4 • .. - -

Republic of the MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA ROSA Province of OFFICE OF THE SANGGUNIANG DAYAN

EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE 22"d REGULAR SESSION OF SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF SANTA ROSA, LAGUNA HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 31 , 2000 AT THE SESSION HALL. .. Presents:

I. Hon. 0. RAMON L. LIJAUCO - Vice-Mayor, Presiding Officer 2. Hon. LUISITO B. ALGABRE - SB Member 3. Hon. PAULINO Y. CAMACLANG, Jr. - SB Member 4. Hon. LAUDEMER A. CART A - SB Member 5. Hon. GIOVANNI T. BUSTAMANTE - SB Member 6. Hon. ERIC T. PUZON - SB Member 7. Hon. MARCELITO S. LASERNA - SB Member 8. Hon. RAUL P. AALA - SB Member 9. Hon. ARIES A. ALCABASA - SB Member, SK President

Absent:

l. Hon. PETRONIO C. FACTORIZA - SB Member (OB) 2. Hon. ROMEO P. AALA - SB Member, ABC President

***************

RESOLUTION No. 175-2000 (On ·motion by SB Mem. Algabre and secoricled by SB Mem. Bustamante) .. , ... : ...

RESOLUTION TO REITERATE CLAIMING AND SUBSEQUENT TITLING OF TWO PARCELS OF LAND KNOWN AS LOT NOS. 2098 & 2099, SANTA ROSA ESTATE WITH AREAS OF 34,742 AND 45,806 SQUARE METERS SITUATED AT BARANGAY SANTO DOMINGO, SANTA ROSA, LAGUNA FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA ROSA, LAGUNA.

WHEREAS, the Municipality of Santa Rosa is presently undergoing tremendous growth and development in infrastructure, social and economic progress, commercial and industrial expansion, institutional and educational integration, and cosmopolitan change;

WHEREAS, the Municipality has suffered a huge reduction of its original land area to local ari.d foreign developers as a price of urbanization and industrialization and is ·presently 1n 'n'eed of land areas for optimized and best land use;

WHEREAS, the Municipality has an inherent right to its heritage and patrimony dating back to the Spanish Era when the Cuartel de Santo Domingo was established and became known as one of its historical landmarks; '\~ ;,,,r~ .! _.. ;-,,,.. ,.· .i

Republic of the Philippines MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA ROSA Province of Laguna OFFICE OF THE SANGGUNIANG DAYAN

-2-

~.

WHEREAS, the combined 8.05 hectares of Lot Nos. 2098 & 2099 in B~angay Santo Domingo consisting of prime lands at the heart of CALABARZON is a very strategic and natural resource for the development of a "historico-cultural and tourism facUity". The tourism facility, located at the crossroad to other tourist destinations in , Laguna and Batangas, would aesthetically blend with the development scenario envisioned by the Comprehensive Land Use and Development Plan of Santa Rosa for the years 2000to2015;

WHEREAS, the Municipal Government of Santa Rosa, with the unified and committed support of its populace, has been proactive along the powers granted by the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991 regarding the Santo Domingo 8.05 hectares property, to wit: the Sangguniang Bayan passed Ordinance No. 853-99 (August 25, 1999) in which the Municipality of Santa Rosa resolved to officially claim and to request the Register of Deeds to facilitate the titling of the Santo Domingo friar lands (Lot Nos. 2098-2099) in the name of the Municipality of Santa Rosa;

WHEREAS, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna, through its Resolution No. 839-99 approved Ordinance No. 853-99 after its mandatory review of ordinances and resolutions submitted to it by component cities and municipalities to determine whether they are within the scope of their powers, duties, and functions. · The power of review and veto is vested in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan by Article 98 and Article 110 of the Local Government Code of 1991;

WHEREAS, the Office of the Governor vetoed the Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 839-99 approving Ordinance No. 853-99 which resolved to claim and to request the Register of Deeds to facilitate titling in the name of the Municipality of Santa Rosa as "contrary to law and public policy" having equated "to claifI1: and to title the Santo Domingo property" as "to vest title of ownership of legislative enactment";

WHEREAS, the Sangguniang Bayan of Santa Rosa, believing that the enactment of Municipal Ordinance 853-99 is within the· scope of its prescribed · powers, duties and functions; and that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 839-99 approving the above ordinance is legal and valid as an exercise of its powers, duties and functions as vested in it by Articles 98 & 110 of the Local Government Code; · · •,, ; I NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as it is hereby resolved in a session duly assembled to reiterate its official claim and subsequent titling of two parcels of land known as Lot Nos. 2098 and 2099, Santa Rosa Estate with areas of 34,742 and 45 ,906 square meters situated at Barangay Santo Domingo in the name of the Municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna. f .. .. 1/ ......

Republic of the Philippines MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA ROSA Province of Laguna OFFICE OF THE SANGGUNIANG DAYAN

-3-

I,.

RESOLVED FURTHER, to submit to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan an ANALYSIS OF THE VETO OF SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN RESOLUTION NO. 839, SERIES OF 1999 APPROVING THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN ORDINANCE NO. 853, SERIES OF 1999 OF SANTA ROSA, LAGUNA and herein attached as ANNEX "H".

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Certified Correct:

(Sgd) 0. RAMON L. LIJAUCO Vice-Mayor

Approved:

(Sgd) LEON C. ARCILLAS Mayor

CERT IF IC AT I.ON: ) .

I hereby certify to the correctness of the above-quoted resolution.

CYN.iltlaJ. GOMEZ M{ni~i,r Secretary ----· .-....

ANALYSIS OF THE VETO OF SANGGUNIANG P ANLALAWIGAN RESOLUTION NO. 83.9, SERIES OF 1999 APPROVING THE SANGGUNIANG PAMBAYAN ORDINANCE NO. 853, SERIES OF 1999 OF SANTA ROSA, LAGUNA

I. ANTECEDENTS

1. The Sangguniang Bayan of Santa Rosa, Laguna enacted Ordinance No. 853-'99 on August 25, 1999 claiming two parcels of land known as Lot Nos. 2098 and 2099, Santa Rosa Estate with areas of 34,742 and 45,806 square meter situated at Barangay Santo Domingo, Santa Rosa for the Municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna.

2. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan upon review of SB Ordinance No. 853-99 approved it. Such approval means that the ordinance was closely and seriously scrutinized and found to be within the scope of the Sangguniang Pambayan's prescribed powers and functions.

3. On May 25, 2000, the Sangguniang Pambayan of Santa Rosi received a transmittal letter dated May 18, 2000 from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan advising it of the veto by the Governor of its approval, with an attached veto message dated March 10, 2000.

II. ANALYSIS OF THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT . CODE OF 1991 ON VETO POWER OF THE GOVERNOR

I. The veto of the resolution of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan approving the Municipal Ordinance in effect vetoed the Sangguniang Bayan Ordinance No. 853-'99 which the Governor declared as "contrary to law and public policy". The issue here is:

Is the Governor vested with veto power by the Local Government Code of 1991 over Ordinances and Resolutions enacted by Sanguniang Panglungsod and Sangguniang Pambayan of component cities and municipalities?

(a) In Rule XII. Inter-Local Government Relations, Article 59. General Supervision of the Province Over Component Cities and Municipalities, the expressed provision is: the province through its governor, shall exercise authority over component cities and municipalities within its territorial jurisdiction to ensure that they act within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. The succeeding provisions in (b ), (1-7) contain no expressed provision on veto power granted to the Governor. Since the law is silent on it, we take it to mean that the law does not grant him that power, because what the law provides and what the law does not provide, is indicated by reading the law itself. .J ~". r'"/ . ~

- 2 -

(b) Again, under Rule XV, Article 85. Powers, Duties, and Functions of the Governor, the expressed provision in (2), (i) is "ensure that the acts of the component cities and municipalities of the province and of their officials and employees are within the scope of their prescribed powers, duties and functions with no mention of veto power.

2. (a) However, Rule XVII, Local Legislative Bodies and Local Legislation, Article 98. Powers, Duties and Functions of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

(I), (i) expressly provides for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to "review all ordinances approved by the sanggunians of component cities and municipalities . . . . . to determine whether these are within the scope of the prescribed powers of the sanggunians ....., but again no expressed provision on veto power, only on review . power.

(b) But, Article 110. Review of Component City and Municipal Ordinances or Resolutions by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, expressly provides for the procedure to follow in the review - letters (a) to (d). Letter (c) in particular provides that if the Sangguniang Panlalawigan finds the ordinance or resolution as beyond the power conferred upon the sangguniang panglunsod or pambayan concerned, it shall declare such ordinance or resolution invalid in whole or in part. This is tantamount to veto.

( c) Article 109. Veto Power of the Local Chief Executive, in (a) expressly provides that the local chief executive (generically used), may veto any ordinance of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panglungsod or sangguniang pambayan on the ground that it is ultra vires or prejudicial to the public welfare, stating his reasons therefor in writing. (b) lists the subject matter of ordinances subject to veto, while; (c) limits the veto exercised over an ordinance or resolution to only once, and how to override the veto.

The above provision using local chief executive generically, but specifying the levels of sanggunians concerned, would mean veto by the Governor of ordinances enacted by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan; by the city mayor of enactments by the Sangguniang Panglungsod, and by the municipal mayor of enactment by the Sanggunaiang Bayan under their (local chief executives) respective territorial jurisdictions. (See Rule XV. Powers, Duties, and Functions of Local Chief Executives, Article 85, 86, and 87 respectively.) ,,,,.~ J'r"'' j ·.. • .-...

- 3 -

The above analysis points to the conclusion that the veto power over ordinances and resolutions of component cities and municipalities is w;sted in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan; while the respective local chief executives can have veto power only over ordinances and resolutions enacted by the respective sanggunian under their jurisdiction - meaning that the Governor could not veto a Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution approving a municipal ordinance and thereby exercising veto over a legislative enactment which was already found valid and within the scope of the powers and functions of the Sangguniang Bayan concerned. Directly speaking, the Governor could not veto the ordinance of a municipality because such veto power is vested in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan - in conformity with the separation of powers : Executive and Legislative.

The Local Government Code however is explicit in the veto power of the Governor over ordinances and resolutions enacted by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of his province.

III. ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENT OF THE VETO

1. The core of the veto rests on the Governor equating or interpreting "to claim" and "to request the Register of Deeds to facilitate the titling of the two lots of the Santa Rosa Estate in Santo Domingo for the Municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna" with "vesting of title of ownership" by legislative fiat. This he finds to be of no legal basis for the Sangguniang Bayan to do, because such will be "contrary to law and public policy"

"To claim" means intent, while to "request the Register of Deeds to facilitate titling" indicates the course of action to set the intent into motion. These clearly show that the Ordinance envisions going through the process and procedures of land acquisition, registration and issuance of certificate of title following P .D. 1529 or Property Registration Decree, June 11, 1978. So where is the "vesting of title of ownership" as indicated by the reading of the ordinance itself? To claim and to title do not equate with ownership.

2. The veto message cited the case of the City of Cebu vs. Padilla but unfortunately did not give its citation so we could not verify the actual facts of the case.

Therefore, it is difficult for us to assess any parallelism with the case of Santa Rosa. However, the Cebu case covers public lands, while the Santa Rosa case is about friar lands. Public land cases are governed by Commonwealth Act No. 141 also known as Public Land Act approved on November 7, 1936 but whose effectivity was on·December 1, 1936; ,,,..r·""' ,...... ,•' • "'

- 4 -

while friar lands are governed by Act. No. 1120 or the Friar Land Act, approved on July 1, 1902 but became effective on April 26, 1904.

3. The question of what is public land as distinguished from friar land had been settled by both attorneys-general of the Philippines and the United States. Both officials held the view that friar lands could not be considered public lands as defined in C.A. No. 141. They made a fine distinction between the property of the Philippine Government and that of the United States. To the latter belonged all the lands that Spain turned over through the Treaty of Paris of 1898. Since the friar lands were the property of the religious orders in 1898, they did not belong to the public domain, but became the property of the Philippine Government by purchase and therefore could be disposed of according to regulations it might formulate, which it did-Act No. 1120 in 1902. Therefore, friar lands are lands acquired by the Philippine Government pursuant to an Act of U.S. Congress in 1902 (Administration II, pp. 1196 - 1206) from religious corporations and orders. It is not public land of the State but private land of the government. (See Friar Land Inquiry, pp. 131 - 137; and 152 - 156; see also (Philippine Commission Report, 1910, p. 13 ).