Page |1

December 29, 2014

THE HONORABLE PRESIDING OFFICER , and

THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD
This City
Subject: VETO MESSAGE
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Today, I hereby sign CITY ORDINANCE NO. 12903-2014, known as the 2015
General Appropriations Ordinance (GAO) of Cagayan de Oro City, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNUAL BUDGETS OF THE
GENERAL
FUND
WITH
AN
ESTIMATED
INCOME
OF
P1,872,217,094.00 AND OF THE SPECIAL ACCOUNT: ECONOMIC
ENTERPRISES WITH AN ESTIMATED INCOMES OF P67,166,522.00
FOR THE CITY ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES AND P13,333,478.00 FOR
THE EAST-WESTBOUND TERMINALS AND PUBLIC MARKET, AND
P128,522,838.00 FOR THE J.R. BORJA GENERAL HOSPITAL TO
FINANCE ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES OF THE SAME AMOUNTS
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2015
Said signing, however, is subject to the exercise of my power to veto, pursuant to
Section 55 of the Local Government Code, on certain items thereof which I shall
hereinafter specify and discuss.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
An annual budget of the local government unit, or also known as annual
appropriation, is a vital document as it is the source of legal authority in disbursing local
funds necessary for the operation of the local government unit, including provisions for
the delivery of basic services to the local constituents. This vital document contains the
estimates of income and estimates of expenditures of one year operation of the local
government unit. An ideal local annual budget should be premised on policy-driven,
commitment, empowerment, and performance-based budget. It should be crafted in
such a way that it can effectively and efficiently respond to the needs of the local
constituents through the provision of programs/projects on general, economic and social
services, including infrastructure projects, public health and hospital services, social
protection and social justice, as well as governance reforms.
Pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code, the annual
local budget process consists of five(5) phases, namely: (1) Budget Preparation; (2)
Budget Authorization;(3) Budget review; (4) Budget Execution; and (5) Budget
Accountability.
The Budget Preparation Phase consists of cost estimation per program, project,
and activity to be undertaken by the local government unit, preparation of budget
proposals, and executive review of budget proposals. The key players in this phase is
the City Mayor and the Local Finance Committee (LFC), the latter composed of the
Veto Message 2015

Page |2

Local Planning Officer, the Local Budget Officer, the Local Accountant,and the Local
Treasurer. Pursuant to Section 316 of the Local Government Code, the LFC is vested
with the power and function, among others, to "determine the income of the local
government unit reasonably projected as collectible for the ensuing year" and to
recommend the appropriate tax and other revenue measures or borrowings which may
support the budget".
The product of this phase is the "Executive Budget" for the ensuing fiscal year.
Clearly, this is prepared upon receipt by the City Mayor of the statements of income and
expenditure from the City Treasurer.
Per Section 318, LGC, the City Mayor shall submit the executive budget to the
Sanngguniang Panlungsod not later than the 16th of October of the current fiscal year.
Please note that in this phase, the sanggunian has no role and participation yet,
as the function and power is legally appurtenant only to the City Mayor, the Local
Finance Committe and the different department heads.
The second phase in the local budget process is the Budget Authorization. This
consists of the legislative function of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of enacting the
ordinance authorizing the annual budget. This phase starts from the time the
sanggunian receives the "Executive Budget" submitted by the City Mayor and ends with
the enactment of the Appropriation Ordinance by the sanggunian and approval thereof
by the City Mayor. In this phase, the sanggunian will evaluate the budget proposed by
the City Mayor contained in his submitted Executive Budget. In the process, the
sanngunian concerned may conduct budget hearings. The Sanggunian also ensures
that all the budgetary requirements under Section 324 of the LGC are provided for.
The power of the sanggunian here is not without legal limitations. In this regard, it
is noted that per Art. 415, of the IRR of the LGC, the sanggunian cannot increase the
proposed amount in the Executive Budget nor include new items except to provide for
statutory and contractual obligations but in no case shall it exceed the total
appropriations in the executive budget. The prohibition on the increase is
understandable as an increase will result to budget deficit. While the sanggunian may
argue that that a decrease is not prohibited, it goes without saying however that the
sanggunian cannot unilaterally and arbitrarily decrease because the projected income
and collectibles have already been legally determined and fixed by the LFC in
accordance with its mandate conferred by law.
The product of this phase is the enactment of the annual appropriation ordinance
or commonly called, the annual budget.
The next phase is the Budget Review by the higher sanggunian or in the case of
a province, independent component city ,or highly urbanized city, by the Department of
Budget and Management.
The next phase is Budget Execution. This phase involves the release of
allotments and the certification of available appropriations and cash; it also includes the
recording of actual obligations and disbursement of funds for projects, programs and
activities to produce goods and services that will benefit the general public. A critical
aspect of this phase is the collection of funds, such that disbursement do not exceed
appropriations. While seemingly a separate activity, the collection and/or receipt of
revenues are considered an integral part of budget execution ( p. 172, Budget
Operations Manual for Local Government Units). Per Section 320 of the LGC, the City
Mayor shall be responsible for the execution of the Annual Budget or General
Appropriation Ordinance and supplemental budgets.
The last phase is Budget Accountability. This is essentially the accounting for the
performance of the local government based on the implementation and execution of the

Veto Message 2015

Page |3

annual budget and supplemental budgets. In this phase, the city mayor is the point
person per Section 320, LGC.
It bears to note that in the whole local budget process, the sanggunian's legal
and official participation is only in phase 2, i.e. the Budget Authorization phase. Act/s
made by the Sanggunian in other phases is/are bereft of any legal basis and is/are thus
considered not only outside the scope of its authority and undue interference in the
function of the executive but also illegal and constitutive of usurpation of public power
and function which is punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
ANTECEDENT FACTS
Against this backdrop, it is now crystal clear that the majority bloc of the
Sanggunian Panlungsod of this City has resorted to commission of illegal acts, such as
but not limited to, undue interference and usurpation of powers of the executive without
any noble motive but to undermine the performance of this present city administration
to the point of betraying the trust reposed upon them by the electorate of this city.
This grand design by the majority bloc of the sanggunian panlungsod of
undermining, for their own political interest, the performance of this new city
administration by resorting to illegal acts was initially manifested by the irregular and
illegal act of the sanggunian in reducing the submitted Executive Budget's estimated
and projected income and collectibles of the city for the ensuing fiscal year which was
already determined by the LFC in the exercise of its conferred powers under the Local
Government Code. This is a clear case of arrogating a power conferred by law to other
public officials. It has been established as early as November, 2104 the City, for the
year 2014, has collected at least a total of P2.7 Billion in gross revenues. How could the
Sanggunian come up with an income estimate of less than P2.1 Billion?
Realizing during budget authorization phase that this act of illegally reducing the
estimated or projected income and collectibles of the city for the ensuing fiscal year
shall be open to legal challenge or questioned by the Kagayanons or be brought to the
bar of public opinion, the majority bloc of the Sanggunian, in haste, enacted the Revised
City Revenue Code which was done whimsically and unsupported by empirical facts , in
the hope of reducing the revenues of the city in 2015. This reduction will be used or in
fact, has already been used to justify the reduction of items of appropriation contained in
the Executive Budget submitted by the City Mayor. This scenario would result to less
delivery of basic services to the people of Cagayan de Oro. This intended design will
however utterly fail, given the palpable illegality of the amendment of the Revised City
Revenue Code. Besides, even assuming arguendo that this amendment was legally
sanctioned, still the 2015 revenues will NOT be less than those in 2014.
For the record, let it be made clear that this administration fully recognizes and
respects the principle of separation of powers and system of check and balances.
While we adhere to the foregoing principles and systems, it is however important to
stress that this administration will not sit idly by or turn a blind eye to the abuses being
committed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod, abuses that are being conveniently being
justified as a valid exercise of the Sangguniang Panlungsods legislative powers.
Needless to state, the enactment of the 2015 Annual Budget Code is just one of the
many instances wherein the Sangguniang Panlungsod gravely abused the exercise of
its power and authority. Set forth below are some of the reckless actions intentionally
committed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod which undoubtedly have proven to be
prejudicial to the general welfare and interests of the City of Cagayan de Oro, to wit:

Veto Message 2015

Page |4

I.

Unjust And Unreasonable Withdrawal By The Sangguniang Panlungsod Of

The Local Chief Executives Authority To Identify Programs and Projects
Under The 20% Development Fund And The Denial Of The Supplemental
Annual Investment Plans Of 2013

It must be stressed that the funding for the 2013 projects of this administration
were mostly sourced, not from the 2013 Annual Budget, but from the Continuing
Appropriations for the years 2009-2012. Being part of the respective 2009-2012 Annual
Budgets, the applicable basis in the implementation of the same is not the current
investment plan but the respective Annual Investment Plans (AIP) for the said years.
However, I would like to point out that prior to this administration, there were really no
plans or a total resource allocation in the AIP to speak of, because past AIPs were
plans nor a total resource allocation in the AIP to speak of, because past AIPs were just
mainly Capital Outlay and 20% Development Fund (DF). The Sangguniang
Panlungsod, however, in the ordinances authorizing the respective annual AIPs/20%
DF, provided blanket authority to the City Mayor to identify programs and projects to
be implemented without the need of the Sangguniang Panlungsods authorization.
Thus, the past the Sangguniang Panlungsods authorization were used in identifying the
projects implemented by this administration, since it was only in June of 2013, before
my new administration took over, that the Sangguniang Panlungsod withdrew this
authority of the Local Chief Executive, to identify programs and projects in the AIP/ 20%
DF for 2013. Prior ordinances authorizing the City Mayor to identify projects under the
the 20% DF of prior years were, however, not withdrawn. Incidentally, it is our view that
the resolution made by the Sangguniang Panlungsod was tainted with malice, and
solely intended to paralyze this administration. Thus, clearly illegal and ultra vires.
Nevertheless, notwithstanding the above, the Local Development Council (LDC)
which was only finally convened in October, 2013, approved the Supplemental AIP for
2013 which already included all of the projects implemented by this administration in
2013. The LDC-approved Supplemental of 2013, together with the total AIP for 2014
were submitted to the Sangguniang Panlungsod for approval, in October, 2013. Worthy
to note, the role of the Sangguniang Panlungsod in this respect is virtually ministerial.
However, the 2013 Supplemental AIP was denied with no clear and valid reason and
described only as lost in the voting.
Thus, it is the stand of this administration that it may duly assert the effectivity of
the Supplemental AIP given at least the substantial compliance of the legal process.
Hence, this administration is of the position that the denial of the Supplemental AIP was
without legal basis, improper and ultra vires.
II.

Refusal Of The Sangguniang Panlungsod, Without Any Valid Reasons, To

Authorize The City Mayor To Enter Into A Memorandum of Agreement With
The Department of Social Welfare And Development (DSWD) To Access
And Utilize The Data For Anti-Poverty Programs And Services

The National Household Training System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR) of

the DSWD is an information system that targets the poorest of the poor in a respective
area. With the database, it becomes easier for the City Government to determine the
direct beneficiaries of its poverty reduction programs and social services. The
identification of the direct beneficiaries would in turn ensure the sound planning and
proper implementation of City Governments anti-poverty programs which would greatly
benefit the less privileged residents of the City.
However, in order for the City Government to gain access to the foregoing
database, the City Government, through its Chief Executive, is required to enter into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the DSWD. In this regard, the MOA required
to be executed into by the City Government and the DSWD was duly reviewed by the
City Legal Office and forwarded by the City Social Welfare and Development
Veto Message 2015

Page |5

Department (CSWD) to the Office of the City Administrator with the request that it be
endorsed to the Sangguniang Panlungsod for approval.
Thereafter, the request for the approval of the MOA and for the undersigned to be
duly authorized to the sign the MOA was forwarded to the members of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod, through the office of the City Vice-Mayor Caesar Ian E. Acenas.
Unfortunately, on 20 December 2013, Acting CSWD Officer Teddy A. Sabuga-a, Jr. was
informed, through the 1st Indorsement dated 19 December 2013 signed by Mr. Arturo S.
De San Miguel, City Council Secretary, that the MOA covering the implementation of
the NHTS-PR was disapproved by the Sangguniang Panlungsod during its Regular
Session held last 09 December 2013.
As may gleaned from the attached 1st Indorsement dated 19 December 2013, the
Sangguniang Panlungsod has not offered any valid reason or plausible explanation why
they opted to withhold their approval of the MOA and deny the City Government the
beneficial use of the database. Worthy to note, the execution of the MOA does not entail
any financial responsibility from the City Government. In fact, the City Government has
everything to gain and nothing to lose from the execution of the MOA. The MOA would
provide the City Government ready access to valuable information and data that would
help the City Government to effectively design and successfully implement its various
poverty reduction programs and social services. Thus, it is perplexing why the
Sangguniang Panlungsod would choose to reject the MOA when the same would
redound to the benefit and welfare of the City of Cagayan de Oro, specifically its
underprivileged and poverty stricken residents.
It is just fortunate that DSWD Secretary, upon being apprised of the Sangguniang
Panlungsods unjust refusal to approve the execution of the MOA, opted to push
through with the execution of the MOA between the DSWD and the undersigned, in his
personal capacity and not as the City Mayor. The foregoing set up would allow the
undersigned to access and retrieve vital data and information from the database, and
forward the same to the City Government so that it may use the said data and
information in its poverty reduction and social services programs.
II.

Unjust And Unreasonable Refusal Of The Sangguniang Panlungsod To Act

On The Farm-to-Market Road Project
The City of Cagayan de Oro is a recipient of a Farm-to-Market Road
(FMR) Project allocation from the Department of Agriculture (DA) for the CY
2014 in the total amount One Hundred Twenty Million Pesos (P120,000,000.00),
inclusive of the ten percent (10%) Local Government Unit (LGU) equity.
The FMR is a series of road projects in the Citys hinterlands barangays
from Lumbia to Tumpagon and from Besigan to Dansolihon. The FMR Project is
funded by the DA, with a ten percent (10%) equity or counterpart in the amount
of Twelve Million Pesos (P12,272,000.00) coming from the City Government. In
order to implement the aforesaid FMR Project, an ordinance needs to be enacted
by the Sangguniang Panlungsod authorizing the undersigned, on behalf of the
City Government, to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
the DA and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), as well as
enact an ordinance appropriating the sum of Twelve Million Two Hundred
Seventy Two Thousand Pesos (P12,272,000.00), representing the ten percent
(10%) equity or counterpart of the City Government for the FMR Project.
The deadline for the submission of the aforementioned requirements for
the implementation of the FMR Project was set by the DA on 31 March 2014.
Thus, Dr. Hector R. San Juan, City Agriculturist, immediately coordinated with
the DPWH and the different Departments of City Government in order that the
City Government may be able to come up with a draft of MOU and submit the
pertinent documents required for the implementation of the FMR Project.
Veto Message 2015

Page |6

As duly narrated by Dr. San Juan in his Status Report dated 03 November
2014, several hearings and meetings have been conducted by the different
committees of the Sangguniang Panlungsod with respect to the request of this
administration for the approval of the FMR Road Project. In the committee
meetings and hearings conducted during period of 27 February to 05 August
2014, the Sangguniang Panlungsod continued to block and/or defer the approval
of the FMR Project by conveniently seeking for the submission of various
documents. The latest of which was the submission of the so-called
Supplemental Annual Investment Plan (AIP) for the FMRs of CY 2014 by the City
Development Council (CDC), the issuance of a certification to support the
Certificate of Availability Funds of Twelve Million Two Hundred Seventy Two
Thousand Pesos (P12,272,000.00) as the City Governments equity taken from
the savings of the previous years, stating that projects from where these
continuing funds were taken had already been terminated and completed.
Worthy to stress, all of the documents required by the Sangguniang
Panlungsod, including the Supplemental AIP for the FMRs of CY 2014 by the
CDC, have already been submitted to them. However, despite the said
compliance and submission, the Sangguniang Panlungsod has failed to act upon
the FMR Project. And that the Sangguniang Panlungsod continues to refuse to
enact the required ordinance authorizing the undersigned to sign the MOA, as
well as appropriate the funds representing Citys equity for the FMR Project.
The unjust and unreasonable refusal of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to
act on the FMR Project is clearly detrimental to the public interest, specifically to
the residents of Citys hinterland barangays. Moreover, the DA has already
warned the City Government that if the funds allocated for the FMR Project will
not be utilized because of the delay in the released of the 10 per cent (10%)
counterpart of the City Government, it will be given to other cities and
beneficiaries or returned to the coffers of the National Government. Thus, it has
now becomes imperative for the Sangguniang Panlungsod to consider the best
interest and welfare of the people of the City of Cagayan de Oro and immediately
act on the approval of the FMR Project. To date, because of the pressure of
various sectors, it was only in Supplemental Budget No. 2 enacted on December
8, 2014, more than a year after the request was submitted, when the SP finally
relented and approved the FMR counterpart. The damage caused by the undue
delay in the implementation of projects, however, cannot be reversed.
VETO ACTION
I note the early passage of our proposed budget this year after experiencing
considerable delay last year. However, I must express my utter dismay to the
members of the majority bloc of the Sanggunian Panlungsod for their blatant display of
arrogance and disregard to our mandate of serving the people. They have turned the
whole budget preparation process into a concerted political vendetta, by the massive
deletions, changes and insertions in the resulting Executive Budget which I originally
submitted to that Body early in October this year. I need to emphasize that these
deletions, changes, and insertions are illegal, as they committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction. These are not allowed by laws
and DBM rules and regulations and must therefore be vetoed.
Pursuant to the power vested upon me by the Local Government Code of 1991, I
hereby veto the following items of appropriation in the above-cited Ordinance No.
12903-2014-2014, for being illegal, ultra vires as the Sangguniang Panlungsod went
beyond the legal parameters of its power or has acted beyond the scope of its authority
in passing the said items of the Appropriations Ordinance, and for being prejudicial to
Veto Message 2015

Page |7

public welfare as the deletions/reductions made by the Sangguniang Panlungsod on

certain items of the Executive Budget would definitely hamper and jeopardize the
delivery of the much needed basic services to the city's constituency, and to a large
extent, would adversely affect the programs/projects of the city to the prejudice of the
people we have sworn to serve, to wit:
I. DIRECT VETO
1. On Reduction of Income
Section 2. The Annual Budget of the General Fund with an estimated income of
P1,872,217,094.00 and the Special Account: Economic Enterprises with an
estimated income of P67,166,522.00 for the City Economic Enterprises and
P13,333,478.00 for the East-Westbound Terminals and Public Market, and
P128,522,838.00 for the J.R. Borja General Hospital, all for CY 2015 are hereby
approved sources of income as follows: x x x .
GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO: Illegal; Ultra Vires; Prejudicial to Public
Welfare; Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction; Encroachment of Executive Power
The total income estimates for General Fund and Special Account Economic
Enterprises Budgets, equivalent to its total appropriations of P3.8 Billion was reduced
by a staggering amount of P1.72Billion so the total approved budget is now down to
only P2.08 Billion (even lower than the 2014 Approved Budget of P2.3 B), reducing
the total income estimates submitted by the Local Chief Executive, as determined by
the Local Finance Committee (LFC) (Please see Annex A, on Comparative Statement
of Receipts).
Section 316 of R.A 7160 provides the following functions, among others, of the
Local Finance Committee, to wit:
Section 316. Local Finance Committee. - There is hereby created in every
province, city or municipality a local finance committee to be composed of the local
planning and development officer, the local budget officer, and the local treasurer. It
shall exercise the following functions:
(a) Determine the income reasonably projected as collectible for the ensuing
fiscal year; x x x.
In reducing the estimates of income, and in making their own estimates without
basis, the majority bloc of the Sangguniang Panlungsod in effect unilaterally, arbitrarily
and acting alone, determined the estimates of income of the city. This is highly irregular,
illegal and contrary to law as the Sanggunian Panlungsod cannot arrogate unto itself a
power which otherwise is conferred by the Local Government Code to another entity.
It bears stressing that the estimates of income of the city had been carefully
computed and officially certified as reasonably projected as collectible for the Budget
year by the members of the Local Finance Committee, pursuant to its mandated
function under Section 316 of the Local Government Code. This reduction made by the
Sanggunian Panlungsod clearly shows gross disregard, disrespect and distrust not only
to the Executive function of preparing the budget of the city but also to the clear
mandate of the above cited provision of law. This is clearly an encroachment of the
executive function to determine its available resources. Take note that the role in
collecting the revenues of the city is an executive function and never legislative.
Veto Message 2015

Page |8

At first glance, it seems that the SP majority simply misapplied the law. A closer
look, however, would show that there is more ill motive into it :
First, the unilateral reduction of estimates of income made would give justification
to the act of the sanggunian majority in reducing the amounts of appropriation of certain
items in the Executive Budget that are relevant and necessary to the City Mayor's
earnest effort to deliver without delay the needed basic services to the people.
Second, the said reduction is designed to force the city mayor to be subservient to
the sanggunian (majority) and in the process submit to its whims and caprices. The
scenario envisioned by the SP majority is so simple to discern. It is very certain that
as we move on to operate the budget, the actual collection of revenue would exceed
that of the reduced estimates of revenue determined by the Sanggunian. If this
happens, and this will surely happen, the city mayor will be forced to plead to the SP to
enact supplemental budgets in order to disburse the "decoy surplus", so to speak. This
would also justify why they revised and enacted the citys Revenue Code (an
enactment which is also wanting in form, substance and compliance with the
requirements, and therefore ultra vires).
2. ON APPROPRIATIONS (Section 3)
Likewise, I directly veto Section 3 of this Appropriation Ordinance, on a line-item
basis, the vetoed items of appropriation firmly indicated in Annex B of this
veto message, and as specifically discussed below:
A. Indiscriminate Deletion/Reduction of Personal Services, Maintenance and
Other Operating Expenses and Capital Outlay Appropriations of the
Departments/Offices/Special Programs/ Projects for Offices/Departments
under the Executive, and the Special Account: Economic Enterprises.
A.1 Reduction of some items of Personal Services
GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO: Illegal; Ultra Vires; Prejudicial to
Public Welfare; Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction; Infringement and encroachment into the executive power
Aside from the deletion of new positions in 2014 already incorporated in the
Plantilla of Personnel, under Sec. 17 of the Appropriation Ordinance which I
also veto below, I decry the reduction of some Personal Services requirement of
departments/offices. Among others, I note in particular the deletion of Overtime
and Night Pay of some departments and offices. These are needed
compensation granted to employees of the city government who render services
over and above their normal working hours and beyond the call of duty.
Overtime and night pay is authorized under Budget Circular No. 10 of the DBM
and has been regularly provided in the Budget for the past years. Likewise,
proposed Hazard Pay for CSWD employees authorized under R.A. 9433, the
Magna Carta for Public Social Workers was also not spared. Furthermore,
proposed new positions for 2015 was cut. These are much needed positions to
support the services of offices/departments, and these were carefully evaluated
by the LFC, and recommended within the Personal Services limitations. All these
deletions in the PS are without legal basis and arbitrary, thus a grave abuse of
the legislative power to authorize the budget.
A.2 Massive deletion/reduction of Maintenance and Other Operating
Expenses (MOOE) of Offices/Department under the Executive, and the
Special Account: Economic Enterprises (SA:EE)

Veto Message 2015

Page |9

GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO: Illegal; Ultra Vires; Prejudicial to Public

Welfare; Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction; Infringement and encroachment into the executive power
I also veto on a line-item basis the deletion/reduction of a majority of
regular MOOE items of Offices/Departments under the Executive Services and
the SA:EE, as specified in Annex B. I vehemently object on the
reduction/deletion of these regular MOOE items. This is too much. The MOOE
provided are even below the 2013 Actual Expenses. Under the generally
accepted rules and regulations on budgeting (i.e. Updated Budget Operations
Manual for LGUs by the DBM), a budget is supposed to be progressive and not
regressive. The reductions and deletions defy logic. This is prejudicial to the
normal conduct of services of the affected offices/departments and a grave
abuse of the Sanggunians power of the purse. This reduction or deletion is not
implemented uniformly because the MOOE of the offices under the City Council
was spared, meaning their MOOE increased by at least 45% or more from the
Proposed Executive Budget. This is clearly whimsical and arbitrary,
discriminatory and, therefore, ultra vires and prejudicial to public interest as it
would jeopardize the operation of the executive offices of the city. While the
reduction of a proposed budgetary amount may be within the power of the
Sanggunian, it should, however, be premised on genuine economy measures,
motives and prudence in government spending, and uniformly applied.
In particular, I take exception to the deletion of appropriations in the MOOE
for the services of Job Order (General Services/Other MOOE and Consultancy
Services). While appropriations for these services are increased in the Offices of
the Sanggunian, these services are virtually zero for offices/departments under
the Executive Services.
A.3 Deletion/Reduction of Appropriation of Existing Programs of the
Executive Department
GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO: Illegal; Ultra Vires; Prejudicial to Public
Welfare; Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction; Infringement and encroachment into the executive power
The subject items as presented in Annex C pertain to the funding
requirements for the operation of existing executive committees and special
programs and projects, duly authorized by previous ordinances of the city and
contained in the budget proposals which underwent the regular process of
budget preparation. The deletion of the above-cited items of appropriation will
certainly prejudice the operations of existing executive committees and the
implementation of approved programs/projects of the city government to the
detriment of the welfare and well-being of its constituents. It is ridiculous that
they are now suddenly stripped of their funding or reduced below the actual
expenditures in 2013. Besides, the breakdown/program of works of these
executive committees were in fact submitted to the Sanggunian within the
budget hearing period and have undergone the budget hearings conducted
by the Sangguniang Panlungsod. All these deletions were ill motivated. They
were meant to paralyze my Administration.
Specifically, I have to comment on the huge, inexplicable, arbitrary and
ill-motivated slash of the budget for my flagship project, the Philhealth
Indigency Program, from P240 Million to zero! While the reduction of a
Veto Message 2015

P a g e | 10

proposed budgetary appropriation may be within the power of the

Sanggunian, it should, however be premised on genuine economy measures,
motives and prudence in government spending, and not aimed to
shamelessly deprive the people of Cagayan de Oro their much needed health
services protection because of political greed.
Further, I would like to point out the unreasonable reduction or zero
appropriation for social services programs and projects of the City Social
Welfare and Development Department. To name a few: Programs and
Projects, Services for Children, like the Child Development Program,
Educational Assistance Program, Search for Child Friendly Barangay, Street
and Urban Working Children Program, Tuloy Aral Walang Sagabal (TAWAG)Children with Disabilities, Sagip Pamilya/Bata Para Hapsay Dalan; Program,
Projects and Services for the Youth, for Women/Families; for Persons with
Disability; for the Elderly/Senior Citizens; Institutional/Residential Services
Support Program; Program for Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster
Response; and, Program for Indigenous People (IPs). These programs are
specifically intended for the poorest of the poor of our constituents. Depriving
them of these important programs is not only illegal but also morally
repugnant and unthinkable. These deletions or arbitrary reductions of
appropriations were motivated solely to paralyze my Administration, rendering
it ineffectual and inutile.
A.4 Likewise, new programs and projects and regular capital outlay
(equipment, etc.) proposed in the annual budget, as summarized in
Annex D and Annex E, were deleted in the approved ordinance in
the total amounts of P503,397,914.00
(General Fund), and
P179,477,238.00 (GF/SA-EE), respectively.
GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO:
Illegal; Ultra Vires, and Prejudicial
to Public Welfare; Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction
The deleted items of appropriations were contained in the Budget
Proposals and in fact underwent the regular process of budget preparation. The
deletion of the above-cited items of appropriation will definitely prejudice the
approved programs and projects of the city government to the detriment of the
welfare and well-being of its constituents. Again, these deletions were motivated
solely to paralyze my Administration, rendering it ineffectual and inutile.
On Annex D. I take exception to the deletion of the special purpose funds
for Road Opening/Rehabilitation Projects for ten (10) road segments (P26.9M),
the Metropolization Development Projects(P2M) specifically geared to fulfill one
of my 8-point agenda; the Trade and Investment Promotion Center (P3.5M) and
a huge chunk for the various Infrastructure Projects/Programs (over and above
the 20% Development Fund) in the amount of P345.58 Million. If these
programs and projects should have been supported by the Sanggunian, these
would have meant more programs and projects for the people.
Likewise, I would like to point out the zero appropriation under the CSWD,
for the Oro Youth Development Council (OYDC), a council created through
executive order, to involve the youth sector in proposing and crafting programs
and projects not only geared for the youth sector but also for involvement in
mainstream programs and projects of the city. The Oro Youth Development
Veto Message 2015

P a g e | 11

Council, was created before to fill the gap in the absence of the youth sector in
the affairs of the city since the Sangguniang Kabataan was indefinitely shelved
then. The OYDC is a volunteer group, the desire to engage in governance
solely compelled by their sense of duty and mission to influence the the city
government to be more participatory and inclusive. The budget proposed for
them is not for compensation, but for necessary administrative expenses for
forums, studies, consultations, project and organizational support for youth
groups engaged in public quality education, disaster preparedness and solid
waste management, peace and order, health and good governance,
Likewise, the regular capital outlays (mostly equipment outlay) proposed
under each office/department were evaluated and recommended based on
actual need of each department/office. Outdated equipment or no equipment at
all, still subsists in the city government offices and this is lamentable that despite
the first class and highly urbanized status of the city, some city government
offices are dilapidated, and equipment are not updated and/or non-existent.
Finally, the J.R. Borja General Hospital which we are trying to upgrade
tremendously after being in a state of disarray and dilapidation, was given a
zero appropriation for its proposed Capital Outlay of P62.5 Million in 2015. This
would have been for hospital and medical equipment (P20M), office equipment
(P2.5M), Land Improvement(P10M), hospital improvement, repair (P10M) and
hospital building construction (P20M)
What prompted the deletion is tragically unthinkable and a product of a
systematic agenda to really cripple the budget to a point that the executive will
just sit down and receive compensation without any programs and projects to
work on. I will not allow this to happen even if this would mean an uphill legal
and political battle. We cannot afford to let our people be sacrificed.
A.5 The unprecedented cut on the budget specifically for the City Chief
Executive, on items specifically mandated under the Local Government Code.
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (Changes/Reduction)
Confidential Expenses

P500,000.00

Intelligence Expenses

500,000.00

Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses

200,000.00

Non-Office: Peace and Order Development

-0-

GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO: Illegal; Ultra Vires; Prejudicial to Public

Welfare; Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction
Lest I appear redundant and self- serving, I would like to invite attention to
the unprecedented cut of the appropriations for Confidential and Intelligence
Expenses including Peace and Order Development Fund (which includes
Confidential and Intelligence Expenses) which
were based on the law and
guidelines of the DBM (Budget Operations Manual), and Extraordinary and
Miscellaneous Expenses (Discretionary Expense) which were based on Sec.
325(h) of R.A. 7160. The reductions made since 2014 worsened in 2015, and
were without basis and clearly made to strait-jacket the City Mayor in its peace
Veto Message 2015

P a g e | 12

and order programs and discretionary/miscellaneous activities. The sharp

decrease in appropriation for these items were made only during my
administration. Please note of the following figures in the last six (6) years:
Particulars

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

17,000,000

19,000,000

20,000,000

21,000,000

5,000,000

500,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

19,000,000

5,000,000

500,000

3,540,400

2,000,000

200,000

-0-

Confidential
Expenses
Intelligence
Expenses
Extraordinary
and
Miscellaneous
Expenses
Non-Office:
Peace
and
Order Devt.
Total

2,771,111.56

2,517,912.08

3,869,575.22

15,000,000

15,000,000

15,000,000

15,000,000

48,771,111.56

52,517,912.08

56,869,575.22

58,540,400

-0

12,000,000

1,200,000

Quite obviously, the above items were regularly provided, without fail, with
appropriations up to its maximum, as allowed by law and guidelines. Thus, the
abrupt reduction/deletion of above appropriations is highly irregular and a grave
abuse of the Sanggunians discretion. While the reduction of a proposed
budgetary amount may be within the power of the Sanggunian, such should,
however, be premised on genuine economy measures, motives and prudence in
government spending and uniformly applied.
3. Section 4. Disbursement Requirements No funds shall be disbursed
under this budget without the approved work and financial plan and the
advice of allotment issued by the City Mayor or the City Vice Mayor, as the
case maybe, or their authorized representative.
GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO: Illegal; Ultra Vires; Undue Infringement;
Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
Encroachment into the executive power
The provision is an encroachment of the power and executive
prerogative which belongs exclusively to the City Mayor as conferred unto
him by the 2nd paragraph of Section 320 of the Local Government Code. It is
worthy to emphasize that said provision of the Code gives the authority to
operationalize and execute the Annual or Supplemental Budget solely to the
City Mayor as the Local Chief Executive of the city. Thus, per mandate of the
Budget Operations Manual of the Department of Budget and Management,
the Local Budget Matrix (Comprehensive Allotment Release Order) or the
Allotment Release Order (ARO) are to be approved by the Local Chief
Executive (LCE), in this case, the City Mayor.
Further, in a landmark decision striking down lawmakers Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or the Pork Barrel System as
unconstitutional (GR No. 208566,208493 & 2092510), the Supreme Court
declared that PDAF is unconstitutional because, a) the system violated the
principle of separation of powers in allowing legislators to wield nonVeto Message 2015

P a g e | 13

oversight, post enactment authority in vital areas of budget execution;

b) the system violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative power by
giving lawmakers personal, discretionary funds from which they are able to
fund specific projects they determine; c) the PDAF denied the president veto
power in creating a system of budgeting where items are not textualized or
introduced as line items into the budget bill; d) the system impaired public
accountability in giving legislators a stake in affairs of budget execution
when they should exercise congressional oversight. The Supreme Court also
declared that said practices it specified should never again be adopted in
any system of governance, by any name or form.
Specifically, the Supreme Court rules, thus:
The Court hereby declares the 2013 PDAF Article as well as all other
provisions of law which similarly allow legislators to wield any form of postenactment authority in the implementation or enforcement of the
budget, unrelated to congressional oversight, as violative of the
separation of powers principle and thus unconstitutional. Corollary
thereto, informal practices, through which legislators have effectively intruded
into the proper phases of budget execution, must be deemed as acts of grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and, hence,
accorded the same unconstitutional treatment.
4. Provisions requiring the submission to the Sanggunian, and approval of
the Program of Works through an ordinance
A. Section 5(a). Policies on Lump-sum Allocation on Fund Reversions.
(a) Lump-sum allocations in the 2014 Annual Budget shall be disbursed
only through an appropriation ordinance enacted by the City Council
and upon approval, by Ordinance, of the Program of Works
thereof.
B. Section 6. Capital Outlay. Lump sum funds for capital outlay shall be
disbursed in accordance with the approved 2014 Annual Investment
Program (AIP), and through an ordinance approving the program of
works and authorizing the appropriation thereof.
C. Section 9. (b) Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Fund:
Mitigation Fund Disbursement - The 70% of the LDRRMF allocated for
support to disaster risk management activities such as, but not limited to,
pre-disaster preparedness programs including training, purchasing lifesaving rescue equipment, supplies and medicines, for post disaster
activities, and for payment of premiums on calamity insurance shall be
disbursed in accordance with the program therefor approved
through an Ordinance.
GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO:
Illegal; Ultra Vires;
Prejudicial to Public Welfare; Undue
Infringement; Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction; Encroachment into the executive power
The above provisos which require that the program of works/program
shall be approved through an Ordinance are not only ultra vires but are also
clear encroachment of the power and prerogative belonging exclusively to
Veto Message 2015

P a g e | 14

the City Mayor as conferred unto him by the 2nd paragraph of Section 320 of
the Local Government Code. It is ultra vires because it is outside the scope of
the local legislative power of the Sanggunian Panlungsod. It is worthy to
emphasize that said provision of the Code gives the authority to
operationalize and execute the Annual or Supplemental Budget solely to the
City Mayor as the Local Chief Executive. Hence, once the corresponding
appropriations were already made for the projects/programs contained in the
approved annual budget, under Section 287 of the Local Government Code,
there is nothing more left to be done except for the City Mayor to execute and
implement the annual budget.
Further, Section 346 of the Local Government Code provides that
disbursements of local funds shall be made in accordance with the Ordinance
authorizing the annual or supplemental appropriations without the prior
approval of the Sanggunian concerned. Nothing beyond this needs to be
done anymore except to implement.
At this juncture, it becomes imperative to discuss the nature of the
legislative power of the Sanggunian Panlungsod. Settled is the rule that the
Constitution vests unto Congress the exclusive power to legislate. Congress,
by applying the constitutional principle of permissible delegation, in turn
delegated to the local government units the power to make local laws to be
exercised by their respective sanggunians. This is the clear import of Section
48 of the
Local Government Code and as bolstered by the same
pronouncements of the Supreme Court in a long line of cases. Thus, the
legislative product of Congress is called " law" while the legislative product of
the sanggunian is called " ordinance" . Being merely exercising a delegated
legislative power, the owner of which is Congress, sanggunians cannot rise
above Congress. It follows therefore that an ordinance cannot also rise above
a law.
Hence, the questioned provisos in the vetoed items cannot and can
never be given legal force and effect as they are contrary to law, in this case,
the pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code. It is also contrary to
the provisions of the Budget Operations Manual jointly promulgated by the
DBM and COA by authority of law pursuant to Section 354 of the Local
Government Code. In relation to Local Risk Reduction and Management
Fund (LRRMF), the Sangguniang Panlungsod again exceeded its authority in
requiring an ordinance in the approval of program of works and work plans. It
bears to note that under RA 10121 and its IRR, the LRRMF shall be utilized
and disbursed in accordance with the LRRMP formulated by the LRRMC. For
this matter, the LRRMF is even treated by RA 10121 as a special trust fund. I
should also add that these vetoed provisions are prejudicial to public welfare,
since it will constitute an unwarranted limitation and restriction to the
mandated power of the City Mayor to execute the Budget pursuant to law.
Finally, in a landmark decision striking down lawmakers Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or the Pork Barrel System as
unconstitutional (GR No. 208566,208493 & 2092510), the Supreme Court
declared that PDAF is unconstitutional because, a) the system violated the
principle of separation of powers in allowing legislators to wield nonoversight, post enactment authority in vital areas of budget execution;
b) the system violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative power by
giving lawmakers personal, discretionary funds from which they are able to
fund specific projects they determine; c) the PDAF denied the president veto
power in creating a system of budgeting where items are not textualized or
introduced as line items into the budget bill; d) the system impaired public
Veto Message 2015

P a g e | 15

accountability in giving legislators a stake in affairs of budget execution

when they should exercise congressional oversight. The Supreme Court also
declared that said practices it specified should never again be adopted in
any system of governance, by any name or form.
5.

Section 8. Use of Appropriated Funds and Savings x x x there shall be

no augmentation of any item in the approved annual budget for the
respective offices from savings in other items within the same expense
class of their respective appropriations or from one expense
classification to another either in the same office/department without an
approved specific ordinance authorizing such augmentation.
Grounds for Veto: Illegal; Ultra Vires;Prejudicial to Public Welfare;
Undue Infringement; Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction
I veto the no augmentation clause under Section 8 of the Appropriation
Ordinance for being contrary to Section 336 of R.A. 7160 and sound,
accepted budgetary rules and practice. This is another example of the
Sanggunians motive to undermine the performance of this present city
administration to the point of betraying the trust reposed upon them by the
electorate of this city. Take note that the augmentation clause was provided in
the annual appropriation ordinance since 2009. This is prejudicial to public
welfare as needed augmentations of the executive will surely go through a
rigorous and circuitous process in the hands of the Sanggunian and thus,
would definitely delay the implementation of needed programs and projects of
the city and hamper provision of administrative requirements to the executive
offices/departments. Take note also that augmentation of funds is done only
during Budget Execution phase and to be required to ask for authority from
the sanggunian each time a department would wish to augment an item from
savings within the same expense class, is precisely a post-enactment
authority required from the legislative which was declared unconstitutional by
the Supreme Court under the PDAF case.

6. Section 9(a) on Quick Response Fund Disbursement. I partially veto the last
sentence thereof which states, Provided, That there is already a declaration
of calamity by the Sangguniang Panlungsod in the affected areas.
Grounds for Veto: Illegal; Ultra Vires; Prejudicial to Public Welfare;
Undue Infringement; Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction
Section 12 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 10121
provides that the State of Calamity may be declared not only by the Sanggunian
but also by the President of the Philippines, such that if there is already a
declaration of the state of calamity by the President, there is no more need for
the Sanggunian to issue a declaration of calamity in the affected areas before the
30% Quick Response Fund may be disbursed. Thus, the above provision
arrogates unto the Sanggunian the only power to declare a state of calamity
which is not exactly the case if we read R.A. 10121 and its IRR and guidelines.
7. Section 13. Approval of supporting documents for fund under the City
Council. Pursuant to Section 456 and relevant provisions of R.A. 7160 on the
principle of separation of powers between the executive and legislative
departments and as per Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 161081 dtd. May
10, 2005 and Section 39 of the Manual on the New Government Accounting
Veto Message 2015

P a g e | 16

System for Local Government Units prepared by the Commission on Audit

(COA), the following documents covering all warrants drawn on the public
treasury for all expenditures appropriated for the operation of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod shall be approved by the City Vice-Mayor:
a) Project Procurement Management Plan
b) Approved Budget for the Contract
c) Local Government Procurement Program Annexes A, B and C
(Capital Outlay)
d) Financial Plan and Allotment Release Order
e) Work and Financial Plan Request and Request for Allotment (LBEF No.
251-B)
f) Purchase Request
g) Purchase Order
h) Disbursement Voucher
i) Program Appropriation and Obligation by Object of Expenditures
j) Personnel Schedule Budget (Local Budget Preparation Form No. 4a
and 5)
GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO:
Illegal; Ultra Vires; Undue Infringement; Grave
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

abuse of

The above provision particularly on the approval by the City Vice

Mayor of the Allotment Release Order of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
is not only ultra vires but is also a clear encroachment of the power and
prerogative belonging exclusively to the City Mayor as conferred unto him by
the 2nd paragraph of Section 320 of the Local Government Code. It is ultra
vires because it is outside the scope of power of the Vice Mayor. It is worthy
to emphasize that said provision of the Code gives the authority to
operationalize and execute the Annual or Supplemental Budget solely to the
City Mayor as the Local Chief Executive. Hence, once the corresponding
appropriations were already made for the projects/programs contained in the
approved annual budget, under Section 287 of the Local Government Code,
there is nothing more left to be done except for the City Mayor to execute and
Allotment Release Order (Local Budget Matrix) and Allotment Release Order
for succeeding releases. Nowhere in the Budget Operations Manual of the
Department of Budget and Management was it stated that the Vice Mayor
may sign the ARO for the Sangguniang Panlungsod nor was it stated that the
signatory of the ARO may be the Mayor or the Vice Mayor, as the case may
be. Section 320 of the Local Government Code is very specific in its provision
that the implementation of the budget is the sole responsibility of the Local
Chief Executive and nobody else.
8. Section 14. Disbursement of Local Funds and Statement of Accounts
Disbursements shall be made in accordance with the ordinance authorizing the
annual or supplemental appropriations with prior approval of the City Council.
Within thirty (30) days after the close of each month, it shall be the duty of
the City Accountant to furnish the City Council with such financial
statements as the case may be prescribed by the Commission On Audit. In
the case of the year-end statement of accounts, the period shall be sixty
(60) days after the thirty-first (31st) of December.
Veto Message 2015

P a g e | 17

GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO:

Ultra Vires; Undue Infringement; Grave
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

abuse of discretion

This is another provision where the Sanggunian intrudes in a jurisdiction

not of its own. This is beyond budget authorization now the Sanggunian wants
to go into Budget Accountability which is beyond its power as explained above.
By requiring submission of statement of accounts, they now place unto
themselves not only on the power of the Executive to assess its performance but
they also encroach on the auditorial power of the COA.
9. Section 16. Priority Projects/Programs Programs or projects of various
departments or offices considered by the City Council shall be given
priority funding in subsequent supplemental budgets for CY 2015 when
adequate funds are available for the purpose.
GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO:
Illegal; Ultra Vires; Undue Infringement; Grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
This is another proviso where the Sanggunian encroaches on the power of
the Executive to propose in a supplemental budget, its priority programs or
projects. Under the Local Government Code, a budget emanates from the
Executive and never from the legislative. This provision arrogates again to the
Sanggunian the budget preparation function of the Executive department. By
placing this section, it appears that items of appropriation of programs or projects
may not be proposed in the supplemental budget unless with prior approval by
the Sanggunian.
10. Section 17. Deleted Positions. The enumerated positions listed in the 2015
Executive Budget are deleted from the Plantilla of Personnel incorporated therein
presumably for lack of an enabling ordinance creating the said positions and the
appropriation ordinance allocating for the salaries and benefits thereof.
GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO:
Illegal; Ultra Vires; Prejudicial to
Public Welfare; Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction
The creation of said positions (Annex F) including appropriation therefore
was
already deemed
authorized in the Appropriation Ordinance and
incorporated in the Executive Budget, Annual Investment Program and the Local
Expenditure Program which were budget documents integral to the appropriation
ordinance.
Further, said creation was already passed in the review of the CY 2014
Annual Budgets of the city, by the Department of Budget and Management
Regional Office No. 10, in its letter dated August 26, 2014, paragraph 4.0 of
which provides, to wit:
4.0 The lump sum amount of P15,165,123.00 under Non-Office General
Public Services Sector for the creation of positions is subject to the
following conditions:

Veto Message 2015

P a g e | 18

4.1 The creation of positions is in accordance with the approved staffing

standards of the City;
4.2 It is the priority need as identified by the Local Chief Executive, the
Sanggunian and/or local development councils concerned
consistent with Section 17 of RA No. 7160;
4.3 All mandatory positions stipulated under RA No. 7160 have been
created and provided.
Xxx x x x.
Please take note that there was never any condition requiring a
separate enabling ordinance for the creation of positions since there is
deemed compliance with Section 22(c) and Sec. 346 of R.A. 7160, and thus
these positions are itemized in the 2015 Plantilla of Personnel and provided
appropriation.
11. New Items/Additions/Insertions to the Executive Budget : The Sangguniang
Panlungsod Budget
While there was senseless and baseless cut to the budget of the
offices/departments and special programs/projects under the Local Chief
Executive, the budget of each of the Sangguniang Panlungsod member was
increased by an average of 45% for MOOE and 77% for Capital Outlay as seen
in page 17-38 of Annex A .
GROUND FOR VETO: Illegal; Ultra Vires, Prejudicial to Public Welfare;
Grave Abuse of Discretion amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction;
Extravagant, excessive and unnecessary
Insertions/additions made by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of new items/
additional appropriation not otherwise provided for in the Executive Budget
submitted by the City Mayor is contrary to law and budgeting rules and
regulations promulgated by the DBM. This is clearly an ultra vires act on the part
of the Sangguniang since as earlier discussed, an ordinance cannot rise above a
law and the implementing rules promulgated to implement the same.
While the reduction of a proposed budgetary amount is within the power of
the Sanggunian, it should, however, be premised on genuine economy
measures, motives and prudence in government spending. In this case,
appropriations from the Departments/Offices of the Executive were
either
deleted or reduced, but appears to be used to fund the increases in the Offices
under the Sanggunian, an act that would give rise to serious moral questions,
betrayal of public trust, and utter and unmitigated greediness. Worse, the
increases, to cite a further example, under the Office of the SP Secretary over
the Proposed Executive Budget is 150% for Travelling Expenses, 525% for
Training Expenses; 58% for Office Supplies Expenses, 200% for Printing and
Binding Expenses, 800% for Subscription Expenses , 200% for Repair &
Maintenance of Office Building, 42% for Other MOOE, among others. Another
manifestation/epitome of greed and superbly luxurious provision. What nerve
does the Majority Bloc have!
Further, the increases in the items of appropriation under the Sangguniang
Panlungsod would necessarily result in the reduction on other items of

Veto Message 2015

P a g e | 19

appropriation intended for approved programs and projects of the City. Said
reduction is definitely prejudicial to public welfare.
II.

CONDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION
A. On Insertion to the list of projects to the 20% Development Fund
Projects/CDRRMF, Other Insertions
A.1 20% Development Fund Programs/Projects.
The Sanggunian approved a
list of projects under the 20%
Development Fund, different from that submitted in the Annual Budget by the
City Mayor - which was also what was approved by the City Development
Council (CDC) in the CY 2015 Annual Investment Program (AIP) (please see
Annex G).
Article 415 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Local
Government Code (R.A. 7160), provides, to wit:
The Sanggunian may not increase the proposed amount in the
executive budget nor include new items except to provide for statutory and
contractual obligations but in no case shall it exceed the total appropriations in
the executive budget.
Thus, any insertion to the proposed budget except to provide for statutory
and contractual obligations is contrary to law and therefore illegal and ultra vires.
Further the DILG, in several opinions, declared that the Sanggunian may
not change, modify or alter the LDC approved Annual Investment Program
because this will defeat the function of the LDC as provided in the Local
Government Code. Again, the SP majority bloc, cannot arrogate unto itself a
power which otherwise is conferred by law to another body. To emphasize,
DILG opinion No. 101 s. 2010 dated June 28, 2010, quoting DILG Opinion No.
22 series of 2007, declared that .although the Sanggunian is authorized by
the Code to approve the plans formulated by the Local Development
Council, such authority does not include the power to modify, alter or
revise the same, albeit the Sanggunian is not precluded from raising
questions thereon for purposes of clarification.
Thus, I therefore veto the 20% Development Fund not on its appropriated
amount, but place a condition on the List of programs/projects funded under said
fund. The Program/Project listing and amount for each program/project shall
proceed from the LDC approved AIP and as reflected in the Proposed Executive
Budget.
A.2

5% City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (CDRRM) Fund

Programs/Projects

On the same vein as the 20% DF, I also place a conditional implementation
veto on the programs/projects under the CDRRMF, the programs/projects of
which are also altered, modified and deleted by the Sanggunian (Please see
Veto Message 2015

P a g e | 20

Annex H). The programs/projects under this Fund shall proceed from the
CDRRMC approved Plan, as further approved in the AIP by the City
Development Council.
It bears to note that under RA 10121 and its IRR, the CDRRM Fund shall
be utilized and disbursed in accordance with the CDRRM Plan formulated by the
CDRRM Council. For this matter, the CDRRM Fund is even treated by RA 10121
as a special trust fund.
CLOSING STATEMENT
This 2015 Budget was crafted carefully following the generally accepted principles
of good budgeting practices, and in accordance with what was prescribed by law, rules
and regulations. That the majority bloc of the Sanggunian mangled the budget in a
concerted, deliberate, premeditated and carefully planned manner even before the
budget was submitted, is now clear. We also realize that no amount of justifications
could ever change its fate; however, we still keep ourselves within what is required of
us, and beyond. Let it be placed on record that we have done our best to advance our
budget proposals. May I emphasize that this budget is not for my own personal
aggrandizement or that of the Sanggunians minority bloc. This budget embodies the
collective aspirations of the whole City Government and its people through the City
Development Council. As an advocate of this, I stand on my promise to make the best
of what is left of what we proposed. We will find ways. We have already enunciated our
best laid plans and no amount of political blockage would deter me from serving the
people the best way possible.
Hence, I call on the majority bloc of the Sanggunian: let us put aside the
exploitative and dangerous political machinations, obviously designed to distort political
order in the City of Cagayan de Oro, or to derail this Administrations programs, or
otherwise to deter and strait-jacket us from pursuing more of our programs and
projects.
It is very important to reiterate what I stressed in my 2014 Veto message, on the
significance of the totality of conduct rule. Under this rule, an act that seems to be
legal or regular should be taken in the light of other acts that are connected to it or
otherwise related to it. If all of these acts, taken together, clearly show a pattern or
connection that demonstrates the underlying motive of these acts, then we apply the
totality of conduct rule. Very obviously, under this perspective, the acts of the
Sanggunian were all designed to achieve a common objective, and that is, to paralyze
this Administration and render it ineffectual and inutile. Worse, these acts all clearly
show that the Sanggunian is already encroaching unduly into the field of executive
domain. Worse still, they want to wield executive powers by themselves.
We have made our mark on the first year of my administration. To enumerate a
few, we have unprecedented increase in local revenues without necessarily increasing
taxes but only through faithful implementation of the revenue code and vigorous
revenue collection program; we built unequalled number of school buildings and
classrooms and gave new sites to annex high schools; we have improved our more
than fifty (50) barangay health centers and have them Philhealth-accredited under the
Maternal Child Program; we have tremendously improved our Local Economic
Enterprises this year, most specifically JR Borja Hospital, which are already subsidy
free meaning that for the first time ever, these LEEs including JRBGH are now selfliquidating! We have invigorated the workforce by giving them much-needed trainings
and capability building programs and second-to-none financial incentives. We are

Veto Message 2015

P a g e | 21

winning competitions and getting recognitions not only locally but also internationally.
These we have done even with the hurdles placed by the SP majority.
I therefore urge the Sanggunian to instead rally behind me in my endeavors. The
people of Cagayan de Oro deserve to be served the best way we can. How best we did
our part shall be our legacy to the people, for this is why we were elected by our
constituents in the first place. May we move forward together, as we hold our heads
high and with greater pride the resurgence of CAGAYAN DE ORO as one of the most
competitive cities in the country.
ISULONG ANG GAHIN ALANG SA HAPSAY NGA PANG GOBYERNO
PARA SA KATAWHAN SA CAGAYAN DE ORO!
Very truly yours,

OSCAR S. MORENO
City Mayor
Encl.: as stated

Veto Message 2015