RUPERTO TAULE, PETITIONER, VS. SECRETARY LUIS T. SANTOS AND GOVERNOR LEANDRO VERCELES, RESPONDENTS.

The extent of authority of the Secretary of Local Government over
the katipunan ng mga barangay or the barangay
councils is brought to the fore in this case.

On June 18, 1989,
the Federation of Associations of Barangay Councils
(FABC) of Catanduanes, composed of eleven (11)
members, in their capacities as Presidents of the Association of Barangay Councils in their respective municipalities,
convened in Virac, Catanduanes
with six members in attendance for the purpose of holding the election of its officers.

Present were petitioner Ruperto Taule of San Miguel, Allan Aquino
of Viga, Vicente Avila of Virac,
Fidel Jacob of Panganiban, Leo Sales of Caramoran
and Manuel Torres of Baras.  The Board of Election Supervisors/Consultants
was composed of Provincial Government Operation
Officer (PGOO) Alberto P. Molina, Jr. as Chairman with Provincial Treasurer
Luis A. Manlapaz, Jr. and Provincial Election
Supervisor Arnold Soquerata as members.

When the group decided to hold the election despite the absence
of five (5) of its members, the Provincial Treasurer and the Provincial
Election Supervisor walked out.

 The election nevertheless proceeded with
PGOO Alberto P. Molina, Jr. as presiding
officer.  Chosen
as members of the Board of Directors were Taule, Aquino, Avila,
Jacob and Sales.

Thereafter, the following
were elected officers of the FABC:

President                  – Ruperto Taule

Vice-President          –
Allan Aquino

Secretary                  –
Vicente Avila

Treasurer                  –
Fidel Jacob

 Auditor                     – Leo Sales^[1]

On June 19, 1989,
respondent Leandro I. Verceles,
Governor of Catanduanes, sent a letter to respondent
Luis T. Santos, the Secretary of Local Government,*
protesting the election of the officers of the FABC and seeking its
nullification in view of several flagrant irregularities in the manner it was
conducted.^[2]

In compliance with the order of respondent Secretary, petitioner Ruperto Taule as President of the
ABC, filed his comment on the letter-protest of respondent Governor denying the
alleged irregularities and denouncing said respondent Governor for meddling or
intervening in the election of FABC officers which is a purely non-partisan
affair and at the same time requesting for his appointment as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
province being the duly elected President of the FABC in Catanduanes.^[3]

On August 4, 1989,
respondent Secretary issued a resolution nullifying the election of the
officers of the FABC in Catanduanes held on June 18, 1989 and ordering a new one
to be conducted as early as possible to be presided by the Regional Director of
Region V of the Department of Local Government.^[4]

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution
of August 4, 1989 but it was
denied by respondent Secretary in his resolution of September 5, 1989.^[5]

In the petition for certiorari before Us, petitioner seeks the
reversal of the resolutions of respondent Secretary dated August 4, 1989 and September 5, 1989 for being null and void.

Petitioner raises the following
issues:

1)   Whether or not the respondent Secretary has
jurisdiction to entertain an election protest involving the election of the
officers of the Federation of Association of Barangay
Councils;

2)   Whether or not the respondent Governor has
the legal personality to file an election protest;

3)   Assuming that the respondent Secretary has
jurisdiction over the election protest, whether or not he committed grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in nullifying the election;

The Katipunan ng mga Barangay is
the organization of all sangguniang barangays in the following levels:  in municipalities to be known as katipunang bayan; in
cities, katipunang panlungsod;
in provinces, katipunang panlalawigan; in regions, katipunang pampook; and
on the national level, katipunan ng mga barangay.^[6]

The Local Government Code provides for the manner in which the katipunan ng mga barangay at all levels shall be organized:

“Sec. 110.  Organization.
— (1) The katipunan at all levels shall be
organized in the following manner:

(a) The katipunan in each level shall elect a board of directors
and a set of officers.  The president of
each level shall represent the katipunan concerned in
the next higher level of organization.

(b) The katipunan ng mga
barangay shall be composed of the katipunang
pampook, which shall in turn be composed of the
presidents of the katipunang panlalawigan
and the katipunang panlungsod.  The
presidents of the katipunang bayan
in each province shall constitute the katipunang panlalawigan.  The katipunang panlungsod and the katipunang bayan shall be
composed of the punong barangays
of cities and municipalities,
respectively.

x  x  x  .”

The respondent Secretary, acting in accordance with the the provision of the Local Government Code empowering him
to “promulgate in detail the
implementing circulars and the rules and regulations to carry out the
various administrative actions required for the initial implementation of this
Code in such a manner as will ensure the least disruption of on-going programs
and projects,”^[7]
issued Department of Local Government Circular No. 89-09 on April 7, 1989,^[8]
to provide the guidelines for
the conduct of the elections of officers of the Katipunan ng mga
Barangay
at the municipal, city, provincial, regional and national levels.

It is now the contention of petitioner that neither the
constitution nor the law grants jurisdiction upon the respondent Secretary over
election contests involving the election of officers of the FABC, the katipunan ng mga barangay at the provincial level.  It is petitioner’s theory that under Article
IX, C, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, it is the Commission on Elections
which has jurisdiction over all contests involving elective barangay
officials.

On the other hand, it is the opinion of the respondent Secretary
that any violation of the guidelines as set forth in said circular would be a
ground for filing a protest and would vest upon the Department jurisdiction to
resolve any protest that may be filed in relation thereto.

Under Article IX, C, Section 2(2) of the 1987 Constitution, the
Commission on Elections shall exercise “exclusive original jurisdiction
over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all
elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction
over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial
courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay
officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.” The 1987
Constitution expanded the jurisdiction of the COMELEC by granting it appellate jurisdiction over all contests
involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general
jurisdiction or elective barangay officials decided
by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.^[9]

The jurisdiction of the COMELEC over contests involving elective barangay
officials is limited to appellate jurisdiction from decisions of the trial
courts.  Under the law,^[10]
the sworn petition contesting the election of a barangay
officer shall be filed with the proper Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court by
any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted
for the same office within 10 days after the proclamation of the results.  A voter may also contest the election of any barangay officer on the ground of ineligibility or of
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines
by filing a sworn petition for quo warranto
with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court within 10 days after the
proclamation of the results of the elections.^[11]
Only appeals from decisions of inferior courts on election matters as aforestated may be decided by the COMELEC.

The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the jurisdiction
of the COMELEC is over popular elections, the elected officials of which are
determined through the will of the electorate. 
An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the people.^[12]
It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular
vote.^[13]
Specifically, the term “election,” in the context of the
Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of
voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of
the votes^[14]
which do not characterize the election of officers in the katipunan
ng mga barangay. 
“Election contests” would refer to adversary proceedings by
which matters involving the title or claim of title to an elective office, made
before or after proclamation of the winner, is settled whether or not the
contestant is claiming the office in dispute^[15] and in the case of elections of barangay officials, it is restricted to proceedings after
the proclamation of the winners as no pre-proclamation controversies are allowed.^[16]

The jurisdiction of the COMELEC does not cover protests over the
organizational set-up of the katipunan ng mga barangay
composed of popularly elected punong barangays as prescribed by law whose officers are
voted upon by their respective members. 
The COMELEC exercises only appellate jurisdiction over election contests
involving elective barangay officials decided by the
Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts which likewise have limited
jurisdiction.  The authority of the
COMELEC over the katipunan ng
mga barangay
is limited by law to supervision of the election of the representative of the katipunan concerned to the sanggunian
in a particular level conducted by their own respective organization.^[17]

However, the Secretary of Local Government is not vested with
jurisdiction to entertain any protest involving the election of officers of the
FABC.

There is no question that he is vested with the power to
promulgate rules and regulations as set forth in Section 222 of the Local
Government Code.

Likewise, under Book IV, Title XII, Chapter 1, Sec. 3(2) of the
Administrative Code of 1987*, the
respondent Secretary has the power to “establish and prescribe rules,
regulations and other issuances and implementing laws on the general
supervision of local government units and on the promotion of local autonomy
and monitor compliance thereof by said units.”

Also, the respondent Secretary’s rule making power is provided in
Sec. 7, Chapter II, Book IV of the Administrative Code, to wit;

“(3) Promulgate
rules and regulations necessary to carry out department objectives, policies,
functions, plans, programs and projects;”

Thus, DLG Circular No. 89-09 was issued by respondent Secretary
in pursuance of his rule-making power conferred by law and which now has the
force and effect of law.^[18]

Now the question that arises is whether or not a violation of
said circular vests jurisdiction upon the respondent Secretary, as claimed by
him, to hear a protest filed in relation thereto and consequently declare an
election null and void.

It is a well-settled principle of administrative law that unless
expressly empowered, administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial
powers.^[19]
The jurisdiction of administrative authorities is dependent entirely upon the
provisions of the statutes reposing power in them; they cannot confer it upon
themselves.^[20]
Such jurisdiction is essential to give validity to their determinations.^[21]

There is neither a statutory nor constitutional provision
expressly or even by necessary implication conferring upon the Secretary of
Local Government the power to assume jurisdiction over an election protest
involving officers of the katipunan ng mga barangay.  An
understanding of the extent of authority of the Secretary over local
governments is therefore necessary if We are to resolve the issue at hand.

Presidential power over local governments is limited by the Constitution
to the exercise of general supervision^[22]
“to ensure that local affairs are administered according to law.”^[23]
The general supervision
is exercised by the President through the Secretary of Local Government.^[24]

In administrative law, supervision means overseeing or the power
or authority of an officer to see that the subordinate officers perform their
duties.  If the latter fails or neglects
to fulfill them the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to
make them perform their duties.  Control,
on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify
or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his
duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the
latter.  The fundamental law permits the
Chief Executive to wield no more authority
than that of checking whether said local government or the officers thereof
perform their duties as provided by statutory enactments.  Hence, the President cannot interfere with
local governments so long as the same or
its officers act within the scope of their authority.^[25]
Supervisory power, when contrasted with control, is the power of mere oversight
over an inferior body; it does not include any restraining authority over such
body.^[26]

Construing the constitutional limitation on the power of general
supervision of the President over local governments, We hold that respondent
Secretary has no authority to pass upon the validity or regularity of the
election of the officers of the katipunan.  To allow respondent Secretary to do so will give him more power than the law or
the Constitution grants.  It will in effect give him control over
local government officials for it will permit
him to interfere in a purely democratic and non-partisan activity aimed at
strengthening the barangay as the basic component of
local governments so that the ultimate goal of fullest autonomy may be
achieved.  In fact, his order that the
new elections to be conducted be
presided by the Regional Director is a clear and direct interference by the
Department with the political affairs of the barangays
which is not permitted by the limitation of presidential power to general
supervision over local governments.^[27]

Indeed, it is the policy of the state to ensure the autonomy of local governments.^[28]
This state policy is echoed in the Local Government Code wherein it is declared
that “the State shall guarantee and promote the autonomy of local
government units to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant
communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national
development and social progress.”^[29]
To deny the Secretary of Local Government the power to review the regularity of
the elections of officers of the katipunan would be
to enhance the avowed state policy of promoting the autonomy of local
governments.

Moreover, although the Department is given the power to prescribe
rules, regulations and other issuances, the Administrative Code limits its
authority to merely “monitoring compliance” by local government units
of such issuances.^[30]
To monitor means “to watch, observe or check.”^[31]
This is compatible with the power of supervision of the Secretary over local
governments which as earlier discussed is limited to checking whether the local
government unit concerned or the officers thereof perform their duties as
provided by statutory enactments.  Even
the Local Government Code which grants the Secretary power to issue
implementing circulars, rules and regulations is silent as to how these
issuances should be enforced.  Since the
respondent Secretary exercises only supervision and not control over local
governments, it is truly doubtful if he could enforce compliance with the DLG
Circular.^[32]
Any doubt therefore as to the power of the Secretary to interfere with local
affairs should be resolved in favor of the greater autonomy of the local
government.

Thus, the Court holds that in assuming jurisdiction over the
election protest filed by respondent Governor and declaring the election of the
officers of the FABC on June 18, 1989 as null and void, the respondent
Secretary acted in excess of his jurisdiction. 
The respondent Secretary not having the jurisdiction to hear an election
protest involving officers of the FABC, the recourse of the parties is to the
ordinary courts.  The Regional Trial
Courts have the exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the protest.^[33]

The provision in DLG Circular No. 89-15 amending DLG Circular No. 89-09 which
states that “whenever the guidelines are not substantially complied with, the election shall be declared
null and void by the Department of Local Government and an election shall
conduct anew,” being invoked by the Solicitor General cannot be
applied.  DLG Circular No. 89-15 was
issued on July 3, 1989 after
the June 18, 1989 elections
of the FABC officers and it is the rule in statutory construction that laws,
including circulars and regulations,^[34]
cannot be applied retrospectively.^[35]
Moreover, such provision is null and void for having been issued in excess of
the respondent Secretary’s jurisdiction, inasmuch as an administrative
authority cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself.

As regards the second issue raised by petitioner, the Court finds
that respondent Governor has the personality to file the protest.  Under Section 205 of the Local Government
Code, the membership of the sangguniang panlalawigan consists of the governor, the
vice-governor, elective members of the said sanggunian, and the presidents of the katipunang panlalawigan
and the kabataang
barangay provincial federation.  The governor acts as the presiding officer of
the sangguniang
panlalawigan.^[36]

As presiding officer of the
sangguniang panlalawigan,
the respondent governor has an interest in the election of the officers of the FABC
since its elected president becomes a member of the assembly.  If the president of the FABC assumes his
presidency under questionable circumstances and is allowed to sit in the sangguniang panlalawigan,
the official actions of the sanggunian
may be vulnerable to attacks as to their validity or legality.  Hence, respondent governor is a proper party
to question the regularity of the elections of the officers of the FABC.

As to the third issue raised by petitioner, the Court has already
ruled that the respondent Secretary has no jurisdiction to hear the protest and
nullify the elections.

Nevertheless, the Court holds that the issue of the validity of
the elections should now be resolved in order to prevent any unnecessary delay
that may result from the commencement of an appropriate action by the parties.

The elections were declared null and void primarily for failure
to comply with Section 2.4 of DLG Circular No. 89-09 which provides that
“the incumbent FABC President or the Vice-President shall preside over the reorganizational meeting, there being a quorum.” The
rule specifically provides that it is the incumbent FABC President or
Vice-President who shall preside over the meeting.  The word “shall” should be taken in
its ordinary signification, i. e.,
it must be imperative or mandatory and not merely permissive,^[37]
as the rule is explicit and requires no other interpretation.  If it had been intended that any other
official should preside, the rules would have provided so, as it did in the
elections at the town and city levels^[38]
as well as the regional level.^[39]

It is admitted that neither the incumbent FABC President nor the
Vice-President presided over the meeting and elections but Alberto P. Molina,
Jr., the Chairman of the Board of Election Supervisors/Consultants.  Thus, there was a clear violation of the
aforesaid mandatory provision.  On this
ground, the elections should be nullified.

Under Sec. 2.3.2.7 of the same circular it is provided that a
Board of Election Supervisors/Consultants shall be constituted to oversee
and/or witness the canvassing of votes and proclamation of winners.  The rules confine the role of the Board of
Election Supervisors/Consultants to merely overseeing and witnessing the
conduct of elections.  This is consistent
with the provision in the Local Government Code limiting the authority of the
COMELEC to the supervision of the election.^[40]

In case at bar, PGOO Molina, the Chairman of the Board, presided
over the elections.  There was direct
participation by the Chairman of the Board in the elections contrary to what is
dictated by the rules.  Worse, there was
no Board of Election Supervisors to oversee the elections in view of the walk
out staged by its two other members, the Provincial COMELEC Supervisor and the Provincial Treasurer.  The objective of keeping the election free
and honest was therefore compromised.

The Court therefore finds that the election of officers of the
FABC held on June 18, 1989
is null and void for failure to comply with the provisions of DLG Circular No. 89-09.

Meanwhile, pending resolution of this petition, petitioner filed
a supplemental petition alleging that public respondent Local Government
Secretary, in his memorandum
dated June 7, 1990,
designated Augusto Antonio as temporary
representative of the Federation to the sangguniang
panlalawigan of Catanduanes.^[41]
By virtue of this memorandum, respondent governor swore into said office Augusto Antonio on June
14, 1990.^[42]

The Solicitor General filed his comment on the supplemental
petition^[43]
as required by the resolution of the Court dated September 13, 1990.

In his comment, the Solicitor General dismissed the supervening
event alleged by petitioner as something immaterial to the petition.  He argues that Antonio’s appointment was
merely temporary “until such time that the provincial FABC president in
that province has been elected, appointed and qualified.”^[44]
He stresses that Antonio’s appointment was only a remedial measure designed to cope with the problems brought
about by the absence of a representative of the FABC to the “sangguniang panlalawigan.”

Sec. 205 (2) of the Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) provides —

“(2) The sangguniang panlalawigan shall be
composed of the governor, the vice-governor, elective members of the said sanggunian, and the presidents of the katipunang panlalawigan and
the kabataang barangay
provincial federation who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines.”
(Emphasis supplied.)

Batas Pambansa Blg.
51, under Sec. 2 likewise states:

“x x x

The sangguniang panlalawigan
of each province shall be composed of the governor as chairman and presiding
officer, the vice-governor as presiding officer pro tempore, the elective sangguniang panlalawigan
members, and the appointive members consisting of the president of the
provincial association of barangay councils, and
the president of the provincial federation
of the kabataang barangay.”
(Emphasis supplied.)

In Ignacio vs. Banate, J.^[45]
the Court, interpreting similarly worded provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 and and Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 on the composition of the sangguniang panlungsod,^[46]
declared as null and void the appointment of private respondent Leoncio Banate, Jr. as member of
the Sangguniang Panlungsod
of the City of Roxas representing the katipunang panlungsod
ng mga barangay for he lacked the eligibility and
qualification required by law, not being a barangay
captain and for not having been elected president of the association of barangay councils. 
The Court held that an unqualified person cannot be appointed a member
of the sanggunian, even in an acting capacity.  In Reyes vs. Ferrer,^[47]
the appointment of Nemesio L. Rasgo,
Jr. as representative of the youth sector to the sangguniang
panlungsod of Davao City
was declared invalid since he was never the president of the kabataang barangay city
federation as required by Sec. 173, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337.

In the present controversy involving the sangguniang
panlalawigan, the law is likewise
explicit.  To be appointed by the
President of the Philippines
to sit in the sangguniang panlalawigan
is the president of the katipunang panlalawigan. 
The appointee must meet the qualifications set by law.^[48]
The appointing power is bound by law to comply with the requirements as to the basic
qualifications of the appointee to the sangguniang
panlalawigan. 
The President of the Philippines
or his alter ego, the Secretary of Local Government, has no authority to
appoint anyone who does not meet the minimum qualification to be the president
of the federation of barangay councils.

Augusto Antonio is not the president of
the federation.  He is a member of the
federation but he was not even present during the elections despite
notice.  The argument that Antonio was
appointed as a remedial measure in the
exigency of the service cannot be sustained.  Since Antonio does not meet the basic
qualification of being president of the federation, his appointment to the sangguniang panlalawigan is not justified notwithstanding that such appointment is merely in a
temporary capacity.  If the intention of the respondent
Secretary was to protect the interests of the federation in the sanggunian, he should have appointed the
incumbent FABC President in a hold-over capacity.  For even
under the guidelines, the term of office of officers of the katipunan at all levels shall be from the date of their election until their
successors shall have been duly elected
and qualified, without prejudice to the terms of their appointments as members of the sanggunian
to which they may be correspondingly
appointed.^[49] Since the election is still under protest
such that no successor of the incumbent has as yet qualified, the respondent
Secretary has no choice but to have the incumbent FABC President sit as member of the sanggunian.  He
could even have appointed petitioner since he was elected the president of the
federation but not Antonio.  The
appointment of Antonio, allegedly the protege of
respondent Governor, gives credence to petitioner’s
charge of political interference by respondent Governor in the organization.  This should not be allowed.  The barangays should be insulated from any partisan
activity or
political intervention if only to give true meaning to local autonomy.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED in that the resolution of
respondent Secretary dated August 4, 1989 is hereby SET ASIDE for having been
issued in excess of jurisdiction.

The election of the officials of the ABC Federation held on June 18, 1989 is hereby
annulled.  A new election of officers of
the federation is hereby ordered to be conducted immediately in accordance with
the governing rules and regulations.

The Supplemental petition is hereby GRANTED.  The appointment of Augusto
Antonio as representative to the Sanguniang
Panlalawigan in a temporary capacity is declared null and void.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide, Jr.,
JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
Page 18, Rollo.

* Now Secretary of Interior and
Local Government by virtue of R.A. No. 6975.

^[2]
Page 21, Rollo.

^[3]
Page 23, Rollo.

^[4]
Page 14, Rollo.

^[5]
Page 16, Rollo.

^[6]
Sec. 108, Batas Pambansa Blg.
337.

^[7]
Sec. 222, ibid.

^[8]
Amended by Department of Local Government Circular No. 89-15 issued on July 3, 1989.

^[9]
Sec. 2 (2), Art. XII-C, 1973 Constitution provides as follows – “The
Commission on Elections shall have the following powers and functions:  xxx (2) Be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all members of the Batasang Pambansa and elective
provincial and city officials. 
xxx.”

^[10]
Sec. 9, Republic Act No. 6679; Sec. 252, Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881.

^[11]
Sec. 9, Republic Act No. 6679; Sec. 253, Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881.

^[12]
Hontiveros vs. Altavos,
24 Phil. 636 (1913).

^[13]
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections, 21 SCRA 796 (1967).

^[14]
Javier vs. Commission on
Elections, 144 SCRA 194 (1986).

^[15]
Ibid.

^[16]
Sec. 9, Republic Act No. 6679.

^[17]
Sec. 43, Batas Pambansa Blg.
337.

* Executive Order No. 292.

^[18]
Cebu Institute of Technology vs. Ople, 156 SCRA 632 (1987); People vs. Maceren, 79 SCRA 450 (1977); Philippine Blooming Mills Co.,
Inc. vs. Social Security Commission, 17 SCRA 1077 (1966).

^[19]
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Oil
Industry Commission, 145 SCRA 433 (1986).

^[20]
42 Am. Jur. 109.

^[21]
Ibid.

^[22]
Section 4, Article X, 1987 Constitution.

^[23]
Section 14, Batas Pambansa Blg.
337.

^[24]
Ibid.

^[25]
Pelaez vs. Auditor General, 15 SCRA 569
(1965); Hebron vs. Reyes, 104 Phil. 175 (1958); Mondano
vs. Silvosa, et al., 97 Phil. 143 (1955).

^[26]
Hebron vs. Reyes, supra.

^[27]
Ibid.

^[28]
Section 25, Article II, 1987 Constitution.

^[29]
Section 2, Batas Pambansa Blg.
337.

^[30]
Sec. 3 (2), Chapter 1, Title XII, Book IV, Administrative Code of 1987

^[31]
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1971 ed., page 1460.

^[32]
See Serafica vs. Treasurer of Ormoc City, 27 SCRA 1108 (1969).

^[33]
B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 19.  provides as follows – “Jurisdiction
in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:  x x x (6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.”

^[34]
People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640 (1954).

^[35]
Romualdez III vs. Civil
Service Commission and Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. Nos. 94878-94881, May
15, 1991; Baltazar
vs. Court of Appeals, 104 SCRA 619 (1981).

^[36]  Section 206 (3), Batas Pambansa
Blg. 337.

^[37]
Diokno vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corp., 91
Phil. 608 (1952).

^[38]
Sec. 2.3.2, DLG Circular No. 89-09, where only the incumbent president
initially presides over the reorganizational meeting.

^[39]
Sec. 2.5, DLG Circular No. 89-09 which provides that the incumbent Regional
FABC President or the vice-president or the member of the Board in succession
shall temporarily preside in the reorganizational meeting.

^[40]
Sec. 43, Batas Pambansa Blg.
337.

^[41]
Annex A to supplemental petition, p. 60, Rollo.

^[42]
Annex B to supplemental petition, p. 61, Rollo.

^[43]
P. 67, Rollo.

^[44]
P. 68, Rollo.

^[45]
153 SCRA 546 (1987).

^[46]
Sec. 173 of B.P. Blg. 337 provides as follows -,

“Composition and
Compensation.  — (1) The sangguniang panlungsod, as the
legislative body of the city, shall be composed of the vice-mayor, as presiding
officer, the elected sangguniang panlungsod members,
and the members who may be appointed by the President of the Philippines
consisting of the presidents of the katipunang panlungsod ng mga
barangay and the kabataang barangay city federation.

x x x.

Sec. 3 of B.P. Blg.
51, “Cities.  — There shall
be in each city such elective local officials as provided in their respective
charters, including the city mayor, the city vice-mayor, and the elective
members of the sangguniang panglungsod,
all of whom shall be elected by the qualified voters in the city.  In addition thereto, there shall be
appointive sangguniang panglungsod
members consisting of the president of the city association of barangay councils, the president of the city federation of
the kabataang barangay, and
one representative each from the agricultural and industrial labor sectors who
shall be appointed by the President x x x.”

^[47]
156 SCRA 317 (1987).

^[48]
Ibid.

^[49]
Section 2.2., DLG Circular No. 89-09.