SC junks Villafuerte petition vs DILG memos on local budgets

By: Tetch Torres-Tupas - 10 years ago

The Supreme Court. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines–The Supreme Court dismissed the petition of former Camarines Sur Governor Luis Raymond Villafuerte Jr. questioning the legality of three memorandum orders issued by the Department of the Interior and Local Government concerning local budgets and disclosures.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Villafuerte’s petition lacks merit, high court spokesperson Theodore Te said.

Villafuerte challenged the legality of Memorandum Circular 2010-83, MC 2010-138 and MC 2011-08 issued by the DILG under the late Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo.

MC 2010-83 issued in August 2010 is about the full disclosure of local budgets and finances and bids and public offerings, while MC 2010-138 issued in December of that year pertain to the use of the 20 percent component of the annual internal revenue allotment shares.

On the other hand, MC 2011-08 issued in January 2011 pertain to the strict adherence by local government units to Section 90 of Republic Act No. 10147 or the General Appropriations Act of 2011.

In his petition, Villafuerte said Robredo gravely abused his discretion when he signed the issuances.

He said Robredo violated the principles of local and fiscal autonomy as enshrined in the Constitution and RA 7690 or the Local Government Code.

Villafuerte also said Robredo went beyond the confines of his supervisory power as an alter ego of the President when he issued MC 2010-83 and that the mandatory nature of the circular, with the threat of the imposition of sanctions for noncompliance, shows a desire to control LGUs.

But in its ruling, the high court disagreed with Villafuerte’s contention and said there was nothing in the issuances to show that the late DILG secretary committed grave abuse of discretion or violation of the Constitution and the Local Government Code.

“The assailed issuances of the respondent, MC Nos. 2010-83 and 2011-08, are but implementations of the avowed policy of the State to make public officials accountable to the people. They are amalgamation of existing laws, rules and regulations designed to give teeth to the constitutional mandate of transparency and accountability,” the high court said.

“Further, a scrutiny of the contents of the mentioned issuances showed that they do not, in any manner, violate the fiscal autonomy of local government units. It is inconceivable, however, how the publication of budgets expenditures, contracts and loans and procurement plans of local government units required in the assailed issuances could have infringed on the local fiscal autonomy of local government units,” it added.

The high court added that the issuances do not interfere with the discretion of LGUs in the specification of their priority projects and the allocation of their budgets and that the posting requirements are mere transparency measures which do not at all hurt the manner by which LGUs allocate their funds.

Likewise, the high court said even the Local Government Code, particularly Section 352, which Villafuerte invoked in his petition, does not exclude the requirement for the posting of additional documents on budgets, expenditures, contracts, loans and procurement plans.

Lastly, the high court said it believes that the supervisory powers of the President are broad enough to embrace the power to require the publication of certain documents as a mechanism of transparency.