Case Digest (G.R. No. 112497)
Facts:
Hon. Franklin M. Drilon, in his capacity as Secretary of Justice, petitioner, vs. Mayor Alfredo S. Lim, Vice‑Mayor Jose L. Atienza, City Treasurer Anthony Acevedo, Sangguniang Panglungsod and the City of Manila, respondents, G.R. No. 112497, August 04, 1994, the Supreme Court En Banc, Cruz, J., writing for the Court. The core controversy concerned the constitutionality of Section 187 of the Local Government Code and whether the Manila Revenue Code (Ordinance No. 7794) had been validly enacted.On administrative appeal brought by four oil companies and a taxpayer, Secretary Drilon reviewed the challenged ordinance and declared Ordinance No. 7794 null and void for procedural defects in its enactment and for containing provisions contrary to law and public policy. The City of Manila sought relief in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, which granted its petition: the RTC revoked the Secretary’s resolution, sustained the ordinance, and went further to declare Section 187 of the Local Government Code unconstitutional, reasoning that it vested in the Secretary a power of control over local governments contrary to the constitutional policy of local autonomy and the President’s sole power of supervision.
The Secretary then sought review before the Supreme Court by petition, which was initially dismissed for non‑compliance with Circular 1‑88 but reinstated on motion for reconsideration after the required certified copy of the challenged decision was filed. The Court considered the jurisdictional propriety of the RTC’s action and, upon respondents’ motion, ordered the elevation of docu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is Section 187 of the Local Government Code unconstitutional because it vests the Secretary of Justice with a power of control over local governments in violation of the Constitution’s policy of local autonomy and the President’s supervisory role?
- Were the procedural requirements for the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code (Ordinance No. 7794) observed ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)