pub corp 2nd week

Greater Balanga DevelopmentCorporationv.MunicipalityofBalanga,Bataan (1998)Facts The case involves a parcel of land, Lot261-B-6-A-3 located behind the publicmarket in the Municipalit of Balan!a,"rovince of Bataan# $t is re!istered in thenameof %reater Balan!a &evelopment,'orp#, o(ned and controlled b the'amachofamil# Thelot(aspart of Lot261-B, formerl re!istered in the name ofAurora Ban)on 'amacho, (hich (as latersubdivided into certain lots, some of (hich(ere sold, others donated# *ive buers ofthe lot +led a civil case a!ainst 'amachofor partition and deliver of titles# "etitioner applied for and (as !ranteda business permit b the,-ce of theMaor of Balan!a but failed to mention thee.istence of the civil case for partition anddeliver of titles# The permit (as !rantedthe privile!e of a /real estatedealer0privatel-o(nedmarket operator#12o(ever, the 3an!!unian! Baan 43B5passed6esolution7o# 12s-88, annullin!the Maor9s permit issued to "etitioner, onthe !round that the issue as to theo(nership of the lot caused /an.iet,uncertaint and restiveness amon! thestallholdersandtradersinthelot,1andadvisin!theMaortorevokethepermit/tooperateapublicmarket#1TheMaorthen revoked the permit throu!h :, 7o# 1s-88# "etitioner +led this petition (ith praerfor preliminar prohibitor and mandatorin;unction or restrainin! order and toreinstate the Maor9s permit and to curtailthe municipalit9s collection of market andentrance fees from the lot occupants# 2ealle!esthat< 15itdidn9tviolateanla(,thus, there9snoreasonforrevocationofthe permit= 25 6espondents failed toobserve due process in the revocation= 35the collection of market fees is ille!al# ,n the other hand, 6espondents assertthat the Maor as the local chief e.ecutivehasthepo(er toissue, denor revokepermits# Theclaimthat therevocation(asduetotheviolationb"etitionerof3ection 3A->64b5 of the Balan!a 6evenue'ode (hen it< 15 made false statement inthe application form, failin! to disclosethat the lot (as sub;ect to adverse claimsfor (hich a civil case (as +led= 25 failed toappl for 2 separate permits for the 2 linesof business 4real estate and publicmarket5#!ssue?07therevocation of theMaor9spermit (as valid#"el# 7,# Thepo(ers of municipal corporationsare to be construed in strictissimijuris and an doubt or ambi!uit must beconstrued a!ainst the municipalit# Theauthorit of the Maor to revoke permitsis premised on a violation b the !ranteeofanof itsconditions for its!rant#*orrevocation to be ;usti+ed under theBalan!a 6evenue 'ode, there must be< 15proof of (illfulmisrepresentation, and 25deliberate intent to make a falsestatement# %ood faith is al(aspresumed# $n this case, the application forMaor9spermitre@uriestheapplicantto state the /tpe of business,profession, occupation, privile!esappliedfor#1"etitioner left thisentrbank in its application form# $t is onlin the Maor9s permit itself thatpetitioner9s lines of business appear#6evocation is not ;usti+ed because"etitioner did not make an falsestatement therein# 7either (as petitioner9s applin!for t(o businesses in one permit a!round for revocation# The secondpara!raph of 3ection 3A->64b5 doesnote.presslre@uiret(opermitsfortheir conduct of t(o or morebusinesses in one place, but onl thatseparate fees be paid for eachbusiness# %rantin!, ho(ever, thatseparate permits are actuall re@uired,the application form does not containanentrasre!ardsthenumber ofbusinesses the applicant (ishes toen!a!e in# The 3B9s 6esolution merel mentionedthe plan to ac@uire the Lot for e.pansionof the Balan!a "ublic Market ad;acentthereto# The 3B doesn9t actuall maintaina public market on the area# Antile.propriationproceedin!s areinstitutedin court, thelando(ner cannot be deprived of its ri!htover the land# ,fcourse, the 3B has the dut in thee.erciseofitspolicepo(erstore!ulatean business sub;ect to municipal licensefeesandprescribetheconditionsunder(hich a municipal license alread issuedma be revoked 4B#"#Bl!# 33B, 3ec# 1CDE1F ErF5, but the Gan.iet, uncertaint,restivenessGamon!thestallholdersandtraders doin! business on a propert noto(nedbtheMunicipalitcannot beavalid!roundfor revokin!thepermit of"etitioner# Also, the manner b (hich the Maorrevoked the permit trans!ressedpetitioner9s ri!ht to due process# Thealle!edviolationof 3ection3A->64b5 ofthe Balan!a 6evenue 'ode (as notstated in the order of revocation, andneither (as petitioner informed of thisspeci+cviolation# Moreover, 6espondentMunicipalit isn9t the o(ner of Lot 261 B-6-A-3, and thus cannot collect marketfees, (hich onl an o(ner can do#$ano v %ocratesG& 'o. 11()*9 +ugust )1, 199, *A'T3>1*A'T3< 4"ls# note that this case consists of )certiorari petitions)1st'ertiorari "etition PC3allenging t3evali#ity of t3e -le4iscite con#ucte#pursuant to &+ 88(@2nd'ertiorari "etition PC3allenging t3econstitutionality of &+ 88(@ ,n+ugust1@, )(((,"res# :stradaapprove#&+ 88(@4creatin! theCityof %orsogonbmergingt3emunicipalities of B+C/' an#%/&%/G/'in t3e -rovince of%orsogon. Thereafter on Decem4er 1@, )(((,',M:L:'conductedaple4isciteinthe municipalities of Bacon and3orso!on and submitted it forrati+cation# The "lebiscite Board of'anvassers proclaime# t3e creationoft3eCityof%orsogonashavin!been rati+ed andapprove# 4y amaAorityoft3evotescastint3eple4iscite. BenAamin Ca:aling4petitioner5, inhis capacit as resident and ta.paerof the former municipalit of3orso!on, +led a petition for certiorariseeBing t3e annulment of t3eple4iscite . 41st certiorari5Ar!uments on the $nvalidit of the"lebiscite>5C/M0.0C is correct$n addition, 3ection 1> of the 'odeprovides# -le4iscite &eCuirement# 7ocreation, division, mer!er, abolition, orsubstantial alterationof boundariesof local!overnment units shall take eIect unlessapproved b a ma;orit of the votes cast in aplebiscite called for the purpose in thepolitical unitorunitsdirectlaIected# 3uchplebiscite shall be conducted b the'ommission on :lections (ithin one hundredt(ent 412>5 das fromthe #ate of t3ee7ectivity of the la( or ordinance aIectin!such action, unless sai# la: or or#inanceHDes anot3er #ate#Quite plainl, the last sentence of 3ection1> mandates that theplebiscite shall beconducted (ithin 12> das from the date ofthe e7ectivity of the la(,not from itsapproval# ?hile the same provision allo(s ala(or ordinance to +. another date forconductin! a plebiscite, still such date mustbe reckoned from the date of the eIectivitof the la(#+pplying t3e $ana#a vs $uveraruling,the clause /unless it is ot3er:iseprovi#e#1referstothedateof eIectivitandnot tothere@uirement of publicationitself, (hich cannot in an event beomitted# $3is clause #oes not mean t3att3e legislature may maBe t3e la:e7ective imme#iately upon approval, oron any ot3er #ate, :it3out its previouspu4lication. ). Did ';8A%A' fail to conduct an e.tensiveinformation campaign on t$e proposedSorsogon city$ood 2! days prior to t$esc$eduled plebiscite,'/, C/M0.0C is presume# to 3averegularly performe#or complie#:it3its #uty un#er t3e la: in con#ucting t3eple4iscitesincepetitionerprovi#e#'/-&//F to su4stantiate 3is allegation.-0.+0I vs. +5D!$/& G0'0&+.Facts< $n 1D6C, the president, purportin! toact pursuant to3ection68of the6evisedAdministrative 'ode, issued :.ecutive ,rder7os# D3 to 121,12Cand 126to12D for thecreation of 33 municipalities# Kice president"elae)institutedaspecial civil actionfora(rit of prohibition (ith preliminar in;unctionto restraint the auditor !eneral as (ell as hisrepresentativesanda!entsfrompassin!inaudit an e.penditure of public funds inimplementationof thee.ecutiveorder andfor an disbursement b said municipalit balle!in! that the e.ecutive order is null andvoid for it (as impliedl repealed b 6A 23B>and constitute undue dele!ation of po(er#The third para!raph of 3ection 3 of 6A 23B>,reads< Barriosshall notbecreatedortheirboundaries altered nor their names chan!ede.cept under the provisions of this Act or bAct of 'on!ress# "ursuant to the +rst t(o 425para!raphs of the same 3ection 3< All barriose.istin! at the time of the passa!e of this Actshall come under the provisions hereof# Aponpetitionof ama;oritof thevoters intheareas aIected, a ne( barrio ma be createdor the name of an e.istin! one ma bechan!ed b the provincial board of theprovince, upon recommendation of thecouncil of themunicipalitormunicipalitiesin(hichtheproposedbarrioisstipulated#The recommendation of the municipalcouncil shall be embodied in a resolutionapproved b at least t(o-thirds of the entiremembershipof thesaidcouncil< "rovided,ho(ever, That no ne( barrio ma be createdif its populationis less than+vehundredpersons#Thepetitioner ar!uesthat if thepresidentcannot create a barrio, ho( can he create amunicipalit(hichis composedof severalbarrios, since barrios are units ofmunicipalit# 6espondentontheotherhandar!ue that a municipalit can be created(ithout creatin! a ne( barrios b placin! oldbarrios under the ;urisdiction of municipalit#!ssue (1)< ?hether or not the "resident hasthe po(er to create municipalities# 7,"el#< 6espondent alle!es that the po(er ofthe "resident to createmunicipalitiesunderthissectiondoesnot amount toanunduedele!ation of le!islative po(er# 3uch claim isuntenable# ?hen 6A 23B> became eIective,barrios ma Gnot be created or theirboundaries altered nor their names chan!edGe.cept b Act of 'on!ress or of thecorrespondin! provincial board Guponpetitionof ama;oritof thevoters intheareas aIectedG and the Grecommendation ofthe council of the municipalit ormunicipalities in (hich the proposed barrio issituated#G This statutor denial of thepresidential authorit to create a ne( barrioimpliesane!ationof thebi!!er po(er tocreate municipalities, each of (hich consistsof several barrios# The po(er to +. such common boundar, inorder to avoid or settle conRicts of;urisdiction bet(een ad;oinin! municipalities,mapartakeof anadministrativenatureSinvolvin!, as it does, the adoption of meansand (as to carr into eIect the la( creatin!said municipalities S the authorit to createmunicipal corporations is essentiallle!islative in nature# $n the lan!ua!e of othercourts, it is Gstrictl a le!islative functionG orGsolel and e.clusivel the e.ercise ofle!islative po(erG#!ssue ())< ?hether or not the e.ecutiveorders are valid# 7,"el#HC# The"rovinceof Ma!uindanaoispart of A6MM#'otabato 'it, on the other hand, voteda!ainst inclusion in the A6MMdurin! theplebiscite in 7ovember 1D8D# There are t(ole!islative districts for the "rovince ofMa!uindanao#The +rst le!islative district ofMa!uindanaoconsistsof 'otabato'itandei!ht municipalities# 2o(ever, for the reasonnoted above, 'otabato 'it is not part of theA6MM but of 6e!ion M$$# ,n 28 Au!ust 2>>6, the A6MMUs le!islature,the A6MM 6e!ionalAssembl, e.ercisin! itspo(er to create provinces under 3ection 1D,Article K$ of 6A D>HC, enacted MuslimMindanaoAutonomAct 7o# 2>14MMAAct2>15 creatin! the "rovince of 3hariIVabunsuan composed of the ei!htmunicipalities in the +rst district ofMa!uindanao# The voters of Ma!uindanaorati+ed 3hariI VabunsuanUs creation in aplebiscite held on 2D ,ctober 2>>6# ,n Ma 2>>B, the ',M:L:' issued6esolution 7o# BD>2, sub;ect of thesepetitions, renamin! the +rst le!islativedistrict in @uestion as /3hariI Vabunsuan"rovince(ith'otabato'it4formerl*irst&istrict of Ma!uindanao (ith 'otabato 'it5#13ema, (ho (as a candidate in the 2>>Belections for 6epresentative of /3hariIVabunsuan(ith'otabato'it,1praedforthenulli+cationof ',M:L:'6esolution7o#BD>2andthee.clusionfromcanvassin!ofthe votes cast in 'otabato 'it for that o-ce#3emacontendedthat 3hariIVabunsuanisentitled to one representative in 'on!ress#!ssue