Authority of the Acting Vice-Mayor to Preside over the Sangguniang Panlungsod During a Temporary Vacancy

The Department has previously discussed the distinction between an Acting Official and an Officer-in-Charge in DILG Legal Opinion No. 64, s. 2018, citing Civil Service Accordingly, where an individual is duly designated as Acting Vice-Mayor to discharge the powers, duties, and functions of the Office of the Vice-Mayor for the duration of a temporary vacancy, the designation is not limited to merely ministerial or administrative functions. Rather, the designated Acting Vice-Mayor may generally exercise the powers, perform the duties, and discharge the functions legally attached to the Office of the Vice-Mayor, unless expressly limited by the designation or by law. This is significant in determining whether the presiding function under Section 49(a) of R.A. No. 7160 forms part of the authority of the Acting Vice-Mayor. The present circumstances should be distinguished from those contemplated in Gamboa, Jr. v. Aguirre, Jr., G.R. No. 134213, 20 July 1999. In Gamboa, the Supreme Court considered whether an incumbent Vice-Governor who was concurrently acting as Governor by reason of the temporary vacancy in the Office of the Governor could continue to preside over the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The Court held that he could not. It reasoned that, while acting as Governor, the Vice- Governor was effectively incapacitated from performing the functions of the Vice- Governor, including the presiding function, and that the resulting inability of the regular presiding officer triggered Section 49(b) of R.A. No. 7160. The factual and legal circumstances in Gamboa, however, are materially different from those presently under consideration. In Gamboa, the Vice-Governor was himself the regular occupant of the Office of the Vice-Governor who, by Operation of law, temporarily exercised the powers and performed the duties of the Governor because of a temporary vacancy in the latter office. The Court consequently found that, during such period, the Vice-Governor was unable to simultaneously perform the functions of his own office, including presiding over the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The present case involves a different legal arrangement. Here, there is a temporary vacancy in the Office of the Vice-Mayor, and an individual has been duly designated by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, pursuant to the applicable rules on filling temporary vacancies, to act as Vice-Mayor and to discharge the powers, duties, and functions of that Office for the duration of the vacancy. This distinction is particularly relevant in view of Administrative Order No. 15, s. 2018, entitled “Authorizing the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) or the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) to Fill Temporary Vacancies in Certain Local Elective Offices to Prevent Hiatus in and Paralysis of Local Government Page 2 of 5