Legal opinion on whether a barangay is authorized to enact a resolution or ordinance increasing the medical assistance limit for Sangguniang Barangay Members beyond the statutory P5,000.00 limit.

Should the identified funding source prove insufficient to cover the maximum allowable rate of the Medical Allowance, a lower but uniform amount shall be granted to all qualified officials and employees of the LGU." Section 5 1 2 1 1 2 555 397 56 23 80.126999 10.4 5 1 2 1 1 3 619 410 31 3 77.171150 — 5 1 2 1 1 4 662 397 48 23 96.776100 The 5 1 2 1 1 5 720 398 180 30 96.593887 appropriation 5 1 2 1 1 6 910 398 38 23 96.339493 for 5 1 2 1 1 7 954 398 107 24 96.297714 Medical 5 1 2 1 1 8 1068 399 142 23 96.297714 Allowance 5 1 2 1 1 9 1220 399 64 24 95.731415 shall 5 1 2 1 1 10 1291 399 33 24 96.977188 be 4 1 2 1 2 0 427 433 629 31 -1 5 1 2 1 2 1 427 433 101 30 96.395126 subject 5 1 2 1 2 2 537 434 23 22 96.395126 to 5 1 2 1 2 3 572 434 41 22 96.579994 the 5 1 2 1 2 4 625 434 74 22 96.579994 usual 5 1 2 1 2 5 708 434 64 22 96.893799 local 5 1 2 1 2 6 780 435 137 29 96.438667 budgeting 5 1 2 1 2 7 925 435 131 29 95.361740 process. It bears to emphasize that an executive order cannot amend or repeal law.2 However, itis a principle in statutory construction that a statute should be construed not only to be consistent with itself but also to harmonize with other laws on the same subject matter, as to form a complete, coherent and intelligible system.° In other words, every effort must be made to harmonize seemingly conflicting laws.* It is only when harmonization is impossible that resort must be made to choosing which law to apply.® Upon careful scrutiny of the foregoing provisions, it is the considered view of this Department that EO 64 and DBM Budget Circular No. 2024-6 operate on different planes and serve distinctly different purposes from Section 393(b)(3) of the LGC. The LGC confers a substantive right to free hospital and medical care in government facilities, or alternatively, up to 5,000.00 in medical expenses chargeable to barangay funds for private hospital or medical treatment in cases of extreme urgency where no government hospital or institution is available. This is a mandatory benefit expressly granted by statute to barangay officials under the LGC itself. In contrast, EO 64 and DBM Budget Circular No. 2024-6 provide a cash subsidy of P7,000.00 per annum to help qualified local government personnel, including the barangay, acquire HMO-type coverage. This is not payment for actual medical expenses incurred, but rather a subsidy to secure health maintenance organization coverage that provides comprehensive outpatient and preventive care benefits year- round. The Medical Allowance is expressly designated as 5 1 6 1 6 9 1051 1282 14 17 96.984482 a 5 1 6 1 6 10 1076 1275 104 30 96.803032 subsidy 5 1 6 1 6 11 1189 1275 37 24 96.931213 for 5 1 6 1 6 12 1234 1275 42 24 93.282135 the 5 1 6 1 6 13 1286 1275 132 24 92.776962 availment 4 1 6 1 7 0 242 1311 1175 29 -1 5 1 6 1 7 1 242 1311 25 22 96.806343 of 5 1 6 1 7 2 277 1311 86 22 96.028152 Health 5 1 6 1 7 3 375 1312 177 21 96.028152 Maintenance 5 1 6 1 7 4 563 1312 175 28 96.705299 Organization 5 1 6 1 7 5 751 1312 89 28 95.667328 (HMO) 5 1 6 1 7 6 851 1313 57 27 96.496834 type 5 1 6 1 7 7 920 1312 117 22 95.823105 benefits under Section 58 of the FY 2025 GAA and Section 4 of EO 64. It is available regardless of whether the official is hospitalized or experiences a medical emergency or not. The two benefits complement each other to provide a comprehensive health protection. In essence, Section 393(b)(3) is a mandatory benefit under the law that cannot be increased by local ordinance, while the Medical Allowance is a conditional cash subsidy under executive policy that may be granted through Sangguniang Barangay appropriation ordinance up to P7,000.00 per annum, subject to the LGU's financial capability and compliance with DBM guidelines, and adherence to the pertinent budgeting, accounting, and auditing laws, rules, and regulations. This opinion is rendered without prejudice to any contrary interpretation that may be issued by any competent agencies or courts. We hope to have guided you accordingly. 2 DTI v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225301, June 2, 2020. 3 Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009. ‘tld Sid. Page 3 of 4