Franklin M. Drilon vs. Alfredo S.

Lim
G.R. No. 112497, CRUZ, 1994-08-04

Legal Keywords/Doctrine:
The power granted to the Secretary of Justice under Section 187 of the Local
Government Code is one of supervision and not control.

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.

RTC Decision on Manila Revenue Code: Pursuant thereto, the Secretary of Justice had, on appeal
to him of four oil companies and a taxpayer, declared Ordinance No. 7794, otherwise known as the
Manila Revenue Code, null and void for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure in the
enactment of tax ordinances and for containing certain provisions contrary to law and public policy.
1

Contention:
The contention of both parties in the case is the constitutionality of Section 187 of
the Local Government Code, which grants the Secretary of Justice the power to
review and potentially revoke tax ordinances.

Facts:
The constitutionality of Section 187 of the Local Government Code, specifically
pertaining to the procedure for the approval and effectivity of tax ordinances and
revenue measures. The Secretary of Justice declared Ordinance No. 7794, also
known as the Manila Revenue Code, null and void for non-compliance with the
prescribed procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances. The City of Manila filed a
petition for certiorari, and the Regional Trial Court of Manila revoked the
Secretary's resolution and upheld the ordinance. The court declared Section 187
of the Local Government Code as unconstitutional, arguing that it violated the
policy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution. The Secretary of Justice
filed a petition to reverse the decision, arguing that Section 187 is constitutional
and that the procedural requirements for the enactment of tax ordinances were not
observed.

Issue:
The main issue in this case is the constitutionality of Section 187 of the Local
Government Code. The court must determine whether the provision violates the
policy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution.

Ruling:
The court ruled that Section 187 of the Local Government Code is constitutional. It
held that the provision only grants the Secretary of Justice the power to review the
constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances and does not allow him to substitute
his own judgment for that of the local government. The court emphasized that
the Secretary's role is one of supervision, not control. The court also found that
the procedural requirements for the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code had
been observed.

Ratio:
The court's ratio is that Section 187 of the Local Government Code does not
violate the policy of local autonomy. The provision only grants the Secretary of
Justice the power to review the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances and
does not give him the authority to substitute his own judgment for that of the local
government. The court also found that the procedural requirements for the
enactment of the Manila Revenue Code had been observed.