final revised veto message 2015

8/10/2019 Final Revised Veto Message 2015

1/21

P a g e | 1

Veto Message 2015

December 29, 2014

THE HONORABLE PRESIDING OFFICER , andTHE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSODThis City

Subject: VETO MESSAGE

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Today, I hereby sign CITY ORDINANCE NO. 12903-2014, known as the 2015General Appropriations Ordinance (GAO) of Cagayan de Oro City,entitled:

AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNUAL BUDGETS OF THEGENERAL FUND WITH AN ESTIMATED INCOME OFP1,872,217,094.00 AND OF THE SPECIAL ACCOUNT: ECONOMICENTERPRISES WITH AN ESTIMATED INCOMES OF P67,166,522.00FOR THE CITY ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES AND P13,333,478.00 FORTHE EAST-WESTBOUND TERMINALS AND PUBLIC MARKET, AND

P128,522,838.00 FOR THE J.R. BORJA GENERAL HOSPITAL TOFINANCE ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES OF THE SAME AMOUNTSFOR CALENDAR YEAR 2015

Said signing, however, is subject to the exercise of my power to veto, pursuant toSection 55 of the Local Government Code, on certain items thereof which I shallhereinafter specify and discuss.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

An annual budget of the local government unit, or also known as annual

appropriation, is a vital document as it is the source of legal authority in disbursing localfunds necessary for the operation of the local government unit, including provisions forthe delivery of basic services to the local constituents. This vital document contains theestimates of income and estimates of expenditures of one year operation of the localgovernment unit. An ideal local annual budget should be premised on policy-driven,commitment, empowerment, and performance-based budget. It should be crafted insuch a way that it can effectively and efficiently respond to the needs of the localconstituents through the provision of programs/projects on general, economic and socialservices, including infrastructure projects, public health and hospital services, socialprotection and social justice, as well as governance reforms.

Pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code, the annual

local budget process consists of five(5) phases, namely: (1) Budget Preparation; (2)Budget Authorization;(3) Budget review; (4) Budget Execution; and (5) Budget

Accountability.

The Budget Preparation Phase consists of cost estimation per program, project,and activity to be undertaken by the local government unit, preparation of budgetproposals, and executive review of budget proposals. The key players in this phase isthe City Mayor and the Local Finance Committee (LFC), the latter composed of the


2/21

P a g e | 2

Veto Message 2015

Local Planning Officer, the Local Budget Officer, the Local Accountant,and the LocalTreasurer. Pursuant to Section 316 of the Local Government Code, the LFC is vestedwith the power and function, among others, to "determine the income of the local

government unit reasonably projected as collectible for the ensuing year" and torecommend the appropriate tax and other revenue measures or borrowings which maysupport the budget".

The product of this phase is the "Executive Budget" for the ensuing fiscal year.Clearly, this is prepared upon receipt by the City Mayor of the statements of income andexpenditure from the City Treasurer.

Per Section 318, LGC, the City Mayor shall submit the executive budget to theSanngguniang Panlungsod not later than the 16th of October of the current fiscal year.

Please note that in this phase, the sanggunian has no role and participation yet,as the function and power is legally appurtenant only to the City Mayor, the Local

Finance Committe and the different department heads.

The second phase in the local budget process is the Budget Authorization. Thisconsists of the legislative function of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of enacting theordinance authorizing the annual budget. This phase starts from the time thesanggunian receives the "Executive Budget" submitted by the City Mayor and ends withthe enactment of the Appropriation Ordinance by the sanggunian and approval thereofby the City Mayor. In this phase, the sanggunian will evaluate the budget proposed bythe City Mayor contained in his submitted Executive Budget. In the process, thesanngunian concerned may conduct budget hearings. The Sanggunian also ensuresthat all the budgetary requirements under Section 324 of the LGC are provided for.

The power of the sanggunian here is not without legal limitations. In this regard, itis noted that per Art. 415, of the IRR of the LGC, the sanggunian cannot increase theproposed amount in the Executive Budget nor include new items except to provide forstatutory and contractual obligations but in no case shall it exceed the totalappropriations in the executive budget. The prohibition on the increase isunderstandable as an increase will result to budget deficit. While the sanggunian mayargue that that a decrease is not prohibited, it goes without saying however that thesanggunian cannot unilaterally and arbitrarily decrease because the projected incomeand collectibles have already been legally determined and fixed by the LFC inaccordance with its mandate conferred by law.

The product of this phase is the enactment of the annual appropriation ordinanceor commonly called, the annual budget.

The next phase is the Budget Review by the higher sanggunian or in the case ofa province, independent component city ,or highly urbanized city, by the Department ofBudget and Management.

The next phase is Budget Execution. This phase involves the release ofallotments and the certification of available appropriations and cash; it also includes therecording of actual obligations and disbursement of funds for projects, programs andactivities to produce goods and services that will benefit the general public. A criticalaspect of this phase is the collection of funds, such that disbursement do not exceedappropriations. While seemingly a separate activity, the collection and/or receipt of

revenues are considered an integral part of budget execution ( p. 172, BudgetOperations Manual for Local Government Units). Per Section 320 of the LGC, the CityMayor shall be responsible for the execution of the Annual Budget or General

Appropriation Ordinance and supplemental budgets.

The last phase is Budget Accountability. This is essentially the accounting for theperformance of the local government based on the implementation and execution of the


3/21

P a g e | 3

Veto Message 2015

annual budget and supplemental budgets. In this phase, the city mayor is the pointperson per Section 320, LGC.

It bears to note that in the whole local budget process, the sanggunian's legaland official participation is only in phase 2, i.e. the Budget Authorization phase. Act/smade by the Sanggunian in other phases is/are bereft of any legal basis and is/are thusconsidered not only outside the scope of its authority and undue interference in thefunction of the executive but also illegal and constitutive of usurpation of public powerand function which is punishable under the Revised Penal Code.

ANTECEDENT FACTS

Against this backdrop, it is now crystal clear that the majority bloc of the

Sanggunian Panlungsod of this City has resorted to commission of illegal acts, such asbut not limited to, undue interference and usurpation of powers of the executive withoutany noble motive but to undermine the performance of this present city administrationto the point of betraying the trust reposed upon them by the electorate of this city.

This grand design by the majority bloc of the sanggunian panlungsod ofundermining, for their own political interest, the performance of this new cityadministration by resorting to illegal acts was initially manifested by the irregular andillegal act of the sanggunian in reducing the submitted Executive Budget's estimatedand projected income and collectibles of the city for the ensuing fiscal year which wasalready determined by the LFC in the exercise of its conferred powers under the LocalGovernment Code. This is a clear case of arrogating a power conferred by law to otherpublic officials. It has been established as early as November, 2104 the City, for theyear 2014, has collected at least a total of P2.7 Billion in gross revenues. How could theSanggunian come up with an income estimate of less than P2.1 Billion?

Realizing during budget authorization phase that this act of illegally reducing theestimated or projected income and collectibles of the city for the ensuing fiscal yearshall be open to legal challenge or questioned by the Kagayanons or be brought to thebar of public opinion, the majority bloc of the Sanggunian, in haste, enacted the RevisedCity Revenue Code which was done whimsically and unsupported by empirical facts , inthe hope of reducing the revenues of the city in 2015. This reduction will be used or infact, has already been used to justify the reduction of items of appropriation contained in

the Executive Budget submitted by the City Mayor. This scenario would result to lessdelivery of basic services to the people of Cagayan de Oro. This intended design willhowever utterly fail, given the palpable illegality of the amendment of the Revised CityRevenue Code. Besides, even assuming arguendo that this amendment was legallysanctioned, still the 2015 revenues will NOT be less than those in 2014.

For the record, let it be made clear that this administration fully recognizes andrespects the principle of separation of powers and system of check and balances.While we adhere to the foregoing principles and systems, it is however important tostress that this administration will not sit idly by or turn a blind eye to the abuses beingcommitted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod, abuses that are being conveniently being

justified as a valid exercise of the Sangguniang Panlungsods legislative powers.

Needless to state, the enactment of the 2015 Annual Budget Code is just one of themany instances wherein the Sangguniang Panlungsod gravely abused the exercise ofits power and authority. Set forth below are some of the reckless actions intentionallycommitted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod which undoubtedly have proven to beprejudicial to the general welfare and interests of the City of Cagayan de Oro, to wit:


4/21

P a g e | 4

Veto Message 2015

I. Unjust And Unreasonable Withdrawal By The Sangguniang Panlungsod OfThe Local Chief Executives Authority To Identify Programs and ProjectsUnder The 20% Development Fund And The Denial Of The Supplemental

Annual Investment Plans Of 2013

It must be stressed that the funding for the 2013 projects of this administrationwere mostly sourced, not from the 2013 Annual Budget, but from the Continuing

Appropriations for the years 2009-2012. Being part of the respective 2009-2012 AnnualBudgets, the applicable basis in the implementation of the same is not the currentinvestment plan but the respective Annual Investment Plans (AIP) for the said years.However, I would like to point out that prior to this administration, there were really noplans or a total resource allocation in the AIP to speak of, because past AIPs wereplans nor a total resource allocation in the AIP to speak of, because past AIPs were justmainly Capital Outlay and 20% Development Fund (DF). The SangguniangPanlungsod, however, in the ordinances authorizing the respective annual AIPs/20%DF, provided blanket authority to the City Mayor to identify programs and projects tobe implemented without the need of the Sangguniang Panlungsods authorization.Thus, the past the Sangguniang Panlungsods authorization were used in identifying theprojects implemented by this administration, since it was only in June of 2013, beforemy new administration took over, that the Sangguniang Panlungsod withdrew thisauthority of the Local Chief Executive, to identify programs and projects in the AIP/ 20%DF for 2013. Prior ordinances authorizing the City Mayor to identify projects under thethe 20% DF of prior years were, however, not withdrawn. Incidentally, it is our view thatthe resolution made by the Sangguniang Panlungsod was tainted with malice, andsolely intended to paralyze this administration. Thus, clearly illegal and ultra vires.

Nevertheless, notwithstanding the above, the Local Development Council (LDC)which was only finally convened in October, 2013, approved the Supplemental AIP for2013 which already included all of the projects implemented by this administration in2013. The LDC-approved Supplemental of 2013, together with the total AIP for 2014were submitted to the Sangguniang Panlungsod for approval, in October, 2013. Worthyto note, the role of the Sangguniang Panlungsod in this respect is virtually ministerial.However, the 2013 Supplemental AIP was denied with no clear and valid reason anddescribed only as lost in the voting.

Thus, it is the stand of this administration that it may duly assert the effectivity ofthe Supplemental AIP given at least the substantial compliance of the legal process.Hence, this administration is of the position that the denial of the Supplemental AIP was

without legal basis, improper and ultra vires.

II. Refusal Of The Sangguniang Panlungsod, Without Any Valid Reasons, ToAuthorize The City Mayor To Enter Into A Memorandum of Agreement WithThe Department of Social Welfare And Development (DSWD) To AccessAnd Utilize The Data For Anti-Poverty Programs And Services

The National Household Training System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR) ofthe DSWD is an information system that targets the poorest of the poor in a respectivearea. With the database, it becomes easier for the City Government to determine thedirect beneficiaries of its poverty reduction programs and social services. Theidentification of the direct beneficiaries would in turn ensure the sound planning and

proper implementation of City Governments anti-poverty programs which would greatlybenefit the less privileged residents of the City.

However, in order for the City Government to gain access to the foregoingdatabase, the City Government, through its Chief Executive, is required to enter into aMemorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the DSWD. In this regard, the MOA requiredto be executed into by the City Government and the DSWD was duly reviewed by theCity Legal Office and forwarded by the City Social Welfare and Development


5/21

P a g e | 5

Veto Message 2015

Department (CSWD) to the Office of the City Administrator with the request that it beendorsed to the Sangguniang Panlungsod for approval.

Thereafter, the request for the approval of the MOA and for the undersigned to beduly authorized to the sign the MOA was forwarded to the members of the SangguniangPanlungsod, through the office of the City Vice-Mayor Caesar Ian E. Acenas.Unfortunately, on 20 December 2013, Acting CSWD Officer Teddy A. Sabuga-a, Jr. wasinformed, through the 1stIndorsement dated 19 December 2013 signed by Mr. Arturo S.De San Miguel, City Council Secretary, that the MOA covering the implementation ofthe NHTS-PR was disapproved by the Sangguniang Panlungsod during its RegularSession held last 09 December 2013.

As may gleaned from the attached 1stIndorsement dated 19 December 2013, theSangguniang Panlungsod has not offered any valid reason or plausible explanation whythey opted to withhold their approval of the MOA and deny the City Government the

beneficial use of the database. Worthy to note, the execution of the MOA does not entailany financial responsibility from the City Government. In fact, the City Government haseverything to gain and nothing to lose from the execution of the MOA. The MOA wouldprovide the City Government ready access to valuable information and data that wouldhelp the City Government to effectively design and successfully implement its variouspoverty reduction programs and social services. Thus, it is perplexing why theSangguniang Panlungsod would choose to reject the MOA when the same wouldredound to the benefit and welfare of the City of Cagayan de Oro, specifically itsunderprivileged and poverty stricken residents.

It is just fortunate that DSWD Secretary, upon being apprised of the SangguniangPanlungsods unjust refusal to approve the execution of the MOA, opted to push

through with the execution of the MOA between the DSWD and the undersigned, in hispersonal capacity and not as the City Mayor. The foregoing set up would allow theundersigned to access and retrieve vital data and information from the database, andforward the same to the City Government so that it may use the said data andinformation in its poverty reduction and social services programs.

II. Unjust And Unreasonable Refusal Of The Sangguniang Panlungsod To ActOn The Farm-to-Market Road Project

The City of Cagayan de Oro is a recipient of a Farm-to-Market Road(FMR) Project allocation from the Department of Agriculture (DA) for the CY2014 in the total amount One Hundred Twenty Million Pesos (P120,000,000.00),

inclusive of the ten percent (10%) Local Government Unit (LGU) equity.

The FMR is a series of road projects in the Citys hinterlands barangaysfrom Lumbia to Tumpagon and from Besigan to Dansolihon. The FMR Project isfunded by the DA, with a ten percent (10%) equity or counterpart in the amountof Twelve Million Pesos (P12,272,000.00) coming from the City Government. Inorder to implement the aforesaid FMR Project, an ordinance needs to be enactedby the Sangguniang Panlungsod authorizing the undersigned, on behalf of theCity Government, to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) withthe DA and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), as well asenact an ordinance appropriating the sum of Twelve Million Two HundredSeventy Two Thousand Pesos (P12,272,000.00), representing the ten percent(10%) equity or counterpart of the City Government for the FMR Project.

The deadline for the submission of the aforementioned requirements forthe implementation of the FMR Project was set by the DA on 31 March 2014.Thus, Dr. Hector R. San Juan, City Agriculturist, immediately coordinated withthe DPWH and the different Departments of City Government in order that theCity Government may be able to come up with a draft of MOU and submit thepertinent documents required for the implementation of the FMR Project.


6/21

P a g e | 6

Veto Message 2015

As duly narrated by Dr. San Juan in his Status Report dated 03 November2014, several hearings and meetings have been conducted by the differentcommittees of the Sangguniang Panlungsod with respect to the request of this

administration for the approval of the FMR Road Project. In the committeemeetings and hearings conducted during period of 27 February to 05 August2014, the Sangguniang Panlungsod continued to block and/or defer the approvalof the FMR Project by conveniently seeking for the submission of variousdocuments. The latest of which was the submission of the so-calledSupplemental Annual Investment Plan (AIP) for the FMRs of CY 2014 by the CityDevelopment Council (CDC), the issuance of a certification to support theCertificate of Availability Funds of Twelve Million Two Hundred Seventy TwoThousand Pesos (P12,272,000.00) as the City Governments equity taken fromthe savings of the previous years, stating that projects from where thesecontinuing funds were taken had already been terminated and completed.

Worthy to stress, all of the documents required by the SangguniangPanlungsod, including the Supplemental AIP for the FMRs of CY 2014 by theCDC, have already been submitted to them. However, despite the saidcompliance and submission, the Sangguniang Panlungsod has failed to act uponthe FMR Project. And that the Sangguniang Panlungsod continues to refuse toenact the required ordinance authorizing the undersigned to sign the MOA, aswell as appropriate the funds representing Citys equity for the FMR Project.

The unjust and unreasonable refusal of the Sangguniang Panlungsod toact on the FMR Project is clearly detrimental to the public interest, specifically tothe residents of Citys hinterland barangays. Moreover, the DA has already

warned the City Government that if the funds allocated for the FMR Project willnot be utilized because of the delay in the released of the 10 per cent (10%)counterpart of the City Government, it will be given to other cities andbeneficiaries or returned to the coffers of the National Government. Thus, it hasnow becomes imperative for the Sangguniang Panlungsod to consider the bestinterest and welfare of the people of the City of Cagayan de Oro and immediatelyact on the approval of the FMR Project. To date, because of the pressure ofvarious sectors, it was only in Supplemental Budget No. 2 enacted on December8, 2014, more than a year after the request was submitted, when the SP finallyrelented and approved the FMR counterpart. The damage caused by the unduedelay in the implementation of projects, however, cannot be reversed.

VETO ACTION

I note the early passage of our proposed budget this year after experiencingconsiderable delay last year. However, I must express my utter dismay to themembers of the majority bloc of the Sanggunian Panlungsod for their blatant display ofarrogance and disregard to our mandate of serving the people. They have turned thewhole budget preparation process into a concerted political vendetta, by the massivedeletions, changes and insertions in the resulting Executive Budget which I originallysubmitted to that Body early in October this year. I need to emphasize that thesedeletions, changes, and insertions are illegal, as they committed grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction. These are not allowed by lawsand DBM rules and regulations and must therefore be vetoed.

Pursuant to the power vested upon me by the Local Government Code of 1991, Ihereby veto the following items of appropriation in the above-cited Ordinance No.12903-2014-2014, for being illegal, ultra vires as the Sangguniang Panlungsod wentbeyond the legal parameters of its power or has acted beyond the scope of its authorityin passing the said items of the Appropriations Ordinance, and for being prejudicial to


7/21

P a g e | 7

Veto Message 2015

public welfare as the deletions/reductions made by the Sangguniang Panlungsod oncertain items of the Executive Budget would definitely hamper and jeopardize thedelivery of the much needed basic services to the city's constituency, and to a large

extent, would adversely affect the programs/projects of the city to the prejudice of thepeople we have sworn to serve, to wit:

I. DIRECT VETO

1. On Reduction of Income

Section 2. The Annual Budget of the General Fund with an estimated income of

P1,872,217,094.00 and the Special Account: Economic Enterprises with an

estimated income of P67,166,522.00 for the City Economic Enterprises and

P13,333,478.00 for the East-Westbound Terminals and Public Market, and

P128,522,838.00 for the J.R. Borja General Hospital, all for CY 2015 are hereby

approved sources of income as follows: x x x .

GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO: Il legal; Ultra Vires; Prejudicial to Pub licWelfare; Grave abuse of discret ion amou nt ing to lack or excess of

ju r isd ic t ion ; Encroachment o f Exec utive Po wer

The total income estimates for General Fund and Special Account EconomicEnterprises Budgets, equivalent to its total appropriations of P3.8 Billion was reducedby a staggering amount of P1.72Billion so the total approved budget is now down to

only P2.08 Billion (even lower than the 2014 Approved Budget of P2.3 B), reducingthe total income estimates submitted by the Local Chief Executive, as determined bythe Local Finance Committee (LFC) (Please see Annex A, on Comparative Statementof Receipts).

Section 316 of R.A 7160 provides the following functions, among others, of theLocal Finance Committee, to wit:

Section 316. Local Finance Committee. - There is hereby created in everyprovince, city or municipality a local finance committee to be composed of the local

planning and development officer, the local budget officer, and the local treasurer. Itshall exercise the following functions:

(a) Determine the income reasonably projected as collectible for the ensuingfiscal year; x x x.

In reducing the estimates of income, and in making their own estimates withoutbasis, the majority bloc of the Sangguniang Panlungsod in effect unilaterally, arbitrarilyand acting alone, determined the estimates of income of the city. This is highly irregular,illegal and contrary to law as the Sanggunian Panlungsod cannot arrogate unto itself apower which otherwise is conferred by the Local Government Code to another entity.

It bears stressing that the estimates of income of the city had been carefully

computed and officially certified as reasonably projected as collectible for the Budgetyear by the members of the Local Finance Committee, pursuant to its mandatedfunction under Section 316 of the Local Government Code. This reduction made by theSanggunian Panlungsod clearly shows gross disregard, disrespect and distrust not onlyto the Executive function of preparing the budget of the city but also to the clearmandate of the above cited provision of law. This is clearly an encroachment of theexecutive function to determine its available resources. Take note that the role incollecting the revenues of the city is an executive function and never legislative.


8/21

P a g e | 8

Veto Message 2015

At first glance, it seems that the SP majority simply misapplied the law. A closerlook, however, would show that there is more ill motive into it :

First, the unilateral reduction of estimates of income made would give justificationto the act of the sanggunian majority in reducing the amounts of appropriation of certainitems in the Executive Budget that are relevant and necessary to the City Mayor'searnest effort to deliver without delay the needed basic services to the people.

Second, the said reduction is designed to force the city mayor to be subservient tothe sanggunian (majority) and in the process submit to its whims and caprices. Thescenario envisioned by the SP majority is so simple to discern. It is very certain thatas we move on to operate the budget, the actual collection of revenue would exceedthat of the reduced estimates of revenue determined by the Sanggunian. If thishappens, and this will surely happen, the city mayor will be forced to plead to the SP toenact supplemental budgets in order to disburse the "decoy surplus", so to speak. This

would also justify why they revised and enacted the citys Revenue Code (anenactment which is also wanting in form, substance and compliance with therequirements, and therefore ultra vires).

2. ON APPROPRIATIONS (Section 3)

Likewise, I directly veto Section 3 of this Appropriation Ordinance, on a line-itembasis, the vetoed items of appropriation firmly indicated in Annex Bof thisveto message, and as specifically discussed below:

A. Indiscriminate Deletion/Reduction of Personal Services, Maintenance andOther Operating Expenses and Capital Outlay Appropriations of the

Departments/Offices/Special Programs/ Projects for Offices/Departmentsunder the Executive, and the Special Account: Economic Enterprises.

A.1 Reduction of some items of Personal Services

GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO: Il legal; Ultra Vires; Prejudicial toPubl ic Welfare; Grave abuse of discret ion amoun t ing to lack or excess

of jur isdict ion ; Infr ingement and encroachm ent into the execut ive pow er

Aside from the deletion of new positions in 2014 already incorporated in thePlantilla of Personnel, under Sec. 17 of the Appropriation Ordinance which Ialso veto below, I decry the reduction of some Personal Services requirement ofdepartments/offices. Among others, I note in particular the deletion of Overtimeand Night Pay of some departments and offices. These are neededcompensation granted to employees of the city government who render servicesover and above their normal working hours and beyond the call of duty.Overtime and night pay is authorized under Budget Circular No. 10 of the DBMand has been regularly provided in the Budget for the past years. Likewise,proposed Hazard Pay for CSWD employees authorized under R.A. 9433, theMagna Carta for Public Social Workers was also not spared. Furthermore,proposed new positions for 2015 was cut. These are much needed positions tosupport the services of offices/departments, and these were carefully evaluatedby the LFC, and recommended within the Personal Services limitations. All thesedeletions in the PS are without legal basis and arbitrary, thus a grave abuse ofthe legislative power to authorize the budget.

A.2 Massive deletion/reduction of Maintenance and Other OperatingExpenses (MOOE) of Offices/Department under the Executive, and theSpecial Account: Economic Enterprises (SA:EE)


9/21

P a g e | 9

Veto Message 2015

GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO: Il legal; Ultra Vires; Prejudicial to Pub licWelfare; Grave abuse of discret ion amoun t ing to lack or excess of

ju r isd ic t ion ; In fr ingem ent and en croac hmen t in to the ex ec utive power

I also veto on a line-item basis the deletion/reduction of a majority ofregular MOOE items of Offices/Departments under the Executive Services andthe SA:EE, as specified in Annex B. I vehemently object on thereduction/deletion of these regular MOOE items. This is too much. The MOOEprovided are even below the 2013 Actual Expenses. Under the generallyaccepted rules and regulations on budgeting (i.e. Updated Budget OperationsManual for LGUs by the DBM), a budget is supposed to be progressive and notregressive. The reductions and deletions defy logic. This is prejudicial to thenormal conduct of services of the affected offices/departments and a grave

abuse of the Sanggunians power of the purse.This reduction or deletion is notimplemented uniformly because the MOOE of the offices under the City Councilwas spared, meaning their MOOE increased by at least 45% or more from theProposed Executive Budget. This is clearly whimsical and arbitrary,discriminatory and, therefore, ultra vires and prejudicial to public interest as itwould jeopardize the operation of the executive offices of the city. While thereduction of a proposed budgetary amount may be within the power of theSanggunian, it should, however, be premised on genuine economy measures,motives and prudence in government spending, and uniformly applied.

In particular, I take exception to the deletion of appropriations in the MOOEfor the services of Job Order (General Services/Other MOOE and Consultancy

Services). While appropriations for these services are increased in the Offices ofthe Sanggunian, these services are virtually zero for offices/departments underthe Executive Services.

A.3 Deletion/Reduction of Appropriation of Existing Programs of theExecutive Department


ju r isd ic t ion ; In fr ingem ent and en croac hmen t in to the ex ec utive powerThe subject items as presented in Annex C pertain to the funding

requirements for the operation of existing executive committees and specialprograms and projects, duly authorized by previous ordinances of the city andcontained in the budget proposals which underwent the regular process ofbudget preparation. The deletion of the above-cited items of appropriation willcertainly prejudice the operations of existing executive committees and theimplementation of approved programs/projects of the city government to thedetriment of the welfare and well-being of its constituents. It is ridiculous thatthey are now suddenly stripped of their funding or reduced below the actualexpenditures in 2013. Besides, the breakdown/program of works of these

executive committees were in fact submitted to the Sanggunian within thebudget hearing period and have undergone the budget hearings conductedby the Sangguniang Panlungsod. All these deletions were ill motivated. Theywere meant to paralyze my Administration.

Specifically, I have to comment on the huge, inexplicable, arbitrary andill-motivated slash of the budget for my flagship project, the PhilhealthIndigency Program, from P240 Million to zero! While the reduction of a


10/21

P a g e | 10

Veto Message 2015

proposed budgetary appropriation may be within the power of theSanggunian, it should, however be premised on genuine economy measures,motives and prudence in government spending, and not aimed to

shamelessly deprive the people of Cagayan de Oro their much needed healthservices protection because of political greed.

Further, I would like to point out the unreasonable reduction or zeroappropriation for social services programs and projects of the City SocialWelfare and Development Department. To name a few: Programs andProjects, Services for Children, like the Child Development Program,Educational Assistance Program, Search for Child Friendly Barangay, Streetand Urban Working Children Program, Tuloy Aral Walang Sagabal (TAWAG)-Children with Disabilities, Sagip Pamilya/Bata Para Hapsay Dalan; Program,Projects and Services for the Youth, for Women/Families; for Persons withDisability; for the Elderly/Senior Citizens; Institutional/Residential ServicesSupport Program; Program for Disaster Risk Reduction and DisasterResponse; and, Program for Indigenous People (IPs). These programs arespecifically intended for the poorest of the poor of our constituents. Deprivingthem of these important programs is not only illegal but also morallyrepugnant and unthinkable. These deletions or arbitrary reductions ofappropriations were motivated solely to paralyze my Administration, renderingit ineffectual and inutile.

A.4 Likewise, new programs and projects and regular capital outlay(equipment, etc.) proposed in the annual budget, as summarized in

Annex Dand Annex E, were deleted in the approved ordinance inthe total amounts of P503,397,914.00 (General Fund), andP179,477,238.00 (GF/SA-EE), respectively.

GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO: I l legal; Ultra Vires, and Prejudicialto Publ ic Welfare; Grave abuse of discret ion amount ing to lack or

excess of jur isdict ion

The deleted items of appropriations were contained in the BudgetProposals and in fact underwent the regular process of budget preparation. The

deletion of the above-cited items of appropriation will definitely prejudice theapproved programs and projects of the city government to the detriment of thewelfare and well-being of its constituents. Again, these deletions were motivatedsolely to paralyze my Administration, rendering it ineffectual and inutile.

On Annex D. I take exception to the deletion of the special purpose fundsfor Road Opening/Rehabilitation Projects for ten (10) road segments (P26.9M),the Metropolization Development Projects(P2M) specifically geared to fulfill oneof my 8-point agenda; the Trade and Investment Promotion Center (P3.5M) anda huge chunk for the various Infrastructure Projects/Programs (over and abovethe 20% Development Fund) in the amount of P345.58 Million. If theseprograms and projects should have been supported by the Sanggunian, thesewould have meant more programs and projects for the people.

Likewise, I would like to point out the zero appropriation under the CSWD,for the Oro Youth Development Council (OYDC), a council created throughexecutive order, to involve the youth sector in proposing and crafting programsand projects not only geared for the youth sector but also for involvement inmainstream programs and projects of the city. The Oro Youth Development


11/21

P a g e | 11

Veto Message 2015

Council, was created before to fill the gap in the absence of the youth sector inthe affairs of the city since the Sangguniang Kabataan was indefinitely shelvedthen. The OYDC is a volunteer group, the desire to engage in governance

solely compelled by their sense of duty and mission to influence the the citygovernment to be more participatory and inclusive. The budget proposed forthem is not for compensation, but for necessary administrative expenses forforums, studies, consultations, project and organizational support for youthgroups engaged in public quality education, disaster preparedness and solidwaste management, peace and order, health and good governance,

Likewise, the regular capital outlays (mostly equipment outlay) proposedunder each office/department were evaluated and recommended based onactual need of each department/office. Outdated equipment or no equipment atall, still subsists in the city government offices and this is lamentable that despite

the first class and highly urbanized status of the city, some city governmentoffices are dilapidated, and equipment are not updated and/or non-existent.

Finally, the J.R. Borja General Hospital which we are trying to upgradetremendously after being in a state of disarray and dilapidation, was given azeroappropriation for its proposed Capital Outlay of P62.5 Million in 2015. Thiswould have been for hospital and medical equipment (P20M), office equipment(P2.5M), Land Improvement(P10M), hospital improvement, repair (P10M) andhospital building construction (P20M)

What prompted the deletion is tragically unthinkable and a product of a

systematic agenda to really cripple the budget to a point that the executive willjust sit down and receive compensation without any programs and projects towork on. I will not allow this to happen even if this would mean an uphill legaland political battle. We cannot afford to let our people be sacrificed.

A.5 The unprecedented cut on the budget specifically for the City ChiefExecutive, on items specifically mandated under the Local Government Code.Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (Changes/Reduction)

Confidential Expenses P500,000.00

Intelligence Expenses 500,000.00

Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses 200,000.00

Non-Office: Peace and Order Development -0-


ju r isd ic t ion

Lest I appear redundant and self- serving, I would like to invite attention tothe unprecedented cut of the appropriations for Confidential and IntelligenceExpenses including Peace and Order Development Fund (which includesConfidential and Intelligence Expenses) which were based on the law andguidelines of the DBM (Budget Operations Manual), and Extraordinary andMiscellaneous Expenses (Discretionary Expense) which were based on Sec.325(h) of R.A. 7160. The reductions made since 2014 worsened in 2015, andwere without basis and clearly made to strait-jacket the City Mayor in its peace


12/21

P a g e | 12

Veto Message 2015

and order programs and discretionary/miscellaneous activities. The sharpdecrease in appropriation for these items were made only during myadministration. Please note of the following figures in the last six (6) years:

Quite obviously, the above items were regularly provided, without fail, withappropriations up to its maximum, as allowed by law and guidelines. Thus, the

abrupt reduction/deletion of above appropriations is highly irregular and a graveabuse of the Sanggunians discretion. While the reduction of a proposedbudgetary amount may be within the power of the Sanggunian, such should,however, be premised on genuine economy measures, motives and prudence ingovernment spending and uniformly applied.

3. Sect ion 4. Disbursement Requirements No funds sh al l be disbursed

und er this bud get wi thout the approved work and f inancial plan and the

advice of al lotment iss ued by th e City Mayoror theCity Vice Mayor, as thecase mayb e, or their autho rized representative.

GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO: Il legal; Ultra Vires; Undu e Infr ingem ent;Grave abuse of discret ion amount ing to lack or excess of jur isdict ion;

Encroachm ent into the execut ive power

The provision is an encroachment of the power and executiveprerogative which belongs exclusively to the City Mayor as conferred untohim by the 2ndparagraph of Section 320 of the Local Government Code. It isworthy to emphasize that said provision of the Code gives the authority tooperationalize and execute the Annual or Supplemental Budget solely to theCity Mayor as the Local Chief Executive of the city. Thus, per mandate of theBudget Operations Manual of the Department of Budget and Management,the Local Budget Matrix (Comprehensive Allotment Release Order) or the

Allotment Release Order (ARO) are to be approved by the Local ChiefExecutive (LCE), in this case, the City Mayor.

Further, in a landmark decision striking down lawmakers PriorityDevelopment Assistance Fund (PDAF) or the Pork Barrel System asunconstitutional (GR No. 208566,208493 & 2092510), the Supreme Courtdeclared that PDAF is unconstitutional because, a) the system violated theprinciple of separation of powers in allowing legislators to wield non-

Particulars 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

ConfidentialExpenses

17,000,000 19,000,000 20,000,000 21,000,000 5,000,000 500,000

IntelligenceExpenses

14,000,000 16,000,000 18,000,000 19,000,000 5,000,000 500,000

Extraordinary

andMiscellaneousExpenses

2,771,111.56 2,517,912.08 3,869,575.22 3,540,400 2,000,000 200,000

Non-Office:Peace andOrder Devt.

15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 -0- -0

Total 48,771,111.56 52,517,912.08 56,869,575.22 58,540,400 12,000,000 1,200,000


13/21

P a g e | 13

Veto Message 2015

oversight, post enactment authority in vital areas of budget execution;b) the system violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative power bygiving lawmakers personal, discretionary funds from which they are able to

fund specific projects they determine; c) the PDAF denied the president vetopower in creating a system of budgeting where items are not textualized orintroduced as line items into the budget bill; d) the system impaired publicaccountability in giving legislators a stake in affairs of budget executionwhen they should exercise congressional oversight. The Supreme Court alsodeclared that said practices it specified should never again be adopted inany system of governance, by any name or form.

Specifically, the Supreme Court rules, thus:

The Court hereby declares the 2013 PDAF Article as well as all otherprovisions of law which similarly allow legislators to wield any form of post-

enactment authority in the implementation or enforcement of thebudget, unrelated to congressional oversight, as violative of theseparation of powers principle and thus unconstitutiona l. Corollarythereto, informal practices, through which legislators have effectively intrudedinto the proper phases of budget execution, must be deemed as acts of graveabuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and, hence,accorded the same unconstitutional treatment.

4. Provisions requiring the submission to the Sanggunian, and approval ofthe Program of Works through an ordinance

A. Section 5(a). Policies on Lump-sum Allocation on Fund Reversions.

(a) Lump-sum allocations in the 2014 Annual Budget shall be disbursedonly through an appropriation ordinance enacted by the City Counciland upon approval, by Ordinance, of the Program of Worksthereof.

B. Section 6. Capital Outlay. Lump sum funds for capital outlay shall bedisbursed in accordance with the approved 2014 Annual InvestmentProgram (AIP), and through an ordinance approving the program ofworks and authorizing the appropriation thereof.

C. Section 9. (b) Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Fund:Mitigation Fund Disbursement - The 70% of the LDRRMF allocated forsupport to disaster risk management activities such as, but not limited to,pre-disaster preparedness programs including training, purchasing life-saving rescue equipment, supplies and medicines, for post disasteractivities, and for payment of premiums on calamity insurance shall bedisbursed in accordance with the program therefor approvedthrough an Ordinance.

GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO:

Il legal; Ultra Vires; Prejudicial to Public Welfare; Undu e

Infr ingement; Grave abuse of discret ion amoun t ing to lack or excess of

ju r isd ic t ion ; Encroac hmen t in to the ex ec utive power

The above provisos which require that the program of works/programshall be approved through an Ordinance are not only ultra vires but are alsoclear encroachment of the power and prerogative belonging exclusively to


14/21

P a g e | 14

Veto Message 2015

the City Mayor as conferred unto him by the 2nd

paragraph of Section 320 ofthe Local Government Code. It is ultra vires because it is outside the scope ofthe local legislative power of the Sanggunian Panlungsod. It is worthy to

emphasize that said provision of the Code gives the authority tooperationalize and execute the Annual or Supplemental Budget solely to theCity Mayor as the Local Chief Executive. Hence, once the correspondingappropriations were already made for the projects/programs contained in theapproved annual budget, under Section 287 of the Local Government Code,there is nothing more left to be done except for the City Mayor to execute andimplement the annual budget.

Further, Section 346 of the Local Government Code provides thatdisbursements of local funds shall be made in accordance with the Ordinanceauthorizing the annual or supplemental appropriations without the priorapproval of the Sanggunian concerned. Nothing beyond this needs to bedone anymore except to implement.

At this juncture, it becomes imperative to discuss the nature of thelegislative power of the Sanggunian Panlungsod. Settled is the rule that theConstitution vests unto Congress the exclusive power to legislate. Congress,by applying the constitutional principle of permissible delegation, in turndelegated to the local government units the power to make local laws to beexercised by their respective sanggunians. This is the clear import of Section48 of the Local Government Code and as bolstered by the samepronouncements of the Supreme Court in a long line of cases. Thus, thelegislative product of Congress is called " law" while the legislative product of

the sanggunian is called " ordinance" . Being merely exercising a delegatedlegislative power, the owner of which is Congress, sanggunians cannot riseabove Congress. It follows therefore that an ordinance cannot also rise abovea law.

Hence, the questioned provisos in the vetoed items cannot and cannever be given legal force and effect as they are contrary to law, in this case,the pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code. It is also contrary tothe provisions of the Budget Operations Manual jointly promulgated by theDBM and COA by authority of law pursuant to Section 354 of the LocalGovernment Code. In relation to Local Risk Reduction and ManagementFund (LRRMF), the Sangguniang Panlungsod again exceeded its authority in

requiring an ordinance in the approval of program of works and work plans. Itbears to note that under RA 10121 and its IRR, the LRRMF shall be utilizedand disbursed in accordance with the LRRMP formulated by the LRRMC. Forthis matter, the LRRMF is even treated by RA 10121 as a special trust fund. Ishould also add that these vetoed provisions are prejudicial to public welfare,since it will constitute an unwarranted limitation and restriction to themandated power of the City Mayor to execute the Budget pursuant to law.

Finally, in a landmark decision striking down lawmakers PriorityDevelopment Assistance Fund (PDAF) or the Pork Barrel System asunconstitutional (GR No. 208566,208493 & 2092510), the Supreme Courtdeclared that PDAF is unconstitutional because, a) the system violated theprinciple of separation of powers in allowing legislators to wield non-oversight, post enactment authority in vital areas of budget execution;b) the system violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative power bygiving lawmakers personal, discretionary funds from which they are able tofund specific projects they determine; c) the PDAF denied the president vetopower in creating a system of budgeting where items are not textualized orintroduced as line items into the budget bill; d) the system impaired public


15/21

P a g e | 15

Veto Message 2015

accountability in giving legislators a stake in affairs of budget executionwhen they should exercise congressional oversight. The Supreme Court alsodeclared that said practices it specified should never again be adopted in

any system of governance, by any name or form.

5. Section 8. Use of Appropriated Funds and Savingsx x x there shall beno augmentation of any item in the approved annual budget for therespective offices from savings in other items within the same expenseclass of their respective appropriations or from one expenseclassification to another either in the same office/department without anapproved specific ordinance authorizing such augmentation.

Grounds for Veto:Illegal; Ultra Vires;Prejudicial to Pu blic Welfare;Undue Infr ingement; Grave abuse of discretion amoun t ing to lack or


I veto the no augmentation clause under Section 8 of the AppropriationOrdinance for being contrary to Section 336 of R.A. 7160 and sound,accepted budgetary rules and practice. This is another example of theSanggunians motive to undermine the performance of this present cityadministration to the point of betraying the trust reposed upon them by theelectorate of this city. Take note that the augmentation clause was provided inthe annual appropriation ordinance since 2009. This is prejudicial to publicwelfare as needed augmentations of the executive will surely go through arigorous and circuitous process in the hands of the Sanggunian and thus,

would definitely delay the implementation of needed programs and projects ofthe city and hamper provision of administrative requirements to the executiveoffices/departments. Take note also that augmentation of funds is done onlyduring Budget Execution phase and to be required to ask for authority fromthe sanggunian each time a department would wish to augment an item from

savings within the same expense class, is precisely a post-enactmentauthority required from the legislative which was declared unconstitutional bythe Supreme Court under the PDAF case.

6. Section 9(a) on Quick Response Fund Disbursement. I partially veto the lastsentence thereof which states, Provided, That thereis already a declarationof calamity by the Sangguniang Panlungsod in the affected areas.

Grounds for Veto:Illegal; Ultra Vires; Prejudicial to Public Welfare;Undue Infr ingement; Grave abuse of discret ion amount ing to lack or


Section 12 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 10121provides that the State of Calamity may be declared not only by the Sanggunianbut also by the President of the Philippines, such that if there is already adeclaration of the state of calamity by the President, there is no more need forthe Sanggunian to issue a declaration of calamity in the affected areas before the

30% Quick Response Fund may be disbursed. Thus, the above provisionarrogates unto the Sanggunian the only power to declare a state of calamitywhich is not exactly the case if we read R.A. 10121 and its IRR and guidelines.

7. Section 13. Approval of supporting documents for fund under the CityCouncil.Pursuant to Section 456 and relevant provisions of R.A. 7160 on theprinciple of separation of powers between the executive and legislativedepartments and as per Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 161081 dtd. May10, 2005 and Section 39 of the Manual on the New Government Accounting


16/21

P a g e | 16

Veto Message 2015

System for Local Government Units prepared by the Commission on Audit(COA), the following documents covering all warrants drawn on the publictreasury for all expenditures appropriated for the operation of the

Sangguniang Panlungsod shall be approved by the City Vice-Mayor:

a) Project Procurement Management Plan

b) Approved Budget for the Contract

c) Local Government Procurement Program Annexes A, B and C(Capital Outlay)

d) Financial Plan andAllotment Release Order

e) Work and Financial Plan Request and Request for Allotment (LBEF No.251-B)

f) Purchase Requestg) Purchase Order

h) Disbursement Voucher

i) Program Appropriation and Obligation by Object of Expenditures

j) Personnel Schedule Budget (Local Budget Preparation Form No. 4aand 5)


Il legal; Ultra Vires; Undu e Infr ingem ent; Grave abus e of

discret ion amoun t ing to lack or excess of jur isdict ion

The above provision particularly on the approval by the City ViceMayor of the Allotment Release Order of theSangguniang Panlungsodis not only ultra vires but is also a clear encroachment of the power andprerogative belonging exclusively to the City Mayor as conferred unto him bythe 2ndparagraph of Section 320 of the Local Government Code. It is ultravires because it is outside the scope of power of the Vice Mayor. It is worthyto emphasize that said provision of the Code gives the authority tooperationalize and execute the Annual or Supplemental Budget solely to theCity Mayor as the Local Chief Executive. Hence, once the correspondingappropriations were already made for the projects/programs contained in theapproved annual budget, under Section 287 of the Local Government Code,there is nothing more left to be done except for the City Mayor to execute and

Allotment Release Order (Local Budget Matrix) and Allotment Release Orderfor succeeding releases. Nowhere in the Budget Operations Manual of theDepartment of Budget and Management was it stated that the Vice Mayormay sign the ARO for the Sangguniang Panlungsod nor was it stated that thesignatory of the ARO may be the Mayor or the Vice Mayor, as the case maybe. Section 320 of the Local Government Code is very specific in its provisionthat the implementation of the budget is the sole responsibility of the LocalChief Executive and nobody else.

8. Section 14. Disbursement of Local Funds and Statement of Accounts

Disbursements shall be made in accordance with the ordinance authorizing theannual or supplemental appropriations with prior approval of the City Council.Within thirty (30) days after the close of each month, it shall be the duty ofthe City Accountant to furnish the City Council with such financialstatements as the case may be prescribed by the Commission On Audit. Inthe case of the year-end statement of accounts, the period shall be sixty(60) days after the thirty-first (31st) of December.


17/21

P a g e | 17

Veto Message 2015


Ultra Vires; Undue Infr ingement; Grave abuse of discret ion

amoun t ing to lack or excess of jur isdict ion

This is another provision where the Sanggunian intrudes in a jurisdictionnot of its own. This is beyond budget authorizationnow the Sanggunian wantsto go into Budget Accountability which is beyond its power as explained above.By requiring submission of statement of accounts, they now place untothemselves not only on the power of the Executive to assess its performance butthey also encroach on the auditorial power of the COA.

9. Section 16. Priority Projects/Programs Programs or projects of variousdepartments or offices considered by the City Council shall be given

priority funding in subsequent supplemental budgets for CY 2015 whenadequate funds are available for the purpose.


Il legal; Ultra Vires; Undu e Infr ingement; Grave abus e of discretio n

amoun t ing to lack or excess of jur isdict ion

This is another proviso where the Sanggunian encroaches on the power ofthe Executive to propose in a supplemental budget, its priority programs orprojects. Under the Local Government Code, a budget emanates from theExecutive and never from the legislative. This provision arrogates again to theSanggunian the budget preparation function of the Executive department. Byplacing this section, it appears that items of appropriation of programs or projectsmay not be proposed in the supplemental budget unless with prior approval bythe Sanggunian.

10.Section 17. Deleted Positions. The enumerated positions listed in the 2015Executive Budget are deleted from the Plantilla of Personnel incorporated thereinpresumably for lack of an enabling ordinance creating the said positions and theappropriation ordinance allocating for the salaries and benefits thereof.

GROUNDS FOR DIRECT VETO: I l legal; Ultra Vires; Prejudicial toPubl ic Welfare; Grave abuse of discret ion amoun t ing to lack or excess of

ju r isd ic t ion

The creation of said positions (Annex F) including appropriation thereforewas already deemed authorized in the Appropriation Ordinance andincorporated in the Executive Budget, Annual Investment Program and the LocalExpenditure Program which were budget documents integral to the appropriationordinance.

Further, said creation was already passed in the review of the CY 2014

Annual Budgets of the city, by the Department of Budget and ManagementRegional Office No. 10, in its letter dated August 26, 2014, paragraph 4.0 ofwhich provides, to wit:

4.0 The lump sum amount of P15,165,123.00 under Non-Office GeneralPublic Services Sector for the creation of positions is subject to thefollowing conditions:


18/21

P a g e | 18

Veto Message 2015

4.1 The creation of positions is in accordance with the approved staffingstandards of the City;

4.2 It is the priority need as identified by the Local Chief Executive, theSanggunian and/or local development councils concernedconsistent with Section 17 of RA No. 7160;

4.3 All mandatory positions stipulated under RA No. 7160 have beencreated and provided.

Xxx x x x.

Please take note that there was never any condition requiring aseparate enabling ordinance for the creation of positions since there isdeemed compliance with Section 22(c) and Sec. 346 of R.A. 7160, and thusthese positions are itemized in the 2015 Plantilla of Personnel and provided

appropriation.

11. New Items/Additions/Insertions to the Executive Budget : The SangguniangPanlungsod Budget

While there was senseless and baseless cut to the budget of theoffices/departments and special programs/projects under the Local ChiefExecutive, the budget of each of the Sangguniang Panlungsod member wasincreased by an average of 45% for MOOE and 77% for Capital Outlay as seenin page 17-38 of Annex A .

GROUND FOR VETO: Il legal; Ultra Vires, Prejudicial to Pub lic Welfare;Grave Abu se of Discret ion amoun t ing to lack or excess in jur isdict ion ;

Extravagant, excessive and unnecessary

Insertions/additions made by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of new items/additional appropriation not otherwise provided for in the Executive Budgetsubmitted by the City Mayor is contrary to law and budgeting rules andregulations promulgated by the DBM. This is clearly an ultra vires act on the partof the Sangguniang since as earlier discussed, an ordinance cannot rise above a

law and the implementing rules promulgated to implement the same. While the reduction of a proposed budgetary amount is within the power of

the Sanggunian, it should, however, be premised on genuine economymeasures, motives and prudence in government spending. In this case,appropriations from the Departments/Offices of the Executive were eitherdeleted or reduced, but appears to be used to fund the increases in the Officesunder the Sanggunian, an act that would give rise to serious moral questions,betrayal of public trust, and utter and unmitigated greediness. Worse, theincreases, to cite a further example, under the Office of the SP Secretary overthe Proposed Executive Budget is 150% for Travelling Expenses, 525% forTraining Expenses; 58% for Office Supplies Expenses, 200% for Printing and

Binding Expenses, 800% for Subscription Expenses , 200% for Repair &Maintenance of Office Building, 42% for Other MOOE, among others. Anothermanifestation/epitome of greed and superbly luxurious provision. What nervedoes the Majority Bloc have!

Further, the increases in the items of appropriation under the SangguniangPanlungsod would necessarily result in the reduction on other items of


19/21

P a g e | 19

Veto Message 2015

appropriation intended for approved programs and projects of the City. Saidreduction is definitely prejudicial to public welfare.

II. CONDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION

A. On Insertion to the list of projects to the 20% Development FundProjects/CDRRMF, Other Insertions

A.1 20% Development Fund Programs/Projects.

The Sanggunian approved a list of projects under the 20%Development Fund, different from that submitted in the Annual Budget by the

City Mayor - which was also what was approved by the City DevelopmentCouncil (CDC) in the CY 2015 Annual Investment Program (AIP) (please see

Annex G).

Article 415 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the LocalGovernment Code (R.A. 7160), provides, to wit:

The Sanggunian may not increase the proposed amount in theexecutive budget nor include new items except to provide for statutory andcontractual obligations but in no case shall it exceed the total appropriations in

the executive budget.

Thus, any insertion to the proposed budget except to provide for statutoryand contractual obligations is contrary to law and therefore illegal and ultra vires.

Further the DILG, in several opinions, declared that the Sanggunian maynot change, modify or alter the LDC approved Annual Investment Programbecause this will defeat the function of the LDC as provided in the LocalGovernment Code. Again, the SP majority bloc, cannot arrogate unto itself apower which otherwise is conferred by law to another body. To emphasize,

DILG opinion No. 101 s. 2010 dated June 28, 2010, quoting DILG Opinion No.22 series of 2007,declared that .although the Sanggunian is authorized bythe Code to approve the plans formulated by the Local DevelopmentCouncil, such authority does not include the power to modify, alter orrevise the same, albeit the Sanggunian is not precluded from raisingquestions thereon for purposes of clarification.

Thus, I therefore veto the 20% Development Fund noton its appropriatedamount, but place a condition on the List of programs/projects funded under saidfund. The Program/Project listing and amount for each program/project shallproceed from the LDC approved AIP and as reflected in the Proposed ExecutiveBudget.

A.2 5% City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (CDRRM) FundPrograms/Projects

On the same vein as the 20% DF, I also place a conditional implementationveto on the programs/projects under the CDRRMF, the programs/projects ofwhich are also altered, modified and deleted by the Sanggunian (Please see


20/21


21/21

P a g e | 21

Veto Message 2015

winning competitions and getting recognitions not only locally but also internationally.These we have done even with the hurdles placed by the SP majority.

I therefore urge the Sanggunian to instead rally behind me in my endeavors. Thepeople of Cagayan de Oro deserve to be served the best way we can. How best we didour part shall be our legacy to the people, for this is why we were elected by ourconstituents in the first place. May we move forward together, as we hold our headshigh and with greater pride the resurgence of CAGAYAN DE ORO as one of the mostcompetitive cities in the country.

ISULONG ANG GAHIN ALANG SA HAPSAY NGA PANG GOBYERNOPARA SA KATAWHAN SA CAGAYAN DE ORO!

Very truly yours,

OSCAR S. MORENOCity Mayor

Encl.: as stated

final revised veto message 2015

Documents