t

Republic of rhe
philippin."
O f-
DEPARTTfiEI{T OF THE TNTERIORAITD
IlrcAL GOVERITMENT
DIt'G-NAPoIcoM *t'ffi:t?E?t"T;*
ouezon
Avenue'
Quezon citv
OFFICE OF THE UI{DERSECRETARY
FOR LOCAL GOVERI,IitEI{T
HON. RI'TAMA. REYES
Sangguniang Bayan (SB)
Member
Municipality of Looc, Romblon
Dear SB Menber Reves:
DILG Legal Opinion No. 15, S.2014
22
APR
2014
This refers to your undated letter which requests this level's opinion or clarification
on
the implementation
of Local Budget chcular No. 103 (tBc
103), dated 13 May 2013,
particularly on the interpretation
of Items 7.1 and 7.5 thereof.
The following are the factual allegations in your letter:
The Municipaliry of looc, Romblon
irnplemented LBC 103 beginning
fanuary
2013.
Following said implementation,
the Municipal Accountant deducted
p2,g00.00
per
absence from the respective representation
and transportation allowance (RATA)
of the
SB Members, citirg Items 7.1 and 7.5 of LBC 103.
when asked, the Municipal Accountant alegedly explained that one (l)
absence ftom
regular sessions of the SB Member is equivalent to one (l)
week since the sB is required
to hold one (1) regular session every week, or four (4)
times a month under Repubi Act
No. 7160 (hereinafter,
the "Code").
It is your contention that while it is true that the sanggunian is required to hold session
once a week or four (4) tirnes a month, it does not rnean that their duties an&
responsibilities is limited to attending sessions.
Hence, the request.
Local Budget circular No. 103t, dated 15 May 2013, provides a different manner of
computing the Representation
and rransponation
Allowance (RATA)
for govemmenr
officials observing an eight-hour work day (Item
7.1, LBC 103) ras-d-rzls those offrcials,
who by the nature of their offrcial functions, adopt a work schedule other than the usuar'
eight hours per day, forty hours per week schedule (Itern
7.5, LBC 103), uzz.:
"7.0
General Guiilelines on the Grant of the P#-TA
7.1 A rationalized
scfume on thz grnnt of RATA based on the
number of dnys of actual a,ork performance on workdnys by the
\
'
Amended Rules aod Regulations on the Grant of Representarion and rfansportation Alowances
ofiot ,oro*ra i,
follotus:
hereby prescribed. ,i! *oo schtdule
7.5
xrx
For
fficials
who, by the nature of their
fficial functions,
adopt a
urork schedule other than the usual eight hours per day,
forry
haurs per weeN such as the members of the local sanggunian,
standafuls 'esc,ribeil
b
Petcmtage of Actual
WorUAttenilance in
Relation to a FulI
Monthly Work
Schedule
Actual RATA
for
a month
25/o or less 25% of tlre monthlv RATA
26%-s0%
50% of the monthly RATA
51.%-7s% 75% of lhe monthly RATA
75%-100% 1.00% of the monthlu RATA
Based on the foregoing, Members of the local sanggunian belong to the second class of
government officials, hence, are governed by Item 7.5 of LBC 103.
Notably, Republic Act No. 7160, otJrerwise known as the Local Government Code of
1991, does not prescribe the work schedule or performance standards for local elective
officials. However, Section 50 thereof provides that the local nnggunian may adopt or
update its existing internal rules of procedure (IRP).
It is this Depanment's opinion that the local falls within the purview of
"competent
authority," as mentioned in Item 7.5 of LBC 103. As such, local sanggunians
may adopt/prescribe in its IRP rules governing the performance standards of members
thereof.
Anent the work schedule of elective officials, in Maeaangay vs. The Chaitman of the
Commission oa AudiC, the Supreme Court took
judicial
notice of the fact that elective
Number of Workilays
of Achral Work
Petotmance in a
Month
Actual RATA
for
a month
1to5 25% of the monthhr RATA
6to11
50% of the monthly RATA
12 to 16 75% of tht monthlv
r.4.TA
17 and mnre
100% of the monthlv P#'TA
the offieial ois-d-ais the work scheilule ot
competent aathort
2
(i.R.
No. l,-38728. 30 ScDtember 1982
officials renditioo o*i"" does nor fo ow a certain or definii work schedule as they
are deemed in service of their constituents
regardless of tim e and place, uiz.:
"lMat
utas said in the Memorandum
for
Respondcnt is releoant:
"
As a
general proposition, electiae offcials, entitlement to salary is not denendent
upon actua.l atle.ndance in ofice. In
fact,
they are not epei required to keep a
record of their daily attundnnce
such as by accomplishing
Citil Seroice Forn
No. 48 (Dnily
Time Rerod) or punching
thc bundy cloik. Thus, a proztincial
guvrnor
is entitled to collect salary eoen when abwnt on a pernnai business,
it being utell-*ttled that an elected offcer is entitled to emoiuments so long as
he is permitted to retain the offce, thc nght thzreto being independen"t
of
xrtrices performcd. (Op.,
lnsular Auditnr, Dec. 23, 7919, ciid. in Araneta. the
Adm. Cnde, VoL lV, pp. 2720, 272'I). Electiae o
There
can be no occnsion to consider theru absent
from
work since tlri,
W"uru
ot
such specifed time and place is not a pre-requisite
to thzir mllection of salary
for
serttices rendcred. So, too, they need not seek leaue to be absent
for
there is
no absence to speak of."lEmphasis
and underscoring
supplied]
verily, the work performed by members of locar sanggunians
s not rimited or confined to
attendance during sessions.
In view ofthe foregoing, it would be erroneous to solely set the attendanc e of sanggunian
members during regular sessions
as their work schedule or regard the same as a
perfbrmance
standard as their duties and responsibilities
are not confined to attendance
during sessions. Moreover, it shourd be emphasized that only the legislature
or a
competent authority can prescribe
the work schedule or perforrnance
standards
of
sanggunian rnernbers-
We hope the foregoing sufficiently addressed your
concern.
otcouslc
l
,4'^')
@
icials, inileeil, qre
ileened
Very truly yours,
AUSTEREA