ANOTHER DAGUPAN OPPOSITION SETBACK

APPROPRIATION ordinances submitted by local government units (LGU) to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) for review — bearing the official LGU seal, signatures of the Secretary and the Presiding Officer of the local council as well as the approval of the mayor — are presumed to have been passed with regularity, according to the department’s regional officials.

This was the position given by the DBM Regional Office 1 in a letter to the Dagupan City Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) on November 22, 2024 regarding the appropriation ordinances (AOs) approving Supplemental Budget No. 2 of 2023 and the annual budget for 2025 passed by the council on November 5 and 12, respectively.

The letter of DBM — marked as DMS Reference No.: 2024-RO1-0157516-E, signed by Ria V. Bansigan, Director IV, and addressed to Vice Mayor Dean Bryan Kua — was in response to Councilor Librada Fe Reyna’s November 12, 2024 claiming  that the budget-related ordinances passed by the SP lacked sufficient votes as provided by law.

She referred to AO No. 2299-2024 approving Supplemental Budget No. 2 worth P557.28 million, and AO No. O-898 authorizing the P1.608 billion annual budget of Dagupan for 2025 being passed without the required number of affirmative votes or at least seven, a claim rejected by the Department of the Interior and Local Government Director Jonathan Paul Lausen Jr.

She, however, did not state that three councilors had been preventively suspended.
Bansigan emphasized that the concern raised by Reyna does not pertain to a controversy within the review functions of the DBM, saying the authority of the department “as regards the review of LGU budgets as provided under Section 326 of Republic Act No. 7160 is limited to the confines of review of appropriation ordinances submitted by a particular LGU, the primary purpose of which is to determine whether the AO has complied with the budgetary requirements and General limitations set  forth in the  local government code, as well as provisions of general limitations set forth  in the  local government code, as well as provisions of other applicable laws”.

The DBM cited the Supreme Court (SC) decision in the case entitled “City of Batangas, the Sangguniang Panlungsod, and the City Assessor vs. Jose Virgilio Y. Tolentino and the Secretary of Justice, to wit: “It is a settled rule that there is a strong presumption of validity in favor of legislative acts, including ordinances which are presumed to be valid. Consequently, the party that assailed the legality or constitutionality of law has the burden of proving that the piece of legislation in indeed, invalid”.

It also cited the SC decision in the Cagayan de Oro City vs. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co. Inc., wherein it held that “presumption extends to legislative acts of local governments as well. Thus ordinances, too, are presumed constitutional, and, in addition, they are also presumed consistent with law.”

In Social Justice Society et al., vs. Hon. Jose L. Atienza Jr., the SC ruled that “statutes and ordinances are presumed valid unless and until the courts declare the contrary in unequivocal terms…so the mere fact that the ordinance is alleged to be unconstitutional or invalid, will not entitle a party to have its enforcement enjoined. The presumption is all in favor of validity”. (Leonardo Micua)

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments