HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, vs. MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, VICE-MAYOR JOSE L. ATIENZA, CITY TREASURER ANTHONY ACEVEDO, SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNSOD AND THE CITY OF MANILA.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 112497
- Promulgated: 1994-08-04
- Ponente: Cruz, J.
Doctrine
The Secretary of Justice's authority under Section 187 is limited to ascertaining the constitutionality or legality of a tax measure and does not extend to exercising broad suspensive powers akin to control (contrast with Secretary of Finance power).
Publication of an ordinance in three successive issues of a newspaper of general circulation satisfies due process even if posting as approved is omitted.
Where the record (notices, minutes, and publications) shows compliance, the Court will uphold that the procedural requirements for enactment of a local revenue ordinance have been observed.
Facts
The principal issue is the constitutionality of Section 187 of the Local Government Code governing procedure for approval and effectivity of local tax ordinances and the remedy of appeal to the Secretary of Justice.
The petition had been dismissed for failure to attach a certified true copy of the challenged decision, but was reinstated after the required document was supplied on motion for reconsideration.
Respondents moved for elevation of exhibits; the Court examined them and agreed with the trial court that the procedural requirements for enactment of the Manila Revenue Code were observed, including notice, hearings, and publication.
Although the ordinance was not posted as approved and translation/dissemination of text was not shown, publication in three successive issues of a newspaper of general circulation was deemed to satisfy due process.
Issues
Whether Section 187 of the Local Government Code, which provides for appeal to the Secretary of Justice on questions of constitutionality or legality of local tax ordinances, is constitutional.
Whether the procedural requirements for the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code were observed, affecting its validity.
Ruling
The Court reversed the trial court's declaration that Section 187 is unconstitutional, thereby upholding Section 187 against the constitutional challenge.
The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the procedural requirements in the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code were observed; it did not rule on the Code's substantive provisions.
Keywords
G.R. No. 112497, Section 187 of the Local Government Code, constitutionality, tax ordinances, revenue measures, Ordinance No. 7794, Manila Revenue Code, local autonomy, power of supervision, power of control, Article X, Section 5(2) of the Constitution, BP 129, judicial power, presumption of constitutionality, Local Government Code, Article X, Section 4 of the Constitution, Article X, Section 5 of the Constitution, secretary, justice, power