Public
Documents
|
Public
Records
|
Official
Documents/Information
|
Public documents are:
(a)
The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b)
Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and
testaments; and
(c)
Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law
to be entered therein.
All other writings are private. (20a)
(Rule
132, Section 19, Rules of Court)
|
Public
records are documents or pieces of information that are
not considered confidential.
|
Official copy or original record
having the legally recognized and enforceable quality of
establishing a fact. Official records are
kept for their full retention period.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/official-record.html#ixzz1wVJkYFrU |
Ex.
Republic acts, ordinances, all notarized documents except Wills
|
Ex.
Accomplishment reports, Government programs and certain policies
|
Ex.
Government Permits
|
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Public Documents vs. Public Records vs. Official Records
RELEVANT LAWS ON MOONLIGHTING BY PUBLIC OFFICER
A. Memorandum Circular No. 17 (4 September 1986)
xxxxx
The authority to grant permission to any
official or employee shall be granted by the head of the ministry or agency
in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service
Rules, which provides:
"Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly
in any private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any
commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head
of Department; Provided, That his prohibition will be absolute in the
case of those officers and employees whose duties and responsibilities
require that their entire time be at the disposal of the Government:
Provided, further, That if an employee is granted permission to engage in
outside activities, the time so devoted outside of office hours should be
fixed by the chief of the agency to the end that it will not impair in any
way the efficiency of the officer or employee: And provided, finally, That no
permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by an officer or
employee, which do not involve any real or apparent conflict between his
private interests and public duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge
of his duties, and he shall not take part in the management of the enterprise
or become an officer or member of the board of directors",
Subject to any additional conditions which the head of the office deems necessary in each particular case in the interest of the service, as expressed in the various issuances of the Civil Service Commission. (Emphasis Supplied)
B.Republic Act 6713 (s. 1989)
|
xxxxx
“Section 7. Prohibited
Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions
of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and
existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:
(a) xxxxx.
(b) Outside employment and other activities
related thereto. - Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall
not:
(1) xxxxx
(2) Engage in
the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution
or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with
their official functions; or (Emphasis Supplied)
xxxxx
C. Rules
Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees (RA 6713)
Grounds for Administrative
Disciplinary Action
Section 1. In addition to the grounds for administrative disciplinary action prescribed under existing laws, the acts and omissions of any official or employee, whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, hold-over, permanent or regular capacity, declared unlawful or prohibited by the Code, shall constitute grounds for administrative disciplinary action, and without prejudice to criminal and civil liabilities provided herein, such as:
xxxx;
(c) Engaging in the private practice of his profession unless authorized by the Constitution, law or regulation, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his official functions; (Emphasis Supplied)
D. Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases (RRACs) in the Civil Service (December 2011)
a.4.1 Rule 10, Section 46 (B)(8)
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service
Grave Offense
Penalty:
First Offense: Punishable of
suspension of Six Months and one
day to One year
Second Offense: Dismissal
from the Service
a.4.2 Rule 10, Section 46 (F)(3), (15)
(3) Violation of reasonable office rules and regulations;
(15) Engaging
in private practice of his/her profession unless authorized by the
Constitution, law or regulation, provided that such practice will not conflict
with his/her official functions.
Light Offense
Penalty:
First Offense: Reprimand
Second Offense: Suspension
of One (1) to
Thirty (30) days
Thirty (30) days
Third Offense: Dismissal
from the Service
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
RELATED LITERATURES ON THE LEGAL BASES OF ZONING ORDINANCE (FOREIGN SOURCES)
RELATED
LITERATURES ON ZONING (FOREIGN SOURCES)
1. “Regulations as applied in zoning are
sustained. Under the complex conditions
of our day, for reasons analogous to those which justify traffic regulations,
which, before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street railways,
would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unreasonable. While the
meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their
application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions
which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing
world it is impossible that it should be otherwise.” (Village
of Euclid, Ohio vs. Ambler Realty, 272
U.S. 365, Nov. 22, 1926);
2. “The constantly increasing density of our urban
populations, the multiplying forms of industry and the growing complexity of
our civilization make it necessary for the state, either directly or through
some public agency by its sanction, to limit individual activities to a greater
extent than formerly. With the growth and development of the state the police
power necessarily develops, within reasonable bounds, to meet the changing
conditions”.
[Supreme Court of Illinois, in City
of Aurora v. Burns, supra, pages 93-95 (149 N. E. 788 )];
3. “The segregation of industries, commercial
pursuits, and dwellings to particular districts in a city, when exercised
reasonably, may bear a rational relation to the health, morals, safety, and
general welfare of the community. The establishment of such districts or zones
may, among other things, prevent congestion of population, secure quiet
residence districts, expedite local transportation, and facilitate the
suppression of disorder, the extinguishment of fires, and the enforcement of
traffic and sanitary regulations. The danger of fire and the of contagion are
often lessened by the exclusion of stores and factories from areas devoted to
residences, and, in consequence, the safety and health of the community may be
promoted.
[Supreme Court of Illinois, in City
of Aurora v. Burns, supra, pages 93-95 (149 N. E. 788 )];
4. “Zoning ordinances and regulations are laws that define and restrict how you can use
your property. Cities, counties,
townships and other local governments adopt zoning plans in order to set
development standards to assure that land is used for the common good.”(City of Alabama, California, USA, 2001)
5. “Zoning laws come into play on every single real estate development,
regardless of how big or small. So if
you are thinking about buying property or making improvements to property you
already own, you should better be sure to understand the zoning restrictions
before you commit to anything.” (City of Vancouver, Canada. 2004).
JURISPRUDENCE
1. VILLAGE OF EUCLID, OHIO v. AMBLER REALTY
CO., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)
“This is landmark case of the Supreme Court of US regarding the
constitutionality of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ambler Realty is the owner of a tract of land containing 68 acres,
situated in the westerly end of the village, abutting on Euclid Avenue to the
south and the Nickel Plate Railroad to the north. Adjoining this tract, both on
the east and on the west, there have been laid out restricted residential plats
upon which residences have been erected.
On November
13, 1922, an ordinance was adopted by the village council, establishing a
comprehensive zoning plan for regulating and restricting the location of
trades, industries, apartment houses, two-family houses, single family
houses, etc ., the lot area to be built upon, the size and height of buildings,
etc. [1]
The
ordinance is assailed on the grounds that it is in derogation of Section 1 of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution that it deprives appellee
of liberty and property without due process of law and denies it the equal
protection of the law, and that it offends against certain provisions of the
Constitution of the state of Ohio. The prayer of the bill is for an injunction
restraining the enforcement of the ordinance and all attempts to impose or
maintain as to appellee's property any of the restrictions, limitations or
conditions.
Building
zone laws are of modern origin. In
recent years, urban life was comparatively simple; but, with the great increase
and concentration of population, problems have developed, and constantly are developing,
which require, and will continue to require, additional restrictions in respect
of the use and occupation of private lands in urban communities[2].
Regulations, the wisdom, necessity, and validity of which, as applied to
existing conditions, are so apparent that they are now uniformly sustained, a
century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as
arbitrary and oppressive. Such regulations are sustained, under the complex
conditions of our day, for reasons analogous to those which justify traffic
regulations, which, before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street
railways, would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unreasonable. And
in this there is no inconsistency, for, while the meaning of constitutional
guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract
to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the
field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should
be otherwise. The ordinance now under review, and all similar laws and
regulations, must find their justification in some aspect of the police power,
asserted for the public welfare.
Thus the
question whether the power exists to forbid the erection of a building of a particular
kind or for a particular use, like the question whether a particular thing is a
nuisance, is to be determined, not by an abstract consideration of the building
or of the thing considered apart, but by considering it in connection with the
circumstances and the locality.
The serious
question in the case arises over the provisions of the ordinance excluding from
residential districts apartment houses, business houses, retail stores and
shops, and other like establishments. This question involves the validity of
what is really the crux of the more recent zoning legislation, namely, the
creation and maintenance of residential districts, from which business and
trade of every sort, including hotels and apartment houses, are excluded. The
decisions of the state courts are numerous and conflicting; but those which
broadly sustain the power greatly outnumber those which deny it altogether or
narrowly limit it, and it is very apparent that there is a constantly
increasing tendency in the direction of the broader view.
The
decisions enumerated in the first group cited above agree that the exclusion of
buildings devoted to business, trade, etc., from residential districts, bears a
rational relation to the health and safety of the community. Some of the grounds for this conclusion are
promotion of the health and security from injury of children and others by
separating dwelling houses from territory devoted to trade and industry;
suppression and prevention of disorder; facilitating the extinguishment of fires,
and the enforcement of street traffic regulations and other general welfare
ordinances; aiding the health and safety of the community, by excluding from
residential areas the confusion and danger of fire, contagion, and disorder,
which in greater or less degree attach to the location of stores, shops, and
factories. Another ground is that the construction and repair of streets may be
rendered easier and less expensive, by confining the greater part of the heavy
traffic to the streets where business is carried on. “
2. AURORA
v. BURNS, (149 N. E. 788)
The Supreme
Court of Illinois, in City of Aurora v. Burns, in sustaining a comprehensive
building zone ordinance dividing the city into eight districts, including
exclusive residential districts for one and two family dwellings, churches,
educational institutions, and schools, said:
“The
constantly increasing density of our urban populations, the multiplying forms
of industry and the growing complexity of our civilization make it necessary
for the state, either directly or through some public agency by its sanction,
to limit individual activities to a greater extent than formerly. With the
growth and development of the state the police power necessarily develops,
within reasonable bounds, to meet the changing conditions. The harmless may sometimes be brought within
the regulation or prohibition in order to abate or destroy the harmful. The
segregation of industries, commercial pursuits, and dwellings to particular
districts in a city, when exercised reasonably, may bear a rational relation to
the health, morals, safety, and general welfare of the community. The
establishment of such districts or zones may, among other things, prevent
congestion of population, secure quiet residence districts, expedite local
transportation, and facilitate the suppression of disorder, the extinguishment
of fires, and the enforcement of traffic and sanitary regulations. The danger
of fire and the of contagion are often lessened by the exclusion of stores and
factories from areas devoted to residences, and, in consequence, the safety and
health of the community may be promoted”.
The
exclusion of places of business from residential districts is not a declaration
that such places are nuisances or that they are to be suppressed as such, but
it is a part of the general plan by which the city's territory is allotted to
different uses, in order to prevent, or at least to reduce, the congestion,
disorder, and dangers which often inhere in unregulated municipal development.
3. State of Louisiana v. City of New Orleans,
(97 So. 444)
The Supreme
Court of Louisiana, in State v. City of New Orleans, (97 So. 444), said:
“The
exclusion of business establishments from residence districts might enable the
municipal government to give better police protection. Patrolmen's beats are larger, and therefore
fewer, in residence neighborhoods than in business neighborhoods. A place of
business in a residence neighborhood furnishes an excuse for any criminal to go
into the neighborhood, where, otherwise, a stranger would be under the ban of
suspicion. Besides, open shops invite loiterers and idlers to congregate; and
the places of such congregations need police protection. The zoning of a city into residence districts
and commercial districts is a matter of economy is street paving. Heavy trucks,
hauling freight to and from places of business in residence districts, require
the city to maintain the same costly pavement in such districts that is
required for business districts; whereas, in the residence districts, where
business establishments are excluded, a cheaper pavement serves the purpose. “
The matter
of zoning has received much attention at the hands of commissions and experts,
and the results of their investigations have been set forth in comprehensive
reports. These reports which bear every evidence of painstaking consideration,
concur in the view that the segregation of residential, business and industrial
buildings will make it easier to provide fire apparatus suitable for the character
and intensity of the development in each section; that it will increase the
safety and security of home life, greatly tend to prevent street accidents,
especially to children, by reducing the traffic and resulting confusion in
residential sections, decrease noise and other conditions which produce or
intensify nervous disorders, preserve a more favorable environment in which to
rear children, etc. With particular reference to apartment houses, it is
pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded
by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying
the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often
the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage
of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential
character of the district. Moreover, the
coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their
height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of
the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as
their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased
traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked
automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their
safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for
play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the
residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of
detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment
houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely
unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances.
If these
reasons, thus summarized, do not demonstrate the wisdom or sound policy in all
respects of those restrictions which we have indicated as pertinent to the
inquiry, at least, the reasons are sufficiently cogent to preclude us from
saying, as it must be said before the ordinance can be declared
unconstitutional, that such provisions are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable,
having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general
welfare. [Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago, supra, pages 530-531 (37 S. Ct. 190);
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197
U.S. 11 , 30-31, 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765.].
It is true
that when, if ever, the provisions set forth in the ordinance in tedious and
minute detail, come to be concretely applied to particular premises, including
those of the appellee, or to particular conditions, or to be considered in
connection with specific complaints, some of them, or even many of them, may be
found to be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. But where the equitable remedy
of injunction is sought, as it is here, not upon the ground of a present
infringement or denial of a specific right, or of a particular injury in
process of actual execution, but upon the broad ground that the mere existence
and threatened enforcement of the ordinance, by materially and adversely
affecting values and curtailing the opportunities of the market, constitute a
present and irreparable injury, the court will not scrutinize its provisions,
sentence by sentence, to ascertain by a process of piecemeal dissection whether
there may be, here and there, provisions of a minor character, or relating to
matters of administration, or not shown to contribute to the injury complained
of, which, if attacked separately, might not withstand the test of
constitutionality. In respect of such provisions, of which specific complaint
is not [272 U.S. 365, 396] made, it cannot be said that
the landowner has suffered or is threatened with an injury which entitles him
to challenge their constitutionality. Turpin v. Lemon, 187
U.S. 51, 60 , 23 S. Ct. 20. In Railroad Commission Cases, 116
U.S. 307 , 335-337, 6 S. Ct. 334, 388, 1191, this court dealt with an
analogous situation. There an act of the Mississippi Legislature, regulating
freight and passenger rates on intrastate railroads and creating a supervisory
commission, was attacked as unconstitutional.
The suit was brought to enjoin the commission from enforcing against the
plaintiff railroad company any of its provisions. In an opinion delivered by
Chief Justice Waite, this court held that the chief purpose of the statute was
to fix a maximum of charges and to regulate in some matters of a police nature
the use of railroads in the state. After sustaining the constitutionality of
the statute 'in its general scope' this court said:
“Whether in
some of its details the statute may be defective or invalid we do not deem it
necessary to inquire, for this suit is brought to prevent the commissioners
from giving it any effect whatever as against this company.”
Quoting with
approval from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Mississppi, it was further
said:
“Many
questions may arise under it not necessary to be disposed of now, and we leave
them for consideration when presented”.
And finally:
“When the commission
has acted and proceedings are had to enforce what it has done, questions may
arise as to the validity of some of the various provisions which will be worthy
of consideration, but we are unable to say that, as a whole, the statute is
invalid”.
The relief
sought here is of the same character, namely, an injunction against the
enforcement of any of the restrictions, limitations, or conditions of the
ordinance. And the gravamen of the complaint is that a portion of the land of
the appellee cannot be sold for certain enumerated uses because of the general
and broad restraints of the ordinance. What would be the effect of a restraint
imposed by one or more or the innumerable provisions of the ordinance,
considered apart, upon the value or marketability of the lands, is neither
disclosed by the bill nor by the evidence, and we are afforded no basis, apart
from mere speculation, upon which to rest a conclusion that it or they would
have any appreciable effect upon those matters. Under
these circumstances, therefore, it is enough for us to determine, as we do,
that the ordinance in its general scope and dominant features, so far as its
provisions are here involved, is a valid exercise of authority, leaving other
provisions to be dealt with as cases arise directly involving them.
This is in
accordance with the traditional policy of this court. In the realm of
constitutional law, especially, this court has perceived the embarrassment
which is likely to result from an attempt to formulate rules or decide questions
beyond the necessities of the immediate issue. It has preferred to follow the
method of a gradual approach to the general by a systematically guarded
application and extension of constitutional principles to particular cases as
they arise, rather than by out of hand attempts to establish general rules to
which future cases must be fitted. This process applies with peculiar force to
the solution of questions arising under the due process clause of the
Constitution as applied to the exercise of the flexible powers of police, with
which we are here concerned.
Illegal Taking
Since Pennsylvania Coal Co., courts have relied on due process restrictions on police power to
determine whether the government has in fact “taken” property. For example, in the seminal zoning cases, the
Court looked at zoning in the light of the Due Process Clause. Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365,384-386, 395 (1926).
The governmental power to interfere by zoning
regulations
with the general rights of a landowner by restricting the character of his use is limited
by the due process requirement that such a restriction must bear a substantial
relation to the public health, safety, morals, conveniences or the general
welfare of the community. In Agins
v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980), the Court trying to summarize
its takings cases, describes a two part test. The Court cites Nectow as authority for the
first test. “The application of a general zoning law to particular property affects
a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate
state interests.” This is the traditional substantive due process
limitation on the police power. (Emphasis supplied). Agins, supra. at 260.
Another test
is the Substantive due process doctrine which has been found to be a separate and independent
source of law for takings cases. Coal in place is land, and the right of the
owner to use his land is not absolute. He may not so use it as to create a
public nuisance, and uses, once harmless, may, owing to changed conditions,
seriously threaten the public welfare. Whenever they do, the Legislature has
power to prohibit such uses without paying compensation; and the power to
prohibit extends alike to the manner, the character and the purpose of the use.
Are we justified in declaring that the
Legislature of Pennsylvania has, in restricting the right to mine anthracite,
exercised this power so arbitrarily as to violate the Fourteenth Amendment?” Later, he
said: “Nor is a restriction imposed through exercise
of the police power inappropriate as a means, merely because the same end might
be effected through exercise of the power of eminent domain, or otherwise at
public expense. Every restriction upon the height of buildings might be secured
through acquiring by eminent domain the right of each owner to build above the
limiting height; but it is settled that the state need not resort to that power”.[3]
This limitation on the police power raises the issue of regulatory
takings. While the police power is an inherent sovereign power of the state, if
the exercise of the power "goes too far," it will be recognized as a
taking. [Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922)].
“The essential distinction between an exercise of the State’s eminent
domain power which is compensable, and an exercise of the police power which is
not, is that in the exercise of eminent domain a property interest is taken
from the owner and applied to the public use because such use is beneficial to
the public, while in the exercise of the police power an owner’s property
interest is restricted or infringed upon to prevent its use in a manner
detrimental to the public interest. To
determine whether particular governmental actions have effected a taking, we
must focus ‘on the character of the action and on the nature and extent of the
interference with’ the plaintiff’s property rights ... (citations omitted).”[4] The nature and extent of the interference
with property rights may convert even a meritorious exercise of the police
power into a taking requiring compensation. (Commissioner
of Natural Resources v. S. Volpe & Co.,
349 Mass. 104, 107-112).
Source: Zoning Ordinance: Legal Issues and Its Implications, Arellano University School of Law, Philippines 2007.
ZONING ORDINANCE AND ITS LEGAL BASES
A zoning
ordinance is defined as a local city or municipal legislation which logically
arranges, prescribes, defines and apportions a given political subdivision into
specific land uses as present and future projection of needs[1] The power
to establish zones for industrial, commercial and residential uses is derived
from the police power itself and is exercised for the protection and benefit of
the residents of a locality in order to control the use of land and the control
of density of population for the protection and promotion of public health,
safety, and welfare and to achieve specific developmental goals such as: (1) to
guide, control and regulate future growth
and development of the City in accordance with its Comprehensive Land Use Plan;
(2) to protect the character and stability of residential, commercial,
institutional, parks and recreational spaces, and other functional areas within
the locality and promote the orderly and beneficial development of the same;
(3) to help ensure the continued growth of the City; (4) to regulate the
location, use, and density of buildings and land in such a manner as to avoid
unnecessary congestion and demand on utilities and services, and to enhance
convenience of access to property and to safety from fire and other dangers;
and (6) to enhance the participation of the City’s constituents in the
development of their communities[2].
Zoning is a constitutionally mandated
undertaking and upheld its constitutionality based on jurisprudence of United
States from which our zoning ordinance was originated (see History of Philippine Zoning). The State declares its land use policies and
principles in terms of relation to national economy and patrimony as well as
its police power for the promotion of public health, public safety, public
interest, public order, and general welfare.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELATED TO
ZONING
1. “The
use of property bears a social function and all economic agents shall
contribute to the common good, individuals and private groups, including
corporations, cooperatives and similar collective organizations, shall have the
right to own, establish and operate economic enterprises subject to the duty of
the state to promote distributive justice and to intervene when common good
demands.” (Article XIII, Section1);
2. “The
Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect
and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social and
economic inequalities…To this end, the state shall regulate the acquisition,
ownership use, and disposition of property and its increments.” Article XIII,
Section 1);
3. “Prescribe reasonable limits and restraints on the
use of property within the jurisdiction of the municipality; Adopt a comprehensive land use plan for the
municipality: Provided, That the formulation, adoption, or modification of said
plan shall be in coordination with the approved provincial comprehensive land
use plan; Reclassify land within
the jurisdiction of the municipality, subject to the pertinent provisions of
this Code; Enact integrated
zoning ordinances in consonance with the approved comprehensive land use plan,
subject to existing laws, rules and regulations; establish fire limits or
zones, particularly in populous centers; and regulate the construction, repair
or modification of buildings within said fire limits or zones in accordance
with the provisions of the Fire Code.” (Section 447 A.2 vi-ix, Local
Government Code);
DECREES
AND ISSUANCES RELATED TO ZONING
4. “It
is hereby declared to be the policy of the government to foster the growth and
renewal of communities, both rural and urban, in an integrative manner that
promotes optimum land use, adequate shelter, environmental protection,
utilization of appropriate technology and rational interdependence among
self-reliant communities” (P.D. 1396);
5. Executive
Order No. 72, series of 1993 (Providing for the Preparation and Implementation
of the Comprehensive Land Use Plans of Local Government Units Pursuant to the
Local Government Code of 1991 and other Pertinent Laws), gives the HLURB the
power to review and ratify land use plans of highly urbanized cities, viz[3] :
“(a) Cities and municipalities shall continue to
prepare or update their comprehensive land use plans, in conformity with the
land use planning standards and guidelines prescribed by HLRB
(HLURB) pursuant to EO 392, S. of 1990, and other pertinent national policies.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“(c)
Cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila shall continue to
formulate or update their respective comprehensive land use plans, in
accordance with the land use planning and zoning standards and guidelines
prescribed by the HLRB pursuant to EO 392, S. of 1990, and other pertinent
national policies;
6.
(e) Pursuant
to LOI 729, S. of 1987, EO 648, S. of 1981 and RA 7279, the comprehensive land
use plans of provinces, highly-urbanized cities and independent component
cities shall be reviewed and ratified by the HLURB to ensure compliance with
national standards and guidelines”.
“(f) Pursuant to EO 392 S. of 1990, the
comprehensive land use plans of cities and municipalities of Metropolitan
Manila shall be reviewed by HLURB to ensure compliance with national standards
and guidelines”.
7. “Municipalities
shall submit their land use plans, enforcement system and implementing
guidelines, including zoning ordinance to the Ministry of Human Settlements
through the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) for review and
ratification.” (Letter of Instruction No. 729);
8. Executive
Order No. 648
Section 5, Article II
“(a) To promulgate zoning and other land use
control standards and guidelines which shall govern land use plans and zoning
ordinances of local governments”
9. The Local Government Code of 1991
Section
468, 2, Article III, Chapter 3, Book III
“(vii)
Review the comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances
of component cities and municipalities and adopt a comprehensive
provincial land use plan, subject to existing law
References:
1. Philippine Constitution
2. 1991 Local Government Code, As Amended
3. The Model
Zoning Ordinance. HLURB. Fourth Revision. S. 1996
4. G.R. No. 157118. December 8, 2003
5. G.R.
No. 156502, 13 February
2008, 545 SCRA 92, 139-140
6. Zoning Ordinance and its Legal Implications. Unpublished Thesis. AUSL, 2007.
[1] G.R. No. 156502, 13
February 2008, 545 SCRA 92, 139-140
[2] The
Model Zoning Ordiannce. HLURB. Fourth Revision. S. 1996
[3] G.R. No. 157118. December 8, 2003
Monday, January 18, 2016
Sample Petition for Notarial Commission
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
_____________ JUDICIAL REGION
_____________
IN RE: PETITION FOR COMMISSION
AS NOTARY PUBLIC
_____________________________
Petitioner,
X- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
-X
PETITION
PETITIONER, ________________________, unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:
1.
She/He is of legal age and a Filipino citizen;
2.
She/He is presently residing at _________________________
and residing therein since _________ and maintains a regular place of work in
the City of __________;
3.
She/He is holding her/his private law office at
______________________________________________________________;
4.
She/He has satisfactorily completed the required
course in law at _________________ in _________
(date of graduation);
5.
She/He has passed the _______ Bar Examinations and
admitted to practice law in the Philippines on _________________. Copy of the Certificate of Bar Membership is
herewith attached as Annex “A” and
made an integral part of this petition;
6.
She/He is a member of the Philippine Bar in good
standing with Clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme
Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Copy of said clearances are herewith attached
as Annex “B” and Annex “C”, respectively and made an integral
part of this petition;
7.
The undersigned has not been charged nor convicted
in the first instance of any crime involving Moral Turpitude;
8.
She/He desires to be commissioned as Notary Public
for and in Municipality/City of ____________ and possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications for said office;
9.
In compliance to the requirements of the Honorable
Court for Notarial Commission, attached hereto are the following annexes and
made an integral part of this petition:
a.
Three Specimen of his/her Official Signature as Annex “D”;
b.
Picture of Desk, Sketch of Prospective Office and sketch of the location of the office as Annex “E”,
“E-1” and “E-2”;
c.
3 pcs. 2X2 ID picture as Annex “F”;
d.
Copy of IBP Membership Payment Receipt as Annex “G”;
e.
Copy of PTR Receipt as Annex “H”.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that:
1.
The Petition for Commission as Notary Public filed
by the undersigned be acted favorably; and
2.
Petitioner be commissioned as a Notary Public in
the Municipality/City of ______________.
Date
____________, Municipality/ City of ____________.
__________________________
Petitioner
Address
______________________
Contact
No.___________________
E-Mail Address
________________
Roll No. ______
IBP No. ______
/Date and Place of Issue
PTR No. _____ /Date
and Place of Issue
MCLE Certificate of Compliance No. ____
VERIFICATION and
CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
I, ___________________, under
oath, depose and state that:
1. I am the petitioner in the above-entitled petition;
2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition;
3. The allegations therein are true and correct based on my personal
knowledge and authentic records;
4. To the best of my knowledge, there are no other pending petitions of the same nature before
any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency; and
5. Should I thereafter learn of any similar case pending before any other
court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, I shall promptly notify this court
within five (5) days from discovery.
____________________________
(Name of the Petitioner)
JURAT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me in the _________ on this day of _________
20___, affiant exhibiting before me her/his (Government-issued Identification Card No. ) issued on
_________ in ___________.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. ______;
Page No.______;
Book No.______;
Series of ______.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Contractual/Job Orders and Casual employees are two distinct employment status of workers in the government based on Civil Service Commi...
-
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT _____________ JUDICIAL REGION _____________ IN RE: PETITION FOR COMMISSION ...
-
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ____________ JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch ____ _________________ RE: I...