Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 165 views

    Drilon VS Lim Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kristanne Louise Yu
    The document discusses a Supreme Court case regarding the president's power to control versus supervise. It summarizes the court's decision that the Secretary of Justice reviews the legality and constitutionality of tax ordinances, not substituting his own judgment, and therefore acts in supervision not control over local governments. The court found the secretary did not violate the president's constitutional power of control by annulling a tax ordinance for being illegal or failing to follow proper procedures.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Drilon VS Lim Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kristanne Louise Yu
    165 views2 pages
    The document discusses a Supreme Court case regarding the president's power to control versus supervise. It summarizes the court's decision that the Secretary of Justice reviews the legality and constitutionality of tax ordinances, not substituting his own judgment, and therefore acts in supervision not control over local governments. The court found the secretary did not violate the president's constitutional power of control by annulling a tax ordinance for being illegal or failing to follow proper procedures.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    DRILON VS LIM CASE DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a Supreme Court case regarding the president's power to control versus supervise. It summarizes the court's decision that the Secretary of Justice reviews the legality and constitutionality of tax ordinances, not substituting his own judgment, and therefore acts in supervision not control over local governments. The court found the secretary did not violate the president's constitutional power of control by annulling a tax ordinance for being illegal or failing to follow proper procedures.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    165 views2 pages

    Drilon VS Lim Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kristanne Louise Yu
    The document discusses a Supreme Court case regarding the president's power to control versus supervise. It summarizes the court's decision that the Secretary of Justice reviews the legality and constitutionality of tax ordinances, not substituting his own judgment, and therefore acts in supervision not control over local governments. The court found the secretary did not violate the president's constitutional power of control by annulling a tax ordinance for being illegal or failing to follow proper procedures.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    X.

    SPECIFIC POWER OF THE PRESIDENT


    B. THE POWER TO CONTROL AND THE FAITHFUL EXECUTION CLAUSE
    (SEC 17)
    Drilon vs. Lim, G.R. No. 112497

    Judge Rodolfo C. Palattao declared Section 187 of the Local Government Code
    unconstitutional insofar as it empowered the Secretary of Justice to review tax ordinances
    and, inferentially, to annul them. He cited the familiar distinction between control and
    supervision, the first being "the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a
    subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the
    judgment of the former for the latter," while the second is "the power of a superior officer
    to see to it that lower officers perform their functions in accordance with law." His
    conclusion was that the challenged section gave to the Secretary the power of control and
    not of supervision only as vested by the Constitution in the President of the Philippines.
    This was, in his view, a violation not only of Article X, specifically Section 4 thereof,
    and of SThese grounds affected the legality, not the wisdom or reasonableness, of the
    tax measure.
    ection 5 on the taxing powers of local governments, and the policy of local autonomy in
    general.

    Secretary Drilon set aside the Manila Revenue Code only on two grounds, to with, the
    inclusion therein of certain ultra vires provisions and non-compliance with the prescribed
    procedure in its enactment.

    Section 187 authorizes the Secretary of Justice to review only the constitutionality or
    legality of the tax ordinance and, if warranted, to revoke it on either or both of these
    grounds. When he alters or modifies or sets aside a tax ordinance, he is not also permitted
    to substitute his own judgment for the judgment of the local government that enacted the
    measure. Secretary Drilon did set aside the Manila Revenue Code, but he did not replace
    it with his own version of what the Code should be. He did not pronounce the ordinance
    unwise or unreasonable as a basis for its annulment. He did not say that in his judgment it
    was a bad law. What he found only was that it was illegal. All he did in reviewing the said
    measure was determine if the petitioners were performing their functions in accordance
    with law, that is, with the prescribed procedure for the enactment of tax ordinances and
    the grant of powers to the city government under the Local Government Code. As we see
    it, that was an act not of control but of mere supervision.
    An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. If they are not followed,
    he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may
    even decide to do it himself. Supervision does not cover such authority. The supervisor or
    superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay
    down such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules
    are not observed, he may order the work done or re-done but only to conform to the
    prescribed rules. He may not prescribe his own manner for the doing of the act. He has no
    judgment on this matter except to see to it that the rules are followed. In the opinion of
    the Court, Secretary Drilon did precisely this, and no more nor less than this, and so
    performed an act not of control but of mere supervision.

    You might also like