REPUBTIC OF THE DEPARTMENT CIF HE INTERIOR AND TOCAI GOVERNMENT Froncisco Gold Condominium ll EDSA tllor. Mopogmohol St., Dilimon Quezon Ciiy LEGAL SERVICE

DllC t eBal OPiuion \o.06 {. 2013 HON. HENRY M. AFABLE 22 FtB 2013 Municipal Mayor Maydolong, Eastern

Dear Mayor Afable:

This has reference to your letter dated z6 December 2012 requesting for this Department's opinion on the following queries, and we quote:

t. "Whether or not it became a ministerial duty on the part of the to pass Appropriation Ordinance No' to, Series of zorz by virtue of the comrritment undertaken by the municipality in Resolution No, 27, Series of zotz which is to appropriate the total Project cost composed of loan proceeds' equity and grant (if applicable);

of 2. "Whether or not the Sangguniang Bayan Members who voted in favor Resolution No.27, Series of zolz and had even affixed signatures thereon were already precluderl to vote against Appropriation Ordinance No' 1o' Series of 2o12 in view ol the above commitment;

3. "Whether or not the abstention of the lone Sangguniang Bayan Member should be interpreted to be acquiescence on her part to the subject Appropriation Ordinance No. to, Series of zotz and therefore counted as affirmative vote in addition to the recorded five (5) affirmative votes. It may be mentioned that the SB Member who abstained did not explain the reason/s for her action. (certifications of the sB secretary attested by the Vice-Mayor are attaclred); and

vote to 4. "Whether or not six (ri) affirmaiive votes constitute the majority make said Appropriation Ordinance validly approved by the Sangguniang Bayan of Maydolong so I can proceed with the implementation of the project."

Yourquerywaslmpelledbyyourmunicipality'sapplicationforaloanwiththe Municipal Development Fund office (MDFo) of the Department of Finance (DoF) for the implementation of the Municipal water system Upgrading Proiect. Per your letter and its attachments, the Sangguniang Bayan of Maydolong, under Resolution No z7, Series of 2o12' already affirmed the interest of the local government to apply, negotiate, and borrow funds from ihe MDFO for the purpose of finding a new water source and upgrading the local water system. The said resolution likewise authorized your good office to perform, for and in behalf of the municipality, certain necessary acts in connection with the implementation of the project.

The MDFO-DOF approved the loan amounting to Php l8.z Million. However, when the you requested the Sangguniang Bayan to pass an Appropriation Ordinance, out of

: -'--- *<5{F!d.,&r&rii!6-r"l""*{,.rr{'rrurt**!riiaa-:$*&tej*r!r:r, rlJ.*.Jrs*r!*1ibf,{infffiai$*F iii;r, r a,i'r:.*rrrdE. eelz6eall'1" 2O 7/e<.uw d{ Zoal 44to.t 1ttq t* tie Pii@t e4 eleven (11) Sangguniang Bayan Members, only five (5) members voted for the approval of Ordinance No. 1o, Series of zorz, four (4) voted against, and one (r) member abstained.

Hence your q u eries.

ln reply to your first and second queries, may we first invite your attention to the following provisions of the Locar covernment code of r99r (LGc) r"gards the enactment of local government budgets, to \vit: "s ..Section 3zr. Changes in the Annuol Budget. _ AIt budgetary proposals shall be included and consjdered in the budget preparatrcn process. After the local chief executive concerned shal have submitted the execut'tve budget to the sanggunian, no ordinance providing for a supplemental budget siall be enacted, except when supported by funds actually available o, ,"rti1i"d by th" Iocal treosurer or by new revenue sources.

, "A supplemental budget may also be enacted in times of public cqlomity by-way of budgetary realignment to set dside appropriations for the purchase of supplies and materials or the poyment of services which are exceptionolly urgent or absolutely indispensoble to prevent imminent danget to, or loss of, Irfe or property, juriscliction in the of the local government unit or in other areds declared by president the in a state of caraiity. such ordinance shar! crearry indicote the sources of funds avaitoble for appropriations, as certified under oath by the local treosurer and locar accountant dnd ottested bv the rocat chief executive, and the various items of appropriotions affected ond the reasons for the cl1onse."

XXX XXX

powers, " Section 447, Duties, Function s and Compensation. ,

"(o) The sangguniong bayon, as the legislotive body of the municipality, sholl enact ordinances, approve reso/utjons ond appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitonts pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the municipality as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shalt:

" (r) xxx.

" (z) Ceneral:e and maximize the use of resources and revenues for the development plans, program objectives ond priorities of the municipality as provided for under Section tg c>f this Code with porticular ottention to agro-industria! development and c

(i) Approve the annual and supplemental budgets of the municipol government and appropriate funds for specific programs, projects, services ond octivities of the municipality, or for olner purposes not contrary to lo\^t, in.order to promote the general welfore of the municipolity and its inhabitdnts; (ii) ttxx."

To begin with, it is our opinion that the Sangguniarrg Bayan of Maydolong exercised two (z) different functions in enacting Resolution No. 27, series of 2o12 and Appropriation Ordinance No. to, Series of zot:.

The enactment of Resoiution No. 27, Series of 2012 was an exercise by the Sangguniang Bayan of its power under Section 447 G) Q) (iii) of the LCC to "authorize the municipal mayor to negotiate and contract loans and other forms of indebtedness," while the enactment of Appropriation Ordinance No. 1o, Series of zorz was an exercise of its powers under the aforequoted Sections 321 and 447 (a) (z) (i).

The foregoing considered, it is therefore not accurate to contend that it became the ministerial duty of the Sangguniang Bayan of Maydolong to enact or approve Appropriation Ordinance No, 1o, Series of 2o1z by reason of its commitment under Resolution No. 27, Series of zotz. This is mainly due to the fact that these legislative enactments are separate and distinct from another, and the Sangguniang Bayan, as a collegial body, is supposed to exercise its own ludgment and discretion in the performance of said functions. This is especially true since the LCC under Section 3zr particularly allows the enactment of supplemental budgets only by w,ay of exception. Accordingly, it is likewise incorrect to say that the Sangguniang Bayan Members who voted in favor of Resolution No. 27, Series of 2o12 were precluded to vote in any other manner pertaining to a rrew legislative act.

Be that as it may, it is our considered view that any question as to the propriety of the specific acts of the individual members of the sanggunian concerned may very well be determined in the proper judicii:l proceeding as the issues herein raised are justiciable in nature and require evidentiary proof.

As regards your third ancl fourth queries, please be advised that this Department already had the occasion to clarify the issue pertaining to the abstention of sanggunian members in the votation during its sessions in DILG Legal Opinion No.32, S. zoo9, a copy of which is hereto attached for your reference.

Citing the case of Lopez vs. Ericta (L-32991, z9 June r97z), the aforementioned opinion stated in part that since "the Sangguniang Panlolawigan Member who cast hislher vote in the dbstention did not give ony rectson thereto, xxx, we are of the view that the abstention of that lone Sangguniang Panlalawigan Nlember should be interpreted to be an acquiescence on his part to the subject resolution authorizing the Provincial Covernor to enter into o loan agreement with the Landbank of the Philippines for the financing of the construction of seven () additianal school buildings. Therefore, the one (r) dbstention is, to our mind, considered affirmative vote in addition to the seven (7) offirmative votes on record. xxx."

The same principle applies in the instant query.

Please note, however, that the said opinion clarified that in the Lopez vs. Ericto case, "the Supreme Court did not jump the gun in declaring whether an abstention is either offirmative or negative vote" since the presumption espoused in said ruling is merely prima facie, i.e., in the absence of any clear evidence to the co!'rtrary.

Accordingly, absent any patent proof to the contrary, the abstention made by Hon. Marife C. Baquilod in the voting for the approval of Appropriation Ordinance No. 1o, Series of zotz should be considered as an affirmative vote, which leads to a reasonable conclusion that (6) affirmative votes out of the eleven (rr) total membership of the Sangguniang Bayan of Maydolong are sufficient to consider the said ordinance as validly enacted. This is principally due to the fact that Hon. Baquilod failed to give any reason for such abstention, as shown in the Minutes of the Regular session of the sangguniang Bayan of Maydolong, on o5 october 2o12, as well as in the certification dated zz December zorz issued by sangguniang Bayan secretary Garner M. Alura which you furnished this DeDartment.

In addition to the abovementioned queries, you again wrote this Department on i4 January zo13 by reason of the recent development in the municipality's Supplemental Budget No. 3, CY 2o12 as authorized by Appropriation Ordinance No. ro, Series of zorz.

Per your Ietter, your good office received a letter from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern samar, signed by provincial Board secretary Franklin N. Robedizo, "remanding" the said budget and declaring the ordinance invalid because it is procedurally flawed for faiture of the sangguniang Bayan to submit the certification under Article 4r7 (a) of the lmplementing Rules of the LGC, and for failure of the Sangguniang Bayan to muster the required qualified maiority vote for its passage. The reasons for said declaration of invalidity were based on the preliminary review rendered by the Provincial Legal Officer and Provincial Budget Office of Eastern Samar.

Accordingly, you would like to be enlightened on whether Appropriation ordinance No. to, Series of zolz was validly approved with five (5) affirmative votes, four (4) negative votes and one (r) abstention; and whether the opinion of your provincial Legal officer is correct that the affirmative vote of a majority of all the sangguniang bayan members is required for the passage of an appropriation ordinance.

We deem it unnecessary to answer your first query as the same was already sufficiently addressed above.

with regard to the issue on the required number of votes for the enactment of an appropriation ordinance, we have already previously held in DILG Legal opinion No. 13, series of zolo that an affirmative vote of a simple majority, not a qualified majority, is sufficient to enact an appropriation ordinance. A copy of said opinion is hereto attached for your reference.

We hope to have addressed your concern accordingly.

Very truly yours,

L5:03 (U,''