LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: CREATION, MERGER, ABOLITION AND POWERS

CREATION, MERGER AND ABOLITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Tan v COMELEC FACTS: Sec 3, Art XI,

(Alampay. 1986) Consti
This case was prompted by the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 885, An Act Creating a New Province in the Island
of Negros to be known as the Province of Negros del Norte, effective Dec. 3, 1985. (Cities of Silay, Cadiz and San Sec 197, LGC
Carlos and the municipalities of Calatrava, Taboso, Escalante, Sagay, Manapla, Victorias, E.R. Magalona, and Note:
Salvador Benedicto proposed to belong to the new province). memorize
Pursuant to and in implementation of this law, the COMELEC scheduled a plebiscite for January 3, 1986. Petitioners Sec 461, LGC
opposed, filing a case for Prohibition and contending that the B.P. 885 is unconstitutional and not in complete (req for
accord with the Local Government Code because: creating
• The voters of the parent province of Negros Occidental, other than those living within the territory of the new province)
province of Negros del Norte, were not included in the plebiscite.
• The area which would comprise the new province of Negros del Norte would only be about 2,856.56 sq. km.,
which is lesser than the minimum area prescribed by the governing statute, Sec. 197 of LGC.

ISSUE:

WON BP 885 (act creating Province of Negros del Norte from Negros Occidental) and the plebiscite held excluding
Negros Occidental voters that are not contemplated to be part of the new province comply with constitutional
requirements.
H: BP 885 unconstitutional, it did not comply with constitutional and local government code requirements. The
territory covered by the new province fell short of the standard and not all the units affected were included in the
plebiscite as required by the Constitution. All the units of the mother unit from which the new province will be
created constitute “units affected” and all of them, whether or not they will be included in the new province should
be included in the plebiscite.

SC: Constitution (Sec 3, Art X) requirements:

No province, city, municipality, or barrio may be created, merged, or abolished except:
1. in accordance with criteria established by the LGC
2. subject to approval by a majority of votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected.

UNITS AFFECTED = units that will form the new province + other units of the mother unit from which the new
province will come from;
TERRITORY = land mass (does not include territorial waters)

LGC requirements (Sec 197 Requisites for Creation)

REQUISITES FOR CREATING A PROVINCE
1. Territory = at least 3,500 sq/m
2. Population = At least 500, 000
3. Average estimated income for the last 3 consecutive years, certified by Ministry of Finance = at least Php 10M
4. NOT reduce income of mother province/s at the time of creation to less than minimum requirements under this
section
5. Territory need not be contiguous if it comprises 2 or more islands
Torralba vs. Mun. of WON BP 56, passed before the enactment of the Local Government Code (LGC), creating Municipality of Sibagat in Secs, 6, 7, 10,
Sibagat (1987) Agusan del Sur invalid for violating Sec 3, Art XI of the 1973 Consti w/c states that the creation of a municipality LGC
must be in accordance with the criteria established in the LGC.
Held: VALID. LGC not a condition sine qua non for creation of municipality. Valid exercise of legislative power of
Batasang Pambansa at the time. Plebiscite conducted with “all affected areas” within time specified in the law.

Notes: 3 REQUISITES in creating Local Government Units

1. Law/ordinance (Sec 6)
2. Indicators of viability (Sec 7)
3. Plebiscite (Sec 10)
METRO MANILA COMMISSION

Gemiliano Lopez, Jr. WON PD 824 (creating Metropolitan Manila enacted to establish and administer programs in the area) is Sec 25
vs. Hon. Comelec unconstitutional because it was enacted before the LGC was passed and it created a new political subdivision. WON (National
(1985) the provision giving the President the power of direct supervision and control over officials of the Metropolitan Supervision
Commission is void for giving the President the power of control over a local government unit or a Commission of over LGUs)
which functions as a local government unit.

H: Valid law. The constitution at the time already recognized the existence of the Metropolitan Manila. The
President is only given the power of general supervision.

DOCTRINE: The President only has the power of general supervision over LGUs.

Gemiliano Lopez, Jr.

vs. Hon. MMC
PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
Alvarez v Guingona RA 7330 converted the Municipality of Santiago Isabela into an independent component city. Sec 24, Art VI
(1996) WON Internal Revenue Allotments (IRAs) are to be computed in average annual income of a municipality for Consti (bills
purposes of meeting Sec 450 LGC requirements for conversion into an independent component city. of local
WON RA 7720 violated the Sec 24, Art VI Constitutional provision when a similar bill was at the senate when it was application
passed in Congress. should
Held: IRA to be included in average annual income of municipalities. RA 7330 originated from Congress filing by the originate
Senate of a substitute bill does not contravene the constitutional for as long as the Senate does not act on it until it from HOR)
receives the House bill w/c is what happened in the case at bar. Every law has a presumption of constitutionality and
the petitioners failed to overcome this presumption. Sec 450 LGC
(ave annual
DOCTRINE/S income
IRA. An LGU is a political subdivision of the government constituted by law with substantial control over its own PhP20M for
affairs. The vesting of duty and accountability in every LGU is accompanied with a provision for reasonably adequate last 2
resources to effectively carry out its functions. This is affected through vesting LGUs with consecutive
1. Right to create and broaden its own source of revenue (Sec 5, Art X, Consti) yrs)
2. Right to be allocated w/ just share in national taxes = Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA) (Sec 6, Art X)
3. Right to be given its equitable share in the proceeds and utilization and development of the national Sec 5, 6, 7
wealth within their respective areas (Sec 8) Art X , Consti

INCOME (based on the LGC) is all revenues and receipts collected or received forming the gross accretion of funds of
the LGU. IRAs are income because they regularly and automatically accrue to the local treasury and form part of the
LGU funds.

PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. Every law has the presumption of constitutionality. For a law to be nullified,
it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful equivocal
one. The grounds for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt. There must be a clear and established
basis to declare a law unconstitutional in order for a petition to nullify it to succeed.
GOVERNMENTAL POWERS/FUNCTIONS

Municipality of San The dump truck driven by Bislig, Municipality of San Fernando driver, who was on his way to get materials for the Sec 3, Art XVI
Fernando v. Firme repair of municipal streets collided with a jeepney killing and injuring several passengers. WON the Municipality of (doctrine of
(1991) San Fernando may be liable for a tort committed by its employee. non-suability
of state)
Held: NO. A municipality cannot be held liable for a tort committed by its employee engaged in the discharge of
governmental functions. The state may not be sued without its consent (Sec 3, Art XVI Consti) and therefore may
not be held liable without its consent.

SC: The TEST OF LIABILITY of a municipal corporation (MC) depends on WON the driver, acting in behalf of the
municipality, was performing governmental or proprietary functions (Torio v Fontanilla). When an MC is acting in its
GOVERNMENTAL CAPACITY performing governmental functions, its officers and agents, in such capacity, are
performing PUBLIC SERVICE and are therefore GOVERNMENT AGENTS and the MC may not be held liable. When the
MC is acting in its PROPRIETARY or CORPORATE CAPACITY it exercises a proprietary right arising from its existence as
a legal person and not as a public agency and may be held liable.
PROPRIETARY POWERS/FUNCTIONS
City of Manila v IAC City of Manila exhumed and stuck widow’s husband’s remains in cemetery bodega before her 50-year term of lease Art 423, NCC
(1989) on the North Cemetery lot was over. Misplaced dead body, san ka. WON operation of public cemetery is a
governmental or proprietary function of the City of Manila. WON the city is liable for damages.

Held: Operation of cemetery is a proprietary function and the city is liable for damages.

SC: POWERS OF A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

GOVERNMENTAL POWERS – exercised in administering the powers of the state and promoting public welfare, these
include legislative, judicial, public, and political powers.
MUNICIPAL POWERS – exercised for the special advantage and benefit of the community including those that are
ministerial, private and corporate.

2 TYPES OF MUNICIPAL CORP PROPERTIES (Art 423, NCC)

1. FOR PUBLIC USE – provincial roads, city streets, squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works
for public service paid for by the municipal corp
2. PATRIMONIAL PROPERTIES – all other properties without prejudice to special laws

Since cemeteries aren’t under the properties for public use as enumerated and since em ployees (city health officer
– administration; cemetery superintendent – order, exhuming, purification etc) of the municipal government
exercise acts of dominion over the cemetery, the cemetery is patrimonial property. The city, in contracting for lease
of its cemetery lot, entered into a contract in its corporate capacity and is thus liable for the tort (failure to verify
contract lease term) committed by its agents.

DOCTRINE OF RESPONDENT SUPERIOR (Torio v Fontanilla)

 SYLLABUS PART 2:
DECENTRALIZATION;
LOCAL AUTONOMY;
POWERS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
Reference: LGC Bk 1, Chapt 2

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS VIS-À-VIS NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

POWER OF GENERAL SUPERVISION
Drilon v Lim Sec 187, LGC authorizes the Secretary of Justice (Drilon) to review the constitutionality or legality of a tax ordinance Sec 187, LGC
(1994) and revoke it. Sec. Drilon declared the Manila Revenue Code null and void for non-compliance w/ prescribed (Procedure
procedure in enactment of taxes and containing provisions w/c are contrary to law and public policy. for Approval
WON Sec 187 vests the DOJ Sec with power of control over LGUs against the policy local autonomy. of Effectivity
of Tax
Held: Sec 187 constitutional, it merely vests the power of supervision. Drilon merely exercised the POWER of Ordinances..)
SUPERVISION when he determined that the passage of the ordinance did not comply with procedural requirements
and declared it void. Basis for declaring ordinance void: ultra vires provision (outside scope of authority of Related
promulgating body) or non compliance w/ ordinance requirement. ruling in
Taule v
SC: The national govt. can only exercise the power of SUPERVISION and not control over LGUs. Santos
CONTROL: lay down rules in doing an act, order the act undone, redo the act by subordinate or do it him/herself
SUPERVISION: ensures that rules are followed, order it redone or done according to rules. NOT prescribe manner of
doing an act or give an opinion other than on the act’s legality or constitutionality
Solicitor General v In a previous case, the SC ruled that the confiscation of license plates is not among the powers conferred on the
MMA Metropolitan Manila Authority (MMA) by PD 1605. However, MMA issued Ordinance 11 authorizing itself to detach
(Dec 1991) license plates or tow and impound attended or unattended or abandoned motor vehicles illegally parked or
obstructing the flow of traffic in Metro Manila”. WON ordinance is an invalid exercise of delegated power.

Held: Yes. Invalid ordinance for going against PD 1605.

SC: Municipal enactments, or local laws, must not violate national laws since local political subdivisions are able to
legislate only by virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power from the national legislation. As delegates of
Congress, they cannot go against the will of their principals.

TEST FOR VALID MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE

1. Not contravene the Constitution
2. Not unfair or oppressive
3. Not partial or discriminatory
4. Not prohibit but may regulate trade
5. Not unreasonable
6. Must be general and consistent with public policy

Ganzon v CA Mayor Ganzon had several administrative cases filed against him and was placed under preventive suspension on 3 Related
(Aug 1991) different occasions by the Secretary of Local Government. siguro sa Sec
WON the Pres c/o the Secretary of Local Government still had the power to suspend LGU officials. 25, LGC
(National
Held: Yes. However, based on the LGC, the suspension cannot exceed 60d. Supervision
over Local
SC: POWER TO SUSPEND. Despite autonomy, local governments are still subject to limited regulation of the general Government
supervision of the Executive. Under the Charter Congress can include in the LGC provisions for removal of local Units)
officials and exercise this power and delegate it to the President as the LGC has done.
Sec 63, LGC
OBJECTIVE OF SUSPENSION: “to prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of the investigation with his (Preventive
influence and authority over possible witnesses” or to keep him off “the records and other evidence”. The suspension Suspension)
is a means to assist prosecutors to firm up their case against an erring local official and therefore may last for a More info
shorter period if the prosecutors have already achieved their purpose. under
section on
Disciplinary
Actions
MCIAA v Marcos et al WON the City of Cebu can still tax Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA), a GOCC, for realty taxes. Sec 193, LGC
(1996) Held: Yes. The LGC has lifted tax exemptions (Sec 193, 234, LGC) (Withdrawal
of Tax
Sec, 193 withdraws tax exemptions enjoyed by juridical persons including GOCCs. Exemptions
AGENCY – any of the various unit of the govt., depts., bureaus, office, LGU or district and
INSTRUMENTALITY – any agency of the govt. NOT integrated into within the department framework, vested with Privileges)
special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds,
and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. Sec 234, LGC
(Exemptions
Since MCIAA is not an agency or instrumentality of the government but only a GOCC, Cebu City may tax it. from Real
Notes: Refer to Basco V PAGCOR doctrine: LGUs cannot tax instrumentalities of national govt. Property
 Tax)
DECENTRALIZATION, LOCAL AUTONOMY
Limbona v Mangelin Regional Legislative Assembly Speaker Limbona is asking the SC to declare an assembly session w/c took place while
(1989) he was away and resulted in his ouster as null and void.
WON the SC has jurisdiction over the issue.
WON Limbona’s ouster was valid.

Held: SC has jurisdiction over the issue as the Sangguniang Pampook of Region XII is discharges only chiefly
administrative services and they are still subject to general supervision of the national government. Limbona’s ouster
invalid due to lack of due process.

SC: AUTONOMY is either the DECENTRALIZATION OF ADMINISTRATION or DECENTRALIZATION OF POWER.

1. DECENTRALIZATION OF ADMINISTRATION - administrative powers are delegated to political subdivisions
to broaden the base of govt. power and create local governments that would make be more responsive
and accountable and ensure the fullest development of self-reliant communities. National govt. is relieved
of managing local affairs and is able to concentrate on national concerns. The President, acting through
the DILG, exercises GENERAL SUPERVISION only to ensure that local affairs are administered according to
law.
2. DECENTRALIZATION OF POWER – abdication of political power in favor of LGUs declared to be
autonomous. Autonomous govt is free to shape its future with minimum intervention from national govt.
Autonomous government is accountable not to the national govt. but to its constituents.
San Juan v Civil WON the recommending power of the Provincial Director in filling the position of Provincial Budget Officer (Province
Service Commission of Rizal) is mandatory or directory.
(1991)
Held: The recommending power of the Provincial Director is mandatory in line with the principles of local autonomy.
The DBM cannot ignore the right of local governments to develop self-reliance in handling their own funds in the
interest of local autonomy. It is not the Department of Budget and Management who appoints the position of PBO
since it is the local officials who know better the needs of their LGU and the provincial and municipal budgets and it is
the local officials who will have to work within the constraints of the budget.

Note: Maam askeid about process of appointment

Ganzon v CA Supra.
(1991)
SC: On the matter of DECENTRALIZATION. Local Autonomy in the Philippine setting is not the making of federal states
but of local governments under the supervision of the national government. The purpose of the supervision is
regulation to enhance self-government.
Cordillera Board WON EO 220 creating the Cordillera Administrative Region is unconstitutional for pre-empting the enactment of an EO 220
Coalition v COA organic act by Congress creating an autonomous region in the Cordilleras upon its approval in a plebiscite.

H: EO 220 constitutional. It only creates an administrative region and not a territorial or political subdivision like an
autonomous region

SC: EO 220 does not create an autonomous regional government as contemplated in the constitution. It merely
creates an administrative region for the purpose of coordinating the planning and implementation of programs and
services. The bodies it created, the Cordillera Executive Board and the Cordillera Administrative Region do not
supplant the existing local government structures, nor are they autonomous government agencies. They merely
constitute a mechanism bringing together the existing local governments and agencies of the National Government,
ethno-linguistic groups, and NGOs in a concerted effort to spur development in the Cordilleras.
Magtajas v Pryce WON an ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Panglungsod od CDO prohibiting the establishment of gambling
Properties Corp, Inc. casinos is valid.

Held: No. Casino gambling is authorized by PD 1862, a statute which cannot be nullified by a mere ordinance.

SC: Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local councils exercise only delegated
legislative powers conferred on them by Congress the national lawmaking body.
Taule v Santos WON the DILG has the power to decide on Federation of Barangay Councils (FABC) electoral contests.
(Aug 12, 1991)
Held: It is the RTC that has the power to decide on electoral contests, the DILG only holds powers of general
supervision and no law confers jurisdiction over electoral protests to the DILG. To pass on the validity of the election
would be to give control and allow the DILG to interfere with a barangay democratic processes instead of merely
monitoring compliance with rules.

SC: The power of general supervision of the president to ensure that local affairs are administered according to law is
exercised through the Secretary of Local Government.

SUPERVISION – (admin law) power/authority of an officer to see that the subordinate officers perform their duties
and take action or step prescribed by law to make them perform their duties.
-“power of mere oversight over an inferior body; it does not include any restraining authority over such body”

CONTROL – power to alter or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer has done in performance of duties and to
substitute the one’s judgment over the subordinate.
Binay v Domingo Municipal Reso 6: Ganito kami sa Makati, merong Burial Assistance Program PhP 500 para sa mahihirap na Sec 16, LGC
(1991) namatayan from unappropriated available funds in the municipal treasury (Municipal Council of Makati Reso No . 60). (General
WON Reso 6 is a valid exercise of police power under the general welfare clause Welfare
Clause)
Held: Yes, support for the poor has been a long accepted exercise of police power.

DOCTRINE/S and notes: POLICE POWER – power to prescribe regulations to promote health, morals, peace,
education, good order, safety and general welfare. The police power of a municipal corporation is said to be broad,
commensurate with the duty to provide for the real needs of the people in their health, safety, comfort, and
convenience. It extends to all great public needs, and, in a broad sense includes all legislation and almost every
function of the municipal government.
- government power inherent in state but not in municipal corporations. There must first be a VALID DELEGATION of
power by the legislature. Municipal corporations exercise police power under the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE (Sec
16, LGC).
- (notes) power of promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty
City Government of Ordinance passed requiring that every memorial park cemetery shall set aside at least 6% of its total area for charity
QC v Ericta burial. WON city resolution passed instructing city engineers to stop selling memorial park lots to those who failed to
(June 24, 1983) make the donations is a valid exercise of police power.

Held: No. There is outright confiscation and not just mere police regulation when one is deprived of property without
due process or compensation. It is the duty of the city to build a public cemetery for the poor and not to pass this
responsibility on to private cemeteries like Himlayang Pilipino.

SC: POLICE POWER – usually exercised through regulation of use of liberty or property for the promotion of general
welfare. The power to regulate does not include the power to confiscate or power to prohibit.
Villanueva v WON Municipality of San Fernando can pass a resolution allowing merchants to construct permanent stalls in the
Castaneda vicinity of the public market.
(1987)
Held: No. A public plaza is communal property and may not be subject of commercial undertakings. Town plazas are
PROPERTIES OF PUBLIC DOMINION, to be devoted to public use and to be made available to the public in general.
They are outside the commerce of man.

POLICE POWER cannot be bargained away through contract.

Republic v Gonzalez Pres. Magsaysay issues Proclamation 144 reserving some lands in Malabon for street widening and parking space Sec 16, LGC
(1991) ejecting appellants Gonzalez and co. who were occupying it
WON the proclamation was valid considering G and co had building permits and were applying for its sale Rule 67,
WON there is a public good and no violation of equal protection in reserving lands for parking space. Rules of Civil
Procedure
Held: Yes the proclamation is valid since the land is public land under the disposition and control of the national
government. The Mayor of Malabon had no authority to allow the use of public lands to the appellants as the
management of these lands was under the Director of Lands, not of the local government.
Traffic decongestion through street widening and providing for parking lots is a PUBLIC GOOD for the benefit of all,
even those without cars since the decongestion of the streets from parked cars will benefit even pedestrians and
commuters.

EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS REVIEW (Civ Pro codals)

Patalinhug v CA Funeral home in residential area, w/in 50 meters from and Iglesia ni Kristo church. Ordinance prohibiting funeral Sec 16, LGC
(1994) parlors from being built 50 metres from residences and churches. WON building is residential or commercial.

Tax declaration is not conclusive of nature of property in the zoning area. The declaration of a Sangguniang
Panlungsod through an ordinance that the area is commercial is given more weight. This declaration of a commercial
zone through an ordinance is an exercise of POLICE POWER to promote common, good, order and GENERAL
WELFARE of the people in the locality.

SC: In order to promote the GENERAL WELFARE (public sanitation), the state may interfere with personal liberty,
property and business and occupations.

POWERS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS / LOCAL GOVERNMENTS; POLICE POWER

References: Sec 16, 19, LGC and Sec 9, Art II, Consti
CASE DOCTRINES/NOTES Laws
Binay v Domingo F: Supra. Disbursement of Php500 burial assistance to poor families in Makati from available, unappropriated municipal RA 7160, Sec
(Sept 1991)* funds is an example of valid use of police power. 16 (General
Welfare
SC: Valid use of police power. Clause); Sec
POLICE POWER - power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty 19 (Eminent
Purpose: secure general welfare and comfort of people Domain)
INFERRED POLICE POWER: powers that inferred from those expressly delegated such that corporations must have these
powers to accomplish its object.
Notes: Police power is delegated to LGUs through the General Welfare Clause.

Chua Huat v CA, F: Manila mayor confirms City Engineer’s order to condemn Chua Huat and co’s bldg, Chua Huat and co protest. CA National
(July1991) dismissed their case. SC affirms. Building
Code
SC: Condemnation was a valid use of POLICE POWER.
The power to condemn buildings and structures in the City of Manila falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City
Engineer, who has the authority to order the condemnation and demolition of buildings which are found to be in a
dangerous or ruinous condition. It is also clear from the Compilation of Ordinances of the City of Manila that the Mayor
has the power to confirm or deny the action taken by the Building Officials, with respect to the dangerous or ruinous
buildings.
Tatel v Municipal Council pass a resolution declaring the warehouse with an abaca bailing machine, that was smelly and a fire
Municipallity of hazard, as a public nuisance (694 NCC). The warehouse was also declared in violation of an ordinance prohibiting the
Virac construction of warehouses within 200 meters from residences. WON resolution valid exercise of police power by
(1992) municipal council.

Held: Yes. The purpose of the ordinance was to avoid accidental fire protecting life and property of residents, it provided
a protection that is one of the obligations of government and thus was a valid exercise of POLICE POWER.

SC:
For an ordinance to be valid it must be w/in the corporate powers of the municipality and passed according to the
procedures required by law.
REQUISITES in passing a VALID ORDINANCE: (see also Solicitor General v MMA and White Light Corporation v City of
Manila)
1. Not contravene the Constitution
2. Not be unfair or oppressive
3. Not partial or discriminatory
4. Not prohibit but may regulate business
5. Must be general and consistent with public policy
6. Must be reasonable
(CUPPGR)
White Light WON Manila ordinance prohibiting short time admissions and wash up rates in hotels, motels and similar establishments Sec 16, LCG
Corporation v is constitutional (and a valid exercise of police power). Its proponents claim it aims to curb illicit sexual activities and drug
City of Manila use thus improving public morals and promoting general welfare.
(2009)
Held: The ordinance is unconstitutional because the means used to prevent an evil is NOT REASONABLY NECESSARY and
IMPAIRS other LEGITIMATE ACTIVITIES.

SC: Review test/REQUISITES of VALID ORDINANCE. The ordinance prohibits legitimate business (number 4 requisite) and
is unreasonable (sec 6). The ordinance is invalid for being overbroad, affecting even legitimate exercise of rights, such as
right to property since corporation livelihood is affected when their operation of business is affected.

Notes: You can never really legislate morality or legislate to “improve public morality” (as stated in Sec 16, LGC). Who is
the moral arbitrer to say what is or is not moral?
POWER OF MAYOR TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR RALLIES
Bayan v Ermita WON BP 880 law requiring an application to the Mayor of a city for a permit to rally and the Arroyo administration policy BP 880
(2006) of Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR) are valid exercises of police power or do they violate the people’s rights to
public assembly and free expression.

Held: BP 880 is a valid exercise of police power as it merely REGULATES the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and
petition only to the extent needed to avoid a clear and present danger. It does NOT impose an absolute ban on rallies but
merely a TIME, PLACE, MANNER (TPM) regulation that is CONTENT NEUTRAL. There is no prior restraint. (Go sir Jardie!)
The CPR policy meanwhile serves no purpose if it merely means maximum tolerance and it is illegal if it means something
else. For this reason it is struck down as a “darkness that shrouds freedom”. It merely confuses people and is used by
some police agents to justify abuses.

Notes: There is a valid exercise of POLICE POWER in regulating rallies for they promote the general welfare of the public
in the interest of promoting public convenience in traffic matters as well as public safety in ensuring order in the manner
of holding the rallies.
Phil Petroleum WON a municipal ordinance taxing the Phil Petroleum Corp business when there are provincial circulars that direct Sec 5, Art X,
Corp v municipal officers from collecting such taxes. Consti (LGUs
Municipality of power to
Pililia, Rizal Held: Valid ordinance. TAX EXEMPTIONS ARE TO BE HELD STRICTLY AGAINST THE ONE CLAIMING THE EXEMPTION AND create own
(1991) LIBERALLY IN FAVOR OF THOSE WITH TAXING AUTHORITY. Continuous enforcement of the prohibition of the circular sources of
would be tantamount to restricting LGU power to tax by mere administrative issuance. Administrative issuances must be revenue)
in harmony with the Local Tax Code (PD 231).
PD 231 Local
Tax Code

Floro Cement PD 463 exempts mineral products from LGU taxes. Floro Cement claims exemption insisting that cement is a mineral PD 463
Corp v Gorospe product.

Held: Cement is a manufactured product, not a mineral product, and is thus subject to local taxes. Exemptions strictly
held against the one claiming the exception. What stat con provision/principle is this again?
Tuzon and Sangguniang Bayan adopts a resolution requiring a 1% donation from operators of palay threshers. The mayor refused to
Mapagua v CA issue a permit and license for operating this palay for those who did not pay this ‘donation’ in accordance with the
(1992) ordinance. Petitioners claim damages from the mayor for refusing to give permit and license.

Held: NO damages since the mayor was just doing his job. The issue of WON the resolution was valid was not raised but
the SC held that if a donation is deemed obligatory then it is not a donation. If the ordinance is a tax ordinance then it
must have been shown to have been enacted in accordance with the requirements of the Local Tax Code.