Facts:

Four oil companies and a taxpayer appealed to Franklin Drilon (DOJS) and
the latter declared that Ordinance No. 7794 (Manila Revenue Code) is null
and void for failing to comply with the procedure set in Sec. 187 of the LGC
City of Manila filed a petition for certiorari with the Manila RTC, which
revoked DOJSs resolution and sustained the validity of the ordinance, finding
that the procedural requirement has been met. BUT. The RTC declared Sec.
187 of the LGC unconstitutional because it vested in the DOJS the power of
control over loc govs, which it said is in violation of the policy of local
autonomy mandated in the Constitution and of the specific provision therein
conferring on the President of the Philippines only the power of supervision
over local governments.
Issue: whether Sec. 187 of the LGC is constitutional
Sec. 187
For approval and effectivity of tax ordinances and revenue measures:
Public hearing MANDATORY
Public hearings shall be conducted prior to the enactment
Any question on the constitutionality/legality may be raised on appeal within
30 days from its effectivity to the DOJ Secretary
DOJ Secretary shall render a decision within 60 days from the date of receipt
of appeal
*appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the
ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee, or charge levied
therein
within 30 days after receipt of the decision of the DOJ Secretary or if within
60 days the DOJ secretary does not act upon the appeal, the aggrieved party
may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction
Held: YES, Sec. 187 IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
Ratio:
power of control
o the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a
subordinate officer has done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the former for the latter
o an officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act.
o If not followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or
redone or may do it himself.
power of supervision
o the power of a superior officer to see to it that lower officers perform
their functions in accordance with law.
o Supervisor merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he does
not make the rules, nor can he modify or replace them.

o If the rules are not followed, he may order the work done or re-done
but only to conform to the rules.
o He cannot prescribe his own manner for doing the act, he just has to
ensure that the rules are followed.
o Drilon did precisely and no more than this.
SC held that Sec. 187 authorizes the DOJS to review only the constitutionality
or legality of the tax ordinance and, if warranted, to revoke such on either or
both these grounds. When he alters or modifies or sets aside a tax ordinance,
he is not also permitted to substitute his own judgment for the judgment of
the local government that enacted the measure.
Yes, Sec. Drilon did set aside the Manila Revenue Code, but he did not replace
it with his own version of what the code should be. He did not rule that the
Manila Revenue Code was unreasonable nor did he say that it was a bad law.
All he found was that it was illegal.
All he did was determine if Mayor Lim et. al were performing their functions
in accordance with law, meaning, with the prescribed procedure for the
enactment of tax ordinances and the grant of powers to the city government
under the Local Government Code. THEREFORE, it was not an act of control
but of mere supervision.
AS TO THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE
o In DOJSs resolution, his basis was there were no written notices of
public hearing on the proposed Manila Revenue Code that were sent
to interested parties.
o No copies of the proposed Manila Revenue Code were also published
in three consecutive issues of a newspaper of general circulation.
o No minutes were submitted to show that the hearings had been held.
o No copies of the measure were posted in prominent places in the city
o The Manila Revenue Code was not translated into Filipino or Tagalog
and was not disseminated among the people for their information and
guidance.
The SC held that the procedural requirements have indeed been observed,
but it issued no ruling on the substantive provisions of the Manila Revenue
Code as their validity has not been raised in issue in the present petition.