LGC RULES and PUBLICATION BUSINESS’ LAWS

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE

OF THE PHILIPPINES
SEC. 53. Quorum. - (a) A majority of all the members of the sanggunian who have
been elected and qualified shall constitute a quorum to transact official business.
Should a question of quorum be raised during a session, the presiding officer shall
immediately proceed to call the roll of the members and thereafter announce the results.
(b) Where there is no quorum, the presiding officer may declare a recess until such time
as a quorum is constituted, or a majority of the members present may adjourn from day
to day and may compel the immediate attendance of any member absent without
justifiable cause by designating a member of the sanggunian, to be assisted by a
member or members of the police force assigned in the territorial jurisdiction of the local
government unit concerned, to arrest the absent member and present him at the
session.
(c) If there is still no quorum despite the enforcement of the immediately preceding
subsection, no business shall be transacted. The presiding officer, upon proper motion
duly approved by the members present, shall then declare the session adjourned for
lack of quorum.
SEC. 54. Approval of Ordinances. - (a) Every ordinance enacted by the sangguniang
panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan shall be presented to
the provincial governor or city or municipal mayor, as the case may be. If the local chief
executive concerned approves the same, he shall affix his signature on each and every
page thereof; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the
sanggunian, which may proceed to reconsider the same. The sanggunian concerned
may override the veto of the local chief executive by two-thirds (2/3) vote of all its
members, thereby making the ordinance or resolution effective for all legal intents and
purposes.
(b) The veto shall be communicated by the local chief executive concerned to the
sanggunian within fifteen (15) days in the case of a province, and ten (10) days in the
case of a city or a municipality; otherwise, the ordinance shall be deemed approved as if
he had signed it.
(c) ordinances enacted by the sangguniang barangay shall, upon approval by the
majority of all its members, be signed by the punong barangay.
 BOOK IV
MISCELLANEOUS AND FINAL PROVISIONS
TITLE ONE. - PENAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 511. Posting and Publication of Ordinances with Penal Sanctions. - (a)
ordinances with penal sanctions shall be posted at prominent places in the provincial
capitol, city, municipal or barangay hall, as the case may be, for a minimum period of
three (3) consecutive weeks. Such ordinances shall also be published in a newspaper
of general circulation, where available, within the territorial jurisdiction of the local
government unit concerned, except in the case of barangay ordinances. Unless
otherwise provided therein, said ordinances shall take effect on the day following its
publication, or at the end of the period of posting, whichever occurs later.
(b) Any public officer or employee who violates an ordinance may be meted
administrative disciplinary action, without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate civil or
criminal action.cralaw
(c) The secretary to the sanggunian concerned shall transmit official copies of such
ordinances to the chief executive officer of the Official Gazette within seven (7) days
following the approval of the said ordinance for publication purposes. The Official
Gazette may publish ordinances with penal sanctions for archival and reference
purposes.cralaw
What makes an ordinance valid?

What is an ordinance?

Commonly, ordinance has been defined as a piece of legislation enacted by a local

government unit. All local government units, from the barangay to the province, can
pass an ordinance. But such power is subject to various limitations, one of which is that
said ordinance must be valid.

To check if an ordinance is valid, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has laid down
the guidelines for a valid ordinance.

First, the ordinance must not exceed the corporate powers of the local government unit
can enact. The power of the local government units to enact ordinances has a wide
scope provided that it is beneficial for the general welfare of its constituents, consistent
with the provisions of the Constitution for local autonomy.

Second, said ordinance must be passed in accordance with the procedure required by
law like the required quorum, majority of votes, public consultation and others.

The two abovementioned requirements are known as the formal requirements of a valid
ordinance.
Besides the formal requirements, the ordinance must also comply with the following
substantial requirements: it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; it must
not be unfair or oppressive; it must not be partial or discriminatory; it must not prohibit
but it can regulate trade; it must be general and consistent with public policy; and lastly,
it must not be unreasonable.

Source: https://www.eaglenews.ph/what-makes-an-ordinance-valid/
Ordinance vs. National Law
Local governments have been vested by the Local Government Code the power to
legislate for the general welfare of their constituents. Local Sanggunians are the
equivalent of the Congress of the Philippines which promulgates laws. From the
enactment of the Local Government Code back in 1991 until the present many
members of local legislative bodies most probably have no sufficient understanding of
the power of the local sanggunian. As a member of a sanggunian myself, I have yet to
have a full grasp of the extent of power of the sanggunian as a local legislative body.
Over the years there have been noted conflicts, misunderstandings, and usually
overlaps with national laws.
Batangas CATV vs. CA
The city of Batangas passed an ordinance requiring CATV (cable television) operators
to apply for a permit from the City Government before operating, putting up structures,
and fixing or increasing rates. When the Batangas CATV increased its rate, the City
Mayor threatened to cancel the permit of the CATV company if it did not seek the
permission of the Sanggunian to increase its rates. Batangas CATV filed before the
Regional Trial Court a petition for injunction alleging that the Sanggunian has no
authority to regulate the rates of CATV companies. The RTC granted the petition and
declared that indeed, regulation of CATV operations is beyond the power of the
Sanggunian. The City of Batangas then went to the Court of Appeals seeking to reverse
the RTC decision. The CA reversed the RTC decision which was also elevated to the
Supreme Court on the issue of whether local governments have the power to regulate
the operation of CATVs.

City of Batangas Exceeded its Powers

The Supreme Court said that the RTC was correct and that the CA erred in its decision.
LGUs do not have the power to regulate the operation of CATVs since the only agency
with the power to do so is the National Telecommunications Commission as contained
in Executive Order 205 of then President Corazon Aquino and Executive Order 436 of
then President Fidel Ramos. Although LGUs have been granted the power to enact its
own ordinances and resolutions for the promotion of the General Welfare, such
enactments cannot contravene the provisions of laws enacted by the national
legislature.
The SC said: “…it is appropriate to stress that where the state legislature has made
provision for the regulation of conduct, it has manifested its intention that the subject
matter shall be fully covered by the statute, and that a municipality, under its general
powers, cannot regulate the same conduct.” (Batangas CATV vs. CA, G.R. 138810, 29
September 2004) This is not to clip the power of the LGU to enact ordinances for the
promotion of the general welfare but only that they must conform to limits of the power
granted them and that their enactments must be consisted with those of the national
legislature. “It is a fundamental principle that municipal ordinances are inferior in status
and subordinate to the laws of the state.
An ordinance in conflict with a state law of general character and statewide application
is universally held to be invalid. The principle is frequently expressed in the declaration
that municipal authorities, under a general grant of power, cannot adopt ordinances
which infringe the spirit of a state law or repugnant to the general policy of the state. In
every power to pass ordinances given to a municipality, there is an implied restriction
that the ordinances shall be consistent with the general law.” With these the SC
declared the resolution of the City of Batangas regulating the rates of CATV as invalid.
Source: https://www.baguioheraldexpressonline.com/ordinance-vs-national-law/
How to pass an ordinance

1. Proposed Ordinance (PO) is filed with Sanggunian

2. PO is calendared for 1st Reading
3. PO is referred to appropriate committee
4. Committee deliberates on PO/ conducts hearings if needed
5. Committee recommends PO for plenary deliberations, with or without
amendments
6. PO is calendared for 2nd Reading
7. Plenary session of Sanggunian debates on PO
8. Sanggunian approves PO on 2nd Reading
9. PO is calendared for 3rd Reading
10. Sanggunian approves PO on 3rd and Final Reading
11. Approved ordinance is transmitted to the LCE
12. LCE signs approved ordinance
13. Review by higher-level Sanggunian/Posting and publication
14. Ordinance becomes a Law
Source: http://localgov.up.edu.ph/how-to-pass-an-ordinance-in-the-philippines.html
Summit Media (publisher of FHM)
Summit Publishing Co., Inc., T/A Summit Media, is a digital lifestyle network in the
Philippines, with 15 media brands attracting around 20 million monthly unique visitors
and approximately 33 million social media followers. It began as a consumer magazine
publisher in June 1995, with Preview as its first magazine title.[1] It turned into a
publication conglomerate which published several lifestyle magazines titles,
including Candy for young Filipino girls and Yes!, a Philippine entertainment magazine.
The company is privately owned by Lisa Gokongwei-Cheng, the daughter of Filipino
businessman John Gokongwei. It has expanded to publishing specialized magazines for
companies and occasions in the Philippines, and also started publishing short books
designed for Filipino readers.
The results of the 2014 TNS Newsstand Survey showed that Summit Media had
popularity in 12 categories: young women (Cosmopolitan Philippines - 60%), fashion
(Preview - 38%), celebrity (YES! - 55%), men's luxury (Esquire Philippines - 93%),
men's lifestyle (FHM Philippines - 71%), home (Real Living Philippines - 42%), family
and home (Good Housekeeping Philippines - 47%), teens (Candy - 63%), parenting
(Smart Parenting - 34%), automotive (Top Gear Philippines - 69%), society (Town and
Country Philippines - 31%), and food (Yummy - 51%). The company also had the
largest score in the local book publishing measurement with seven out of 10 books sold.
[2]

Its different magazine titles are printed to copies that run over 100,000. It has been cited
in Philippine Business magazine[3] and Eventsite.[4]
On April 11, 2018, Summit Media announced the impending closure of the last six
printed magazines namely, Cosmopolitan, FHM, Preview, Top Gear, Town and Country
(all relegated to their online portals) and Yes! (relegated to Philippine Entertainment
Portal), as part of the fully completed digitalization of the company, marking the end of
the 23-year run of printing industry. [5]
City of Manila vs. Laguio
C.    The Ordinance is repugnant
to general laws; it is ultra vires
The Ordinance is in contravention of the Code as the latter merely empowers local
government units to regulate, and not prohibit, the establishments enumerated in
Section 1 thereof.
The power of the City Council to regulate by ordinances the establishment, operation,
and maintenance of motels, hotels and other similar establishments is found in Section
458 (a) 4 (iv), which provides that:
Section 458. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. (a) The sangguniang
panlungsod, as the legislative body of the city, shall enact ordinances, approve
resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants
pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers
of the city as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall:
.  .  .
(4) Regulate activities relative to the use of land, buildings and structures within the city
in order to promote the general welfare and for said purpose shall:
.  .  .
(iv) Regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants,
beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses, and other similar
establishments, including tourist guides and transports .  .  .  .
While its power to regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of any
entertainment or amusement facilities, and to prohibit certain forms of amusement or
entertainment is provided under Section 458 (a) 4 (vii) of the Code, which reads as
follows:
Section 458. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. (a) The sangguniang
panlungsod, as the legislative body of the city, shall enact ordinances, approve
resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants
pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers
of the city as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall:
.  .  .
(4) Regulate activities relative to the use of land, buildings and structures within the city
in order to promote the general welfare and for said purpose shall:
.  .  .
(vii) Regulate the establishment, operation, and maintenance of any entertainment or
amusement facilities, including theatrical performances, circuses, billiard pools, public
dancing schools, public dance halls, sauna baths, massage parlors, and other places
for entertainment or amusement; regulate such other events or activities for amusement
or entertainment, particularly those which tend to disturb the community or annoy the
inhabitants, or require the suspension or suppression of the same; or, prohibit certain
forms of amusement or entertainment in order to protect the social and moral welfare of
the community.
Clearly, with respect to cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension
houses, lodging houses, and other similar establishments, the only power of the City
Council to legislate relative thereto is to regulate them to promote the general welfare.
The Code still withholds from cities the power to suppress and prohibit altogether the
establishment, operation and maintenance of such establishments. It is well to recall the
rulings of the Court in Kwong Sing v. City of Manila106 that:
The word "regulate," as used in subsection (l), section 2444 of the Administrative Code,
means and includes the power to control, to govern, and to restrain; but "regulate"
should not be construed as synonymous with "suppress" or "prohibit." Consequently,
under the power to regulate laundries, the municipal authorities could make proper
police regulations as to the mode in which the employment or business shall be
exercised.107
And in People v. Esguerra,108 wherein the Court nullified an ordinance of the Municipality
of Tacloban which prohibited the selling, giving and dispensing of liquor ratiocinating
that the municipality is empowered only to regulate the same and not prohibit. The
Court therein declared that:
(A)s a general rule when a municipal corporation is specifically given authority or power
to regulate or to license and regulate the liquor traffic, power to prohibit is impliedly
withheld.109
These doctrines still hold contrary to petitioners' assertion 110 that they were modified by
the Code vesting upon City Councils prohibitory powers.

Laws on Publication
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 960 July 14, 1976
AMENDING ARTICLE 201 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
WHEREAS, it is the obligation of the State to safeguard the morality of society,
particularly the youth, against the eroding influence of immoral doctrines, obscene
publications and exhibitions and indecent shows;
WHEREAS, in order to arrest the proliferation of such doctrines, publications,
exhibitions and shows, it is necessary to amend the pertinent provision of the Revised
Penal Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by
virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree as
part of the law of the land, the following:
Section 1. Amendment of Article 201, Revised Penal Code. Article 201 of Act
Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and fifteen, otherwise known as the Revised Penal
Code, is hereby amended to read as follows;
"Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows.
The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand
pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:
"1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public
morals;
"2. The authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form, the
editors publishing such literature, and the owners/operators of the book store or other
establishments selling the same;
"3. Those who in theaters, fairs cinematographs or any other place, shall exhibit
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, including the following:
"(a) Films which tend to incite subversion, insurrection or rebellion against the State;
"(b) Films which tend to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their
Government and/or duly constituted authorities;
"(c) Films which glorify criminals or condone crimes;
"(d) Films which serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or
pornography;
"(e) Films which offend any race or religion;
"(f) Films which tend to abet traffic in the use of prohibited drugs;
"(g) Films contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies,
lawful orders, decrees, edicts, and any or all films which in the judgment of the Board of
Censors for Motion Pictures or other agency established by the Government to oversee
such motion pictures are objectionable on some other legal or moral grounds.
"4. Those who shall sell, give away of exhibit prints, engravings, sculptures or literature
which are offensive to morals."
Section 2. Confiscation of articles. The literature, films, prints, engravings, sculpture,
paintings, or other materials and articles involved in the violation referred to in Section 1
hereof shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government to be destroyed.
Section 3. Jurisdiction. Violations of Section 1 hereof shall be subject to trial by the
military tribunals and the offenders shall be subject to arrest and detention pursuant to
existing laws, decrees, orders and instructions promulgated pursuant to Proclamations
No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972 and No. 1104, dated January 17, 1973.
Section 4. Additional Penalties. Additional penalties shall be imposed as follows:
1. In case the offender is a government official or employee who allows the violations of
Section 1 hereof, the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period and in addition,
the accessory penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code, as amended shall
likewise be imposed.
2. The license or permit of the theater, cinematograph or other place or establishment
where the violation has been committed shall be canceled temporarily or permanently,
depending upon the gravity of the violation as determined by the proper military tribunal.
Section 5. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication
by the Department of Information in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Done in the City of Manila this 14th day of July in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and seventy-six.
RPC: Chapter Two
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD CUSTOMS
Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent
shows. — The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to
twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed
upon:
(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to
public morals;
(2) (a) the authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any
form; the editors publishing such literature; and the owners/operators of the
establishment selling the same;
(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit,
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which
are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which (1) glorify criminals or
condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence,
lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and
use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, and
good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts;
(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture
or literature which are offensive to morals. (As amended by PD Nos. 960 and 969).

Senate Bill No. 2464

AN ACT PROHIBITING AND PENALIZING THE PRODUCTION, PRINTING,
PUBLICATION, IMPORTATION, SALE, DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION OF
OBSCENE AND PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIALS AND THE EXHIBITION OF LIVE
SEXUAL ACTS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 201 OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED
(see attached pdf)
Philippine magazines were criticized for controversial content
FHM Philippines‘ 2012 cover with Bela Padilla
Philippine media has always played a role in the longstanding perception that “white is
better,” and one example of this is an FHM Philippines cover that had actress Bela
Padilla posing with dark-skinned models in the background. The cover story’s
title? “Stepping Out of the Shadows.”
Naturally, many found the cover to be racist and thought it depicted white
supremacy. FHM ended up pulling the magazine out from stands.
Pulp Magazine 2016 cover with Sud
Prior to the global #MeToo movement, it was not uncommon to find misogynistic photos
in media. Case in point, music magazine Pulp thought it was ok to feature the band Sud
on their cover as a production crew filming scantily clad women on a bed.
Many found the cover offensive and said that it was objectifying women.
While the band apologized for the photo, the magazine’s publisher, Vernon Go, still
defended the concept. In a tweet, he said: “Photography of the female form that is sexy
and provocative has nothing to do with misogyny. It is actual worship of the power of
womankind.”

Source: https://coconuts.co/manila/lifestyle/5-times-philippine-magazines-criticized-
controversial-content/
LOOK: Some of 'Playboy' magazine's most controversial covers
Here's a look back at the most controversial 'Playboy' covers since Hugh Hefner started
the magazine in the '50s
December 1953 – Marilyn Monroe
This issue was the first Playboy magazine ever published, produced in Hugh Hefner's
kitchen. The issue, which made quite a stir in the '50s, used already-published photos of
Marilyn on the cover and the inside spread.
June 1962 – A Toast to Bikinis
While this cover on its own was racy in the '60s, it was also controversial for the optical
illusion that occurs when you cover half the photo with your hand, completely hiding the
model's navel.
April 1969 – Loran Hopper
In 1969, Playboy made a statement about gender stereotypes with their cover featuring
Loran Hopper.

October 1971 – Darine Stern

Darine Stern was the first black woman on the cover of Playboy.
November 1975 – More Sex in Cinema
Patricia Margot McClain's pose in the November 1975 issue of Playboy was a response
to the rise of the magazine's competitor Penthouse.

January/February 2012 – Lindsay Lohan

Lindsay Lohan's risque cover was inspired by Marilyn Monroe in Playboy's first issue.
Source: https://www.rappler.com/entertainment/news/183806-playboy-magazine-
controversial-covers-hugh-hefner