CONFLICTING OPINIONS ON “RECTIFYING” ORDINANCE

THE Department of Budget and Management (DBM) shared its opinion that the Sangguniang Panlungsod may not rectify an Ordinance on the Annual Budget that already passed the third reading and formally transmitted to the Local Chief Executive, meaning the legislative process was already completed and the executive consideration of the Proposed Ordinance already begun.

This was contained in the April 19, 2023  letter of DBM Regional Director Ria Bansigan addressed to the members of the SP through Vice Mayor Bryan Kua in response to the latter’s April 11, 2023 query dated.

Director Bansigan cited Local Budget Circular No. 112, dated June 10, 2010, as implemented by the Budget Operations Manual for Local Government Units, 2016 Edition provides in Part IV- Frequently Asked Questions the following analogous answer to Tehran query, to wit:

“14. Can the Sanggunian withdraw the Proposed Appropriation Ordinance which was already  submitted to the Local Chief Executive for Approval?”

Director Bansigan’s reply: “There appears to be no legal provision in such a case. However, it may be assumed that the withdrawal of the proposed Appropriation Ordinance my not be allowed since the legislation  process at such point had already been completed. Thus, the executive consideration of the proposed Appropriation should take its course.”

Vice Mayor Kua who posed the same question to DILG Regional Director Agnes de Leon on April 18, 202, received a reply earlier.

Director De Leon’s reply: “In the absence of a specific provision in the Local Government Code or your Internal Rules of Procedures that address your query, DILG Legal Opinion No, 09, S. 2009, dated March 6, 2008, and 19. S. 2009, dated April 8, 2009,  are  initially relevant to your query.”

According to Director De Leon, the Department maintains that “it is axiomatic that laws or ordinances can be repealed or altered by the adoption of succeeding laws or ordinance, and therefore, “this level is of the considered view that the rectification of the resolution and ordinance which are subject to this legal opinion, is permissible”.

When The DILG  legal opinion was read in part by Councilor Redford Erfe-Mejia before SP on April 5, the DBM opinion was not yet in.

Councilor and Minority  Floor Leader Michael Fernandez clarified that when Vice Mayor Kua sent the inquiry to DILG and DBM, Mayor Belen Fernandez’s vetoes to the subject resolution and ordinance were not yet submitted, and therefore, were not considered by the DILG.

He said records show that after Mayor Fernandez sent her veto to the resolution approving the AIP, the majority in the SP still pushed its resolution rectifying the AIP, which they watered down through amendment and revision without legal basis.

In the case of the ordinance approving annual budget, the majority deferred consideration of the measure after learning of the mayor’s submitted partial veto.

Councilor Fernandez said it was not a simple clerical error or inadvertent omission that the majority was correcting the annual budget but the P16 million that was not included on account of their wrong computation. (Leonardo V. Micua)

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments