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

when these legal requirements are present and complied with, concurrence should therefore issue as a matter of course. Otherwise, the sanggunian risks exceeding the bounds of concurrence and encroaching upon the appointing prerogative which the Code clearly lodges in the Punong Barangay under Section 389.” Significantly, this interpretation is not unique to barangay appointments. Applying by analogy the same logic, the Department has consistently held in its opinions involving provincial, city, and municipal governments that where concurrence by a sanggunian is required, such concurrence serves to complete the appointment process, not to supplant or control the appointing discretion of the governor or mayor, as the case may be.® In these instances, the Department has also uniformly maintained that the sanggunian’s authority to concur is intended to determine whether the appointee possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided for by the Code and existing laws, and that withholding concurrence on grounds outside those contemplated by law would amount to an impermissible encroachment upon executive prerogative. Indeed, the same reasoning necessarily applies, with equal force, at the barangay level. Viewed from this perspective, the Department respectfully submits that its legal opinions do not diminish participatory governance nor reduce the sanggunian to a “rubber stamp.” Rather, they seek to preserve the balance intentionally crafted by the law, one that guards against unilateral action by the executive, while at the same time preventing the legislative body from encroaching upon powers not granted to it by law. qualifications under the Local Government Code for the positions (please see Secs. 394 and 395 of the Local Government Code) and none of the disqualifications under the same Code and other existing laws. Hence, if the appointees possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications, the concurrence shall issue as a matter of course, otherwise, the Sangguniang Barangay shall issue the non-concurrence if the appointees lack any of the qualifications or possess any of the disqualifications.” DILG Opinion No. 18, s. 2008: “The punong barangay must perform the operative act of appointing the barangay secretary and the sangguniang barangay will signify its concurrence thereto. deliberating whether or not to concur with the appointment made by the Punong Barangay, the Sangguniang Barangay shall be guided by simply determining whether or not the appointee of the Punong Barangay possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications cited under the aforequoted provision.” ; DILG Opinion No. 121, s. 2022: “[WJhile the power to concur is given to the Sangguniang Barangay, said body is not vested with so much plenary discretionary powers. 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 the LGC and such other qualifications provided by existing laws.” 7 DILG Opinion No. 17, s. 2008: “It is not within the legal authority of the Sangguniang Barangay to dictate and impose upon the Punong Barangay as to who should be appointed to the positions. If we allow this situation, it would in effect illlegally vests unto the Sangguniang Barangay the executive power of appointment which, under the mandate of Sections 394 and 395, respectively, of the Local Government Code, properly belongs to the Punong Barangay as local chief executive. As local chief executive on whom the power to issue the subject appointments is conferred by law, his action in such capacity is not subject to the dictates and imposition of the Sangguniang Barangay. To do otherwise would be allowing the Sangguniang Barangay to substitute the appointing discretion of the Punong Barangay.” 8 See DILG Opinion No. 42, s. 2008: If the appointee possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications as mandated by pertinent laws, the Sanggunian has no discretion to deny the statutorily required concurrence since if that would be allowed, we are of the view that the Sanggunian will already be encroaching into the appointing prerogative of the Governor and in effect is already substituting the Governor's appointing discretion in the process. It bears stressing that the Governor, as the appointing authority, exercises and enjoys wide latitude of discretion as to who shall be appointed to a particular position. On the other hand, the power given to the Sanggunian to concur such appointment of the Governor is to be construed as merely an act of confirming that the appointee possesses all the minimum qualifications set by law for the position and that he has none of the disqualification under the LGC or other existing laws.”, DILG Opinion No. 70 s. 2024: [T]he power to concur of the sanggunian mentioned in the provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991 is intended to determine whether or not the appointee of the Mayor possesses all the qualifications prescribed for the position under Sec. 480 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and none of the disqualifications provided for by existing laws.” Page 3 of 4