Legal Opinion on the Nature and Extent of the Sangguniang Barangay’s Concurrence in Barangay Appointments

vs. Ocol*. However, while the Sanggunian is granted the authority to concur, it is not vested with plenary or unrestricted discretionary power. Its role serves as a mechanism for checks and balances, limited to determining whether the appointee possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law. The Sanggunian is not authorized to approve or disapprove appointments based on considerations beyond those allowed by law. Please be informed that Memorandum Circulars, as administrative issuances promulgated pursuant to delegated authority, are presumed valid and regular upon issuance. They carry the force and effect of law and are binding unless and until declared otherwise by a competent authority. Accordingly, it is beyond the authority of this Office to declare such issuances inconsistent with existing laws or jurisprudence. In this regard, Memorandum Circular No. 2002-1503, which promulgates the Guidelines on the Appointment of Barangay Secretaries, Treasurers, and Other Appointive Barangay Officials, expressly provides that when the appointee possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law, any withholding of concurrence by the Sangguniang Barangay shall be considered whimsical, arbitrary, and unjustifiable, and is therefore tantamount to abuse of authority. This issuance remains controlling and must be given due weight and application. Under the law, a ministerial duty is one that an officer or body is required to perform in a prescribed manner, in obedience to a legal mandate, without regard to the exercise of personal judgment*. In contrast, concurrence denotes a conjoint action®, allowing the Sangguniang Barangay to evaluate and decide whether to approve or reject an appointee based solely on legal qualifications and disqualifications. Nevertheless, the law does not grant the Sangguniang Barangay authority to assess the wisdom of the appointment, policy considerations, political alignment, or personal preference. Its evaluation is strictly confined to determining whether the appointee possesses the qualifications prescribed by law and is not disqualified under existing laws, rules, or regulations. The qualifications and disqualifications for barangay appointive officials are objective and determinable by law. Once compliance is clearly established, there is no room for subjective or arbitrary evaluation. Accordingly, the Sangguniang Barangay has no authority to impose its own preferred appointee, require justification based on political trust or policy alignment, or delay concurrence indefinitely without lawful cause. Such acts may constitute grave abuse of discretion or usurpation of authority, considering that the appointing power is expressly vested by the LGC in the Punong Barangay. Finally, it bears emphasis that dissatisfaction with the performance of the Barangay Secretary or Treasurer, or allegations of bias, abuse of authority, or disregard of the welfare of constituents, is not without remedy. Removal may be pursued through appropriate administrative proceedings, provided that it is based on lawful and just causes and with due process. 2 GR. No. 132413, August 27, 1999. 3 September 18, 2002 4 Eligio P. Mallari vs. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 157660, August 29, 2008. 5 G.R. No. 132413, August 27, 1999. Page 2 of 3