Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

A. Francisco Gold Condominium ll Bldg, EDSA
corn€r mapagmahal St., Dlliman, Quezon City

DILG OPIIION NO. 40 S. 2OIO

April 6, 2010

IIR. FELIX C. CUTAI'IORA

SB Secretary
Office ofthe Sangguniang Bayan
Municipality of Ubay, Bohol

Dear Mr. Cutamora:

This pertains to Resolution No. 67 series of 2009 which was duly

adopted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Ubay, Bohol requesting this
Department's legal opinion relative to the veto message of the municipal
mayor on your Municipality's Annual Buclget for CY 2009 if the said veto
message is in order after the lapse of the ten day reglementary period as
provided for in Section 54 of the Local Government Code.

Pleasebe informed that this Department have already answered a

similar query in DILG Opinion No. 40, series of 2008. Said opinion clearly
states that the veto by the mayor in the proposed ordinance shall be
communicated by the latter to the concerned sanggunian within ten (10)
days in the case of a city and fifteen (15) days in the case of municipality;
otherwise, the ordinance shall be deemed approved as if he had signed it.
(Sec. 54 (b) of the Local Government Code of 1991)

Attached herewith is a photocopy of the aforesaid DILG Opinion for

your ready reference.

Very truly yours,

BY AUTTIORITY OF TIIE SECRETARYI

,./'
.,-' -_
---1
,,.,\ _-X

ArrY, rEsuF 9l DoQUE Iy

Director llr9{egal Service
Legal:20: ins

J
 \
ItePubUc of the PhiliPPines
DDPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ATID LOCAL COVERNMENT
fYancisco Cold Condominium ll, EDSA cor. Mapagmahal St.
)ilirnan, Q,uezon City

@FFIIG OF TIFItr tr@RETARY/

) r [. fi t) p' I ft t{ {) hi t,il] .-4p_"_' ti. i,l[:]n.,9

O4 June 2OO8

MAV,,0R CELSO L. LOBREGAT

Zamboanga City

Dear Mayor Lobregat:

This perhains to your letter seeking our legal opinion on the following
issues raised, to wit:

7. "Is the contention of the Sanggunian that the uord

"VETOU should be uritten in the original copg of the
proposed ordinance itself, a requiretnent in the
irnpletnentation of the ueto ptoaisions in the Local
Gouernment Code?

2. Giaen the fact that the Sanggunian hrrs alreadg

delTberated" the ueta on lWqrc!,- 26, 2OAB ltut failed to
put into aotation the determination of the required
tuo-thirds (2/3) aote to oaerride the same, cdn theg
still ouerrlde it later?
3. Ilnder Section 54 (b) of the Local Goaernntent Code,
the chief executiue is giaen d prescriptiae period of
ten (1O) dags from receipt of the proposed. ordinance
to cotntnunicate his aeto to the Sanggunian. It
dpltears, houteaer, that the law is silent on the
prescriptiue period on the part of the Sanggunian in
ouerciding the same. As such, uhat is ttrc
prescriptiue period for the Sanggunian to oterrid.e
the aeto of the Citg Magor, if ang? Are there ang
Ianus, rules and regulations or jurisprudence which
prouides for such prescriptive period?"
 -2-
we invite your attention to
Section 54
In rePly to your first query' may
(a) and (b) and section #
(d]';;il of the t'ocal oovemment code' which
provide:
.SEC, 54. Approaal of Otdinances'- (a) Eaery
ordinance encrcted bg the or sdnssun:l:1 panlalanaigan'
bagan shatr
sangguniang pontuii"oa' Y:st'uniang
g.oaernor or cita or
be presentea t" 7iZtf"pioainciat
ioLt" mag b"' If the local chief
nutnicipal nrcrgor' crt- sdTi' he shalt affix
executive ,:on"t'nJi ilpioott !;
and eaerg' pdge with thereof;
his signature in ii"n and return-the sante his
othertnise, n" tn"ii "ii-ii proceed to
obiections t" il'; ;;;;s-:"i":'^:^L::.^'o
- concerned mag
reconsider tfre scLrrre' Th'- "onggunian
oaerride tn o"ti oj the local-chief..executiue bg tuo'
making the
thirds (2/3) uoteLf Li'iL members'-therebg
all legal intents
ordinance o, ,""Joruiiin effectiue for
and PurPoses'
shatt be comrnunicated bg the
local
(b) 'Ihe ueto
-"oni"tned
to the sanggunianten witlin
chief executiu. and (LoJ
(75) dagsTi'n'- case of a prouince'
Jifteen i"i1',oalitg' otheruise'
dags in the cdse'"t t r:ilcg "t i 1 apptiued as if he had
the ordinan"" tiiti'n" iee'ned
signed. it'"
'SEC. 55. Veto Pouter of the Local Chief
mdA ueto dftg
Executite'- @l The locat chief executiuepanlalannigan'
ordinance sangguniang
"1'"in"
sanggunianspantungsod;"'?::s-s^::;#:r'Itf:"";"Ii;
or preJua
groiia that it is ultra vires therefor
stating ii rioLton" in uriting"'
welfare,
uthe refusal of assent bg the exectttiae
A veto is deflned as to peifect a lana uhich has been
officer whose ottttti"l";;;;"rv iht which is usuallg
,litsea bg the tl:gitt;tio;;ag ina
-sent ^'ztto,s"
sich refusat and' the
to such bodg u;";;-J*iutio"' "t1:i:s 1985)'
redsons thereforu tnicf's Law Dictionary' sth Fd"
54 of the I-ocal Covemment Code' the grant of the veto
Under Section - the simple
power a City lvrayor
to upon him an authority beyond
"o"f"'"
 \

-c-

mechanical act of signing an ordinance, as a requisite to its approval'

Such
power accords the City Mayor the discretion to approve an ordinance in the
iirst instance or to veto it and return it with his objections to the
Sanggunian, which may proceed to reconsider the same'

Under Section 54 (a) of the same Code, if the City Mayor approves a
proposed ordinance, he shall affix his signature in each and every page
itreieof; otherwise he shall veto it and retum the same with his objections to
thesanggunian.Corollarily,SectionSs(a)oftheCoderequiresthatthe
veto shall be in writing, stating the reasons of his non-assent to the
proposed ordinance on the ground that it is ultra vires or prejudicial to
public welfare.

It is clear, therefore, that to veto an ordinance is a separate act of the

local chief executive apart from the act of retuming the proposed ordinance
to the Sanggunian. The exercise of the veto power by the City Mayor would
require t lr"to -"""tge in urriting, stating the reasons for his objections to
the proposed
.veto, ordinance. Precisely, section 54 (b) of the code requires that
the definitely referring to the veto message in writing, shall be
communicated by the local chief executive concerned to the sanggunian
within ten (lo) days in the case of a city; otherwise, the ordinance shall be
deemed approved as if he had signed it.

The contention, therefore, of the Sanggunian that the word "ueto"

should have been written in the original copy of the proposed ordinance
itself as required by the veto provision of the Local (lovernment c,ode is
erroneou9. The veto power of the City Mayor is complete and duly exercised
when he communicated his written veto message to the Sanggunian coupled
with the act of returning the Proposed ordinance unsigned' The l'ocal
Qovemment code or its Implementing Rules and Regulations does not
require that the word veto be written in the original copy of the proposed
ordinance, as precisely a veto message is a separate document
communicated to the Sanggunian, together with the unsigned propoSei
ordinance, that would guide the Sanggunian in proceeding whether to
override the veto or not'

In reply to your second and third queries, may we note that the t'ocal
Qovernment code did not provide for a prescriptive period within which for
the sang;<unian to override a padicular veto of the local chief executive. we
 I o

-4.
that provldes for the
have also not yet encountered any law or Jurlsprudence
*
uu*". W., however, belleve tfttt an lncldent to thefhe delegated legislafrve
power to override
pow"r of tfre present Sanggunlan, the time to exerclse
u, u.to is subsumed ttt" conesponding term of the sanggunian
riut
concemed.

'lille hoPe we have enllgtrtened you on the matter'

Very fruly Yours,

,/-)
(r"l/.-__
AUSTIREA. PANADERg/

^conssecxeler!W
L,ryr2o;45/t-a
ft{t
cc: I dtecfor toreto T. Bhagwanl
DtXl Beglronal Office llo. Ix
Zamboanga c|ry