DOJ Opinion No. 062, s. 1980

DOJ OPINION NO. 062 , s. 1980 9th Indorsement April 29, 1980 Respectfully transmitted to the Honorable, the Minister of Education and Culture, our opinion on his within inquiry on whether the Mayor of Caloocan City has "the authority to approve and/or disapprove disbursements of Special Education funds [created] under R.A. 5447". Subject to the extended discussion hereunder, we answer the query in the negative, as regards the 60%-city share of the additional tax on real property collected pursuant to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 5447, but not as to the 20% thereof, which by express provision of Section 66 of the Caloocan City Charter (R.A. No. 5502) is retained by said City, to be expended exclusively for the purposes mentioned in Section 23 of the said charter and for such other school purposes as the municipal board the city mayor may approve. The query arose by reason of the issuance by the Caloocan City Mayor of a Memorandum dated May 31, 1979 enjoining the city Treasurer "not to disburse any amount from the Special Education Fund" without his (the mayor's approval. It is the mayor's view that under R.A. No. 5502, supra , the mayor is directed to safeguard all property (including money ) and rights of the city (sec. 9[b]) and therefore he must pass upon and approve all dispositions and disbursements of money of the city to safeguard its interests, and that if this provision of R.A. No. 5502 is in conflict with R.A. No. 5447, the former, being a local law and a later enactment, should prevail over the latter. On the other hand, you are in accord with the view of the City Superintendent of Schools of Caloocan that the Special Education Fund which is administered by the Local School Board is separate and distinct from local funds of provinces, cities and municipalities and it appropriation and disbursement are subject to the limitations of R.A. No. 5447 as implemented by rules and regulations issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Ministry of Finance; that the Local School Board is not a local government unit; and that disbursements from said Fund need no action from the Mayor since the School Board is the body which has jurisdiction over the fund, citing for the purpose the Opinion of the Secretary of Justice No. 41, s. 1974, and the Opinion of the Chairman of the Commission on Audit dated May 31, 1979. We believe that the position taken by the Schools Superintendent is legally tenable only insofar as concerns the 60 percent retained by the City pursuant to par. 1, Section 43 of R.A. No. 5447. Sections 4 and 6, of R.A. 5447 and Section 66 of Republic Act No. 5502 insofar as are pertinent provide: R.A. No. 5447 "SEC. 4. Imposition of additional tax on real property; disposition of proceeds: "B. Collection in the cities: "1) Sixty percent shall be retained by the city ; and "2) Forty percent shall be remitted to the Treasurer of the Philippines to be expended exclusively for stabilizing the Special Education Fund in the municipalities, cities and provinces under Section seven of this Act." (Emphasis supplied.) "SEC. 6. Functions of Provincial, City or Municipal School Board. The provincial, city or municipal school boards shall have the following functions: "(c) Authorize the provincial, city or municipal treasurer , as the case may be, to disburse funds from the provincial, city or municipal share in the Special Education Fund pursuant to the budget prepared under Section 7 hereof . . . and in accordance with the rules and regulations to be promulgated under Section 10 of this Act." (Emphasis supplied.) R.A. No. 5502 "SEC. 66. Application of proceeds of real estate tax. " From the collections on the additional tax of one per centum imposed under the provisions of the Republic Act Number fifty-four hundred and forty-seven , sixty percentum thereof shall be retained by the City and twenty percentum shall be remitted to the Treasurer of the Philippines for disposition in accordance with the said Act, and the remaining twenty per centum shall likewise be retained by the city to be expended exclusively for the purposes mentioned in section twenty-three hereof and for other school purposes as the municipal board and the city mayor may approve , and for the purposes hereof the provisions of section four, subtitle "B" of the same Act are hereby modified accordingly." (Emphasis supplied.) It is clear from the above-quoted provisions of R.A. No. 5447 that 60% of the proceeds of the additional tax on real property collected by the city is to be retained by the city and 40% is to be remitted to the Treasurer of the Philippines; and that it is the City School Board which has the power to authorize the City Treasurer to disburse funds from the city's share of 60%. Thus, in Opinion No. 1, series of 1974, the Secretary of Justice ruled that under the above-quoted provisions and the rules implementing the same, issued by the Secretaries of Education and Finance, " it is precisely one of the functions of the local school board to authorize the provincial, city, or municipal treasurer to disburse funds from their share in the Special Education Fund pursuant to an approved budget", without any further action on the part of the local legislative body. On the same premise, such disbursement needs to further action on the part of the local government executive. Furthermore, the law does not vest in the mayor any authority over such disbursement except to the extent that one of the members of the school board is a "representative of the City Mayor". (sec. 5 b, id ). Nonetheless, it should be noted that under the aforequoted provisions of Section 66 of R.A. 5502, the disposition of the proceeds of the additional tax on real property under Section 4, B of R.A. No. 5447, likewise aforequoted, has been modified in that the 40%, which under the latter is to be remitted to the National Treasurer, is now to be equally shared between Caloocan City and the national government, i.e., 20% is to be remitted to the National Treasurer and 20% is to be retained by Caloocan City to be expended exclusively for the purposes mentioned in Section 23 of the Charter and for such other school purposes as the municipal board and the city mayor may approve . Inasmuch as R.A. 5502 is the later enactment which should therefore be deemed to have superseded R.A. No. 5447 insofar as they are repugnant or inconsistent with each other (See Ibaez de Aldecoa vs. Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, 30 Phil. 228 /1915/), the provision of R.A. No. 5502 authorizing the City of Caloocan to retain the 20% share, above-referred to, must be deemed the prevailing provision. Accordingly, the mayor and the municipal board of Caloocan City are empowered to approve the expenditure of such 20% share. WHEREFORE, we reiterate our conclusion hereinabove expressed. Very truly yours, (SGD.) RICARDO C. PUNO Minister of Justice