*Political Subdivision

*LOCAL AUTONOMY
*Decentralization of Administration
>state of independence
>self-governance
>independence of control from the national
government

Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials,

except barangay officials, which shall be determined by
law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve
for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not
be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his
service for the full term for which he was elected.

ARTICLE X

Section 9. Legislative bodies of local governments shall

have sectoral representation as may be prescribed by
law.

ARTICLE X
Section 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the
Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities,
municipalities, and barangays. There shall be
autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.
Section 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall
enjoy local autonomy.
Section 3. The Congress shall enact a local government
code which shall provide for a more responsive and
accountable local government structure instituted
through a system of decentralization 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 organization
and operation of the local units.
Section 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise
general supervision over local governments. Provinces
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.
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.
Section 6. Local government units shall have a just
share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which
shall be automatically released to them.
Section 7. Local governments shall be entitled to an
equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and
development of the national wealth within their
respective areas, in the manner provided by law,
including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way
of direct benefits.

Section 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay

may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its
boundary substantially altered, except in accordance
with the criteria established in the local government code
and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in
a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
Section 11. The Congress may, by law, create special
metropolitan political subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite
as set forth in Section 10 hereof. The component cities
and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and
shall be entitled to their own local executive and
legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the
metropolitan authority that will thereby be created shall
be limited to basic services requiring coordination.
Section 12. Cities that are highly urbanized, as
determined by law, and component cities whose charters
prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective
officials, shall be independent of the province. The voters
of component cities within a province, whose charters
contain no such prohibition, shall not be deprived of their
right to vote for elective provincial officials.
Section 13. Local government units may group
themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts,
services, and resources for purposes commonly
beneficial to them in accordance with law.
Section 14. The President shall provide for regional
development councils or other similar bodies composed
of local government officials, regional heads of
departments and other government offices, and
representatives from non-governmental organizations
within the regions for purposes of administrative
decentralization to strengthen the autonomy of the units
therein and to accelerate the economic and social
growth and development of the units in the region.
REPUBLIC ACT 7160
Section 43. Term of Office. (a) The term of office of all local elective officials elected
after the effectivity of this Code shall be three (3) years,
starting from noon of June 30, 1992 or such date as may
be provided for by law, except that of elective barangay

officials: Provided, That all local officials first elected

during the local elections immediately following the
ratification of the 1987 Constitution shall serve until noon
of June 30, 1992.
(b) No local elective official shall serve for more than
three (3) consecutive terms in the same position.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time
shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of service for the full term for which the
elective official concerned was elected.
(c) The term of office of barangay officials and members
of the sangguniang kabataan shall be for three (3) years,
which shall begin after the regular election of barangay
officials on the second Monday of May 1994.
CASES:
1. BORJA VS. COMELEC
Facts: Private respondent Jose T. Capco, Jr. was
elected vice-mayor of Pateros on January 18, 1988 for a
term ending June 30, 1992. On September 2, 1989, he
became mayor, by operation of law, upon the death of
the incumbent, Cesar Borja. For the next two
succeeding elections in 1992 and 1995, he was again
re-elected as Mayor.
On March 27, 1998, private respondent Capco filed a
certificate of candidacy for mayor of Pateros relative to
the May 11, 1998 elections. Petitioner Benjamin U.
Borja, Jr., who was also a candidate for mayor, sought
Capcos disqualification on the theory that the latter
would have already served as mayor for three
consecutive terms by June 30, 1998 and would therefore
be ineligible to serve for another term after that.

more than three consecutive terms.

Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not
be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his
service for the full term for which he was elected.
This provision is restated in par. 43(b) of the Local
Government Code (R.A. No. 71) which states that no
local elective official shall serve for more than three (3)
consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not
be considered as an interruption in the continuity of
service for the full term for which the elective official
concerned was elected.
The term served must therefore be one for which [the
official concerned] was elected. The purpose of this
provision is to prevent a circumvention of the limitation
on the number of terms an elective official may serve.
Conversely, if he is not serving a term for which he was
elected because he is simply continuing the service of
the official he succeeds, such official cannot be
considered
to
have
fully
served
the
term
not withstanding his voluntary renunciation of office prior
to its expiration.
The term limit for elective local officials must be taken to
refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to
serve in the same elective position. Consequently, it is
not enough that an individual has served three
consecutive terms in an elective local office, he must
also have been elected to the same position for the
same number of times before the disqualification can
apply.

2. LONZANIDA VS. COMELEC

The Second Division of the Commission on Elections
ruled in favor of petitioner and declared private
respondent Capco disqualified from running for
reelection as mayor of Pateros but in the motion for
reconsideration, majority overturned the original
decision.
Issue: WON Capco has served for three consecutive
terms as Mayor?
Held: No. Article X, Sec. 8 of the Constitution provides
that the term of office of elective local officials
shall be three years and no such official shall serve for

FACTS:
Petitioner Romeo Lonzanida was previously elected and
served two consecutive terms as mayor of San Antonio,
Zambales prior to the May 1995 mayoralty elections. In
the May 1995 elections, he again ran for mayor of San
Antonio, Zambales and was proclaimed winner. He
assumed office and discharged the rights and duties of
mayor until March 1998 and he was ordered to vacate
the post by reason of a COMELEC decision dated
November 13, 1997 on the election protest filed against
him which declared his opponent Juan Alvez as the duly
elected mayor of San Antonio. This was made after a
revision and re-appreciation of the contested ballots.

Alvez served the remaining portion of the 1995-1998

mayoral
term.
Again, on May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner filed his
certificate of candidacy for mayor of San Antonio. On
April 21, 1998, his opponent Eufemio Muli timely filed a
petition to disqualify the petitioner from running for
mayor of San Antonio on the ground that he had served
three consecutive terms in the same post. On May 13,
1998, the petitioner was proclaimed winner.
On May 21, 1998 the First Division of the COMELEC
issued a resolution granting the petition which was also
affirmed
by
the
COMELEC
En
Banc.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: whether petitioner Lonzanidas assumption of
office as mayor of San Antonio Zambales from May 1995
to March 1998 may be considered as service of one full
term for the purpose of applying the three-term limit for
elective local government officials.
HELD:NO.
POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; LOCAL
GOVERNMENT; TERM OF OFFICE; THREE TERM
RULE; INTENDED TO FORESTALL ACCUMULATION
OF MASSIVE POLITICAL POWER. The records of
the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that the threeterm limit which is now embodied in Section 8, Art. X of
the Constitution was initially proposed to be an absolute
bar to any elective local government official from running
for the same position after serving three consecutive
terms. The said disqualification was primarily intended to
forestall the accumulation of massive political power by
an elective local government official in a given locality in
order to perpetuate his tenure in office. The delegates
also considered the need to broaden the choices of the
electorate of the candidates who will run for office, and
to infuse new blood in the political arena by disqualifying
officials from running for the same office after a term of
nine years. The mayor was compared by some
delegates to the President of the Republic as he is a
powerful chief executive of his political territory and is
most likely to form a political dynasty. The drafters
however, recognized and took note of the fact that some
local government officials run for office before they reach
forty years of age; thus to perpetually bar them from
running for the same office after serving nine
consecutive years may deprive the people of qualified
candidates to choose from. As finally voted upon, it was
agreed that an elective local government official should
be barred from running for the same post after three
consecutive terms. After a hiatus of at least one term, he
may again run for the same office.

ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REFERS TO OFFICIAL

ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE BY REASON OF
ELECTION. The scope of the constitutional provision
barring elective local officials with the exception of
barangay officials from serving more than three
consecutive terms was discussed at length in the case of
Benjamin Borja, Jr., vs. COMELEC and Jose Capco, Jr.
where the issue raised was whether a vice-mayor who
succeeds to the office of the mayor by operation of law
upon the death of the incumbent mayor and served the
remainder of the term should be considered to have
served a term in that office for the purpose of computing
the three term limit. The court pointed out that from the
discussions of the Constitutional Convention it is evident
that the delegates proceed from the premise that the
officials assumption of office is by reason of election.
ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; TWO CONDITIONS FOR
APPLICATION OF DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON
THEREOF. This Court held that the two conditions for
the application of the disqualification must concur: 1) that
the official concerned has been elected for three
consecutive terms in the same local government post
and 2) that he has fully served three consecutive terms.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
PROCLAMATION
SUBSEQUENTLY
DECLARED
VOID
IS
NO
PROCLAMATION AT ALL; CASE AT BAR. After a reappreciation and revision of the contested ballots the
COMELEC itself declared by final judgment that
petitioner Lonzanida lost in the May 1995 mayoral
elections and his previous proclamation as winner was
declared null and void. His assumption of office as
mayor cannot be deemed to have been by reason of a
valid election but by reason of a void proclamation. It has
been repeatedly held by this court that a proclamation
subsequently declared void is no proclamation at all and
while a proclaimed candidate may assume office on the
strength of the proclamation of the Board of Canvassers
he is only a presumptive winner who assumes office
subject to the final outcome of the election protest.
Petitioner Lonzanida did not serve a term as mayor of
San Antonio, Zambales from May 1995 to March 1998
because he was not duly elected to the post; he merely
assumed office as presumptive winner, which
presumption was later overturned by the COMELEC
when it decided with finality that Lonzanida lost in May
1995
mayoral
elections.
ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; INVOLUNTARY SEVERANCE
FROM OFFICE FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME
AMOUNTS TO AN INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUITY
OF SERVICE; CASE AT BAR. The petitioner cannot
be deemed to have served the May 1995 to 1998 term
because he was ordered to vacate his post before the
expiration of the term. The respondents contention that

the petitioner should be deemed to have served one full

term from May 1995-1998 because he served the
greater portion of that term has no legal basis to support
it; it disregards the second requisite for the application of
the disqualification, i.e., that he has fully served three
consecutive terms. The second sentence of the
constitutional provision under scrutiny states, Voluntary
renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of service
for the full term for which he was elected. The clear
intent of the framers of the constitution to bar any
attempt to circumvent the three-term limit by a voluntary
renunciation of office and at the same time respect the
peoples choice and grant their elected official full service
of a term is evident in this provision. Voluntary
renunciation of a term does not cancel the renounced
term in the computation of the three term limit;
conversely, involuntary severance from office for any
length of time short of the full term provided by law
amounts to an interruption of continuity of service. The
petitioner vacated his post a few months before the next
mayoral elections, not by voluntary renunciation but in
compliance with the legal process of writ of execution
issued by the COMELEC to that effect. Such involuntary
severance from office is an interruption of continuity of
service and thus, the petitioner did not fully serve the
1995-1998 mayoral term.
3. ADORMEO VS. COMELEC
Facts: Petitioner and private respondent incumbent
mayor were the only candidates who filed their COC for
mayor of Lucena City in the May 2001 elections.
Private respondent was elected mayor in May 1992,
where he served the full term. Again, he was re-elected
in May 1995, where he again served the full term. In the
recall election of May 2000, he again won and served
only the unexpired term of Tagarao after having lost to
the latter in the 1998 election.
Petitioner filed a petition to cancel COC and/or
disqualification of the respondent in the ground that the
latter was elected and had served as city mayor for 3
consecutive terms contending that serving the unexpired
term of office is considered as 1 term.
Private respondent maintains that his service as city
mayor of Lucena is not consecutive. He lost his bid for a
second re-election in 1998 and during Tagaraos

incumbency, he was a private citizen, thus he had not

been a mayor for 3 consecutive terms.
Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides
that the term of office of elective officials, except
barangay officials, which shall be determined by law,
shall be 3 years and no such official shall serve for more
than 3 consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
office for any length of time shall not be considered as
an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term
for which the elective official concerned was elected.
Section 43(b) of RA 7160 (Local Government Code)
provides that no local elective official shall serve for
more than 3 consecutive terms in the same position.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time
shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of service for the full term for which the
elective official concerned was elected.
Issue: WON private respondent had already served 3
consecutive term for mayor of Lucena City.
Held: No. Private respondent was not elected for 3
consecutive terms. For nearly 2 years, he was a private
citizen. The continuity of his term as mayor was
disrupted by his defeat in the 1998 elections.
Neither can respondents victory in the recall election be
deemed a voluntary renunciation for clearly it is not.
Voluntary renunciation of a term does not cancel the
renounced term in the computation of the three term
limit; conversely, involuntary severance from office for
any length of time short of the full term provided by law
amounts to an interruption of continuity of
service (Lonzanida vs COMELEC).
Hence, being elected in a recall election interrupts the 3
consecutive term limit.
4. SOCRATES VS. COMELEC
Facts: COMELEC gave due course to the Recall
Resolution against Mayor Socrates of the City of Puerto
Princesa, and scheduled the recall election on
September 7, 2002.
On August 23, 2002, Hagedorn filed his COC for mayor
in the recall election.

Different petitioners filed their respective petitions, which

were consolidated seeking the disqualification of
Hagedorn to run for the recall election and the
cancellation of his COC on the ground that the latter is
disqualified from running for a fourth consecutive term,
having been elected and having served as mayor of the
city for three (3) consecutive full terms in 1992, 1995 and
1998 immediately prior to the instant recall election for
the same post.
COMELECs First Division dismissed in a resolution the
petitioner for lack of merit. And COMELEC declared
Hagedorn qualified to run in the recall election.
Issue: WON one who has been elected and served for 3
consecutive full terms is qualified to run for mayor in the
recall election.
Held: Yes. The three-term limit rule for elective local
officials is found in Section 8, Article X of the
Constitution, which states:
Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials,
except barangay officials, which shall be determined by
law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve
for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not
be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his
service for the full term for which he was elected.
This three-term limit rule is reiterated in Section 43 (b) of
RA No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code, which provides:
Section 43. Term of Office. (a) x x x
(b) No local elective official shall serve for more than
three (3) consecutive terms in the same position.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time
shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of service for the full term for which the
elective official was elected.
The first part provides that an elective local official
cannot serve for more than three consecutive
terms. The clear intent is that only consecutive
terms count in determining the three-term limit rule. The
second part states that voluntary renunciation of office
for any length of time does not interrupt the continuity of
service. The
clear
intent
is
that involuntary

severance from office for any length of time interrupts

continuity of service and prevents the service before and
after the interruption from being joined together to form a
continuous service or consecutive terms.
After three consecutive terms, an elective local official
cannot seek immediate re-election for a fourth
term. The prohibited election refers to the next regular
election for the same office following the end of the third
consecutive term. Any subsequent election, like a
recall election, is no longer covered by the prohibition for
two reasons. First, a subsequent election like a recall
election is no longer an immediate re-election after three
consecutive terms. Second, the intervening period
constitutes an involuntary interruption in the continuity of
service.
Based from the deliberations of a Constitutional
Commission, what the Constitution prohibits is
an immediate re-election for a fourth term following
three consecutive terms. The Constitution, however,
does not prohibit a subsequent re-election for a fourth
term as long as the re-election is not immediately after
the end of the third consecutive term. A recall election
mid-way in the term following the third consecutive term
is a subsequent election but not an immediate reelection after the third term.
Neither does the Constitution prohibit one barred from
seeking immediate re-election to run in any other
subsequent election involving the same term of
office. What
the
Constitution
prohibits
is
a consecutive fourth term.
In the case of Hagedorn, his candidacy in the recall
election on September 24, 2002 is not an immediate reelection after his third consecutive term which ended on
June 30, 2001. The immediate re-election that the
Constitution barred Hagedorn from seeking referred to
the regular elections in 2001.
5. ONG VS. ALEGRE
Francis Ong was elected and assumed the duties of the
mayor of San Vicente, Camarines Norte for three
consecutive terms. But his proclamation as mayor in the
May 1998 election was declared void. As ruled, his
service for the term 1998 to 2001 is for the full term.

"Section 70. Initiation of the Recall Process. a. The Recall of any elective provincial, city, municipal or
barangay official shall be commenced by a petition of a
registered voter in the local government unit concerned
and supported by the registered voters in the local
government unit concerned during the election in which
the local official sought to be recalled was elected
subject to the following percentage requirements:
1. At least twenty-five percent (25%) in the case of local
government units with a voting population of not more
than twenty thousand (20,000);
2. At least twenty percent (20%) in the case of local
government units with a voting population of at least
twenty thousand (20,000) but not more than seventy-five
thousand (75,000): Provided, That in no case shall the
required petitioners be less than five thousand (5,000);

6. LATASA VS. COMELEC

Municipality of Digos declared as a component city.
True, the new city acquired a new corporate existence
separate and distinct from that of the municipality. This
does not mean, however, that for the purpose of
applying the subject Constitutional provision, the office of
the municipal mayor would now be construed as a
different local government post as that of the office of the
city mayor. As stated earlier, the territorial jurisdiction of
the City of Digos is the same as that of the
municipality. Consequently, the inhabitants of the
municipality are the same as those in the city. These
inhabitants are the same group of voters who elected
petitioner Latasa to be their municipal mayor for three
consecutive terms. These are also the same inhabitants
over whom he held power and authority as their chief
executive for nine years.
Republic Act No. 9244

February 19 2004

AN ACT ELIMINATING THE PREPARATORY RECALL

ASSEMBLY AS A MODE OF INSTITUTING RECALL
OF ELECTIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
SECTION 1. Section 70, Chapter 5, Title One, Book I of
Republic Acts No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991, is hereby amended to read
as follows:

3. At least fifteen percent (15%) in the case of local

government nits with a voting population of at least
seventy-five thousand (75,000) but not more than three
hundred thousand (300,000): Provided, however, That in
no case shall the required number of petitioners be less
than fifteen thousand (15,000); and
4. At least ten percent (10%) in the case of local
government units with a voting population of over three
hundred thousand (300,000): Provided, however, That in
no case shall the required petitioners be less than fortyfive thousand (45,000).
b. The process of recall shall be effected in accordance
with the following procedure:
1. A written petition for recall duly signed by the
representatives of the petitioners before the election
registrar or his representative, shall be filed with the
Comelec through its office in the local government unit
concerned.
2. The petition to recall shall contain the following:
a. The names and addresses of the petitioners written in
legible form and their signatures;
b. The barangay, city or municipality, local legislative
district and the province to which the petitioners belong;
c. The name of the official sought to be recalled; and

d. A brief narration of the reasons and justifications

therefore.
1. The Comelec shall, within fifteen (15) days from
filing of the petition, certify to the sufficiency of
required number of signatures. Failure to obtain
required number of signatures automatically nullifies
petition;

the
the
the
the

2. If the petition is found to be sufficient in form, the

Comelec or its duly authorized representative shall,
within three (3) days form the issuance of the
certification, provide the official sought to be recalled a
copy of the petition, cause its publication a national
newspaper of general circulation and a newspaper of
general circulation in the locality, once a week for three
(3) consecutive weeks at the expense of the petitioners
and at the same time post copies thereof in public and
conspicuous places for a period of not less than ten (10)
days nor more than twenty (20) days, for the purpose of
allowing interested parties to examine and verify the
validity of the petition and the authenticity of the
signatures contained therein.
3. The Comelec or its duly authorized representatives
shall, upon issuance of certification, proceed
independently with the verification and authentication of
the signatures of the petitioners and registered voters
contained therein. Representatives of the petitioners and
the official sought to be recalled shall be duly notified
and shall have the right to participate therein as mere
observers. The filing of any challenge or protest shall be
allowed within the period provided in the immediately
preceding paragraph and shall be ruled upon with finality
within fifteen (15) days from the date of filing of such
protest or challenge;
4. Upon the lapse of the aforesaid period, the Comelec
or its duly authorized representative shall announce the
acceptance of candidates to the positive and thereafter
prepare the list of candidates which shall include the
name of the official sought to be recalled."
SEC. 2. Section 71. Chapter 5, Title One, Book I of the
Republic Act No. 7160, "Local Government Code of
1991", is hereby amended to read as follows:
(1) "SEC. 71. Election on Recall. - Upon the filing of a
valid petition for recall with the appropriate local office of
the Comelec, the Comelec or its duly authorized
representative shall set the date of the election or recall,
which shall not be later than thirty (30) days upon the
completion of the procedure outlined in the preceding
article, in the case of the barangay, city or municipal

officials, and forty-five (45) days in the case of provincial

officials. The officials sought to be recalled shall
automatically be considered as duly registered candidate
or candidates to the pertinent positions and, like other
candidates, shall be entitled to be voted upon."
SEC. 3. All pending petitions for recall initiated through
the Preparatory Recall Assembly shall be considered
dismissed upon the effectivity of this Act.
SEC. 4. All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders,
issuances, and rules and regulations, and parts thereof,
which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Are
hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
SEC. 5. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after
its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two 92)
national newspapers of general circulation.
ARTICLE X- CONSTITUTION
Section 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay
may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its
boundary substantially altered, except in accordance
with the criteria established in the local government code
and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in
a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
REPUBLIC ACT 7160
General Powers and Attributes of Local Government
Units
Section 6. Authority to Create Local Government
Units. - A local government unit may be created, divided,
merged, abolished, or its boundaries substantially
altered either by law enacted by Congress in the case of
a province, city, municipality, or any other political
subdivision, or by ordinance passed by the sangguniang
panlalawigan or sangguniang panlungsod concerned in
the case of a barangay located within its territorial
jurisdiction, subject to such limitations and requirements
prescribed in this Code.
Section 7. Creation and Conversion. - As a general rule,
the creation of a local government unit or its conversion
from one level to another level shall be based on
verifiable indicators of viability and projected capacity to
provide services, to wit:
(a) Income. - It must be sufficient, based on acceptable
standards, to provide for all essential government
facilities and
services and
special
functions

commensurate with the size of its population, as

expected of the local government unit concerned;
(b) Population. - It shall be determined as the total
number of inhabitants within the territorial jurisdiction of
the local government unit concerned; and
(c) Land Area. - It must be contiguous, unless it
comprises two or more islands or is separated by a local
government unit independent of the others; properly
identified by metes and bounds with technical
descriptions; and sufficient to provide for such basic
services and facilities to meet the requirements of its
populace.
Compliance with the foregoing indicators shall be
attested to by the Department of Finance (DOF), the
National Statistics Office (NSO), and the Lands
Management Bureau (LMB) of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Section 8. Division and Merger. - Division and merger of
existing local government units shall comply with the
same requirements herein prescribed for their creation:
Provided, however, That such division shall not reduce
the income, population, or land area of the local
government unit or units concerned to less than the
minimum requirements prescribed in this Code:
Provided, further, That the income classification of the
original local government unit or units shall not fall below
its current classification prior to such division.
The income classification of local government units shall
be updated within six (6) months from the effectivity of
this Code to reflect the changes in their financial position
resulting from the increased revenues as provided
herein.
Section 9. Abolition of Local Government Units. - A local
government unit may be abolished when its income,
population, or land area has been irreversibly reduced to
less than the minimum standards prescribed for its
creation under Book III of this Code, as certified by the
national agencies mentioned in Section 7 hereof to
Congress or to the sangguniang concerned, as the case
may be.
The law or ordinance abolishing a local government unit
shall specify the province, city, municipality, or barangay
with which the local government unit sought to be
abolished will be incorporated or merged.
Section 10. Plebiscite Requirement. - No creation,
division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of

boundaries of local government units shall take effect

unless approved by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite called for the purpose in the political unit or
units directly affected. Said plebiscite shall be conducted
by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) within one
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of effectivity of
the law or ordinance effecting such action, unless said
law or ordinance fixes another date.
Section 386. Requisites for Creation. (a) A barangay may be created out of a contiguous
territory which has a population of at least two thousand
(2,000) inhabitants as certified by the National Statistics
Office except in cities and municipalities within Metro
Manila and other metropolitan political subdivisions or in
highly urbanized cities where such territory shall have a
certified population of at least five thousand (5,000)
inhabitants: Provided, That the creation thereof shall not
reduce the population of the original barangay or
barangays to less than the minimum requirement
prescribed herein.
To enhance the delivery of basic services in the
indigenous cultural communities, barangays may be
created in such communities by an Act of Congress,
notwithstanding the above requirement.
(b) The territorial jurisdiction of the new barangay shall
be properly identified by metes and bounds or by more
or less permanent natural boundaries. The territory need
not be contiguous if it comprises two (2) or more islands.
(c) The governor or city mayor may prepare a
consolidation plan for barangays, based on the criteria
prescribed in this Section, within his territorial
jurisdiction. The plan shall be submitted to the
sangguniang panlalawigan or sangguniang panlungsod
concerned for appropriate action.
In the case of municipalities within the Metropolitan
Manila Area and other metropolitan political subdivisions,
the barangay consolidation plan shall be prepared and
approved by the sangguniang bayan concerned.
Section 450. Requisites for Creation.
(a) A municipality or a cluster of barangays may be
converted into a component city if it has an average
annual income, as certified by the Department of
Finance, of at least Twenty million (P20,000,000.00) for
the last two (2) consecutive years based on 1991
constant prices, and if it has either of the following
requisites:

(i) a contiguous territory of at least one hundred (100)

square kilometers, as certified by the Lands
Management Bureau; or

located within the boundaries of two (2) or more

provinces, such city shall be considered a component of
the province of which it used to be a municipality.

(ii) a population of not less than one hundred fifty

thousand (150,000) inhabitants, as certified by the
National Statistics Office:

(c) Qualified voters of highly urbanized cities shall

remain excluded from voting for elective provincial
officials.

Provided, That, the creation thereof shall not reduce the

land area, population, and income of the original unit or
units at the time of said creation to less than the
minimum requirements prescribed herein.

Unless otherwise provided in the Constitution or this

Code, qualified voters of independent component cities
shall be governed by their respective charters, as
amended, on the participation of voters in provincial
elections.

(b) The territorial jurisdiction of a newly-created city shall

be properly identified by metes and bounds. The
requirement on land area shall not apply where the city
proposed to be created is composed of one (1) or more
islands. The territory need not be contiguous if it
comprises two (2) or more islands.
(c) The average annual income shall include the income
accruing to the general fund, exclusive of specific funds,
transfers, and non-recurring income.
Section 451. Cities, Classified. - A city may either be
component or highly urbanized: Provided, however, That
the criteria established in this Code shall not affect the
classification and corporate status of existing cities.
component cities whose charters prohibit their voters
from voting for provincial elective officials. Independent
component cities shall be independent of the province.
Independent component cities are those

Section 452. Highly Urbanized Cities.

(a) Cities with a minimum population of two hundred
thousand (200,000) inhabitants as certified by the
National Statistics Office, and within the latest annual
income of at least Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00)
based on 1991 constant prices, as certified by the city
treasurer, shall be classified as highly urbanized cities.
(b) Cities which do not meet above requirements shall
be considered component cities of the province in which
they are geographically located. If a component city is

Qualified voters of cities who acquired the right to vote

for elective provincial officials prior to the classification of
said cities as highly-urbanized after the ratification of the
Constitution and before the effectivity of this Code, shall
continue to exercise such right.

INCOME
POPULATION
LAND AREA

municipal
ity

city

2.5M
25000

100M
Either
of:
150k
100 sq
km

50 sq.Km

Highly
urbanize
d city
50 M

provinc
e

200k

250,000

baranga
y

20M

2000
sq. km

5000
NCR
2000