LEGAL

OPINION
FOR THE WEEK
 LEGAL ISSUE:
(DILG Opinion No. 18-2014)

Whether or not an appeal from the Order

of Suspension of the Mayor to the Office
of the President STAYS the
implementation of the same with
consideration to Section 9 of AO 22 and
Section 68 of RA 7160
2
 Section 68, RA 7160
“Execution Pending Appeal. An appeal shall not
prevent a decision from becoming final or executory.
The respondent shall be considered as having been
placed under preventive suspension during the
pendency of an appeal in the event he wins such
appeal. In the event the appeal results in an
exoneration, he shall be paid his salary and such other
emoluments during the pendency of the appeal.
3
 AO 22, S. 2011
(Prescribing the rules and regulations governing appeals
to the office of the president of the philippines)
“Stay of execution. The execution of the
decision/resolution/order appealed from is STAYED
upon the filing of the Notice of Appeal within the
period prescribed herein, provided that the stay of
execution shall not apply (a) where provided by special
law, and (b) in decisions/resolutions/order of the
Department of Interior and Local Government
pursuant to AO No. 23 (s.4 1992), as amended. x x x”
 DOJ’s LEGAL OPINION
(November 28, 2012)
“Basic is the rule in statutory interpretation that
when the law is clear, plain and free from
ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning
without attempted interpretation. Known as the
plain meaning rule, or verta egis non est
recedendum, or from the words of a statute there
should be no departure.”
5
“Evidently, the execution of the decision / resolution /
order issued by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan on
appeal to the Office of the President is STAYED upon
the filing of the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed
period. The stay of execution provided above shall,
however, not apply to the following cases, to wit: (a)
where provided by special law; and (b) in decisions /
resolutions / order of the DILG pursuant to A.O. No.
23 (s.1992), as amended.”
6
 “In other words, the decision of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan on appeal to the Office of the President is
DEFERRED during the pendency of appeal as it may
deem just and reasonable, except in cases under
special law and under A.O. No. 23.”

7
 “
DOJ’s LEGAL OPINION
(May 7, 2013)

“Nonetheless, for your information and guidance

only, the Supreme Court, in Berces vs. Guingona,
Jr., 241 SCRA 539, has had occasion to pass upon
Section 68, in relation to then Section 6 of
Administrative Order No. 18, s. 1987, the
predecessor of A.O. No. 22 on the effect of the
perfection of the appeal to the O.P., thus:

8
 “
“The first sentence of Section 68 merely provides
that an appeal shall not prevent a decision from
becoming final and executory. As worded, there is
a room to construe said provision as giving the
reviewing officials to stay the execution of the
appealed decision. There is nothing to infer
therefrom that the reviewing officials are
deprived of the authority to order a stay of the
appealed order. x x x"

9
 LEGAL ISSUE:
(DILG Opinion No. 18-2014)

Whether or not an appeal from the Order

of Suspension of the Mayor to the Office
YES!
of the President STAYS the
implementation of the same with
consideration to Section 9 of AO 22 and
Section 68 of RA 7160
10
UPDATES
MEMO dated JANUARY 16, 2019
“APPEAL TO THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT FROM DECISION /
RESOLUTION / ORDER OF
SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN
OR SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD”

12
“A reading of Section 9 above would suggest that the
filing of the Notice of Appeal STAYS
EXECUTION, if the same was filed within the
prescribed period. However, to determine
timeliness, an expressed declaration from the
Office of the President to that effect is a condition
sine qua non.

13
Thus, after seeking guidance from the Office of the
President (OP), the Department was advised to
require the party claiming a timely appeal to
obtain a certification with an order from OP
stating that such appeal was filed within the
period AND that the remedy has the effect of
staying the implementation of the decisions /
resolutions / order issued against him/her.”

14