Republic of the Philippines DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ‘A. Francisco Gold Condominium iI Bidg., cor EDSA Mapagmahal Street, Diliman, Quezon City LEGAL SERVICE DILG OPINION NO. 2, S. 2010 January 08, 2010 PUNONG BARANGAY RAFAEL IBANEZ Brgy. 840, Zone-91 6" District, Mania Dear Punong Brgy. Ibafiez: ‘This pertains to your request for legal opinion regarding your act of withholding the honoraria of five Sangguniang Barangay Members of your barangay due to absenteeism, ‘Before answering your query, may we first lay down the principles goveming the ‘rant of honoraria to sangguniang barangay members. Under DBM Local Budget Circular No. 63, in relation to Section 393 of the Local Government Code of 1981, Sangguniang Barangay Members are paid in the form of honorarium, The Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM) defines “honorarium” as that remuneration given to @ public offical for services actually rendered. in the case of Santiago vs. COA (GR. No. 92264, 12 July 1961) “a honoraria is defined as something given not as a matter of obligation but in appreciation for services rendered a voluntary donation in consideration of services which admit ‘of no compensation in money.” Hence, the grant of honorarium is based principally on services actually rendered by the claimant thereof. ‘The most convenient way of measuring the services rendered by @ Sangguniang Barangay Member is attendance in sessions. Under Section 52 of the Local Government Code of 1981, Sangguniang Barangays are mandated to conduct two (2) regular sessions a month, The honorarium can, therefore, be divided into two (2) parts, ‘each representing each session. Hence, if a Sangguniang Barangay Member will absent himself from sessions he is entitled to receive only the proportionate amount of honorarium for services actually rendered. If he will be absent in both sessions for one ‘month, then he can be deprived of his total honorarium for that month. ‘Stated otherwise, the barangay government can validly withhold the honorarium due to a Sangguniang’ Barangay who failed to render actual services due to his UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES from the sanggunian session, However, we have noticed that in the demand letter of the five (5) members of your sangguniang barangay which was attached to your request you have allegedly transferred the time and venue of the regular session this 3° quarter of this year without the approval of the collegial bodyIn this regard, may we invite your attention to Section 52 of the Local Government Code provides: “Section 52. SESSIONS. — (a) On the first day of the session immediately following the election of its members, the sanggunian shall, by resolution, fix the day, time and place of its regular ‘session. The minimum member of regular sessions shall be once a ‘week for the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod ‘and sangguniang bayan, and twice a month for the sangguniang barangay.” In addition thereto, Section 50 of the Local Government Code provides that “on the first regular session following the election of its members and within a ninety {80) days thereafter, the sanggunian concerned shall adopt or update its existing rules of procedure.” ‘At this juncture, we find it imperative to answer the issue on whether of not the five (5) members of the sangguniang barangay are considered absent considering that the venue and time of the 3" quarter sessions of this year was not adopted and approved through a Resolution/Ordinance or House Rules by the sanggunian as a ‘cotagial body. ‘As a general rule, any session done outside what has been agreed upon by the majority of the sanggunian members concemed is void except when the members of the ‘Sanggunian had impliedly consented thereto by attending the session. Please note further that the law is clear, when it provides that the sanggunian shall fix the day, time ‘and place of its regular session. {As they alleged in the demand letter, the five (5) members of the sangguniang barangay have all the right not to attend the regular sessions during the third quarter of this year because the venue and time of said sessions was not adopted and approved through a Resolution/Ordinance or House Rules by the sanggunian as a collegial body. Coming now to your query, applying the above-cited provisions of taw and discussion, we find the demands of the five sangguniang barangay for the payment of their respective honoraria to be tenable. Although the five (5) Sangguniang barangay ‘members were absent in the regular sessions of the sangguniang barangay so that they ‘can be deprived of their corresponding honoraria due to their failure to render actual Services, we are of the view that their absences in said sangguniang barangay sessions fare nonetheless justifiable since you have transferred the time and venue of the Sangguniang barangay regular sessions without the approval of the sangguniang barangay as a collegial body contrary to the abovequoted provisions of the Local Government Code. ‘On a final note, we have attached herein a photocopy of DILG Opinion No. 54 series of 2000 as requested, Hope we have enlightened you on the matter. Very truly yours, unl ‘A: PANADET . io, Ce: Antonio L. Belaro. Josefina Castilla-Go ‘e/ City Legal Officer Regional Director City of Manila Region IV-A, Legal:94/core