Opinion No. 50, s.

2005

20 October 2005

MR. JOSE LEO N. BUENA

Sangguniang Bayan Member
Baao, Camarines Sur

Dear Sir:

This pertains to your letter requesting our opinion on matters

regarding the Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP) of the Sangguniang
Bayan.

After reading your letter, we came up with a summary of issues

you would like to be enlightened, to wit:

1. In what form should the IRP be adopted; should it be

by way of an ordinance or a resolution? If in an
ordinance, is it subject to the review powers of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan?

2. Can the IRP contain provisions which are repugnant

to the provisions of the Local Government Code?

With respect to issue no. 1, the determination of whether or not

the IRP of a particular sanggunian has to be adopted by way of a
resolution or ordinance is relevant because if the IRP is to be adopted
by way of an ordinance, you are of the view that the same has to be
submitted to the Mayor for his approval per Section 54 of the Local
Government Code.

Thus, please allow us first to distinguish between an ordinance

and a resolution. It is noted that the product of the sanggunian after
deliberating on a particular matter could either be an ordinance or a
resolution. In the case of “Municipality of Parañaque vs. VM Realty
Corporation” (292 SCRA 678, 20 July 1998), the Supreme Court ruled
that “an ordinance is a law but a resolution is merely a declaration
of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific
matter. An ordinance possesses a general and permanent character
but a resolution is temporary in nature. Additionally, the two are
enacted differently – a third reading is not necessary for a
resolution unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the
sanggunian members”.

Coming now to your first issue, it is worthy of note that IRPs

may vary from one sanggunian to the other. The new sanggunian may
or may not adopt the previous IRP of the former sanggunian.
Accordingly, being in the nature of a temporary rule, IRPs are to be
adopted in the form of a resolution.
 -2-

The next issue that would now confront us is whether or not all
ordinances and resolutions passed by the sanggunian are to be
submitted to the Mayor for his approval. In this regard, may we invite
your attention to Section 54 (a) of the Local Government Code, which
we hereunder quote:

“(a) Every ordinance enacted by the sangguniang

panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or
sangguniang bayan shall be presented to the provincial
governor or city or municipal mayor, as the case may be.
If the local chief executive concerned approves the same,
he shall affix his signature on each and every page
thereof; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same
with his objections to the sanggunian, which may
proceed to reconsider the same. The sanggunian
concerned may override the veto of the local chief
executive by two-thirds (2/3) vote of all the members,
thereby making the ordinance or resolution effective for
all legal intents and purposes.”

From the opening sentence of the aforequoted provision, it is

clear that all ordinances are to be submitted to the Mayor for his
approval. It bears to note that the first sentence did not mention
resolution. However, in the last sentence of the same Section 54 (a),
it made mention that the “sanggunian concerned may override the
veto of the local chief executive by two-thirds (2/3) vote of all the
members, thereby making the ordinance or resolution effective for
all legal intents and purposes”. This statement is seemingly
confusing considering that in the first sentence, there was no
mention of ordinance while in the last sentence, it made mention of
“ordinance or resolution”. This seeming confusion can, however, be
immediately resolved by reading Section 55 of the Local Government
Code pertaining to the veto power of the local chief executive. Said
section gives the Mayor the power to veto any particular item or items
of an appropriation ordinance or resolution adopting a Local
Development Plan and Public Investment Program.

Accordingly, if said Section 55 vests unto the Mayor the power

to veto any item of a resolution adopting a Local Development Plan
and Public Investment Program, it follows, by necessary implication,
that this kind of resolutions are to be submitted to the Mayor for his
approval. This would, therefore, explain why the last sentence of
Section 54 (a) made mention of both ordinance and resolution.

In sum, the rule is – all ordinances are to be submitted to the

Mayor for his approval. With respect to resolutions, the rule is – all
resolutions need not be submitted to the Mayor for his approval,
except resolutions adopting Local Development Plans and Public
Investment Programs, pursuant to Section 55 (b) of the Local
Government Code.

Another issue would again crop up on what particular actions of

the sanggunian that are mandated by law to be submitted to the
sangguniang panlalawigan for review. The answer is very clear, as
 -3-

found in Section 56 which provides that “within three (3) days after
approval, the secretary to the sanggunian xxx shall forward to the
sangguniang panlalawigan for review, copies of approved
ordinances and the resolution approving the local development
plans and public investment programs xxx”. Hence, with respect to
what are to be submitted for review, the law is clear that with respect
to ordinances, all ordinances are to be submitted to the sangguniang
panlalawigan for review. With respect to resolutions, as a rule,
resolutions need not be submitted to the sangguniang panlalawigan
for review except resolutions approving Local Development Plans and
Public Investment Programs which, under Section 56 of the Code, are
to be forwarded to the sangguniang panlalawigan for review. The
reason for the foregoing is that – resolutions approving Local
Development Plans and Public Investment Programs are, by their
nature, considered ordinances since they also provide permanent
rule of conduct.

Foregoing considered, since, as earlier stated, the IRPs of the

Sangguniang Bayan are to be adopted by way of a resolution and not
an ordinance, and considering that this resolution is not a Local
Development Plan or Public Investment Program, then resolutions
adopting the IRPs are not anymore to be submitted to the Mayor for
his approval or to be submitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for
review.

In reply to your second issue, allow us first to discuss the nature

and sources of parliamentary rules of procedure. In the case of
“Romulo vs. Yñiguez” (L-71908, 04 February 1986), the Supreme
Court ruled that IRPs are not laws but are simply procedural rules to
be observed by the sanggunian for its orderly conduct of sessions and
thus it can even be waived, disregarded or suspended by the
deliberative body.

The sources of parliamentary procedure, arranged in

hierarchical order, are the following: (1) the 1987 Constitution; (2)
the Local Government Code; (3) Judicial Decisions; (4) Adopted
Internal Rules of Procedure; (5) Parliamentary Practice; (6)
Parliamentary Authors; and (7) Customs and Usages.

To illustrate this order of hierarchy, if there could be found in

the 1987 Constitution parliamentary rules that are applicable to the
sanggunian, then the same should be applied to the exclusion of the
rest. Perusing the 1987 Constitution would yield no parliamentary
rules made applicable to the sanggunian. What the Constitution
provided are some rules or procedures to be observed by Congress.
The next in line is the Local Government Code. It bears stressing that
Sections 48 to 59 of the Local Government Code provided for some
parliamentary rules applicable to the sanggunians, such as: Presiding
Officership; Adoption of IRPs; Approval of Ordinances; Veto Power
Over Ordinances; and in certain cases, Resolutions; Review by Higher
Level Sanggunians; Effectivity of Ordinances; among others.

If a particular parliamentary rule is provided for under the

Code, then it takes precedence over the lower sources of
 -4-

parliamentary rules. It is noted that Adopted Internal Rules come

only as 4th source of parliamentary procedure. Accordingly, while
there is no debate that the sanggunian may adopt its own IRP, the
same, however, should not be repugnant to Judicial Decisions, the
Local Government Code and the 1987 Constitution, considering that
in the hierarchy, the latter sources enjoy higher priority. Such being
the case, the Adopted Internal Rules may only adopt those rules not
yet governed by the Code, the Constitution or Judicial Decisions.
Along this line, it bears stressing how the Local Government Code
defined quorum. Section 53 (a) of the Local Government Code
provides:

“(a) A majority of all the members of the

sanggunian who have been elected and qualified shall
constitute a quorum to transact official business. Should
a question of quorum be raised during a session, the
presiding officer shall immediately proceed to call the
roll of the members and thereafter announce the
results.”

Hence, quorum required for the sanggunian to do business is

fixed by law and under the Local Government Code, this number is
equivalent to the majority of all the members thereof who have been
elected and qualified. Unless a bigger majority is prescribed by law,
quorum, in parliamentary practice, is fifty percent (50%) plus one (1)
of actual membership or that number which is greater than half of the
membership of the body. For the record, the Sanggunian Bayan is
made up of eleven (11) members broken down in this wise: (a) eight
[8] regular members; (b) two [2] ex-officio members (the Liga ng mga
Barangay President and SK Federation President); and (c) the Vice
Mayor as Presiding Officer. Note that the Vice Mayor as Presiding
Officer of the sanggunian is a composite member thereof pursuant to
Section 446 of the Local Government Code, and pertinent ruling of
the Supreme Court (Gamboa vs. Aguirre, 310 SCRA 867, 20 July
1999). Hence, in determining the quorum, we could use two (2)
formula: (a) 50% + 1; or (b) number greater than half. Either
formula, however, would give us the same result. To illustrate: in a
sanggunian with 11 members, dividing 11 with 2 would give us 5.5.
Hence, 5.5 plus 1 is 6.5, but since there can be no fractional member
of a sanggunian, the appropriate thing to do is to go down to the next
lower whole number which is 6. Note that this number is also greater
than ½ of 11, which is 5.5.

With respect to your IRP providing for the Temporary Presiding

Officer, it is with much regret to inform you that said provision is
questionable. There is a specific provision in the Local Government
Code that deals on the same. Section 49 (b) of the Local Government
Code provides:

“(b) In the event of the inability of the regular

presiding officer to preside at a sanggunian session, the
members present and constituting a quorum shall elect
from among themselves a temporary presiding officer.
He shall certify within ten (10) days from the passage of
ordinances enacted and resolution adopted by the
 -5-

sanggunian in the session over which he temporarily

presided.”

Accordingly, since this is expressly governed by the Code, the

adopted IRP of that sanggunian cannot, in any way, alter, modify or
amend this requirement. Section 49 (b) of the Local Government
Code must always prevail over that of the IRP.

We hope we have enlightened you on the matter.

Very truly yours,

ANGELO T.
REYES
Secretary

Legal:43/La

cc: Director John Castañeda

DILG Region V
Legazpi City