G.R. No.
112497 | August 04, 1994
HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, PETITIONER, VS. MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, ET
AL., RESPONDENTS.
JUSTICE CRUZ
FACTS:
This case was decided on August 4, 1994, by the Supreme Court. The petitioner,
Hon. Franklin M. Drilon, in his capacity as Secretary of Justice, challenged the
respondents, Mayor Alfredo S. Lim, Vice-Mayor Jose L. Atienza, City Treasurer
Anthony Acevedo, the Sangguniang Panlungsod, and the City of Manila. The case
centered on the constitutionality of Section 187 of the Local Government Code,
which outlines the procedural requirements for the approval and effectivity of tax
ordinances and revenue measures. The Secretary of Justice had declared
Ordinance No. 7794, known as the Manila Revenue Code, null and void due to
non-compliance with the prescribed procedure and for containing provisions
contrary to law and public policy. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, however,
revoked the Secretary's resolution, upheld the ordinance, and declared Section
187 unconstitutional, arguing that it vested the Secretary of Justice with the
power of control over local governments, violating the policy of local autonomy
mandated by the Constitution. The Secretary of Justice then petitioned the
Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's decision, asserting the
constitutionality of Section 187 and the non-compliance with procedural
requirements in the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code.
ISSUE:
Whether Section 187 of the Local Government Code constitutional. And whether
the procedural requirements for the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code was
observed.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 187 of the Local Government Code is
constitutional, stating that the Secretary of Justice's power to review tax
ordinances is an act of supervision, not control. The court clarified that
supervision involves ensuring lower officers perform their functions in
accordance with the law, without substituting the superior officer's judgment for
the subordinate's. In this case, Secretary Drilon's actions were limited to
determining the legality and constitutionality of the Manila Revenue Code,
aligning with the constitutional mandate of local autonomy. The court found that
the City of Manila had complied with the necessary procedures, including
sending notices of public hearings, documenting minutes, and publishing
proposed and approved ordinances in newspapers. The court did not address the
substantive provisions of the Manila Revenue Code, as their validity was not
raised in the petition. The decision reversed the lower court's declaration of
unconstitutionality of Section 187 but affirmed the finding that procedural
requirements were observed.
