Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Judge Dadole v. Commission of Audit, G.R. No. 125350, 3 December 2002

    Uploaded by

    hanah bahnana
    This document summarizes several Supreme Court cases related to the President's power of general supervision over local governments: 1) Judge Dadole v. Commission of Audit established that while LGUs have autonomy, the President has the power to supervise, not control, as long as LGU acts are within their legitimate powers. 2) Drilon v. Lim affirmed that the DOJ reviews ordinances for constitutionality under supervision, not control. It also found procedural requirements were met for the Manila Revenue Code. 3) Pimentel vs. Aguirre ruled that the President's directive for a 25% cost reduction was an advisory, not mandatory imposition, and thus a valid exercise of supervision. However

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Judge Dadole v. Commission of Audit, G.R. No. 125350, 3 December 2002

    Uploaded by

    hanah bahnana
    50 views3 pages
    This document summarizes several Supreme Court cases related to the President's power of general supervision over local governments: 1) Judge Dadole v. Commission of Audit established that while LGUs have autonomy, the President has the power to supervise, not control, as long as LGU acts are within their legitimate powers. 2) Drilon v. Lim affirmed that the DOJ reviews ordinances for constitutionality under supervision, not control. It also found procedural requirements were met for the Manila Revenue Code. 3) Pimentel vs. Aguirre ruled that the President's directive for a 25% cost reduction was an advisory, not mandatory imposition, and thus a valid exercise of supervision. However

    Original Title

    Adajar-18-20

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes several Supreme Court cases related to the President's power of general supervision over local governments: 1) Judge Dadole v. Commission of Audit established that while LGUs have autonomy, the President has the power to supervise, not control, as long as LGU acts are within their legitimate powers. 2) Drilon v. Lim affirmed that the DOJ reviews ordinances for constitutionality under supervision, not control. It also found procedural requirements were met for the Manila Revenue Code. 3) Pimentel vs. Aguirre ruled that the President's directive for a 25% cost reduction was an advisory, not mandatory imposition, and thus a valid exercise of supervision. However

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    50 views3 pages

    Judge Dadole v. Commission of Audit, G.R. No. 125350, 3 December 2002

    Uploaded by

    hanah bahnana
    This document summarizes several Supreme Court cases related to the President's power of general supervision over local governments: 1) Judge Dadole v. Commission of Audit established that while LGUs have autonomy, the President has the power to supervise, not control, as long as LGU acts are within their legitimate powers. 2) Drilon v. Lim affirmed that the DOJ reviews ordinances for constitutionality under supervision, not control. It also found procedural requirements were met for the Manila Revenue Code. 3) Pimentel vs. Aguirre ruled that the President's directive for a 25% cost reduction was an advisory, not mandatory imposition, and thus a valid exercise of supervision. However

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Judge Dadole v. Commission of Audit, G.R. No.

    125350, 3 December
    2002

    FACTS: Acting on the DBM's Local Budget Circular No. 55, the Mandaue City
    Auditor issued notices of disallowances to RTC and MTC Judges, in excess of
    the amount (maximum of P1000 and P700 in provinces and cities and
    municipalities, respectively) authorized by said circular. The additional
    monthly allowances of the judges shall be reduced to P1000 each. They were
    also asked to reimbursed the amount they received in excess of P1000 from
    the last six months.
    ISSUE: Whether or not Local Budget Circular No. 55 void for going beyond
    the supervisory powers of the President.
    RULING:Yes. Although the Constitution guarantees autonomy to local
    government units, the exercise of local autonomy remains subject to the
    power of control by Congress and the power of supervision by the President.
    Sec 4 Art X of 1987 Constitution: "The President of the Philippines shall
    exercise general supervision over local governments…" The said provision
    has been interpreted to exclude the power of control. The members of the
    Cabinet and other executive officials are merely alter egos of the President.
    As such, they are subject to the power of control of the President; he will
    see to it that the local governments or their officials were performing their
    duties as provided by the Constitution and by statutes, at whose will and
    behest they can be removed from office; or their actions and decisions
    changed, suspended or reversed. They are subject to the President's
    supervision only, not control, so long as their acts are exercised within the
    sphere of their legitimate powers. The President can only interfere in the
    affairs and activities of a LGU if he or she finds that the latter has acted
    contrary to law. This is the scope of the President's supervisory powers over
    LGUs.

    Drilon v. Lim, G.R. No. 112497, 4 August 1994


    Facts: Sec. Drilon issued a resolution declaring Ordinance No. 7794 or the
    Manila Revenue Code based on an appeal of 4 oil companies. The City of
    Manila petitioned before the RTC to revoke the said resolution, which the
    RTC granted. Drilon argued that Sec. 187 of the Local Government Code was
    not complied with.
    Issues: 1. Whether the DOJ declaration should be declared void?
    2. Whether the procedures of enacting the Manila Revenue Code was
    complied with?
    Held: 1. No. Section 187 authorizes the DOJ to review only the
    constitutionality of the ordinance. Sec. Drilon did not replace it with his own
    version of the Code. He did not say it was a bad law. All he did in reviewing
    the said measure was determined if the petitioners were performing their
    functions in accordance with law. That was an act not of control but of
    supervision.
    2. YES. The procedural requirements have been observed. Notices of public
    hearings were sent, the proposed ordinances were published in “Balita” and
    “Manila Standard” and the approved ordinance was published in the same
    newspaper for 3 days. The posting of the approved ordinance was omitted
    but the publication for 3 consecutive days will satisfy due process.

    Pimentel vs. Aguirre, G.R. No.


    Facts: In 1997, President Ramos issued AO 372 which: (1) required all
    government departments and agencies, including SUCs, GOCCs and LGUs to
    identify and implement measures in FY 1998 that will reduce total
    expenditures for the year by at least 25% of authorized regular
    appropriations for non-personal services items (Section 1) and (2) ordered
    the withholding of 10% of the IRA to LGUs (Section 4) . On 10 December
    1998, President Estrada issued AO 43, reducing to 5% the amount of IRA to
    be withheld from LGU.

    Issues: 1. Whether or not the president committed grave abuse of


    discretion in ordering all LGUS to adopt a 25% cost reduction program in
    violation of the LGU'S fiscal autonomy
    2. Whether Section 4 of the same issuance, which withholds 10 percent of
    their internal revenue allotments, are valid exercises of the President's power
    of general supervision over local governments
    Held: 1. Section 1 of AO 372 does not violate local fiscal autonomy. Local
    fiscal autonomy does not rule out any manner of national government
    intervention by way of supervision, in order to ensure that local programs,
    fiscal and otherwise, are consistent with national goals.
    AO 372, however, is merely directory and has been issued by the
    President consistent with his power of supervision over local governments.
    It is intended only to advise all government agencies and instrumentalities
    to undertake cost-reduction measures that will help maintain economic
    stability in the country, which is facing economic difficulties. Besides, it does
    not contain any sanction in case of noncompliance. Being merely an advisory,
    therefore, Section 1 of AO 372 is well within the powers of the President.
    Since it is not a mandatory imposition, the directive cannot be characterized
    as an exercise of the power of control.
    2. Section 4 of AO 372 cannot be upheld. A basic feature of local fiscal
    autonomy is the automatic release of the shares of LGUs in the national
    internal revenue. This is mandated by no less than the Constitution. The
    Local Government Code specifies further that the release shall be made
    directly to the LGU concerned within five (5) days after every quarter of the
    year and "shall not be subject to any lien or holdback that may be imposed
    by the national government for whatever purpose." As a rule, the term "shall"
    is a word of command that must be given a compulsory meaning. The
    provision is, therefore, imperative.

    Laban!

    You might also like