Creating Pockets of

Excellence in the
Sanggunian

ATTY. EMETERIO S. MORENO, JR.

 Outline of Presentation

A. Intergovernmental Relations
B. Administrative Investigation
Procedure for Elected Local Officials
C. Legislative Oversight
D. Jurisprudence in Local Legislation
“INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS”
 CONSTITUTION

Execution of Laws Enactment of Laws Interpretation of Laws

Executive Legislative Judiciary

President Congress Supreme Court

DILG, DPWH, DSWD, etc.

All lower courts
All LGUs: Vice Governor/Vice Mayor / Sanggunian Perform the following functions:
Provinces
Cities 1. Local Legislation (Sec. 48-59, LGC)
Municipalities 2. Quasi-Judicial: investigation of administrative cases; (Sec. 60-68, LGC)
Barangays 3. Quasi-judicial: Settlement of barangay/municipal boundary disputes
as the case maybe (Sec. 118, LGC)
Governor/Mayor
Perform all executive 4. Authorize the Mayor to enter into contract (Sec .22 ( c ), LGC)
5. Confirm appointments of department heads issued by the
functions
Mayor/Governor (found in different sections of LGC)
Vice-Gov./Vice-Mayor /Sanggunian 6. Power to review ordinances and resolutions approving the local
development plan and local investment program passed by lower LGU
7. Power to declare portion or whole of the local territory as under the
state of calamity (RA 8185 as amended by RA10121)
• Local legislation (ordinance making) function vs
administrative investigation (quasi- judicial) function
• Sec 48 - 59 (local legislation); Sec 60-68 (administrative
investigation) all of the Local Government Code.
• Product in local legislation function is ORDINANCE (Sec 54 ,
LGC) while the product in administrative investigation
function is DECISION (Sec 66, LGC).
• Power of the Sanggunian to compel attendance of any
person before it if in the exercise of local legislation function
and if in the exercise of administrative investigation.
• Case : Negros Oriental Electric Cooperative VS. Sanggunian
Panlungsod of Dumaguete City. (1987)
• Ordinance is submitted to higher Sanggunian for review
while Decision is not.
 PRINCIPLES IN ORDINANCE MAKING POWER;
SUBSTANTIVE ASPECT( Laman) IN LOCAL LEGISLATION

• The power to exercise legislation in general is vested by

the Constitution to Congress.
• Congress, not being expected to be familiar with local
affairs of local government units, delegated the exercise
of local legislative powers to the different sanggunians
via Sec 48 LGC. The product of Congress is called "Law"
while the product of sanggunians is called " Ordinance"
• Congress is principal while sanggunians are agents of
Congress; agent cannot rise above his principal; hence,
"ordinance" cannot rise above "law“.
 PRINCIPLES IN ORDINANCE MAKING POWER;
SUBSTANTIVE ASPECT( Laman) IN LOCAL LEGISLATION

BASIC GUIDE
• Ordinance must not contravene "law", “constitution" and "
national policies";
• Ordinance cannot allow what is prohibited by law;
• Ordinance cannot prohibit what is allowed by law, but can
only regulate it;
• Regulation must be reasonable;
• Ordinance must not limit itself to the present conditions in
relation to the purpose it seeks to achieve; and
• The subject matter of the ordinance is within the enumerated
powers of the Sanggunian concerned. To determine this,
examine the powers of the Sanggunian.
“ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION
PROCEDURE FOR ELECTED LOCAL
OFFICIALS”
 Chart where Administrative Cases can be Filed
Sec. 61, LGC RA 6770 Ombudsman Civil Service LCE Sec. 87, LGC
Act Commission
• Office of the President • Ombudsman Luzon • Central Office • Governor
• Sangguniang • Ombudsman Visyas • Regional Offices • City/Municipal Mayor
Panlalawigan • Ombudsman • Punong Barangay
• Sangguniang Mindanao
Panlungsod/Bayan

• VS Elective Official • VS Elective and • VS Appointive Official • VS. Appointive Official

• Administrative Case Appointive Official • Administrative case • Administrative Case
• Local Position • Administrative and • National and local • Local officials except:
criminal cases officials Local Treasurer –
• National and local DOF
officials Officials and
employees of the
Sanggunian - Vice
Governor, Vice
Mayor

• Preventive suspension • Preventive suspension • Preventive suspension • Preventive suspension

is 60 days is 6 months is 60 days is 60 days
Note: Very important to know the different offices where to file administrative cases in order
to avoid violation of the non-forum shopping rule
Note: THREE-FOLD LIABILITY RULE OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL
• Administrative Investigation vs. investigation in aid of
local legislation
• Grounds for Administrative disciplinary action against
local elective officials
• The administrative investigation function involves the
power to “Hear” and “Decide”.
• Power to hear can be delegated to a committee;
power to decide cannot be delegated to a committee.
It has to be exercised by the Sanggunian as a whole.
“Section 60. Grounds for disciplinary actions – An elective local
official may be disciplined, suspended, or removed from office
on any of the following grounds:
a. Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines;
b. Culpable violation of the Constitution;
c. Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, gross
negligence or dereliction of duty;
d. Commission of any offense involving moral turpitude or an
offense punishable by at least prision mayor;
e. Abuse of authority;
f. Unauthorized absence for fifteen (15) days, except in the
case of members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan,
Sangguniang Panlungsod, Sangguniang Bayan and
Sangguniang Barangay;
 g. Application for, or acquisition of, foreign citizenship or residence or
the status of an immigrant of another country; and such other
grounds as may be provided in this Code and other laws
An elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds
enumerated above by order of the proper court.”

• Paragraph F above has been clarified by Art. 124, (6) of the IRR of the
LGC. It says “Unauthorized absences for fifteen (15) days in case of LCE
and four (4) consecutive sessions in case of Sanggunian Members
• Pablico Vs. Villapardo (July 31, 2002)
• Sangguniang Barangay of Don Mariano Marcos, Bayombong Nueva
Vizcaya Vs. Punong Barangay Martinez (March 3, 2008)
• Ground ( c ) should have been committed while in the performance of
the functions of the office
• Misconduct, to be a ground, must affect the performance of his office
as an officer and not only as affects his character as a private individual
(Lacson vs. Roque, 92 Phil. 456)
• Moral turpitude – conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals (De la Torre v. Comelec, July 5, 1996), but whether a crime involves
moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on
all the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute
• Some of the particular crimes which have been held to involve moral
turpitude are adultery, concubinage, rape, arson, evasion of income tax,
barratry, bigamy, blackmail, bribery, criminal conspiracy to smuggle opium,
dueling, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, libel, making fraudulent proof
of loss on insurance contract, murder, mutilation of public records,
fabrication of evidence, offenses against pension laws, perjury, seduction
under promise of marriage, estafa, falsification of public documents,
estafa thru falsification of public documents
• See Palma v. Fortich, January 29, 1987
• When the crime involving moral turpitude is not linked with the
performance of official duties, conviction by final judgment is required as a
condition precedent to administrative action
 Conferment of Jurisdiction (Section 61, LGC)
• Administrative complaints against city and provincial elective officials, including
municipal elective officials within Metro Manila are filed before the Office of the
President.
• Administrative complaints against municipal elective officials are filed before the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
• Administrative complaints against barangay elective officials are filed before the
Sangguniang Bayan/Panlungsod
• The administrative complaint must be verified; but see case of Joson vs. Torres
May 20, 1998
• In Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole (December 12, 1995) – the Local Government Code did
not repeal the Ombudsman Act (RA 6770). Hence, the disciplining authority of
the Ombudsman over local elective officials is concurrent with the disciplining
authority of the President, Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod
and Sangguniang Bayan under Sec 61 of the LGC. Whichever first acquired
jurisdiction shall exclude the other by applying the non-forum shopping rule.
 Conferment of Jurisdiction (Section 61, LGC)

• If expressly conferred with jurisdiction, it is also deemed vested

with the implied power to promulgate its own administrative
investigation rules of procedure provided they are consistent
with law and the Constitution. For this purpose, the rules of
procedure may be adopted by the Sangguniang in their internal
rules.
• Administrative investigations do not strictly adhere to the
technical observance of Rules of procedures and evidence
under the Rules of Court. It is sufficient that substantive due
process requirements of fairness and reasonableness be
observed (Manuel v. Villena, February 27, 1971)
 Conferment of Jurisdiction (Section 61, LGC)
• Administrative due process (Ang Tibay vs. CIR, February 27,
1940; Casimiro vs. Tandog, June 8, 2005)
 Right to hearing
 Tribunal must consider evidnece presented
 Decision must be supported by evidence
 Supporting evidence must be substantial
 Decision must be based on the evidence presented, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties.
 Body must act on its own judgment
 Decide in such manner that parties can know the various issues
involved and the reason for the decision
• Go vs. Napolcom, April 18, 1997; Decision must be supported
by evidence. Non-compliance is violation of due process
 NOTICE AND HEARING
• The periods provided in Section 62 within which to dispose an administrative case are only
directory and not jurisdictional. Decision rendered beyond the reglementary period within
which to promulgate the same are still valid decisions. The delay if attributable to the
sanggunian will just expose its members to administrative disciplinary actions
• The reglementary periods within which to file answers or appeal shall be construed strictly
against the filer or pleader to prevent needless delays (Valdez vs. Ocumen, January 29,
2960)
• But periods to file answer may, upon motion of respondent on meritorious ground be
extended
• Unreasonable failure of the respondent to file his verified answer within the period
provided by law or the period therefor having lapsed without any answer having been filed,
shall be considered a waiver of his rights to present evidence in his behalf (Article 126, IRR
of the LGC)
• In the preliminary conference, the parties shall be summoned to consider whether
respondent desires a formal investigation. Denial of the same despite assertion, shall
constitute a violation of due process available to respondents (Joson vs. Torres, Ibid)
• Malinao vs. Reyes, March 29, 1996; Estuesta vs. Municipal Mayor, Agoo, La Union, June 25,
1963 – investigation of the case may be delegated to a committee. See also Art. 130 of the
IRR of RA 7160
 Preventive Suspension – Section 63, LGC

• Not a penalty but merely a tool to aid investigation; In Quimbo

vs. Gervacio, August 9, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that
the period within a public official is under preventive
suspension is not considered part of the actual penalty of
suspension.
• Sec. 63, LGC – Requisites for Preventive Suspension: Must
Concur:
 Issues are joined
 Evidence of guilt is strong
 There is threat of suppression of evidence
• Requisites must concur, meaning, all must be present before it
can be imposed
 Preventive Suspension – Section 63, LGC

• Evidence of guilt is strong – where the same is a requisite for

preventive suspension, the disciplining authority is given the
discretion to decide when the evidence of guilt is strong (Nera vs.
Garcia)
• Mere pendency of a criminal case will not justify the imposition of
a preventive suspension
• Miranda vs. Sandiganbayan (July 27, 2005), Sec. 63, LGC does not
govern the preventive suspension imposed by the Ombudsman
since the latter has its own law on the matter, i.e. RA 6770, or “The
Ombudsman Oct. of 1989”
 Rights of the Respondents (Sec 65, LGC)

 Be accorded full opportunity to appear and defend

himself in person or by counsel
 To confront and cross-examine the witness against
him – relate the power of the Sanggunian to issue
subpoena
 To require attendance of witnesses and production
of documents through compulsory process of
subpoena
 Any violation of the foregoing rights constitutes
denial of due process rendering the decision null
and void
 Form and Notice of Decision (Sec 66, LGC)

 Decision must be in writing, stating clearly and distinctly the facts

and the reasons for such decision.
 See Malinao VS. Reyes, March 29, 2996; Estueta vs. Municipal
Mayor of Agoo, La Union, June 29, 1963.
 Investigation may be conducted by the Committee.
 The recommendation of the committee is not, however, the
decision of the Sanggunian as contemplated under Se. 66, LGC
 The recommendation should be submitted to the Sanggunian as a
whole for approval
 Penalty of suspension is not a bar to the candidacy of the
respondent in the next election.
 Removal from office is a bar to candidacy of the respondent in the
next election as ground for disqualification under Sec. 40, LGC
 Appeals – Section 67, LGC

 Thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision, appeal can

be taken to the higher level Sanggunian
 The effects of lapses of the reglementary period within
which to appeal under the Rules of Court shall also apply
to decisions of the Sanggunian whether rendered in its
original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdcition
 Reconcile Sec. 61 and 67 of the LGC
 Only the parties can file appeal
 Execution Pending Appeal – Section 68, LGC

 Appeal shall not prevent a decision from becoming executory

 The respondent shall be considered as having been placed
under preventive suspension during the pendency of an
appeal in the event he wins such appeal.
 Entitled to salary during pendency of an appeal in case
respondent is exonerated
 Decisions are immediately executory. But on appeal, the
Office of the President may stay the execution thereof per
the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the President on
appealed cases. (Berces vs. Guingona, 241 SCRA 539,
February 21, 1995)
 Effect of Re-election

 Malinao vs. Reyes, March 29, 1996.

 Salalima vs. Guingona, May 22, 1996 – the re-
election of a local official bars continuation of an
administrative case against him.
 Condonation Principle – Aguinaldo vs. Santos
 Condonation extends only to the administrative
liability of the respondent.
 Procedure in Administrative Investigation
COMPLAINT ANSWER
Sec. 61

Sec. 62 – within 7 days from

Sec. 63 – Imposition of
Preventive Suspension
HEARING
receipt of administrative
complaint, respondent should be
required to submit verified answer
within 15 days from receipt of
order

DECISION
Sec. 67 – within 30 days from
receipt, decision can be appealed
to the higher Sanggunian.
Only the parties to the case are
APPEAL allowed to file appeal.
Sec. 68 – Execution Pending
Appeal
 Procedure in Administrative Investigation
COMPLAINT ANSWER
Sec. 61 •Sec. 66 – must be in writing stating
Section 62. clearly the facts and law involved
• Hearing / investigation of the case Sec. 62 – within 7 days from
•Partiesreceipt
must of
beadministrative
immediately furnished
Sec. 63 – Imposition
shall commence within 10 days of
Preventive Suspension copiescomplaint,
of decision so that aggrieved
respondent should be
from receipt of ANSWER. party can appeal the decision
required to submit verified answer
• NO INVESTIGATION AND within 15
•The decision daysbe
shall from receipt of /
implemented
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION HEARING servedorder
by whomsoever is ordered by
WITHIN 90 days prior to any the Sanggunian
election. If preventive suspension
•Officially notify concerned offices of
has been issued the same is
the Decision and the Service thereof to
automatically lifted.
the respondent so that they may
DECISION
• Investigation / hearing shall be become aware .
terminated within 90 days from Sec. 67 – within 30 days from
•Highest penalty is suspension of six
start thereof. (Sec. 66, LGC) receipt, decision can be appealed
(6) months
to the higher Sanggunian.
• Proceedings shall be terminated
•Reyes Only
vs. Comelec 1996
the parties – ifcase
to the decision
are
within 120 days from the time
APPEAL
cannotallowed to file
be served appeal.
due to the acts of
respondent is notified of the Sec. 68the
– Execution Pending
respondent, same is deemed
complaint against him.
servedAppeal
in accordance with the law.
“JURISPRUDENCE IN LOCAL
LEGISLATION”
MAGTAJAS VS. PRYCE PROPERTIES AND PAGCOR, (en banc July 20, 1994)

• Local legislative bodies exercise only

delegated legislative powers conferred
on them by Congress. As mere agents,
local governments are vested with the
power of subordinate legislation.
BATANGAS CATV VS. COURT OF APPEALS, (en banc September 29, 2004)

• It is fundamental principle that ordinances

are inferior in status and subordinate to the
laws of the State. An ordinance in conflict
with law or repugnant to the general policy
of the State is universally held to be invalid.
In every passage of an ordinance, there is
always an implied restriction that the
ordinance shall be consistent with general
law.
 LEYNES VS. COA, (en banc December 11, 2003)

• An ordinance must be presumed valid in

the absence of evidence showing that it is
not in accordance with law. A third party
has the burden of proof that a municipal
council did not comply with the conditions
set forth by the local code for the passage
of subject ordinance or it erroneously
approved said ordinance despite its non-
compliance with the requirements of law.
 GAMBOA VS. AGUIRRE, ( July 20, 1999)

• A Vice- Governor who is concurrently an Acting

Governor is actually considered a quasi- governor. Such
being the case, he is, for the time being, prohibited to
continue to preside over the session so as not to violate
the principle of separation of power and check and
balance.
 MALONZO VS. ZAMORA ( en banc ,July 27, 1999)

• While Sections 50 and 52 of the Local Government

Code mandates that during the first regular session,
the sanggunian shall take up the adoption or
updating of the internal rules of the sanggunian,
there is, however, no prohibition that other matters
shall be taken up.
• Three readings allowed in one day.
 ZAMORA VS. CABALLERO, (January 14, 2004)

•The sanggunian is a collegial body. As such, the discharge of

the duties, functions , and powers of the sanggunian requires
the participation of all its members so that they may not only
represent the interests of their respective constituents but also
help in the making of decisions by voting upon every question
put upon the body. The acts of only part of the sanggunian
done outside the parameters of the legal provisions are legally
infirmed and are thus null and void.

•-"Majority" when required to constitute a quorum, means the

number greater than half, or more than half of the total.
 FIGUERRES VS. COURT OF APPEALS ( March 25, 1999)

• Ordinances have to be posted in the manner provided for

under Section 59 of The Local Government Code. Thus
posting is done at prominent places in the provincial
capitol, city, municipal , or barangay hall, as the case may
be, for a minimum period of three (3) consecutive weeks.
If with penal sanctions, in addition to the posting as
stated, the same shall also be published in a newspaper
of general circulation, where available, within the
territorial jurisdiction of the local government unit
concerned, except the barangay.
 DRILON VS. LIM, ( August 4, 1994)

• The omission of the posting in conspicuous

places of the tax ordinance does not affect its
validity considering that the ordinance was
published in three successive issues of a
newspaper of general circulation. The
requirement of translation to tagalog applies to
approval of local development plan and public
investment program of LGU and not to tax
ordinance.
 PARANAQUE VS. V.M. REALTY CORP. (July 20, 1998)

• The enabling instrument authorizing the mayor to

exercise the power of eminent domain and to file
the expropriation case in court must be contained
in an ordinance and not in a resolution. This is the
specific requirement under Section 19 of the
Local Government Code.
 LINA VS. PANO , ( August 30 , 2001)

• An ordinance cannot prohibit what is allowed by law. The

Province Of Laguna passed an ordinance prohibiting lotto
and the establishment of lotto ticket sales outlet in any
part of the province. The Supreme Court declared it
invalid saying that lotto is a numbbers game managed by
the Philippine Charity Sweepstake Office (PCSO). The
PCSO on the other hand is an entity created by Congress
through a Law and said law authorized PCSO to operate
numbers game throughout the country. What the " LAW"
allows, "ORDINANCE" cannot prohibit but can only
regulate.
WHITE LIGHT CORP. VS. CITY OF MANILA, (January 20, 2009)

• The City of Manila passed a City Ordinance prohibiting

short- time admission and wash-up schemes in hotels,
motels, inns, lodging houses, pension houses and similar
establishment in the City of Manila. The Supreme Court
declared the said ordinance invalid for being
unreasonable and confiscatory. Owners of hotels etc are
unduly deprived of legitimate income , and that
legitimate users were also deprived of their right of
liberty.
 SOURCES OF PARLIAMENTARY RULES

1. Constitution
2. Law – Sec. 48-59, LGC
3. Judicial Decision (Decision of the
Supreme Court)
4. Adopted Internal Rules of Procedure
5. Parliamentary Practice
6. Parliamentary Authors
7. Customs and Usage
LA CARLOTA CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL VS ATTY. REX ROJO
(APRIL 24, 2012)

• The Vice-Mayor is included in the

determination of quorum of the Sanggunian.
 ATIENZA VS VILLAROSA (MAY 10, 2005)

• The governor issued two memoranda, namely, 1) Directing that all Purchase
Order for the supplies etc. for the operation of the Sanggunian shall be
signed by the Governor, 2) Terminating/cancelling all appointments issued
by the vice-governor for the employees of the Sanggunian Panlalawigan and
the Office of the Vice-Governor. The Supreme Court declared both
memoranda as null and void. As to the first, the SC said that applying the
doctrine of necessary implication, the powers of the vice-governor to sign all
warrants drawn from the expenditure of the Sanggunian would necessarily
include the power to sign purchase order directing payment of money
charged from Sanggunian fund. This doctrine means the express power
would necessary include such power as can be implied thereform. As to
power of appointment, if salary is charged against sanggunian fund, the
power to appoint employees of sanggunian and the office of the vice-
governor is with the vice-governor. On the other hand, if charged against
provincial general fund, the power to appoint is with the governor even if in
the meantime the employee is assigned with the sanggunian.