G.R. No. L-31463, August 31, 1970
F. REYES CABIGAO, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor and Presiding Officer of the Municipal Board, Manila, JOSE BRILLIANTES, APOLONIO V. GENER, MARTIN ISIDRO, MANUEL S. ISIP, DANILO LACUNA, GEMILIANO C. LOPEZ, JR., AMBROSIO LORENZO, JR., CARLOS LOYSAGA, MARIANO MAGSALIN, ALFONSO V. MENDOZA, JR., HERMOGENES J. PABLO, GONZALO PUYAT II, EDUARDO QUINTOS, JR., BEN RUBIO RONQUILLO, JOSE SEMBRANO, MANUEL UY, JR., AVELINO V. VILLACORTA and FRANCIS YUSECO, in their capacity as Councilors and Members of the Municipal Board, Manila, and the MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Petitioners, v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, in his capacity as City Mayor of Manila, HERMOGENES DIEGO, in his capacity as City Treasurer, and HUGODINO LIM, in his capacity as City Auditor of Manila, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the Vice-Mayor, Councilors, and the Municipal Board of Manila, filed an original action for Mandamus. They contended that the enactment of the Decentralization Act of 1967 ( Republic Act No. 5185 ) eliminated the need for the respondent City Mayor’s approval of the 1969-1970 budget ordinance of Manila as enacted by the Board. They based this on Section 11, Paragraph III of the Decentralization Act, which states that provincial, city, and municipal budgets shall become effective upon approval by their respective boards or councils, and which repealed or modified inconsistent provisions of Republic Act No. 4477 . They argued that the omission of the phrase “with the approval of the City Mayor” from this provision, which was present in the Local Autonomy Act ( Republic Act No. 2264 ), denoted a legislative intent to shift the budget approval power from the mayors to the municipal boards. Respondents, the City Mayor, Treasurer, and Auditor, upheld the mayor’s power of approval, asserting it was expressly provided in the Revised Charter of Manila ( Republic Act No. 409 , as amended) and recognized in the Local Autonomy Act. They maintained the Decentralization Act’s intent was to remove the need for approval by national government officials, not local mayors. The respondent mayor also stated he vetoed the budget because it failed to comply with legal requirements, appropriating an excessive amount for salaries.

ISSUE

Whether the enactment of the Decentralization Act of 1967 ( Republic Act No. 5185 ) has eliminated the need for the city mayor’s approval of the city budget ordinance as enacted by the municipal board.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the writ and dismissed the petition. It held that the Decentralization Act did not abrogate the city mayor’s power to approve the city budget. The Court rejected petitioners’ interpretation for several reasons: (1) The mayor’s power cannot be divested by mere implication from an omission in phraseology; (2) The Revised Charter of Manila is a special law, and a general law (the Decentralization Act) does not repeal a special law unless the intent is manifest; (3) The total thrust of the Decentralization Act is to grant autonomous powers from the national government, not to shift approval power locally from the executive to the legislative branch, as indicated by the heading of Section 11 and the limiting clause in its Paragraph IV; (4) Construing the conflict against petitioners’ contention upholds the principle of check and balance between executive and legislative arms, noting the board can override a mayoral veto by a two-thirds vote; (5) A veto power, once conferred, may not be taken away except by express legislative enactment or clear inference, not by mere implication from an omitted phrase.