Local GOvernment Units – City, Urban, Regional, & Environmental Planning

Mandanas-Garcia Ruling; Unconstitutionality of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA); and the National Government and Fiscal Autonomy of Local Government Units

LGUs should not celebrate too early by embarking on expensive projects that they cannot sustain. LGUs should always review Art. 17 of RA 7160 to both guide them in choosing projects to implement and manage the expectations of their stakeholders.

One of the key features of the Philippine 1987 Constitution is its push towards decentralization of government and local autonomy. Local autonomy has two facets, the administrative and the fiscal. Fiscal autonomy means that local governments have the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable share in the national taxes released by the National Government, as well as the power to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities. Such autonomy is as indispensable to the viability of the policy of decentralization as the other.

Implementing the constitutional mandate for decentralization and local autonomy, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160), otherwise known as the Local Government Code (LGC), in order to guarantee the fiscal autonomy of the LGUs by specifically have a share in the national internal revenue taxes. The internal revenue allotment (IRA) is determined on the basis of the actual collections of the National Internal Revenue Taxes (NIRTs) as certified by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

Mandanas and his group as well as Garcia challenged the national government by filing a case in the Supreme Court to address whether or not the exclusion of certain national taxes from the base amount for the computation of the just share of the LGUs in the national taxes is constitutional. Mandanas’ group and Garcia filed a petitioned to release the additional and unpaid IRA, respectively to LGUs.

Mandanas et. al Petition – Following the Petitioned Base Amount of LGU Shares in FY 2012
Release of the additional amount of to the LGUs as their IRA for FY 2012	P60,750,000,000.00
Release of the total unpaid IRA for FY 1992 to FY 2011	P438,103,906,675.73

To know more about the Mandanas-Garcia Ruling check out https://cityplanningcoordinator.blog/2021/07/09/mandanas-garcia-vs-executive-secretary-case-digest/

Let us simplify the story.

Imagine you are the head of your family. A person promised to pay you yearly a certain amount that you will use to provide for the needs of your family. Eventually, you realized that the amount being paid to you for almost two decades is not the agreed amount that should have been given to you and your family. You filed a case in court and it took several years before the court decided that the amount being paid to you is not the right amount.

You started to look back and imagined how your family should have benefitted from the withheld payment. You thought that with the said amount, you could have provided your children very good education and health care as well as widened possible opportunities (opportunity cost). But, all is well, you’ve won, you are right in asserting what is just.

However, the court ruled that this person would not pay anymore the two decades withheld amount and will just give the correct (just share) amount the following year. You cannot argue with the court because that is their final decision and must respect it. You are excited that you’ve won your case, proved you are right, and will have more resources for your family the following year.

But there’s more, the person realized that since you will be getting more, there is a need to give you more responsibilities that will entail additional expenditures on your part. This person is thinking of ways on how to give you more/additional tasks or responsibilities so that your just share (not additional) is spent according to what they want you to spend on your family.

In fairness, in the last two decades, the said person, aside from giving you your yearly agreed support, helps your family by providing casual assistance in different forms.

This is the current situation of the Local Government Units (LGUs) in the Philippines. The family is the LGU, the person is the national government, the children are the LGU constituents, and the support is the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) which is now called the National Tax Allocation (NTA).

Executive Order 138

The National Government enacted Executive Order No. 138 entitled “Full Devolution of Certain Functions of the Executive Branch to Local Governments, Creation of a Committee on Devolution, and for other purposes” on June 1, 2021 in response to the Mandanas-Garcia ruling.

To know more about EO 138 check out https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2021/06/01/executive-order-no-138-s-2021/

The recitals of EO No. 138 state that in the Constitution, LGUs shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them and that the President shall exercise general supervision over local governments; that RA 7160 devolved the delivery of certain basic services from national to LGUS (Section 17, RA 7160) in accordance with established national policies, guidelines and standards; and that the total shares of the LGUs from the national taxes is expected to significantly increase starting FY 2022 in line with the implementation of the Mandanas ruling; among others.

The general policy of EO 138 is that the National Government (NG) is fully committed to the policy of decentralization enshrined in the Constitution and relevant laws which are aimed at the following:

Developing capabilities of local governments to deliver basic social services and critical facilities to their constituents, increase productivity and employment, and promote local economic growth.
Ensuring accountability, competence, professionalism and transparency of local leaders through the development of institutional systems that uphold good governance and strengthen their capacities for managing public resources.

According to the EO the role of the NG is to set the national policy, development strategy, and service delivery standards, and to assist, oversee and supervise the LGUs, complementary to the stronger implementing role that the LGUs shall assume by reason of devolution; to determine functional assignments between and among different levels of government; to formulate and pursue an institutional development program in collaboration and to support the LGUs in order to strengthen their capacities and capabilities to fully assume the devolved functions based on RA 7160 and other relevant laws; and to resolve any ambiguity as to the interpretation of the power granted to an LGU in favor of devolution.

According to EO 138, the role of LGUs include the preparation of their Devolution Transition Plans (DTPs) in Close Coordination with the NGAs concerned, formulation of their Capacity Development Agenda based on the assessment framework and guidelines issued by the Department of Interior and Local Government – Local Government Academy (DILG-LGA), and the formulation of their respective Communications Plans and Strategies which are aligned and complementary to the communications plan formulated and approved by the Committee on Devolution.

The Mandanas-Garcia ruling prompted the national Government to enact EO 138 to ensure full devolution of certain functions. However, specific functions were already devolved to LGUS in 1992 via RA 7160. Did RA7160 only mandate partial devolution? Why is it called full devolution? Is there something new to devolve?

For me, EO 138 showed obvious realities at the LGU levels.

First is that the NG is aware that there are LGUs that cannot provide all the required devolved services to them as enumerated in Sec. 17 RA7160 due to inadequate financial resources. This is the reason NG provides Assistance to LGU programs and projects.

Second is that the Mandanas-Garcia ruling will help promote LGUs further pursue their desired development. Align with the concept of local autonomy and with the just share of the national taxes, LGUs can now fund their needed projects.

Third is that with the transfer of the remaining “just share” of the LGUs from the NG, wherein the NGs enjoyed the said share for almost two decades, the NG is worried that some of their programs will be affected by the decrease in their available fund, thus, the NG is clearly delineating projects that will be funded by them and by the LGUs and in part ensure that the LGUs perform their devolved services or add to those already devolved services.

Department of Budget and Management Local Budget Memorandum No. 82-2021

The DBM LBM No. 82 – 2021 entitled “Indicative FY 2022 National Tax Allotment (NTA) Shares of LGUs and Guidelines on the Preparation of the FY 2022 Annual Budgets of LGUs” was released on June 14, 2021.

To know more about DBM LBM No. 82 – 2021 check out https://www.dbm.gov.ph/index.php/279-latest-issuances/local-budget-memorandum/local-budget-memorandum-2021/1887-local-budget-memorandum-no-82

According to DBM LBM No. 82 – 2021, the NTA shares of LGUs significantly increased in FY 2022 as a result of the implementation of the SC decision on the Mandanas-Garcia Case. Consequently, starting FY 2022, there shall be scaling down of the financial subsidy of National Government Agencies (NGAs) for local programs and projects of LGU.

However the memorandum reminds LGUs to consider the expected down trend of NTA in the succeeding years, specifically in FYs 2023-2024. This is because of the lower revenue collections of the Government in FY 2020 and possibly in FY 2021 as a result of the continuous imposition of community quarantines and restrictions on the mobility of the general public due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

DBM LBM No. 82 – 2021 showed the NTA allotment of LGUs for fiscal year 2022. LGUs will have more resources to fund their preferred projects (if not negatively affected by the impact of EO 138). However, LGUs should be very careful in choosing projects that will require the same resources to maintain or sustain. The memorandum warned LGUs that their just share in 2023-2024 will be lower than in 2022.

What are its implications?

First is if the LGU embarks on big projects like building hospitals, hiring more personnel, etc., it may afford to implement it on 2022 but will have difficulty sustaining it in 2023-2024.

Second is that the LGUs are still recovering from their unplanned expenses brought about by the illegal drug war and the pandemic. 2022 is the time wherein hopefully they can resume their programs related to their desired local development with the help of its “just share” from the NG.

The Pandemic displayed how LGUs stepped-up to the global problem by taking care of its constituents. The NG and LGUs partnered in delivering support (food and health) to ensure the survival of the people. It may be enough or ideal but I believe they are doing their best specially the LGUs.

Just Share and Beyond

The “just share” is not an additional fund. It is the right fund that should have been given to LGUs to ensure to reach their self-determination via their political and fiscal autonomy. It is not correct to treat it as an additional fund. It is also not proper to add responsibilities to the LGUs because they will now get what they should have gotten yearly in the past two decades.

Devolved Services (RA 7160 Sec. 17)
Barangay	Municipality	Province
(i) Agricultural support services which include planting materials distribution system and operation of farm produce collection and buying stations; (ii) Health and social welfare services which include maintenance of barangay health center and day-care center; (iii) Services and facilities related to general hygiene and sanitation, beautification, and solid waste collection; (iv) Maintenance of katarungang pambarangay; (v) Maintenance of barangay roads and bridges and water supply systems; (vi) Infrastructure facilities such as multi-purpose hall, multi-purpose pavement, plaza, sports center, and other similar facilities; (vii) Information and reading center; and (viii) Satellite or public market, where viable; Devolved Services to Municipalities + Provinces = Devolved Services to Cities	(i) Extension and on-site research services and facilities related to agriculture and fishery activities which include dispersal of livestock and poultry, fingerlings, and other seeding materials for aquaculture; palay, corn, and vegetable seed farms; medicinal plant gardens; fruit tree, coconut, and other kinds of seedling nurseries; demonstration farms; quality control of copra and improvement and development of local distribution channels, preferably through cooperatives; interbarangay irrigation systems; water and soil resource utilization and conservation projects; and enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters including the conservation of mangroves; (ii) Pursuant to national policies and subject to supervision, control and review of the DENR, implementation of community-based forestry projects which include integrated social forestry programs and similar projects; management and control of communal forests with an area not exceeding fifty (50) square kilometers; establishment of tree parks, greenbelts, and similar forest development projects; (iii) Subject to the provisions of Title Five, Book I of this Code, health services which include the implementation of programs and projects on primary health care, maternal and child care, and communicable and non-communicable disease control services; access to secondary and tertiary health services; purchase of medicines, medical supplies, and equipment needed to carry out the services herein enumerated; (iv) Social welfare services which include programs and projects on child and youth welfare, family and community welfare, women’s welfare, welfare of the elderly and disabled persons; community-based rehabilitation programs for vagrants, beggars, street children, scavengers, juvenile delinquents, and victims of drug abuse; livelihood and other pro-poor projects; nutrition services; and family planning services; (v) Information services which include investments and job placement information systems, tax and marketing information systems, and maintenance of a public library; (vi) Solid waste disposal system or environmental management system and services or facilities related to general hygiene and sanitation; (vii) Municipal buildings, cultural centers, public parks including freedom parks, playgrounds, and other sports facilities and equipment, and other similar facilities; (viii) Infrastructure facilities intended primarily to service the needs of the residents of the municipality and which are funded out of municipal funds including, but not limited to, municipal roads and bridges; school buildings and other facilities for public elementary and secondary schools; clinics, health centers and other health facilities necessary to carry out health services; communal irrigation, small water impounding projects and other similar projects; fish ports; artesian wells, spring development, rainwater collectors and water supply systems; seawalls, dikes, drainage and sewerage, and flood control; traffic signals and road signs; and similar facilities; (ix) Public markets, slaughterhouses and other municipal enterprises; (x) Public cemetery; (xi) Tourism facilities and other tourist attractions, including the acquisition of equipment, regulation and supervision of business concessions, and security services for such facilities; and (xii) Sites for police and fire stations and substations and municipal jail;	(i) Agricultural extension and on-site research services and facilities which include the prevention and control of plant and animal pests and diseases; dairy farms, livestock markets, animal breeding stations, and artificial insemination centers; and assistance in the organization of farmers’ and fishermen’s cooperatives and other collective organizations, as well as the transfer of appropriate technology; (ii) Industrial research and development services, as well as the transfer of appropriate technology; (iii) Pursuant to national policies and subject to supervision, control and review of the DENR, enforcement of forestry laws limited to community-based forestry projects, pollution control law, small-scale mining law, and other laws on the protection of the environment; and mini-hydroelectric projects for local purposes; (iv) Subject to the provisions of Title Five, Book I of this Code, health services which include hospitals and other tertiary health services; (v) Social welfare services which include programs and projects on rebel returnees and evacuees; relief operations; and population development services; (vi) Provincial buildings, provincial jails, freedom parks and other public assembly areas, and similar facilities; (vii) Infrastructure facilities intended to service the needs of the residents of the province and which are funded out of provincial funds including, but not limited to, provincial roads and bridges; inter-municipal waterworks, drainage and sewerage, flood control, and irrigation systems; reclamation projects; and similar facilities; (viii) Programs and projects for low-cost housing and other mass dwellings, except those funded by the Social Security System (SSS), Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), and the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF); Provided, That national funds for these programs and projects shall be equitably allocated among the regions in proportion to the ratio of the homeless to the population; (ix) Investment support services, including access to credit financing; (x) Upgrading and modernization of tax information and collection services through the use of computer hardware and software and other means; (xi) Inter-municipal telecommunications services, subject to national policy guidelines; and (xii) Tourism development and promotion programs;

Devolved Services to LGUs (RA 7160)

Mandanas-Garcia vs. Executive Secretary Case Digest

Mandanas, et. al vs. Executive Secretary et. al
G.R. No. 199802, July 03, 2018
Garcia vs. Executive Secretary et. al
G.R. No. 208488, July 3, 2018
En Banc
Ponente; BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts:

Mandanas et. al and Garcia both filed a case against Executive Secretary et. al challenging the manner in which the just share in the national taxes of the local government units (LGUs) has been computed.

The 1987 Constitution continued to push towards decentralization of government and local autonomy. Republic Act 7160 also known as the Local Government Code of 1991 further strengthened the local autonomy and fiscal capability of Local Government Units (LGUs).

Local autonomy has two facets, the administrative and the fiscal. Fiscal autonomy means that local governments have the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable share in the national taxes released by the National Government, as well as the power to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities. Such autonomy is as indispensable to the viability of the policy of decentralization as the other.

The Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) is the basis of the share of LGUs from the national taxes. The IRA is determined on the basis of the actual collections of the National Internal Revenue Taxes (NIRTs) as certified by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

Below are details of the petitions of Mandanas, et. al and Garcia.

G.R. No. 199802 (Mandanas, et al.)	G.R. No. 208488 (Congressman Enrique Garcia, Jr.)
a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing the manner the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for FY 2012 computed the IRA for the LGUs	seeks the writ of mandamus to compel the respondents thereat to compute the just share of the LGUs on the basis of all national taxes
– allege herein that certain collections of NIRTs by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) – specifically: excise taxes, value added taxes (VATs) and documentary stamp taxes (DSTs) – have not been included in the base amounts for the computation of the IRA; – that such taxes, albeit collected by the BOC, should form part of the base from which the IRA should be computed because they constituted NIRTs; – that, consequently, the release of the additional amount of P60,750,000,000.00 to the LGUs as their IRA for FY 2012 should be ordered; and – that for the same reason the LGUs should also be released their unpaid IRA for FY 1992 to FY 2011, inclusive, totaling P438,103,906,675.73.	– insists on a literal reading of Section 6, Article X of the 1987 Constitution. – that the insertion by Congress of the words internal revenue in the phrase national taxes found in Section 284 of the LGC caused the diminution of the base for determining the just share of the LGUs, and should be declared unconstitutional; – that, moreover, the exclusion of certain taxes and accounts pursuant to or in accordance with special laws was similarly constitutionally untenable; – that the VATs and excise taxes collected by the BOC should be included in the computation of the IRA; and – that the respondents should compute the IRA on the basis of all national tax collections, and thereafter distribute any shortfall to the LGUs.
The cases were consolidated on October 22, 2013

In response to the petitions, the several respondents, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), urged the dismissal of the petitions upon procedural and substantive considerations.

Below are the answers of the OSG.

Response of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
urged the dismissal of the petitions upon procedural and substantive considerations
Procedural considerations	Substantive considerations
1. mandamus does not lie in order to achieve the reliefs sought because Congress may not be compelled to appropriate the sums allegedly illegally withheld for to do so will violate the doctrine of separation of powers; and, 2. mandamus does not also lie to compel the DBM to release the amounts to the LGUs because such disbursements will be contrary to the purposes specified in the GAA; – that Garcia has no clear legal right to sustain his suit for mandamus; – that the filing of Garcia’s suit violates the doctrine of hierarchy of courts; and – that Garcia’s petition seeks declaratory relief but the Court cannot grant such relief in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.	– Article 284 of the LGC is consistent with the mandate of Section 6, Article X of the 1987 Constitution to the effect that the LGUs shall have a just share in the national taxes; – that the determination of the just share is within the discretion of Congress; that the limitation under the LGC of the basis for the just share in the NIRTs was within the powers granted to Congress by the 1987 Constitution; – that the LGUs have been receiving their just share in the national taxes based on the correct base amount; – that Congress has the authority to exclude certain taxes from the base amount in computing the IRA; – that there is a distinction between the VATs, excise taxes and DSTs collected by the BIR, on one hand, and the VATs, excise taxes and DSTs collected by the BOC, on the other, thereby warranting their different treatment; and – that Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) Resolution No. 2003-02 dated September 4, 2003 has limited the base amount for the computation of the IRA to the “cash collections based on the BIR data as reconciled with the Bureau of Treasury;” and that the collection of such national taxes by the BOC should be excluded.

ISSUES

Issues

General Issue: Whether or not the exclusion of certain national taxes from the base amount for the computation of the just share of the LGUs in the national taxes is constitutional

I. Whether or not mandamus is the proper vehicle to assail the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the GAA and the LGC;
II. Whether or not Section 284 of the LGC is unconstitutional for being repugnant to Section 6, Article X of the 1987 Constitution;
III. Whether or not the existing shares given to the LGUs by virtue of the GAA is consistent with the constitutional mandate to give LGUs a “just share” to national taxes following Article X, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution;
IV. Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

RULING / HELD

Ruling of the Court (Mandanas-Garcia Case)
1. Mandamus is an improper remedy	– The writ of mandamus may not issue to compel an official to do anything that is not his duty to do, or that is his duty not to do, or to obtain for the petitioner anything to which he is not entitled by law. – Congress cannot be compelled by writ of mandamus. – The discretion of Congress thereon, being exclusive, is not subject to external direction; otherwise, the delicate balance underlying our system of government may be unduly disturbed
2. Municipal corporations and their relationship with Congress	– Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. – Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from the legislature. – This basic relationship between the national legislature and the local government units has not been enfeebled by the new provisions in the Constitution strengthening the policy of local autonomy. – The LGC provided a norm of interpretation in favor of the LGUs in its Section 5(a), to wit: (a) Any provision on a power of a local government unit shall be liberally interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of the local government unit. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the local government unit concerned; [Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis]
3. The extent of local autonomy in the Philippines	– The 1987 Constitution limits Congress’ control over the LGUs by ordaining in Section 25 of its Article II that: “The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.” – Certain limitations are and can be imposed by Congress in all the forms of decentralization, for local autonomy, whether as to power or as to administration, is not absolute. The LGUs remain to be the tenants of the will of Congress subject to the guarantees that the Constitution itself imposes.
4. Section 284 of the LGC deviates from the plain language of Section 6 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution	– Section 6, Article X the 1987 Constitution textually commands the allocation to the LGUs of a just share in the national taxes – Section 6, when parsed, embodies three mandates, namely: (1) the LGUs shall have a just share in the national taxes; (2) the just share shall be determined by law; and (3) the just share shall be automatically released to the LGUs. – LGC Section 284. Allotment of Internal Revenue Taxes. – Local government units shall have a share in the national internal revenue taxes based on the collection of the third fiscal year preceding the current fiscal year – Section 6 mentions national taxes as the source of the just share of the LGUs while Section 284 ordains that the share of the LGUs be taken from national internal revenue taxes instead. – Garcia contends that Congress has exceeded its constitutional boundary by limiting to the NIRTs the base from which to compute the just share of the LGUs. – The Court agree with Garcia’s contention. – Section 284 has effectively deprived the LGUs from deriving their just share from other national taxes, like the customs duties. – Strictly speaking, customs duties are also taxes because they are exactions whose proceeds become public funds. – The exclusion of other national taxes like customs duties from the base for determining the just share of the LGUs contravened the express constitutional edict in Section 6, Article X the 1987 Constitution. – To read Section 6 differently as requiring that the just share of LGUs in the national taxes shall be determined by law is tantamount to the unauthorized revision of the 1987 Constitution.
5. Congress can validly exclude taxes that will constitute the base amount for the computation of the IRA only if a Constitutional provision allows such exclusion	– Section 284 does not authorize any exclusion or deduction from the collections of the NIRTs for purposes of the computation of the allocations to the LGUs. – Anent the share of the affected LGUs in the proceeds of the sale and conversion of the former military bases pursuant to R.A. No. 7227, the exclusion is warranted for the reason that such proceeds do not come from a tax, fee or exaction imposed on the sale and conversion.
6. Entitlement to the reliefs sought	– The petitioners’ prayer for the payment of the arrears of the LGUs’ just share on the theory that the computation of the base amount had been unconstitutional all along cannot be granted – doctrine of operative fact * recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded. * nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effects. It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or unconstitutional law produces no effect * applies only to cases where extraordinary circumstances exist, and only when the extraordinary circumstances have met the stringent conditions that will permit its application * the effect is prospective
7. Automatic release of the LGUs’ just share in the National Taxes	– Section 6, Article X of the 1987 Constitution commands that the just share of the LGUs in national taxes shall be automatically released to them. – The term automatic connotes something mechanical, spontaneous and perfunctory – The LGUs are not required to perform any act or thing in order to receive their just share in the national taxes – Automatic release without need of appropriation

Decision

1. DECLARES the phrase “internal revenue” appearing in Section 284 of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and DELETES the phrase from Section 284.

2. ORDERS the SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; the SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS; and the NATIONAL TREASURER to include ALL COLLECTIONS OF NATIONAL TAXES in the computation of the base of the just share of the Local Government Units according to the ratio provided in the now-modified Section 284 of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) except those accruing to special purpose funds and special allotments for the utilization and development of the national wealth.

3. DECLARES that:
(a) The apportionment of the 25% of the franchise taxes collected from the Manila Jockey Club and Philippine Racing Club, Inc. – that is, five percent (5%) to the National Government; five percent (5%) to the host municipality or city; seven percent (7%) to the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office; six percent (6%) to the Anti-Tuberculosis Society; and two percent (2%) to the White Cross pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6631 and Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6632 – is VALID;
(b) Section 8 and Section 12 of Republic Act No. 7227 are VALID; and, ACCORDINGLY, the proceeds from the sale of the former military bases converted to alienable lands thereunder are EXCLUDED from the computation of the national tax allocations of the Local Government Units; and
(c) Section 24(3) of Presidential Decree No. 1445, in relation to Section 284 of the National Internal Revenue Code, apportioning one-half of one percent (1/2 of 1%) of national tax collections as the auditing fee of the Commission on Audit is VALID;

4. DIRECTS the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs and their deputized collecting agents to certify all national tax collections, pursuant to Article 378 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7160

5. DISMISSES the claims of the Local Government Units for the settlement by the National Government of arrears in the just share on the ground that this decision shall have PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION

6. COMMANDS the AUTOMATIC RELEASE WITHOUT NEED OF FURTHER ACTION

SEPARATE / DISSENTING OPINIONS

Separate Opinion – Velasco, Jr., J.

Voted to partially grant the petitions

Concur with the following dispositions:
1. The phrase “internal revenue” appearing in Section 284 of RA 7160 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and is hereby DELETED.
2. Respondents are hereby DIRECTED to include all forms of national tax collections, other than those accruing to special purpose funds and special allotments for the utilization and development of national wealth, in the subsequent computations for the base amount of just share the Local Government Units are entitled to.
3. In addition, the Court further DECLARES that:
a. The apportionment of specified incremental taxes is VALID and shall be observed;
b. Sections 8 and 12 of RA 7227 are hereby declared VALID. The proceeds from the sale of military bases converted to alienable lands thereunder are EXCLUDED from the computation of the national tax allocations of the Local Government Units since these are sales proceeds, not tax collections;
c. The one-half of one percent (1/2%) of national tax collections as the auditing fee of the Commission on Audit under Section 24(3) of Presidential Decree No. 1445 shall not be deducted prior to the computation of the forty percent (40%) share of the Local Government Units in the national taxes; and
d. Other special purpose funds are likewise EXCLUDED from the computation of the national tax allotment base.
4. The Bureau of Internal Revenue and Bureau of Customs are hereby ORDERED to certify to the Department of Budget and Management all their collections and remittances of National Taxes;
5. PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION from finality of this decision in view of the operative fact doctrine. Denied petitioners’ claims of arrears from the national government for the unlawful exclusions from the base amount.
6. The national tax allotments of the Local Government Units shall AUTOMATICALLY and DIRECTLY be released, without need of any further action

Dissenting Opinion – Leonen, J.

Voted to Dismiss the Petitions

1. There was no unlawful neglect on the part of public respondents, particularly the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in the computation of the internal revenue allotment. Moreover, the act being requested of them is not their ministerial duty; hence, mandamus does not lie and the Petitions must be dismissed.
2. The deductions to the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s collections made pursuant to special laws were proper.
3. The Court should exercise deference to the interpretation of Congress and of the President of what constitutes the “just share” of the local government units.
4. Congress has full discretion to determine the “just share” of the local government units, in which authority necessarily includes the power to fix the revenue base, or to define what are included in this base, and the rate for the computation of the internal revenue allotment. Absent any clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, this Court should proceed with restraint when a legislative act is challenged in deference to a co-equal branch of the Government.
5. The “automatic release” in Section 286 of the Local Government Code as “without need for a yearly appropriation” is contrary to the Constitution. A statute cannot amend the Constitutional requirement.
6. The release of the local government units’ share without an appropriation substantially amends the Constitution. It also gives local governments a level of fiscal autonomy not enjoyed even by constitutional bodies like the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman. It bypasses Congress as mandated by the Constitution. “Without appropriation” also substantially alters the relationship of the President to local governments, effectively diminishing, if not removing, supervision as mandated by the Constitution.

Separate Opinion – Caguioa, J.

Voted to Dismiss the Petitions

Submit that J. Leonen’s liberal approach should be upheld.
1. Posits that if any reasonable basis may be conceived which supports the statute, it will be upheld, and the challenger must negate all possible bases; that the courts are not concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute; and that a liberal interpretation of the constitution in favor of the constitutionality of legislation should be adopted. Before a law is declared unconstitutional, there must be a clear and unequivocal showing that what the Constitution prohibits, the statute permits. In other words, laws shall not be declared invalid unless the conflict with the Constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Constitution gave Congress the absolute authority and discretion to determine the LGUs’ “just share” — which include both the classes of national taxes and the percentages thereof.
3. Appropriation is not a judicial function, Congress, which holds the power of the purse, is in the best position to determine the “just share” of the LGUs based on their needs and circumstances
4. Agree with the ponencia’s position that the operative fact doctrine should apply to this case. The doctrine nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law or an executive act by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences that cannot always be ignored. Petitioners cannot claim deficiency IRA from previous fiscal years as these funds may have already been used for government projects, the undoing of which would not only be physically impossible but also impractical and burdensome for the Government.

Dissenting Opinion – Reyes, Jr. J.

Voted to Dismiss the petitions

1. The national legislature is still the principal of the local government units, which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it. despite the shift towards local autonomy, the National Government, through Congress, retains control over LGUs—albeit, in a lesser degree.
2. The plain text of Section 6, Article X of the 1987 Constitution requires Congress to provide LGUs with a just share in the national taxes, which should be automatically released to them. Nowhere in this provision does the Constitution specify the taxes that should be included in the just share of LGUs. Neither does the Constitution mandate the inclusion of all national taxes in the computation of the IRA or in any other share granted to LGUs.
3. Congress has the authority to determine the exact percentage share of the LGUs, Congress may likewise determine the basis of this share and include some or all of the national taxes for a given period of time. Congress possesses the power of the purse.
4. The determination of Congress as to the base amount for the computation of the IRA is a policy question of policy best left to its wisdom. The Court may neither bind the hands of Congress nor supplant its wisdom.

Full Case Texts can be viewed at: https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018julydecisions.php?id=530

How to Formulate and Update the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP)

One of the required plans from Local Government Units (LGUs) is the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). The CDP is a three to six year multi-sectoral plan of the LGU which has its Local Development Investment Program (LDIP) composed of various multi-year projects. The LDIP is the basis of the LGU’s Annual Investment Plan (AIP). AIP on the other hand is the basis of the annual budget. Programs, projects and activities not budgeted are seldom implemented. Hence, it is safe to say that projects in the CDP are likely to be budgeted and implemented and will greatly affect / benefit the people in the LGU. Thus, it is really important to LGUs to formulate a good CDP.

As a City Planner, formulating the CDP is both challenging and rewarding. All we need to know and do to formulate the CDP is available online. A complete and detailed guide is available on the Department of Interior and Local Government’s (DILG) website. It is downloadable in PDF form – Guide to CDP Preparation for LGU. The guide is so complete to the point that it is overwhelming even to a seasoned city planner. Hence, in this blog entry, I tried to (hopefully) simplify the steps and tweak the process. I hope that the changes I present will be practically useful for other LGU planners like me.

Illustrative Guide to CDP Preparation for LGU Download

The DILG CDP guide is composed of 5 major steps as follows: Step 1 Organize and Mobilize the Planning Team; Step 2 Revisit Existing Plans and Review LGU Vision; Step 3 Prepare Ecological Profile and Structured List of PPAs; Step 4 Prepare the Local Development Investment Program (LDIP); and Step 5 Prepare Needed Implementation Instruments.

It is my personal opinion that the said steps are ideal for LGUs that are formulating their CDPs for the first time. Its comprehensiveness will truly guide the LGU planner in formulating their first ever CDP. However, most LGUs already have their CDP and only need to update the plan to be relevant to changing needs and priorities of its leaders and constituents. Hence, I am introducing an 8-step Modified CDP Process based on the DILG CDP Guide.

8-Step Modified CDP Process based on the DILG CDP Guide

Instead of immediately starting with organizing and mobilizing the Planning Team, I started with Step 1 as Pre-Planning Activities – Prepare Draft Socio-Ecological and Physical Profile (SEPP). The reason is that it is mandated to the Provincial/City/Municipal Planning and Development Coordinators (P/C/MPDCs) to conduct continuing studies, researches, and training programs necessary to evolve plans and programs for implementation. These studies and researches become part of the LGUs SEPP. Thus, the P/C/MPDCs should not wait for the Executive Order (EO) of the Local Chief Executive (LCE) initiating the formulation of the CDP before they formulate the LGUs SEPP. SEPP formulation is Step 3 in the DILG CDP Guide while it is Step 1 in our Modified CDP Process.

Step 2 is Organize and Mobilize the Planning Team. In this step, the LCE formulates an EO initiating the formulation of the CDP. The EO is the document that gives authority to the local planner and the planning team to coordinate and demand cooperation from other sectors (departments, agencies) with regards to the CDP formulation.

Step 3 is Revisit Existing Plans and Review Vision, Goals, Objectives, Timetable and Strategies (VGOTS); and Validation of the SEPP. Together with the planning team, the local planner revisits the LGU’s VGOTS and validates the SEPP formulated in Step 1.

Step 4 is Prepare Structure List of Programs, Projects, and Activities (PPAs). This is a wish list of PPAs per sector.

Step 5 is Prepare the Local Development Investment Program (LDIP). The PPAs wish list in Step 4 is prioritized based on agreed criteria of the planning team. Step 4 and Step 5 in our 8-Step Modified CDP Process corresponds to Step 4 of the DILG CDP Guide.

Step 6 is Prepare Needed Implementation Instruments and Authority Levers and Formulation of the Draft CDP and LDIP. Step 6 in our 8-Step Modified CDP Process corresponds to Step 5 which is the last step of the DILG CDP Guide. I emphasized the importance of coming out with draft documents at this stage. The draft document will be the basis of the next and last two steps.

Step 7 is Conduct of Public Consultation and LDC meeting. One of the responsibilities of the P/C/MPDCs is to promote people participation in development planning within the LGU concerned. Hence, Step 7 validates the draft plan, develops local champions and advocates, and promotes transparency, accountability, and good governance of the LGU.

Step 8 is Adoption, Approval, Implementation, and Monitoring of the CDP and LDIP. This is considered the culmination of the plan formulation. A plan is only a piece of paper if not adopted, approved and implemented by the LGU. The CDP and LDIP is approved via a Sanggunian (Council) Resolution and implemented via a Sanggunian (Council) Annual Investment Plan Resolution and Budget Appropriation Ordinance. It is again another responsibility of the P/C/MPDCs to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the different development programs, projects, and activities in the local government unit concerned in accordance with the approved development plan.

I will further explain the required activities and outputs per stage in the 8-Step Modified CDP Process based on the DILG CDP Guide in my next blog entry.

If you want to learn more about the responsibilities of a P/C/MPDCs; How to Formulate a CDP without hiring a Planning consultant; and the different plans in the LGUs; check the links below.

Let me know your thoughts on the 8-Step Modified CDP Process based on the DILG CDP Guide.

Ten Tips on how to formulate your Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) without hiring a Planning Consultant

Urban Planning from National to Local Governments: Alignment and Relationship of Plans

What it meant to be a Local Government Planner

Ten Tips on how to formulate your Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) without hiring a Planning Consultant

How will you plan in a less than ideal situation? How will you manage without outside help of experts? How will you proceed if you do not have enough data, information, manpower, or resources? This is our story.

Four years ago (2017), our office, the Office of the City Planning and Development Coordinator (CPDO), decided to start the formulation of our City’s Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) for three reasons. First is it is a mandated plan of the local government unit (LGU), second is we are excited to do it ourselves because we did not allocate resources to hire a consultant to assist us in the formulation of the CDP, and third is we badly want to update our CDP to qualify our city to the Seal of Good and Local Governance (SGLG) award.

Our city’s past CDP is part of a combined plan composed of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and CDP. That plan is called the Comprehensive Land Use and Development Plan (CLUDP) which covered the years 2000 to 2015. The city hired a consultant in 1999 to help formulate the CLUDP. Hence, if you will look at it, this is the first time our city will formulate its separate CDP. That time, we are both anxious and excited to face this challenge.

Our team is composed of officers from the CPDO. We asked the Mayor if we can go outside our city for four days to focus, study, brainstorm, and formulate a Draft CDP and Local Development Investment Program (LDIP) since we do not have an outside help (consultant) to assist us. We looked for a CDP guide or roadmap. We found a complete guide in the Department of Interior and Local Government’s (DILG) website. It is downloadable in PDF form. There is the reference (longer) detailed version and the Illustrative version. I’ll be posting here the Illustrative Guide to CDP Preparation for LGU.

dilg-cdp-illustrative-guide Download

We found the guide very helpful but also very overwhelming. The guide is so complete that it seems that the data and information we had would not suffice to formulate a decent CDP. We had to re-think on how to actually start our planning process. I am sharing with you some of the things or steps we did as a small group to overcome the dreaded situation and formulate a draft CDP as follows:

Draft the Table of Contents

We started first by listing the suggested Table of Contents of the CDP from the DILG guidebook. This served as a checklist to review our available data, assign topics to a member, and a guidepost of our daily accomplishment. The table of contents allowed us to see the big picture and the preferred final output of our activity.

2. Divide the Table of Contents by Chapter, sectors or sub-chapters and by person responsible

We are 6 in our team. We have (2) two urban planners, (1) geographic information system (GIS) expert, (1) expert in local finance, and two (2) jack of all trades, editors, and multi-sectoral planners. We divided the table of contents by chapter, sectors or sub-chapters whichever is applicable based on available data and information.

3. Conduct Population Projection (the most important and available data)

Population data is readily available in the national government’s Philippine Statistical Authority (PSA). Population data is conducted via household census by the PSA every 5 years. The data also provides the growth rate of the LGU. For me, population data is the most important data. By population alone, a planner can project the needed number of houses, schools, hospitals, etc. I personally computed the population projection of the city from 2015 to 2022 that served as the basis for the component sectoral plans of the CDP.

4. Review vertical and horizontal plan alignment as well as other plans related to the LGU

Know the Role of the LGU un relation to other plans. I have a separate blog entry on the vertical and horizontal plan alignment of the LGU. I’ll leave a link to the blog at the end of this entry.

5. Review political platform of elected officials from national down to the LGU level

Planning is more of an art than a science. Planners who think that they are more important than the elected officials should think otherwise. There are great plans that gather dust and moulds somewhere in the planner’s office and there are not so great plans that are supported by elected officials. These not so great plans are given resources and implemented. Planners should learn to work with elected officials. Review their political platform, aspirations, and goals. Most of the time they have great and practical ideas that planners tend to overlook. Remember that as planners we plan for the people and our elected officials being voted into their positions are considered as the voice of the people.

Have a checklist of their plans, programs, and projects. You will eventually see a pattern which sector is their priority.

6. Give time to the person responsible to finish his/her draft report

Each of us went to our independent spot to work on our assigned task. We took note of our available data, tried to research to fill in the gaps in the data, benchmarked CDPs of other LGUs available in the internet, and prepared tables, graphs, and write-ups.

7. Present the individual output to the group

This is the time where we brainstorm. Everybody was encouraged to give his/her inputs to the presentation. We discussed what are the data needed to be included in the report, what are missing, is there a chance we can still get the data, if the data is not available – can the profile still supports the recommendation, will it look good in tables or graphs, and which should come first from the sets of data, among others. We all decide what should be included in the chapters, sectors or sub-chapters. When we are done, we again assign a different topic to cover the other chapters, and so on.

8. Fill-out the required information to the Table of Contents

Remember how someone solves a jigsaw puzzle? This is how we keep progress by fitting-in one piece at a time in our Table of Contents puzzle. It gave us a feeling of accomplishment whenever we fill-out a chapter or a sub-chapter. It further motivates us. For us, this numerous small wins greatly contribute to our objective of formulating our city’s CDP.

9. Decide which part of the Table of Contents should remain and which should be deleted

Some of our puzzle pieces or data and information are not available. However, the data that we have already provided us a more than clear picture of the situation of our city, what needs to be done, how the other plans (national, other LGUs, other local plans and elected officials) align, and how plans should be implemented. We then decide to cut part of the table of contents that we do not have enough data or not in the priority areas. It is not practical to put a sub-sector which does not have any data or impact to the city.

10. Finalize the draft

For me, this is the fun part, putting all the things together. Finalizing the draft is not a one-time step. It is actually reiterative. However, it always felt good to check on what your team accomplished in a short span of time.

We managed to formulate a draft CDP when we went back to our office. We then presented the outputs to the concerned departments for their additional comments, inputs, recommended changes, and validation. It took us around 2 months in conducting series of coordination and editing with the departments to finally finalize the CDP.

The DILG guidebook served as our main reference in the formulation of the CDP. However, I suggest treating it only as a guide and not aiming for its strict adherence. You’ll be frustrated. It is your plan, it is your city’s plan, and your city knows best what should be included in your plan.

As a practicing city government planner, I am planning to make a blog entry in the future introducing modified steps in the CDP guidebook to make it simpler and practical without straying away from the said guidebook.

Yes, you can formulate your CDP with your team without hiring a planning consultant. It is hard, challenging and painstaking but it is not impossible. Yes, we got the CDP approved by our Mayor and City Development Council; and adopted by our city council. It got the support of our elected officials. Finally, yes, our city qualified and got the Seal of Good and Local Governance (SGLG) award.

How about you? What challenges did you overcome as planner?

Vertical and horizontal plan alignment https://cityplanningcoordinator.blog/2021/05/25/urban-planning-from-national-to-local-governments-alignment-and-relationship-of-plans/

You might also want to check my other Urban Planning Blog entries:

Urban Planning in Local Government Units (LGUs)

How to become an Urban (Environmental) Planner? – Qualifying for the Exam

What is Urban (Environmental) Planning?

What Does an Urban Planner Do?

Urban Planning in Local Government Units (LGUs)

Most of us when we envision the world of Urban Planning think of places like Singapore, Washington DC, Netherlands, and the likes. It is a good start but urban planning is not limited to grand urban designs. It is not limited to big urban planning firms. Actually, it is more felt and relevant at the local government unit (LGU) level.

What is an LGU? Why is it important? Why is it relevant? Does urban planning reach LGUs? How does it affect you as a constituent of your LGU?

LGUs are territorial and political subdivisions of the State that enjoys genuine and meaningful local autonomy which enables them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals. – RA 7160 Declaration of Policy (Sec 22 a)

I believe I need to elaborate the definition of an LGU. First is a country is composed of LGUs. These LGUs have defined territories (land areas). Second is they are political subdivisions in a way that people in the LGUs vote for their governors, mayors, barangay captains and their councils. Third is it is the state’s policy is to provide LGUs genuine and meaningful local autonomy. It means that the state (national government) allows its LGUs to decide and formulate policies which are important and relevant to them. The objective is for the LGUs to achieve its desired development, self-reliance and decide what is good or beneficial (general welfare) to them. Fourth and last is to make LGUs effective partners of the state (national government) in the attainment of national goals. Take note that the word used was “partner” and not “subordinate”.

LGUs are lower government units that are not part or below the national government level. LGUs are composed of autonomous regions, provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. As of 2017, there are 81 provinces, 145 cities, 1,489 municipalities and 42,046 (year 2020) barangays which totals to 43,761 LGUs in the Philippines.

Now, let us look at some concepts related to LGUs. I learned these things when I studied Public Management. I’ll upload a slide presentation copy so you can review it later.

What are LGUs slides:

what-are-lgus-3 Download

The most important concept when we talk about LGUs is decentralization. From the word itself we can easily say that it means moving away from the center. And you are right! So what is the center that we are talking about? It is the National Government. These are the Offices / Departments of our President and National Congress. The things being decentralized are the power, authority and responsibility to govern the people.

Decentralization generally refers to the systematic and rational dispersal of power, authority and responsibility from the center to the periphery, from top to lower levels, or from national to local governments (Raul de Guzman).

There are two main and obvious reasons for decentralization. First is it hastens decision-making processes by decongesting central (national) government and reducing red tape. Imagine if a simple change of street name, identification of garbage collection route, putting up of pedestrian lanes, designation of smoking areas, etc. are being sent to Congress or to the President for decision. It is not practical. Second is it increases citizen participation and empowers them by leading to a more open and democratic government. It is easier to talk to our mayors, council members, or LGU employees and demand for improvement of services or promote or rally against a policy than bringing them up to the national level. It gives people more power to participate, influence and be heard by the government at the LGU level.

There are three (3) major types of Decentralization in the Philippines. These are devolution, deconcentration and debureaucratization.

When we talk about decentralization of LGUs, we are talking about devolution. Devolution is the transfer of powers and authorities from the national government to lower level political or local government units. The LGU has an elected executive and local legislative body that passes laws or ordinances; has specific taxing powers; has jurisdiction over a certain defined geographical area; and is political in nature. In devolution there is an actual transfer of power and autonomy from the central government to its components.

In deconcentration, there is no transfer of power and autonomy but only transfer of functions. It is the transfer of functions to lower level administrative units designated by the central office. These are Regional or provincial offices of the departments of the national government like the Department of Public Works and Highways, Department of Trade and Industry, National Economic and Development Authority, etc. In deconcentration, the authority still rests in the central offices and the decentralization is mostly administrative in nature.

The last type decentralization is debureaucratization. It is the transfer of power and functions of the government to non-government institutions. The power is in the civil society organizations, non-government organizations, professional organizations, cooperatives, people’s organization and private sectors. We can appreciate debureaucratization in the following instances: awarding of service / management / lease Contracts; public-private partnerships; joint venture agreements; concessionaires, privatization / divestiture, etc.

“With great power comes great responsibility”— Peter Parker / Spiderman

The responsibilities of the LGUs are clearly presented in the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act 7160). The Local Government Code of 1991 is known as the Bible guide of LGUs. The law provided the legal and institutional infrastructure for the participation of civil society in local governance, increased the financial resources available to LGUs and laid foundation for the development and evolution of more entrepreneurial-oriented local governments. (Brillantes, 1998)

Numerous aspects of basic services that earlier were the responsibility of the national government were devolved to LGUs as well as the enforcement of certain regulatory powers.

RA 7160 link: https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7160_1991.html
There are two inherent characteristics (nature) of LGUs. These are political and corporate characteristics.

An LGU is a political subdivision of the national government. It is an instrument of the State to help carry out functions of the government. It is a Public or Government Agency. LGU has a public character (not private). Being a public agency its concern is to promote the general welfare of its constituents, deliver devolved function and collect taxes to fund the delivery of its services.
LGU as a corporate entity or corporation represents the inhabitants of its territory to administer its own private affairs / private character. It means that an LGU has a right of succession in its corporate (LGU) name, to hold and convey properties, borrow money, to sue and be sued, and to enter into contracts, etc.

Let’s go back to urban planning. Now that we know the powers, responsibilities and impact of LGUs in our everyday life, do you think it is important to have planners in each of the LGUs?

Urban planning is strong at the province, city and municipality levels (total of 1,715 LGUs).

LGUs are required to appoint a Local Planning and Development Coordinator (Planning Director) that is responsible for planning formulation and activities in their locality. These planning directors are required to be a licensed urban/environmental planners via Civil Service Commission Memorandum 1700294 entitled Amendment to the QS of the Local Planning and Development Coordinator Positions in the LGUs enacted on February 2, 2017. Imagine 1,715 Urban Planners leading their LGUs!

CSC Memorandum 1700294 Link: http://www.csc.gov.ph/phocadownload/MC2017/MC%20No.%2010,%20s.2017.pdf

“The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” – Aristotle

Having Urban Planners practicing urban planning knowledge and skills at the LGU level will surely positively influence the development of the country as a whole. Let us all get involved and participate in our municipalities and cities planning activities and determination of local policies.