Drilon v LimGR No. 11249704 August 1994

FACTS:Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon, pursuant to the authority granted upon him by

Section 187 of the LGC and upon appeal of concerned parties, declared the Manila Revenue Code null and void for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure in the enactment of local tax ordinances and for containing provisions contrary to law and public policy.Upon appeal to the RTC, the trial judge reversed the order of petitioner and, in addition, declared Section 187 of the LGC unconstitutional as it gave the Secretary of Justice the power of control over local governments in violation of the principle of local autonomy mandated by the Constitution. The RTC ruled that the Executive only had the power of supervision and not control.

ISSUE:Whether or not Section 187 of the Local Government Code is unconstitutional.

RULING: The SC overruled the trial court insofar as it declared Section 187 unconstitutional. The

power of control encompasses the power to lay down the rules in the accomplishment of an act. If they are not followed, the one in control may order the act done, re-done, or do it himself. On the other hand, the power to supervise only entails a determination of WON the rules were followed and to have the work done or re-done in accordance with the prescribed rules.Contrary to the holding of the lower court, the SC said that the provision only gave the Secretary of Justice the power to supervise, not control, in that the Secretary of Justice could only determine the constitutionality or legality of the local tax ordinance and revoke them on such grounds. The provision did not empower the Secretary to substitute his own judgment for the judgment of the LGU; the Secretary was not authorized by Section 187 to determine whether the law was wise or reasonable or otherwise a generally bad law. He was given no discretion in the matter. That notwithstanding, the SC agreed with the trial court in that the procedural requirements for the passage of the ordinance were fulfilled. The initial decision of the Secretary, it said, was a result of the insufficient time it gave to the respondents to procure the necessary evidence of such procedural compliance. The Manila Revenue Code was upheld. (Note: No mention was made in the final decision regarding the provisions contrary to law and public policy earlier cited by the Secretary as additional grounds.)