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