Drilon v. Lim et al.
G.R. No. 112497: August 4, 1994
FACTS:
Pursuant Section 187 of the Local Government Code, the Secretary of Justice had, on
appeal to him of four oil companies and a taxpayer, declared Ordinance No. 7794, otherwise
known as the Manila Revenue Code, null and void for non-compliance with the prescribed
procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and for containing certain provisions contrary to
law and public policy.
In a petition for certiorari filed by the City of Manila, the Regional Trial Court of
Manila revoked the Secretary’s resolution and sustained the ordinance, holding inter alia that
the procedural requirements had been observed. More importantly, it declared Section 187 of
the Local Government Code as unconstitutional because of its vesture in the Secretary of
Justice of the power of control over local governments in violation of the policy of local
autonomy mandated in the Constitution and of the specific provision therein conferring on
the President of the Philippines only the power of supervision over local governments.
Judge Rodolfo C. Palattao declared Section 187 of the Local Government Code
unconstitutional insofar as it empowered the Secretary of Justice to review tax ordinances
and, inferentially, to annul them. He cited the familiar distinction between control and
supervision, the first being “the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a
subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment
of the former for the latter,” while the second is “the power of a superior officer to see to it
that lower officers perform their functions in accordance with law.” His conclusion was that
the challenged section gave to the Secretary the power of control and not of supervision only
as vested by the Constitution in the President of the Philippines. This was, in his view, a
violation not only of Article X, specifically Section 4 thereof, and of Section 5 on the taxing
powers of local governments, and the policy of local autonomy in general.
The present petition seeks the reversal of that decision. The Secretary argues that the
annulled Section 187 is constitutional and that the procedural requirements for the enactment
of tax ordinances as specified in the Local Government Code had indeed not been observed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 187 of the Local Government Code is unconstitutional
because of its vesture in the Secretary of Justice of the power of control over local
government units in violation of the policy of local autonomy in the Constitution and of the
specific provision therein conferring on the President only the power of supervision over
local governments.
RULING:
NO. Section 187 authorizes the Secretary of Justice to review only the
constitutionality or legality of the tax ordinance and, if warranted, to revoke it on either or
both of these grounds. When he alters or modifies or sets aside a tax ordinance, he is not also
permitted to substitute his own judgment for the judgment of the local government that
enacted the measure. Secretary Drilon did set aside the Manila Revenue Code, but he did not
replace it with his own version of what the Code should be. He did not pronounce the
ordinance unwise or unreasonable as a basis for its annulment. He did not say that in his
judgment it was a bad law. What he found only was that it was illegal. All he did in
reviewing the said measure was determine if the petitioners were performing their functions
in accordance with law, that is, with the prescribed procedure for the enactment of tax
ordinances and the grant of powers to the city government under the Local Government
Code.
An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. If they are not
followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he
may even decide to do it himself. Supervision does not cover such authority. The supervisor
or superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay
down such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are
not observed, he may order the work done or re-done but only to conform to the prescribed
rules. He may not prescribe his own manner for the doing of the act. He has no judgment on
this matter except to see to it that the rules are followed. In the opinion of the Court,
Secretary Drilon did precisely this, and no more nor less than this, and so performed an act
not of control but of mere supervision.