lo005s2013
Post on 21-Nov-2015
3 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
-
RFPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESDEPARTMEFIT OF TIiE INTFNIOR AND IOCA,T GOVERNMENT
Froncisco Gold Condominium llEDSA Cor. Mopogmohol St., Dillnron
Quezon City
OFFICE OF THE
MR. ITLORENCIO B. qUICOY, JR.Department HeadI-;nd Banl< ol rlrc Philil'ljnesAntipolo BrancllM.L. Quezon Sr., Antipolo eiry
UNDERSECRETARYDILG tegal Opinion No.05, S.2013
'r g FEB ?013
BARANGAY SAN LUIS, ANTIPOLO CITY PUNONGBARANGAY CONTROVEITSY
Dear Mr. Quicoy, Jr.:
'l'his refets to youl request for. clarificatio' on this Depafiment,s Opinion No. 2,8, S.20 l3 rclatir e ro two issucs, lo wil:
1. Validity ofthe Decision dated 02 January 2013 of the Sangguniang panlungsodimposing upon you the penalry ofsuspension for six (6) months; and
2. Whether the aforesaid Decision may be irr.rplemenred even betbre the lapse oi.the fifieen (15)-day period providecl under Antipolo City Ordinance No. 94-2001 ,
As regarcls the first issue, please nore that tl"ris Depar-tment deliberately did notaddress the same since as we have stated: "the Department will not unduly interwene on anissue which is withir-r the jurisdictiorl of another body" since it appears that tl-rere was anappeal of the decision of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Hence, there is nothing to be clarifiedanent this issue.
With respect to the second issue, please be advised that this Department resolved thesame by clariiying that the implernentation of the SP Decision shoulcl be made in the 1igl-rt ofthe Citlr Orclinance, the latter having been stated in the opinion to be presumecl valid.
Sj.nce the Dcpartment's Legal Opinion l-rad presuned tl-re validiry o1' the CitvOrdinance anent thc enforceabiliry of the l)ecision stated above, tl-ren we have effbctivelydeclared that the implementation of tl-re Decision of the SP should comply with the periodprovided in the ordinance. Therefore, the recognition made by Antipolo City Mayor DaniloLeyble in favor of PB Andrei Zapanta on 7 |anuary 2013 finds basis in the said CiryOrdinance.
At this juncture, the fact that the election period (January 13 to fune 12, 2013) hasset-in within the lilteen-day period proviclecl by the ordinarrcc lbr the enlbrceability of theSP Decision, then it becones incumbent upon the SP to seek rhe opinion o{ the COMELEC
RE
ecblqatl'rg 20 qea o 6l .{6c41 4cdor.i'roq an t&o P&q4a*a.
-
as to whether or not the ratter's crearance shourd be a condition precedent for theimplemenration of the said Decision in rhe right of Secti.n 1 (A)(2) of COMELEC ResolutionNo. 9581 dated December 18, 2012 entitled: "IN THE MATTER oF ENFORCING THEPROHIBITIONS AGAINST APPOINTMENT OR HIRING OF NEW EMPLOYEES,CREATING OR F'ILUNG OF NEW POSITIONS, GTVING ANY SALARY INCREASE ORTRANSFERRING OR DETAILING A]VY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE IN THE CIWLSERVICE AND SUSPENSION OF ELECTIVE LOCAL OFFICIALS IN CONNECTION WITHTHE MAY 13, 2013 AUTOMATED SYNCHORIZED NATIONAL, LOCAL AND ARMMREGIONAL ELECTIONS", which provides, to wit:
"Section 1. Prohibited acts.
B. Suspend any elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay officer,ur ess rhe suspension will be for purposes of applying the .,Anti_Graft arrdcorn:pt Practices Act" in relation to the suspension and removal of electiveoffilcials."
Attached is a copy of the said GoMELEC Resoruti.n for your ready reference.
Hence, if you are raising the issue of recognition between pB Zapanra and Mr. cate,you are hereby advised to raise the same before the GoMELEC, in view of the provisionss[ated above.
We hope to have addressed your concern accorclingly.
Very truly yours,
LS:87/l I
AUSTERE A. PANADEROUndersecretary
top related