\or*
Repub ofthe Phppines
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
DILG-NAPOLCOM Cart, EDSA corner Cusson Aver, Wee Trang, Guazon Cy
wp nig gosh
3.0 Wut 2018
on
ATTY. DAVID PAUL G. GARINGO LG OPINION N
Fernandez-Estavillo Flores Ballicud and Associates 0. fu s
40 Floor Robinsons-Equitable Tower » 2018
ADB Ave., cor Poveda Road, Ortigas Center
1605 Pasig City, Philippines
Dear Atty. Garingo:
‘This is in reference to your undated letter requesting this Department's legal opinion
on the validity of Resolution No 17, Series of 2014 entitled "A Resolution Prescribing Gertain
Requirements in Application of Barangay Certificate and Clearances, its Imposed Taxes, Fees
Or Charges for Services and Facilities of Barangay Dang Bakal”.
Foremost, this Department observed that even though this subject document was
labeled “Resolution” reading of the body of document appeared that the same is an
“Ordinance”. Nevertheless, a Resolution which undergone three (3) readings has the force and
effect of an Ordinance. Moreover, Section 1, Chapter 1 of the said Resolution provides that
“This Ordinance shall be known and referred to xxx". Hence, we treated this document as an
Ordinance.
In your letter, you raised the following queries, viz:
1. The Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay Daang Bakal did not conduct a public
heating prior to the passage of Resolution No. 17, Series of 2014 and Summit
Publishing did not receive any written notice of such public hearing, thereby
depriving it the opportunity to be consulted on the then proposed regulation
in violation of Section 277 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the
Local Government Code.
2. The same Sangguniang Barangay, upon inquiry by our paralegal Mr. Alberto
Eduardo Mirabueno, did not cause the publication of the main features of
Resolution No. 17, Series of 2014 in a newspaper of general circulation in
violation of Section 59(d) of the Local Government Code.In your first query, please be informed that the Department is an agency under the
executive branch of the government and as such, it has no authority to declare invalid any
ordinance or resolution of the local sanggunian, or any acts committed by the members thereof
which is alleged to be in violation of Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of
1991 (herein referred to as the “L.GC’) or other applicable laws.
Moreover, the Department is proscribed by its internal rules as provided in
Memorandum Circular No. 2010-02! to act on queries of the following kinds, to wit: xxx
2. Those presumptively valid acts, eg, enacted ordinances,
consummated acts that already enjoy the presumption of regularity on
the part of the public officer concerned, and similar cases;
Since the questioned resolution/ordinance was passed in 2014, the Department is of the
position that the same is effective and valid. Thus, only the competent court has the authority
to decide on the validity of an ordinance upon initiation of appropriate action such as a petition
for declaration of nullity of the resolution or ordinance?
In your second query, you cited Section 59(d) of the LGC and alleged that there was a
violation of law because there was no publication of the main features of the herein resolution
in a newspaper of general circulation.
‘This Department views otherwise. Notably, Barangay Resolutions and/or Ordinances are
not required by law to be published in any newspaper of general circulation. Section 59 of the
LGC is instructive, viz:
SECTION 59. Effectivity of Ordinances or Resolutions,
a) Unless otherwise stated in the ordinance or the resolution approving the
local development plan and public investment program, the same shall take
effect after ten (10) days from the date a copy thereof is posted in a bulletin
board at the entrance of the provincial capitol or city, municipal, or
Barangay hall, as the case may be, and in at least two (2) other conspicuous
places in the local government unit concerned.
b) The secretary to the Sanggunian concerned shall cause the posting of an
ordinance or resolution in the bulletin board at the entrance of the
" Supplement to Memorandum Order No. 2010-01 dated March 4, 2010 ( Requests for Legal Opinion from the DILG Central
Office)
2 DILG Legal Opinion No. 20,2016, 23 June 2016provincial capitol and the city, municipal, or Barangay hall in at least two
(2) conspicuous places in the local government unit concerned not later
than five (5) days after approval thereof.
4) Inthe case of highly urbanized cities, the main features of the ordinance or
resolution duly enacted or adopted shall, in addition to being posted, be
published once in a local newspaper of general circulation within the city:
Provided, That in the absence thereof the ordinance or resolution shall be
published in any newspaper of general circulation.
‘Therefore, your allegation anchored on Section 59(d) of the LGC on the violation
Barangay Daang Bakal was misplaced. The herein provision of law is explicit that it applies
only to ordinances passed by the highly urbanized cities and it does not cover ordinances
passed by barangays even if the same is within the jurisdiction ofa highly urbanized city.
In view of the foregoing discussions, it is this Department's opinion that Barangay
Daang Bakal, Mandaluyong did not violate any provision of the LGC for failure to publish the
subject Ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation within the city or any newspaper of
general circulation. It must be noted that the ordinance shall be effective only within the
jurisdiction of the barangay where the same shall be implemented.
We hope we have enlightened you on the matter.
Very truly yours,
BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY:
‘TIN B. DINO.
Undersecretary
Copy furnished:
Office of the Punong Barangay
Barangay Daang Bakal, Mandaluyong City
Shaw Blvd. cor. Gen. Kalentong Street
Dir. Maria Lourdes L. Agustin, CESO III
DILG-NGR
uw