The Importance of Sangguniang Bayan Authorization in Local Government Contracts

G.R. No. 252971, January 11, 2023

Imagine a local government official using public funds to purchase land without proper authorization. This scenario, ripe for corruption, highlights the crucial role of checks and balances in local governance. The Supreme Court case of People vs. Abarratigue underscores the severe consequences of circumventing legal requirements when entering into contracts on behalf of a municipality. This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to the Local Government Code (LGC) and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

This case revolves around Alejandro Navual Abarratigue, Raul Roberto Tapia, and Analiza Mabonga Bagro, who were found guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” for purchasing land for a municipal cemetery without the necessary authorization from the Sangguniang Bayan.

Understanding Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and Local Government Authority

At the heart of this case lies Section 3(e) of RA 3019, which prohibits public officials from causing undue injury to the government or giving unwarranted benefits to any private party through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision is a cornerstone in combating corruption within the Philippine government.

The Local Government Code (RA 7160) further emphasizes the need for authorization from the Sangguniang Bayan (municipal council) for contracts entered into by the local chief executive. Section 22(c) of the LGC explicitly states: “Unless otherwise provided in this Code, no contract may be entered into by the local chief executive in behalf of the local government unit without prior authorization by the Sanggunian concerned.”

Furthermore, Section 444(b)(1)(vi) reinforces this requirement, stating that the municipal mayor shall, “Upon authorization by the Sangguniang Bayan, represent the municipality in all its business transactions and sign on its behalf all bonds, contracts, and obligations…”

For example, if a mayor wants to build a new public market, they can’t simply sign a contract with a construction company. They must first obtain approval from the Sangguniang Bayan, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process.

The Case of People vs. Abarratigue: A Detailed Look

The case began with an Information filed against Abarratigue (Municipal Mayor), Tapia (Municipal Treasurer), and Bagro (Administrative Officer II) for purchasing Lot 387-E without the Sangguniang Bayan’s authorization. The prosecution argued that this unauthorized purchase caused undue injury to the government amounting to Php500,000.00.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• The Purchase: Abarratigue purchased Lot 387-E from the heirs of Isidro A. Abarracoso for Php500,000.00.
• Lack of Authorization: No prior authorization from the Sangguniang Bayan was obtained for this purchase.
• Disbursement and Check Issuance: Tapia certified the availability of funds, and a check was issued to Bagro, purportedly on behalf of the seller, Abarracoso.

During the trial, witnesses testified that the standard procedure for contracts required the mayor to submit a request to the SB, which would then deliberate and issue a resolution authorizing the contract. No such resolution existed for this land purchase.

The defense argued that Resolution No. 23-2007 and MDC Resolution No. 01-S2007, which allocated funds for the expansion of the municipal cemetery, served as sufficient authorization. However, the Sandiganbayan rejected this argument, stating that “expansion” and “purchase” are not synonymous.

The Sandiganbayan emphasized the importance of specific authorization, quoting Quisimbing v. Garcia: “should the appropriation ordinance describe the projects in generic terms… there is an obvious need for a covering contract for every specific project that in turn requires approval by the sanggunian.”

The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision, stating, “The acts performed and admitted by accused-appellants do not merely constitute negligence… Rather, they are conscious wrongdoings for a perverse motive—that is, the disbursement of public funds for unauthorized purposes and to a person not authorized to receive the same—and constitute evident bad faith.”

Practical Implications for Local Governments and Citizens

This case reinforces the critical need for transparency and adherence to legal procedures in local government transactions. It highlights the importance of obtaining specific authorization from the Sangguniang Bayan for all contracts, especially those involving the disbursement of public funds.

For local government officials, the key takeaway is to always ensure that proper authorization is obtained before entering into any contract on behalf of the municipality. Failure to do so can result in criminal liability under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

For citizens, this case underscores the importance of holding local officials accountable and demanding transparency in government transactions. By staying informed and vigilant, citizens can help prevent corruption and ensure that public funds are used responsibly.

Key Lessons

• Obtain Specific Authorization: Always secure specific authorization from the Sangguniang Bayan for each contract.
• Document Everything: Maintain thorough documentation of all transactions, including resolutions, contracts, and disbursement vouchers.
• Promote Transparency: Ensure that all government transactions are transparent and accessible to the public.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is Section 3(e) of RA 3019?

A: Section 3(e) of RA 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, prohibits public officials from causing undue injury to the government or giving unwarranted benefits to any private party through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

Q: What is the role of the Sangguniang Bayan in local government contracts?

A: The Sangguniang Bayan (municipal council) is responsible for authorizing contracts entered into by the local chief executive on behalf of the municipality. This ensures transparency and accountability in government transactions.

Q: What happens if a local government official enters into a contract without proper authorization?

A: Entering into a contract without proper authorization can result in criminal liability under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, including imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

Q: What is the difference between “expansion” and “purchase” in the context of this case?

A: The court clarified that “expansion” and “purchase” are not synonymous. An allocation of funds for the expansion of a municipal cemetery does not automatically authorize the purchase of land for that purpose. Specific authorization is required for the purchase of land.

Q: How can citizens help prevent corruption in local government?

A: Citizens can help prevent corruption by staying informed about government transactions, demanding transparency, and holding local officials accountable for their actions.

ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and government regulations. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.