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

DILG Legal Opinion No. 15, S.2014

HON. RI'TAMA. REYES
Sangguniang Bayan (SB) Member
22 APR 2014
Municipality of Looc, Romblon

Dear SB Menber Reves:

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, hereby prescribed. ,i! *oo schtdule
follotus:

Number of Workilays Actual RATA

of Achral Work for a month
Petotmance in 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

xrx

7.5 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,

the offieial ois-d-ais the work scheilule ot

standafuls 'esc,ribeil b competent aathort

Petcmtage of Actual Actual RATA

WorUAttenilance in for a month
Relation to a FulI
Monthly Work
Schedule
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

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 icials, inileeil, qre ileened
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.

Very truly yours,

AUSTEREA

,4'^') @ otcouslc
l