LOCAL

LEGISLATION
PRESENTED BY:

JEREMY SOCO MARAVE

CHESKA CHRISTIANA SAGUIN
JIROH VALDEZAMO
 SECTION 48. LOCAL
LEGISLATIVE POWER
Local legislative power shall be exercised
by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for the
province; the Sangguniang Panlungsod for
the city; the Sangguniang bayan for the
municipality; and the Sangguniang
Barangay for the Barangay.
LOCAL SANGGUNIANS

01 SANGGUNIANG SANGGUNIANG
03.
. PANLALAWIGAN BAYAN
(SEC. 468) (SEC. 447)

SANGGUNIANG 04.
SANGGUNIANG
02.
PANLUNGSOD BARANGAY
(SEC. 458) (SEC. 391)
SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

Local political subdivisions are

able to legislate only by virtue of
a valid delegation of legislative
power from the national
legislature.
SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

However, the power to create

their own sources of revenue and
to levy taxes is conferred by the
Constitution itself.
 Article X, Section 5 of the 1987
Constitution
SECTION 5. Each local government unit shall have
the power to create its own sources of revenues and
to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such
guidelines and limitations as the Congress may
provide, consistent with the basic policy of local
autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall
accrue exclusively to the local governments.
SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

Local political subdivisions are

mere agents vested with what is
called the power of subordinate
legislation.
SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

As delegates of Congress, they

cannot contravene but must
obey at all times the will of their
principal.
 SOLICITOR
GENERAL vs
METRO MANILA
AUTHORITY
FACTS:
The Metropolitan Manila Authority issued
Ordinance No. 11 Series of 1992 under
the specific authority conferred upon it
by EO 392 authorizing itself “to detach
the license plate/tow and impound
attended/unattended/abandoned motor
vehicles illegally parked or obstructing
the flow of traffic in Metro Manila.
Later on in the case of Gonong, the Court
held that the confiscation of the license
plates of motor vehicles and confiscation of
driver’s license for traffic violations were not
among the sanctions that could be imposed
by the Metro Manila Commission under PD
1605.
 Several complaints were filed before the Court
as to the said confiscations by police
authorities or traffic enforcers. In defense, one
of the defendants in one of those complaints
invoked another ordinance - Ordinance No. 7
Series of 1988 of Mandaluyong justified on the
basis of the General Welfare Clause embodied
in the Local Government Code authorizing the
said confiscations for traffic violations.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the exercise of Metro Manila
Authority’s delegated power is valid?
RULING:

NO. The measures in question are

enactments of local governments acting
only as agents of the national legislature.
Necessarily, the acts of these agents must
reflect and conform to the will of their
principal.
To test the validity of such acts, the Court
applied the particular requisites of a valid
ordinance as laid down by the accepted
principles governing municipal
corporations.
A municipal ordinance, to be valid:
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 not be unreasonable; and
6) must be general and consistent with public policy.
The measures under consideration do not
pass the first criterion because they do
not conform to existing law. The pertinent
law is PD 1605. PD 1605 does not allow
either the removal of license plates or the
confiscation of driver's licenses for traffic
violations committed in Metropolitan
Manila.
 The requirement that the municipal
enactment must not violate existing law
explains itself. Local political subdivisions
are able to legislate only by virtue of a
valid delegation of legislative power from
the national legislature.
 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 their principal. In
the case before us, the enactments in
question, which are merely local in origin,
cannot prevail against the decree, which has
the force and effect of a statute.
CONTEMPT POWERS NOT VESTED
IN LGUs

LGUs do not have an

inherent power to cite
anyone for contempt.
NEGROS ORIENTAL
II ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE INC.
vs SANGGUNIANG
PANLUNSGOD OF
DUMAGUETE
FACTS:
A subpoena was sent by the Ad Hoc Committee
of Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete
(respondent) to the petitioners Paterio Torres and
Arturo Umbac, Chairman of the Board of Directors
and the General Manager, respectively, of
petitioner Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative
NORECO II), requiring their attendance and
testimony at the Committee's investigation.
However, they failed to appear at said
investigation and were ordered to show
cause why they should not be punished for
legislative contempt due to their failure to
appear at said investigation.
The investigation to be conducted by the
Committee was "in connection with pending
legislation related to the operations of
public utilities" in the City of Dumaguete
and the inquiry was to focus on the alleged
installation and use by the petitioner
NORECO II of inefficient power lines in that
city.
Petitioners moved to quash the subpoena
but the motion to quash was denied.
Petitioners contend that the respondent SP
of Dumaguete is bereft of the power to
compel the attendance and testimony of
witnesses, nor the power to order the
arrest of witnesses who fail to obey its
subpoena.
It is further argued that assuming the
power to compel the attendance and
testimony of witnesses to be lodged in said
body, it cannot be exercised in the
investigation of matters affecting the terms
and conditions of the franchise granted to
NORECO II which are beyond the
jurisdiction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
ISSUE: 

Whether or not the Sanggunian has the

inherent power to cite a person for
contempt?
RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court held that “there
being no provision in the Local Government
Code explicitly granting local legislative
bodies, the power to issue compulsory
process and the power to punish for
contempt, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Dumaguete is devoid of power to punish
petitioners…for contempt.
The Court ruled that the subpoena requiring
the attendance and testimony of the
petitioners at an investigation and the order
directing petitioners to show cause why they
should not be punished for legislative
contempt for their disobedience to said
subpoena was declared null and void for
being ultra vires.
 VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE

Ordinances enacted in the exercise of the

powers under the Code enjoy the
presumption of constitutionality.
 VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE
In light of the principles of decentralization &
devolution enshrined in the Code and of the
powers granted therein to local government
units which unquestionably involve the exercise
of police power, the validity of ordinances
relative to the protection & preservation of the
environment, cannot be doubted.
 VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE

To overthrow this presumption, there must

be a clear and unequivocal breach of the
Constitution, not merely a doubtful or
argumentative contradiction.
 TANO
vs
SOCRATES
FACTS:

The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto

Princesa enacted ordinance no. 15-92
banning the shipment of live fish and lobster
outside Puerto Princessa City for a period of
5 years.
 In the same light, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Palawan also enacted a
resolution that prohibits the catching,
gathering, buying, selling and possessing
and shipment of live marine coral dwelling
aquatic organisms for a period of 5 years
within the Palawan waters.
The petitioners Airline Shippers Association
of Palawan together with marine
merchants were charged for violating the
above ordinance and resolution by the city
and provincial governments.
The petitioners now allege that they have
the preferential rights as marginal fishermen
granted with privileges provided in Section
149 of the Local Government Code, invoking
the invalidity of the above-stated
enactments as violative of their preferential
rights.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the ordinances and
resolutions enacted by the local government
of Puerto Princesa and the Provincial
Government of Palawan are valid exercises
of police power?
RULING:
YES. The Local Government Code provided
under Section 16 that every local
government unit shall exercise the powers
expressly granted or implied therefrom for
its efficient and effective governance, and
those which are essential to the promotion
of general welfare.
Included in the general welfare is to
enhance the right of the people to a
balanced ecology. This is considered by the
Court as an explicit mandate that the local
government units are allowed to exercise its
powers for the general welfare. One of the
devolved powers enumerated in the LGC is
the enforcement of fishery laws in municipal
waters which is necessary.
In the present case, the Court see it clear
that both Ordinances have two principal
objectives: (1) to establish a “closed season”
for covered aquatic animals for a period of
five years, and (2) to protect coral in the
marine waters from further destruction.
The accomplishment of the first devolved
from fishery laws such as P.D. No. 1015,
while the second falls within the general
welfare clause of LGC to protect the
environment and impose appropriate
penalties for acts which endanger it. Hence,
the local government units complied with
the law of exercising its police powers under
the general welfare clause.
LAGCAO v. LABRA
FACTS:
In 1964, Province of Cebu donated 210 lots
to the City of Cebu, one of which is the lot
1029. 1965, petitioners purchased said lot
on installment but in late 1925, these 210
lots reverted to the Province of Cebu.
The latter tried to annul sale which resulted
to the filing of the case of the petitioners.
RTC and CA ruled in their favor and as such
a deed of sale was executed and a TCT was
issued in their favor. When they tried to take
possession of the land, they found out that it
was occupied by squatters.
Thus, they instituted ejectment proceedings
which was later on granted by the MTCC and
affirmed by RTC. However, Mayor Garcia
wrote letters requesting the deferment of
the demolition since the city was still looking
for a relocation site for the squatters; this
was granted.
During the suspension, the Sang.
Panlungsod of Cebu passed a resolution and
2 ordinances (all about the lot 1029). Ord.
No. 1843 likewise appropriated the amount
of 6,881,600 for the payment of subject
land; this was approved by the Mayor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the ordinance is
unconstitutional?
RULING:
YES. Local government units have no
inherent power of eminent domain. Local
governments can exercise such power only
when expressly authorized by the
legislature.
By virtue of the Local Government Code of
1991, Congress conferred upon local
government units the power to expropriate.
Further, the exercise by local government
units of the power of eminent domain is not
absolute. The exercise thereof is subject to
the statutory requirements.
For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only
be within the corporate powers of the city or
municipality to enact but must also be
passed according to the procedure
prescribed by law. It must be in accordance
with certain well-established basic principles
of a substantive nature.
These principles require that an
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 & consistent with
public policy; and
(6) must not be unreasonable.
Ordinance No. 1843 failed to comply with the
foregoing substantive requirements. First, it is
repugnant to the pertinent provisions of the
Constitution, RA 7279 and RA 7160. Second,
the precipitate manner in which it was
enacted was plain oppression masquerading
as a pro-poor ordinance.
Third, the fact that petitioners’ small property
was singled out for expropriation for the
purpose of awarding it to no more than a few
squatters indicated manifest partiality against
petitioners. Fourth, the ordinance failed to
show that there was a reasonable relation
between the end sought and the means
adopted.
While the objective of the City of Cebu was to
provide adequate housing to slum dwellers,
the means it employed in pursuit of such
objective fell short of what was legal, sensible
and called for by the circumstances.
 SECTION 49. PRESIDING
OFFICER
(a) The vice-governor shall be the presiding
officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan; the
city vice-mayor, of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod; the municipal vice-mayor, of the
Sangguniang bayan; and the Punong Barangay,
of the Sangguniang Barangay. The presiding
officer shall vote only to break a tie.
 (b) In the event of the inability of the regular
Presiding officer to preside at a Sanggunian
session, the members present and constituting a
quorum shall elect from among themselves a
temporary presiding officer. He shall certify within
ten (10) days from the passage of ordinances
enacted and resolutions adopted by the
Sanggunian in the session over which he
temporarily presided.
 SANGGUNIANG PRESIDING
OFFICER
Vice Governor

City Vice Mayor

Municipal Vice Mayor

RATIONALE

to distribute powers among elective local

officials so that the Sanggunian can properly
check the governor or mayor and vice versa &
exercise their respective functions without any
undue interference from one by the other.
 TEMPORARY PRESIDING
OFFICER
Whenever the regular presiding officer fails
to preside at the sanggunian session, the
members present, there being a quorum, shall
elect from among themselves a temporary
presiding officer.
 There is thus no automatic succession to the
position of presiding officer in the event that
the regular presiding officer is temporarily
unable to preside at a session of the
sanggunian concerned.
DILG Opinion No. 91, series of 2008

The Vice-Mayor cannot by himself defer the

approval of certain measure already
calendared for approval in the business for
the day. He cannot impose his sole will upon
the sangguniang bayan and overrule the
decision of the majority of the members of
said sanggunian.
As the presiding officer, the Vice-Mayor’s
authority is merely to preside over session of
the sanggunian in order to ensure orderly and
harmonious conduct of the said sessions.
However, it may happen that the decision of
the Vice-Mayor is controlling. This takes place
only in case of a tie in the voting of members
of the sanggunian
 SECTION 50. INTERNAL
RULES OF PROCEDURE
(a) On the first regular session following the
election of its members and within ninety
(90) days thereafter, the Sanggunian
concerned shall adopt or update its existing
rules of procedure.
(b) The rules of procedure shall provide for the
following:
(1) The organization of the Sanggunian
and the election of its officers as well as
the creation of standing committees which
shall include, but shall not be limited to, the
committees on appropriations, women and
family, human rights, youth and sports
development, environmental protection,
and cooperatives;
 the general jurisdiction of each
committee; and the election of the
chairman and members of each
committee;
(2) The order and calendar of business for
each session;
(3) The legislative process;
(4) The parliamentary procedures which
include the conduct of members during
sessions;
(5) The discipline of members for disorderly
behavior and absences without justifiable
cause for four (4) consecutive sessions, for
which they may be censured, reprimanded,
or excluded from the session, suspended for
not more than sixty (60) days, or expelled:
Provided, That the penalty of suspension or
expulsion shall require the concurrence of at
least two-thirds (2/3) vote of all the
Sanggunian members.
 Provided, further, That a member convicted
by final judgment to imprisonment of at least
one (1) year for any crime involving moral
turpitude shall be automatically expelled from
the Sanggunian; and

(6) Such other rules as the Sanggunian may

adopt.
SANGGUNIAN RULES OF
PROCEDURE

The Code does not require the completion of

the updating or adoption of the internal rules
of procedure before the Sanggunian could act
on any other matter like the enactment of an
ordinance.
SANGGUNIAN RULES OF
PROCEDURE

It simply requires that the matter of adopting

or updating the internal rules of procedure be
taken up during the first day of session.
SANGGUNIAN RULES OF
PROCEDURE

There is nothing in the law which prohibits that

the three readings of a proposed ordinance be
held in just one session day.
 MANDATORY COMMITTEES
A APPROPRIATIONS
B WOMEN & FAMILY
C YOUTH & SPORTS DEVELOPMENT
D ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
E COOPERATIVES
 CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINARY
ACTION

Disorderly Behavior Four (4) Consecutive

Absences Without
Justifiable Cause
 SANCTIONS
1 Censure
2 Reprimand
3 Exclude from session 04

4 Suspend; not more than 60 days

5 Expel a Member
 VOTE REQUIRED TO SUSPEND
OR EXPEL

A vote of at least two-thirds

of all the members of the
Sanggunian concerned is
needed to suspend or expel a
member.
 AUTOMATIC EXPULSION

The conviction by final judgment

of a member for any crime
involving moral turpitude with
a sentence of more than one
year shall cause his automatic
expulsion from the Sanggunian.
 3 READING RULE
Congress – 3 readings must be done
in 3 separate dates
Sanggunians – can undertake the 3
reading procedure even in 1 day
(Malonzo vs Zamora – the SC ruled
that the LGC did not require that the
3 reading rule must be conducted in 3
MALONZO
vs
ZAMORA
FACTS:
On March 15, 1999, the Office of the President
(OP) through Executive Secretary Ronaldo
Zamora, rendered a decision to petitioners as
guilty of misconduct and each is meted the
penalty of suspension from office for a period of
three months without pay to commence upon
receipt of said decision.
The respondents contends that Caloocan City
Ordinance No. 0254, Series of 1998 was enacted
without sufficient compliance with Section 50,
Chapter 3, Title II of the Local Government Code
of 1991 and that petitioners’ failure to observe
the stricture in the enactment of the ordinance
constitutes misconduct.
The Sanggunian allegedly conducted three
readings in one day and on the first day of its
session without the Sanggunian having first
organized itself and adopted its rules of
procedure.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the ordinance is enacted without

sufficient compliance with the requirement of
Section 50, Chapter 3, Title II of the LGC
requiring that house rules be adopted or
updated?
RULING:
NO. The records satisfactorily show that the
Sanggunian took up the matter of adopting a set
of house rules in its general meeting. During
said meeting, the Sanggunian created an Ad Hoc
Committee composed of 7 members to study the
existing house rules. Thereafter, it enacted
Ordinance No. 0254, Series of 1998.
Such succession of events is legally permissible.
The law does not require the completion of the
updating or adoption of the internal rules of
procedure before the Sanggunian could act on
any other matter like the enactment of an
ordinance. It simply requires that the matter of
adopting or updating the internal rules of
procedure be taken up during the first day of
session.
 SECTION 51. FULL
DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL AND
BUSINESS INTERESTS OF
SANGGUNIAN MEMBERS
(a) Every sanggunian member shall, upon
assumption to office, make a full disclosure
of his business and financial interests, or
professional relationship or any relation by
 affinity or consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree, which he may have with any person,
firm, or entity affected by any ordinance or
resolution under consideration by the
sanggunian of which he is a member, which
relationship may result in conflict of interest.
Such relationship shall include: 

(1) Ownership of stock or capital, or

investment, in the entity or firm to which the
ordinance or resolution may apply; and 

(2) Contracts or agreements with any person or

entity which the ordinance or resolution
under consideration may affect. 
 In the absence of a specific constitutional or
statutory provision applicable to this
situation, "conflict of interest" refers in
general to one where it may be reasonably
deduced that a member of a sanggunian may
not act in the public interest due to some
private, pecuniary, or other personal
considerations that may tend to affect his
judgment to the prejudice of the service or
the public.
(b) The disclosure required under this Act shall
be made in writing and submitted to the
secretary of the sanggunian or the secretary
of the committee of which he is a member.
The disclosure shall, in all cases, form part of
the record of the proceedings and shall be
made in the following manner:
(1) Disclosure shall be made before the
member participates in the deliberations on
the ordinance or resolution under
consideration: Provided, That, if the member
did not participate during the deliberations,
the disclosure shall be made before voting on
the ordinance or resolution on second and
third readings; and 
(2) Disclosure shall be made when a member
takes a position or makes a privilege speech
on a matter that may affect the business
interest, financial connection, or professional
relationship described herein.
 FULL DISCLOSURES OF
FINANCIAL INTERESTS
REQUIRED
Sanggunian Members are obliged to
make full disclosures of:
(a) Their own interests in business or financial
matters; and
(b) Their relationships business-wise,
financially, professionally, or by blood or
affinity within the fourth civil degree with any
person, firm or entity, where such relationship
may result in a conflict of interest between
their performance of duty and their preference
for professional or family ties or their own
business or financial interests.
The fourth civil degree of relationship
either by blood or by affinity extends to
one’s:
great, great grandparents in the direct line;
great, great grandchildren in the direct
line;
first cousins; and
great grand uncles and aunts in the
collateral line.
REASONS FOR THE DISCLOSURE

The disclosures are required to

prevent the occurrence of any conflict
between public duty and private
interests which may cause prejudice
to public service.
TIME OF DISCLOSURE

● Upon assumption of office, full

disclosure of the sanggunian
member’s own business or financial
interests is an absolute requirement.
● A member is also required to make a
disclosure of the interests of his
fourth-degree relatives in business,
finance or in the profession before he
discharges his duties in the
sanggunian as when he:
● A member is also required to make a
disclosure of the interests of his fourth-
degree relatives in business, finance or
in the profession before he discharges
his duties in the sanggunian as when he:
(i) participates in the discussion of an
ordinance or resolution that may affect the
business interest, financial connection or
professional relationship; or
 (ii) votes on second or third reading of the
said ordinance; or
(iii) delivers a privilege speech; or
(iv) takes a position thereon.

Unlike the absolute requirement to disclose

the member’s own business, some positive
act on the part of the member is needed
before he is required to make a disclosure of
the interests held by his relations.
DISCLOSURES, WHERE FILED

● They are filed in writing with the

Secretary of the Sanggunian
concerned or with the Secretary of a
committee discussing a proposed
ordinance to which the SP Member
belongs.
The relationship that must be disclosed
by the Sanggunian Member covers:

ownership of stock, capital or investment

in the firm or entity to which the
ordinance or resolution may apply;
contracts or agreements with any person
or entity which the ordinance or resolution
under consideration may affect.
 SECTION 52. SESSIONS

(a) On the first day of the session immediately

following the election of its members, the
sanggunian shall, by resolution, fix the day, time,
and place of its regular sessions. The minimum
numbers of regular sessions shall be once a week
for the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang
panlungsod, and sangguniang bayan, and twice a
(b) When public interest so demands, special
sessions may be called by the local chief
executive or by a majority of the members of the
sanggunian.
(c) All sanggunian sessions shall be open to the
public unless a closed-door session is ordered by
an affirmative vote of a majority of the members
present, there being a quorum, in the public
interest or for reasons of security, decency, or
morality. No two (2) sessions, regular or special,
(d) In the case of special sessions of the
sanggunian, a written notice to the members
shall be served personally at the member's
usual place of residence at least twenty-four
(24) hours before the special session is held.
Unless otherwise concurred in by two-thirds
(2/3) vote of the sanggunian members present,
there being a quorum, no other matters may be
considered at a special session except those
stated in the notice.
(e) Each sanggunian shall keep a journal and
record of its proceedings which may be
published upon resolution of the sanggunian
concerned.
 SCHEDULING REGULAR
SESSIONS
The day, time and place of the regular
sessions of the sanggunian are fixed by
the members on the first session day
after their election.
 REQUIRED NUMBER OF
REGULAR SESSIONS
The sanggunians of the province, city and
municipality will have at least one regular
session a week.
The sanggunian of the barangay will have
at least two regular sessions a month.
SPECIAL SESSIONS

The sanggunian may meet in special

sessions upon call:
of the local chief executive or
a majority of the members.
Special sessions are call in the name of
public interest. The phrase public interest
is so broad that special sessions can
theoretically be called at any reasonable
time.
 WRITTEN NOTICES REQUIRED

It is required that written notices containing

the matters to be considered be sent to the
members and served personally at their
usual place of residence at least 24 hours
before the special session is held.
AGENDA CONTROLLING,
EXCEPTION
In special sessions, only the agenda specified
in the notice will be considered unless at
least two-thirds of the members present,
there being a quorum, should vote in favor
of considering other items.
OPEN SESSIONS, EXCEPTION
GENERAL RULE: sessions of the sanggunian
are open to public
EXCEPTION: Closed door sessions may be
held if a majority of those present, there being a
quorum, shall vote in favor thereof. (reasons:
public interest, security, decency or morality)
JOURNALS OF PROCEEDINGS

Sanggunian journals and records of its

proceedings are required to be kept.
These may be published upon resolution
of the sanggunian.
 SECTION 53. QUORUM
(a) A majority of all the members of the
sanggunian who have been elected and
qualified shall constitute a quorum to transact
official business. Should a question of quorum
be raised during a session, the presiding
officer shall immediately proceed to call the
roll of the members and thereafter announce
the results.
(b) Where there is no quorum, the presiding
officer may declare a recess until such time as a
quorum is constituted, or a majority of the
members present may adjourn from day to day
and may compel the immediate attendance of any
member absent without justifiable cause by
designating a member of the sanggunian to be
assisted by a member or members of the police
force assigned in the territorial jurisdiction of the
local government unit concerned, to arrest the
absent member and present him at the session.
(c) If there is still no quorum despite the
enforcement of the immediately preceding
subsection, no business shall be transacted. The
presiding officer, upon proper motion duly
approved by the members present, shall then
declare the session adjourned for lack of
quorum.
QUORUM DEFINED

A quorum is the fixed number of members

present at a session which is considered legally
sufficient to transact the business of the
sanggunian even of other members are
absent.
QUORUM, HOW
DETERMINED

A quorum is determined by simply dividing

the number of the members into two and
adding one to the dividend. Simply put,
there is quorum if one-half of the members
plus one are present at a Sanggunian session.
SPECIAL QUORUM
Instances wherein special quorum is
required:
Override a veto of the local chief executive,
the quorum required must not be less than
two-thirds of all the members since that is
the vote necessary to override
 A Sanggunian may meet with less than a
majority of all its members when it
states that a majority of all the members of
the Sanggunian who have been elected and
qualified shall constitute a quorum.
NO QUORUM, NO VALID SESSION
Without a quorum there can
be no valid session of the
Sanggunian. Any transaction
or business conducted during
a session with a quorum is
void ab initio.
 ARRESTING MEMBERS TO
SECURE QUORUM
When a session is called on a certain day but
there is no quorum, the presiding officer or the
majority of the members present may adjourn
from day to day and compel attendance of
the absent members by ordering their arrest by
the police and their presentation at the session.
PURPOSE OF ARREST

The purpose of the arrest is to compel

the attendance at the session of the
absent members, not for the purpose of
jailing them.
 SECTION 54. APPROVAL
OF ORDINANCES
(a) Every ordinance enacted by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang
Panlungsod, or Sangguniang Bayan shall be
presented to the provincial governor or city or
municipal mayor, as the case may be.
 If the local chief executive concerned approves
the same, he shall affix his signature on each
and every page thereof; otherwise, he shall veto
it and return the same with his objections to the
sanggunian, which may proceed to reconsider
the same.
The sanggunian concerned may override the
veto of the local chief executive by two-thirds
(2/3) vote of all its members, thereby making
the ordinance or resolution effective for all legal
intents and purposes.
(b) The veto shall be communicated by the
local chief executive concerned to the
sanggunian within fifteen (15) days in the
case of a province, and ten (10) days in the
case of a city or a municipality; otherwise,
the ordinance shall be deemed approved as
if he had signed it.
(c) Ordinances enacted by the sangguniang
barangay shall, upon approval by the majority
of all its members, be signed by the punong
barangay.
REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY
For an ordinance to be valid, it must not
only be within the corporate powers of the
city or municipality to enact but must also be
passed according to the procedure
prescribed by law. It must be in accordance
with certain well-established basic principles
of a substantive nature.
An ordinance must:
(1) not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
(2) not be unfair or oppressive;
(3) not be partial or discriminatory;
(4) not prohibit but may regulate trade;
(5) be general and consistent with public policy; and
(6) not be unreasonable.
 APPROVAL OF ORDINANCES

Ordinances enacted by:

Sangguniang Panlalawigan - provincial governor
Sangguniang Panlungsod - city mayor
Sangguniang Bayan - municipal mayor
Sangguniang Barangay - punong barangay
ACTIONS ON RESOLUTIONS BY
GOVERNOR/MAYOR
• The LGC does not mention resolutions as
among the acts of the sanggunian that must
be approved and signed by the local chief
executive.
• However, resolutions in practice are
submitted for signature also by the local
chief executive.
DE LOS REYES
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
Petitioner, along with the two others, was
charged with the crime of falsification of a
public document, specifically Resolution No.
57-S-92 dated July 27, 1992 of the Municipal
Council of Mariveles, Bataan.
The complaint alleged that the resolution,
appropriating the amount of P8,500.00 for the
payment of the terminal leave of two
municipal employees, was anomalous for not
having been approved by the said Council, as
the minutes of the proceedings therein made
no reference to the supposed approval
thereof.
It contended that its seeming passage
was carried out by petitioner in
connivance with Sangguniang Bayan
(SB) Member Jesse Concepcion and SB
Secretary Antonio Zurita.
After preliminary investigation, the
deputized prosecutor of Balanga, Bataan
recommended the filing of an
information for Falsification of Public
Document against petitioner and
Concepcion, excluding Zurita who died
during the pendency hereof.
Petitioner argues that the deliberations
undertaken and the consequent passage
of Resolution No. 57-S-92 are legislative
in nature and that the final step in the
approval of an ordinance or resolution,
where the local chief executive affixes
his signature, is purely a ministerial
act. 
 ISSUE:
Whether or not the approval of a
Sangguniang Bayan Resolution by the
mayor is a ministerial act?
RULING:

NO. The grant of the veto power confers

authority beyond the simple mechanical act of
signing an ordinance or resolution, as
requisite to its enforceability.
Such power accords the local chief
executive 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, which may
proceed to reconsider the same.
The sanggunian concerned, however,
may override the veto by two-thirds (2/3)
vote of all its members thereby making
the ordinance or resolution effective for
all legal intents and purposes.
The concurrence of a local chief executive in
the enactment of an ordinance or resolution
requires, not only a flourish of the pen, but
the application of judgment after meticulous
analysis and intelligence as well.
 MANNER OF APPROVAL

Approval of an ordinance may be done by:

(1) The governor’s or the mayor’s signing all the
pages of a provincial, city or municipal
ordinance as the case may be; or
(2) The governor’s inaction on a provincial
ordinance within 15 days from receipt; or
mayor’s inaction on a city or municipal
ordinance within 10 days from the date of its
receipt.
• Such inaction of the local chief executive
results in the approval of the ordinance and
becomes effective as if signed by him.
In the case of barangay ordinances, once
approved by a majority of all the members
of the Sangguniang Barangay, the approval
of the punong barangay is not required to
make the ordinances effective because he is
a member of the Sangguniang Barangay.
Hence, the action of the majority of all the
members binds the punong barangay.
APPROVAL REQUIRED IN THIS
SECTION
This section deals only with the approval
required of the governor for provincial
ordinances or resolutions and the mayor for
city or municipal ordinances or resolutions.
It does not treat the power of approval or
disapproval that the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan has over ordinances or
resolutions of component cities and
municipalities or the power of the latter
over Barangay ordinances or resolutions.
 GALLEGO
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
Gallego and his companions were about to
hold a meeting of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in
front of the Public market. The chief of police,
approached him and asked if they have a
permit to hold the meeting, he answered in
the negative. The latter then enjoined him
from proceeding but he refused.
The chief of police warned appellant if he
continued with the meeting, he was to
place him under arrest. Gallego
disregarded the warning and continued the
meeting for at least 30 minutes. The CA
ruled that the disobedience on appellant’s
part is self-evident from his immediate
reaction to the chief of police’ warning.
And there was an existing municipal
ordinance at the time (Ordinance No. 2,
Series of 1957) providing for a previous
permit for the holding of religious meeting in
public places.
Gallego contends that he cannot be convicted
of slight disobedience because, there is no
proof of the existence of an ordinance in force
on March 10, 1957, requiring a permit for the
holding of a meeting. For this purpose,
petitioner assails the CA for taking judicial
notice of Ordinance No. 2, series of 1957
when the trial court itself allegedly did not
take cognizance of the ordinance.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court may take
judicial notice over the municipal
ordinance?
RULING:
YES. Trial courts should take judicial notice of
municipal ordinances within their respective
jurisdiction. The enactment of an ordinance
and its provisions are supposed to be known by
the trial courts of the area where the
municipality concerned may be located and,
therefore, need not be proven at proceedings
in such court.
 LOCAL LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
Proposed First Reading
The Secretary will include
Resolutions/Ordinances/ (only the title will be
such proposed measures in
Measures coming from the Calendar of Business. read); referral to
any Member or proper Committee
Committee

Committee Public Hearing Committee

Meeting Hearing

Committee on Rules Committee Report

(prioritizes proposals to be (either to file away
included in Calendar of or calendar for
Business for Second Reading) Second Reading)

The Secretary print a final Third and The Mayor

Second Reading version of the proposal & may either
(period of debate, Final Reading
furnish a copy to the approve or
amendment) Members. veto
 SECTION 55. VETO POWER OF
THE LOCAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE
(a) The local chief executive may veto any
ordinance of the sanggunian panlalawigan,
sangguniang panlungsod, or sanggunian bayan
on the ground that it is ultra vires or prejudicial
to the public welfare, stating his reasons
therefor in writing.
(b) The local chief executive, except the
punong barangay, shall have the power to veto
any particular item or items of an
appropriations ordinance, an ordinance or
resolution adopting a local development plan
and public investment program, or an
ordinance directing the payment of money or
creating liability. In such a case, the veto shall
not affect the item or items which are not
objected to.
The vetoed item or items shall not take effect
unless the sanggunian overrides the veto in
the manner herein provided; otherwise, the
item or items in the appropriations ordinance
of the previous year corresponding to those
vetoed, if any, shall be deemed reenacted.
(c) The local chief executive may veto an
ordinance or resolution only once. The
sanggunian may override the veto of the local
chief executive concerned by two-thirds (2/3)
vote of all its members, thereby making the
ordinance effective even without the approval
of the local chief executive concerned.
 VETO POWER OF
GOVERNOR/MAYOR
The governor or the mayor may veto
ordinances enacted by their respective
Sanggunians.

The punong barangay has no veto

power over the ordinances of the
Sangguniang Barangay.
 GROUNDS FOR VETO

(a) The ordinances or parts thereof are

ultra vires; and
(b) The ordinances or parts thereof are
prejudicial to the public welfare.
 ULTRA VIRES

Ultra vires means that the ordinances or

parts thereof are beyond the power of
the sanggunian to enact.
 SCOPE OF VETO

The veto my apply to:

(a) entire ordinances or
(b) particular items of certain ordinances such as:
(i) appropriation ordinances;
(ii) ordinances adopting local development
plans and public investment programs and
(iii) ordinances directing payment of money
or creating liability against the province,
city or municipality.
• Generally, only ordinances are subject to
veto. The Code, however, allows the local
chief executives to veto resolutions when
they deal with local development plans
and public investment programs.
• The reason is that resolutions of that kind
involve the investment of public money
and are in effect, ordinances.
 EFFECT OF VETO

(a) If an entire ordinance is vetoed, the

ordinance is considered dead, that is,
unenforceable for all intents and purposes.

(b) If only certain items are vetoed as in the

case of appropriation ordinances, then only
the vetoed items are rendered ineffectual.
DUTY OF LOCAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE
AFTER VETO
The local chief executive must inform
the Sanggunian concerned of the veto
of an ordinance within 15 days in the
case of a provincial ordinance and
within 10 days in the case of a city or
municipal ordinance.
VETO OVERRIDE

The veto may be overridden by a vote of at

least two thirds of all the members of the
Sanggunian.
The override makes the ordinance effective as
if approved and signed by the governor or
mayor. Once overridden, the veto may not be
reimposed on the same ordinance or subject
matter
DILG Opinion No. 48, Series of 2008

The veto power of the City Mayor is complete

and duly exercised when he communicated his
written veto message to the Sanggunian
coupled with the act of returning the proposed
ordinance unsigned.
The LGC or its implementing rules does not
require that the word veto be written in the
original copy of the proposed ordinance, as
precisely a veto message is a separate
document communicated to the Sanggunian,
together with the unsigned proposed
ordinance, that would guide the Sanggunian in
proceeding whether to override the veto or
not.
SECTION 56. REVIEW
OF COMPONENT CITY
AND MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCES OR
RESOLUTIONS BY THE
SANGGUNIANG
PANLALAWIGAN
(a) Within three (3) days after approval, the
secretary to the sanggunian panlungsod or
sangguniang bayan shall forward to the
sangguniang panlalawigan for review, copies
of approved ordinances and the resolutions
approving the local development plans and
public investment programs formulated by the
local development councils.
(b) Within thirty (30) days after the receipt
of copies of such ordinances and
resolutions, the sangguniang panlalawigan
shall examine the documents or transmit
them to the provincial attorney, or if there
be none, to the provincial prosecutor for
prompt examination.
The provincial attorney or provincial
prosecutor shall, within a period of ten (10)
days from receipt of the documents, inform
the sangguniang panlalawigan in writing of
his comments or recommendations, which
may be considered by the sangguniang
panlalawigan in making its decision.
(c) If the sangguniang panlalawigan finds that
such an ordinance or resolution is beyond the
power conferred upon the sangguniang
panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned, it
shall declare such ordinance or resolution
invalid in whole or in part. The sangguniang
panlalawigan shall enter its action in the
minutes and shall advise the corresponding city
or municipal authorities of the action it has
taken.
(d) If no action has been taken by the
sangguniang panlalawigan within thirty (30)
days after submission of such an ordinance
or resolution, the same shall be presumed
consistent with law and therefore valid.
 POWER OF REVIEW

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan has the power

to review component city or municipal
ordinances of all kinds and resolutions dealing
with local development plans and public
investment programs formulated by the local
development councils.
 ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS, WHEN
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW
The ordinances and resolutions of component
cities and municipalities have to be submitted
to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for review
within three days after their approval.
 PERIOD FOR REVIEW OF
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

From submittal of the ordinances or

resolutions, the Sanggunian Panlalawigan has
30 days for review to make its determination
as to whether or not the ordinances or
resolutions are valid.
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan may declare
such ordinances or resolutions invalid in
whole or in part if they are found to be
outside the powers of the Sanggunian of the
component city or municipality.
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s approval
may come in two ways:

(a) formally, by its passing a resolution of

approval;
(b) informally, by its inaction on the ordinances
or resolutions within 30 days from their
submittal for review.
 GROUND TO INVALIDATE
ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan may declare

such ordinances or resolutions invalid in
whole or in part if they are found to be
outside the powers of the sanggunian of the
component city or municipality.
MODAY vs. CA
FACTS:
The Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of
Bunawan in Agusan del Sur passed Resolution No. 43-
89, “Authorizing the Municipal Mayor to Initiate the
Petition for Expropriation of a One (1) Hectare Portion
of Lot No. 6138-Pls-4 Along the National Highway
Owned by Percival Moday for the Site of Bunawan
Farmers Center and Other Government Sports
Facilities.”
The same was approved by the Mayor Bustillo
but was disapproved by Sangguniang
Panlalawigan citing, “expropriation is
unnecessary considering that there are still
available lots in Bunawan for the establishment
of the government center.” The Municipality
petitioned for eminent domain in the RTC.
They were allowed to take possession of the
land despite owner Percival Moday’s
opposition. Moday filed motion for
reconsideration and was denied by the CA.
Hence the current petition to reverse the
decision and to declare the resolution null and
void.
They contend that the expropriation was
politically motivated and Resolution No. 43-89
was correctly disapproved by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, there being other municipal
properties available for the purpose.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Municipal of Bunawan has
authority to exercise eminent domain on the
ground of disapproval of Sangguniang
Panlalawigan?
RULING:
NO. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan is without
authority to disapprove the municipal resolution
authorizing the mayor to initiate expropriation
proceedings for the municipality which clearly has
the power to exercise the right of eminent
domain and its Sangguniang Bayan the capacity
to promulgate said resolution, pursuant to the
Code.
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s disapproval of
the said resolution is an infirm action which
does not render the said resolution null and
void. The law grants the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan the power to declare a municipal
resolution invalid on the sole ground that it is
beyond the power of the Sangguniang Bayan or
the mayor to issue.
NEED TO INFORM SANGGUNIAN
CONCERNED ON ACTION TAKEN

The action of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan

has to be communicated to the component
city or municipal authorities concerned
within 30 days from the submission of the
ordinances or resolutions in question.
SECTION 57. REVIEW OF
BARANGAY ORDINANCES
BY THE SANGGUNIANG
PANLUNGSOD OR
SANGGUNIANG BAYAN
(a) Within ten (10) days after its enactment, the
sangguniang barangay shall furnish copies of all
barangay ordinances to the sangguniang
panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned
for review as to whether the ordinance is
consistent with law and city or municipal
ordinances.
(b) If the sangguniang panlungsod or
sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, fails to
take action on barangay ordinances within thirty
(30) days from receipt thereof, the same shall
be deemed approved.
(c) If the sangguniang panlungsod or
sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, finds
the barangay ordinances inconsistent with law
or city or municipal ordinances, the sanggunian
concerned shall, within thirty (30) days from
receipt thereof, return the same with its
comments and recommendations to the
sangguniang barangay concerned for
adjustment, amendment, or modification.
In which case, the effectivity of the barangay
ordinance is suspended until such time as the
revision called for is effected.
REVIEW OF BARANGAY
ORDINANCES

Barangay ordinances are subject to review by

the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang
Bayan of the city or municipality to which it
belongs.
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCES

The sanggunian concerned may approve the

barangay ordinances if these are consistent
with law or with city or municipal ordinances.
The approval may come in two ways:

(a) Formally, in the form of a city or municipal

resolution of the sanggunian concerned or
(b) Informally, by inaction on the ordinances in
question within 30 days from submittal
thereof by the sanggunian concerned
DISAPPROVAL OF ORDINANCES

The sanggunian concerned may disapprove

the barangay ordinances on the ground of
inconsistency with law or with city or
municipal ordinances.
In which case, the sanggunian concerned
shall return the ordinances in question with
its comments and recommendations to the
barangay of origin for their adjustment,
amendment or modification. Until the
revisions called for are made, the effectivity
of the ordinances in question is suspended.
SECTION 58. ENFORCEMENT OF
DISAPPROVED ORDINANCES OR
RESOLUTIONS
Any attempt to enforce any ordinance or any
resolution approving the local development plan and
public investment program, after the disapproval
thereof, shall be sufficient ground for the
suspension or dismissal of the official or employee
concerned.
 ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR
DISCIPLINING ERRING LGU
OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE
LGU officials or employees who attempt to
enforce any ordinance or resolution that has
been disapproved by the sanggunian concerned
are liable for suspension or dismissal, whether
they be elective or appointed officials.
 SECTION 59. EFFECTIVITY
OF ORDINANCES OR
RESOLUTIONS

(a) Unless otherwise stated in the ordinance

or the resolution approving the local
development plan and public investment
program,
the same shall take effect after ten (10) days
from the date a copy thereof is posted in a
bulletin board at the entrance of the provincial
capitol or city, municipal, or barangay hall, as
the case may be, and in at least two (2) other
conspicuous places in the local government
unit concerned.
(b) The secretary to the sanggunian
concerned shall cause the posting of an
ordinance or resolution in the bulletin board at
the entrance of the provincial capitol and the
city, municipal, or barangay hall in at least two
(2) conspicuous places in the local government
unit concerned not later than five (5) days
after approval thereof.
The text of the ordinance or resolution shall be
disseminated and posted in Filipino or English
and in the language understood by the
majority of the people in the local government
unit concerned, and the secretary to the
sanggunian shall record such fact in a book
kept for the purpose, stating the dates of
approval and posting
(c) The gist of all ordinances with penal
sanctions shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the province where
the local legislative body concerned belongs. In
the absence of any newspaper of general
circulation within the province, posting of such
ordinances shall be made in all municipalities
and cities of the province where the
sanggunian of origin is situated.
(d) In the case of highly urbanized and
independent component cities, the main
features of the ordinance or resolution duly
enacted or adopted shall, in addition to
being posted, be published once in a local
newspaper of general circulation within the
city: Provided, That in the absence thereof
the ordinance or resolution shall be
published in any newspaper of general
circulation.
DATE OF EFFECTIVITY OF
ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION
The effectivity of an ordinance or
resolution approving the local
development plan and public
investment program may be fixed
in the ordinance or resolution
itself.
If it is not so stated, then it is effective on
the 11th day from the date a copy thereof is
posted in a bulletin board at the entrance of
the provincial capitol or city, municipal or
barangay hall as the case may be and in two
other conspicuous places in the LGU
concerned.
POSTING IN FILIPINO OR
ENGLISH AND LOCAL LANGUAGE
OR DIALECT
It is the required that the ordinance or resolution
shall be disseminated and posted in Filipino or
English and in the language or dialect understood by
the majority of the people within the territorial
jurisdiction of the province, city, municipality or
barangay concerned.
PUBLICATION OF GIST OF PENAL
ORDINANCES
The gist of all ordinances which have penal
sanctions shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the province where the
sanggunian concerned belongs. If there is no
such newspaper in the province, the ordinance
has to be posted in all the municipalities and
cities concerned.
PUBLICATION OF MAIN FEATURES
OF ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS OF HIGHLY
URBANIZED AND INDEPENDENT
CITIES
- have to be published at least once in a local
newspaper of general circulation within the city.
If there is no such local newspaper, it should
be sufficient compliance if the main features,
not necessarily the entire texts, of the
ordinance or resolutions are published in a
newspaper of general circulation.
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION

A declaration of the
Law sentiment or opinion
of a lawmaking body
on a specific matter.
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION

possesses a general
temporary in nature
and permanent
character
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION

third reading is not

third reading is necessary; unless
necessary decided otherwise by
a majority of the
sanggunian members.
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
Need not be submitted to
To be submitted the Local Chief Executive
to the Local for approval; except in
Chief Executive resolutions approving
for approval local development plan &
public investment
THANK YOU!