I.

LOCAL GOV’T CODE OF 1991 SALIENT FEATURES

D. Social Justice Society v. Atienza

G.R. No. 156052 March 7, 2007

Facts

Ordinance No. 8027 enacted by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Manila reclassified the area from
industrial to commercial and directed the owners and operators of businesses disallowed to cease and
desist from operating their businesses within six months from the date of effectivity of the ordinance.
Among the businesses situated in the area are the so-called “Pandacan Terminals” of the oil companies
Caltex (Philippines), Inc., Petron Corporation and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation.

However, the City of Manila and the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with the oil companies in which they agreed that “the scaling down of the
Pandacan Terminals [was] the most viable and practicable option.” In the MOU, the oil companies were
required to remove 28 tanks starting with the LPG spheres and to commence work for the creation of
safety buffer and green zones surrounding the Pandacan Terminals. In exchange, the City Mayor and the
DOE will enable the oil companies to continuously operate within the limited area resulting from joint
operations and the scale down program. The Sangguniang Panlungosod ratified the MOU in Resolution
No. 97.

Petitioners pray for a mandamus to be issued against Mayor Atienza to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and
order the immediate removal of the terminals of the oil companies.

Issue

Whether respondent has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the
removal of the Pandacan Terminals.

Ruling

Yes. The mayor has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 because the Local
Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as city mayor, to “enforce all laws and
ordinances relative to the governance of the city.” One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief
executive of the city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been repealed
by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no other choice. It is his ministerial duty to do so.

In Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., it provides that officers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the ground of
an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. It might seriously hinder the transaction of public
business if these officers were to be permitted in all cases to question the constitutionality of statutes
and ordinances imposing duties upon them and which have not judicially been declared
unconstitutional.

I. Plaza II vs Cassion

Posted on November 18, 2012

GR 136809
July 27, 2004

FACTS

The City of Butuan, through its Sanggunian, passed SP Resolution 427-92 authorizing the City Mayor to
sign the “Memorandum of Agreement for the Devolution of the DSWD to the City of Butuan”. Pursuant
to the MoA, Mayor Plaza issued EO No. 06-92 reconstituting the City Social Services Development Office
(CSSDO), devolving or adding thereto 19 additional DSWD employees headed by Virginia Tuazon as
Officer-in-charge. Its office was transferred from the original CSSDO building to the DSWD building.

Aggrieved by the development, Respondents refused to recognize Tuazon as their new head & to report
at the DSWD building contending that the issuance of EO No. 06-92 & Tuazon’s designation as the
CSSDO’s Officer-in-charge are illegal. Respondents failed to report for work despite Mayor Plaza’s series
of orders directing them to do so. Thereafter, they were administratively charged for grave misconduct
& insubordination and were preventively suspended for 60 days.

Upon expiration of their suspension, the respondents informed the Mayor that they are willing to return
to work but only to their old office, not the DSWD building. They also failed to report to Tuazon at the
DSWD building despite the Mayor’s instructions to do so.

Mayor Plaza then dropped the respondents from the rolls pursuant to the CSC Memorandum Circular
No. 38, Series of 1993 which provides that “officers & employees who are absent for at least 30 days
without approved leave…may be dropped from the service without prior notice.“

ISSUE

1. Whether EO No. 06-92 directing the devolution of 19 national DSWD employees to the city DSWD to
be headed by petitioner Tuazon should be upheld as valid.

2. Whether private respondents were denied due process when they were dropped from the rolls.

HELD

1. Sec.17 of the LGC authorizes the devolution of personnel, assets & liabilities, records basic services,
and facilities of a national government agency to LGUs. Under this Code, the term “devolution” refers to
the act by which the government confers power and authority upon the various LGUs to perform
specific functions & responsibilities.
Mayor Plaza is empowered to issue EO No. 06-92 in order to give effect to the devolution decreed by the
LGC. As the local chief executive of Butuan City, Mayor Plaza has the authority to reappoint devolved
personnel & may designate an employee to take charge of a department until the appointment of a
regular head.

EO No. 06-92 did not violate respondents’ security of tenure as they were not transferred to another
office without their consent. Transfer is a movement from one position to another which is of equivalent
rank, level or salary without break in service & may be imposed as an administrative penalty. The change
of respondents’ place of work from the CSSDO to the DSWD building is not a transfer. It was only a
physical transfer of their office to a new one done in the interest of public service.

2. Dropping from the rolls is not an administrative sanction. Thus, private respondents need not be
notified or heard. Their assertion that they were denied due process is, therefore, untenable.

III. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

PIMENTEL vs. AQUIRRE

G.R. No. 132988

19 JULY 2000

FACTS:

• Subject of this action is Administrative Order No. 372 (AO 372) requires local government units
(LGU) to reduce their expenditures by 25% of their authorized regular appropriations for non-personal
services (Sec. 1); and allows the LGUs to withhold a portion of their internal revenue allotments.

• Petitioner filed to the SC a petition for certiorari and prohibition, contending that the President,
in issuing the said AO, was in effect exercising the power of control over LGUs; & that the directive to
withhold a portion of their IRA is in contravention of Sec. 286 of the LGC & Sec. 6, Art. X of the
Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether Secs. 1 & 4 of AO 372 are valid exercises of the President’s power of general
supervision over LGUs.

HELD: Sec. 1 – YES; Sec. 4 – NO

RATIO:
• The Court held that Sec. 1 of AO 372, being merely an advisory is well within the powers of the
President. It is not a mandatory imposition, and such directive cannot be characterized as an exercise of
the power of control.

• Local fiscal autonomy does not rule out any manner of national government intervention by way
of supervision, in order to ensure that local programs, fiscal and otherwise, are consistent with national
goals. The AO is intended only to advise all government agencies and instrumentalities to undertake
cost-reduction measures that will help maintain economic stability in the country. It does not contain
any sanction in case of noncompliance.

• The Local Government Code also allows the President to interfere in local fiscal matters,
provided that certain requisites are met:

o (1) an unmanaged public sector deficit of the national government;

o (2) consultations with the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives and
the presidents of the various local leagues;

o (3) the corresponding recommendation of the secretaries of the Department of Finance, Interior
and Local Government, and Budget and Management; and

o (4) any adjustment in the allotment shall in no case be less than 30% of the collection of national
internal revenue taxes of the third fiscal year preceding the current one.

• However, Sec. 4 of AO 372 cannot be upheld. A basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the
automatic release of the shares of LGUs in the national internal revenue. This is mandated by the
Constitution and the Local Government Code. Section 4 which orders the withholding of a portion of
the LGU’s IRA clearly contravenes the Constitution and the law.

SECTION 57, LGC

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.

COA VS PROVINCE OF CEBU