10/26/24, 7:29 AM Drilon vs.
Lim
Title
Drilon vs. Lim
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 112497 Aug 4, 1994
The case of Drilon v. Lim revolves around the constitutionality of Section 187 of the
Local Government Code in the Philippines, specifically addressing the procedural
requirements for the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code, with the court ruling that
Section 187 is constitutional and clarifying the power of the Secretary of Justice as one
of supervision rather than control.
Case Digest (G.R. No. 112497)
Comprehensive
Facts:
The case of "Drilon v. Lim" (G.R. No. 112497) was decided on August 4, 1994, by the Supreme
Court of the Philippines. The petitioner, Hon. Franklin M. Drilon, in his capacity as
Secretary of Justice, challenged the respondents, Mayor Alfredo S. Lim, Vice-Mayor Jose L.
Atienza, City Treasurer Anthony Acevedo, the Sangguniang Panlungsod, and the City of
Manila. The case centered on the constitutionality of Section 187 of the Local Government
Code, which outlines the procedural requirements for the approval and effectivity of tax
ordinances and revenue measures. The Secretary of Justice had declared Ordinance No.
7794, known as the Manila Revenue Code, null and void due to non-compliance with the
prescribed procedure and for containing provisions contrary to law and public policy. The
Regional Trial Court of Manila, however, revoked the Secretary's resolution, upheld the
ordinance, and declared Section 187 unconstitutional, arguing that it vested the Secretary of
Justice with the power of control over local governments, violating the policy of local
autonomy mandated by the Constitution. The Secretary of Justice then petitioned the
Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's decision, asserting the constitutionality of
Section 187 and the non-compliance with procedural requirements in the enactment of the
Manila Revenue Code.
Issue:
1. Is Section 187 of the Local Government Code constitutional?
2. Were the procedural requirements for the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code
observed?
Ruling:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 187 of the Local Government Code is
constitutional.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the procedural
requirements for the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code were observed.
Ratio:
The Supreme Court held that Section 187 of the Local Government Code is constitutional,
emphasizing that the Secretary of Justice's power to review tax ordinances is an act of
supervision, not control. The Court clarified that supervision involves ensuring that lower
officers perform their functions in accordance with the law, without substituting the
superior officer's judgment for that of the subordinate. In this case, Secretary Drilon's
actions were limited to determining the legality and constitutionality of the Manila Revenue
Code, without replacing it with his own version. This distinction between supervision and
control aligns with the constitutional mandate of local autonomy.
Regarding the procedural requirements for the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code, the
Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the City of Manila had complied with
the necessary procedures. Notices of public hearings were sent to interested parties,
minutes of the hearings were documented, and the proposed and approved ordinances
were published in newspapers of general circulation. Although the ordinance was not
posted in prominent places and not translated into Pilipino or Tagalog, these omissions did
not affect its validity. The Court concluded that the publication in newspapers satisfied due
process, and the translation requirement applied to local development plans and public
investment programs, not tax ordinances.
The Supreme Court did not address the substantive provisions of the Manila Revenue
Code, as their validity was not raised in the petition. The decision reversed the lower court's
declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 187 but affirmed the finding that procedural
requirements were observed.
[Link] 1/1
