the ordinances in question is that they contravene
".D. .B3/ and the public policy embodied therein insofar as they prevent
"A@)+# from e!ercising the power conferred on it to operate a casino in
)agayan de +ro )ity. 4he petitioners have an ingenious answer to this
misgiving. 4hey deny that it is the ordinances that have changed ".D.
.B3/ for an ordinance admittedly cannot prevail against a statute. 4heir
theory is that the change has been made by the 8ocal @overnment )ode
itself, which was also enacted by the national lawmaking authority. &n their
view, the decree has been, not really repealed by the )ode, but merely
Gmodified pro tantoG in the sense that "A@)+# cannot now operate a
casino over the ob>ection of the local government unit concerned. 4his
modification of ".D. .B3/ by the 8ocal @overnment )ode is permissible
because one law can change or repeal another law.
&t seems to us that the petitioners are playing with words. hile insisting
that the decree has only been Gmodified pro tanto,G they are actually
arguing that it is already dead, repealed and useless for all intents and
purposes because the )ode has shorn "A@)+# of all power to
centrali;e and regulate casinos. *trictly speaking, its operations may now
be not only prohibited by the local government unitD in fact, the prohibition
is not only discretionary but mandated by *ection :0B of the )ode if the
word GshallG as used therein is to be given its accepted meaning. 8ocal
government units have now no choice but to prevent and suppress
gambling, which in the petitionersA view includes both legal and illegal
gambling. 6nder this construction, "A@)+# will have no more games of
chance to regulate or centrali;e as they must all be prohibited by the local
government units pursuant to the mandatory duty imposed upon them by
the )ode. &n this situation, "A@)+# cannot continue to e!ist e!cept only
as a toothless tiger or a white elephant and will no longer be able to
e!ercise its powers as a prime source of government revenue through the
operation of casinos.
&t is noteworthy that the petitioners have cited only "ar. 'f( of the repealing
clause, conveniently discarding the rest of the provision which
painstakingly mentions the specific laws or the parts thereof which are
repealed 'or modified( by the )ode. *ignificantly, ".D. .B3/ is not one of
them. A reading of the entire repealing clause, which is reproduced below,
will disclose the omission5
*ec. 0,:. #epealing )lause. H 'a( Batas "ambansa Blg. ,,9, otherwise
known as the G8ocal @overnment )ode,G 7!ecutive +rder No. ..1 './B9(,
and 7!ecutive +rder No. ,./ './BB( are hereby repealed.
'b( "residential Decree Nos. 3B:, ../., .0-B and such other decrees,
orders, instructions, memoranda and issuances related to or concerning
the barangay are hereby repealed.
'c( 4he provisions of *ections 1, ,, and : of #epublic Act No. ./,/
regarding hospital fundD *ection ,, a ',( and b '1( of #epublic Act. No.
0::9 regarding the *pecial 7ducation =undD "residential Decree No. .::
as amended by "residential Decree Nos. 00/ and .9:.D "residential
Decree No. 1,. as amendedD "residential Decree No. :,3 as amended
by "residential Decree No. 00BD and "residential Decree Nos. ,B., :,3,
:3:, :99, 013, 3,1, 901, and ..,3 are hereby repealed and rendered of
no force and effect.
'd( "residential Decree No. .0/: is hereby repealed insofar as it governs
locally$funded pro>ects.
'e( 4he following provisions are hereby repealed or amended insofar as
they are inconsistent with the provisions of this )ode5 *ections 1, .3, and
1/ of "residential Decree No. 9-:D *ections .1 of "residential Decree
No. B9, as amendedD *ections 01, 0,, 33, 39, 3B, 3/, 9-, 9., 91, 9,, and
9: of "residential Decree No. :3,, as amendedD and *ection .3 of
"residential Decree No. /91, as amended, and
'f( All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, e!ecutive
orders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or part or parts
thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this )ode are
hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
=urthermore, it is a familiar rule that implied repeals are not lightly
presumed in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing of such
intention. &n Lic,auco & Co. #. Apostol,
1
this )ourt e!plained5
4he cases relating to the sub>ect of repeal by implication all proceed on
the assumption that if the act of later date clearly reveals an intention on
the part of the lawmaking power to abrogate the prior law, this intention
must be given effectD but there must always be a sufficient revelation of
this intention, and it has become an unbending rule of statutory
construction that the intention to repeal a former law will not be imputed to
the 8egislature when it appears that the two statutes, or provisions, with
reference to which the question arises bear to each other the relation of
general to special.
4here is no sufficient indication of an implied repeal of ".D. .B3/. +n the
contrary, as the private respondent points out, "A@)+# is mentioned as
the source of funding in two later enactments of )ongress, to wit, #.A.
9,-/, creating a Board of )laims under the Department of 2ustice for the
benefit of victims of un>ust punishment or detention or of violent crimes,
and #.A. 93:B, providing for measures for the solution of the power crisis.
"A@)+# revenues are tapped by these two statutes. 4his would show
that the "A@)+# charter has not been repealed by the 8ocal
@overnment )ode but has in fact been improved as it were to make the
entity more responsive to the fiscal problems of the government.
&t is a canon of legal hermeneutics that instead of pitting one statute
against another in an inevitably destructive confrontation, courts must
e!ert every effort to reconcile them, remembering that both laws deserve
a becoming respect as the handiwork of a coordinate branch of the
government. +n the assumption of a conflict between ".D. .B3/ and the
)ode, the proper action is not to uphold one and annul the other but to
give effect to both by harmoni;ing them if possible. 4his is possible in the
case before us. 4he proper resolution of the problem at hand is to hold
that under the 8ocal @overnment )ode, local government units may 'and
indeed must( prevent and suppress all kinds of gambling within their
territories e!cept only those allowed by statutes like ".D. .B3/. 4he
e!ception reserved in such laws must be read into the )ode, to make
both the )ode and such laws equally effective and mutually
complementary.
4his approach would also affirm that there are indeed two kinds of
gambling, to wit, the illegal and those authori;ed by law. 8egali;ed
gambling is not a modern conceptD it is probably as old as illegal
gambling, if not indeed more so. 4he petitionersA suggestion that the )ode
authori;es them to prohibit all kinds of gambling would erase the
distinction between these two forms of gambling without a clear indication
that this is the will of the legislature. "lausibly, following this theory, the
)ity of Manila could, by mere ordinance, prohibit the "hilippine )harity
*weepstakes +ffice from conducting a lottery as authori;ed by #.A. ..3/
and B.". :1 or stop the races at the *an 8a;aro Cippodrome as
authori;ed by #.A. ,-/ and #.A. /B,.
&n light of all the above considerations, we see no way of arriving at the
conclusion urged on us by the petitioners that the ordinances in question
are valid. +n the contrary, we find that the ordinances violate ".D. .B3/,
which has the character and force of a statute, as well as the public policy
e!pressed in the decree allowing the playing of certain games of chance
despite the prohibition of gambling in general.
4he rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not
contravene a statute is obvious. Municipal governments are only agents
of the national government. 8ocal councils e!ercise only delegated
legislative powers conferred on them by )ongress as the national
lawmaking body. 4he delegate cannot be superior to the principal or
e!ercise powers higher than those of the latter. &t is a heresy to suggest
that the local government units can undo the acts of )ongress, from
which they have derived their power in the first place, and negate by mere
ordinance the mandate of the statute.
Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and
rights wholly from the legislature. &t breathes into them the breath of life,
without which they cannot e!ist. As it creates, so it may destroy. As it may
destroy, it may abridge and control. 6nless there is some constitutional
limitation on the right, the legislature might, by a single act, and if we can
suppose it capable of so great a folly and so great a wrong, sweep from
e!istence all of the municipal corporations in the *tate, and the
corporation could not prevent it. e know of no limitation on the right so
far as to the corporation themselves are concerned. 4hey are, so to
phrase it, the mere tenants at will of the legislature.
11
4his basic relationship between the national legislature and the local
government units has not been enfeebled by the new provisions in the
)onstitution strengthening the policy of local autonomy. ithout meaning
to detract from that policy, we here confirm that )ongress retains control
of the local government units although in significantly reduced degree
now than under our previous )onstitutions. 4he power to create still
includes the power to destroy. 4he power to grant still includes the power
to withhold or recall. 4rue, there are certain notable innovations in the
)onstitution, like the direct conferment on the local government units of
the power to ta!,
1%
which cannot now be withdrawn by mere statute. By
and large, however, the national legislature is still the principal of the local
government units, which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it.
4he )ourt understands and admires the concern of the petitioners for the
welfare of their constituents and their apprehensions that the welfare of
)agayan de +ro )ity will be endangered by the opening of the casino.
e share the view that Gthe hope of large or easy gain, obtained without
special effort, turns the head of the workmanG
1(
and that Ghabitual
gambling is a cause of la;iness and ruin.G
14
&n People #. Gorosti%a,
1)
we
declared5 G4he social scourge of gambling must be stamped out. 4he
laws against gambling must be enforced to the limit.G @eorge ashington
called gambling Gthe child of avarice, the brother of iniquity and the father
of mischief.G Nevertheless, we must recogni;e the power of the
legislature to decide, in its own wisdom, to legali;e certain forms of
gambling, as was done in ".D. .B3/ and impliedly affirmed in the 8ocal
@overnment )ode. 4hat decision can be revoked by this )ourt only if it
contravenes the )onstitution as the touchstone of all official acts. e do
not find such contravention here.
e hold that the power of "A@)+# to centrali;e and regulate all games
of chance, including casinos on land and sea within the territorial
>urisdiction of the "hilippines, remains unimpaired. ".D. .B3/ has not
been modified by the 8ocal @overnment )ode, which empowers the local
government units to prevent or suppress only those forms of gambling
prohibited by law.
)asino gambling is authori;ed by ".D. .B3/. 4his decree has the status
of a statute that cannot be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance.
Cence, it was not competent for the *angguniang "anlungsod of
)agayan de +ro )ity to enact +rdinance No. ,,0, prohibiting the use of
buildings for the operation of a casino and +rdinance No. ,,90$/,
prohibiting the operation of casinos. =or all their praiseworthy motives,
these ordinances are contrary to ".D. .B3/ and the public policy
announced therein and are therefore ultra #ires and void.
C7#7=+#7, the petition is D7N&7D and the challenged decision of the
respondent )ourt of Appeals is A==&#M7D, with costs against the
petitioners. &t is so ordered.
G.R. No. !99)6 "a+#a,y %9, 199
CORDILLERA BROAD COALITION, petitioner, -..COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, ,/.0o+1/+2.
G.R. No. *%%1! "a+#a,y %9, 199
LILIA YARANON a+1 BONA BAUTISTA, a..3.2/1 4y 25/3, .0o#./.,
BRAULIO D. YARANON a+1 DEMETRIO D. BAUTISTA, "R.,
,/.0/623-/$y7 "AMES BRETT a+1 SINAI C. HAMADA, 0/2323o+/,., -..
THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HON. CATALINO MACARAIG,
E8/6#23-/ S/6,/2a,y, HON. 9ICENTE "AYME, S/6,/2a,y o: '3+a+6/,
HON. GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE, S/6,/2a,y o: B#1;/2 a+1
Ma+a;/</+2, a+1 HON. ROSALINA S. CA"UCOM, OIC Na23o+a$
T,/a.#,/,, ,/.0o+1/+2..

CORTES, J.:
I+ 25/./ 6o+.o$31a2/1 0/2323o+., 25/ 6o+.232#23o+a$32y o: E8/6#23-/
O,1/, No. %%, 1a2/1 "#$y 1), 19*!, =5365 6,/a2/1 25/ (Co,13$$/,a
A1<3+3.2,a23-/ R/;3o+, 3. a..a3$/1 o+ 25/ 0,3<a,y ;,o#+1 25a2 32 0,/>
/<02. 25/ /+a62</+2 o: a+ o,;a+36 a62 4y 25/ Co+;,/.. a+1 25/
6,/a23o+ o:? 25/ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+ 3+ 25/ Co,13$$/,a. 6o+1323o+a$ o+
25/ a00,o-a$ o: 25/ a62 25,o#;5 a 0$/43.632/.
R/$a23-/ 2o 25/ 6,/a23o+ o: a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+., 25/ 6o+.232#23o+, 3+
A,236$/ @, 0,o-31/.A
AUTONOMOUS REGIONS
S/6. 1). T5/,/ .5a$$ 4/ 6,/a2/1 a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+. 3+ M#.$3<
M3+1a+ao a+1 3+ 25/ Co,13$$/,a. 6o+.3.23+; o: 0,o-3+6/., 6323/.,
<#+3630a$323/., a+1 ;/o;,a0536a$ a,/a. .5a,3+; 6o<<o+ a+1
13.23+623-/ 53.2o,36a$ a+1 6#$2#,a$ 5/,32a;/, /6o+o<36 a+1 .o63a$
.2,#62#,/., a+1 o25/, ,/$/-a+2 65a,a62/,3.236. =3253+ 25/ :,a</=o,B
o: 253. Co+.232#23o+ a+1 25/ +a23o+a$ .o-/,/3;+2y a. =/$$ a. 2/,,32o,3a$
3+2/;,32y o: 25/ R/0#4$36 o: 25/ P53$3003+/..
SEC. 16. T5/ P,/.31/+2 .5a$$ /8/,63./ ;/+/,a$ .#0/,-3.3o+ o-/,
a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+. 2o /+.#,/ 25a2 $a=. a,/ :a325:#$$y /8/6#2/1.
S/6. 1!. A$$ 0o=/,., :#+623o+., a+1 ,/.0o+.343$323/. +o2 ;,a+2/1
Co+.232#23o+ o, 4y $a= 2o 25/ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+. .5a$$ 4/ -/.2/1 3+
25/ Na23o+a$ Go-/,+</+2.
S/6. 1*. T5/ Co+;,/.. .5a$$ /+a62 a+ o,;a+36 a62 :o, /a65
a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+ =325 25/ a..3.2a+6/ a+1 0a,23630a23o+ o: 25/
,/;3o+a$ 6o+.#$2a23-/ 6o<<3..3o+ 6o<0o./1 o: ,/0,/./+2a23-/.
a00o3+2/1 4y 25/ P,/.31/+2 :,o< a $3.2 o: +o<3+//. :,o< <#$23>
./62o,a$ 4o13/.. T5/ o,;a+36 a62 .5a$$ 1/:3+/ 25/ 4a.36 .2,#62#,/ o:
;o-/,+</+2 :o, 25/ ,/;3o+ 6o+.3.23+; o: 25/ /8/6#23-/ 1/0a,2</+2
a+1 $/;3.$a23-/ a../<4$y, 4o25 o: =5365 .5a$$ 4/ /$/623-/ a+1
,/0,/./+2a23-/ o: 25/ 6o+.232#/+2 0o$3236a$ #+32.. T5/ o,;a+36 a62.
.5a$$ $3B/=3./ 0,o-31/ :o, .0/63a$ 6o#,2. =325 0/,.o+a$, :a<3$y a+1
0,o0/,2y $a= C#,3.13623o+ 6o+.3.2/+2 =325 25/ 0,o-3.3o+. o: 253.
Co+.232#23o+ a+1 +a23o+a$ $a=..
T5/ 6,/a23o+ o: 25/ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+ .5a$$ 4/ /::/623-/ =5/+
a00,o-/1 4y <aCo,32y o: 25/ -o2/. 6a.2 4y 25/ 6o+.232#/+2 #+32. 3+ a
0$/43.632/ 6a$$/1 :o, 25/ 0#,0o./, 0,o-31/1 25a2 o+$y 0,o-3+6/.,
6323/., a+1 ;/o;,a0536 a,/a. -o23+; :a-o,a4$y 3+ .#65 0$/43.632/ .5a$$
4/ 3+6$#1/1 3+ 25/ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+.
S/6. 19. T5/ :3,.2 Co+;,/.. /$/62/1 #+1/, 253. Co+.232#23o+ .5a$$,
=3253+ /3;52//+ <o+25. :,o< 25/ 23</ o: o,;a+3Da23o+ o: 4o25
Ho#./., 0a.. 25/ o,;a+36 a62. :o, 25/ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+. 3+
M#.$3< M3+1a+ao a+1 25/ Co,13$$/,a..
S/6. %. E3253+ 32. 2/,,32o,3a$ C#,3.13623o+ a+1 .#4C/62 2o 25/
0,o-3.3o+. o: 253. Co+.232#23o+ a+1 +a23o+a$ $a=., 25/ o,;a+36 a62 o:
a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+. .5a$$ 0,o-31/ :o, $/;3.$a23-/ 0o=/,. o-/,A
(1) A1<3+3.2,a23-/ o,;a+3Da23o+7
(%) C,/a23o+ o: .o#,6/. o: ,/-/+#/.7
(() A+6/.2,a$ 1o<a3+ a+1 +a2#,a$ ,/.o#,6/.7
(4) P/,.o+a$, :a<3$y a+1 0,o0/,2y ,/$a23o+.7
()) R/;3o+a$ #,4a+ a+1 ,#,a$ 0$a++3+; 1/-/$o0</+27
(6) E6o+o<36, .o63a$ a+1 2o#,3.< 1/-/$o0</+2 7
(!) E1#6a23o+a$ 0o$363/.7
(*) P,/./,-a23o+ a+1 1/-/$o0</+2 o: 25/ 6#$2#,a$ 5/,32a;/7 a+1
(9) S#65 o25/, <a22/,. a. <ay 4/ a#25o,3D/1 4y $a= :o, 25/
0,o<o23o+ o: 25/ ;/+/,a$ =/$:a,/ o: 25/ 0/o0$/ o: 25/ ,/;3o+.
S/6. %1. T5/ 0,/./,-a23o+ o: 0/a6/ a+1 o,1/, =3253+ 25/ ,/;3o+. .5a$$
4/ 25/ ,/.0o+.343$32y o: 25/ $o6a$ 0o$36/ a;/+63/. =5365 .5a$$ 4/
o,;a+3D/1, <a3+2a3+/1, .#0/,-3./1, a+1 #23$3D/1 3+ a66o,1a+6/ =325
a00$36a4$/ $a=.. T5/ 1/:/+./ a+1 ./6#,32y o: 25/ ,/;3o+. .5a$$ 4/ 25/
,/.0o+.343$32y o: 25/ Na23o+a$ Go-/,+</+2.
A .2#1y o: E.O. No. %% =o#$1 4/ 3+6o<0$/2/ E325o#2 ,/:/,/+6/ 2o 32.
53.2o,36a$ 4a6B;,o#+1.
I+ A0,3$ 19*6, C#.2 a:2/, 25/ EDSA R/-o$#23o+, ',. Co+,a1o M. Ba$=/;,
S.9.D., 4,oB/ o:: o+ 31/o$o;36a$ ;,o#+1. :,o< 25/ Co<<#+3.2 Pa,2y
o: 25/ P53$3003+/. (CPP) a+1 32. <3$32a,y a,< 25/ N/= P/o0$/?. A,<y.
(NPA).
A:2/, P,/.31/+2 AF#3+o =a. 3+.2a$$/1 3+2o o::36/ 4y P/o0$/ Po=/,,
.5/ a1-o6a2/1 a 0o$36y o: +a23o+a$ ,/6o+63$3a23o+. S5/ 6a$$/1 o+ a$$
,/-o$#23o+a,y :o,6/. 2o a 0/a6/ 13a$o;#/. T5/ CPLA 5//1/1 253. 6a$$
o: 25/ P,/.31/+2. A:2/, 25/ 0,/$3<3+a,y +/;o23a23o+., P,/.31/+2
AF#3+o a+1 .o</ </<4/,. o: 5/, Ca43+/2 :$/= 2o M2. Da2a 3+ 25/
Mo#+2a3+ P,o-3+6/ o+ S/02/<4/, 1(, 19*6 a+1 .3;+/1 =325 ',.
Co+,a1o M. Ba$=/; (A. Co<<a+1/, o: 25/ CPLA a+1 A<a Ma,3o
Ya;>ao (a. P,/.31/+2 o: Co,13$$/,a Bo1o+; A1<3+3.2,a23o+, 25/ 63-3$
;o-/,+</+2 o: 25/ CPLA a 6/a./:3,/ a;,//</+2 25a2 .3;+3:3/1 25/
6/..a23o+ o: 5o.23$323/. (EHEREAS No. !, E.O. %%).
T5/ 0a,23/. a,,3-/1 a2 a+ a;,//</+2 3+ 0,3+630$/A 25/ Co,13$$/,a
0/o0$/ .5a$$ +o2 #+1/,2aB/ 25/3, 1/<a+1. 25,o#;5 a,</1 a+1 -3o$/+2
.2,#;;$/ 4#2 4y 0/a6/:#$ </a+., .#65 a. 0o$3236a$ +/;o23a23o+.. T5/
+/;o23a23o+. .5a$$ 4/ a 6o+23+#3+; 0,o6/.. #+23$ 25/ 1/<a+1. o: 25/
Co,13$$/,a 0/o0$/ .5a$$ 5a-/ 4//+ .#4.2a+23a$$y ;,a+2/1.
O+ Ma,65 %!, 19*!, A<4a..a1o, P/$a/D GA623+; a. C53/: N/;o23a2o,
o: 25/ ;o-/,+</+2H, 3+ 0#,.#a+6/ o: 25/ S/02/<4/, 1(, 19*6
a;,//</+2, :$/= 2o 25/ Ma+.3o+ Ho#./, Ba;#3o C32y, a+1 .3;+/1 =325
',. Ba$=/; (a. C5a3,<a+ o: 25/ Co,13$$/,a 0a+/$) a Co3+2 a;,//</+2,
0a,a;,a05. % a+1 ( o: =5365 .2a2/A
Par. %> Eo,B 2o;/25/, 3+ 1,a:23+; a+ E8/6#23-/ O,1/, 2o 6,/a2/ a
0,/0a,a2o,y 4o1y 25a2 6o#$1 0/,:o,< 0o$36y><aB3+; a+1
a1<3+3.2,a23-/ :#+623o+. a+1 #+1/,2aB/ 6o+.#$2a23o+. a+1 .2#13/.
$/a13+; 2o a 1,a:2 o,;a+36 a62 :o, 25/ Co,13$$/,a..
Par. (> Ha-/ ,/0,/./+2a23-/. :,o< 25/ Co,13$$/,a 0a+/$ Co3+ 25/ .2#1y
;,o#0 o: 25/ R.P. Pa+/$ 3+ 1,a:23+; 25/ E8/6#23-/ O,1/,.
P#,.#a+2 2o 25/ a4o-/ Co3+2 a;,//</+2, E.O. %% =a. 1,a:2/1 4y a
0a+/$ o: 25/ P53$3003+/ ;o-/,+</+2 a+1 o: 25/ ,/0,/./+2a23-/. o: 25/
Co,13$$/,a 0/o0$/.
O+ "#$y 1), 19*!, P,/.31/+2 Co,aDo+ C. AF#3+o .3;+/1 25/ Co3+2 1,a:2
3+2o $a=, B+o=+ +o= a. E.O. %%. GR/Co3+1/, G.R. No. *%%1!, 00. %>(H.
E8/6#23-/ O,1/, No. %%, 3..#/1 4y 25/ P,/.31/+2 3+ 25/ /8/,63./ o:
5/, $/;3.$a23-/ 0o=/,. #+1/, A,2. @9III, ./6. 6 o: 25/ 19*!
Co+.232#23o+, 6,/a2/1 25/ Co,13$$/,a A1<3+3.2,a23-/ R/;3o+ (CAR) ,
=5365 6o-/,. 25/ 0,o-3+6/. o: A4,a, B/+;#/2, I:#;ao, Ia$3+;a>
A0ayao a+1 Mo#+2a3+ P,o-3+6/ a+1 25/ C32y o: Ba;#3o G./6.. 1 a+1
%H. I2 =a. 6,/a2/1 2o a66/$/,a2/ /6o+o<36 a+1 .o63a$ ;,o=25 3+ 25/
,/;3o+ a+1 2o 0,/0a,/ :o, 25/ /.2a4$3.5</+2 o: 25/ a#2o+o<o#.
,/;3o+ 3+ 25/ Co,13$$/,a. G./6. (H. I2. <a3+ :#+623o+ 3. 2o 6oo,13+a2/
25/ 0$a++3+; a+1 3<0$/</+2a23o+ o: 0,o;,a<. a+1 ./,-36/. 3+ 25/
,/;3o+, 0a,236#$a,$y, 2o 6oo,13+a2/ =325 25/ $o6a$ ;o-/,+</+2 #+32. a.
=/$$ a. =325 25/ /8/6#23-/ 1/0a,2</+2. o: 25/ Na23o+a$ Go-/,+</+2
3+ 25/ .#0/,-3.3o+ o: :3/$1 o::36/. a+1 3+ 31/+23:y3+;, 0$a++3+;,
<o+32o,3+;, a+1 a66/023+; 0,oC/62. a+1 a623-323/. 3+ 25/ ,/;3o+ G./6.
)H. I2 .5a$$ a$.o <o+32o, 25/ 3<0$/</+2a23o+ o: a$$ o+;o3+; +a23o+a$
a+1 $o6a$ ;o-/,+</+2 0,oC/62. 3+ 25/ ,/;3o+ G./6. %H. T5/ CAR .5a$$
5a-/ a Co,13$$/,a R/;3o+a$ A../<4$y a. a 0o$36y>:o,<#$a23+; 4o1y
a+1 a Co,13$$/,a E8/6#23-/ Boa,1 a. a+ 3<0$/</+23+; a,< G./6.. !, *
a+1 1H. T5/ CAR a+1 25/ A../<4$y a+1 E8/6#23-/ Boa,1 .5a$$ /83.2
#+23$ .#65 23</ a. 25/ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+a$ ;o-/,+</+2 3.
/.2a4$3.5/1 a+1 o,;a+3D/1 G./6. 1!H.
E80$a3+3+; 25/ ,a23o+a$/ :o, 25/ 3..#a+6/ o: E.O. No. %%, 32. $a.2
JE5/,/a.J 6$a#./ 0,o-31/.A
EHEREAS, 0/+13+; 25/ 6o+-/+3+; o: 25/ :3,.2 Co+;,/.. a+1 25/
/+a62</+2 o: 25/ o,;a+36 a62 :o, a Co,13$$/,a a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+,
25/,/ 3. a+ #,;/+2 +//1, 3+ 25/ 3+2/,/.2 o: +a23o+a$ ./6#,32y a+1
0#4$36 o,1/,, :o, 25/ P,/.31/+2 2o ,/o,;a+3D/ 3<</13a2/$y 25/ /83.23+;
a1<3+3.2,a23-/ .2,#62#,/ 3+ 25/ Co,13$$/,a. 2o .#32 32 2o 25/ /83.23+;
0o$3236a$ ,/a$323/. 25/,/3+ a+1 25/ Go-/,+</+2?. $/;323<a2/ 6o+6/,+.
3+ 25/ a,/a., =325o#2 a22/<023+; 2o 0,/>/<02 25/ 6o+.232#23o+a$ 1#2y
o: 25/ :3,.2 Co+;,/.. 2o #+1/,2aB/ 25/ 6,/a23o+ o: a+ a#2o+o<o#.
,/;3o+ o+ a 0/,<a+/+2 4a.3..
D#,3+; 25/ 0/+1/+6y o: 253. 6a./, R/0#4$36 A62 No. 6!66 /+232$/1 JA+
A62 P,o-313+; :o, a+ O,;a+36 A62 :o, 25/ Co,13$$/,a A#2o+o<o#.
R/;3o+,J =a. /+a62/1 a+1 .3;+/1 3+2o $a=. T5/ A62 ,/6o;+3D/. 25/
CAR a+1 25/ o::36/. a+1 a;/+63/. 6,/a2/1 #+1/, E.O. No. %% a+1 32.
2,a+.32o,y +a2#,/ 3. ,/3+:o,6/1 3+ A,2. @@I o: R.A. No. 6!66, 2o =32A
SEC. (. T5/ Co,13$$/,a E8/6#23-/ Boa,1, 25/ Co,13$$/,a R/;3o+
A../<4$y a. =/$$ a. a$$ o::36/. a+1 a;/+63/. 6,/a2/1 #+1/, E8/6#2/
O,1/, No. %% .5a$$ 6/a./ 2o /83.2 3<</13a2/$y #0o+ 25/ ,a23:36a23o+
o: 253. O,;a+36 A62.
A$$ :#+1., 0,o0/,23/. a+1 a../2. o: 25/ Co,13$$/,a E8/6#23-/ Boa,1
a+1 25/ Co,13$$/,a R/;3o+a$ A../<4$y .5a$$ a#2o<a236a$$y 4/
2,a+.:/,,/1 2o 25/ Co,13$$/,a A#2o+o<o#. Go-/,+</+2.
I
I2 3. =/$$>./22$/1 3+ o#, C#,3.0,#1/+6/ 25a2 ,/.0/62 :o, 25/ 3+5/,/+2
a+1 .2a2/1 0o=/,. a+1 0,/,o;a23-/. o: 25/ $a=><aB3+; 4o1y, a. =/$$
a. :a325:#$ a15/,/+6/ 2o 25/ 0,3+630$/ o: ./0a,a23o+ o: 0o=/,.,
,/F#3,/ 25a2 32. /+a62</+2 4/ a66o,1/1 25/ 0,/.#<023o+ o:
6o+.232#23o+a$32y. T5#., 3+ a+y 65a$$/+;/ 2o 25/ 6o+.232#23o+a$32y o: a
.2a2#2/, 25/ 4#,1/+ o: 6$/a,$y a+1 #+/F#3-o6a$$y 0,o-3+; 32.
#+6o+.232#23o+a$32y a$=ay. ,/.2. #0o+ 25/ 65a$$/+;/,. Co+-/,./$y,
:a3$#,/ 2o .o 0,o-/ =3$$ +/6/..a,3$y 1/:/a2 25/ 65a$$/+;/.
E/ .5a$$ 4/ ;#31/1 4y 25/./ 0,3+630$/. 3+ 6o+.31/,3+; 25/./
6o+.o$31a2/1 0/2323o+..
I+ 25/./ 6a./., 0/2323o+/,. 0,3+630a$$y a,;#/ 25a2 4y 3..#3+; E.O. No.
%% 25/ P,/.31/+2, 3+ 25/ /8/,63./ o: 5/, $/;3.$a23-/ 0o=/,. 0,3o, 2o
25/ 6o+-/+3+; o: 25/ :3,.2 Co+;,/.. #+1/, 25/ 19*! Co+.232#23o+, 5a.
-3,2#a$$y 0,/>/<02/1 Co+;,/.. :,o< 32. <a+1a2/1 2a.B o: /+a623+;
a+ o,;a+36 a62 a+1 6,/a2/1 a+ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+ 3+ 25/ Co,13$$/,a..
E/ 5a-/ 6a,/:#$$y .2#13/1 25/ Co+.232#23o+ a+1 E.O. No. %% a+1 =/
5a-/ 6o</ 2o 25/ 6o+6$#.3o+ 25a2 0/2323o+/,.? a../,23o+. a,/
#+:o#+1/1. E-/+2. .#4./F#/+2 2o 25/ 3..#a+6/ o: E.O. No. %% a$.o
4/a, o#2 253. 6o+6$#.3o+.
1. A ,/a13+; o: E.O. No. %% =3$$ /a.3$y ,/-/a$ 25a2 =5a2 32 a62#a$$y
/+-3.3o+. 3. 25/ 6o+.o$31a23o+ a+1 6oo,13+a23o+ o: 25/ 1/$3-/,y o:
./,-36/. o: $3+/ 1/0a,2</+2. a+1 a;/+63/. o: 25/ Na23o+a$
Go-/,+</+2 3+ 25/ a,/a. 6o-/,/1 4y 25/ a1<3+3.2,a23-/ ,/;3o+ a. a
.2/0 0,/0a,a2o,y 2o 25/ ;,a+2 o: a#2o+o<y 2o 25/ Co,13$$/,a.. I2 1o/.
+o2 6,/a2/ 25/ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+ 6o+2/<0$a2/1 3+ 25/ Co+.232#23o+.
I2 </,/$y 0,o-31/. :o, 2,a+.32o,y </a.#,/. 3+ a+23630a23o+ o: 25/
/+a62</+2 o: a+ o,;a+36 a62 a+1 25/ 6,/a23o+ o: a+ a#2o+o<o#.
,/;3o+. I+ .5o,2, 32 0,/0a,/. 25/ ;,o#+1 :o, a#2o+o<y. T53. 1o/. +o2
+/6/..a,3$y 6o+:$362 =325 25/ 0,o-3.3o+. o: 25/ Co+.232#23o+ o+
a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+., a. =/ .5a$$ .5o= $a2/,.
T5/ Co+.232#23o+ o#2$3+/. a 6o<0$/8 0,o6/1#,/ :o, 25/ 6,/a23o+ o: a+
a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+ 3+ 25/ Co,13$$/,a.. A ,/;3o+a$ 6o+.#$2a23-/
6o<<3..3o+ .5a$$ :3,.2 4/ 6,/a2/1. T5/ P,/.31/+2 .5a$$ 25/+ a00o3+2
25/ </<4/,. o: a ,/;3o+a$ 6o+.#$2a23-/ 6o<<3..3o+ :,o< a $3.2 o:
+o<3+//. :,o< <#$23>./62o,a$ 4o13/.. T5/ 6o<<3..3o+ .5a$$ a..3.2
25/ Co+;,/.. 3+ 0,/0a,3+; 25/ o,;a+36 a62 :o, 25/ a#2o+o<o#.
,/;3o+. T5/ o,;a+36 a62 .5a$$ 4/ 0a../1 4y 25/ :3,.2 Co+;,/.. #+1/,
25/ 19*! Co+.232#23o+ =3253+ /3;52//+ <o+25. :,o< 25/ 23</ o: 32.
o,;a+3Da23o+ a+1 /+a62/1 3+2o $a=. T5/,/a:2/, 25/,/ .5a$$ 4/ 5/$1 a
0$/43.632/ :o, 25/ a00,o-a$ o: 25/ o,;a+36 a62 GA,2. @, ./6. 1*H. O+$y
25/+, a:2/, 32. a00,o-a$ 3+ 25/ 0$/43.632/, .5a$$ 25/ a#2o+o<o#.
,/;3o+ 4/ 6,/a2/1.
U+1o#42/1$y, a$$ o: 25/./ =3$$ 2aB/ 23</. T5/ P,/.31/+2, 3+ 19*! .23$$
/8/,63.3+; $/;3.$a23-/ 0o=/,., a. 25/ :3,.2 Co+;,/.. 5a1 +o2 y/2
6o+-/+/1, .a= 32 :32 2o 0,o-31/ :o, .o</ </a.#,/. 2o a11,/.. 25/
#,;/+2 +//1. o: 25/ Co,13$$/,a. 3+ 25/ </a+23</ 25a2 25/ o,;a+36 a62
5a1 +o2 y/2 4//+ 0a../1 a+1 25/ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+ 6,/a2/1. T5/./
</a.#,/. =/ :3+1 3+ E.O. No. %%. T5/ .2/0. 2aB/+ 4y 25/ P,/.31/+2
a,/ o4-3o#.$y 0/,6/3-/1 4y 0/2323o+/,., 0a,236#$a,$y 0/2323o+/,
Ya,a+o+ =5o -3/=. E.O. No. %% a. 6a032#$a23o+ 2o 25/ Co,13$$/,a
P/o0$/?. L34/,a23o+ A,<y (CPLA) o: Ba$=/;, a. #+.o#+1, 4#2 25/
Co#,2 6a++o2 3+F#3,/ 3+2o 25/ =3.1o< o: 25/ </a.#,/. 2aB/+ 4y 25/
P,/.31/+2, E/ 6a+ o+$y 3+F#3,/ 3+2o =5/25/, o, +o2 25/ </a.#,/.
-3o$a2/ 25/ Co+.232#23o+. B#2 a. =/ 5a-/ .//+ /a,$3/,, 25/y 1o +o2.
%. Mo,/o-/,, 25/ 2,a+.32o,y +a2#,/ o: 25/ CAR 1o/. +o2 +/6/..a,3$y
</a+ 25a2 32 3., a. 0/2323o+/, Co,13$$/,a B,oa1 Coa$323o+ a../,2., J25/
3+2/,3< a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+ 3+ 25/ Co,13$$/,a.J GP/2323o+, G.R. No.
!99)6, 0. %)H.
T5/ Co+.232#23o+ 0,o-31/. :o, a 4a.36 .2,#62#,/ o: ;o-/,+</+2 3+ 25/
a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+ 6o<0o./1 o: a+ /$/623-/ /8/6#23-/ a+1
$/;3.$a2#,/ a+1 .0/63a$ 6o#,2. =325 0/,.o+a$, :a<3$y a+1 0,o0/,2y $a=
C#,3.13623o+ GA,2. @, ./6. 1*H. U.3+; 253. a. a ;#31/, =/ :3+1 25a2 E.O.
No. %% 131 +o2 /.2a4$3.5 a+ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+a$ ;o-/,+</+2. I2
6,/a2/1 a ,/;3o+, 6o-/,3+; a .0/63:3/1 a,/a, :o, a1<3+3.2,a23-/
0#,0o./. =325 25/ <a3+ o4C/623-/ o: 6oo,13+a23+; 25/ 0$a++3+; a+1
3<0$/</+2a23o+ o: 0,o;,a<. a+1 ./,-36/. G./6.. % a+1 )H. To
1/2/,<3+/ 0o$36y, 32 6,/a2/1 a ,/0,/./+2a23-/ a../<4$y, 2o 6o+-/+/
y/a,$y o+$y :o, a :3-/>1ay ,/;#$a, ./..3o+, 2a.B/1 =325, a<o+;
o25/,., 31/+23:y3+; 0,3o,32y 0,oC/62. a+1 1/-/$o0</+2 0,o;,a<. G./6.
9H. To ./,-/ a. a+ 3<0$/</+23+; 4o1y, 32 6,/a2/1 25/ Co,13$$/,a
E8/6#23-/ Boa,1 6o<0o./1 o: 25/ Mayo, o: Ba;#3o C32y, 0,o-3+63a$
;o-/,+o,. a+1 ,/0,/./+2a23-/. o: 25/ Co,13$$/,a Bo1o+;
A1<3+3.2,a23o+, /25+o>$3+;#3.236 ;,o#0. a+1 +o+>;o-/,+</+2a$
o,;a+3Da23o+. a. ,/;#$a, </<4/,. a+1 a$$ ,/;3o+a$ 13,/62o,. o: 25/
$3+/ 1/0a,2</+2. o: 25/ Na23o+a$ Go-/,+</+2 a. ex-officio </<4/,.
a+1 5/a1/1 4y a+ E8/6#23-/ D3,/62o, G./6.. 1 a+1 11H. T5/ 4o13/.
6,/a2/1 4y E.O. No. %% 1o +o2 .#00$a+2 25/ /83.23+; $o6a$
;o-/,+</+2a$ .2,#62#,/, +o, a,/ 25/y a#2o+o<o#. ;o-/,+</+2
a;/+63/.. T5/y </,/$y 6o+.232#2/ 25/ </65a+3.< :o, a+ J#<4,/$$aJ
25a2 4,3+;. 2o;/25/, 25/ /83.23+; $o6a$ ;o-/,+</+2., 25/ a;/+63/. o:
25/ Na23o+a$ Go-/,+</+2, 25/ /25+o>$3+;#3.236 ;,o#0. o, 2,34/., a+1
+o+>;o-/,+</+2a$ o,;a+3Da23o+. 3+ a 6o+6/,2/1 /::o,2 2o .0#,
1/-/$o0</+2 3+ 25/ Co,13$$/,a..
T5/ 6,/a23o+ o: 25/ CAR :o, 0#,0o./. o: a1<3+3.2,a23-/ 6oo,13+a23o+
3. #+1/,.6o,/1 4y 25/ <a+1a2/ o: E.O. No. %% :o, 25/ P,/.31/+2 a+1
a00,o0,3a2/ +a23o+a$ 1/0a,2</+2. a+1 a;/+63/. 2o <aB/ a-a3$a4$/
.o#,6/. o: :#+1. :o, 0,3o,32y 1/-/$o0</+2 0,o;,a<. a+1 0,oC/62.
,/6o<</+1/1 4y 25/ CAR G./6. %1H a+1 25/ 0o=/, ;3-/+ 2o 25/
P,/.31/+2 2o 6a$$ #0o+ 25/ a00,o0,3a2/ /8/6#23-/ 1/0a,2</+2. a+1
a;/+63/. o: 25/ Na23o+a$ Go-/,+</+2 2o a..3.2 25/ CAR G./6. %4H.
(. S#4./F#/+2 2o 25/ 3..#a+6/ o: E.O. No. %%, 25/ Co+;,/.., a:2/, 32
=a. 6o+-/+/1, /+a62/1 R/0#4$36 A62 No. 66)* =5365 6,/a2/1 25/
Co,13$$/,a R/;3o+a$ Co+.#$2a23-/ Co<<3..3o+. T5/ P,/.31/+2 25/+
a00o3+2/1 32. </<4/,.. T5/ 6o<<3..3o+ 0,/0a,/1 a 1,a:2 o,;a+36
a62 =5365 4/6a</ 25/ 4a.3. :o, 25/ 1/$34/,a23o+. o: 25/ S/+a2/ a+1
25/ Ho#./ o: R/0,/./+2a23-/.. T5/ ,/.#$2 =a. R/0#4$36 A62 No. 6!66,
25/ o,;a+36 a62 :o, 25/ Co,13$$/,a a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+, =5365 =a.
.3;+/1 3+2o $a= o+ O62o4/, %(, 19*9. A 0$/43.632/ :o, 25/ a00,o-a$ o:
25/ o,;a+36 a62, 2o 4/ 6o+1#62/1 .5o,2$y, .5a$$ 6o<0$/2/ 25/ 0,o6/..
o#2$3+/1 3+ 25/ Co+.232#23o+.
I+ 25/ </a+23</, E.O. No. %% 5a1 4//+ 3+ :o,6/ a+1 /::/62 :o, <o,/
25a+ 2=o y/a,. a+1 =/ :3+1 25a2, 1/.032/ E.O. No. %%, 25/
a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+ 3+ 25/ Co,13$$/,a. 3. .23$$ 2o 4/ 6,/a2/1, .5o=3+;
25/ $a6B o: 4a.3. o: 0/2323o+/,.? a../,23o+. E-/+2. 5a-/ .5o=+ 25a2
0/2323o+/,.? :/a, 25a2 E.O. No. %% =a. a J.5o,26#2J :o, 25/ 6,/a23o+ o:
25/ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+ 3+ 25/ Co,13$$/,a. =a. 2o2a$$y #+:o#+1/1.
C$/a,$y, 0/2323o+/,.? 0,3+630a$ 65a$$/+;/ 5a. :a3$/1.
II
A 6o$$a2/,a$ 3..#/ ,a3./1 4y 0/2323o+/,. 3. 25/ +a2#,/ o: 25/ CARA
=5/25/, o, +o2 32 3. a 2/,,32o,3a$ a+1 0o$3236a$ .#413-3.3o+. T5/
Co+.232#23o+ 0,o-31/. 3+ A,236$/ @A
S/623o+ 1. T5/ 2/,,32o,3a$ a+1 0o$3236a$ .#413-3.3o+. o: 25/ R/0#4$36 o:
25/ P53$3003+/. a,/ 25/ 0,o-3+6/., 6323/., <#+3630a$323/., a+1
4a,a+;ay.. T5/,/ .5a$$ 4/ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+. 3+ M#.$3< M3+1a+ao
a+1 25/ Co,13$$/,a. a. 5/,/3+a:2/, 0,o-31/1.
888 888 888
S/6. 1. No 0,o-3+6/, 632y, <#+3630a$32y, o, 4a,a+;ay <ay 4/ 6,/a2/1,
13-31/1, </,;/1, a4o$3.5/1, o, 32. 4o#+1a,y .#4.2a+23a$$y a$2/,/1,
/86/02 3+ a66o,1a+6/ =325 25/ 6,32/,3a /.2a4$3.5/1 3+ 25/ $o6a$
;o-/,+</+2 6o1/ a+1 .#4C/62 2o a00,o-a$ 4y a <aCo,32y o: 25/ -o2/.
6a.2 3+ a 0$/43.632/ 3+ 25/ 0o$3236a$ #+32. 13,/62$y a::/62/1.
E/ 5a-/ .//+ /a,$3/, 25a2 25/ CAR 3. +o2 25/ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+ 3+
25/ Co,13$$/,a. 6o+2/<0$a2/1 4y 25/ Co+.232#23o+, T5#., =/ +o=
a11,/.. 0/2323o+/,.? a../,23o+ 25a2 E. . No. %% 6o+2,a-/+/. 25/
Co+.232#23o+ 4y 6,/a23+; a +/= 2/,,32o,3a$ a+1 0o$3236a$ .#413-3.3o+.
A:2/, 6a,/:#$$y 6o+.31/,3+; 25/ 0,o-3.3o+. o: E.O. No. %%, =/ :3+1
25a2 32 131 +o2 6,/a2/ a +/= 2/,,32o,3a$ a+1 0o$3236a$ .#413-3.3o+ o,
</,;/ /83.23+; o+/. 3+2o a $a,;/, .#413-3.3o+.
1. '3,.2$y, 25/ CAR 3. +o2 a 0#4$36 6o,0o,a23o+ o, a 2/,,32o,3a$ a+1
0o$3236a$ .#413-3.3o+. I2 1o/. +o2 5a-/ a ./0a,a2/ C#,3136a$
0/,.o+a$32y, #+$3B/ 0,o-3+6/., 6323/. a+1 <#+3630a$323/.. N/325/, 3. 32
-/.2/1 =325 25/ 0o=/,. 25a2 a,/ +o,<a$$y ;,a+2/1 2o 0#4$36
6o,0o,a23o+., e.g. 25/ 0o=/, 2o .#/ a+1 4/ .#/1, 25/ 0o=/, 2o o=+
a+1 13.0o./ o: 0,o0/,2y, 25/ 0o=/, 2o 6,/a2/ 32. o=+ .o#,6/. o:
,/-/+#/, /26. A. .2a2/1 /a,$3/,, 25/ CAR =a. 6,/a2/1 0,3<a,3$y 2o
6oo,13+a2/ 25/ 0$a++3+; a+1 3<0$/</+2a23o+ o: 0,o;,a<. a+1
./,-36/. 3+ 25/ 6o-/,/1 a,/a..
T5/ 6,/a23o+ o: a1<3+3.2,a23-/ ,/;3o+. :o, 25/ 0#,0o./ o: /80/1323+;
25/ 1/$3-/,y o: ./,-36/. 3. +o253+; +/=. T5/ I+2/;,a2/1
R/o,;a+3Da23o+ P$a+ o: 19!%, =5365 =a. <a1/ a. 0a,2 o: 25/ $a= o:
25/ $a+1 4y -3,2#/ o: P,/.31/+23a$ D/6,// No. 1, /.2a4$3.5/1 /$/-/+
(11) ,/;3o+., $a2/, 3+6,/a./1 2o 2=/$-/ (1%), =325 1/:3+32/ ,/;3o+a$
6/+2/,. a+1 ,/F#3,/1 1/0a,2</+2. a+1 a;/+63/. o: 25/ E8/6#23-/
B,a+65 o: 25/ Na23o+a$ Go-/,+</+2 2o ./2 #0 :3/$1 o::36/. 25/,/3+.
T5/ :#+623o+. o: 25/ ,/;3o+a$ o::36/. 2o 4/ /.2a4$3.5/1 0#,.#a+2 2o
25/ R/o,;a+3Da23o+ P$a+ a,/A (1) 2o 3<0$/</+2 $a=., 0o$363/., 0$a+.,
0,o;,a<., ,#$/. a+1 ,/;#$a23o+. o: 25/ 1/0a,2</+2 o, a;/+6y 3+ 25/
,/;3o+a$ a,/a.7 (%) 2o 0,o-31/ /6o+o<36a$, /::363/+2 a+1 /::/623-/
./,-36/ 2o 25/ 0/o0$/ 3+ 25/ a,/a7 (() 2o 6oo,13+a2/ =325 ,/;3o+a$
o::36/. o: o25/, 1/0a,2</+2., 4#,/a#. a+1 a;/+63/. 3+ 25/ a,/a7 (4)
2o 6oo,13+a2/ =325 $o6a$ ;o-/,+</+2 #+32. 3+ 25/ a,/a7 a+1 ()) 2o
0/,:o,< .#65 o25/, :#+623o+. a. <ay 4/ 0,o-31/1 4y $a=. GS// Pa,2
II, 65a0. III, a,2. 1, o: 25/ R/o,;a+3Da23o+ P$a+H.
E/ 6a+ ,/a13$y .// 25a2 25/ CAR 3. 3+ 25/ .a</ ;/+,/ a. 25/
a1<3+3.2,a23-/ ,/;3o+. 6,/a2/1 #+1/, 25/ R/o,;a+3Da23o+ P$a+, a$4/32
#+1/, E.O. No. %% 25/ o0/,a23o+ o: 25/ CAR ,/F#3,/. 25/
0a,23630a23o+ +o2 o+$y o: 25/ $3+/ 1/0a,2</+2. a+1 a;/+63/. o: 25/
Na23o+a$ Go-/,+</+2 4#2 a$.o 25/ $o6a$ ;o-/,+</+2., /25+o>
$3+;#3.236 ;,o#0. a+1 +o+>;o-/,+</+2a$ o,;a+3Da23o+. 3+ 4,3+;3+;
a4o#2 25/ 1/.3,/1 o4C/623-/. a+1 25/ a00,o0,3a23o+ o: :#+1. .o$/$y
:o, 25a2 0#,0o./.
%. T5/+, 6o+.31/,3+; 25/ 6o+2,o$ a+1 .#0/,-3.3o+ /8/,63./1 4y 25/
P,/.31/+2 o-/, 25/ CAR a+1 25/ o::36/. 6,/a2/1 #+1/, E.O. No. %%,
a+1 6o+.31/,3+; :#,25/, 25/ 3+13.0/+.a4$/ 0a,23630a23o+ o: 25/ $3+/
1/0a,2</+2. o: 25/ Na23o+a$ Go-/,+</+2, 25/ CAR <ay 4/
6o+.31/,/1 <o,/ 25a+ a+y253+; /$./ a. a ,/;3o+a$ 6oo,13+a23+;
a;/+6y o: 25/ Na23o+a$ Go-/,+</+2, .3<3$a, 2o 25/ ,/;3o+a$
1/-/$o0</+2 6o#+63$. =5365 25/ P,/.31/+2 <ay 6,/a2/ #+1/, 25/
Co+.232#23o+ GA,2. @, ./6. 14H. T5/./ 6o#+63$. a,/ J6o<0o./1 o: $o6a$
;o-/,+</+2 o::363a$., ,/;3o+a$ 5/a1. o: 1/0a,2</+2. a+1 o25/,
;o-/,+</+2 o::36/., a+1 ,/0,/./+2a23-/. :,o< +o+>;o-/,+</+2a$
o,;a+3Da23o+. =3253+ 25/ ,/;3o+ :o, 0#,0o./. o: a1<3+3.2,a23-/
1/6/+2,a$3Da23o+ 2o .2,/+;25/+ 25/ a#2o+o<y o: 25/ #+32. 25/,/3+ a+1
2o a66/$/,a2/ 25/ /6o+o<36 a+1 .o63a$ ;,o=25 a+1 1/-/$o0</+2 o:
25/ #+32. 3+ 25/ ,/;3o+.J GI431.H I+ 253. =3./, 25/ CAR <ay 4/
6o+.31/,/1 a. a <o,/ .o053.236a2/1 -/,.3o+ o: 25/ ,/;3o+a$
1/-/$o0</+2 6o#+63$.
III
'3+a$$y, 0/2323o+/,. 3+631/+2a$$y a,;#/ 25a2 25/ 6,/a23o+ o: 25/ CAR
6o+2,a-/+/1 25/ 6o+.232#23o+a$ ;#a,a+2// o: 25/ $o6a$ a#2o+o<y :o,
25/ 0,o-3+6/. (A4,a, B/+;#/2, I:#;ao, Ia$3+;a>A0ayao a+1 Mo#+2a3+
P,o-3+6/) a+1 632y (Ba;#3o C32y) =5365 6o<0o./ 25/ CAR.
E/ :3+1 :3,.2 a +//1 2o 6$/a, #0 0/2323o+/,.? a00a,/+2 <3.6o+6/023o+
o: 25/ 6o+6/02 o: $o6a$ a#2o+o<y.
I2 <#.2 4/ 6$a,3:3/1 25a2 25/ 6o+.232#23o+a$ ;#a,a+2// o: $o6a$
a#2o+o<y 3+ 25/ Co+.232#23o+ GA,2. @, ./6. %H ,/:/,. 2o 25/
administrative a#2o+o<y o: $o6a$ ;o-/,+</+2 #+32. o,, 6a.2 3+ <o,/
2/65+36a$ $a+;#a;/, 25/ 1/6/+2,a$3Da23o+ o: ;o-/,+</+2 a#25o,32y
G93$$/;a. -. S#431o, G.R. No. L>(14, "a+#a,y *, 19!1, (! SCRA 1H.
Lo6a$ a#2o+o<y 3. +o2 #+3F#/ 2o 25/ 19*! Co+.232#23o+, 32 4/3+;
;#a,a+2//1 a$.o #+1/, 25/ 19!( Co+.232#23o+ GA,2. II, ./6. 1H. A+1
=53$/ 25/,/ =a. +o /80,/.. ;#a,a+2// #+1/, 25/ 19() Co+.232#23o+,
25/ Co+;,/.. /+a62/1 25/ Lo6a$ A#2o+o<y A62 (R.A. No. %%64) a+1
25/ D/6/+2,a$3Da23o+ A62 (R.A. No. )1*)), =5365 #.5/,/1 25/
3,,/-/,.34$/ <a,65 2o=a,1. :#,25/, /+$a,;/</+2 o: $o6a$ a#2o+o<y 3+
25/ 6o#+2,y G93$$/;a. -. S#431o, supra.H
O+ 25/ o25/, 5a+1, 25/ 6,/a23o+ o: a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+. 3+ M#.$3<
M3+1a+ao a+1 25/ Co,13$$/,a., =5365 3. 0/6#$3a, 2o 25/ 19*!
Co+.232#23o+ 6o+2/<0$a2/. 25/ ;,a+2 o: political a#2o+o<y a+1 +o2
C#.2 a1<3+3.2,a23-/ a#2o+o<y 25/./ ,/;3o+.. T5#., 25/ 0,o-3.3o+ 3+
25/ Co+.232#23o+ :o, a+ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+a$ ;o-/,+</+2 =325 a
4a.36 .2,#62#,/ 6o+.3.23+; o: a+ /8/6#23-/ 1/0a,2</+2 a+1 a
$/;3.$a23-/ a../<4$y a+1 .0/63a$ 6o#,2. =325 0/,.o+a$, :a<3$y a+1
0,o0/,2y $a= C#,3.13623o+ 3+ /a65 o: 25/ a#2o+o<o#. ,/;3o+. GA,2. @,
./6. 1*H.
A. =/ 5a-/ .a31 /a,$3/,, 25/ CAR 3. a </,/ 2,a+.32o,y 6oo,13+a23+;
a;/+6y 25a2 =o#$1 0,/0a,/ 25/ .2a;/ :o, 0o$3236a$ a#2o+o<y :o, 25/
Co,13$$/,a.. I2 :3$$. 3+ 25/ ,/.#$23+; ;a0 3+ 25/ 0,o6/.. o: 2,a+.:o,<3+;
a ;,o#0 o: a1Ca6/+2 2/,,32o,3a$ a+1 0o$3236a$ .#413-3.3o+. a$,/a1y
/+Coy3+; $o6a$ o, a1<3+3.2,a23-/ a#2o+o<y 3+2o a+ a#2o+o<o#.
,/;3o+ -/.2/1 =325 0o$3236a$ a#2o+o<y.
A+/+2 0/2323o+/,.? o4C/623o+, =/ +o2/ 25/ o4-3o#. :a3$#,/ 2o .5o=
5o= 25/ 6,/a23o+ o: 25/ CAR 5a. a62#a$$y 13<3+3.5/1 25/ $o6a$
a#2o+o<y o: 25/ 6o-/,/1 0,o-3+6/. a+1 632y. I2 6a++o2 4/ o-/,>
/<05a.3D/1 25a2 0#,/ .0/6#$a23o+ a+1 a ,/.o,2 2o 0,o4a43$323/. a,/
3+.#::363/+2 2o 6a#./ 25/ 3+-a$31a23o+ o: E.O. No. %%.
EHERE'ORE, 25/ 0/2323o+. a,/ DISMISSED :o, $a6B o: </,32.
SO ORDERED.