GANZON v.

CA and SANTOS
GR No. 93252 August 5, 1991
By Kylie Dado
FACTS1:
Petitioners Mayor of Iloilo and a member of the Sangguniang
Panglungsod.
Petitioners of Mayor Ganzon originated from a series of admin complaints
(10 in number), filed against him by various city officials on various
charges, among them are:
Abuse of authority
Oppression
Grave misconduct
Disgraceful and immoral conduct
Intimidation
Culpable violation of the Consti
Arbitrary detention
The personalities involved are:
Joceleehn Cabaluna, a clerk at the city health office;
Salvador Cabaluna, her husband;
Dr. Felicidad Ortigoza, Assistant City Health Officer;
Mansueto Malabor, ViceMayor;
Rolando Dabao, Dan Dalido, German Gonzales, Larry Ong, and
Eduardo Pea Redondo, members of the Sangguniang Panglunsod
Pancho Erbite, brgy. tanod
Specific complaints:
Joceleehn Cabaluna Mayor pulled her out from rightful office where her
qualifications are best suited and assigned her to a work that should be the
function of a non career service employee because she supported his revil
candidate

1 Facts as specified in the opinion of the CA

Dr. Felicidad Ortigoza Mayor handpicked her to perform task not

befitting her position; her office was padlocked without any explanation or
justification, and her salary was withheld without cause; she was given the
runaround treatment in the approval of her leave
Mansuelo Malabor is the duty elected ViceMayor of Iloilo City and
complainants Rolando Dabao, Dan Dalido, German Gonzales, Larry Ong
and Eduardo Pea Redondo are members of the Sangguniang Panglunsod
of the City of Iloilo. Their complaint arose out from the case where
Councilor Larry Ong, whose key to his office was unceremoniously and
without previous notice, taken by petitioner. Without an office, Councilor
Ong had to hold office at Plaza Libertad. And then, Mayor, together with
his fullyarmed security men, forcefully drove them away from Plaza
Libertad. Councilor Ong decided to hold office at the Freedom Grandstand,
however before the group could reach the area, the petitioner, together with
his security men, led the firemen using a firetruck in dozing water to the
people and the bystanders.
Pancho Erbite - was arrested and detained at the City Jail and was
allegedly mauled by other detainees thereby causing injuries. He was
released only the following day.
Initial hearings of the said complaints were held ta the Regional Office of
the Dept. of Local Govt Iloilo. Petitioner attempted to delay the
proceedings and moved for a postponement under the excuse that he had
just hired his counsel. Nonetheless, the hearing officers denied the motion
to postpone, in view of the fact that the parties were notified by telegrams
of the scheduled hearings.
Luis Santos, secretary of the DLG, found grounds and probable cause,
issued 3 successive 60-day suspensions:
1st: for Cabaluna and Ortigoza cases
2nd: for Pancho Erbites case
- (Mayor was able to obtain a TRO in the RTC so it was
not enforced)
rd
3 : (case did not mention as for whose case)

Mayor, prior to the issuance of the 3rd suspension, instituted CAG.R. SP No.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Secretary of Local Government, as the

16417 (Cabaluna and Ortigoza cases), an action for prohibition, in the CA,
and when the 3rd suspension was issued, ViceMayor Mansueto Malabor was
designated as acting mayor. Undaunted, Mayor Ganzon commenced

Presidents alter ego, can suspend and/or remove local officials.

another CAG.R. SP No. 20736 (challenge on the designation of ViceMayor

Malabor) of the Court of Appeals, a petition for prohibition.
CA dismissed CAG.R. SP No. 16417 and CAG.R. SP No. 20736, and in a
Resolution, certified the petition of Mary Ann Artieda, who had been
similary charged by the respondent Secretary, to this Court.
SC issued a TRO barring the Secretary from implementing the suspension
orders and restraining the enforcement of the CAs 2 decisions. SC
consolidated all 3 cases.

Mayor Ganzons claim (Primary Argument): Secretary (of DLG) is devoid, in

any event, of any authority to suspend and remove local officials

1987 Constitution no longer allows the President, as the 1935 and

1973 Constitutions did, to exercise the power of suspension and/or
removal over local officials. According to both petitioners (Mayor
and Artieda), the Constitution is meant, first, to strengthen selfrule
by local government units and second, by deleting the phrase as
may be provided by law, to strip the President of the power of
control over local governments.

1987 version:
Sec. 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.
-1935 version:
Sec. 10. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, or offices,
exercise general supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law, and take
care that the laws be faithfully executed.

The issue, as the Court understands it, consists of three questions: (1) Did
the 1987 Constitution, in deleting the phrase as may be provided by law
intend to divest the President of the power to investigate, suspend,
discipline, and/or remove local officials? (2) Has the Constitution repealed
Sections 62 and 63 of the Local Government Code? (3) What is the
significance of the change in the constitutional language?
SC said that notwithstanding the change in the constitutional language,
the charter did not intend to divest the legislature of its rightor the
President of her prerogative as conferred by existing legislation to provide
administrative sanctions against local officials. It is our opinion that the
omission (of as may be provided by law) signifies nothing more than to
underscore local governments autonomy from congress and to break
Congress control over local government affairs. The Constitution did not,
however, intend, for the sake of local autonomy, to deprive the legislature of
all authority over municipal corporations, in particular, concerning
discipline.
Autonomy does not, after all, contemplate making mini states out of local
government units, as in the federal governments of the United States of
America (or Brazil or Germany), although Jefferson is said to have
compared municipal corporations euphemistically to small republics.
Autonomy, in the constitutional sense, is subject to the guiding star, though
not control, of the legislature, albeit the legislative responsibility under the
Constitutionand as the supervision clause itself suggest is to wean
local government units from overdependence on the central government.
It is noteworthy that under the Charter, local autonomy is not instantly
selfexecuting, but subject to, among other things, the passage of a local
government code, a local tax law, income distribution legislation, and a
national representation law, and measures designed to realize autonomy at
the local level. It is also noteworthy that in spite of autonomy, the
Constitution places the local government under the general supervision of
the Executive. It is noteworthy finally, that the Charter allows Congress to

include in the local government code provisions for removal of local officials,
which suggest that Congress may exercise removal powers, and as the
existing Local Government Code has done, delegate its exercise to the
President.
The petitioners are under the impression that the Constitution has left the
President mere supervisory powers, which supposedly excludes the power
of investigation, and denied her control, which allegedly embraces
disciplinary authority. It is a mistaken impression because legally,
supervision is not incompatible with disciplinary authority. x x x
Control has been defined as the power of an officer to alter or modify or

nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance
of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for test of the
latter. Supervision on the other hand means overseeing or the power or
authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties.