7/25/2019 DILG Legal Opinions 201133 d196a64f68
1/4
Republic
of
the
Philippines
DEPARTMENT
OF
THE
INTERIOR
AND
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
A.
Francisco
Gold
Condominium
ll
Bldg.,
cor
EDSA
Mapagmahal
Street,
Diliman,
euezon Citv
I-MqALSNRVNCfl
DILG
OPINION
NO.
6'
S. 2OIO
24
May
2010
PUNONG
BARANGAY
BENJAMIN
P.
RIVERA
Barangay
Siena,
Quezon
City
Dear
PB
Rivera:
'
This
has
reference
to
your
earlier
letter
addressed
to DllG-euezon
City
Director
Maria
Lourdes
L.
Agustin
asking
that level's
legal
opinion relative
to the
conduct
of
your
sangguniang
barangay's
regular
session
and
the claim
for
honoraria
of
several
sangguniang
barangay
members
thereat.
Thereafter,
City
Director
Agustin
indorsed
your
letter
as
well
as
the
rejoinder
of the majority
of
the
sangguniang Barangay
members
to
this
level
for
appropriate
action
and
summarized
the
issues
as follows:
"I)
Whethetor
not
half
of
the honotarium
of
the ntajority
of
the sangguniang
barangay
members who
were
unable
to
attend
their
g'd
regular
council meeting
(which
was,
nevertheless,
adjourned
due
to lack
of
quorun)
may be legally
withheld by
the
punong
barangay?
Reading
fiom
the
position
of the
concerned
sangganiang
barangay members,
it
is their
contention
that they
sltould
be paid of
theit'
honorarium
considefing
that their
g'd
regular
council session
was adjourned
due to
lack
of quorum.
9)
Whether ot not
the council session called
and
conducted
by
majot'ity
of
the
sanggnniang
members
and
p'esided
by
SK Chairman Lawrence
Ortiz last 95 January eot
o
may be
considered regular
session
in
|ieu of
their 16 January 9O1O regular
session which
was
adjourned due to
lack
ofquorunt?
3) Whether
or
not
Kagawad
Emma Lourdes
C.
De
Jesus
and
Kagawad
Ernesto G.
Gomez,
who
wet'e preventively
suspended
by
the
puezon
City
Council
on
Od January
9olo,
are
entitled
to
half
of
their honorarium due
to the
Stay Order
by the
Ollice
of the
President dated tt
January
9O1O, and was
served by
this
ofrice on
18
Januar
9O1O?
It
Kagawad
contention
PB
Benjamin
P.
Rivera
that
since
Lordes C. De
Jesus
and Kap'awad Etnesto
G,
Gomez wet'e unable
to attend
thei[
two
(9)
regulat'counci]
sessions
for the
month ofJanuary
eoto,
their honorarium
should be
withheld
until final rcsolution of
their suspension."
We shall answer
your
first
and
second
queries
in
one
discussion
since they
pertain
to
one
(1)
subject
matter.
is
the
Emma
7/25/2019 DILG Legal Opinions 201133 d196a64f68
2/4
-
t-
..
-
In
.reply
thereto, please
be
informed
that
under
DBM
Local
Budget
circurar
No.
63,
in
reration
to
section
393
of
the
Locar
Government
coJ6-oiigsr
sangguniang
Barangay
Members
are
paid
in
the
form
of
honorarium.
T#
Government Accounting
and
Auditing
uanuar
lcnaM)
defines honorarium
as thar
remuneration
given
to
a
pubric
officiar
for
services
actuaily
rendered.
ln
tne
case
of
Santiago
vs.
COA
(GR
No.
sees4.,
te
JuIy
,nnr1,,,an
honorarium
is
defined
as
something
given
not
as
a
maxer
of
oblrgation
but in
appreciation
for
services
rendered
a voluntary
donation
in
considbration
of
seruties
wnicn
aimii
ii-no
compen:atton
in
money".
with
this,
it
has
been
our
considered
view
that
in
measuring
the
services
actuaily
rendered
by
an
erective
barangay
ornciat,
the
basic
consideration
shall
be
his
attendance
in'regular
and
speciar
sessions.
A regurar
session
is
that
which
has
been
earrier
fixed
as
to
day,
time
and
place,
through
a
Resolution passed by
the
sanggunian concerned on
the first
day
of
the
session
immediatery
foilowing
lne
etecti6i
of its
members
tsection
i)
Ja1,
Lrcal
Government
code
of
1991J.
sangguniang
barangays
are
mandated
to
conduct
two
(2)
regular
sessions
amonth
ebid.).
Since
ihe
day,
time
unJ
pfu."
of the
regular
session
was
arready
fixed
via
a Resorution,
we
are
of the
view
that
a
written
notice
for
the
holding
of such
regular
session
is
no ronger
required.
A
special
session,
on
the
other
hand,
is
that
which
may
be
cailed
by the
local
chief
executive
or
by
a majority
of the
members
of the
sanggunian
when
public
interest
so
demands
t*cfion
iz
61,
torit
oovernment
code
of
tggil.
rn
calling
such
special
sessions,
it
is
required
that
a
written
notice
to
the
mem-bers
shall
be
served
personally
at
the
member's
usual
place
of residence
at least
twenty-four
(24)
hours
before
the
speciar
session
is
herd
(rbid.).
It
bears
to
stress
that-any
session
held
on
a
day
other
than
the
scheduled
dite
of regular
session
is
properly
considered
a
special
session
so
that
it should
comply
witli
the
requirements
set
forth
under
Section
52
(d)
of
the
Code.
should
an erective
barangay
officiar
be
absent
in
a
session
of
the
sangguniang
barangay
for
reasons
other
than
the
performance
of his
public
duty
outside
of
the
office,
such
as attending
to the
problems
of
the
constituents,
he
may
suffer
a
propoftionate
reduction
of his
honoraria.
In
the
case
at hand,
according
to
you,
several
members
of
the
sangguniang
barangay
did
not
attend
your
16 lanuary
2010
regular
session
since
the
notice
for
the
said
session
was
only
given
to
them
on 15
January
2010
and
that
they
had
already
emergenry
appointments
set
on that
session
day.
with
only
you
and
two
(2)
sangguniang
barangay
members
present,
the
aforeiaid 16
January
2010
regular
session
was
adjourned
for
lack
of
quorum.
As
contended
by the
majority
of
your
sangguniang
barangay
members
in
their
rejoinder,
they
should
be
given
their
honoraria
corresponding
to
your
16
January
2010
regular
session since
the
same was
after
all adiourned due
to
lack
of
ouorum.
Applying
the rule
as we
enunciated
above. written
notices
for the
conduct
of a sanggunian's
regular
session
are no longer
required
since
the
date, time
and
place
of
the
regular
session
was
already
previously
fixed
via
a
Resolution.
The
sangguniang
barangay members
cannot
therefore
use
good
faith
(e.g.
short
7/25/2019 DILG Legal Opinions 201133 d196a64f68
3/4
-3-
:*i::l
ur
a
defense
for
not
attending
the
sangguniang
barangay,s
regutar
>E)>tu
.
..
Corollary
thereto,
since several sangguniang barangay members
did
not
attend
your
16
ranuary
2010
regurar-iessiori
due
io'n"ir-"r"ig"n.y
appointments,
we
find
the
propoftionate
reduction
of their
respective
non6iiria
to
be
just
proper
if
such
emergency
appointments
are nor
connected
with
the
performance
of
their
public
duty.
The
foregoing
rule
on
the
proportionate
reduction
of
honoraria
is
arso
true
even
if
the
regular
session
was
nevertheless
adjourned
due
to rack
or
quorum.
May
we respectfurry
stress
that
on
16
January
2010,
there
was
stiil
u'reorru,.
session
that
took
place
but
the
same
was
only
adjourned
due
to lack
of
quoium.
This
holding
of
a
regular
session,
though
momeniarily, was corroborated in your
letter
when
you
said
that
"(T)he
chairman
therefore
opened
the
sessiin
ar
2;40PM
with
only
Kagawads
carolina
cruz
and
primitivo
perez,
Jr.
present.
The
secretary
tnformed
the
chairman
that
there
are
only
three
(3)
members
in
the
quorum
inc/uding
the
chairman.
The
chairman
therefore
dec/ared
it
a norr
and
adjourned
the
Session
at 2:4,pM.',There
was
nothing
to
adjourn
if
there
was
no regular
session
that
took
place
in
the first
place.
Fufthermore,
a
quorum
is
defined
under
Section
53 of
the Loca.
Government
code of 1991
as "(A)
majority
or'a// the
members
of
the
sanggunian
who
have
been elected
and
qualified
xxx."
It
is
setUed
that
the
existence
of
a
quorum ts
necessary
in
order
for the
sanggunian
to
transact ofncial
business.
May
it
be remembered
that
the
existence
or
non-existence
of
a
quorum
is
usuallv
determined
after
a
roll
call
of the
members,
which
is
usually
made
before
every
session
starts.
This
attendance
to
session
is
already
suFficient
to
entifle
a
sangguniang
barangay
member
to his
honoraria.
To
hold
that
even
sangguniang
barangay
members
who
did not
attend
the 16
January
2010 regular
seiiion
ari
entitled
to
honoraria
corresponding
to this
particular
regular
session
would
run
counter
to
the
rule
that
honorarium
is
given
only
as
a
remuneration
to
a
public
offlcial for
services
he
actually rendered.
Besides.
it would
be
unfair to
those
sangguniang
barangay
members
who
were
present
and
willing to
pafticipate
in
that
16 January 2010 regular
session
if
even those
who were
absent due to
personal
reasons
are equally
given
their
honoraria.
With
regard
to
your
third
query,
may we
invite
your
attention
to
Sections
68 and 64
of
the
Local
Government
Code of 1991.
to
wit:
*SEICTION
68. Execution
pen&inq
appea.l'.-An
appeal
shall
not
prevent
a
decision from
becoming
final
or executory.
The
respondent
shall be considered
as having
been
placed
under
preventlve
suspenslon
during
the
pendency
of
an
appeal in
the event he
wins
such
appeal.
In
the
event
the
appeal
results
in
an exoneration, he shall
be
paid
his
salary
and
such other
emoluments during the
pendency
of
the
appeal."
(SECTION
64. salaty
of
Respondent
Pending
suspension.-The
respondent
official
preventively
suspended
from
office shall receive
no salary or compensation
during
such
suspension;
but,
upon subsequent
exonefation
and
reinstatement,
he shall be
paid
full salary or
compensation
7/25/2019 DILG Legal Opinions 201133 d196a64f68
4/4
including
such
suspension."
-4-
emoluments
accruing during
such
Based
on
the
aforequoted Section
68
of
the
Code,
the respondent
local
elective
official shall
be considered
as having
placed
under
preventive
suspension
during the
pendency
of
his appeal.
Relative thereto, under
Section 64 of
the
Code,
the
respondent local elective
official
preventively
suspended
from
office
shall receive no salary or
compensation during
such
suspension
and
it is
only
upon
his exoneration
and
reinstatement that
he shall be
paid
his
full
salary or
compensation, including
such emoluments accruing
during
such
suspension.
In the
case
at
hand,
while
Sangguniang
Barangay
Members Emma
Lourdes
C.
De Jesus and
Ernesto
G,
Gomez
were
meted the
penalty
of
suspension
(not
preventive
suspension as
indicated
by City
Director Agustin
in
her letter),
they
successfully
obtained
a
Stay Order
from
the
Office
of
the
President.
It
was
by
virtue
of
the
said Stay Order
from
the
Office of the
President that the
implementation
of
their
penalty
of
suspension
was,
in the
meantime,
held
in
abeyance so
that
Sangguniang
Barangay
Members
De lesus
and
Gomez
were
directed to
re-assume their
duties as
sangguniang barangay
members
pending
their
appeal.
Let
it
be
noted that
the
non-implementation
of
the suspension
against
Sangguniang
Barangay Members
De
lesus and
Gomez does
not
automatically
entitle them
too of their
respective honoraria.
They are
still
required to attend
their
sangguniang barangay's regular
and
special
sessions. This is only
proper
since
Sangguniang
Barangay Members
are
paid
in
the
form
of
honorarium,
which
is
defined
as
that
remuneration
given
to
a
public
official
for
services
actually
rendered.
As
we
already explained
above,
in measuring
the
services actually
rendered
by
an elective barangay
official,
the basic
consideration
shall
be his
attendance
in
regular
and
special
sessions.
Thus, a
sanqguniang
barangay
member may
suffer a
proportionate
reduction
of
his honoraria
for
his
failure
to
attend a session
for reasons
other
than
the
performance
of
his
public
duty
outside
of the ofnce,
such
as
attending
to the
problems
of
the constituents.
We hope
this finally
settles
your
concern.
Very
truly
yours,
BY
AUTHORITY
OF
THE
SECRETARY:
Cc:
USEC.
EDUARDO
R. SOLIMAN,
JR.
Undersecretary
for special Constituency
Relations
This
Department
DIR. MARIA
LOURDES
L.
AGUMN
City
Director
DILG,
Quezon
City
Lsl 7
Director
III