1. Magtajas vs.

Pryce

No, the ordinances are not valid. 3. LLDA vs CA

A long line of decisions of the Supreme Court Yes, LLDA has authority.
held that for an ordinance to be valid, the same
While it is a fundamental rule than an
must conform to the following substantive
administrative agency has only such powers as
requirements, one of which is that it must not
are expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise a
contravene the Constitution or any of the
settled rule than an administrative agency has
statute. Moreover, the Local Government Units
also such powers as are necessarily implied in
owe their existence to the national legislature;
the exercise of its express powers.
hence, they cannot defy its will or modify or
violate it. Here, RA 4850 specifically mandated LLDA as a
specialized administrative agency which carries
Here, casino gambling is authorized by PD 1869.
out and makes effective the declared national
By enacting Ordinance 3353, which prohibits
policy of promoting and accelerating the
the operation of the casinos, has the effect of
development and balanced growth of the
amending or nullifying the status of the said
Laguna Lake area. Hence, it obviously has the
enabling law. Hence, the questioned ordinances
responsibility to protect the inhabitants of the
are contrary to PD 1869 and thus ultra vires or
Laguna Lake region from the deleterious effects
void.
of pollutants emanating from the discharge of
2. Lino v. Pano wastes from the surrounding areas. Premises
considered, the authority of the LLDA to issue a
Yes, the Kapasiyahan Blg. 508 is valid.
“cease and desist order” is therefore implied.
While it is true that local governments have the
4. Sanchez vs COMELEC
freedom to exercise contrary views to that of
the national government, such freedom does Yes, the COMELEC has power to annul an entire
not mean that they may actually enact municipal election on the ground of post-
ordinances that go against laws that were duly election terrorism.
enacted by Congress. It bears articulating that
Under the Constitution, the COMELEC is tasked
the power of the local government units to
with the function to enforce and administer all
legislate and enact ordinances and resolutions is
laws relative to the conduct of elections for the
merely a delegated power coming from
purpose of insuring free, orderly and honest
Congress. They should not contravene an
elections.
existing statute enacted by Congress.
Here, the COMELEC found that the local
In the case at bar, there is no reason for the RTC
election in San Fernando, Pampanga was
to enjoin the Mayor from enforcing or
vitiated by post-election widespread and
implementing the Kapasiyahan Blg. 508. That
pervasive terrorism. In other words, there were
resolution merely expresses a policy statement
no election returns worthy of faith and credit
of the Laguna Provincial Board. It possesses no
and from which could be gauged a fair and true
binding legal force nor requires any act of
expression of the popular will. The COMELEC
implementation. Thus, there is no sufficient
has the power to reject returns when in its
legal basis for the mayor to refuse the issuance
opinion they were illegal and not authentic.
of the permit sought.
Those falsified or spurious return amount to no
returns at all. The COMELEC’s action, therefore,
of rejecting all election returns and annulling
the local elections thereat was but in keeping
with its constitutionally ordained power of
administration and enforcement of election
laws and its main objective to insure free,
orderly and honest elections.
5. Garcia vs. COMELEC
Yes, the Pambayang Kapasahan Blg. 10 is a
proper subject of an initiative.
The Constitution clearly includes not only
ordinances but resolutions as appropriate
subjects of a local initiative. It therein provides
that the Congress shall provide for a system of
initiative and referendum whereby the people
directly propose and enact laws or approve or
reject any act of Congress. Accordingly, an act of
Congress includes a resolution.
not more than 30 days so that such
investigation will not be hampered nor
influenced by him.
In the case at bar, the suspension of the
municipal official was not in the fashion
prescribed by law and its procedure. The
language of the Administrative Code frowns
upon prolonged or indefinite suspension of a
local official. Pursuant thereto, the suspended
local official should have been reinstated upon
the 30 days preventive suspension. Thus, since
the municipal mayor was suspended for more
than 30 days, the President herein has indeed
exceeded the authority or power granted to him
by law. [revise answer, read the full case]
7. Pelaez vs Auditor General

Here, being a resolution, the conducted/to be

conducted initiative is therefore not
unconstitutional.

6. Hebron vs. Reyes

No, the President has no inherent power to

remove or suspend local elective officers.

There is neither statutory nor constitutional

provision granting the President sweeping
authority to remove municipal officials. In the
Constitution, it only provides therein that the
President shall exercise general supervision over
all local governments. The power of supervision
only means overseeing or authority to see that
subordinate officers perform their duties as
prescribed by law. In the exercise of its general
supervision over local governments, the
President, or his department heads, may
conduct investigations with a view to determine
whether municipal officials are guilty of acts or
omissions warranting administrative action. To
effect an efficient investigation, the President
may suspend the municipal official for a period