Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

A. Francisco Gold Condominium ll Bldg., cor EDSA
Mapagmahal Street, Diliman, euezon Citv

I-MqALSNRVNCfl
DILG OPINION NO. 6' S. 2OIO
24 May 2010

PUNONG BARANGAY BENJAMIN P. RIVERA

Barangay Siena, Quezon City
Dear PB Rivera:

'

This has reference to your earlier letter addressed to DllG-euezon City

Director Maria Lourdes L. Agustin asking that level's legal opinion relative to the
conduct of your sangguniang barangay's regular session and the claim for
honoraria of several sangguniang barangay members thereat. Thereafter, City
Director Agustin indorsed your letter as well as the rejoinder of the majority of
the sangguniang Barangay members to this level for appropriate action and
summarized the issues as follows:

"I)

Whethetor not half of the honotarium of the ntajority

of the sangguniang barangay members who were unable to attend
their g'd regular council meeting (which was, nevertheless,
adjourned due to lack of quorun) may be legally withheld by the
punong barangay?

fiom the position of the concerned sangganiang

barangay members, it is their contention that they sltould be paid of
Reading

theit' honorarium considefing that their g'd regular council session

was adjourned due to lack of quorum.

9) Whether ot not the council session called and

conducted by majot'ity of the sanggnniang members and p'esided by
SK Chairman Lawrence Ortiz last 95 January eot o may be
considered regular session in |ieu of their 16 January 9O1O regular
session which was adjourned due to lack ofquorunt?
3) Whether or not Kagawad Emma Lourdes C. De Jesus
and Kagawad Ernesto G. Gomez, who wet'e preventively suspended
by the puezon City Council on Od January 9olo, are entitled to half
of their honorarium due to the Stay Order by the Ollice of the
President dated tt January 9O1O, and was served by this ofrice on
18 Januar! 9O1O?

It is

the contention PB Benjamin P. Rivera that since

Kagawad Emma Lordes C. De Jesus and Kap'awad Etnesto G,
Gomez wet'e unable to attend thei[ two (9) regulat'counci] sessions
for the month ofJanuary eoto, their honorarium should be withheld
until final rcsolution of their suspension."
We shall answer your first and second queries in one discussion since they
pertain to one (1) subject matter.

t-

In
thereto, please be informed that under DBM Local Budget
..
.reply
circurar
No. 63, in reration to section

393 of the Locar Government coJ6-oiigsr

sangguniang Barangay Members are paid in the form
of honorarium. T#
Government Accounting and Auditing uanuar
lcnaM) defines honorarium as thar
remuneration given to a pubric officiar for services
actuaily rendered. ln tne case
of Santiago vs. COA (GR No. sees4., te JuIy ,nnr1,,,an
honorarium is defined as
something given not as a maxer of oblrgation but in
appreciation for services
rendered a voluntary donation in considbration of
seruties wnicn aimii ii-no
compen:atton in money". with this, it has been our
considered view that in
measuring the services actuaily rendered by an erective
barangay ornciat, the
basic consideration shall be his attendance in'regular
and speciar sessions.
A regurar session is that which has been earrier fixed as
to day, time and
place, through a Resolution passed by the
sanggunian concerned on the first day
of the session immediatery foilowing lne etecti6i of its members
tsection
Ja1,
Lrcal Government code of 1991J. sangguniang barangays are
mandated to
conduct two (2) regular sessions amonth
ebid.). Since ihe day, time unJ pfu."
of the regular session was arready fixed via a Resorution, we
are of the view that
a written notice for the holding of such regular session is no ronger
required.

i)

A special session, on the other hand, is that which may be cailed

by the
local chief executive or by a majority of the members of the
sanggunian when
public interest so demands
t*cfion iz 61, torit oovernment code of tggil. rn
calling such special sessions, it is required that a written notice to
the mem-bers
shall be served personally at the member's usual place of residence
at least
twenty-four (24) hours before the speciar session is herd (rbid.). It
bears to
stress that-any session held on a day other than the scheduled
dite of regular
session is properly considered a special session so that it should comply
witli the
requirements set forth under Section 52 (d) of the Code.

should an erective barangay officiar be absent in a session of the

sangguniang barangay for reasons other than the performance of his public duty
outside of the office, such as attending to the problems of the constituents, he
may suffer a propoftionate reduction of his honoraria.

In the

case

at

hand, according

to you, several members of

the
sangguniang barangay did not attend your 16 lanuary 2010 regular session since
the notice for the said session was only given to them on 15 January 2010 and
that they had already emergenry appointments set on that session day. with
only you and two (2) sangguniang barangay members present, the aforeiaid 16
January 2010 regular session was adjourned for lack of quorum.
As contended by the majority of your sangguniang barangay members in
their rejoinder, they should be given their honoraria corresponding to your 16
January 2010 regular session since the same was after all adiourned due to lack

of ouorum.
Applying the rule as we enunciated above. written notices for the conduct
of a sanggunian's regular session are no longer required since the date, time and
place of the regular session was already previously fixed via a Resolution. The
sangguniang barangay members cannot therefore use good faith (e.g. short

-3-

:*i::l
>E)>tu
..

ur a

defense

for not attending the sangguniang barangay,s

regutar

Corollary thereto, since several sangguniang barangay members

did not
attend your 16 ranuary 2010 regurar-iessiori due io'n"ir-"r"ig"n.y
appointments, we find the propoftionate reduction of their respective non6iiria
to be just proper if such emergency appointments are nor connected with the
performance of their public duty.

The foregoing rule on the proportionate reduction of honoraria is arso true

even if the regular session was nevertheless adjourned due to rack or quorum.
May we respectfurry stress that on 16 January 2010, there was stiil
u'reorru,.
session that took place but the same was only adjourned due to lack of quoium.
This holding of a regular session, though momeniarily, was corroborated in your
letter when you said that "(T)he chairman therefore opened the sessiin ar
2;40PM with only Kagawads carolina cruz and primitivo perez, Jr. present.
The
secretary tnformed the chairman that there are only three (3) members in the
quorum inc/uding the chairman. The chairman therefore dec/ared it
a norr
and adjourned the Session at 2:4,pM.',There was nothing to adjourn if
there was no regular session that took place in the first place.

Fufthermore, a quorum is defined under Section 53 of the Loca.

Government code of 1991 as "(A) majority or'a// the members of the sanggunian
who have been elected and qualified xxx." It is setUed that the existence of a
quorum ts necessary in order for the sanggunian to transact ofncial business.
May it be remembered that the existence or non-existence of a quorum is usuallv
determined after a roll call of the members, which is usually made before every
session starts. This attendance to session is already suFficient to entifle a
sangguniang barangay member to his honoraria. To hold that even sangguniang
barangay members who did not attend the 16 January 2010 regular seiiion ari
entitled to honoraria corresponding to this particular regular session would run
counter to the rule that honorarium is given only as a remuneration to a public
offlcial for services he actually rendered. Besides. it would be unfair to those
sangguniang barangay members who were present and willing to pafticipate in
that 16 January 2010 regular session if even those who were absent due to
personal reasons are equally given their honoraria.
With regard to your third query, may we invite your attention to Sections
68 and 64 of the Local Government Code of 1991. to wit:
*SEICTION

68. Execution

pen&inq appea.l'.-An appeal

shall not prevent a decision from becoming final or executory.
The respondent shall be considered as having been placed
under preventlve suspenslon during the pendency of an
appeal in the event he wins such appeal. In the event the
appeal results in an exoneration, he shall be paid his salary
and such other emoluments during the pendency of the
appeal."

(SECTION 64. salaty of Respondent Pending

suspension.-The respondent official preventively suspended
from office shall receive no salary or compensation during
such suspension; but, upon subsequent exonefation and
reinstatement, he shall be paid full salary or compensation

-4-

including

such

emoluments accruing during such

suspension."
Based on the aforequoted Section 68 of the Code, the respondent local
elective official shall be considered as having placed under preventive suspension
during the pendency of his appeal. Relative thereto, under Section 64 of the
Code, the respondent local elective official preventively suspended from office
shall receive no salary or compensation during such suspension and it is only
upon his exoneration and reinstatement that he shall be paid his full salary or
compensation, including such emoluments accruing during such suspension.

In the case at

hand, while Sangguniang Barangay Members Emma

Lourdes C. De Jesus and Ernesto G, Gomez were meted the penalty of
suspension (not preventive suspension as indicated by City Director Agustin in
her letter), they successfully obtained a Stay Order from the Office of the
President. It was by virtue of the said Stay Order from the Office of the
President that the implementation of their penalty of suspension was, in the
meantime, held in abeyance so that Sangguniang Barangay Members De lesus
and Gomez were directed to re-assume their duties as sangguniang barangay
members pending their appeal.

Let

it be noted that the non-implementation of the suspension against

Sangguniang Barangay Members De lesus and Gomez does not automatically

entitle them too of their respective honoraria. They are still required to attend
their sangguniang barangay's regular and special sessions. This is only proper
since Sangguniang Barangay Members are paid in the form of honorarium, which
is defined as that remuneration given to a public official for services actually
rendered. As we already explained above, in measuring the services actually
rendered by an elective barangay official, the basic consideration shall be his
attendance in regular and special sessions. Thus, a sanqguniang barangay
member may suffer a proportionate reduction of his honoraria for his failure to
attend a session for reasons other than the performance of his public duty
outside of the ofnce, such as attending to the problems of the constituents.
We hope this finally settles your concern.

Very truly yours,

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY:

Director

Cc:

USEC. EDUARDO R. SOLIMAN, JR.

Undersecretary for special Constituency Relations

This Department
DIR. MARIA LOURDES L. AGUMN
City Director
DILG, Quezon City

Lsl!7

III