Chapter 3—INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Article I-National AND Local Government Units

Section 25.

SECTION 25. National Supervision over Local Government Units. – (a) Consistent with the basic policy on
local autonomy, the President shall exercise general supervision over local government units to ensure
that their acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.

The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly over provinces , highly urbanized cities, and
independent component cities; through the province with respect to component cities and
municipalities; and through the city and municipality with respect to barangays.

(b) National agencies and offices with project implementation functions shall coordinate with one
another and with the local government units concerned in the discharge of these functions. They shall
ensure the participation of local government units both in the planning and implementation of said
national projects.

(c) The President may, upon request of the local government unit concerned, direct the appropriate
national agency to provide financial, technical, or other forms of assistance to the local government unit.
Such assistance shall be extended at no extra cost to the local government unit concerned.

(d) National agencies and offices including government-owned or -controlled corporations with field
units or branches in a province, city, or municipality shall furnish the local chief executive concerned, for
his information and guidance, monthly reports including duly certified budgetary allocations and
expenditures.

Decided cases:

1. The department head, as agent of the President, does not have control of local governments as
that they exercised by him over all bureaus and offices under his jurisdiction. Likewise, his
authority to order the investigation of any act or conduct of any person in the service of any
bureau or office does not extend to local governments over which the President exercises only
general supervision.

--Can the provincial governor suspend the city mayor?

In the case of Mondano v. Silvosa, 97 Phil. 143, 1955, states that, the suspension of the mayor
of municipality of Mainit, is unlawful and without authority of law. The Constitution provides
that “the President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus, or offices, exercises
general supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law (Sec. 10 par.1, 1935
Constitution).” The authority of a Department Head to order the investigation of any act or
conduct of any person in the service of any bureaus of offices under his jurisdiction and does not
extend to local governments over which as already stated, the President exercises only general
supervision.

In administrative law supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to

see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them the
former may take such action or step as prescribe by law to them perform their duties. Control on
the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and substitute the judgement of
the former for that of the latter.

1
 The Assistant Secretary requested for the investigation by indorsing the matter to the provincial
governor such indorsement by the Executive Secretary as taken by the provincial governor which
acting only as agent of the Executive.

The charges against the respondent mayor are not malfeasance in accordance to section 2188 of
the Revised Administrative Code, because rape and concubinage have nothing to do with the
performance of his duties as mayor nor do they constitute of involved “neglect of duty,
oppression, corruption or any other form of maladministration of office.” True, they may be
involve moral turpitude, but before the provincial governor and board may act and proceed in
accordance with provisions of the Revised Administrative Code referred to, a conviction by final
judgement must precede the filing by the provincial governor of charges and trial by the
provincial board.

2. The President may not directly assume jurisdiction regarding the suspension or removal of a
public officer. Such jurisdiction pertains to the Provincial Governor and the Provincial Board.

In Hebron v. Reyes, 104 Phil 175, 1998. The issue in this case whether or not the municipal
mayor could be removed or suspended directly by the President regardless the procedure set
forth in the RAC. The Supreme Court states that under the present law, the executive
department of the national governments, in the exercise of its general supervision over local
government, may conduct investigations with a view to determining whether municipal officials
are guilty of acts or omissions warranting the administrative action referred to in Secs 2188-
2191, as a means only to determine whether the provincial governor and the provincial board
should take such action, and the Executive may take appropriate measures to compel the
provincial governor and the provincial board to take said action, if the same is warranted and
they failed to do so.

However, the Executive may not deprive the provincial governor and the provincial board of the
power to exercise the authority conferred upon them in Secs. 2188-2190 of the RAC, for the
procedure prescribed in said section for the suspension and removal of the municipal officials is
mandatory, and in the absence of a clear and explicit provision to the contrary, relative
particularly to municipal corporations, said procedure is exclusive.

3. Although heads of the local governments may be under the supervision of the Secretary of Local
Governments. Local government units have their own legislative and executive powers under the
Local Government Code.

In the case of RADIA v. REVIEW COMMITTEE under EO No. 17, 157 SCRA, 749, [1988]. The
Supreme Court ruled that although heads of local governments like provincial governors and
municipal may be under the supervision of the Secretary of Local Governments, local
governments are not “attached to” the Department of Local Governments in the same sense
that Bureau and Offices under, for instance, the Department of Justice are attached to the that
Department. Provinces and Municipalities are instrumentalities or units of local government
vested with their own legislative and executive powers under the Local Government Code.

The present Local Government Code of 1991 likewise provides for general supervision not
control by the President over local government units.

4. What is the relation of the President to local government?

Local governments are subject, not to the control, but merely to the general supervision of the
President.

2
 Section 4, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides that the president shall exercise general
supervision over local government units.

Under Section 25, LGC of 1991, the President shall exercise general supervision over local
government units.

5. As the entity exercising supervision over the Liga ng mga Barangay, the DILG’s authority over the
Liga is limited only to seeing to it that the rules are followed, but it cannot lay down such rules
itself, nor does it have the discretion to modify or replace them. In this particular case, the most
that the DILG could do was review the acts of the incumbent officers of the Liga in the conduct
of the elections to determine if they committed any violation of the Liga’s Constitution and By-
laws and its implementing rules. Like the local government units, the Liga ng mga Barangay is not
subject to control by the Chief Executive or his alter ego.

National Liga ng mga Barangay v. Paredes.

Facts: the petitioner, Punong Barangay of Barangay 52, Zone 5, District II, Caloocan City, filed a
petition for prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, and/ or
TRO and damages before the RTC of Caloocan, alleging that the respondent therein Alex David,
committed certain irregularities in the notice, venue and conduct of the proposed synchronized
Liga ng mga Barangay election in 1997.

The DILG through respondent Secretary Barbers file an urgent motion, invoking the President’s
power of general supervision over all local government units and be appointed as caretaker to
manage and administer the affair of the liga

Ruling: Even before the respondent judge designated the DILG as interim caretaker of the Liga,
the DILG issued Memorandum Circular, directing local government official not to recognized
David as the National Liga President.

When the respondent judge eventually appointed DILG as interim caretaker to manage and
administer the affair of the Liga, she effectively removed the management from the National Liga
Board and vested control of the Liga on the DILG. Secretary Barbers nullifies the result of the Liga
elections and promulgated a memorandum, where he laid down the supplemental guidelines for
the elections.

These acts of the DILG went beyond the sphere of general supervision and constituted direct
interference with the political affair, not only of the Liga, but more importantly of the barangay
as an institution. Xxx. Clearly, what the DILG wielded was the power of control which even the
President does not have.

The Court is convinced that the assailed order was issued with grave abuse of discretion while
the acts of the respondent Secretary, including the memorandum circulars are unconstitutional
and ultra vires, as they all entailed the conferment or exercise of control—a power which is
denied by the Constitution even to the President.

The petition is granted.

SECTION 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological Balance. – It shall
be the duty of every national agency or government-owned or -controlled corporation authorizing or
involved in the planning and implementation of any project or program that may cause pollution,
climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of cropland, rangeland, or forest cover, and
extinction of animal or plant species, to consult with the local government units, nongovernmental
organizations, and other sectors concerned and explain the goals and objectives of the project or

3
program, its impact upon the people and the community in terms of environmental or ecological
balance, and the measures that will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects thereof.

SECTION 27. Prior Consultations Required. – No project or program shall be implemented by government
authorities unless the consultations mentioned in Sections 2 (c) and 26 hereof are complied with , and
prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained: Provided, That occupants in areas where such
projects are to be implemented shall not be evicted unless appropriate relocation sites have been
provided, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Decided Cases:

1. The introduction of lotto in the province of Laguna is not covered by Section 26 and 27 (on Prior
Consultation Required) of the LGC.

In Lina, Jr. v Paño, 364 SCRA 76, [2001], SC holds that the petitioner erred in
declaring that Section 2 (Declaration of Policy) and 27 (Prior Consultations
Required) of RA 7160, applies mandatorily in the setting up of lotto outlets
around the country.
Section 27 of the Code should be read in conjunction with section 26 (Duty of
National government Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological Balance
thereof).
These apply only to national programs and/ or projects which are to be
implemented in a particular local community. Lotto is neither a program nor a
project of the national government, but of a charitable institution, the PCSO.
The projects and programs mentioned in Section 27 should be interpreted to
mean projects and programs whose effects among those enumerated in
Section 26 and 27, to wit, those that: (1) may cause pollution; (2) may bring
about climate change; (3) may cause the depletion of non-renewable
resources; (4) may result in loss of crop land, range-land, or forest cover; (5)
may eradicate certain animals or plants species from the face of the planet;
and (6) other projects or programs that may call for the eviction of a
particular group of people residing in the locality where these will be
implemented. Obviously, none of these effects will be produced by the
introduction of lotto in the province of Laguna.

2. PICOP had claimed that it complied with the Local Government Code requirement of obtaining
prior approval of the Sangunian concerned by submitting a purported a resolution of the
Province of Surigao del Sur indorsing the approval of PICOP’s application for IFMA (Integrated
Forest Management Agreement) conversion. In the case, the Supreme Court ruled that this
cannot be deemed sufficient compliance with the foregoing provision. Surigao del Sur is not the
only province affected by the area covered by the proposed IFMA. PICOP’s TLA No. 43 (Timber
License Agreement) traverses the length and breadth not only Surigao del Sur but also Agusan
del Sur, Compostela Valley and Davao Oriental.
(Alvarez v. PICOP, 508 SCRA 498, [2009].
PICOP is indeed neither a national agency nor a government-owned or controlled corporation.
The DENR, however, is a national agency and is the national agency prohibited by Section 27
from issuing an IFMA without the prior approval of the Sangunian concerned.

3. The projects and programs mentioned in Section 27, LGC should be interpreted to mean projects
and programs whose effects are among those enumerated in Sections 26 and 27. Preliminarily, it
appears that the present case (NIA immigration land project) does not fall under any of these
instances; ergo, there is neither a need for prior consultations of concerned sectors not prior
approval of the Sangunian. (Republic v. Lazo, 737 SCRA 1, [2014]).

4
 Under the Local Government Code, therefore, two requisites must be met before a national
projects that affect the environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be
implemented: prior consultation with the affected local communities, and prior approval of the
project by the appropriate sanggunian . Absent either these mandatory requirements, the
project’s implementation is illegal.

Facts: Respondents spouses Rogelio Lazo (Sps. Lazo) owner and developer of Monte Vista, they
sold it to National Irrigation Administration (NIA). Subsequently, they engaged the service of
retired geologist to conduct geohazard study on the possible effects of the BPIP on Monte Vista.
A Geohazard Assessment Report finding that ground shaking and channel bank erosion are
possible hazards that could affect the NIA irrigation canal and recommended construction of a
buffer zone.
Respondent Rogelio brought to NIA’s attention Resolution No. 34 and asked for the
implementation of the GAR recommendation and the payment of just compensation for the
entire buffer zone.

When respondents’ demand were not acted upon, they decide to file a complaint against NIA.

Ruling: Under the Local Government Code, therefore, two requisites must be met before a
national project that affect the environmental and ecological balance of local communities can
be implemented: prior consultation with the affected local communities, and prior approval of
the project by the appropriate sanggunian. Absent either these mandatory requirements, the
project’s implementation is illegal.

Section 2 (c) of the Local Government Code declares the policy of the State “to require all
national agencies and offices to conduct periodic consultations with the appropriate local
government units, non-governmental and people’s organizations, and other concerned sectors
of the community before any projects or programmed is implemented in their respective
jurisdiction.” This provision applies to national government projects affecting the environmental
or ecological balance of the particular community implementing the project. Exactly, Sections 26
and 27 of the Local Government Code requires prior consultations with the concerned sectors
and prior approval of the Sanggunian. It was said that the Congress introduced these provisions
to emphasizes the legislative concern “for the maintenance of a sound ecology and clean
environment.”

4. Under RA No. 7227, the power of SMBA is not subject to the prior approval by the sanggunians,
and the SMBA’s decision to approve the project prevails over the apparent objections of the
concerned sanggunians.

(Paje v. Casiño, 749 SCRA 39, [2015])

Facts: Teodoro CAsiño filed the Court a petition for Writ of Kalikasan against RP Energy, SMBA
and Hon. Jesus Paje as DENR Secretary.

Casiño groups alleged that the power plant project would cause grave environmental damage;
that it would adversely affect the health of the residents of the municipalities of Subic,
Zambales xxx; that the Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) was issued and the Leased and
Development Agreement (LDA) entered into without the prior approval of the concerned
sanggunian as required under Section 26 and 27 of the LGC

Ruling: we note Section 27, in relation to 26, of the LGC contemplates two requirements: (1)
Prior consultations and (2) prior approval of the concerned Sanggunian.

5
In the case at bar, we find that the power to approve or disapprove projects within the SSEZ is
one such power over which the SMBA’s authority prevails over the LGU autonomy. Hence, there
is no need for the SMBA to secure approval of the concerned sanggunians prior to the
implementation of the subject project.

This interpretation is based on the broad grant of powers to the SMBA over all administrative
matters relating to the SSEZ under Section 13 of RA 7227.

6
 Title II—Elective Officials

Section 39. Qualifications. -

(a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay,
municipality, city, or province or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang
panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be elected; a resident therein for at
least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write Filipino or
any other local language or dialect.

(b) Candidates for the position of governor, vice-governor, or member of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
or mayor, vice-mayor or member of the sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized cities must be at
least twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.

(c) Candidates for the position of mayor or vice-mayor of independent component cities, component
cities, or municipalities must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.

(d) Candidates for the position of member of the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan must
be at least eighteen (18) years of age on election day.

(e) Candidates for the position of punong barangay or member of the sangguniang barangay must be at
least eighteen (18) years of age on election day.

(f) Candidates for the sangguniang kabataan must be at least fifteen (15) years of age but not more than
twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.

Decided Cases:

 Gallego v. Vera—the residence is synonyms with domicile, which imports not only intention to
reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative
of such intention.

In order to acquire domicile by choice, there must concur:

1) Residence or bodily presence in the new locality,

2) An intention to remain, there, (animus manendi) and
3) An intention to abandon the old domicile. (animus non-revertendi)
 Faypon v. Quirino—the mere absent from one’s residence or origin domicile—to purpose of
studies, engage in business, or practice his vocation, is not sufficient to constitute abandonment
or loss of such residence.
A previous registration as voter in a municipality in a municipality other than that in which he is
elected is not sufficient abandonment or loss of his residence or origin.

 Torayno, Sr. v. COMELEC—private respondent Emano was actually and physically residing in
Cagayan De Oro City while discharging his duties as governor of Misamis Oriental. He owned a
house in the city and resided there together with his family. He even paid his 1998 community
tax and registered as a voter therein. To all intents and purposes of the Constitution and the law,
he is a resident of Cagayan de Oro City and legible to run for mayor thereof.

 Coquilla v. COMELEC—petitioner lost his domicile or origin, in Oras, Eastern Samar by becoming
a U.S citizen after enlisting in the U.S Navy in 1965. From then on and until November 10, 2000,
when he reacquired Philippine citizenship, petitioner was an alien without any right to reside in
the Philippines, save as our immigration laws may have allowed him to stay as a visitor or as a
resident alien.

7
PEZA LAW partially amend building code; peza law prevail

RULE VII. Permits and Other Requirements

SECTION 1. Permits - No building, structure, facility, utility, and electro-mechanical equipment shall be
constructed and installed and no improvement thereon within an ECOZONE or any other area owned,
administered or operated by the PEZA shall be made without the prior written approval or permit issued
by the PEZA. Likewise, upon completion of the building, structure, facility, utility and installation of
electro-mechanical equipment permanently and / or temporarily attached to the building, the ECOZONE
enterprise or the owner shall secure an occupancy permit for the building and/or a permit to operate
such facility, utility and electro-mechanical equipment from the duly designated PEZA Building Official.
The ECOZONE enterprise shall pay to the PEZA all the corresponding fees and dues related to the
issuance of the permit as specified in the National Building Code and its implementing rules as well as
those contained in such other rules as the PEZA may adopt.