.::e public oI the PhilipPirl.

es
DEPARTMENT rrF Tl{lti: INTERIOR AND LOCAL GqVERNMENT
A.Irrarcisco Gokl condo[ririum ll, tl]SA corner Mapagruahal St, DilinarlQUEZoN clTY
Telephone Nur:1lrcr 925.1 1 .48 ' 925.88.88 ' 925.03.3?
rvlv\t.(LLLg.gov ph

OFFIC [: {:)'F THE III{DERSECRETARY

L18al Ol:inion No.2 s.2013

I 17 JAN 20t3

HON. DANILO O. LEYBLE

i!{ayor, Antipolo City

Dear Mayor Leyble:

This has reference to vcr.u letter datecl 07 January 2Q13 requesting advice antl
enlightenment on the followrn6,, qurirles: {
I

"a. Whether u (ll,Lrrurn exist (sic) in rh. pres.r..p of oniy nine (9)
members out of eighteer (18) members of the Sangginian ro rr-ansacr
bus incss ?

b. Whether rh:
Decision dated ]anuary
]. 2013 of rhe
Sangguniang Panlungscitl of Antipolo in Adm. Case iNo. 2012 00.1 is
invalid and have no fblr:,.: and effect for failure to subirit rhe same for
approval ofthe SanggrLni:ir in its plenary session? i

c. Without admitting its validity, lvhether the saicl

ne c,:,r,sarily
Decision may be implerc enred even before the lapse oflfifteen (15) days
period provided for urrtler the Internal Rules of l'Socedures of rhe
sanggunian?" I

L-r addition, this Departn-relrt also received the following ndences, to r.r,it:

! Letter dated 06 Januarl. 20 [!; from Vice-Mayor Susana Gar Say of Antipolo Ciry, as
forwarded ro the Cenrral (l,ffice by DILG-Region IV-A r Josefina Castilla-Go
tlrru an lndorsemenc daLcJ L7 lanuary 2013, informing theisecrerary that pBZupenta
has no right of recourse ro r 11e Department insofar as his ve susPcnslon 1s
concerned. In Vice IVIayor iay's letter dated January 06, si're protested against
Punong Barangay Zapanta's alleged attempr to seek an 1'rorn this Departmcnt
as a case of forr:m shopiri;:1i since he already sought judicial relief in Special Civil
Action No. 12-1'232, entitt.rd: "Atty. Andrei f. Zapanta r/s. I-lonorable Vicd l\,1ayor
susan G- Say, et al."; rhat r l--e challenged decision of the panlungsod is
lrngguniang
valid and can be enforced despite the 15 day effecrir.iry 'period provided unclcr an
existing ordinance becar-lsie rhe latter cannot allegedly pre.{'ail over Section 6g cll the
l,ocal Government Code ln. her letter dated January 09i 2013, she furnished the
Department with copies of -he Notice of Appeal (widr Urgfnt Manifestation) filecl by
PB Zapanta before the C)lfir:: of the Presic"lent and the Ex $arte Motion to With4raw
Petition, which he also fileil before the Regional Trial C{urt (Branch 95), Antipolo
ciry.
)
! Lefier dared 05 January 201:] Irom Punong Barangay enar{i I. Zapanta, tsarangay San
Luis, Antipolo City reqrLeri.:ng DILG-Region IV-A Direcfor Josei'ina Castilla-Go to
render an opinion on the rzaiidity of the Decision of the S{ngguniang Paniungsod oi
lls more iun in thu ii q'-1 ,i, ,
Pi li. ii,cu;r'l i
 Antipoto City in Aclminisr'rLr:ive Case No. 00.1-2012 impo.{ng upon him the penaky of
suspension for six (6) monrhs for violation of Section 60 b)(c)(e) of Republic Act No.
7160, othenvise hnowrL irs the Local Government Code of 1991, specificall;' on its
alleged rssuance without t.he required number pf votes an cluomm,

,' iVlemora'rdum clated 0i3 January from DILG-Region IV-A Dirccror casrilla Go

implementation of rhe [langeuniang Panlungsod Decision.j

With regalcl to the lirst ancl second issues, we regrer ro inform you that the
I)epartn-rent canr-ror render a lep,rl opinion thereto since theyl are the proper subjects of
appeal. i

With regard to the thir,:.l ir;sue, please be inlbrmed that iri cases where the validity of
an ordinance duly passed by rhc local sanggunian is being aisailed, the Departn-rent has
consistently upheld the presunrptron ofvalidity in favor of the or]dinance in consonance with
jurisprrrdence t}rat. "It is a settled rule that an ordinance enjoys
ihe presumptiun of validity'
(Social /ustice Sociery (SfS), VlaaTlmir AJarique T. Cabigao and E
lnifacio S. Tumbokon versus
Hon. Jose I. Atienza, G.R. No, 1:i5052, February 13, 2008, citinp Vera vs. IIon. Judge Arca,
138 PhiI s6e, sBl [1e6e| ). I

In rhe c^se ol "nrmita-.llt'nl;rte Hote| and Motel Operatdys Association, Inc. vs. City
fuIayor of LIanila", (20 SCkl 8.19.), the Supreme Courr was rather thus:
lemphatic,
"Printarily what calls for a reversal of such decision is the
I
absence of any evicien,:e to offset the presutnptionl, of validity that
attaches to a challenged statute or ordinance. Alp was
categoricaJly by /usti)ce Malcolm: "The presumption
ls all in favor of
validity. x x x The ac'dan of the elected representatiles of the people
cannot be lightly set as.i":le. The councilors must, in tlye v.ry nature of
things, be familiar w1tlt the necessities of their paticllar municipality
and with all the facts atll circumstances which surounty' the subject and
necessitate action. The loca) Iegislative body, by enactiltg the ordinance,
has in effect given not'ce that the regulations are essential to the well-
being of the people. x x ,x." .{
i

And in Saa Miguel Lln::w.cry" Inc. vs. Magno. (21 SCR,{I 293), it was held that: ,,_4
municipal ordinance is not su4iect to collateral attack. Pubtric policy forbids collateral
impeachment of legislati ve act:;,. "
l

Finally, ir-r " Mayor Norbet.to M. Mendoza vs. Abstenenclia de Guzman, et a1.", G.R.
Nos. 156697-98, ()9 october 2t)0?', r]ne newly-elected mayor of Naujan, oricnral Mindoro,
questioned the validity ofan Ordinance enacted by the previous spr ofsa'gguniang Bayan on
the ground rhaL it was not deiiberated on by the aforesaid legiqlarive body in violation of
Article 107, Rule 17 of the Rules a'rd Regulations Implementing qhe Local Gorcrnment code
of 1991. The suprerne Court (Eir lla.c) rhrough an extended decis[o. helcl and rve quote:

"To reite,rate, a j:reLtijon for mandamus is not the

Rroper prcceeding
to raise the invalidi4,, d'' the questioned Ordinance. It ftas been held that
when a mwicipal cerf't t a tion has the power to enact ar] ordinance but

,4
l .r,
 a
Whether the Ordinance was indeed a falsified must be
resolved in a separate action. This would afford the parties the
to prove the validity of the Ordinance in an appropriate
Until thus resolved, the Ordinance in eaJoys a
presumption of ualidity, and petitioner as mayor is duty-
bound to implement it."
In this particular case, it appears that Ordinance No, 94-2001 has neirher been
repealed nor invalidared by rhe proper court under these
, it should be
accorded the presumption ofvaliclity like any ordinance passed the City of Antipolo.

We hope the foregoing sufficienrly addresses your co

ATTY.

Ls/17
.4

Copy furnished:
:

RD Josefira Castilla-Go
DILG-Region IV-A
FTI Coraplex, Taguig Ciry

Provincial Director
DILG-Rizal

Ciry Director
DILG-Antipolo City

Affy. Endrei J. Zapaura

Punong Barangay
Baraugay San Luis
Antipolo City