3. GANZON VS.

CA

FACTS: Rodolfo Ganzon was the then mayor of Iloilo City. 10 complaints were filed against
him on grounds of misconduct and misfeasance of office. The Secretary of Local Government
issued several suspension orders against Ganzon based on the merits of the complaints filed
against him hence Ganzon was facing about 600 days of suspension. Ganzon appealed the
issue to the CA and the CA affirmed the suspension order by the Secretary. Ganzon asserted
that the 1987 Constitution does not authorize the President nor any of his alter ego to suspend
and remove local officials; this is because the 1987 Constitution supports local autonomy and
strengthens the same. What was given by the present Constitution was mere supervisory
power.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Secretary of Local Government, as the President’s alter ego, can
suspend and or remove local officials.

HELD: Yes. Ganzon is under the impression that the Constitution has left the President mere
supervisory powers, which supposedly excludes the power of investigation, and denied her
control, which allegedly embraces disciplinary authority. It is a mistaken impression because
legally, “supervision” is not incompatible with disciplinary authority.
The SC had occasion to discuss the scope and extent of the power of supervision by the
President over local government officials in contrast to the power of control given to him over
executive officials of our government wherein it was emphasized that the two terms, control
and supervision, are two different things which differ one from the other in meaning and
extent. “In administration law supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an
officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If 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.
Control, 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 judgment of the former for that of the latter.” But from this pronouncement it cannot be
reasonably inferred that the power of supervision of the President over local government
officials does not include the power of investigation when in his opinion the good of the public
service so requires.
The Secretary of Local Government, as the alter ego of the president, in suspending Ganzon
is exercising a valid power. He however overstepped by imposing a 600 day suspension.

7. SOLICITOR GENERAL VS. METROPOLITAN MANILA AUTHORITY

FACTS:
On July 13, 1990, the Court held in the case of Metropolitan Traffic Command, West Traffic District vs.
Hon. Arsenio M. Gonong, that the confiscation of the license plates of motor vehicles for traffic
violations was not among the sanctions that could be imposed by the Metro Manila Commission under
PD 1605 and was permitted only under the conditions laid down by LOI 43 in the case of stalled vehicles
obstructing the public streets. Even the confiscation of driver’s licenses for traffic violations was not
directly prescribed or allowed by the decree. After no motion for reconsideration of the decision was
filed, the judgment became final and executor.

Withstanding the Gonong decision violations of the said decision transpired, wherein there were
several persons who sent complaint letters to the Court regarding the confiscation of driver’s licenses
and removal of license plate numbers.

On May 24, 1990, the MMDA issued Ordinance No. 11 Series of 1991, authorizing itself to
detach license plate/tow and impound standard/unattended/abandoned motor vehicles illegally
parked or obstructing the flow of traffic in Metro Manila.

On July 2, 1991, the Court issued a resolution regarding the matter which stated that the
Ordinance No. 11, Section 2 appears to be in conflict with the decision of the Court and that the Court
has received several complaints against the enforcement of such ordinance.

ISSUE:
W/N Ordinance No. 11 Series of 1991 and Ordinance No. 7 Series of 1998 are valid in the exercise of
such delegated power to local government acting only as agents of the national legislature.

HELD:
NO. The Court rendered judgment:
1. Declaring Ordinance No. 11 Series of 1991 of the MMDA and Ordinance No. 7 Series of 1998 of
the Municipality of Mandaluyong NULL and VOID; and,
2. Enjoining all law-enforcement authorities in Metropolitan Manila from removing the license
plates of motor vehicles (except when authorized under LOI43 and confiscating driver’s licenses
for traffic violations within the said area.

To test the validity of said acts the principles governing municipal corporations was applied,
according to Elliot for a municipal ordinance to be valid the following requisites should be complied:
1. Must not contravene the constitution or any statute;
2. Must not be unfair or oppressive;
3. Must not be partial or discriminating;
4. Must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
5. Must not be unreasonable;
6. Must be general and consistent with public policy.

In the Gonong decision, it was shown that the measures under consideration did not pass the first
criterion because it did not conform to existing law. PD1605 does not allow either the removal of
license plates or the confiscation of driver’s licenses for traffic violations committed in Metropolitan
Manila. There is nothing in the decree authorizing the MMDA to impose such sanctions. Thus, local
political subdivisions are able to legislate only by virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power
from the national legislature (except only that the power to create their own sources of revenue
and to levy taxes is conferred by the Constitution itself). They are mere agents vested with what is
called the power of subordinate legislation. As delegates of the Congress, the local government
unit cannot contravene but must obey at all times the will of the principal. In the case at bar the
enactments in question which are merely local in origin, cannot prevail against the decree, which
has the force and effect of a statute.