PROVINCIAL LEGAL OFFICE

12 October 2020

Dir. Alex C. Roldan, CESO V

Regional Director
Department of Interior and Local Government XI
Davao City

Dear Sir:

This is in reference to the Ordinances enacted by municipalities within the

territorial jurisdiction of Davao de Oro which imposed as penalties either
imprisonment, fines and community service, or community service alone
or community service as an option. As a result, review by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolved to return the said ordinances to the
municipal council for refinement considering that the portion imposing
community service as a penalty is illegal in accordance with the Legal
Opinion previously rendered by the DILG in 2018. This office, in turn, has
rendered an opinion consistent with the view that neither the Revised
Penal Code nor the Local Government Code mention community service
as penalty. Imposing such will likewise be within the scope of the
constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude.

However, if community service is imposed not as a penalty per se but as

an option to the inability of the violator to pay fines, we are of the view
that the same will not be treated as a penalty or involuntary servitude.
We took notice on the provision of Article 24 of the Revised Penal Code
which provides that fines and other corrective measures that superior
officials may impose upon their subordinates in the exercise of their
administrative or disciplinary powers shall not be considered as penalty. 1
If community service becomes an option for violators instead of paying
fines, we are of the opinion that it only forms part of the corrective
measure and thus falls within the ambit of the General Welfare Clause
because of the opportunity for reform.

Consequently, to further shed us light and be clarified accordingly, we

would like to ask for your guidance and legal opinion on the following
issues:

1. Whether or not community service, as an optional penalty in view of

administrative fines can be validly imposed in violating an
ordinance.
1
Paragraph 4, Article 24, Revised Penal Code

Provincial Legal Office, 2nd Floor, Executive Building, Provincial Capitol Complex, Cabidianan, Nabunturan, Davao de Oro
 PROVINCIAL LEGAL OFFICE
2. Whether or not the reviewing board— the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, can validly approve portion and disapprove in part an
ordinary legislation or ordinance of municipalities or component
cities. At the outset we were of the view that the reviewing power
or the approval by the provincial board of the municipal ordinances
or resolutions shares the same with that of the Executive
Department in the national level wherein the President cannot veto
a certain provision of a bill unless it is an item veto such as in
appropriation or revenue bills. However, looking particularly at
Paragraph 3 Section 26 of the Local Government Code, the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan can declare an ordinance invalid in whole
or in part if it finds that such an ordinance or resolution is beyond
the power conferred upon the sangguniang panlungsod or
sangguniang bayan concerned. Nevertheless, we would like to
inquire if this provision is applicable considering that some of these
ordinances had already been effective and implemented after the
lapse of the period provided for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to
review municipal ordinances or resolutions.

3. In connection with the immediately preceding issue, we would also

like to inquire on the effect of the Municipal Ordinance that has
been duly approved and implemented by the Municipal Council but
has been subsequently disapproved by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan. What would be the impact as to the violations
committed, and as to the administrative fines collected, how are
they treated?
We hope to hear from you soon and shed us some light on the prevailing
issues at hand.

Thank you and more power.

Very truly Yours,

Atty. Niel John A. Villarico

Provincial Legal Officer
Davao de Oro

Provincial Legal Office, 2nd Floor, Executive Building, Provincial Capitol Complex, Cabidianan, Nabunturan, Davao de Oro