Plan de Ordenación de los Recursos Naturales y PRUG

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.

Suggested Answer: Under Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160,

the power of eminent domain is explicitly granted to the municipality, but must be exercised through an ordinance rather than through a resolution. (Municipality ofParanaque v. V.M. Realty Corp., G.R. No. 127820, July 20, 1998)

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Sur was without the authority to disapprove Resolution No. 1 as the municipality clearly has the power to exercise the right of eminent domain and its Sangguniang Bayan the capacity to promulgate said resolution. The only ground upon which a provincial board may declare any municipal resolution, ordinance or order invalid is when such resolution, ordinance or order is beyond the powers conferred upon the council or president making the same. Such is not the situation in this case. (Moday v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107916, February 20, 1997)

The question of whether there is genuine necessity for the expropriation of Christina's lot or whether the municipality has other and better lots for the purpose is a matter that will have to be resolved by the Court upon presentation of evidence by the parties to the case. 5. Reclassification of Lands

A city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed after conducting public hearings for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition:

1. When the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture, or

2. Where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, as determined by the sanggunian;

Provided that such reclassification shall be limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural land area at the time of the passage of the ordinance:

i. For highly urbanized cities and independent component cities: 15%

ii.

For component cities and 1st _{to 3}rd

class municipalities: 10%

iii.

For 4th _{to 6}th _{municipalities: 5%.}

Provided that agricultural land distributed to land reform beneficiaries shall not be affected by such reclassification.

6. Closure and Opening of Roads

RA 7160, Section 21. A local government unit may, pursuant to an ordinance, permanently or temporarily close or open any local road, alley, park or square falling within its jurisdiction, provided that in case of permanent closure, such ordinance must be approved by at least 2/3 of all the members of the sanggunian, and when necessary, an adequate substitute for the public facility shall be provided.

Additional limitations in case of permanent closure:

1. Adequate provision for the maintenance of public safety must be made;

2. The property may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property may be lawfully used or conveyed, but no freedom park shall be closed permanently without provision for its transfer or relocation to a new site.

Note: Temporary closure may be made during an actual emergency, fiesta celebrations, public rallies, etc.

Cases:

1. A municipality has the authority to prepare and adopt a land use map, promulgate a zoning ordinance, and close any municipal road. (Pilapil v. CA, 216 SCRA 33)

2.

The closure of 4 streets in Baclaran, Paranaque was held invalid for non-compliance with MMA Ordinance No. 2. Further, provincial roads and city streets are property for public use under Article 424, Civil Code, hence under the absolute control of Congress. They are outside the commerce of man, and cannot be disposed of to private persons. (Note: This case was decided under the aegis of the old Local Government Code) (Macasiano v. Diokno, 212 SCRA 464)

3. One whose property is not located on the closed section of the street ordered closed by the Provincial Board of Catanduanes has no right to compensation for the closure if he still has reasonable access to the general system of streets. (Cabrera v. CA, 195 SCRA 314) 4. The power to vacate is discretionary on the

Sanggunian.xxx when properties are no longer intended for public use, the same may be used or conveyed for any lawful purpose, and may even become patrimonial and thus be the subject of common contract. (Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene Co. v. Berciles, 66 SCRA 481) 5. The City Council has the authority to determine

for public use. (Favis v. City of Baguio, 29 SCRA 456)

6.

The City Mayor of Manila cannot by himself, withdraw Padre Rada as a public market. The establishment and maintenance of public markets is among the legislative powers of the City of Manila; hence, the need for joint action by the Sanggunian and the Mayor.

7. Local Legislative Power (Exercised by the

local sanggunian)

a. Products of legislative action:

1.

Ordinance- prescribes a permanent

rule of conduct.

2.

Resolution- of temporary character,

or expresses sentiment.

b. Requisites for validity

1. Must not contravene the Constitution and any statute;

2. Must not be unfair or oppressive; 3. Must not be partial or discriminatory; 4. Must not prohibit but may regulate trade;

5. Must not be unreasonable;

6. Must be general in application and consistent with public policy.

c. Approval of Ordinances

Ordinances passed by the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan shall be approved:

1. If the local chief executive approves the same, affixing his signature on each an every page thereof.

2.

If the local chief executive vetoes the same, and the veto is overridden by 2/3 vote of all the members of the sanggunian. The local chief executive may veto the ordinance, only once, on the ground that the ordinance is ultra vires, or that it is prejudicial to the public welfare. He may veto any particular item or items of an appropriation ordinance, an ordinance or resolution adopting a development plan and public investment program, or an ordinance directing the payment of money or creating liability. In such a case, the veto shall not affect the items or items which are not objected to. The veto shall be communicated by the local chief executive to the sanggunian within 15 days in case of a province, or 10 days in case of a city or municipality; otherwise, the ordinance shall be deemed approved as if he signed it.

In Delos Reyes v. Sandiganbayan, 1997, where petitioner was charged with falsification of a public document for approving a resolution which purportedly appropriate money to pay for the terminal leave of 2 employees when actually no

such resolution was passed, the petitioner argued that his signature on the resolution was merely ministerial. The SC disagreed, saying that the grant of the veto power accords the Mayor the discretion whether or not to disapprove the resolution.

“A sanggunian is a collegial body. Legislation, which is the principal function and duty 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 a part of the Sanggunian done outside the parameters of the legal provisions aforementioned are legally infirm, highly questionable and are, more importantly, null and void. And all such acts cannot be given binding force and effect for they are considered unofficial acts done during an unauthorized session.” (Zamora v. Caballero, GR 147767, 01.14.2004)

[Note: Ordinances enacted by the sangguniang barangay shall, upon approval by a majority of all its members, be signed by the punong barangay. The latter has no veto power.]

d. Review by Sangguniang Panlalawigan

Procedure: Within 3 days after approval, the secretary of the sanguniang panlugsod (in component cities) or sangguninang bayan shall forward to the sangguniang panglalawigan for review copies of approved ordinances and resolutions approving the local development plans and public investment programs formulated by the local development councils. The sannguniang panlalawigan shall review the same within 30 days; if it finds that the ordinance or resolution is beyond the power conferred upon the sangguniang panlusgsod or sagguniang bayan concerned, it shall declare such ordinance or resolution invalid in whole or in part. If no action is taken within 30 days, the ordinance or resolution is presumed consisted with law, valid.

e. Review of Barangay Ordinances

Within 10 days from enactment, the sangguniang barangay shall furnish copies of all barangay ordinances to the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan for review. If the reviewing sanggunian finds the barangay ordinances inconsistent with law or city or municipal ordinances, the sanggunian concerned shall, within 30 days form receipt thereof, return the same with its commentsand recommendations to the sangguniang barangay for adjustment, amendment or modification, in which case the effectivity of the ordinance is suspended until the revision

called for is effected. If no action is taken by the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan within 30 days, the ordinance is deemed approved.

f. Enforcement of disapproved ordinances/ resolutions

Any attempt to enforce an ordinance or resolution approving the local development plan and public investment program, after the disapproval thereof, shall be sufficient ground for the suspension or dismissal of the official or employee concerned.

g. Effectivity.

Unless otherwise stated in the ordinance or resolution, the same shall take effect after 10 days from the date a copy thereof is posted in a bulletin board at the entrance of the provincial capitol, or city, municipal or barangay hall, and in at least two other conspicuous places in the local government unit concerned.

i. The gist of all ordinances with penal sanction shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the province where the local legislative body concerned belongs. In the absence of a newspaper of general circulation within the province, posting of such ordinances shall be made in all municipalities and cities of the province where the sanggunian of origin is situated.

ii. In the case of highly urbanized and independent component cities, the main features of the ordinance or resolution duly enacted shall, in additions to being posted, be published once in a local newspaper of general circulation within the city; of there is no such newspaper within the city, then publication shall be made in any newspaper of general circulation.

h. Scope of Local Law Making Authority

1. Sanggunians exercise only

delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress. As mere agents, local governments are vested with the power of subordinate legislation. (Magtajas v.

Pryce, GR 111097, 07.20.94)

2. It is a fundamental principle that municipal ordinances are inferior in status and subordinate to the laws of the State. An ordinance in conflict with a state law of general character and statewide application is universally held to be invalid. The principle is frequently expressed in the declaration that municipal authorities, under a general

grant of power, cannot adopt ordinances which infringe upon the spirit of a state law or repugnant to the general policy of the state. In every power to pass ordinances given to a municipality, there is an implied restriction that the ordinances shall be consistent with the general law. (Batangas CATV v. Court of

Appeals, GR 138810, 09.20.2004)

3. The 1991 Local Government Code provides that local legislative power shall be exercised by the sanggunian. The legislative acts of the sanggunian in the exercise of its lawmaking authority are denominated ordinances. For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government concerned to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. (Lagcao v.

Labra, GR 155746, October 13, 2004)

4. A proviso in an ordinance directing that the real property tax be based on the actual amount reflected in the deed of conveyance or the prevailing BIR zonal value is invalid not only because it mandates an exclusive rule in determining the fair market value but more so because it departs from the established procedures stated in the Local Assessment Regulations No. 1-92 and unduly interferes with the duties statutorily placed upon the local assessor by completely dispensing with his analysis and discretion which the Code and the regulations require to be exercised. Further, the charter does not give the local government that authority. An ordinance that contravenes any statute is ultra vires and void. (Allied Banking Corporation v.

Quezon City, GR 154126, 10.11.2005) 1999 Bar Question

In document INDICE 1. ANTECEDENTES DE LA GESTIÓN DEL MONTE NORMATIVA APLICABLE EVOLUCIÓN DEL ESTADO LEGAL ORDENACIÓN Y EVOLUCIÓN DE (página 35-39)