Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

DRILON vs. LIM (G.R. No.

112497 August 4, 1994)


FACTS:

This case, questioned the constitutionality of Sec. 187 of the LGC.

On appeal to the Sec. of Justice of four oil companies and a tapayer, and pursuant to the a!o"e cited pro"ision, the Secretary
declared Ordinance #o. 77$%, &'anila (e"enue Code) null and "oid for non*compliance +ith the prescri!ed procedure in the
enactment of ta ordinances and for containin, certain pro"isions contrary to la+ and pu!lic policy.

City of 'la -led a petition for certiorari !efore the (TC.

(TC *(e"o.ed the Secretary/s resolution and sustained the ordinance, !ecause the procedural requirements had !een o!ser"ed. 0t
declared Section 187 of the LGC as unconstitutional !ecause of its "esture in the Secretary of Justice of the po+er of control o"er
local ,o"ernments in "iolation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution and of the speci-c pro"ision therein
conferrin, on the 1resident of the 1hilippines only the po+er of super"ision o"er local ,o"ernments.

0n this present petition the Secretary ar,ues that the annulled Section 187 is constitutional and that the procedural requirements
for the enactment of ta ordinances as speci-ed in the Local Go"ernment Code had indeed not !een o!ser"ed.

Ori,inally this petition +as dismissed !y the Court the Solicitor General failed to su!mit a certi-ed true copy of the challen,ed
decision.

'( +as -led +ith the required certi-ed true copy of the decision attached, the petition +as reinstated in "ie+ of the importance of
the issues raised therein.
0SS23453L67
1. 8O# Sec. 187 of the LGC +hich pro"ides for the procedure for appro"al and e9ecti"ity of ta ordinaces and re"enue is
constitutional:
Section 187 of the Local Go"ernment Code readin, as follo+s7
Procedure For Approval And Efectivity Of Tax Ordinances And Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings. ; The procedure for
appro"al of local ta ordinances and re"enue measures shall !e in accordance +ith the pro"isions of this Code7 1ro"ided, That pu!lic
hearin,s shall !e conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof< 1ro"ided, further, That any question on the
constitutionality or le,ality of ta ordinances or re"enue measures may !e raised on appeal +ithin thirty &=>) days from the
e9ecti"ity thereof to the Secretary of Justice +ho shall render a decision +ithin sity &?>) days from the date of receipt of the appeal7
1ro"ided, ho+e"er, That such appeal shall not ha"e the e9ect of suspendin, the e9ecti"ity of the ordinance and the accrual and
payment of the ta, fee, or char,e le"ied therein7 1ro"ided, -nally, That +ithin thirty &=>) days after receipt of the decision or the
lapse of the sity*day period +ithout the Secretary of Justice actin, upon the appeal, the a,,rie"ed party may -le appropriate
proceedin,s +ith a court of competent @urisdiction.

The lo+er court had @urisdiction to consider the constitutionality of Section 187, this authority !ein, em!raced in the ,eneral
de-nition of the @udicial po+er to determine +hat are the "alid and !indin, la+s !y the criterion of their conformity to the
fundamental la+.

0n the eercise of this @urisdiction, lo+er courts are ad"ised to act +ith the utmost circumspection, !earin, in mind the
consequences of a declaration of unconstitutionality upon the sta!ility of la+s, no less than on the doctrine of separation of po+ers.
As the questioned act is usually the handi+or. of the le,islati"e or the eecuti"e departments, or !oth, it +ill !e prudent for such
courts, if only out of a !ecomin, modesty, to defer to the hi,her @ud,ment of this Court in the consideration of its "alidity, +hich is
!etter determined after a thorou,h deli!eration !y a colle,iate !ody and +ith the concurrence of the ma@ority of those +ho
participated in its discussion.

Set!o" 1#7 $ut%o&!'es t%e Se&et$&( o) *ust!e to &ev!e+ o",( t%e o"st!tut!o"$,!t( o& ,eg$,!t( o) t%e t$- o&.!"$"e
$"., !) +$&&$"te., to &evo/e !t o" e!t%e& o& 0ot% o) t%ese g&ou".s. 8hen he alters or modi-es or sets aside a ta ordinance,
he is not also permitted to su!stitute his o+n @ud,ment for the @ud,ment of the local ,o"ernment that enacted the measure.
Secretary 6rilon did set aside the 'anila (e"enue Code, !ut he did not replace it +ith his o+n "ersion of +hat the Code should !e.
He did not pronounce te ordinance un!ise or unreasonable as a basis for its annul"ent# He did not say tat in is $udg"ent it !as
a bad la!. 8hat he found only +as that it +as ille,al. All he did in re"ie+in, the said measure +as determine if the petitioners +ere
performin, their functions in accordance +ith la+, that is, +ith the prescri!ed procedure for the enactment of ta ordinances and
the ,rant of po+ers to the city ,o"ernment under the Local Go"ernment Code. As +e see it, t%$t +$s $" $t "ot o) o"t&o, 0ut
o) 1e&e su2e&v!s!o".

An oBcer in control lays do+n the rules in the doin, of an act. 0f they are not follo+ed, he may, in his discretion, order the act
undone or re*done !y his su!ordinate or he may e"en decide to do it himself. Super"ision does not co"er such authority. The
super"isor or superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are follo+ed, !ut he himself does not lay do+n such rules, nor does he
ha"e the discretion to modify or replace them. 0f the rules are not o!ser"ed, he may order the +or. done or re*done !ut only to
conform to the prescri!ed rules. 5e may not prescri!e his o+n manner for the doin, of the act. 5e has no @ud,ment on this matter
ecept to see to it that the rules are follo+ed. 0n the opinion of the Court, Secretary 6rilon did precisely this, and no more nor less
than this, and so performed an act not of control !ut of mere super"ision.

Si,ni-cantly, a rule similar to Section 187 appeared in the Local Autonomy Act, +hich pro"ided in its Section C * allo+ed the
Secretary of Dinance to suspend the e9ecti"ity of a ta ordinance if, in is opinion, the ta or fee le"ied +as un$ust,
ecessi"e, oppressive or con%scatory. 6etermination of these Ea+s +ould in"ol"e the eercise of $udg"ent or discretion and not
merely an eamination of +hether or not the requirements or limitations of the la+ had !een o!ser"ed< hence, it +ould smac. of
control rather than mere super"ision.

That po+er +as ne"er questioned !efore this Court !ut, at any rate, the Secretary of Justice is not ,i"en the same latitude under
Section 187. All he is permitted to do is ascertain the constitutionality or le,ality of the ta measure, +ithout the ri,ht to declare
that, in his opinion, it is un@ust, ecessi"e, oppressi"e or con-scatory. 5e has no discretion on this matter.

0n fact, Secretary 6rilon set aside the 'anila (e"enue Code only on t+o ,rounds, to +ith, the inclusion therein of certain ultra
vires pro"isions and non*compliance +ith the prescri!ed procedure in its enactment. These ,rounds a9ected the legality, not
the !isdo" or reasonableness, of the ta measure.
C. 8O# the prescri!ed procedure in the enactment of the 'anila (e"enue Code ha"e complied +ith:
The procedural requirements ha"e indeed !een o!ser"ed. #otices of the pu!lic hearin,s +ere sent to interested parties. The
minutes of the hearin,s and the records sho+ that the proposed ordinances +ere pu!lished in the &alita and the 'anila Standard
on April C1 and CF, 1$$=, respecti"ely, and the appro"ed ordinance +as pu!lished in the July =, %, F, 1$$= issues of the 'anila
Standard and in the July ?, 1$$= issue of &alita,.
The only eceptions are the postin, of the ordinance as appro"ed !ut this omission does not a9ect its "alidity, considerin, that its
pu!lication in three successi"e issues of a ne+spaper of ,eneral circulation +ill satisfy due process. 0t has also not !een sho+n
that the tet of the ordinance has !een translated and disseminated, !ut this requirement applies to the appro"al of local
de"elopment plans and pu!lic in"estment pro,rams of the local ,o"ernment unit and not to ta ordinances.

Вам также может понравиться