Title
Liga ng mga Barangay National vs. City Mayor of Manila
Case
G.R. No. 154599
Decision Date
Jan 21, 2004
The Liga ng mga Barangay challenged Manila's ordinance and executive order altering its election process, arguing autonomy violation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing improper remedy, mootness, and failure to follow the hierarchy of courts.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 154599)

Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the aforementioned city ordinance and executive order, arguing that they were contrary to law. The Liga, as the national organization of barangays, asserted that the ordinance encroached upon its constitutionally derived functions and procedural rights in governance as outlined in the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160).

League Constitution and By-Laws

The Liga adopted its Constitution and By-Laws to govern its internal organization. Specifically, Section 1, third paragraph, Article XI of the Liga's governing document stipulates that election matters not covered by the Constitution and By-Laws would be governed by the Liga Election Code or other rules promulgated by the Liga’s Executive Board. The Liga also established a synchronized election schedule for its chapters, reflecting the legal provisions intended to ensure proper governance.

Manila City Ordinance and Executive Order

Ordinance No. 8039 mandated an election framework for representatives of the District Chapters within the Manila City Chapter of the Liga. It outlined the election processes, which contradicted the Liga’s established procedures for direct elections. Following the City's enactment of the ordinance, Mayor Atienza approved it and issued the related executive order to operationalize the new election framework.

Petitioner's Allegations

The Liga contended that Ordinance No. 8039 and Executive Order No. 011 were invalid as they contradicted the Liga Election Code, thereby infringing on the rights to a direct election framework. The Liga formally requested the mayor to veto the ordinance on the grounds of its illegality, citing legislative overreach by the City Council.

Application for Temporary Restraining Order

In addition to nullification, the petitioner sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the implementation of the ordinance, arguing that the elections were imminent and that granting a restraining order was imperative to preserve the Liga's constitutional rights as it pertained to the election process.

Arguments from the Respondents

The respondents defended the legality of the ordinance, positing that the issuance of the ordinance and executive order fell within the City Council's legislative authority. They argued that certiorari was an inappropriate remedy because it is meant for judicial or quasi-judicial actions, which was not applicable in this case since legislative and executive functions had been executed.

Jurisdictional Issues

The Supreme Court elaborated that the respondents did not act within any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity; thus, certiorari would not lie. The case leaned more towards a declaratory relief issue that is under the exclusive jurisdiction of lower courts, rather than that of th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.