QuestionsQuestions (MANILA CITY ORDICE NO. 8384)
COA observed that there was an absence of a City Council ordinance supporting the legal basis for releasing funds to barangays, as required when boundaries are created, divided, merged, abolished, or substantially altered under Section 6 of the Local Government Code. In short, without an ordinance meeting that requirement, the legal basis for releasing RPT share involving boundary/territorial changes was questioned.
Barangay 20 requested City Council approval of its barangay resolution so it could release and use its accumulated lawful share of Real Property Taxes from previous years derived from commercial and industrial establishments located within its claimed territorial jurisdiction.
It allegedly presented a Resolution from the Liga ng mga Barangay, its own barangay resolution, a cadastral map, and business permits and clearances issued by the barangay-claimant to various commercial and industrial establishments situated within the claimed area.
The Committee report (as stated in the ordinance) recommended passing the ordinance precisely to settle the matter once and for all, while also stating that it is “not a case of creation, division, merging, abolition, or substantial alteration” as contemplated under Section 6.
Section 1 declares that commercial and industrial establishments within the specified metes and bounds are within the territorial jurisdiction of Barangay 20. This directly supports the barangay’s entitlement to RPT-related shares derived from establishments in that area.
It used: Pier 4 Gate to the North; ICTSI Road (C.M. Recto Extension) to the South; Manila Bay to the West (including the International Container Terminal Services Incorporated compound and Isla Puting Bato); and Radial Road 10 to the East.
Section 2 affirms City Council Resolution No. 24, series of 2014, meaning it validates the resolution’s substance supporting Barangay 20’s claim and the committee’s recommendation.
Barangay 20 is directed to collect, deliver, and perform all income, governmental and corporate services incidental to the passing of the ordinance for the aforesaid area.
The separability clause provides that if any provision is held unconstitutional or invalid, the remaining provisions not affected remain in full force and effect. Practically, it seeks to preserve the ordinance’s validity even if part of it is struck down.
It takes effect upon its approval.
The ordinance reflects: enactment by the City Council (finally enacted on December 16, 2014); presiding officer attestation; city government department head (secretary to the council) attestation; mayor’s approval; and mayor’s attestation by the city government department head (secretary to the mayor). These indicate legislative approval and executive approval within local government procedure.
Barangay territorial jurisdiction affects entitlement to revenues (like RPT shares) and the scope of regulatory/governmental authority. Specifying metes and bounds reduces ambiguity and helps resolve disputes about which barangay has jurisdiction over particular establishments and areas.
The tension is that COA seemed to require an ordinance as the legal basis (because the issue may relate to territorial/boundary issues), while the committee claims there is no “substantial alteration” in the sense contemplated by Section 6. Students should analyze whether the ordinance is merely clarificatory/confirmatory of existing jurisdiction or effectively alters boundaries in a way that triggers Section 6’s requirements.