LOCGOV - #006

Ganzon v CA (1991)

Doctrine: For the sake of local autonomy, the legislature is not deprived of all authority over municipal corporations,
in particular, concerning discipline. The Constitution still allows Congress to include in the local government code
provisions for removal of local officials, which suggest that Congress may exercise removal powers, and as the
existing Local Government Code has done, delegate its exercise to the President.

Facts:
1. Ten administrative complaints (abuse of authority, oppression, grave misconduct, disgraceful and
immoral conduct, intimidation, culpable violation of the Constitution, and arbitrary detention) were filed
against Mayor Ganzon of Iloilo City by various personalities.
2. Cabaluna was a clerk in the City Health Office, but was assigned by Mayor Ganzon to a job suited for a
non-career service employee while a utility worker was appointed to her former position. Mayor Ganzon
did this because Cabaluna was a supporter of Ganzon's rival candidate Caram.
3. Dr. Ortigoza was assigned by Mayor Ganzon to perform a task not befitting her position as Assistant City
Health Officer of Iloilo City, her office was padlocked without any explanation, salary was withheld, given
the run-around treatment in the approval of her leave, and was the object of a well-engineered trumped-
up charge in an administrative complaint filed by Dr. Rodolfo Villegas.
4. Finding probable grounds on both charges, the Secretary of the Department of Local Government issued a
60 day preventive suspension order on August 11, 1988 to last until October 11, 1988. Out of the 10, one
of which is an arbitrary detention case filed by Erbite, a Barangay Tanod appointed by the former mayor
of Iloilo. Erbite was arrested without a warrant of arrest and detained at the City Jail of Iloilo as per the
order of Mayor Ganzon. Prima facie evidence was found to exists against Mayor Ganzon for the
aforementioned case so the Secretary of the Department of Local Government issued a second 60 day
preventive suspension dated October 11, 1988
5. The Secretary of the Department of Local Government issued another 60-day preventive suspension. This
is the third suspension in 20 months. Vice-Mayor Mansueto Malabor was designated as acting mayor.
6. Mayor Ganzon instituted one action for prohibition against the Secretary of the Department of Local
Government in the RTC. A writ of preliminary injunction was granted to him.
7. Mayor Ganzon then instituted another action for prohibition in the CA which were granted.
8. A TRO was issued barring the Secretary of the Department of Local Government from implementing the
suspension orders.

Petitioner’s arguments: (Note: include petitioner’s relief, position, and legal basis)
1. Mayor Ganzon contends that the Secretary of Local Government is devoid, in any event, of any authority
to suspend and remove local officials.
2. Mayor Ganzon requested the Secretary of the Department of Local Government to lift his suspension
because the suspension orders were made 90 days before the barangay elections.
3. Mayor Ganzon contends that the 1987 Constitution no longer allows the President, as the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions did, to exercise the power of suspension and/or removal over local officials.
a. The Constitution is meant, first, to strengthen self-rule by local government units and second, by
deleting the phrase as may be provided by law to strip the President of the power of control over
local governments. It is a view, so they contend, that finds support in the debates of the
Constitutional Commission.
4. The 1935 Constitution with regard to this topic was modified.
a. 1935 Constitution - Sec. 10. The President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus, or offices, exercise general supervision over all Local governments as may be provided by
law, and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
b. 1987 Constitution - Sec. 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over
local governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and
 municipalities with respect to component barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component
units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.
c. Notice that in the 1987 Constitution, the phrase “as may be provided by law” was deleted. Mayor
Ganzon contends that this is significant since: (1) the power of the President is "provided by law" and
(2) hence, no law may provide for it any longer.
5. Provisions of the Local Government Code with regard to suspensions
a. Sec. 62. Notice of Hearing. — xxx No investigation shall be held within ninety days immediately prior
to an election, and no preventive suspension shall be imposed with the said period. If preventive
suspension has been imposed prior to the aforesaid period, the preventive suspension shall be lifted.
b. Sec. 63. Preventive Suspension.1

Respondent’s arguments: None were mentioned in the case

Issue/s:
1. WON the 1987 Constitution, in deleting the phrase "as may be provided by law" intend to divest the
President of the power to investigate, suspend, discipline, and/or remove local officials? No.
2. WON the Constitution repealed Sections 62 and 63 of the Local Government Code? No.
3. WON Mayor Ganzon’s three preventive suspension orders subsist. Yes.

Held/Ratio: (Note: include legal basis and jurisprudence)

1. Deletion of the phrase “as may be provided by law” did not mean that the President was divested the power
to investigate, suspend, discipline and/or remove local officials
a. The omission (of "as may be provided by law") signifies nothing more than to underscore local
governments' autonomy from congress and to break Congress' "control" over local government
affairs.
b. The Constitution did not, however, intend, for the sake of local autonomy, to deprive the legislature
of all authority over municipal corporations, in particular, concerning discipline.
c. The Constitution still allows Congress to include in the local government code provisions for removal
of local officials, which suggest that Congress may exercise removal powers, and as the existing Local
Government Code has done, delegate its exercise to the President.2
d. Since local governments remain accountable to the national authority, the latter may, by law, and in
the manner set forth therein, impose disciplinary action against local officials.
e. Mayor Ganzon cannot rightfully point to the debates of the Constitutional Commission to defeat the
President's powers. The deliberations are by themselves inconclusive, because although

1 (1) Preventive suspension may be imposed by the Minister of Local Government if the respondent is a provincial or city
official, by the provincial governor if the respondent is an elective municipal official, or by the city or municipal mayor if
the respondent is an elective barangay official
(2) Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined, when there is reasonable ground to
believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained of, when the evidence of culpability is strong, when
the gravity of the offense so warrants, or when the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses
or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. In all cases, preventive suspension shall not
extend beyond sixty days after the start of said suspension.
(3) At the expiration of sixty days, the suspended official shall be deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the
continuation of the proceedings against him until its termination. However ' if the delay in the proceedings of the case is
due to his fault, neglect or request, the time of the delay shall not be counted in computing the time of suspension.
2 Sec. 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable

local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative,
and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities and resources, and
provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local
officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units.
 Commissioner Jose Nolledo would exclude the power of removal from the President, Commissioner
Blas Ople would not.
2. The Constitution did not repeal Sections 62 and 63 of the Local Government Code
a. "Supervision" and "removal" are not incompatible terms and one may stand with the other
notwithstanding the stronger expression of local autonomy under the new Charter. In spite of the
approval of the Charter, Batas Blg. 337 is still in force and effect.
b. The Constitution, 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 inter-dependence between the central administration and local government units, or otherwise,
to user in a regime of federalism. Local governments, under the Constitution, are subject to
regulation, however limited, and for no other purpose than precisely, albeit paradoxically, to enhance
self- government.
c. "Supervision" and "investigation" are not inconsistent terms; "investigation" does not signify
"control" (which the President does not have)
3. Mayor Rodolfo Ganzon. may serve the suspension so far ordered, but may no longer be suspended for the
offenses he was charged originally Since Mayor Ganzon is facing 10 administrative charges, the Mayor is
in fact facing the possibility of 600 days of suspension, in the event that all 10 cases yield prima facie
findings.
a. The sole objective of a suspension is simply "to prevent the accused from hampering the normal
cause of the investigation with his influence and authority over possible witnesses" or to keep him off
"the records and other evidence.
b. Under the Local Government Code, it cannot exceed sixty days.
c. Imposing 600 days of suspension which is not a remote possibility Mayor Ganzon is to all intents and
purposes, to make him spend the rest of his term in inactivity. It is to make his suspension
permanent.
d. The length of his suspension would have, by the time he is reinstated, wipe out his tenure
considerably.
e. There is no need to inflict on Mayor Ganzon successive suspensions when apparently, the Secretary
has had sufficient time to gather the necessary evidence to build a case against the Mayor without
suspending him a day longer. The Secretary is exercising that power oppressively and with a grave
abuse of discretion.

Digested by: Jamie Chan