Overstepping its boundaries

Supervision is the power of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties and to take such action or step prescribed by law to make them perform their duties if they fail or neglect to fulfill them. Control on the other hand is the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute his judgment for that of the latter. This distinction is explained in this case of several RTC and MTC judges of a city in Cebu who were granted additional monthly allowances by the city.

Since 1986 the said judges were already receiving monthly allowances of P1,260.00 each through the yearly appropriation ordinance enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod. In 1991, the City increased the amount to P1,500.00 for each judge.

On March 15, 1994, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued a local budget circular (LBC 55) purportedly pursuant to Section 458, par. (a) (1) (xi) of RA 7160 or the Local Government Code which authorizes the disbursement of additional allowances and other benefits to judges subject to the condition that the finances of the city government should allow the same. Under LBC 55, the DBM set a uniform maximum amount of P1,000.00 only as additional monthly allowances in the form of honorarium for judges in the cities and provinces and P700.00 for those in municipalities.

Acting on this circular, the City Auditor issued notices of disallowances to the judges concerned. Beginning October 1994, their monthly allowances were reduced to P1,000.00 each and they were even told to reimburse the amount they received in excess of P1,000.00 from April to September 1994.

The judges concerned questioned this circular. They contended that it is void for infringing on the local autonomy of the City by dictating a uniform amount that a local government unit can disburse as additional allowances to judges stationed therein. They maintained that said circular is not supported by any law and therefore goes beyond the supervisory powers of the President. According to the judges, Section 458 of RA 7160 does not allow the DBM to fix a maximum limit for such allowances. The only limitation in said section is the capacity of the city’s finances.

Were the judges correct?

Yes.

Under the present system of government, the heads of political subdivisions who are elected by the people and whose powers emanate from the electorate are subject to the President’s supervision only, not control, so long as their acts are exercised within the sphere of their legitimate powers. By the same token, the President may not withhold or alter any authority or power given them by the Constitution and the law. The President can only interfere in the affairs and activities of a local government unit if he or she finds that the latter has acted contrary to law. Any directive therefore by the President or any of his alter egos seeking to alter a law conforming judgment on local affairs of a local government unit is a patent nullity because it violates the principle of local autonomy and separation of powers of the executive and legislative departments in governing municipal corporations.

Section 458 par. (a) (1) (xi) of RA 7160 the law that supposedly serves as the legal basis of LBC 55 allows grant of additional allowances to judges "when the finances of the city government allows". The said provision does not authorize setting a definite maximum limit to the additional allowances granted to judges.

Setting a uniform amount for the grant of additional allowances is an inappropriate way of enforcing the criterion found in said section 458. The DBM overstepped its power of supervision over local government units by imposing a prohibition that did not correspond with the law it sought to implement. In other words the prohibitory nature of the circular has no legal basis (Dadole et. al vs. Commission on Audit, G.R.125350, December 3, 2002).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]