Republic of the Philippines DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT A. Francisco Gold Condominium I Bldg, EDSA corner Mapagmahal St., Diliman, Quezon City OFFICE OF THE UNDERSECRETARY HG OvOMON NO 22 5 QJ February 28, 2007 MAYOR RUPERTO M. MARTINEZ Infanta, Pangasinan Dear Mayor Martinez: This pertains to your letter seeking this Department's legal opinion on whether or not the Sangguniang Bayan can question the Municipal development plan formulated by the Municipal Development Council (MDC) and remand the same to the MDC for clarification after its chairman failed to answer issues raised during the deliberation thereof. In reply to your query, please be informed that by statutory mandate, the formulation and initiation of the municipality’s development plan is the primary |function of the Municipal Development Council and the same Has to be submitted to the Sangguniang Bayan for its appropriate actian and approval pursuant to Section 109(a) in relation to Section 114(a) of the Local Government Code of 1991. Such submission and approval ate only for purposes of the enactment by the Sanggunian of the corresponding ordinance providing for legislative authorization of the budget for the proposed development projects consistent with the fundamental principle that no money shalt be paid out of the local treasury except in pursuance of an appropriations ordinance (Section 305{a), Ibid) It must however be emphasized that although the Sangguniang Bayan Is authorized by the Code to approve such municipal development pian formulated by the MDC only for the purpose as stated, such authority does not include thel power to modify, revise or alter the same, albeit, the Sangguniang |Bayan is not precluded from raising questions thereon for purposes of clarification In our DILG Opinion No. 46, Series of 2002 dated March 18, 2002, we had the occasion to opine that, precisely, if the Sanggunian Bayan is not amenable to the MDC’s approved projects and programs, the sald sanggunian should instead return it to the MDC with its comments and recommendations for LDC's proper considerationThus, in this particular case, the p; S, 2006 (Exhibit “B”), remanding the Jassage of Resolution No. 18, Municipal Development Pian (MDC Resolution No. 8, Series of 2005) for the purpose of clarification only, to our mind, is proper and in order. As to your corollary query on whet any plain, speedy and adequate remedy available for the local chief executive to plans, we answer in the negative. Indee similar remedy at this time or that such unless and untit the MDC re-submits the to the Sangguniang Bayan with the desi her or not there is appeal or in the ordinary course of law implement the development , there is as yet no appeal or remedy would be premature Municipal Development Pian ed clarification of the issues raised and the Sanggunian Bayan refuses to take appropriate action thereon or would actually introduce a alteration thereon which are proscribed Code of 1991 Hypothetically, therefore, in the ev re-submitted the Municipal Development| clarifications as required by the Sanggui refuse to act on it and approve the sai modifications thereon, then the local cl y modification, revision or under the Local Government ent that the MDC has already | Plan with the corresponding tian and the latter would stil @ or would even introduce lief executive shall have the cause of action to file a special civil action for mandamus in court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the Sangguniang Bayan to compel the latter to enact the correspon; legislative authorization of the budget fc projects grounded upon the statutory m Section 114 (a) in relation to Section 30: Code of 1991, as discussed above. without prejudice to the filing of an ad members of the sanggunian bayan for approve the Municipal Development PI Panlalawigan or the Ombudsman for cof interest of the local government or for u be warranted by the circumstances, und as Code of Conduct and Ethical Stan Employees We hope that we have enlightened cc; DIR, MANUEL V, BIASON DILG, Region 1 Aquila Road, City of San Fernando Lega 72/Merie ding ordinance providing for r the proposed development indate of Section 109 (a) and (a) of the Local Government he filing of the civil case is inistrative case against the their unjustifiabie refusal to lan before the Sangguniang duct prejudicial to the best professional conduct, as may ler RA 6713 otherwise known lards of Public Officials and | ou on the matter. Very truly yours, Ae A) WENCELITO T. oy Re }" Undersecretary