Tag: Municipal Appointment

Optional Positions and Local Government Authority: The Requirement of Budgetary Allocation for Municipal Appointments

The Supreme Court has ruled that an appointment to a position within a local government unit (LGU) that is optional under the Local Government Code (LGC) requires a corresponding appropriation by the local sanggunian (legislative body) to be effective. This means that even if a mayor appoints someone to an optional position, like the Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Officer (MENRO), the appointment is not valid unless the sanggunian allocates funds for the position. This ruling underscores the importance of budgetary compliance in local governance and ensures that public funds are properly authorized for all LGU positions.

The Case of the Unfunded MENRO: Discretion vs. Fiscal Responsibility in Masiu

This case revolves around the appointment of Samad M. Unda as the Municipal Environmental and Natural Resources Officer (MENRO) for the Municipality of Masiu, Lanao del Sur. Outgoing Mayor Aminullah D. Arimao appointed Unda on March 8, 2007. However, after the 2007 local elections, the newly-elected Mayor Nasser P. Pangandaman, Jr., discovered that the LGU had been operating on a re-enacted budget from 2005 and had not enacted any annual budget for 2006 and 2007. Mayor Pangandaman also found that Unda, along with eight other municipal employees, were “midnight appointees” whose appointments were based on a non-existing budget. Consequently, their salaries were withheld, and the Mayor filed a petition for the annulment of their appointments with the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

The CSC Regional Office-Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (CSCRO-ARMM) initially upheld Unda’s appointment, finding that he had satisfied the screening of the Personnel Screening Board (PSB) before the election ban. However, the CSC later reversed this decision, disapproving Unda’s appointment because the MENRO position was newly created under the unapproved 2006 annual budget, and because Unda had allegedly not passed the PSB screening. The Court of Appeals (CA) then reversed the CSC, reinstating the CSCRO-ARMM’s decision and declaring Unda’s appointment valid. The CA reasoned that Sections 443 and 484 of the LGC had created the position of MENRO, making the appointment not contingent on any resolution by the LGU.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA’s interpretation, emphasizing that while Section 443 of the LGC does list the MENRO position, it also specifies that the mayor may appoint such an officer. This permissive language indicates that the appointment is optional. The Court also highlighted the importance of Section 443(e) of the LGC, which states that “elective and appointive municipal officials shall receive such compensation, allowances and other emoluments as may be determined by law or ordinance, subject to the budgetary limitations.” This provision, coupled with Section 305(a) of the LGC, which mandates that “no money shall be paid out of the local treasury except in pursuance of an appropriations ordinance or law,” underscores the necessity of a budgetary allocation for the position.

The Court clarified that the creation of a public office is distinct from the budgetary requirements for filling that office. While the LGC authorizes the creation of the MENRO position, it does not automatically mandate that every municipality must have one, nor does it guarantee funding for the position. The municipality must still enact an ordinance allocating the budget for the office of the MENRO. The Court found that the Municipality of Masiu had not enacted an appropriation ordinance for the years 2006 and 2007, making Unda’s appointment ineffectual.

The respondent relied on Resolution No. 29 dated October 24, 2005, as the appropriation for his position. However, the Court emphasized the distinction between an ordinance and a resolution, quoting Municipality of Parañaque v. V.M. Realty Corporation:

“A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An ordinance possesses a general and permanent character, but a resolution is temporary in nature.”

The Court noted that Resolution No. 29 did not undergo the three readings required of an ordinance and therefore could not serve as a valid appropriation.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial Board) of Lanao del Sur did not review or approve the LGU’s budget for the fiscal year 2006. Section 56 of the LGC requires that every ordinance enacted by municipalities be forwarded to the sangguniang panlalawigan for review and approval. The lack of this review further undermined the validity of the purported appropriation. Additionally, the Municipal Budget Officer certified that there was no approved 2006 Annual Budget and that the 2005 budget, which did not include the MENRO position, was the last approved budget.

Despite the lack of a valid appointment, the Court acknowledged that Unda functioned as a de facto officer. A de facto officer is one who possesses an office and discharges their duties under color of authority, even if their appointment is irregular or informal. As a de facto officer, Unda’s actions were considered valid. The Court cited Zoleta v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), explaining that a “de facto officer is one who is in possession of an office, and is discharging his duties under color of authority, by which is meant authority derived from an appointment, however irregular or informal, so that the incumbent is not a mere volunteer.” However, this status did not entitle him to the emoluments of the office due to the lack of a valid appropriation.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the CSC’s ruling, emphasizing the importance of budgetary compliance in local government appointments. The ruling reinforces the principle that even when a position is authorized by law, a valid appropriation ordinance is necessary to make an appointment effective. This case serves as a reminder to LGUs to adhere strictly to the budgetary requirements outlined in the LGC to ensure the legality and validity of their appointments. Moreover, this ruling impacts not only the appointee but also the operations of the LGU by highlighting the importance of the separation of powers and responsibilities of the Mayor and the Sangguniang Bayan.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Samad M. Unda’s appointment as the Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Officer (MENRO) was valid, considering the lack of an approved annual budget for the position.
What is a Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Officer (MENRO)?	A MENRO is a local government official responsible for environmental and natural resource management within a municipality. The position is optional, meaning the local government has the discretion to appoint someone to it.
What is the Local Government Code (LGC)?	The LGC is a law that governs the structure and functions of local government units in the Philippines, including provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. It outlines the powers, duties, and responsibilities of local officials and legislative bodies.
*What is the role of the Sangguniang Bayan* in local appointments?**	The Sangguniang Bayan is the legislative body of a municipality, and they must approve the budget for any position, even if the mayor appoints them. The LGC requires concurrence from the Sangguniang Bayan for certain appointments, ensuring a check on the mayor’s power.
Why was Resolution No. 29 deemed insufficient as an appropriation?	Resolution No. 29 was deemed insufficient because it was a resolution, not an ordinance, and it did not undergo the three readings required for an ordinance. Under the LGC, appropriations must be made through an ordinance, which carries the force of law.
*What is a de facto* officer?**	A de facto officer is someone who holds a position and performs its duties under the apparent authority of an appointment, even if the appointment is later found to be invalid. Their actions are generally considered valid to protect the public interest.
What is the significance of Section 443 of the LGC in this case?	Section 443 of the LGC specifies the officials of the municipal government and indicates which positions the mayor ‘may’ appoint, including the MENRO. This section was interpreted to mean that the MENRO position is optional and requires a corresponding budget allocation.
What happens if a local government unit does not have an approved budget?	If a local government unit does not have an approved budget, it generally operates on a re-enacted budget from the previous year. However, new positions cannot be created or funded without a new budget ordinance.
What is an appropriation ordinance?	An appropriation ordinance is a law passed by the local legislative body (Sangguniang Bayan) that authorizes the expenditure of public funds for specific purposes. It is required to allocate funds for the salaries and benefits of local government officials and employees.

This case highlights the critical interplay between the power of appointment and the necessity of budgetary allocation in local governance. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to the Local Government Code to ensure the proper and legal functioning of municipal governments. The case also serves as a reminder of the need for transparency and accountability in local government appointments and financial management.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vs. SAMAD M. UNDA, G.R. No. 213331, September 13, 2017

September 13, 2017

The Mandatory Nature of Sangguniang Bayan Concurrence in Municipal Appointments: Ensuring Validity and Preventing Revocation

The Supreme Court has affirmed that appointments to municipal government positions, such as Municipal Budget Officer, require the explicit concurrence of the Sangguniang Bayan (Municipal Council). Without this formal concurrence, an appointment lacks validity, regardless of how long the appointee has served. This ruling emphasizes the strict adherence to statutory requirements in local government appointments to ensure transparency and accountability.

Appointment Integrity: Can a Decade-Long Tenure Validate a Missing Council Approval?

The case revolves around Melanie P. Montuerto, who was appointed as the Municipal Budget Officer of Almeria, Biliran. While her appointment was approved by the Mayor and the Civil Service Commission (CSC), it later came under scrutiny due to the absence of formal concurrence from the Sangguniang Bayan. The Sangguniang Bayan questioned the validity of Montuerto’s appointment, leading the CSC to recall its approval. The core legal question is whether the lack of formal concurrence from the Sangguniang Bayan invalidates the appointment, even after a significant period of service.

The Local Government Code, specifically Section 443(a) and (d) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, mandates that key municipal officers, including the Municipal Budget Officer, be appointed by the mayor with the concurrence of the majority of all Sangguniang Bayan members. This requirement ensures that the appointment has the collective approval of the local legislative body, providing a check on the mayor’s power. The law also underscores that appointments are subject to civil service laws, rules, and regulations, reinforcing the need for strict adherence to established procedures.

In this case, the absence of any record indicating that Montuerto’s appointment was submitted to the Sangguniang Bayan for concurrence proved fatal to her claim. The court emphasized that a verbal concurrence, as alleged by Montuerto, does not satisfy the statutory requirement. The Sanggunian, as a body, must act through a formal resolution or ordinance to express its concurrence. Without such a resolution, the appointment fails to meet the mandatory requirements of the Local Government Code. It’s vital to remember the Latin maxim: “What is not in the record is not in the world.”

The Supreme Court upheld the factual findings of the CSC and the Court of Appeals, which both determined that no valid concurrence had been obtained. Such factual findings by quasi-judicial agencies, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally considered final and conclusive. This principle underscores the Court’s deference to the expertise of specialized bodies in evaluating factual matters within their jurisdiction. Building on this principle, the Court reaffirmed that it is not a trier of facts and typically does not re-weigh evidence already considered by lower tribunals. This highlights the importance of establishing a clear factual record during administrative proceedings.

The ruling underscores the mandatory nature of the Sangguniang Bayan‘s concurrence in appointments to key municipal positions. Even if the appointee has served in the position for an extended period, the absence of a valid appointment means that they do not have a legal right to the office. Consequently, the CSC retains the authority to recall the appointment and ensure compliance with legal requirements. The ruling is consistent with prior jurisprudence emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in government appointments.

Furthermore, the case reaffirms the principle that public office is a matter of law and not of equity. No amount of time served or good faith performance can substitute for the legal requirements necessary for a valid appointment. This strict adherence to legal formalities ensures the integrity and transparency of government appointments. The appointment process prevents possible abuse from the appointing authority and provides proper checks and balances. This is crucial in maintaining public trust and ensuring that qualified individuals are properly appointed to serve the community.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the lack of formal concurrence from the Sangguniang Bayan invalidated the appointment of the Municipal Budget Officer, even after a long period of service.
What is the requirement for appointing a Municipal Budget Officer?	According to the Local Government Code, a Municipal Budget Officer must be appointed by the mayor with the concurrence of the majority of the Sangguniang Bayan members.
*Is verbal concurrence from the Sangguniang Bayan* sufficient?**	No, the court explicitly stated that verbal concurrence is not sufficient; the Sangguniang Bayan must express its concurrence through a formal resolution or ordinance.
*What happens if the Sangguniang Bayan‘s concurrence is missing?*	Without the formal concurrence of the Sangguniang Bayan, the appointment is considered invalid, and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) has the authority to recall it.
Can a long period of service validate an otherwise invalid appointment?	No, a long period of service does not validate an appointment that lacks the required legal formalities, such as the Sangguniang Bayan‘s concurrence.
What is the role of the Civil Service Commission in this matter?	The Civil Service Commission (CSC) has the authority to ensure that appointments comply with civil service laws, rules, and regulations. This includes the power to recall appointments that do not meet the required legal standards.
*Why is the Sangguniang Bayan‘s concurrence necessary?*	The Sangguniang Bayan‘s concurrence serves as a check on the mayor’s power and ensures that appointments have the collective approval of the local legislative body, promoting transparency and accountability.
What law governs the appointment of municipal officers?	The appointment of municipal officers is governed by the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), specifically Section 443(a) and (d).
What did the Court of Appeals decide?	The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s decision, finding that the lack of formal concurrence from the Sangguniang Bayan invalidated Montuerto’s appointment.

In conclusion, this case highlights the critical importance of adhering to statutory requirements in government appointments. The explicit concurrence of the Sangguniang Bayan is not a mere formality but a mandatory requirement that ensures the validity of appointments and promotes good governance. The absence of such concurrence can lead to the revocation of an appointment, regardless of the appointee’s length of service.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

August 24, 2009