This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-04-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The power to create, divide, merge, abolish or substantially alter boundaries of provinces, cities, municipalities or barangays, which is pertinent in the case at bar, is essentially legislative in nature.[5] The framers of the Constitution have, however, allowed for the delegation of such power in Sec. 10, Art. X of the Constitution as long as (1) the criteria prescribed in the LGC is met and (2) the creation, division, merger, abolition or the substantial alteration of the boundaries is subject to the approval by a majority vote in a plebiscite. | |||||
|
2008-02-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it is a basic tenet in the country's constitutional system that "public office is a public trust,"[76] and that there is no vested right in public office, nor an absolute right to hold office.[77] No proprietary title attaches to a public office, as public service is not a property right.[78] Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office.[79] The rule is that offices in government, except those created by the constitution, may be abolished, altered, or created anytime by statute.[80] And any issues on the classification for a position in government may be brought to and determined by the courts.[81] | |||||