Political Law Bar Q and A

Political Law Bar Questions and Answers

Bar Q and A #38

1.) Sec. 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides that no elective official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms. Rule and explain briefly the reason if the official is prohibited to run for another term in each of the following situations: (a) if the official is a Vice- Mayor who assumed the position of Mayor for the unexpired term under the Local Government Code; (b) if the official has served for three consecutive terms and did not seek a 4th term but who won in a recall election; (c) if the position of Mayor of a town is abolished due to conversion of the town to a city; (d) if the official is preventively suspended during his term but was exonerated; and (e) if the official is proclaimed as winner and assumes office but loses in an election protest.

(a) He is not prohibited. In computing the three- term limit, only the term for which the local official was elected should be considered. The second sentence of Section 8, Article X, of the Constitution states that the voluntary renunciation shall not be considered as interruption of the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected (Borja v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 133495, September 3, 1998)

(b) A mayor who served three consecutive terms and did not seek a fourth term but ran and won in the recall election can serve, because the recall election was not an immediate reelection (Socrates v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 154512, 154683, 155083-84)

(c) If a municipality in which a mayor served three consecutive terms was converted to a city, he cannot run as city mayor in the first election. For purposes of applying the three-term limit, the office of the municipal mayor should not be considered as different from that of the city mayor (Latasa v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 154829, December 10, 2003)

(d) The temporary inability of an elective official to exercise his functions due to preventive suspension is not an interruption of his term, because it did not involve loss of title to the office (Aldovino Jr. v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 184836, December 23, 2009.

(e) If a candidate was proclaimed for three consecutive terms but did not serve in full because of loss in an election protest he is not disqualified (Lonzanida v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135150, July 28, 1999).

Textbox

2.) From an existing province, Wideland, Congress created a new province, Hundred Isles, consisting of several islands, with an aggregate area of 500 square kilometers. The law creating Hundred Isles was duly approved in a plebiscite called for that purpose. Juan, a taxpayer and a resident of Wideland, assailed the creation of Hundred Isles claiming that it did not comply with the area requirement as set out in the Local Government Code, i.e., an area of at least 2,000 square kilometres. The proponents justified the creation, however, pointing out that the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code states that “the land area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands.” Accordingly, since the new province consists of several islands, the area requirement need not be satisfied. How tenable is the position of the proponents?

In exempting provinces composed of one or more islands from both the contiguity and land area requirements, Article 9 of the IRR cannot be considered inconsistent with the criteria under Section 461 of the Local Government Code. Far from being absolute regarding application of the requirement of a contiguous territory of at least 2,000 square kilometers ascertified by the Land Management Bureau, Section 461 allows for said exemption by providing, under paragraph (b) thereof, that the territory need not be contiguous if (the new province) comprises two or more islands or is separated by a chartered city or cities which do not contribute to the income of the province.

For as long as there is compliance with the income requirement, the legislative intent is, after all, to the effect that the land area and population requirements may be overridden by the established economic viability of the proposed province.

Textbox

3.) A law converted the component city of Malumanay, Laguna into a highly urbanized city. The Local Government Code (LGC) provides that the conversion "shall take effect only after it is approved by the majority of votes cast in a plebiscite to be held in the political units directly affected." Before the COMELEC, Mayor Xenon of Malumanay City insists that only the registered voters of the city should vote in the plebiscite because the city is the only political unit directly affected by the conversion. Governor Yuri asserts that all the registered voters of the entire province of Laguna should participate in the plebiscite, because when the LGC speaks of the "qualified voters therein," it means all the voters of all the political units affected by such conversion, and that includes all the voters of the entire province. He argues that the income, population and area of Laguna will be reduced. Who, between Mayor Xenon and Governor Yuri, is correct? Explain your answer

Governor Yuri is correct. All the registered voters of the Province of Laguna should be included in the plebiscite. The conversion of the City of Malumanay into a highly urbanized city will adversely affect the Province of Laguna and its residents. The territory of the Province of Laguna will be reduced. Its share in the internal revenue allotment will be reduced, because the population and land area are included as basis for determining its share. Once the City of Malumanay becomes a highly urbanized city, the Province of Laguna will no longer share in the taxes collected by the City of Malumanay. The City of Malumanay will be under the supervision of the President instead of the Province of Laguna. Decisions of the City of Malumanay in administrative cases involving barangay officials will no longer be appealable to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The registered voters of the City of Malumanay will no longer be entitled to vote for provincial officials. To limit the plebiscite to the voters of City of Malumanay would nullify the principle of majority rule (Umali v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203974, April 22, 2014).

Textbox

4.) a. Can a Barangay Assembly exercise any police power? b. Can the Liga ng mga Barangay exercise legislative powers?

a. NO, the Barangay Assembly cannot exercise any police power. Under Section 398 ofthe Local Government Code, it can only recommend to the Sangguniang Barangay the adoption of measures for the welfare of the barangay and decide on the adoption of an initiative.

b. The Liga ng Mga Barangay cannot exercise legislative powers. As stated in Bito-Onon v. Fernandez. 350 SCRA 732 [2001], it is not a local government unit and its primary purpose is to determine representation of the liga in the sanggunians; to ventilate, articulate, and crystallize issues affecting barangay government administration; and to secure solutions for them through proper and legal means.

Textbox

5.) The City of San Rafael passed an ordinance authorizing the City Mayor, assisted by the police, to remove all advertising signs displayed or exposed to public view in the main city street, for being offensive to sight or otherwise a nuisance. AM, whose advertising agency owns and rents out many of the billboards ordered removed by the City Mayor, claims that the City should pay for the destroyed billboards at their current market value since the City has appropriated them for the public purpose of city beautification. The Mayor refuses to pay, so AM is suing the City and the Mayor for damages arising from the taking of his properly without due process nor just compensation. Will AM’s suit prosper? Reason briefly.

The suit of AM will not prosper. The removal of the billboards is not an exercise of the power of eminent domain but of police power (Churchill v. Rafferty, 32 Phil. 580 11915D). The abatement of a nuisance in the exercise of police power does not constitute taking of property and does not entitle the owner of the property involved to compensation (Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343 [1989]).

Textbox

6.) The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Pasay City passed an ordinance requiring all disco pub owners to have all their hospitality girls tested for the AIDS virus. Both disco pub owners and the hospitality girls assailed the validity of the ordinance for being violative of their constitutional rights to privacy and to freely choose a calling or business. Is the ordinance valid? Explain.

The ordinance is a valid exercise of police power. The right to privacy yields to certain paramount rights of the public and defers to the exercise of police power. The ordinance is not prohibiting the disco pub owners and the hospitality girls from pursuing their calling or business but is merely regulating it (Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 410 [2008]) The ordinance is a valid exercise of police power, because its purpose is to safeguard public health (Beltran vs. Secretary of Health, 476 SCRA 168 [2005]).

Textbox

7.) ABC operates an industrial waste processing plant within Laoag City. Occasionally, whenever fluid substances are released through a nearby creek, obnoxious odor is emitted causing dizziness among residents in Barangay La Paz. On complaint of the Punong Barangay, the City Mayor II wrote ABC demanding that it abate the nuisance. This was ignored. An invitation to attend a hearing called by the Sangguniang Panlungsod was also declined by the president of ABC. The city government thereupon issued a cease and desist order to stop the operations of the plant, prompting ABC to file a petition for injunction before the Regional Trial. Court, arguing that the city government did not have any power to abate the alleged nuisance. Decide with reasons.

The city government has no power to stop tile operations of the plant. Since its operations is not a nuisance per se, the city government cannot abate it extra judicially. A suit must be filed in court (ACEnterprises, Inc. v. Frabelle Properties Corporation, 506 SCRA 625 [2006]).

Textbox

8.) The Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Santa, Ilocos Sur passed Resolution No. 1 authorizing its Mayor to initiate a petition for the expropriation of a lot owned by Christina as site for its municipal sports center. This was approved by the Mayor. However, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Sur disapproved the Resolution as there might still be other available lots in Santa for a sports center. Nonetheless, the Municipality of Santa, through its Mayor, filed a complaint for eminent domain. Christina opposed this on the following grounds: (a) the Municipality of Santa has no power to expropriate; (b) Resolution No. 1 has been voided since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved it for being arbitrary; and (c) the Municipality of Santa has other and better lots for that purpose. Resolve the case with reasons.

(a) The Municipality of Santa has the power to expropriate. Section 19 of the Local Government Code grants all local government units the power of eminent domain. However, Section 19 of the Local Government Code requires an ordinance, not a resolution, for the exercise of the power of eminent domain [Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong, 328 SCRA 137 (2000)].

(b) The disapproval of Resolution No. 1 by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Sur on the ground that there may be other lots available in Santa is not a valid ground, because it can disapprove Resolution No. 1 solely on the ground that it is beyond the power of the Sangguniang Bayan of Santa [Modayv. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 586 (1997)].

(c) If there are other lots that are better and more appropriate for the municipal sports center, the lot owned by Christina should not be expropriated. Its choice is arbitrary [Municipality of Meycauayan v. IAC, 157 SCRA 640 (1988)].

Textbox

9.) The Municipality of Bulalakaw, Leyte, passed Ordinance No. 1234, authorizing the expropriation of two parcels of land situated in the poblacion as the site of a freedom park, and appropriating the funds needed therefor. Upon review, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Leyte disapproved the ordinance because the municipality has an existing freedom park which, though smaller in size, is still suitable for the purpose, and to pursue expropriation would be needless expenditure of the people’s money. Is the disapproval of the ordinance correct? Explain your answer.

The disapproval of the ordinance is not correct. Under Section 56(c) (Local Government Code), the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Leyte can declare the ordinance invalid only if it is beyond the power of the Sangguniang Bayan of Bulalakaw. In the instant case, the ordinance is well within the power of the Sangguniang Bayan. The disapproval of the ordinance by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Leyte was outside its authority having been done on a matter pertaining to the wisdom of the ordinance which pertains to the Sangguniang Bayan [Moday v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 586 [1997])

Textbox

10.) An aggrieved resident of the City of Manila filed mandamus proceedings against the city mayor and the city engineer to compel these officials to remove the market stalls from certain city streets which they had designated as flea markets. Portions of the said city streets were leased or licensed by the respondent officials to market stallholders by virtue of a city ordinance. Decide the dispute.

The petition should be granted. In accordance with Macasiano v. Diokno. 212 SCRA 464 (1992), since public streets are properties for public use and are outside the commerce of man, the City Mayor and the City Engineer cannot lease or license portions of the city streets to market stallholders.

Textbox