Drilon vs Lim
Facts:
The principal issue in this case is the constitutionality of Section 187 of the
Local Government Code reading as follows:
Procedure for Approval and Effectivity Of Tax Ordinances And Revenue
Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings. — The procedure for approval of local
tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of
this Code: Provided, That public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior
to the enactment thereof; Provided, further, That any question on the
constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised
on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of
Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt
of the appeal: Provided, however, That such appeal shall not have the effect of
suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the
tax, fee, or charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days
after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the
Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file
appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction.
Ordinance No 7794 otherwise known as the Manila Revenue Code was declared
null and void by Secretary Drilon, Secretary of Justice, for non-compliance with
the prescribed procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and for containing
provisions contrary to law and public policy.
In a petition for certiorari filed by the City of Manila, the Regional Trial Court of
Manila revoked the Secretary's resolution and sustained the ordinance, holding
inter alia that the procedural requirements had been observed. More importantly, it
declared Section 187 of the Local Government Code as unconstitutional because of
its vesture in the Secretary of Justice of the power of control over local
governments in violation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the
Constitution and of the specific provision therein conferring on the President of the
Philippines only the power of supervision over local governments. The RTC judge
declared Sec 187 of the LGC unconstitutional insofar as it empowered the
Secretary of Justice to review tax ordinances and inferentially to annul them. His
conclusion was that the challenged section gave to the Secretary the power of
control and not of supervision only as vested by the Constitution in the President of
the Philippines.
Issue:
Whether or not the Sec 187 of the LCG vests the Secretary of Justice the
power of control over the Local Government?
Whether or not the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code complied with
the prescribed procedure?
Ruling:
NO, Sec 187 of the LGC does not vests the Secretary of Justice the power of
control over the Local Government.
Section 187 authorizes the Secretary of Justice to review only the
constitutionality or legality of the tax ordinance and, if warranted, to revoke it on
either or both of these grounds. When he alters or modifies or sets aside a tax
ordinance, he is not permitted to substitute his own judgment for the judgment of
the local government that enacted the measure. Secretary Drilon did set aside the
Manila Revenue Code, but he did not replace it with his own version of what the
Code should be. He did not pronounce the ordinance unwise or unreasonable as a
basis for its annulment. He did not say that in his judgment it was a bad law. What
he found only was that it was illegal. All he did in reviewing the said measure was
determine if the petitioners were performing their functions is accordance with
law, that is, with the prescribed procedure for the enactment of tax ordinances and
the grant of powers to the city government under the Local Government Code. The
court sees that it was an act not of control but of mere supervision.
YES, of the Manila Revenue Code complied with the prescribed procedure.
Contrary to the ruling of Secretary Drilon, the court found that notices of the public
hearings were sent to interested parties as evidenced by Exhibits G-1 to 17. The
minutes of the hearings are found in Exhibits M, M-1, M-2, and M-3. Exhibits B
and C show that the proposed ordinances were published in the Balita and the
Manila Standard on April 21 and 25, 1993, respectively, and the approved
ordinance was published in the July 3, 4, 5 1993 issues of the Manila Standard and
in the July 6, 1993 issue of Balita, as shown by Exhibits Q, Q-1, Q- 2, and Q-3.
The only exceptions are the posting of the ordinance as approved but this omission
does not affect its validity, considering that its publication in three successive
issues of a newspaper of general circulation will satisfy due process. It has also not
been shown that the text of the ordinance has been translated and disseminated, but
this requirement applies to the approval of local development plans and public
investment programs of the local government unit and not to tax ordinances.
NB:
The Court did not rule on the substantive provisions of the Manila Revenue Code
as their validity has not been raised in issue in the present petition.
Control - the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate
officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of
the former for the latter
Supervision - the power of a superior officer to see to it that lower officers perform
their function in accordance with law.
