An independent Philippine legal research libraryRead with context. Verify with confidence.
DILG legal opinionSource checked

Propriety of not accepting payment on the application for quarrying business permit

DILG Opinion No. 127, s. 2025 · 2025 · DILG legal opinions — verified official source

Source checked. The source check identifies the document; it does not verify every transcribed word or its current legal effect. Recovered or scanned text may contain errors. Compare the wording and subsequent history with the linked legal source.

SCANNED TEXT · CHECK ORIGINAL WORDING · DIGITAL P. 1 / 2
BAGONG PILIPINAS Republic of the Philippines DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT DILG-NAPOLCOM Center, EDSA cor. Quezon Avenue, West Triangle, Quezon City www.dilg.gov.ph OILG OPINION NO. iS. 20% MEMORANDUM FOR : AGNES A. DE LEON, CESO IV Regional Director DILG Region 2 Tuguegarao City, Cagayan SUBJECT : REQUEST FOR LEGAL OPINION RE PROPRIETY OF NOT ACCEPTING PAYMENT ON THE APPLICATION FOR QUARRYING BUSINESS PERMIT [R02-2025-05-16-013] DATE : OCT 93 2025 Reference: Your Memorandum dated May 15, 2025, requesting legal opinion on the on the propriety of not accepting payment on the application for quarrying of business permit. Per your narration, an application for a quarrying permit was submitted in 2022 but denied due to threats posed to the structural integrity of the Pamplona Bridge— consistent with the policy prohibiting quarrying within a one-kilometer radius, as anchored on the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. The applicant has since challenged the denial in court, and subsequent applications in 2023 and 2024 were similarly denied. In 2025, due to the automation of the LGU’s business permit system via the DICT’s eLGU platform, the same applicant's submission was inadvertently processed. In response, the Mayor issued a directive instructing the Municipal Treasurer not to accept any payment from the applicant while the case remains pending in court. A ministerial duty is one performed in a prescribed manner without the exercise of judgment or discretion. In contrast, discretionary acts involve decision-making authority. As such, local officials carrying out ministerial functions are bound to comply with lawful directives from their superiors. Here, the Mayor's issuance of a directive (Memorandum No. 33) falls within her authority to supervise and implement regulatory policies, especially where public safety and environmental integrity are concerned. The directive enjoys a presumption of regularity and validity, absent any clear showing of abuse or malice. Thus, compliance by subordinate officials, including the Municipal Treasurer, does not constitute impropriety. “Matino, Mahusay at Maaasahan” Trunkline No. (02) 8876 3454