Province of Batangas v. Romulo May 27, 2004 | J. Callejo, Sr. Facts: The Province of Batangas represented by Gov.

. Mandanas filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 to declare as unconstitutional and void certain provisions contained in the General Appropriations Acts (GAA) of 1999, 2000 and 2001 which uniformly earmarked for each corresponding year P5 billion pesos of the IRA for the Local Government Service Equalization Fund (LGSEF) and imposed conditions for the release The respondents are Executive Secretary Romulo, Budget Secretary Boncodin, and Interior and Local Government Secretary Lina This stems from EO 48 issued by Pres. Estrada entitled Establishing a Program for Devolution Adjustment and Equalization: which aimed to facilitate the process of enhancing the capacities of LGUs in the discharge of the functions and services devolved to them by the National Government Agencies An Oversight Committee was constituted under Sec 544(b) of the LGC to formulate and issue the appropriate rules and regulations necessary for its effective implementation For 1998, the DBM was directed to set aside an amount to be determined by the Oversight Committee. For 1999 and succeeding years, the corresponding amount was to be incorporated in the GAA So for 3 years, an amount was set aside for the LGSEF and imposed conditions for the release. Also, the percentage sharing of provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays were varied from year to year Hence the petition Issues: Procedural Issues WON petitioner has legal standing (YES) WON the petition involves factual questions cognizable by the lower courts (involves a legal issue) WON the issue has been rendered moot and academic (Yes but still needs to be resolved) Substantive Issue WON certain provisos of the GAA earmarking the amount of P5 billion of the IRA for the LGSEF and the OCD resolutions are unconstitutional and contrary to the LGC (YES) Ruling: Procedural issues SC holds that the petitioner possesses the requisite standing to maintain the present suit. A LGU seeks relief in order to protect or vindicate an interest of its own, and of other LGUs. This interest pertains to the LGUs share in the national taxes or the IRAs Petition involves a significant legal issue facts are not disputed and the rule on hierarchy of courts will not prevent the SC from assuming jurisdiction over the petition. The crucial legal issue submitted entails the proper legal interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions transcendental importance warrants the relaxation by SC of procedural rules in order to resolve the case forthwith There is still compelling reason for SC to resolve the substantive issue because it is capable of repetition yet evading review Substantive Issue Constitution confines the Presidents power over the LGUs to one of general supervision exclude the power of control The assailed provisos contradict the constitutional precept on local autonomy Art. X, Sec. 6 says that LGUs shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them LGC also has provisions that underscore the automat ic release of the LGUs just share Sec. 18, 286 The LGSEF couldnt be released to the LGU without the Oversight Committees approval SC says this is constitutionally impermissible because the LGSEF is part of the IRA or the just share of the LGUs in the national taxes to subject its distribution and release to the vagaries of the IRR, including guidelines of the Oversight Committee, makes the release not automatic and a flagrant violation of the constitutional and statutory mandate that the just share of the LGUs shall be automatically released to them Where the law, the Constitution in this case, is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says.

The word shall connotes a mandatory order Local autonomy includes both administrative and fiscal autonomy A basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the constitutionally mandated automatic release of the shares of LGUs in the national internal revenue Assailed provisos and OCD resolutions cannot amend Sec. 285 of the LGC any amendment to the LGC should be done in a separate law and not in the appropriations law

Judgment: Petition granted