RFPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMEFIT OF TIiE INTFNIOR AND IOCA,T GOVERNMENT

Froncisco Gold Condominium ll

Mopogmohol St., Dillnron
Quezon City

EDSA Cor.

OFFICE OF THE UNDERSECRETARY

DILG tegal Opinion No.05, S.2013
'r

MR. ITLORENCIO B. qUICOY, JR.

Department Head

FEB ?013

I-;nd Banl< ol rlrc Philil'ljnes

Antipolo Brancll
M.L. Quezon Sr., Antipolo eiry

BARANGAY SAN LUIS, ANTIPOLO CITY PUNONG

BARANGAY CONTROVEITSY

RE

Dear Mr. Quicoy, Jr.:

'l'his refets to youl request for. clarificatio' on this Depafiment,s Opinion No. 2,8,
20 l3 rclatir e ro two issucs, lo wil:

S.

1. Validity ofthe

Decision dated 02 January 2013 of the Sangguniang panlungsod

imposing upon you the penalry ofsuspension for six (6) months; and

2.

Whether the aforesaid Decision may be irr.rplemenred even betbre the lapse oi.
the fifieen (15)-day period providecl under Antipolo City Ordinance No. 942001

As regarcls the first issue, please nore that tl"ris Depar-tment deliberately did not
we have stated: "the Department will not unduly interwene on an
issue which is withir-r the jurisdictiorl of another body" since it appears that tl-rere was an
address the same since as

appeal of the decision of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Hence, there is nothing to be clarified

anent this issue.

With respect to the second

this Department resolved the

same by clariiying that the implernentation of the SP Decision shoulcl be made in the 1igl-rt of
the Citlr Orclinance, the latter having been stated in the opinion to be presumecl valid.
issue, please be advised that

Sj.nce the Dcpartment's Legal Opinion l-rad presuned tl-re validiry o1' the Citv
Ordinance anent thc enforceabiliry of the l)ecision stated above, tl-ren we have effbctively
declared that the implementation of tl-re Decision of the SP should comply with the period
provided in the ordinance. Therefore, the recognition made by Antipolo City Mayor Danilo
Leyble in favor of PB Andrei Zapanta on 7 |anuary 2013 finds basis in the said Ciry
Ordinance.

At this juncture, the fact that the election period (January 13 to fune 12, 2013) has
set-in within the lilteen-day period proviclecl by the ordinarrcc lbr the enlbrceability of the
SP Decision, then it becones incumbent upon the SP to seek rhe opinion o{ the COMELEC

ecblqatl'rg 20 qea o 6l .{6c41 4cdor.i'roq

an t&o

P&q4a*a.

as

to whether or not the ratter's

crearance shourd be a condition precedent for the

implemenration of the said Decision in rhe right of Secti.n 1 (A)(2)
of COMELEC Resolution
No. 9581 dated December 18, 2012 entitled: "IN THE MATTER oF ENFORCING
THE

PROHIBITIONS AGAINST APPOINTMENT OR HIRING OF NEW

EMPLOYEES,
CREATING OR F'ILUNG OF NEW POSITIONS, GTVING ANY
SALARY INCREASE OR
TRANSFERRING OR DETAILING A]VY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
IN THE CIWL
SERVICE AND SUSPENSION OF ELECTIVE LOCAL OFFICIALS
IN CONNECTION WITH
THE MAY 13, 2013 AUTOMATED SYNCHORIZED NATIONAL,
LOCAL AND ARMM
REGIONAL ELECTIONS", which provides, to wit:
"Section 1. Prohibited acts.

B. Suspend any elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay officer,

ur ess rhe suspension will be for purposes of applying the .,Anti_Graft arrd
corn:pt Practices Act" in relation to the suspension and removal of elective
offilcials."

Attached is a copy of the said GoMELEC Resoruti.n for your ready reference.
Hence, if you are raising the issue of recognition between pB Zapanra and Mr. cate,
you are hereby advised to raise the same before the GoMELEC, in view of the provisions
s[ated above.

We hope to have addressed your concern accorclingly.

Very truly yours,

AUSTERE A. PANADERO
Undersecretary
LS:87/l I