PUBLIC CORPORATIONS – SOTELO REVIEWER
PUBCORP NOTES
Pages 148-189 (Angeles, 2016)
Ambassador Tolentino
SECTION 48. Local Legislative Power
Sangguniang panlalawigan – province
Sangguniang panlungsod – city
Sangguniang bayan – municipality
Sangguniang barangay –barangay
VALIDITY OF AN ORDINANCE
Must be within the corporate powers of the municipal;
corporation, passed according to the procedure prescribed
by law, and in consonance with principles of substantive
nature
PRINCIPLES REQUIRE MUN ORDINANCE
(Tatel v Virac)
1. Must not contravene the Constitution or any
statute
2. Must not be unfair or oppressive
3. Must not be partial or discriminatory
4. Must not prohibit but may regulate trade
5. Must be general and consistent with public
policy
6. Must not be unreasonable
Tatel v Virac (207 SCRA 157)
Petitioner Celestino Tatel owns a warehouse in barrio
Sta. Elena, Municipality of Virac. Complaints were
received by the municipality concerning the disturbance
caused by the operation of the abaca bailing machine
inside petitioner’s warehouse. A committee was then
appointed by the municipal council, and it noted from
its investigation on the matter that an accidental fire
within the warehouse of the petitioner created a danger
to the lives and properties of the people in the
neighborhood. Resolution No. 29 was then passed by
the Municipal council declaring said warehouse as a
public nuisance within a purview of Article 694 of the
New Civil Code. According to respondent municipal
officials, petitioner’s warehouse was constructed in
violation of Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952,
prohibiting the construction of warehouses near a block
of houses either in the poblacion or barrios without
maintaining the necessary distance of 200 meters from
said block of houses to avoid loss of lives and properties
by accidental fire. On the other hand, petitioner
contends that Ordinance No. 13 is unconstitutional.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not petitioner’s warehouse is a nuisance
within the meaning Article 694 of the Civil Code
(2) Whether or not Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952 of
the Municipality of Virac is unconstitutional and void.
Held: The storage of abaca and copra in petitioner’s
warehouse is a nuisance under the provisions of Article
694 of the Civil Code.
At the same time, Ordinance No. 13 was passed by the
Municipal Council of Virac in the exercise of its police
power.
It is valid because it meets the criteria for a valid
municipal ordinance:
1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute,
2) must not be unfair or oppressive,
3) must not be partial or discriminatory,
4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade,
5) must be general and consistent with public policy,
and
6) must not be unreasonable.
The purpose of the said ordinance is to avoid the loss of
property and life in case of fire which is one of the
primordial obligation of government. The lower court
did not err in its decision.
PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY
Presumption of the reasonableness and constitutionality of
ordinances
EFFECT OF PARTIAL INVALIDITY
If the invalid part is severable from the rest, the part which
is valid may remain.
CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW
Ordinance must be in harmony with the state law. In case
of conflict a statute prevails unless under the statutes the
ordinance plainly and specifically is given predominance in
a particular instance or as to a particular subject matter.
TEST: Whether the legislature intended to deny
municipalities the right to legislate on the subject.
Villacorta v Bernardo (143 SCRA 480)
FACTS: Ordinance 22 entitled AN ORDINANCE
REGULATING SUBDIVISION PLANS OVER
PARCELS OF LAND IN THE CITY
OFDAGUPAN was enacted by the municipal board of
Dagupan City. The said ordinance was imposing
additional requirements to that of the national law Act
496.
Ordinance 22 was annulled by the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan and was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals whose decision reads as follows:
Section 1 of said ordinance clearly conflicts with
Section 44 of Act 496, because the latter law does not
require subdivision plans to be submitted to the City
Engineer before the same is submitted for approval to
and verification by the General Land Registration
Maria Carmela Sotelo (2017) 1
 PUBLIC CORPORATIONS – SOTELO REVIEWER
Office or by the Director of Lands as provided for in
Section 58 of said Act.
Section 2 of the same ordinance also contravenes the
provisions of Section 44 of Act 496, the latter being
silent on a service fee of PO.03 per square meter of
every lot subject of such subdivision application;
Section 3 of the ordinance in question also conflicts
with Section 44 of Act 496, because the latter law does
not mention of a certification to be made by the City
Engineer before the Register of Deeds allows
registration of the subdivision plan;
and the last section of said ordinance imposes a penalty
for its violation, which Section 44 of Act 496 does not
impose.
In other words, Ordinance 22 of the City of Dagupan
imposes upon a subdivision nowner additional
conditions.
ISSUE: Were the decisions of the CFI and CA to annul
the said ordinance was correct?
HELD: Yes. To sustain the ordinance would be to open
the floodgates to other ordinances amending and so
violating national laws in the guise of implementing
them. Thus, ordinances could be passed imposing
additional requirements for the issuance of marriage
licenses, to prevent bigamy; the registration of vehicles,
to minimize carnaping; the execution of contracts, to
forestall fraud; the validation of passports, to deter
imposture; the exercise of freedom of speech, to reduce
disorder; and so on. This advice is especially addressed
to the local governments which exercise the police
power only by virtue of a valid delegation from the
national legislature under the general welfare clause.
In the instant case, Ordinance No. 22 suffers from the
additional defect of violating this authority for
legislation in contravention of the national law by
adding to its requirements.
REASONABLENESS
Question of law depends on facts. Ordinances enacted
under the police power must not be oppressive.
Depends on whether the ordinance tends to accomplish the
objects for which the municipality exists.
FACTORS
1. The ordinance is within the powers of the
municipal corporation
2. The ordinance is positive, definite, and certain in
its terms
3. The ordinance is general, uniform, and impartial
in its operation
4. Ordinance is not in restraint of trade, oppressive
or in contravention od common rights
TEST OF VALIDITY AND CONSTITUTIONALITY
What the law or ordinance authorizes to be done under its
provision measured by its effect on the whole class to
which it applies.
DEFINITE AND CERTAIN
Clear. Precise. In accordance to the Due Process clause of
the Constitution.
TEST:
1. Whether the ordinance gives fair warning to
those persons potentially subject to it
2. Whether the ordinance adequately guards against
arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement
Ordinance expressly and specifically authorized by
charter or statutory authority – sustained unless the
attack is made against the constitutionality of the enabling
statute.
Ordinance under general, implied or incidental power –
open to the inquiry by the courts for question of
reasonableness.
Ordinance adopted by exercise of the initiative or
sustained by exercise of referendum – must also meet the
test of reasonableness
The unreasonableness of an ordinance must be pled and
proven, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting it.
NOT PARTIAL OR DISCRIMINATORY
Classification must be germane to the purpose of the
law. The law must apply equally to each member of the
class, and all classification must be based on substantial
distinctions which make one class different from another.
NOT IN PROHIBITION OF TRADE
There must be some logical connection between the object
sought to be accomplished by an ordinance regulation a
business or trade and the means prescribed to accomplish
the end.
GENERAL AND CONSISTENT TO PUBLIC POLICY
There must be substantial conformity. If the state has
expressed through legislation a public policy with reference
to a subject, a municipality cannot ordain an effect contrary
to or in qualification of the public policy.
EXCEPTION: Unless there is a specific, positive,
lawful grant of power by the state to so ordain
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE
The courts have the power to determine the validity of an
ordinance; to see that the limitations existing under or
powers granted by the Constitution and the laws are not
transcended.
Maria Carmela Sotelo (2017) 2
 PUBLIC CORPORATIONS – SOTELO REVIEWER
Restricted to ordinances granted under general, implied or
incidental powers.
INJUNCTION
Remedy to prevent the execution or enforcement of the
irregular action.
CERTIORARY NOT PROPER REMEDY
Enactment of an ordinance and issuance of an executive
order are done in the exercise of legislative and executive
functions, not judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
REQUISITED FOR CERTIORARI TO ISSUE
1. Directed against a tribunal, board, or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions
2. TBO acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction
3. No appeal or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law
QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION
Applies to actions of public administrative
officers required to investigate facts, hold
hearings, and draw conclusions as a basis of their
official action and to exercise discretion of a
judicial nature.
Liga ng mga Barangay v Atienza (420 SCRA 562)
FACTS:
Petitioner Liga ng mga Barangay National is the
national organization of all the barangays in the
Philippines, which pursuant to Section 492 of Republic
Act No. 7160, otherwise known as The Local
Government Code of 1991, constitutes the duly elected
presidents of highly-urbanized cities, provincial
chapters, the metropolitan Manila Chapter, and
metropolitan political subdivision chapters.
Section 493 of the LGC provides that the ligas directly
elect a president, a vice-president, and five (5) members
of the board of directors. All other matters not provided
for in the law affecting the internal organization shall be
governed by their respective constitution and by-laws.
The Liga then adopted and ratified its own Constitution
and by-laws to govern its internal organization.
One the provisions was:
"There shall be nationwide synchronized elections for
the provincial, metropolitan, and HUC/ICC chapters to
be held on the third Monday of the month immediately
after the month when the synchronized elections".
The Liga thereafter came out with its Calendar of
Activities and Guidelines in the Implementation of the
Liga Election Code of 2002, setting on 21 October 2002
the synchronized elections for highly urbanized city
chapters, such as the Liga Chapter of Manila, together
with independent component city, provincial, and
metropolitan chapters.
Respondent then enacted Ordinance No. 8039, Series of
2002, providing, among other things, for the election of
representatives of the District Chapters in the City
Chapter of Manila and setting the elections for both
chapters thirty days after the barangay elections.
The ordinance was transmitted to then Mayor Lito
Atienza, which he signed even if the Liga requested him
to veto the ordinance as it encroached upon, or even
assumed, the functions of the Liga through legislation, a
function which was clearly beyond the ambit of the
powers of the City Council.
ISSUE: Whether respondent committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction
when he signed and passed Ordinance No. 8039.
RULING:
No.
First, the respondents neither acted in any judicial or
quasi-judicial capacity nor arrogated unto themselves
any judicial or quasi-judicial prerogatives. A petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure is a special civil action that may be invoked
only against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
Elsewise stated, for a writ of certiorari to issue, the
following requisites must concur:
(1) it must be directed against a tribunal, board, or
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
(2) the tribunal, board, or officer must have acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting lack or excess of jurisdiction;
and
(3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
A respondent is said to be exercising judicial function
where he has the power to determine what the law is
and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then
undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate
upon the rights of the parties.
Quasi-judicial function, on the other hand, is a term
which applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of public
administrative officers or bodies required to investigate
facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings,
and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their
official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial
nature.
Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial
or quasi-judicial acts, it is necessary that there be a law
that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or
Maria Carmela Sotelo (2017) 3
 PUBLIC CORPORATIONS – SOTELO REVIEWER
property under which adverse claims to such rights are
made, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought
before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power
and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the
respective rights of the contending parties.
The Court agreed that respondent's act was in the
exercise of legislative and executive functions,
respectively, and not of judicial or quasi-judicial
functions. On this score alone, certiorari will not lie.
Second, the Court concludes that petitioners seek the
declaration by this Court of the unconstitutionality or
illegality of the questioned ordinance and executive
order. It, thus, partakes of the nature of a petition for
declaratory relief over which this Court has only
appellate, not original, jurisdiction. The Constitution
provides:
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question. (Italics
supplied).
As such, this petition must necessary fail, as this Court
does not have original jurisdiction over a petition for
declaratory relief even if only questions of law are
involved.
Third, the Court stated that petitioner clearly
disregarded the hierarchy of courts. There is no reason
or circumstance given by petition on why direct
recourse to the Court be allowed.
The Court has decided that disregard to the hierarchy of
courts can be allowed by two reasons:
(1) it would be an imposition upon the precious time of
this Court; and
(2) it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay,
intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases,
which in some instances had to be remanded or referred
to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules
of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues
because this Court is not a trier of facts. (Santiago v.
Vasquez)
POWER TO REPEAL ORDINANCE
A municipal corporation can repeal an ordinance only by
an act of equal dignity, that is, by an ordinance. The
ordinance must expressly declare the intention to repeal.
An ordinance may also be repealed or superseded by
express provision of a statute or charter change or by
implication resulting from conflict in the provisions of the
statute or charter change with the provisions of the
ordinance.
IMPLIED REPEALS
Not favored by courts. Can only be found when there is an
irreconcilable conflict between two laws.
SANGGUNIAN DOES NOT POSSESS CONTEMPT OR
SUBPOENA POWER
Cannot be deemed implied in the delegation of certain
legislative functions to local legislative bodies
POWER TO LICENSE
Governmental restriction upon private rights and is valid
only if based upon an exercise by the municipality of its
police or taxing powers.
POWER TO LICENSE AS POWER TO PROHIBIT
Power of regulation may imply power to prohibit
businesses or activities that are inherently or potentially of
menace to the public welfare, health, safety, morals or
order.
Does not extend to prohibition of lawful businesses or
activities.
Includes power to prohibit and to impose penalty for
violation of the prohibition.
NATURE OF LICENSE
A license or permit cannot be revoked arbitrarily. There is
no contract or vested right or property in a license or permit
as against the power of the state or a municipality to revoke
it for a cause or in exercise of police power.
Power to license and fix rates vested in the municipal
legislative body CANNOT BE DELEGATED.
AMOUNT OF LICENSE FEE
Depends upon the legislative policy of the particular state,
the terms of the grant of power, and the construction placed
thereon by the courts.
For revenue purposes – left to the discretion of
municipal authorities
Given as a police power for regulation -must be
limited to approximately the cost of regulation.
Authority to revoke or suspend licenses or permits for
legal cause can be delegated to a specified official or board.
Maria Carmela Sotelo (2017) 4
 PUBLIC CORPORATIONS – SOTELO REVIEWER
WHERE POWER TO ISSUE/REVOKE PERMIT ALSO
GOVERNED BY NATIONAL LAW
Gordon v Veridiano (167 SCRA 51)
FACTS: Private respondent Rosalinda Yambao owned
two drug stores in Olongapo City, the San Sebastian
Drug Store and the Olongapo City Drug Store. A joint
team from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and
Philippine Constabulary conducted a "test buy" at San
Sebastian Drug Store of Valium without a doctor's
prescription.
Consequently, Mayor Gordon (petitioner) issued a
letter revoking mayor's permit of San Sebastian Drug
Store for rampant violation of R.A. 5921, otherwise
known as the Pharmacy Law and R.A. 6425 or the
Dangerous Drugs Act of1972.
FDA Administrator likewise directed the closure of the
drug store for 3 days and its payment of a fine and was
allowed to resume operations after 3 days.
Yambao wrote a letter to the petitioner seeking
reconsideration of the revocation of mayor's permit but
got no reply.
They filed with the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo
City a complaint for mandamus. Meanwhile, Yambao’s
request of permission from the FDA to exchange the
locations of the San Sebastian Drug Store and the
Olongapo City Drug was granted. But when petitioner
came to know about it, he disapproved it and suspended
also the mayor’s permit of the other drug store. A
motion for reconsideration was filed by the Yambaos to
the FDA was denied. The RTC judge rendered decision
declaring the revocation of the mayor’s permit for San
Sebastian Drug Store as null and void and thereafter
denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE: May the mayor revoke the mayor’s permit of
the San Sebastian Drug Store based on the above-stated
facts?
HELD: FDA was created under R.A. No. 3720 and
vested with all drug inspection functions in line with
"the policy of the State to insure safe and good quality
supply of food, drug and cosmetics, and to regulate the
production, sale and traffic of the same to protect the
health of the people. P.D. No. 280 gave more teeth to
the powers of the FDA in regulating the drugstores in
the sale or dispensation of drugs, or rules and
regulations issued pursuant thereto. For the mayor, it
was granted by the charter of Olongapo the power to
arrest violators of health laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations and to recommend the revocation or
suspension of the permits of the different establishments
to the City Mayor for violation of health laws,
ordinances, rules and regulations. A study of the said
laws will show that the authorization to operate issued
by the FDA is a condition precedent to the grant of a
mayor's permit to the drug store seeking to operate
within the limits of the city. This requirement is
imperative. The power to determine if the opening of
the drug store is conformable to the national policy and
the laws on the regulation of drug sales belongs to the
FDA. Hence, a permit issued by the mayor to a drug
store not previously cleared with and licensed by the
said agency will be a nullity.
Thus, if the FDA grants a license upon its finding that
the applicant drug store has complied with the
requirements of the general laws and the implementing
administrative rules and regulations, it is only for their
violation that the FDA may revoke the said license. By
the same token, having granted the permit upon his
ascertainment that the conditions thereof as applied
particularly to Olongapo City have been complied with,
it is only for the violation of such conditions that the
mayor may revoke the said permit.
Conversely, the mayor may not revoke his own permit
on the ground that the compliance with the conditions
laid down and found satisfactory by the FDA when it
issued its license is in his own view not acceptable. This
very same principle also operates on the FDA. The FDA
may not revoke its license on the ground that the
conditions laid down in the mayor's permit have been
violated notwithstanding that no such finding has been
made by the mayor.
As the infraction involved the pharmacy and drug laws
which the FDA had the direct responsibility to execute,
the mayor had no authority to interpose his own
findings on the matter and substitute them for the
decision already made by the FDA. The condition
allegedly violated related to a national law, not to a
matter of merely local concern, and so came under the
'jurisdiction of the FDA
REGULATION OF PROFESSION
Issuance of a license to engage in the practice of a
particular profession by the Board or Commission
tasked to regulate the particular profession.
Permit to do business License to engage in the
particular profession
Granted by local Exclusive domain of the
authorities administrative agency
Authorizes person to Grant of authority to a
engage in business or natural person to engage
some form of commercial in the practice or exercise
activity of his profession
A license is not in the nature of a contract but a special
privilege and not permanent or absolute.
Ultra vires acts or acts beyond the scope of one’s authority
are null and void and cannot be given any effect.
Maria Carmela Sotelo (2017) 5
 PUBLIC CORPORATIONS – SOTELO REVIEWER
Issuance of license and permits by a municipality or city is
essentially regulatory in nature, essentially in the exercise
of the police power of the state within the contemplation of
the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code.
TERRITORIAL LIMITATIONS ON OPERATION OF
ORDINANCES
Local. Only in the territory of the municipality by which
they are enacted.
SECTION 49. Presiding Officer
Shall only vote to break a tie
Vice-Governor – sangguniang panlalawigan
City vice-mayor – sangguniang panlunsod
Municipal vice-mayor – sangguniang bayan
Punong barangay – sangguniang barangay
INABILITY OF REGULAR PRESIDING OFFICER TO
PRESIDE AT SESSION
Members constituting a quorum shall elect from among
themselves a temporary presiding officer
EFFECT OF VICE-MAYOR, STATUS AS PRESIDING
OFFICER
Perez v De la Cruz (27 SCRA 587)
Where the presiding officer or mayor is a member of the
council or governing body, unless expressly forbidden
by law, it is generally held that he may not only vote on
all questions as a constituent member, but where the
charter gives him a casting vote in event of a tie, may
vote the second time. However, he may be without vote
except in case of a tie as where he is merely the
executive or presiding officer and not a member.
The legislature intended to treat the vice-mayor not only as
the presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlungsod but
also as a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
SECTION 50. Internal Rules of Procedure
First regular session – within 90 days following the election
Rules of procedure shall provide
1. Organization and election of officers, creation of
standing committees, general jurisdiction of each
committee, election of the chairman and
members of each committee
2. Order and calendar of business for each session
3. Legislative process
4. Parliamentary procedures, conduct of members
5. Discipline of members
a. Suspension – 2/3 votes
b. Conviction of at least 1yr involving
moral turpitude – expelled
6. Other rules
CONSTRUCTION OF RULES AND ACTS
Liberal. The validity of the action of a municipal council
will be upheld by the language of the proceedings of the
meetings if it is fairly susceptible of such construction.
MODE OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Ordinance, bylaw, resolution, or its equivalent.
Departure from the form prescribed for corporate action,
will not affect the validity of such action
NUMBER OF READINGS REQUIRED
Three to be read on different days,
Resolution need not go through 3rd reading.
Ratification must be made with the same formalities
required for the original exercise of power
Rescission of acts and votes at any subsequent time until
the act or vote is complete is allowed provided vested rights
are not violated and it is in conformity to the law applicable
and the rules and regulations adopted for the government of
the body.
COMMITTEES
Assist the council in the performance of its duties.
MANDATORY COMMITTEES
1. Appropriations
2. Women and family
3. Human rights
4. Youth and sports development
5. Environmental protection
6. Cooperatives
SECTION 51. Full Disclosure of Financial and
Business Interest of Sanggunian Members
Made in writing, submitted to the secretary of the
Sanggunian or committee
1. Ownership of stock or capital, or investment to
which ordinance or reso may apply
2. Contracts or agreements which may be affected
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Where it may be reasonably deduced that a member may
not act in the public interest due to some private, pecuniary,
or other personal considerations that may tend to affect his
judgement to the prejudice of the service or the public
EFFECT ON ACT OF SANGGUNIAN OF FAILURE TO
DISCLOSE
Public policy forbids the sustaining of municipal action
founded upon a vote of a council member or a member of a
municipal governing body in any matter before it which
directly or immediately affects him or her individually.
Maria Carmela Sotelo (2017) 6
 PUBLIC CORPORATIONS – SOTELO REVIEWER
CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE
Violation of RA 67133
-imprisonment not exceeding 5yrs; or
-fine not exceeding 5000
-disqualification to hold public office
-proven in administrative proceeding, sufficient cause for
removal or dismissal even if no criminal prosecution is
instituted
SECTION 52. Sessions
Minimum
once a week (panlalawigan, panlungsod, bayan)
twice a month (barangay)
Special sessions
-written notice at least 24 hours before
-no other matters may be considered except those stated in
the notice (unless 2/3 vote of those present)
Journal
-record all proceedings
SECTION 53. Quorum
QUORUM
Number of members of a body which, when legally
assembled in their proper places, will enable the body to
transact in its proper business.
MAJORITY
Number greater than half or more than half of any total,
elected and qualified
Courts have jurisdiction to determine compliance of
Sanggunians with the quorum requirement
The purpose of arresting the absent sanggunian member is
merely to compel their attendance at the session not to
prosecute him criminally
SECTION 54. Approval of Ordinances
RESOLUTION
Whenever legislature wishes to express an opinion which is
only temporary in effect
ORDINANCE
Intended to permanently direct and control matters
applying to persons and things in general.
Substantial compliance with requisite procedure is
prerequisite to its validity.
APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE NOT MINISTERIAL
Grant of veto power to Local Chief Executive accords him
the discretion to sustain a resolution or ordinance in the
first instance or to veto it and return it with his objections to
the Sanggunian.
Sanggunian may override the veto by 2/3 vote of all is
members.
SECTION 55. Veto Power of the Local Chief
Executive
LINE ITEM VETO PROHIBITED
Exceptions:
1. Appropriations ordinances
2. Adopting a local development plan and public
investment program
3. Directing the payment of money or creating
liability
REASONS FOR VETO
1. Ultra vires – act performed without any authority
to act on the subject
2. Prejudicial to public welfare
SECTION 56. Review of Component City and
Municipal Ordinances or Resolutions by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan
Not applicable to independent cities.
SECTION 153 OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 337
Sangguniang Panlalawigan has the power to declare a
municipal resolution or ordinance invalid on the sole
ground that it is beyond the power of the lower
sanggunian or Mayor to issue.
An ordinance must conform and be subordinate to the
charter.
The lapse of 30 day period does not foreclose judicial
review of the validity of the ordinance.
The enforcement of the ordinance after due notice of
disapproval or suspension shall be sufficient ground for
administrative disciplinary actions against the responsible
local officials and employees.
Sangguniang panlalawigan exercises quasi-judicial function
and their action is properly reviewable by the writ of
certiorari in the Regional Trial Courts under Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
SECTION 57. Review of Barangay Ordinances by
the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan
Within 10days, furnish copies to the sangguniang
panlungsod or bayan for review
Maria Carmela Sotelo (2017) 7
 PUBLIC CORPORATIONS – SOTELO REVIEWER

Within 30 days, if fails to take action, deemed approved

The act of returning the ordinance to the barangay for

adjustment, amendment or modification is what suspends
the effectivity of the barangay ordinance.

Action of sangguniang panglungsod or bayan is properly

reviewable by the writ of certiorari with the Regional Trial
Court.

SECTION 58. Enforcement of Disapproved

Ordinances or Resolutions

Ground for administrative case (dismissal or suspension)

SECTION 59. Effectivity of Ordinances or

Resolutions

10days after posting not later than 5 days after approval

Gist of ordinances with penal sanctions shall be published

in a newspaper of general circulation within the province. It
its absence, posting in all municipalities and cities.

In case of highly urbanized and independent component

cities, in addition to posting, shall be published once in a
local newspaper of general circulation within the city or in
the absence thereof, any newspaper of general circulation.

Publication and notice are mandatory

Time, place, and manner of publication or notice must be in

substantial compliance with the governing provisions.

Maria Carmela Sotelo (2017) 8