LOCGOV indeed not been observed.
(Petition originally dismissed by the
[36] DRILON v. LIM
GR No. 112497 | August 4, 1994 | Cruz, J.
Buen | Intl.
PETITIONERS/PROSECUTORS: Franklin M. Drilon (as Secretary of Justice)
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: Mayor Alfredo S. Lim, Vice-Mayor Jose L. Atienza,
City Treasurer Anthony Acevedo, Sangguniang Panglunsod and the City of Manila
TOPIC: REMEDIES OF THE TAXPAYER

 •
CASE SUMMARY: The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7749 (Manila Revenue
Code). Four oil companies appealed to the Secretary of Justice pursuant to Sec 187 of
the LGC, which allowed the Secretary to determine the legality of a tax measure of a
local government. The Secretary nullified the ordinance finding that procedural
requirements were not observed. The City of Manila filed a petition for certiorari with
the RTC which ruled that Sec 187 is unconstitutional because it gave the Secretary
power of control in violation of the policy of local autonomy, and that the procedural
requirements were observed. Court reversed RTC, finding Sec. 187 as constitutional.
DOCTRINE: It does not give the Secretary the power of control over local
governments, but only the power of supervision. When Sec 187 allows the Secretary to
set aside a tax ordinance, it does not also allow him so substitute the ordinance with
his own version of the ordinance.
FACTS:
• The principal issue in this case is the constitutionality of Section 187 of the LGC.
• The SOJ (on appeal to him of four oil companies and a taxpayer) declared
Ordinance No. 7794 (Manila Revenue Code) null and void for non-compliance
with the procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and for containing certain
provisions contrary to law and public policy.
• 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
of control over LGUs in violation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the
Constitution.
• Hence this petition. Petitioner's arguments:
o Section 187 is constitutional and that the procedural requirements
for the enactment of tax ordinances as specified in the LGC had
Court due to failure to submit certified true copy of the decision, but
reinstated it anyway.)
o Grounds of non-compliance of procedure
▪ No written notices as required by Art 276 of Rules of LGC
▪ Not published
▪ Not translated to Tagalog
ISSUES and RULING:
WON Section 187 of the LGC is unconstitutional. — NO
o Section 187 authorizes the Secretary of Justice to review only the
constitutionality or legality of the tax ordinance and, if warranted, to revoke
it on either or both of 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.
o Secretary 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
pronounce the ordinance unwise or unreasonable as a basis for its annulment.
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
the petitioners were performing their functions in accordance with law, that
is, with the prescribed procedure for the enactment of tax ordinances and the
grant of powers to the city government under the Local Government Code.
As we see it, that was an act not of control but of mere supervision.
o Procedural requirements have been observed.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING the
challenged decision of the Regional Trial Court insofar as it declared Section 187 of the
Local Government Code unconstitutional but AFFIRMING its finding that the
procedural requirements in the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code have been
observed. No pronouncement as to costs.
PROVISIONS:
• Procedure For Approval And Effectivity Of Tax Ordinances And Revenue Measures;
Mandatory Public Hearings. — The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances
and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code:
Provided, That public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the
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.