P1.3 billion annual budget presumed valid — DBM
THE authority of the Department of Budget and Management sustained its mandate when it issued the legal opinion that it does not only reviews appropriation ordinances submitted by a particular Local Government Unit, but submits its view that a submitted budget can be presumed valid.
Deemed as valid was the AO passed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod that enacted the P1.3 billion annual budget of Dagupan for 2023, contrary to the claim of the seven-member majority of the body.
In response to the letter of the SP majority questioning the validity of AO No. 2274-2023, DBM Director Ria Bansigan, in a letter dated November 30, 2023, to Vice Mayor and Sanggunian Presiding Officer Bryan Kua, said opinions of the DBM Legal Service citing as jurisprudence a decision of the Supreme Court in City of Batangas, the Sangguniang Panlungsod, and the City Assesor vs. Jose Virgilio Tolentino and the Secretary of Justice, could apply.
In that particular case, the SC held that “it is a settled rule that there is a strong presumption of validity in favor of the legislative acts, including ordinances which are presumed to be valid.”
The same decision said that consequently, the party assailing the legality or constitutionality of law has the burden of proving that the piece of legislation is invalid.
Another jurisprudence cited was the case of City of Cagayan de Oro vs. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc. wherein the Supreme Court held that “the presumption also extends to legislative acts of local governments, as well. Thus, ordinances too are presumed constitutional, and, in addition, they are also presumed consistent with the law
According to DBM, one of the requisites of a valid ordinance is that it does not contravene any statue of the requisites, contending that an ordinance that is incompatible with the law is ultra vires and is null and void.
Again in Social Justice, et al. Vs. Hon. Jose L. Atienza, the SC emphasized that “statutes and ordinances are presumed valid unless and until the court declares the contrary in clear an unequivocal terms, adding that the mere fact that the ordinance is alleged to be unconstitutional an invalid will not entitle a party to have its enforcement enjoined. “The presumption is all in favor of validity.”
To this end, DBM said when an action assailing an ordinance is brought before a court, “the judge must, as a rule, presume that the ordinance is valid and therefore charge the plaintiff with the burden of showing otherwise.”
Nonetheless, Bansigan said the recommendation or review actions of the DBM shall be confined to the declaration of whether the AO is operative or inoperative in its entirety or in part, or determination of whether the AO has complied with the requirements or conditions of the Local Government Code and other applicable laws, rules, and regulations. (Leonardo Micua)
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
