Drilon v.

Lim
G.R. No. 112497, August 4, 1994
Presumption of Constitutionality

SC finds that Drilon set aside the MRC, but he did not replace it with his own
version of what it should be. He did not say that it is a bad law. He only found
that it was illegal. This is an act of mere supervision, not of control.

Petitioner: Hon. Franklin M. Drilon as SOJ

Respondent: Mayor Alfredo Lim

Drilon declared that there were no written notices of public hearings on the
draft MRC, as required by law; no copies of the proposed MRC was
published; no minutes were submitted; and it was not translated into Tagalog.
On the other hand, RTC ruled that procedure requirements were satisfied. SC
agrees with RTC. But because substantive provisions were not raised in the
petition, SC makes no ruling on that.

Facts: Four oil companies and a taxpayer appealed to Drilon who then
declared the Manila Revenue Code null and void for non-compliance with
prescribed procedure in enacting tax ordinances pursuant to Sec. 187 of LGC.
RTC Ruling: It revoked Drilons decision and sustained the ordinance,
holding that procedural requirements were observed. It also declared Sec. 187
of LGC as unconstitutional because it vested within the SOJ the power and
control over local governments, violating local autonomy.
Drilon petitioned to SC avering that Sec. 187 was constitutional and that
procedural requirements were not observed. Petition was originally dismissed
because SolGen had not submitted certified true copy of the Decision but was
reinstated after Drilon MR-ed.
Issue: W/N Sec. 187 is constitutional, and procedural requirements specified
therein were not observed in the enactment of the MRC?
Held: YES. RTC ruling is reversed in that it declares Sec. 187
unconstitutional, but SC affirms RTC ruling that procedural requirements
were satisfied.
Ratio: RTC was rather hasty in invalidating Sec. 187 because it allegedly
empowers the SOJ to review tax ordinances and to annul them. It gave power
to control rather than to supervise. Sec. 187 authorizes the SOJ to review only
the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances and if necessary, revoke
them. When he modifies or sets aside a tax ordinance, he is not authorized to
substitute his own judgement for the judgement of the local government.

LGC, Section 187. Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax,

Ordinances and Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings. - The
procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be
in accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided, That public
hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof:
Provided, further, That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax
ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30)
days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a
decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal:
Provided, however, That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending
the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee, or
charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days after
receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the
Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file
appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction.