DILG says SP already revoked Verceles’ blanket authority
The Catanduanes Tribune -Vol. XXII No. 31 October 9, 2002 Virac, Catanduanes

The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) has affirmed that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan has already revoked the blanket authority given to Governor Leandro B. Verceles by the Aquino board a month after the 2001 local elections.
No less than Secretary Jose D. Lina, Jr. signed DILG Opinion No. 149, series of 2002, which validated the position of Vice Governor Cesar V. Sarmiento and his colleagues that the governor’s entering into and signing contracts as well as his realignment of provincial funds without the authority of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan are illegal.
It may be recalled that on June 11, 2001, less than a month after they were bundled out of office in an embarrassing loss, the previous board headed by then Vice Gov. Alfred M. Aquino granted the governor (then Hector Sanchez who disappeared shortly before the polls) blanket authority to enter into contracts, memoranda of agreement and other instruments, bid projects and effect realignment, revision, modification and addition of items in the budget, the Annual Investment Plan and the 20% Economic Development Plan. Without the knowledge of the incoming Sanggunian, the SP secretary submitted the resolutions for approval of the new governor two days after he assumed office.
Sometime in November, the new board passed two resolutions revoking the authority granted to the governor, who vetoed the same by arguing that the resolutions are in effect ordinances and therefore subject to executive approval of veto. As a consequence, Verceles continued to enter into contracts and agreements, and augment items in the 2002 annual budget without legislative action.
In clarifying the matter, Sec. Lina cited the ruling of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 135087 (Suguitan vs. City of Mandaluyong) which stated that an ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter and that an ordinance possesses a general and permanent character while a resolution is temporary in nature.
Lina pointed out that under Sec. 54 of the Local Government Code, only ordinances enacted by the SP shall be presented to the governor for approval while resolutions are not expressly mentioned.
While the same provision stated that an “ordinance or resolution” shall be effective if the sanggunian concerned has overridden the veto of the local chief executive by 2/3 vote of all its members, the governor’s veto power applies only to any particular item or items of an appropriation ordinance, an ordinance or resolution adopting a local development plan or public investment program, or an ordinance directing the payment of money or creating liability,” the DILG chief said.
“Resolutions are not anymore subject to the approval of the local chief executive except with respect to resolutions affecting local development plans and public investment programs over which he can exercise his item veto power pursuant to Section55(b) of the Code,” Sec. Lina stressed.
“It has to be noted that the power of the sanggunian to authorize the local chief executive to enter into contracts grant under Section 22(c) of the Code is a power solely vested in and belonging to the sanggunian,” he stressed. “It requires no action on the part of the local chief executive.” Clearly, the subject authority has to be expressed formally and substantively by the sanggunian through a resolution.
“From the foregoing, it is clear that the resolution revoking the blanket authority given to the governor, not being an ordinance buta mere resolution, does not anymore require the approval of the local chief executive,” Sec. Lina emphasized.
“Consequently, the approval not being required, the governor cannot exercise his veto power,” he said. “Hence, the resolution revoking the authority is already effective for all legal intents and purposes.”
In the same opinion, the DILG also said that the local chief executive may be authorized to augment any item in the annual budget from savings in other items within the same expense class of their respective appropriations, but “the authority to augment must be contained in an ordinance, and not in a resolution.”