Rodriguez v. City of Manila
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs, officials and employees of the City of Manila, including four captains of the municipal police force, brought an action to declare Ordinance No. 1148 of the City of Manila null and void. The ordinance was an appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1924. A draft was prepared before October 30, 1923. An excerpt of Section 1 and Sections 2 to 8 were published in the Official Gazette on October 30, 1923. The ordinance was passed by the Municipal Board on December 14, 1923, and approved by the Acting Mayor on the same day. It was published in full in the Official Gazette on December 22, 1923. The ordinance as passed did not make provisions for the salaries of various officials and employees. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila declared Ordinance No. 1148 null and void, prohibiting its enforcement. The court held that the Acting Mayor who approved the ordinance was a de facto mayor, thus rejecting the first ground of attack. However, it found the ordinance void on the grounds that it was not published in two daily newspapers of general circulation in English and Spanish prior to adoption, and that it was not published in full before discussion and adoption, with only extracts published. The Petition: The defendants, the City of Manila et al., appealed the decision, arguing that the lower court erred in holding the provisions on publication mandatory, that publication in the Official Gazette was sufficient, and that publication in excerpt form was defective.
Issue(s)
Whether the provisions of section 2443 of the Administrative Code regarding the publication of proposed ordinances are mandatory or merely directory. Whether publication of a proposed ordinance in the Official Gazette is sufficient compliance with the law, and if section 1 of Act No. 2930 repealed the provisions of section 2443 of the Administrative Code regarding publication in two daily newspapers. Whether the publication of a proposed ordinance in excerpt form is defective and non-compliant with the law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, declaring Ordinance No. 1148 null and void. The Court held that while publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient, the publication must be in full, not in excerpt form, to satisfy the purpose of advising interested parties.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (mandatory vs. directory publication): The Court distinguished between publications made after the passage of an ordinance and those required before its adoption. While post-enactment publications may be considered directory, provisions requiring publication of a proposed ordinance as a condition precedent to its adoption are uniformly held to be mandatory. Such publication goes to the jurisdiction of the municipal council or board, and ordinances adopted without it are null and void. The Court cited various authorities to support this principle. On the second issue (Official Gazette vs. newspapers and repeal of section 2443): The Court agreed with the appellants that Act No. 2930 repealed the portion of section 2443 of the Administrative Code concerning publication in two daily newspapers. It reasoned that municipal governments are branches of the Philippine Government, and section 1 of Act No. 2930 mandates publication of public notices for all branches of the Government in the Official Gazette. Section 4 of Act No. 2930 further repealed all inconsistent provisions, including those requiring publication in newspapers. On the third issue (publication in excerpt form): The Court held that this assignment of error could not be sustained. Where publication of an ordinance is required, it means the whole ordinance, not merely parts thereof. The object of pre-adoption publication is to inform interested parties and allow them to present views. In appropriation ordinances, taxpayers and employees are interested in the itemized expenditures. Publishing only an excerpt of the expenditure section renders the publication defective and the ordinance null and void, as it fails to fulfill the purpose of informing the public adequately.
Main Doctrine
Publication of a proposed ordinance in the Official Gazette is a sufficient compliance with the law, provided that the publication is made in full and not in excerpt form, as the object of publication is to advise interested parties and give them an opportunity to present their views.