F. REYES CABIGAO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS VICE-MAYOR AND PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, MANILA, JOSE BRILLIANTES, APOLONIO V. GENER, MARTIN ISIDRO, MANUEL S. ISIP, DANILO …

The issue in this original action of Mandamus is whether or not the enactment on September 12, 1967 of
the Decentralization Act of 1967 (Republic Act No. 5185) has eliminated the
need of respondent city mayor’s approval of the 1969-1970 budget ordinance of
Manila as enacted by petitioners-members of the Municipal Board of Manila.

Petitioners base their affirmative contention on the provisions
of section 11, paragraph III of the Decentralization Act, which read:

“SEC. 11.  ACTIONS OF
PROVINCIAL, MUNICIPAL AND CITY OFFICIALS OR PROVINCIAL BOARDS DECLARED
IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE.

x        x          x          x

“III.  The provincial, city and municipal
budgets shall become effective upon the approval of the same by the
respective provincial boards, city councils or municipal boards of
municipalities, if the same were approved in compliance with the provisions
of Republic Act Numbered Twenty-two hundred and sixty four, and for this
purpose the provisions of Republic Act Numbered Forty-four hundred and
seventy-seven inconsistent with the provisions of this section or of Republic
Act Numbered Twenty-two hundred and sixty-four are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.”^[1]

They argue that the elimination from the above-quoted provision
of the Decentralization Act of the phrase “with the approval of the City
Mayor”, used in Section 1 of the Local Autonomy Act (Republic Act No.
2264) referring to the city or municipal mayor’s approval of the budget,
denotes the intent of Congress to shift the power of approval of the budget
from the mayors to the municipal boards.

Respondents, in turn, uphold the city mayor’s power of approval
over the city budget, asserting that the same is expressly provided for in
section 17 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila
(Republic Act No. 409, as amended by Republic Act No. 1571) and recognized in
section 1 of the Local Autonomy Act. 
They maintain that the true legislative intent of the above-quoted
provisions of Section 11 (III) of the Decentralization Act, in accordance with
the very title of the Act (granting further autonomous powers to local
governments), its declaration of policy (section 2) and the heading of the
section, was to remove the need of further action or approval by any official
of the national government for the effectivity of the
budget ordinances of local governments. 
Respondent mayor further states that he was constrained to veto the
budget as approved by petitioner board, because it failed to comply with the
requirements of section 1 of the Local Autonomy Act that the budget should not
exceed the city’s estimated tax receipts and income for the ensuing year and
should provide for the city’s statutory and current obligations, and instead
appropriated a lop-sided amount of some P78 million for salaries and wages
alone which was almost double the available amount certified for the purpose.

It is obvious that the legislative intent in enacting the disputed
provisions of section 11 (III) of the Decentralization Act is susceptible of
two sharply conflicting interpretations. 
The Court is not prepared to accept petitioners’ theory that the power
of respondent city mayor to approve the city budget pursuant to the provisions
of Republic Act No. 409, as amended, and of Republic Act No. 2264, has been
abrogated and repealed by the above-quoted provisions of section 11, paragraph
III of Republic Act No. 5185, for the following principal considerations:

1.     
Respondent mayor may not be divested of his
power of approval over the city budget by mere implication.  Petitioners’ interpretation would abrogate
the whole legislative process of cities and municipalities in enacting their
budgets as provided for in the various city charters and in the Revised
Administrative Code, and recognized in section 1 of the Local Autonomy Act by
giving undue emphasis and importance to the lapse in phraseology of Section 11
(III) of the Decentralization Act which omitted reference to the approval by
the city mayor or municipal mayor of the city or municipal budgets as required
by existing laws;

2.     
The omitted reference to the mayor’s approval of
the budget should not be so construed as to result in a radical unsettling and
reversal of the existing legislative procedure in the enactment of budget
ordinances.  More so is this true in the
case at bar, since the revised charter of the City of Manila is a special law
while the Decentralization Act is a general law and deeply rooted in this jurisdiction
is the doctrine that “a general law does not repeal or modify a previous
special law on a specific subject included in the general law, unless the
intent is manifest”;^[2]

3.     
The total thrust and policy of the entire
Decentralization Act is to grant further autonomous powers to local governments
and section 11 precisely indicates in its heading that it refers to “(A)ctions of provincial, municipal and city officials or
provincial boards (which are) declared immediately effective, “without the
need of approval or direction from any official of the national
government.  It is not reasonable to
conclude that Congress sought through paragraph III of said section to
extremely shift the approval of the budget from the mayors of chartered cities,
municipalities or municipal districts to their respective councils,
particularly when the express amendatory clause amending pertinent sections of
city charters, as contained in the immediately following paragraph IV of the
same section 11, clearly limited the extent thereof as follows:

“IV.   The pertinent sections of the charters of
cities are hereby amended so as to declare the actions of city officials, or
city boards of councils similar to those actions enumerated above effective
without the need of approval or direction from any official of the national
government.” (Sec. 11, R. A. 5185, emphasis supplied.)

4.  Construing the present
conflict against petitioners’ contention is more in accordance with the
principle of check and balance between the executive and legislative arms of
government, whether national or local. 
Militating against the assumption of absolute power by the municipal
board over the city budget is the power granted to the board in the city
charter of Manila of overriding the veto exercised by the mayor by a two-thirds
vote under the terms provided in section 17 of the charter; and

5.  While it is certainly
within the authority of Congress to abrogate the veto power over the budget
conferred by it on the mayor, it is generally accepted that “where the
veto power is conferred, it may not be taken away except by express legislative
enactment or by clear inference from statute” and not by mere implication.^[3]
There is need therefore for an express and unambiguous pronouncement of
Congress, rather than an inconclusive inference from the mere omission of a
phrase, as in the case at bar, to declare abrogated the mayor’s power of
approval and veto over the budget.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court has resolved to deny the writ
prayed for and to dismiss the petition.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Barredo,
Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Emphasis copied from petition.

^[2] Laquian vs. Baltazar, 31
SCRA 552 (Feb. 18, 1970) and cases cited.

^[3] 5
McQuillin, Mun. Corporations,
3rd Ed., 232-233.