Case Digest (G.R. No. 195390)
Facts:
In Gov. Luis Raymund F. Villafuerte, Jr. and the Province of Camarines Sur v. Hon. Jesse M. Robredo, en banc G.R. No. 195390 (Dec. 10, 2014), petitioners filed a Rule 65 certiorari to annul three DILG Memorandum Circulars issued by then Secretary Robredo: MC No. 2010-83 (Aug. 31, 2010) on Full Disclosure of Local Budget and Finances, and Bids and Public Offerings; MC No. 2010-138 (Dec. 2, 2010) on the 20% Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) development fund; and MC No. 2011-08 (Jan. 13, 2011) on strict adherence to Section 90 of R.A. 10147 (General Appropriations Act of 2011). These issuances responded to a 1995 COA audit revealing LGUs’ diversion of development funds in violation of Section 287 of R.A. 7160. Previously, DILG had issued MC No. 95-216 (1995) and Joint MC No. 1-2005 to remind LGUs of proper IRA use. After petitioner-governor Villafuerte received an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM No. 2011-009) for alleged non-compliance with MC No. 2010-83, he and the Province fileCase Digest (G.R. No. 195390)
Facts:
- Historical and regulatory background
- 1995 COA audit revealed misuse of the 20% development fund of LGUs, leading to DILG Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 95-216 prescribing proper utilization of the IRA development component.
- In 2005, DILG and DBM issued Joint MC No. 1-2005 reinforcing guidelines on appropriating the 20% IRA for social, economic, and environmental development.
- Assailed 2010–2011 issuances and petition
- MC No. 2010-83 (Aug. 31, 2010): “Full Disclosure of Local Budget and Finances, and Bids and Public Offerings,” requiring posting of budgetary and procurement data.
- MC No. 2010-138 (Dec. 2, 2010): Reiteration of the 20% IRA development fund rule; listed expenses not to be charged against it and warned of sanctions for misuse.
- MC No. 2011-08 (Jan. 13, 2011): Mandated strict compliance with GAA 2011 Sec. 90, reposting detailed IRA use, and threatened disciplinary action for non-compliance.
- On February 21, 2011, Governor Villafuerte and the Province of Camarines Sur filed a Rule 65 petition to annul the three MCs as unconstitutional and issued with grave abuse of discretion.
Issues:
- Did the assailed MCs infringe the principles of local and fiscal autonomy under the Constitution and the Local Government Code?
- Did the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government usurp legislative power by issuing binding regulations beyond statutory and constitutional grants?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)