Legal Opinion on the Role of the Sangguniang Barangay in Appointments Requiring Concurrence

contrary, the Department has consistently upheld the doctrine that appointments requiring concurrence are conjoint acts of the Punong Barangay and the Sangguniang Barangay, such that without concurrence, an appointment does not become valid and effective.? This position squarely mirrors, and faithfully applies, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alquizola, which categorically held that “without such conjoint action, neither an appointment nor a replacement can be effectual.” What appears to require clarification, however, is the context and legal implication of the Alquizola ruling. While the Supreme Court recognized that concurrence is indispensable to complete an appointment, it did not hold that the Sangguniang Barangay is vested with an unqualified or political discretion to approve or disapprove appointments based on considerations outside those provided by law. Rather, Alquizola affirms that the appointing power remains lodged in the Punong Barangay, subject to the completion of the appointment through the legally required concurrence. This interpretation is consistent with the Court's broader doctrine on appointments. As the Highest Court itself quoted in Véelicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, “appointment to office is intrinsically an executive act involving the exercise of discretion.” Applied to the barangay setting, this principle finds statutory expression in the Code, which vests the Punong Barangay, as local chief executive under Section 3894, with the authority to appoint certain barangay officials. In this regard, the Department has consistently recognized, as early as DILG Opinion No. 17, s. 20088, that the Punong Barangay performs dual functions: as local chief executive of the barangay government, and as Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Barangay. It was declared therein that when issuing appointments to appointive barangay positions, the Punong Barangay acts in his capacity as local chief executive, exercising executive discretion as to whom to appoint to perform the functions of a given office. These appointments are thereafter submitted to the Sangguniang Barangay for concurrence, consistent with law. Likewise, the Department has consistently explained that the role of the Sangguniang Barangay in the exercise of concurrence is to determine whether the appointee possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications required by law.® And ? See DILG Opinion No. 102, s. 2007; DILG Opinion No. 18, s. 2008; DILG Opinion No. 17, s. 2009 3G.R. No. 203372, June 16, 2015. 4 Seciton 389 (a) The punong barangay, as the chief executive of the barangay government, shall exercise such powers and perform such duties and functions, as provided by this Code and other laws. (b) For efficient, effective and economical governance, the purpose of which is the general welfare of the barangay and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the punong barangay shall: x x x (5) Upon approval by a majority of all the members of the sangguniang barangay, appoint or replace the barangay treasurer, the barangay secretary, and other appointive barangay officials; 8 “[T]he Punong Barangay performs dual functions, namely: he acts as the local chief executive of the barangay government per Section 389 of the Local Government Code, and as Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Barangay per Section 390 of the same Code.” XXX In this regard, it is clear, therefore, that the Punong Barangay, in issuing the appointments to the Barangay Treasurer and Barangay Secretary, is doing so in his capacity as local chief executive of the barangay government and not as Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Barangay. In such capacity as chief executive, the appointing discretion is exercised solely by him as to who should be selected to perform and exercise the functions of a given office. Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Code, these appointments, however, are to be submitted to the Sangguniang Barangay for concurrence. 6 DILG Opinion No. 17. s. 2009: “The power to concur is intended for the sanggunian to determine whether or not the appointee of the Punong Barangay possesses all the qualifications prescribed for Barangay Secretary under Section 394 of the Local government Code and such other qualifications provided for by existing laws x x x”; DILG Opinion No. 17, s. 2008: “In the issuance or non-issuance of the concurrence, the Sangguniang Barangay shall be guided solely by its evaluation of whether the appointees possess the statutorily required Page 2 of 4