Bureau of Local Government Finance Opinion

January 9, 1997 BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE OPINION 1st Indorsement Respectfully returned, thru the Provincial Treasurer, Pili, Camarines Sur, to the Municipal Treasurer of Goa, same province. This refers to the letter dated November 12, 1996 of Vice Mayor Elias A. Pan of Goa as Presiding Officer of the SB and Enrico B. Enciso, Chairman, Committee on Rules, requesting opinion and clarification regarding the passage of the Revenue Code of the municipality. Representations are made that the SB enacted Municipal Tax Ordinance No. 11, s. 1996 on September 10, 1996. However, only five (5) members voted in favor of the passage of the same, hence, in a letter dated October 16, 1996, the Municipal Mayor requested the Sangguniang Bayan members to discuss anew the subject ordinance. Subsequently, the SB passed Resolution No. 105, s. 1996 informing the SP about the results of the voting made by the SB on subject ordinance, whereby a majority (6) of the members voted in favor of the ordinance. Said resolution was referred to the Provincial Legal Consultant, who under a letter dated October 60, 1996 opined that the tax ordinance is null and void ab initio because, the majority of votes of the SB was not obtained. The Provincial Legal Consultant opined further that "The subsequent Passage of Resolution No. 105, s. 1996, for the purpose of curing the defect in the enactment of said void ordinance did not validate said void act. In order for said ordinance to become a valid act, it should again undergo the usual Process by following strictly the procedure as mandated by law and the internal rules of the Sangguniang Bayan of Goa." In this connection, the following queries were posed: 1. Under the aforecited circumstances, is ordinance valid or "void ab initio"? 2. Is the Municipal Treasurer correct in collecting the tax upon the effectivity of the ordinance though pending review by the Provincial Board? On Query No. 1 Considering that subject Municipal Ordinance No. 11, s. 1996 is pending review by the SP, it will be this Body who, at the first instance, would determine the validity thereof. In the event that the SP approves the ordinance, it presupposes that said Body acknowledged its validity. However, if in spite of approval by the SP, the validity of the ordinance is still assailed, the matter should be raised before the Department of Justice which is the proper authority to resolve the issue pursuant to the provisions of Section 187 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC). On Query No. 2 Art. 258 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) implementing Section 170 of the LGC, states that " all taxes, fees and charges authorized under this Rule to be imposed by LGUs may only be collected by the provincial, city, municipal, or barangay treasurer or their duly authorized deputies, if a tax ordinance or revenue measure embodying the same has been duly enacted by the local sanggunian after the conduct of mandatory public hearing thereon and approved in accordance with the provision of this Rule." HSATIC Accordingly, treasurers or their duly authorized deputies may only collect the local revenues after the approval of the levying ordinance. (SGD.) LORINDA M. CARLOS Executive Director