LOCAL

GOVERNMENT
Atty. Marivic R. Estrada-Rimando, MAEd, LPT, CESE,
REB, EnP

Professor
 YOUR PROFESSOR
ATTY. MARIVIC R. ESTRADA-RIMANDO
Education

Bachelor of Science in Mathematics

University of the Philippines
Master of Arts in Education
University of the Cordilleras
Bachelor of Laws
Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University
with units in Doctor of Education
Saint Louis College
 YOUR PROFESSOR
ATTY. MARIVIC R. ESTRADA-RIMANDO
Eligibilities
Civil Service Eligible (Sub-professional/Professional)
Career Executive Service Eligible
Licensed Teacher
Real Estate Broker
Environmental Planner
 YOUR PROFESSOR
ATTY. MARIVIC R. ESTRADA-RIMANDO
Positions Occupied
Instructor, Central La Union College, Naguilian, La Union
Dean, Central La Union College, Naguilian, La Union
Part-time Professor, University of the Cordilleras Graduate School
Administrative Officer IV, Municipality of Naguilian, La Union
Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator, Naguilian, La Union
Sangguniang Bayan Member, Municipality of Naguilian, La Union
City Legal Officer, City of San Fernando, La Union
 YOUR PROFESSOR
ATTY. MARIVIC R. ESTRADA-RIMANDO
Other Positions Occupied
Consultant, Municipality of Naguilian, La Union
Consultant, Provincial Government of La Union
Chairperson, Naguilian Water District
Private Law Practitioner
Law Profesor
 Class Rules/Policies
1. Class starts at 10:05 am unless there are unavoidable circumstances which may cause delay, for which you will
be informed accordingly. I will send a message in the group chat 5 minutes before we begin
2. Sign in as soon as you join by writing your family name, first name under the chat section.
3. Those who sign in after 15 minutes from the actual time of start are considered late. Those who sign in after 30
minutes are considered absent.
4. Turn off your microphone unless you are recognized to speak.
5. Your camera should be turned on for the duration of the class. Make sure you have sufficient lighting.
6. I expect courtesy and ethics in the use of all media including the group chat.
7. Use of text spelling is not allowed.
8. Please join the class in proper attire.
9. Strictly no special examination/quiz.
 GRADING SYSTEM
Class Standing = 60%; Midterm/Final Exam = 40%
Midterm Grade = 60%(Class Standing) + 40%(Midterm Exam)
Final Term Grade = 60%(Class Standing) + 40%(Final Exam)
Final Grade = 40%(Midterm Grade) + 60%(Final Grade)
 where:
Class Standing = 60%Quizzes) + 40%(OTR)
OTR =Case digests, seat work, recitation, attendance
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991
• Republic Act No. 7160
• Approved 10 October 1991
• Took effect 01 January 1992
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991
• BOOK I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
• BOOK II
LOCAL TAXATION AND FISCAL MATTERS
• BOOK III
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS
• BOOK IV
MISCELLANEOUS AND FINAL PROVISIONS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991
BOOK I . GENERAL PROVISIONS

Concept of Local Autonomy

Creation and Conversion of Local Government Units
Dual Nature of Local Governments
General Welfare/Police Power
Power to Generate and Apply Resources
Power of Eminent Domain
Inter-governmental Relations
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991
BOOK I . GENERAL PROVISIONS

Elective Officials
Local Legislation
Disciplinary Actions
Recall
Human Resources and Development
Boundary Disputes
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991
BOOK II . LOCAL TAXATION AND FISCAL MATTERS

Fiscal Autonomy
Local Government Taxation
Scope of Taxing Powers
Real Property Taxation
Shares of Local Government in the Proceeds of National Taxes/National Wealth
Local Fiscal Administration
Property and Supply Management
Salient Features of RA 9184
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991

BOOK III . LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

The Barangay
Katarungang Pambarangay
The Municipality
The City
The Province
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991

BOOK IV . MISCELLANEOUS AND FINAL PROVISIONS

Penal Provisions
Final Provisions
 LOCAL AUTONOMY
Section 2. Declaration of Policies

(a) enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-
reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals.
State shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of

decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and
resources.
(b) accountability of local government units through the institution of effective mechanisms of recall, initiative and
referendum.
(c) periodic consultations with appropriate local government units, nongovernmental and

people's organizations, and other concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is
implemented in their respective jurisdictions.
 PIMENTEL VS. OCHOA
G.R. No. 195770               July 17, 2012
(in relation to Section 17, LGC and Section 3, Article X, Philippine Constitution)

The Issue
Constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 10147 or the General
Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2011 which provides a P21 Billion budget allocation for the
Conditional Cash Transfer Program (CCTP) headed by the Department of Social Welfare &
Development
(VIOLATES ART. II, SEC. 25 & ART. X, SEC. 3 OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION IN
RELATION TO SEC. 17 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991 BY
PROVIDING FOR THE RECENTRALIZATION OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
IN THE DELIVERY OF BASIC SERVICES ALREADY DEVOLVED TO THE LGUS)
 PIMENTEL VS. OCHOA
G.R. No. 195770               July 17, 2012
(in relation to Section 17, LGC and Section 3, Article X, Philippine Constitution)

Ruling

The allocation of a P21 billion budget for an intervention program

formulated by the national government itself but implemented in partnership
with the local government units to achieve the common national goal
development and social progress can by no means be an encroachment upon
the autonomy of local governments.
 PIMENTEL VS. OCHOA
G.R. No. 195770               July 17, 2012
(in relation to Section 17, LGC and Section 3, Article X, Philippine Constitution)

SECTION 17. Basic Services and Facilities. –

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) hereof, public works
and infrastructure projects and other facilities, programs and services funded
by the National Government under the annual General Appropriations Act,
other special laws, pertinent executive orders, and those wholly or partially
funded from foreign sources, are not covered under this Section, except in
those cases where the local government unit concerned is duly designated as
the implementing agency for such projects, facilities, programs and services.
 PIMENTEL VS. OCHOA
G.R. No. 195770               July 17, 2012
(in relation to Section 17, LGC and Section 3, Article X, Philippine Constitution)

The essence of this express reservation of power by the national government

is that, unless an LGU is particularly designated as the implementing
agency, it has no power over a program for which funding has been provided
by the national government under the annual general appropriations act,
even if the program involves the delivery of basic services within the
jurisdiction of the LGU.
 PIMENTEL VS. OCHOA
G.R. No. 195770               July 17, 2012
(in relation to Section 17, LGC and Section 3, Article X, Philippine Constitution)

local autonomy 'means a more responsive and accountable local

As the Constitution itself declares,

government structure instituted through a system of decentralization.' (Limbona v. Mangelin G.R.

No. 80391, February 28,1989,170 SCRA 786). The Constitution, as we observed, does nothing more than to break
up the monopoly of the national government over the affairs of local governments and as put by political adherents,
to "liberate the local governments from the imperialism of Manila." Autonomy, however, is not meant to end the
relation of partnership and interdependence between the central administration and local government units, or
otherwise, to usher in a regime of federalism. The Charter has not taken such a radical step. Local governments,
under the Constitution, are subject to regulation, however limited, and for no other purpose than precisely, albeit
paradoxically, to enhance self-government. [Ganzon v. Court of Appeals, 200 SCRA 271 (1991)]
 PIMENTEL VS. OCHOA
G.R. No. 195770               July 17, 2012
(in relation to Section 17, LGC and Section 3, Article X, Philippine Constitution)

 
Under the Philippine concept of local autonomy, the national government has not completely
relinquished all its powers over local governments, including autonomous regions. Only
administrative powers over local affairs are delegated to political subdivisions. The purpose of the
delegation is to make governance more directly responsive and effective at the local levels. In turn,
economic, political and social development at the smaller political units are expected to propel
social and economic growth and development. But to enable the country to develop as a whole, the
programs and policies effected locally must be integrated and coordinated towards a common
national goal. Thus, policy-setting for the entire country still lies in the President and Congress.
[Pimentel v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000, 336 SCRA 201, 217]
 PIMENTEL VS. OCHOA
G.R. No. 195770               July 17, 2012
(in relation to Section 17, LGC and Section 3, Article X, Philippine Constitution)

Now, autonomy is either decentralization of administration or decentralization of power.

There is decentralization of administration when the central government delegates
administrative powers to political subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government
power and in the process to make local governments ‘more responsive and accountable’
and ‘ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more
effective partners in the pursuit of national development and social progress.’ At the same
time, it relieves the central government of the burden of managing local affairs and enables
it to concentrate on national concerns. The President exercises ‘general supervision’ over
them, but only to ‘ensure that local affairs are administered according to law.’ He has no
control over their acts in the sense that he can substitute their judgments with his own.
 PIMENTEL VS. OCHOA
G.R. No. 195770               July 17, 2012
(in relation to Section 17, LGC and Section 3, Article X, Philippine Constitution)

Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of

political power in the [sic] favor of local governments [sic] units declared to
be autonomous. In that case, the autonomous government is free to chart its
own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central
authorities. According to a constitutional author, decentralization of power
amounts to ‘self-immolation,’ since in that event, the autonomous
government becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to its
constituency. [Limbona v. Mangelin, G.R. No. 80391, February 28, 1989, 170 SCRA 786]
Magtajas vs Pryce Properties, Inc. (1994)
(in relation to Section 5, Article X, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

Issue

Validity of Ordinance No. 3355 and Ordinance No. 3375-93 as enacted by

the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City.
Magtajas vs Pryce Properties, Inc. (1994)
(in relation to Section 5, Article X, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

ORDINANCE NO. 3353

AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS PERMIT AND
CANCELLING EXISTING BUSINESS PERMIT TO ANY ESTABLISHMENT FOR
THE USING AND ALLOWING TO BE USED ITS PREMISES OR PORTION
THEREOF FOR THE OPERATION OF CASINO.
ORDINANCE NO. 3375-93
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OF CASINO AND
PROVIDING PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREFOR.
Magtajas vs Pryce Properties, Inc. (1994)
(in relation to Section 5, Article X, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

Ruling

Ordinance No. 3353 and Ordinance No. 3375-93 are NOT VALID.
Magtajas vs Pryce Properties, Inc. (1994)
(in relation to Section 5, Article X, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions (Tatel v. Municipality
of Virac, 207 SCRA 157; Solicitor General v. Metropolitan Manila Authority, 204 SCRA 837; De la
Cruz v. Paras, 123 SCRA 569; U.S. v. Abandan, 24 Phil. 165)  has held that to be valid, an ordinance
must conform to the following substantive requirements:
1) It must not contravene the constitution or any statute.
2) It must not be unfair or oppressive.
3) It must not be partial or discriminatory.
4) It must not prohibit but may regulate trade.
5) It must be general and consistent with public policy.
6) It must not be unreasonable.
Magtajas vs Pryce Properties, Inc. (1994)
(in relation to Section 5, Article X, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

The ordinances violate P.D. 1869, otherwise known as

the PAGCOR Charter) which has the character and
force of a statute, as well as the public policy
expressed in the decree allowing the playing of certain
games of chance despite the prohibition of gambling
in general.
Magtajas vs Pryce Properties, Inc. (1994)
(in relation to Section 5, Article X, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local

councils exercise only delegated legislative powers

conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking body. The delegate
cannot be superior to the principal or exercise
powers higher than those of the latter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local
government units can undo the acts of Congress, from which they have derived
their power in the first place, and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the
statute.
Magtajas vs Pryce Properties, Inc. (1994)
(in relation to Section 5, Article X, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly
from the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot
exist. As it creates, so it may destroy. As it may destroy, it may abridge and control.
Unless there is some constitutional limitation on the right, the legislature might, by a
single act, and if we can suppose it capable of so great a folly and so great a wrong,
sweep from existence all of the municipal corporations in the State, and the
corporation could not prevent it. We know of no limitation on the right so far as to the
corporation themselves are concerned. They are, so to phrase it, the mere tenants at
will of the legislature.  (Clinton v. Ceder Rapids, etc. Railroad Co., 24 Iowa 455)
Magtajas vs Pryce Properties, Inc. (1994)
(in relation to Section 5, Article X, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

This basic relationship between the national legislature and the local government units has not been
enfeebled by the new provisions in the Constitution strengthening the policy of local autonomy.
Without meaning to detract from that policy, we here confirm that Congress retains control of the
local government units although in significantly reduced degree now than
under our previous Constitutions. The power to create still includes the power to destroy. The power to
grant still includes the power to withhold or recall. True, there are certain notable innovations in the
Constitution, like the direct conferment on the local government units of the power to tax, which
cannot now be withdrawn by mere statute. By and large, however, the national legislature is still the

principal of the local government units, which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it.
Magtajas vs Pryce Properties, Inc. (1994)
(in relation to Section 5, Article X, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

Section 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own
sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such
guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the
basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue
exclusively to the local governments. (1987 Philippine Constitution)
 LTO vs BUTUAN
G.R. No. 131512           January 20, 2000
Issue

Whether under the present set up the power of the Land Registration Office
("LTO") to register, tricycles in particular, as well as to issue licenses for the
driving thereof, was likewise devolved to local government units.
 LTO vs BUTUAN
G.R. No. 131512           January 20, 2000
Ruling

Such as can be gleaned from the explicit language of the statute, as well as the
corresponding guidelines issued by DOTC, the newly delegated powers pertain to the
franchising and regulatory powers theretofore exercised by the LTFRB and not to the
functions of the LTO relative to the registration of motor vehicles and issuance of
licenses for the driving thereof. Clearly unaffected by the Local Government Code
are the powers of LTO under R.A. No. 4136 requiring the registration of all kinds of
motor vehicles "used or operated on or upon any public highway" in the country.
 LTO vs BUTUAN
G.R. No. 131512           January 20, 2000

DOTC"), through the LTO and the LTFRB, has since been tasked with
The Department of Transportation and Communications ("

implementing laws pertaining to land transportation .

The LTO is a line agency under the DOTC whose powers and functions, pursuant to Article III, Section 4 (d) [1] of the Land
Transportation and Traffic Code, as amended, deal primarily with the registration of all motor vehicles and

the licensing of drivers thereof.

The LTFRB, upon the other hand, is the governing body tasked by E.O. No. 202 to regulate the operation of public utility

or "for hire" vehicles and to grant franchises or certificates of public

convenience ("CPC").
 LTO vs BUTUAN
G.R. No. 131512           January 20, 2000

The 1987 Constitution provides:

Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of
revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and
limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of
local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the
local governments.
 LTO vs BUTUAN
G.R. No. 131512           January 20, 2000

Sec. 129. Power to Create Sources or Revenue. — Each local government

unit shall exercise its power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy
taxes, fees, and charges subject to the provisions herein, consistent with the
basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue
exclusively to the local government units.
 LTO vs BUTUAN
G.R. No. 131512           January 20, 2000

Sec. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government

Units. — Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing
powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to
the levy of the following:
xxx     xxx     xxx
(l) Taxes, fees or charges for the registration of motor vehicles and for the
issuance of all kinds of licenses or permits for the driving thereof, except
tricycles.