[36] DRILON v. LIM Court due to failure to submit certified true copy of the decision, but GR No. 112497 | August 4, 1994 | Cruz, J. reinstated it anyway.) Buen | Intl. o Grounds of non-compliance of procedure ▪ No written notices as required by Art 276 of Rules of LGC PETITIONERS/PROSECUTORS: Franklin M. Drilon (as Secretary of Justice) ▪ Not published RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: Mayor Alfredo S. Lim, Vice-Mayor Jose L. Atienza, ▪ Not translated to Tagalog City Treasurer Anthony Acevedo, Sangguniang Panglunsod and the City of Manila ISSUES and RULING: TOPIC: REMEDIES OF THE TAXPAYER • WON Section 187 of the LGC is unconstitutional. — NO o Section 187 authorizes the Secretary of Justice to review only the CASE SUMMARY: The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7749 (Manila Revenue constitutionality or legality of the tax ordinance and, if warranted, to revoke Code). Four oil companies appealed to the Secretary of Justice pursuant to Sec 187 of it on either or both of these grounds. When he alters or modifies or sets aside the LGC, which allowed the Secretary to determine the legality of a tax measure of a a tax ordinance, he is not also permitted to substitute his own judgment for local government. The Secretary nullified the ordinance finding that procedural the judgment of the local government that enacted the measure. requirements were not observed. The City of Manila filed a petition for certiorari with o Secretary Drilon did set aside the Manila Revenue Code, but he did not the RTC which ruled that Sec 187 is unconstitutional because it gave the Secretary replace it with his own version of what the Code should be. He did not power of control in violation of the policy of local autonomy, and that the procedural pronounce the ordinance unwise or unreasonable as a basis for its annulment. requirements were observed. Court reversed RTC, finding Sec. 187 as constitutional. He did not say that in his judgment it was a bad law. What he found only was that it was illegal. All he did in reviewing the said measure was determine if DOCTRINE: It does not give the Secretary the power of control over local the petitioners were performing their functions in accordance with law, that governments, but only the power of supervision. When Sec 187 allows the Secretary to is, with the prescribed procedure for the enactment of tax ordinances and the set aside a tax ordinance, it does not also allow him so substitute the ordinance with grant of powers to the city government under the Local Government Code. his own version of the ordinance. As we see it, that was an act not of control but of mere supervision. o Procedural requirements have been observed. FACTS: • The principal issue in this case is the constitutionality of Section 187 of the LGC. DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING the • The SOJ (on appeal to him of four oil companies and a taxpayer) declared challenged decision of the Regional Trial Court insofar as it declared Section 187 of the Ordinance No. 7794 (Manila Revenue Code) null and void for non-compliance Local Government Code unconstitutional but AFFIRMING its finding that the with the procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and for containing certain procedural requirements in the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code have been provisions contrary to law and public policy. observed. No pronouncement as to costs. • RTC revoked the Secretary’s resolution and sustained the ordinance. It declared Sec 187 of the LGC as unconstitutional because it vests on the Secretary the power PROVISIONS: of control over LGUs in violation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the • Procedure For Approval And Effectivity Of Tax Ordinances And Revenue Measures; Constitution. Mandatory Public Hearings. — The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances • Hence this petition. Petitioner's arguments: and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code: o Section 187 is constitutional and that the procedural requirements Provided, That public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the for the enactment of tax ordinances as specified in the LGC had enactment thereof; Provided, further, That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal: Provided, however, That such 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: Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction.