LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 1991 (OVERVIEW)

Описание: That is an insightful query focused on the fundamental shift in the relationship between the National Government (NG) and Local Government Units (LGUs) concerning power dynamics under the 1991 Local Government Code (LGC).

Based on the sources, the relationship between the National Government (and the President/Executive Branch) and Local Government Units (LGUs) is defined by supervision not control, under the 1991 LGC.

Here is a detailed breakdown of the concepts of "control" versus "supervision" as they relate to LGU powers:

1. The Principle of Supervision vs. Control

The 1987 Constitution and the 1991 LGC define the relationship between the President/Executive Branch and LGUs as one of supervision, not control.

Control is the authority of a superior officer to alter, modify, or set aside what a subordinate officer has done in the performance of their duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for the latter.
An officer in control lays down the rules for performing an act.
If the rules are not followed, the officer may, in their discretion, order the act undone or re-done by the subordinate, or even decide to do it himself/herself.
Control involves the power to alter wisdom, law-conforming judgment, or exercise of discretion.

Supervision is the authority of a superior officer to see to it that lower officers perform their functions in accordance with law.
The supervisor merely ensures that the rules are followed.
The supervisor does not lay down such rules nor have the discretion to modify or replace them.
If the rules are not observed, the supervisor may order the work done or re-done, but only to conform to the prescribed rules.
Supervision involves questions of law only (declaring an act legal or illegal), not questions of wisdom or policy.

The sources explicitly state that the President or the "higher" LGU *has no power of control* over LGUs and "lower" LGUs, respectively. To assume the power of review over ordinances without statutory authority, for instance, amounts to **control, not just supervision, and is thus unconstitutional**.

2. Examples of Preventing Control over LGU Powers

The prohibition against control ensures that LGUs maintain their autonomy and discretion when exercising their granted powers. Several examples illustrate what amounts to "control" and is thus prohibited:

*Fiscal Powers and Allowances:* The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) *cannot impose a cap on the allowance* for judges since there is no law limiting the amount, as this would amount to control.
*Taxation/Revenue Review:* The Secretary of Justice, when reviewing tax ordinances, has the power only to ascertain their constitutionality or legality. The Secretary **cannot declare the tax measure unjust, excessive, oppressive or confiscatory, or direct the substitution of provisions**. Doing so would amount to **control**.
*Land Use:* An LGU has the power to reclassify lands from residential to non-agricultural lands *without Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) approval* as there is no law mandating such approval.
*Devolved Powers:* Ordinances passed in the exercise of devolved powers of LGUs *need not be approved by the devolving agency* in order to be effective, absent a specific provision of law, as requiring approval would amount to **control**.
*Eminent Domain Review:* The authority of a supervising-higher LGU to review the eminent domain ordinances of a lower LGU is *limited to questions of law/legal questions* (e.g., whether the ordinance is ultra vires or procedures were followed). The power to review **does not extend to the choice of property to be expropriated**, as this would amount to **control, not just supervision**.