Download - PubCorp Cases 4
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
1/25
FLORES v. DRILONG.R. No. 104732 June 22, 1993FACTS:
The constitutionality of Sec. 13, par. (d), of R.A. 7227, otherwise nown as the!"ases #on$ersion and %e$elop&ent Act of 1''2,! under which ayor Richard .*ordon of +lonapo #ity was appointed #hair&an and #hief -ecuti$e +/cer of the
Su0ic "ay etropolitan Authority (S"A). nder said pro$ision, for the rst year ofits operations fro& the e4ecti$ity of this Act, the &ayor of the #ity of +lonapo shall0e appointed as the chair&an and chief eecuti$e o/cer of the Su0ic Authority.56etitioners, as tapayers, contend that said pro$ision is unconstitutional as underthe followin constitutional and statutory pro$isions: (a) Sec. 7, rst par., Art. 89",of the #onstitution, which states that !n;o electi$e o/cial shall 0e elii0le forappoint&ent or desination in any capacity to any pu0lic o/cer or position durinhis tenure,! 0ecause the #ity ayor of +lonapo #ity is an electi$e o/cial and thesu0, Art. ?, of the #onstitution, whichpro$ides that !t;he 6resident shall appoint all other o/cers of the *o$ern&entwhose appoint&ents are not otherwise pro$ided for 0y law, and those who& he&ay 0e authori@ed 0y law to appoint!, since it was #onress throuh the uestioned
pro$iso and not the 6resident who appointed the ayor to the su01, par. (), of the +&ni0us -lection #ode.ISSUE: We!e" o" no! !e #"ov$%o $n Se&. 13, #'". ()*, o+ R.A. 7227 v$o'!e%!e &on%!$!u!$on' #"o%&"$#!$on '-'$n%! '##o$n!en! o" )e%$-n'!$on o+ee&!$ve o/&$'% !o o!e" -ove"nen! #o%!%ELD ES.
The rule epresses the policy aainst the concentration of se$eral pu0lic positions inone person, so that a pu0lic o/cer or e&ployee &ay ser$e full9ti&e with dedicationand thus 0e e/cient in the deli$ery of pu0lic ser$ices. t is an a/r&ation that apu0lic o/ce is a full9ti&e
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
2/25
nion $. -ecuti$e Secretary. Bowe$er, the court held that the #onress did not
conte&plate &ain the su0
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
3/25
2. ection 5+ of R.A. No. 785 atte1pts to alter or restart the !three consecutive
ter1! li1it for local elective officials, in violation of ection 8, Article : and ection 7,
Article 4& of the "onstitution.
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
4/25
0he i1portance of drawing with precise stro%es the territorial boundaries of a local unit of
govern1ent cannot be overe1phasied. 0he boundaries 1ust be clear for the$ define the li1its of
the territorial urisdiction of a local govern1ent unit. &t can legiti1atel$ e6ercise powers of
govern1ent onl$ within the li1its, its acts are ultra vires. Needless to state, an$ uncertaint$ in the
boundaries of local govern1ent units will sow costl$ conflicts in the e6ercise of govern1ental powers
which ulti1atel$ will preudice the peopleDs welfare. 0his is the evil sought to avoided b$ the -ocal*overn1ent "ode in re=uiring that the land area of a local govern1ent unit 1ust be spelled out in
1etes and bounds, with technical descriptions.
*iven the facts of the cases at bench, we cannot perceive how this evil can be brought about b$ the
description 1ade in section 2 of R.A. No. 785, 3etitioners have not de1onstrated that the
delineation of the land area of the proposed "it$ of #a%ati will cause confusion as to its boundaries.
e note that said delineation did not change even b$ an inch the land area previousl$ covered b$
#a%ati as a 1unicipalit$. ection 2 did not add, subtract, divide, or 1ultipl$ the established land area
of #a%ati. &n language that cannot be an$ clearer, section 2 stated that, the cit$Ds land area !shall
co1prise thepresentterritor$ of the 1unicipalit$.!
0he deliberations of "ongress will reveal that there is a legiti1ate reason wh$ the land area of the
proposed "it$ of #a%ati was not defined b$ 1etes and bounds, with technical descriptions. At the
ti1e of the consideration of R.A. No. 785, the territorial dispute between the 1unicipalities of #a%ati
and 0aguig over ort /onifacio was under court litigation. ut of a beco1ing sense of respect to coE
e=ual depart1ent of govern1ent, legislators felt that the dispute should be left to the courts to
decide. 0he$ did not want to foreclose the dispute b$ 1a%ing a legislative finding of fact which could
decide the issue. 0his would have ensued if the$ defined the land area of the proposed cit$ b$ its
e6act 1etes and bounds, with technical descriptions. )e ta%e udicial notice of the fact that "ongresshas also refrained fro1 using the 1etes and bounds description of land areas of other local govern1ent
units with unsettled boundar$ disputes.*
e hold that the e6istence of a boundar$ dispute does notper sepresent an insur1ountable
difficult$ which will prevent "ongress fro1 defining with reasonable certitude the territorial urisdiction
of a local govern1ent unit. &n the cases at bench, "ongress 1aintained the e6isting boundaries of
the proposed "it$ of #a%ati but as an act of fairness, 1ade the1 subect to the ulti1ate resolution
b$ the courts. "onsidering these peculiar circu1stances, we are not prepared to hold that section 2
of R.A. No. 785 is unconstitutional. e sustain the sub1ission of the olicitor *eneral in this
regard, viz.
*oing now to ections 7 and 59 of the -ocal *overn1ent "ode, it is be$ond cavil
that the re=uire1ent stated therein, viz. !the territorial urisdiction of newl$ created or
converted cities should be described b$ 1eted and bounds, with technical
descriptions! B was 1ade in order to provide a 1eans b$ which the area of said
cities 1a$ be reasonabl$ ascertained. &n other words, the re=uire1ent on 1etes and
bounds was 1eant 1erel$ as tool in the establish1ent of local govern1ent units. &t is
not an end in itself. rgo, so long as the territorial urisdiction of a cit$ 1a$ be
reasonabl$ ascertained, i.e., b$ referring to co11on boundaries with neighboring
1unicipalities, as in this case, then, it 1a$ be concluded that the legislative intent
behind the law has been sufficientl$ served.
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
5/25
"ertainl$, "ongress did not intends that laws creating new cities 1ust contain therein
detailed technical descriptions si1ilar to those appearing in 0orrens titles, as
petitioners see1 to i1pl$. 0o re=uire such description in the law as a condition sine
qua non for its validit$ would be to defeat the ver$ purpose which the -ocal
*overn1ent "ode to see%s to serve. 0he 1anifest intent of the "ode is to e1power
local govern1ent units and to give the1 their rightful due. &t see%s to 1a%e localgovern1ents 1ore responsive to the needs of their constituents while at the sa1e
ti1e serving as a vital cog in national develop1ent. 0o invalidate R.A. No. 785 on
the 1ere ground that no cadastral t$pe of description was used in the law would
serve the letter but defeat the spirit of the "ode. &t then beco1es a case of the
1aster serving the slave, instead of the other wa$ around. 0his could not be the
intend1ent of the law.
0oo well settled is the rule that laws 1ust be enforced when ascertained, although it
1a$ not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute. "ourts will not follow the
letter of the statute when to do so would depart fro1 the true intent of the legislature
or would otherwise $ield conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act.(0orres v. -i1ap, 5? 3hil., ++; 0a@ada v. "uenco, +9< 3hil. +95+; 'idalgo v.
'idalgo,
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
6/25
666 666 666
ec. 7. 0he #e1bers of the 'ouse of Representatives shall be elected for a ter1 of
three $ears which shall begin, unless otherwise provided b$ law, at noon on the
thirtieth da$ of une ne6t following their election.
No #e1ber of the 'ouse of Representatives shall serve for 1ore than three
consecutive ter1s. 4oluntar$ renunciation of the office for an$ length of ti1e shall not
be considered as an interruption in the continuit$ of his service for the full ter1 for
which he was elected.
3etitioners stress that under these provisions, elective local officials# including Members of the
$ouse of %epresentative# have a term of three (&)years and are prohibited from serving for more
than three (&)consecutive terms. 0he$ argue that b$ providing that the new cit$ shall ac=uire a new
corporate existence, section 5+ of R.A. No. 785 restarts the ter1 of the present 1unicipal elective
officials of #a%ati and disregards the ter1s previousl$ served b$ the1. &n particular, petitioners point
that section 5+ favors the incu1bent #a%ati #a$or, respondent eo1ar /ina$, who has alread$served for two (2) consecutive ter1s. 0he$ further argue that should #a$or /ina$ decide to run and
eventuall$ win as city mayor in the co1ing elections, he can still run for the sa1e position in +>>8
and see% another threeE$ear consecutive ter1 since his previous threeE$ear consecutive ter1
asmunicipal mayor would not be counted. 0hus, petitioners conclude that said section 5+ has been
convenientl$ crafted to suit the political a1bitions of respondent #a$or /ina$.
e cannot entertain this challenge to the constitutionalit$ of section 5+. 0he re=uire1ents before a
litigant can challenge the constitutionalit$ of a law are well delineated. 0he$ are +) there 1ust be an
actual case or controvers$; (2) the =uestion of constitutionalit$ 1ust be raised b$ the proper part$;
(>8 elections. "onsidering that these contingencies 1a$ or 1a$ not happen,
petitioners 1erel$ pose a h$pothetical issue which has $et to ripen to an actual case or controvers$.
3etitioners who are residents of 0aguig (e6cept #ariano) are not also the proper parties to raise this
abstract issue. orse, the$ hoist this futuristic issue in a petition for declarator$ relief over which this
"ourt has no urisdiction.
&&&
inall$, petitioners in the two (2) cases at bench assail the constitutionalit$ of section 52, Article : of
R.A. No. 785. ection 52 of the "harter provides
ec. 52. 'egislative (istricts. B pon its conversion into a highl$Eurbanied cit$,
#a%ati shall thereafter have at least two )*+ legislative districtsthat shall initiall$
correspond to the two (2) e6isting districts created under ection
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
7/25
Act. No. 7+?? as i1ple1ented b$ the "o11ission on Clections to co11ence at the
ne6t national elections to be held after the effectivit$ of this Act. 'enceforth,
baranga$s #agallanes, Fas1ari@as and orbes shall be with the first district, in lieu
of /aranga$ *uadalupeE4ieo which shall for1 part of the second district. (e1phasis
supplied)
0he$ contend. that the addition of another legislative district in #a%ati is unconstitutional for (+)
reapportion1ent&cannot 1ade b$ a special law, (2) the addition of a legislative district is not e6pressedin the title of the bill7and (>9 census, stands at onl$ four hundred fift$thousand (59,999).
0hese issues have been laid to rest in the recent case of Tobias v.Abalos.8&n said case, we ruledthat reapportion1ent of legislative districts 1a$ be 1ade through a special law, such as in the charter of a
new cit$. 0he "onstitution9clearl$ provides that "ongress shall be co1posed of not 1ore than twohundred fift$ (259) 1e1bers, unless otherwise fixed by law. As thus worded, the "onstitution did not
preclude "ongress fro1 increasing its 1e1bership b$ passing a law, other than a general
reapportion1ent of the law. 0his is its e6actl$ what was done b$ "ongress in enacting R.A. No. 785 and
providing for an increase in #a%atiDs legislative district. #oreover, to hold that reapportion1ent can onl$
be 1ade through a general apportion1ent law, with a review of all the legislative districts allotted to each
local govern1ent unit nationwide, would create an ine=uitable situation where a new cit$ or province
created b$ "ongress will be denied legislative representation for an indeter1inate period of ti1e. 1+0heintolerable situations will deprive the people of a new cit$ or province a particle of their
sovereignt$. 11overeignt$ cannot ad1it of an$ %ind of subtraction. &t is indivisible. &t 1ust be foreverwhole or it is not sovereignt$.
3etitioners cannot insist that the addition of another legislative district in #a%ati is not in accord with
section 5(
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
8/25
/arvasa# C010# 2eliciano# "adilla# 3idin# %egalado# %omero# 3ellosillo# Melo# 4uiason# 5itug#
6apunan# Mendoza and 2rancisco# 110# concur0
'"ue5 v% COELEC GR 112669 (A#"$
16, 199*6osted on O&!o8e" 3, 2012
GR No. 112669
243 SCRA 36
A#"$ 16, 199
FACTS:
"ien$enido arue@, a defeated candidate in the 6ro$ince of Eue@on led a
petition for certiorari prayin for the re$ersal of the #+-C-# Resolution which
dis&issed his petition for uo warranto aainst -duardo Rodriue@, for 0ein
alleedly a fuiti$e fro&
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
9/25
ISSUE:
Dhether pri$ate respondent who, at the ti&e of the lin of his certicate of
candidacy (and to date), is said to 0e facin a cri&inal chare 0efore a forein
court and e$adin a warrant for his arrest co&es within the ter& fuiti$e fro&
F) pro$ide that a Muiti$e fro& >,1K1). Bowe$er, when
there clearly is no o0scurity and a&0iuity in an ena0lin law, it &ust &erely 0e
&ade to apply as it is so written. An ad&inistrati$e rule or reulation can neither
epand nor constrict the law 0ut &ust re&ain conruent to it.
The conne&ent of the ter& fuiti$e fro&
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
10/25
%isualication case on the round of fuiti$e fro&
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
11/25
she has to 0e con$icted 0y nal
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
12/25
+n April 1''3, the Sangguniang Bayano+ o"on-, "ataan passed
Pambayang Kapasyahan Bilang 10, Serye 1993, epressin therein
its a0solute concurrence, as reuired 0y said Sec. 12 of RA 7227, to
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
13/25
+n Me0ruary 1, 1''J, the 6resident issued :"o&''!$on No. 32
denin the &etes and 0ounds of the SS-N includin therein the portion
of the for&er na$al 0ase within the territorial , respondent #o&elec issued Re%ou!$on No. 264
'n) 2646, adoptin a !#alendar of Acti$ities for o&' "e+e"en)uand
pro$idin for !the rules and uidelines to o$ern the conduct of the
referendu&
+n uly 1F, 1''>, S"A instituted a petition for certioraricontestin the$alidity of Resolution Io. 2KLK allein that pu0lic respondent is intent on
proceedin with a local initiati$e that proposes an a&end&ent of a
national law
ISSUE
1. D+I #o&elec co&&itted ra$e a0use of discretion in pro&ulatin
Resolution Io. 2KLK which o$erns the conduct of the "e+e"en)u
proposin to annul or repeal Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10
2. D+I the uestioned local initiati$e co$ers a su0
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
14/25
)*+S. he process starte& by pri'ate respon&ents -as an ***/*E but
respon&ent #omelec ma&e preparations (or a +E)E+E% only.
*n (act, in the bo&y o( the +esolution as repro&uce& in the (ootnote belo-,
the -or& 2re(eren&um2 is repeate& at least 4 times, but 2initiati'e2 is not
mentione& at all. he #omelec labele& the e5ercise as a 2+e(eren&um26 the
counting o( 'otes -as entruste& to a 2+e(eren&um #ommittee26 the
&ocuments -ere calle& 2re(eren&um returns26 the can'assers, 2+e(eren&um
Boar& o( #an'assers2 an& the ballots themsel'es bore the &escription
2re(eren&um2. o repeat, not once -as the -or& 2initiati'e2 use& in sai& bo&y
o( +esolution o. 787. /n& yet, this e5ercise is unuestionably an
***/*E.
/s &e:ne&, *nitiati'e is the po-er o( the people to propose bills an& la-s,
an& to enact or re;ect them at the polls in&epen&ent o( the legislati'eassembly. $n the other han&, re(eren&um is the right reser'e& to the people
to a&opt or re;ect any act or measure -hich has been passe& by a legislati'e
bo&y an& -hich in most cases -oul& -ithout action on the part o( electors
become a la-.
*n initiati'e an& re(eren&um, the #omelec e5ercises a&ministration an&
super'ision o( the process itsel(, a
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
15/25
propose& initiati'e since it has not been promulgate& or appro'e&, or passe&
upon by any 2branch or instrumentality2 or lo-er court, (or that matter. he
#ommission on Elections itsel( has ma&e no re'ie-able pronouncements
about the issues brought by the plea&ings. he #omelec simply inclu&e&
'erbatim the proposal in its uestione& +esolution o. 787. Hence, there is
really no &ecision or action ma&e by a branch, instrumentality or court -hich
this #ourt coul& taance o( an& acuire ;uris&iction o'er, in the
e5ercise o( its re'ie- po-ers.
D'&'n'< v%. A%$%!$o (1992*
Facts: MMC Ordinance No. 79-02 was enacted by the Metropolitan Manila Commission,designating certain city and municipal streets, roads and open spaces as sites or lea mar!ets.
"ursuant, thereto, the Caloocan City mayor opened up to se#en $7% lea mar!ets in that city.
&owe#er, 'ntonio Martine(, as O)C city mayor o Caloocan City, caused the demolition o the
mar!et stalls. City Mayor Macario 'sistio, *r., as successor o Mayor Martine(, did not pursuethe latter+s policy o clearing and cleaning up the city streets.
Held: here is no doubt that the disputed areas rom which the pri#ate respondents+ mar!et stalls
are sought to be e#icted are public streets. ' public street is property or public use hence outside
the commerce o man. eing outside the commerce o man, it may not be the subect o lease or
other contract. 'ny e/isting leases or licenses are null and #oid or being contrary to law. he
right o the public to use the city streets may not be bargained away through contract. he
interests o a ew should not pre#ail o#er the good o the greater number in the community
whose health, peace, saety, good order and general welare, the respondent city oicials are
under legal obligation to protect. he Mayor cannot inringe upon the #ested right o the publicto use city streets or the purpose they were intended to ser#e i.e., as arteries o tra#el or
#ehicles and pedestrians. "ublic respondents ha#e the corresponding duty, arising rom public
office, to clear the city streets and restore them to their specific public purpose.
:ART 2
%acanay $. Asistio *.R. Io. '3>JL. ay >, 1''2.; -n "anc, *rino9Auino (): 13
concur, 1 too no part Macts: +n J anuary 1'7', # +rdinance 7'9F2 was enacted
0y the etropolitan anila #o&&ission, desinatin certain city and &unicipal
streets, roads and open spaces as sites for Gea &arets. 6ursuant thereto, the
#aloocan #ity &ayor opened up 7 Gea &arets in that city. +ne of those streets wasthe Beroes del H'>! where the Mrancisco %acanay li$es. pon application of $endors
Rodolfo Teope, ila 6astrana, #ar&en "ar0osa, erle #astillo, "ien$enido enes,
Iancy "uarin, ose anuel, #risaldo 6auirian, Ale, ?. *o@on and *on@ales streets. To stop ayor artine@H
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
16/25
e4orts to clear the city streets, Teope, 6astrana and other stallowners led an action
for prohi0ition aainst the #ity of #aloocan, the +# #ity ayor and the #ity
-nineer andQor their deputies 0efore the RT# #aloocan #ity ("ranch 122, #i$il #ase
#912'21), prayin the court to issue a writ of preli&inary in street and ased for de&olition on
7 arch 1'KK, wrote a follow9up letter to the &ayor and the city enineer on 7 April
1'KK, and without recei$in any response, souht the inter$ention of 6resident
Auino throuh a letter. These letter was referred to the city &ayor for appropriate
action. +n 3 April 1'K', %acanay led a co&plaint aainst ayor Asistio and
-nineer Sarne (+"9F9K'9F1L>) in the +/ce of the +&0uds&an. After conductin
a preli&inary in$estiation, the +&0uds&an rendered a nal e$aluation and report
on 2K Auust 1'K', ndin that the ayorHs and the #ity -nineerHs inaction is
purely &oti$ated 0y their percei$ed &oral and social responsi0ility toward their
constituents, 0ut the fact re&ains that there is an o&ission of an act which ouht
to 0e perfor&ed, in clear $iolation of Sections 3(e) and (f) of RA 3F1'.5 The
+&0uds&an reco&&ended the lin of the correspondin infor&ation in court. As
the stallholders continued to occupy Beroes del H'> Street, throuh the tolerance of
the city o/cials, and in clear $iolation of the decision in #i$il #ase #912'21,
%acanay led a petition for &anda&us on 1' une 1''F, prayin that the city
o/cials 0e ordered to enforce the nal decision in #i$il #ase #912'21 which upheldthe city &ayorHs authority to order the de&olition of &aret stalls on ?. *o@on,
*on@ales and Beroes del H'> Streets and to enforce 6% 772 and other pertinent
laws.
The Supre&e #ourt esta0lished that %acanay and the eneral pu0lic ha$e a leal
riht to the relief de&anded and that the city o/cials ha$e the correspondin duty,
arisin fro& pu0lic o/ce, to clear the city streets and restore the& to their specic
pu0lic purpose (-nriue@ $s. "idin, L7 S#RA 1K3= #ity of anila $s. *arcia et al., 1'
S#RA L13 citin nson $s. Cacson, 1FF 6hil. >'J), and thus ordered the #ity ayor
and #ity -nineer of #aloocan #ity or their successors in o/ce to i&&ediately
enforce and i&ple&ent the decision in #i$il #ase #912'2 declarin that Beroes del
H'>, ?. *o@on, and *on@ales Streets are pu0lic streets for pu0lic use, and they are
ordered to re&o$e or de&olish, or cause to 0e re&o$ed or de&olished, the &aret
stalls occupyin said city streets with ut&ost dispatch within 3F days fro& notice of
the decision= the decision 0ein i&&ediately eecutory. 1. urisprudence applica0le
to property of pu0lic do&inion The streets, 0ein of pu0lic do&inion &ust 0e
outside of the co&&erce of &an. #onsiderin the nature of the su0
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
17/25
the followin
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
18/25
+ccupation of pri$ate indi$iduals of pu0lic places de$oted for pu0lic use a nuisance
The occupation and use of pri$ate indi$iduals of sidewals and other pu0lic places
de$oted for pu0lic use constitute 0oth pu0lic and pri$ate nuisances and nuisance
per se, and this applies to e$en case in$ol$in the use or lease of pu0lic places
under per&its and licenses issued 0y co&petent authority, upon the theory that
such holders could not tae ad$antae of their unlawful per&its and license andclai& that the land in uestion is a part of a pu0lic street or a pu0lic place de$oted
to pu0lic use, hence, 0eyond the co&&erce of &an. (6adilla. #i$il #ode Annotated,
?ol. , p. J', >th -d., citin &ali $s. Auino, #. A. Rep. 33'.). >. Authority of the
city &ayor and the city enineer to order the de&olition of illeal structures The
authority of the unicipality to de&olish the shanties is &andated 0y 6% 772, and
Section 1 of Cetter of nstruction 1' orderin certain pu0lic o/cials, one of who& is
the unicipal ayor to re&o$e all illeal constructions includin 0uildins on and
alon esteros and ri$er 0ans, those alon railroad tracs and those 0uilt without
per&its on pu0lic or pri$ate property (Nansi0arian Residents Association $s. un. of
aati, 13J S#RA 23J). The #ity -nineer is also a&on those reuired to co&ply
with said Cetter of nstruction. Murther, Section 1KJ, pararaph L of "6 337(Cocal
*o$ern&ent #ode) pro$ides that the #ity -nineer shall (c) 6re$ent the
encroach&ent of pri$ate 0uildins and fences on the streets and pu0lic places, (
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
19/25
&ay not infrine upon the $ested riht of the pu0lic to use city streets for the
purpose they were intended to ser$e: i.e.,
CIT OF ANILA v. TEOTICOG.R. No. L=2302 J'nu'"< 29, 19;6FACTS:*enaro I. Teotico was at the corner of a !loadin and unloadin! @one, waitin for a
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
20/25
particular. Since the present action is 0ased upon the alleed defecti$e condition of
a road, said Article 21K' is decisi$e thereon.
t is ured that the #ity of anila cannot 0e held lia0le to Teotico for da&aes: 1)0ecause the accident in$ol$in hi& too place in a national hihway= and 2)0ecause the #ity of anila has not 0een nelient in connection therewith.
As reards the rst issue, we note that it is 0ased upon an alleation of fact not&ade in the answer of the #ity. oreo$er, Teotico alleed in his co&plaint, as wellas in his a&ended co&plaint, that his in
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
21/25
"act/0he said case was filed b$ the petitioners b$ wa$ of a 3etition for "ertiorari and
3rohibition under Rule ?5 of the Rules of "ourt. &t was addressed to nullif$ and declared
as unconstitutional, R.A. >7+? entitled GAn Act Reapportioning the "o1position of the
irst (+st) and econd -egislative Fistricts (2nd) in the province of "a1arines ur and
0hereb$ "reating a New -egislative Fistrict fro1 such Reapportion1ent.H
aid Act originated fro1 'ouse /ill No. 2?, and it was enacted b$ 3resident
#acapagalEArro$o. Cffectuating the act, it has divided the e6isting four districts, and
apportioned districts shall for1 additional district where the new first district shall be
co1posed of +7?,7+? via the Re1ed$ of "ertiorari and 3rohibition
under Rule ?5 of the Rules of "ourt. And second, petitioners have no locus standi to
=uestion the constitutionalit$ of R.A. >7+?.
I//0e hether or not Republic Act No. >7+? is unconstitutional and therefore null and
void, or whether or not a population of 259,999 is an indispensable constitutional
re=uire1ent for the creation of a new legislative district in a province.
Hel &t was ruled that the said Act is constitutional. 0he plain and clear distinction
between a cit$ and a province was e6plained under the second sentence of ection 5
(
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
22/25
for1ulation of rdinance, other than population, the results of the apportion1ent were
valid. And lastl$, other factors were 1entioned during the deliberations of 'ouse /ill No.
2?.
SJS V Atienza G.R. No. 156052 March 7, 2007. "orona
acts
n Nove1ber 29, 299+, the angguniang 3anlungsod of #anila enacted rdinance No. 8927 and
Atiena passed it the following da$. rdinance No. 8927 reclassified the area described therein fro1
industrial to co11ercial and directed the owners and operators of businesses disallowed under
ection + to cease and desist fro1 operating their businesses within si6 1onths fro1 the date of
effectivit$ of the ordinance. 0hese were the 3andacan oil depots of hell and "alte6.
/ut the cit$ of #anila and the FC entered into an # which onl$ scaled down the propert$
covered b$ the depots and did not stop their operations. &n the sa1e resolution, the anggunian
declared that the # was effective onl$ for a period of si6 1onths starting ul$ 25, 2992. &t was
e6tended to 299
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
23/25
wellEdefined, clear and certain legal right to the perfor1ance of the act and it 1ust be the clear and
i1perative dut$ of respondent to do the act re=uired to be done.
#anda1us will not issue to enforce a right, or to co1pel co1pliance with a dut$, which is
=uestionable or over which a substantial doubt e6ists. nless the right to the relief sought is
unclouded, 1anda1us will not issue. he a :aa:0/ 6rocee4; cocer/ a 60 /6ec44c 4tere/t.
et4t4oer/ are c4t4Be/ o :a4la a th0/ hae a 4rect 4tere/t 4 the or4ace/.
n the other hand, the -ocal *overn1ent "ode i1poses upon respondent the dut$, as cit$ 1a$or, to
!enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the cit$. !ne of these is rdinance
No. 8927. As the chief e6ecutive of the cit$, he has the dut$ to enforce rdinance No. 8927 as long
as it has not been repealed b$ the anggunian or annulled b$ the courts. 'e has no other choice. &t
is his 1inisterial dut$ to do so.
0hese officers cannot refuse to perfor1 their dut$ on the ground of an alleged invalidit$ of the statute
i1posing the dut$. 0he reason for this is obvious. It :4;ht /er4o0/l> h4er the tra/act4o o
60
-
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
24/25
e4ecti$ity of the ordinance. A&on the 0usinesses situated in the area are the so9
called 6andacan Ter&inals of the oil co&panies #alte, 6etron and Shell.
Bowe$er, on une 2>, 2FF2, the #ity of anila and the %epart&ent of -nery
entered into a &e&orandu& of understandin with the oil co&panies in which they
areed that :scalin down of 6andacan Ter&inals was the &ost $ia0le andpractica0le option. nder the &e&orandu& of understandin, the #ity
of anila and the %epart&ent of -nery per&its the +il #o&panies to continuously
operate in co&pliance with leal reuire&ents, within the li&ited area resultin
fro& the , 2FF2 &e&orandu& of understandin and the resolutions
ratifyin it can a&end or repeal +rdinance Io. KF27.
e)The Cocal *o$ern&ent #ode i&poses upon respondent the duty, as #ity
ayor of anila, to enforce all laws and ordinances relati$e to the o$ernance of
the city. +ne of these is +rdinance Io. KF27. As the chief eecuti$e of the city, he
has the duty to put into e4ect +rdinance Io. KF27 as lon as it has not 0een
repealed 0y the Sanunian or neated 0y the courts.
+n the other hand assu&in that the ter&s of the &e&orandu& of understandin
were contradictory with +rdinance Io. KF27, the resolutions which ratied it and
&ade it 0indin on the #ity of anila epressly a$e it full force and e4ect only until
April 3F, 2FF3. There is nothin that leally hinders respondent fro& enforcin
+rdinance Io. KF27. Dherefore the #ourt +rdered Bon. ose C. Atien@a, r., as &ayor
of the city of anila to i&&ediately enforce +rdinance Io. KF27.
3osted b$ Andrei Jaun at 2>2 "RA ?7?3anganiban, .
A"03ursuant to a anggunian /a$an Resolution of the petitioner 1unicipalit$, an e6propriation co1plaint against the propert$ ofherein respondent Gfor the purpose of alleviating the living conditions of the underprivileged b$ providing ho1es for theho1eless through a socialied housing proect. 0he R0" of #a%ati authoried petitioner to ta%e possession of subectpropert$ upon deposit to the court an a1ount of its fair 1ar%et value. Respondent filed a counter clai1 alleging that the
http://marxyaun.blogspot.com/2011/01/social-justice-society-vs-hon-lito_08.htmlhttp://marxyaun.blogspot.com/2011/01/social-justice-society-vs-hon-lito_08.html -
7/24/2019 PubCorp Cases 4
25/25
co1plaint failed to state a cause of action because it was filed pursuant to a resolution and not to an ordinance as re=uiredb$ RA 7+?9.H
&Chether or not the Resolution of the #unicipal council is a substantial co1pliance of the statutor$ re=uire1ent of ection+>, RA 7+?9 in the e6ercise of the power of e1inent do1ain.
R-&N*
0he power of e1inent b$ -*Is 1a$ be affected onl$ b$ ordinance not b$ a 1ere resolution. 0he following essentialre=uisites 1ust concur before an -* can e6ercise the power of e1inent do1ain.+. An ordinance is enacted b$ the local legislative council authoriing the local chief e6ecutive, in behalf of the -*Is toe6ercise the power of e1inent do1ain to pursue e6propriation proceedings over a particular private propert$.2. 0he power of e1inent do1ain is e6ercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and thelandless., Article &&& of the "onstitution and other pert1ent.. A valid and definite offer has been previousl$ 1ade to the owner of the propert$ sought to be e6propriated, but said offerwas not accepted.
&n the case at bar, the first re=uisite that there 1ust be an ordinance was not co1plied with b$ the local chief e6ecutive. A
1unicipal ordinance is different fro1 a resolution. An ordinance is a law, it possesses a general and per1anent character
while a resolution is te1porar$ in nature.
0he petition is hereb$ denied without preudice to petitionerIs proper e6ercise of its power of e1inent do1ain over subect
propert$.