Bar Q and A #39

a. Under Sections 54 (a) and 55 (c) of the Local Government Code, the local legislative assembly can override the veto of the local chief executive by two-thirds vote of all its members.

b. Under Section 55[a] of the Local Government Code, the local chief executive may veto an ordinance on the ground that it is ULTRA VIRES or PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE.

c. Pursuant to Section 54(b) of the Local Government Code, an ordinance vetoed by the local chief executive shall be deemed approved if he does not communicate his veto to the local legislative assembly within 15 days in the case of a province and 10 days in the case of a city or a municipality. Likewise, if the veto by the local executive has been overridden by the local legislative assembly, a second veto will be void. Under Section 55(c) of the Local Government Code, the local chief executive may veto an ordinance only once.

The ordinance is null and void. In Villacorta v. Bernardo, 143 SCRA 480 (1986), the Supreme Court held that a municipal ordinance cannot amend a national law in the guise of implementing it. In this case, the requirement actually conflicts with sec. 44 of Act No. 496 because the latter does not require subdivision plans to be submitted to the City Engineer before they can be submitted for approval to, and verification by, the Land Registration Commission and/or the Bureau of Lands.

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 Sangguiniang Bayan (Moday v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 586).

The motion to dismiss should be denied. Under Section 24 of the Local Government Code and Article 2189 of the Civil Code, the Municipality of Pinatukdao is liable for damages arising from injuries to person by reason of negligence of local government units or local officers of the defective condition of the municipal hall, which is under their control and supervision.

The following are the legal requisites for the validity of a contract to be entered into by the Municipality of Sibonga which involves the expenditure of public funds:

1. The contract must be within the power of the municipality;

2. The contract must be entered into by the proper officer, e., the mayor, upon resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan pursuant to Section 142 of the Local Government Code;

3. In accordance with 606 of the Revised Administrative Code, there must be an appropriation of the public funds; and in accordance with Sec. 607, there must be a certificate of availability of funds issued by the municipal treasurer; and

4. The contract must conform with the formal requisites of written contracts prescribed by

a. Under Section 118(b) of the Local Government Code, boundary disputes involving two or more municipalities within the same province shall be settled by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan concerned.

b. Under Section 118(d) of the Local Government Code, boundary disputes involving two or more highly urbanized cities shall be settled by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the parties.

Boundary disputes between local government units should, as much as possible, be settled amicably. After efforts at settlement fail, then the dispute may be brought to the appropriate Regional Trial Court in the said province. Since the Local Government Code is silent as to what body has exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement of boundary disputes between a municipality and an independent component city  of the same province, the Regional Trial Courts have general jurisdiction to adjudicate the said controversy (Municipality of Kananga v. Madrona, G.R. No. 141375 [2003]).

As held in Farinas v. Barba, 256 SCRA 396 (1996), neither of the appointments is valid. Under Section 45 of the Local Government Code, in case of a permanent vacancy in the Sangguniang Bayan created by the cessation in office of a member who does not belong to any political party, the Governor shall appoint qualified person recommended by the Sangguniang Bayan. Since A was not recommended by the Sangguniang Bayan, his appointment by the Governor is not valid. Since B was not appointed by the Governor but by the Municipal Mayor, his appointment is also not valid.

In accordance with Section 45 of the Local Government Code, the vacancy should be filled by appointment by the President of the nominee of the political party of Benito since his elevation to the position of Vice-Governor created the last vacancy in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. If Benito does not belong to any political party, a qualified person recommended by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan should be appointed (Navarro v. Court of Appeals, 355 SCRA 672 [2001]).

The term limits for both are three terms of three years for each term. [Section 43(a), Local Government Code]