Republic of the Philippines Department of the Interior and Local Government CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Barangay Center, Baguio

City

DILG-CAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 1999 AMENDMENT RE: ORDINANCE -FACTS-QUERIESThe Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay Poblacion, Bakun, Benguet enacted Barangay Ordinance No. 01-95, s. 1995, otherwise known as An Ordinance Permanently Banning

the Sale and Consumption of Liquor, Beer and Other Intoxicating Beverages in Stores and Other Business Establishments in Barangay Poblacion, Bakun, Benguet. This
Ordinance was given favorable review by the Sangguniang Bayan pursuant to Resolution No. 96-52, s. 1996. Three years after the passage of the said Ordinance, the barangay officials and barangay tanods are facing difficulties in enforcing it since it was alleged that the Ordinance does not expressly provide who will arrest offenders. Whereupon, the MPOC drew up a set of "alternatives" for sustaining the implementation of the said Ordinance, particularly its penal provisions.

-ISSUESThe issue boils down to whether or not these "alternatives" are valid or legal, viz.: a) Amend the existing Ordinance. Do we need another three (3) public

hearings?
b) Formulation of Implementing Rules and Regulations for the said

Ordinance. If this is valid, is there a need for a public hearing? Who should formulate? What is the process? c) The Sangguniang Bayan to amend (if valid) Resolution No. 96-52 and provide therein mechanics of implementation.

-OPINIONOn the first option, may we state that, as a general rule, a public hearing is not a requirement in the enactment of ordinances. A public hearing is required as a mandatory requisite before enactment only in cases of local tax ordinances and

revenue measures, (Sec. 187, Local Government Code of 1991). Approval of barangay ordinances requires only the concurrence of a majority of all the members of the concerned sangguniang barangay and the same must be signed by the punong barangay, [Sec. 54(c), LGC]. Since the ordinance at issue contains penal sanctions, it must be posted at prominent places in the barangay hall for a minimum of three (3) consecutive weeks; said Ordinance takes effect at the date specified therein or at the end of the period of posting, whichever occurs later, [Sec. 511 (a), LGC]. Said barangay ordinance, by way of exception, does not even need to be published, (Ibid.). May we take the liberty to state that these public hearings are different from the socalled "three-reading principle", a parliamentary procedure incorporated under Art. 107 of the Code's Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) regarding enactment of ordinances and resolutions. These readings are simply procedural in nature and involve only the sanggunian concerned; they are different from public hearings, the latter involving the public. May we state, however, that this "3-reading principle" may be dispensed with in the sangguniang barangay. On the second option, may we state that the enactment of Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) concerning laws or statutes is generally provided in the law or statute itself. As to who would formulate the IRR, as to what period will it be formulated, and the process of its formulation shall be provided for in the law or statute under which it is being formulated. A careful perusal of the Ordinance at issue reveals that there is no provision regarding the formulation of its IRR. In this light, the option being contemplated is out of the question. In addition, may we state that implementing rules and regulations are provided for only when the statute concerned is broad and general such that its detailed implementation will necessarily require formulation of a corresponding IRR. Moreover, an IRR cannot rise above the law or statute it seeks to implement; such that, a provision that is not provided therein cannot be provided in its IRR. Necessarily, a sound ordinance should be specific enough so as to cover the essential details for its implementation. On the third option, may we state that a Resolution is a legislative action that is of temporary character, (Art. 107, IRR of the LGC). It is an expression of the sentiments or the declaration of a will, opinion, decision or position being rendered by the members of a deliberative body on certain issues and matters of public interests and has no permanent value, (R. M. Dihan, Handbook on Local Legislation, @ 1998, pp. 147-148). On the other hand, an amendment generally applies to legislative acts which are of permanent character. This is so since an amendment is just a revision of an act or statute that does not lose its main provisos after effecting such amendment. The sangguniang bayan Resolution at issue has only one subject matter; i.e., the favorable review of the questioned barangay ordinance. We cannot envision what possible amendment can be introduced in the said Resolution since the review process by the sangguniang bayan is confined only to a determination of whether or not the ordinance

is consistent with law and existing municipal ordinances. The barangay ordinance under question passed the test of legality and validity as manifested by the favorable sangguniang bayan review. In view of the foregoing discussion, we believe that the Ordinance at issue need only be amended, such amendment should embody the details regarding the enforcement of its penal provisions. By way of obiter dictum, may we point out that the punong barangay, as chief executive of the barangay government, has the power and duty to enforce all laws and ordinances which are applicable within the barangay, [Sec. 389(b)(1), LGC]. Hence, the Ordinance at issue, by itself, may be implemented even if the details for its implementation are not provided therein. In enforcing the said Ordinance, the punong barangay may call upon the other barangay officials and the barangay tanods to assist him. At best, the proposed amendment is superfluous. Our opinion, however, is without prejudice to an opinion rendered by a higher body or to a ruling from a competent tribunal. __________________ Opinion rendered on 23 November 1999 to PD PEDRO B. ANACIO, Provincial Director, DILG-Benguet Provincial Office, La Trinidad, Benguet

Prepared By:

Reviewed By:

EUGENE M. BALITANG Regional Legal Counsel

PATRICK D. ONUS Assistant Regional Director

Approved:

EVERDINA ECHALAR-DOCTOR Regional Director