[04] Rodrigo vs Sandiganbayan A local government official’s actual salary may be less than what the Salary Schedule

G.R. No. 111812 June 2013 under Section 7 prescribes, depending on the class and financial capability of his or
J. Perlas-Bernabe | Pub Off her respective local government unit. This circumstance, however, has no bearing on
such officials Grade. As the foregoing discussion shows, on officials salary is
CASE SUMMARY: Provincial Auditor issued a notice of disallowance for a project determined by the Grade accorded his position, and ultimately by the nature of his
that Mayor Rodriguez and several other local officials had undertaken. Mayor position the level of difficulty and responsibilities and level of qualification
ROdriguez, the highest-ranking official involved, filed an opposition to this notice of requirements of the work. To give credence to petitioners argument that Mayor
disallowance along with a motion to reinvestigate with the Sandiganbayan, but the Rodrigos salary determines his Grade would be to misconstrue the provisions of R.A.
Provincial Auditor went ahead and filed a criminal complaint with the Ombudsman. No. 6758, and ignore the constitutional and statutory policies behind said law.
The Acting Ombudsman later approved the filing of an Information for violation of Sec. Dispositive:
3[e] of RA 3019 against the petitioners. The petitioners filed a motion to quash with
the Sandiganbayan, this was denied. The prosecution ended up filing a motion to The Facts
suspend petitioners pendent lite, which the petitioners opposed by saying the
Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over them because they fell below the Salary 1. Conrado B. Rodrigo and Reynaldo G. Mejica are the Mayor and Municipal
Grade of the officials whose offenses fell under the Sandiganbayan’s original and Planning and Development Coordinator, respectively, of San Nicolas,
exclusive jurisdiction. Petitioners filed an R65 petition before the SC, assailing the Pangasinan, while petitioner Alejandro A. Facundo is the former Municipal
Provincial Auditor’s act of filing a criminal complaint before their opposition to the Treasurer of the same municipality.
notice of disallowance and motion for reinvestigation had been resolved. They also
questioned the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction for the above reason. The SC stated that 2. 15 June 1992, the Municipality of San Nicolas, represented by Mayor
the Provincial Auditor can file a criminal complaint if thee evidence of guilt is strong, Rodrigo, entered into an agreement with Philwood Construction, represented
pursuant to Sec. 55 and 56 of Commission on Audit Circular No. 85-156-B. Also, the by Larry Lu, for the electrification of Barangay Caboloan, San Nicolas, for the
position of Municipal Mayor I falls under the Salary Grade 27 over which cases the sum of P486,386.18, requiring:
Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive and original jurisdiction. It’s not the salary that
matters when deciding which Grade a position falls under, but the a. Installation of the two (2) units diesel power generator (20) KVA, 220
qualifications/duties/responsibilities of the office. W, Battery start and other accessories);

DOCTRINE: b. Installation of 24 rolls feeder lines with nos. 6, 8 and ten wires;
A disallowance is the disapproval of a credit or credits to an account/accountable
officers accountability due to non-compliance with law or regulations.10 Thus, the c. Installation of 40 units 4 x 4 wooden post with accessories; and
auditor may disallow an expenditure/transaction which is unlawful or improper.
d. Construction of powerhouse with concrete foundation double throw
A suspension, on the other hand, is the deferment of action to debit/credit the safety switches (double pole, 250 amperes capacity of 220 V with fuse).
account/accountable officers accountability pending compliance with certain
requirements.12 A notice of suspension is issued on transactions or accounts which 3. Planning and Dev’t Coordinator Meijica made an Accomplishment Report
could otherwise have been settled except for some requirements, like lack of stating that the Caboloan Power Generation project was 97.5%
supporting documents or certain signatures. It is also issued on transactions or accomplished.
accounts the legality/propriety of which the auditor doubts but which he may later
allow after satisfactory or valid justification is submitted by the parties concerned. 4. Said report was supposedly approved by mayor Rodrigo and confirmed by
Larry Lu. On the basis of said report, payment of P452,825.53 was effected
The Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction has been limited to thos involving officials with a by the Municipal Treasurer, petitioner Facundo, to Philwood Construction.
Salary Grade of 27 and up. The regular courts have jurisdiction over those who fall
below this. This was done to free up the Sandiganbayan’s dockets, and to give those 5. 14 August 1993, petitioners received a Notice of Disallowance dated 21
living in the provinces an easier time, so they no longer have to travel to Manila to file June 1993 from the Provincial Auditor of Pangasinan, Atty. Agustin Chan,
cases against erring municipal officials. Jr..
6. The Provincial Auditor found that as per COA (Commission on Audit) 13. 18 March 1996, the prosecution moved to suspend petitioners pendente lite.
evaluation of the electrification project: Petitioners opposed the motion on the ground that the Sandiganbayan
lacked jurisdiction over them. In a Resolution dated 2 July 1996, the
a. only 60.0171% of the project (equivalent to Sandiganbayan ruled that it had jurisdiction over petitioners and ordered the
P291,915.07) was actually accomplished. suspension of petitioners pendente lite.
b. Of the two units of generator supposedly purchased,
only one second-hand unit was delivered. The same
generator broke down after only two nights of operation. 14. Petitioners filed a PFC under R65 with the SC. They prayed that the Court
c. In addition, instead of 40 wooden posts, only 27 were annul: (a) the order of the Sandiganbayan denying petitioners motion to
installed. The powerhouse was only 65.635% quash, and (b) the resolution of the same court upholding its jurisdiction over
completed. petitioners. Petitioners likewise prayed that this Court issue a TRO to enjoin
2. The Provincial Auditor thus disallowed the amount of P160,910.46. the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the case.

7. Sept. 1993 – the petitioners requested the Provincial Auditor to lift the notice 15. 28 August 1998, the court resolved to issue the temporary restraining order
of disallowance. They reiterated this in a letter dated 3 November prayed for.
1993.Attached to this letter was a Certificate of Acceptance and Completion5
signed by Clemente Arquero, Jr., Barangay Captain of Caboloan, and Issues & Ruling:
Eusebio Doton, President of the Cabaloan Electric Cooperative. The
Provincial Auditor denied both. I. Did the institution by the Provincial Auditor of the complaint despite the
pendency of the petitioners’ opposition to the notice of disallowance violate
8. 10 January 1994- the Provincial Auditor filed a criminal complaint for estafa their right to due process? – SC: NO. Petitioners’ right to due process was not
before the Ombudsman against petitioners. Also impleaded were Larry Lu violated.
and Ramil Ang, President and General Manager, and Project Engineer,
respectively, of Philwood Construction. Petitioners: the issuance of a notice of disallowance against them compels the
provincial auditor to either:
9. The Acting Ombudsman Francisco Villa approved the filing of an information a. accept a settlement or
against petitioners for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 30196 b. adjudicate and decide on the written explanation for the purpose of lifting/settling
before the Sandiganbayan. the suspension or extending the time to answer beyond the ninety (90) day period
prior to its conversion into a disallowance.
10. The petitioners filed a motion for reinvestigation with the Sandiganbayan.
This was granted by in an Order dated 22 April 1996. SC: Section 44.6.4 of the State Audit Manual

11. However, the Office of the Special Prosecutor issued a memorandum Sec. 44.6.4. Auditors Responsibility re Evaluation of Disallowance. It shall be the
recommending the charges against petitioners be maintained. The responsibility of the auditor to exercise professional judgment in evaluating, on the
Ombudsman approved this. basis of the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the pertinent provisions
of applicable laws, rules and regulations, the grounds for a charge or
12. The Petitioners filed a motion to quash before the Sandiganbayan, alleging suspension/disallowance of an account or transaction.
that: (1) the facts alleged in the information did not constitute an offense, and
(2) the same information charged more than one offense. They did not It shall be the responsibility of the auditor to exercise sound judgment in evaluating
specify the grounds, but faulted the Provincial Auditor for filing the complaint the written explanation of the accountable/responsible/liable officer concerned for the
despite the pending notice of disallowance they’d filed with the Ombudsman. purpose of lifting the suspension or extending the time to answer beyond the ninety
They also argued that the evidence against them did not establish the (90) day period prior to its conversion into a disallowance. (Underscoring supplied.)
element of damage nor the presence of any conspiracy between them. The
Sandiganbayan denied this motion. SC: The aforequoted provision should be read in conjunction with Section 82 of the
State Audit Code,9 which states that:
 Their right to due process regarding the criminal aspect of the case isn’t violated since
(a) charge of suspension which is not satisfactorily explained within ninety days after they can deal with the accusations against them and use the same defenses they
receipt or notice by the accountable officer concerned shall become a disallowance, brought up in their motion during the preliminary investigation of the criminal case,
unless the Commission or auditor concerned shall, in writing and for good cause
shown, extend the time for answer beyond ninety days. Should the Provincial Auditor later reverse himself and grant respondents motions, or
should the COA, or this Court, subsequently absolve them from liability during the
pendency of the preliminary investigation, the respondents may ask the prosecuting
SC: Differentiated between a disallowance and a suspension officer to take cognizance of such decision. The prosecuting officer may then accord
such decision its proper weight.
A disallowance is the disapproval of a credit or credits to an
account/accountable officers accountability due to non-compliance with law or However, the exoneration of the petitioners in the audit investigation doesn’t mean
regulations.10 Thus, the auditor may disallow an expenditure/transaction which the crim case will be automatically dismissed. The preliminary investigation involves
is unlawful or improper. the determination of the fact of the commission of a crime; the investigation
conducted by the COA relates to the administrative aspect of the expenditure of
A suspension, on the other hand, is the deferment of action to debit/credit the public funds.
account/accountable officers accountability pending compliance with certain
requirements.12 A notice of suspension is issued on transactions or accounts Doesn’t matter that petitioners argue their oppistion to the disallowance would prove
which could otherwise have been settled except for some requirements, like the absence of the elements of bad faith/negligence/damage. These are evidentiary
lack of supporting documents or certain signatures. It is also issued on matters best resolved during trial. Also, the SC has maintained a consistent policy of
transactions or accounts the legality/propriety of which the auditor doubts but non-interference in the determination of the Ombudsman regarding the existence of
which he may later allow after satisfactory or valid justification is submitted by probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion.
the parties concerned.
Young vs Ombudsman: The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory
and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman
Section 82, supra, however, the suspension shall become a disallowance if the but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the court will be grievously
charge of suspension is not satisfactorily explained within ninety days after receipt or hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory
notice by the accountable officer concerned." The ninety-day period within which the proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints
accountable officer may answer the charge of suspension may nevertheless be filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if
extended by the Commission or the auditor for good cause shown. they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals
or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or
SC: Petitioners misapplied Section 44.6.4 because they were charged with dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.
disallowance, not suspension. The written explanation referred to in said section is for
lifting the suspension or extending the time to answer beyond the ninety (90) day
period prior to its conversion into a disallowance, not for contesting a disallowance II. Should the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over this case?
Petitioners: Mayor Rodrigo’s salary Grade is 24 [he’s the highest-ranking official], and
SC: Respondents correctly invoked Sections 55 [Reporting Fraud/Unlawful Actvities] so beyond the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
and 56 [Institution of Criminal Action] of Commission on Audit Circular No. 85-156-B,
Governing laws: Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Presidential
Under Sec. 56, the Provincial Auditor has the duty to to file a complaint before the Decree No. 1861 governed the jurisdiction f the Sandiganbayan. Later ,
Ombudsman when he believes the criminal prosecution is warranted, based on Republic Act No. 7975 on 30 March 1995, was passed. Sec. 2 redefined the
evidence gathered during the audit. As long as there are sufficient grounds to support jurisdiction of the Anti-Graft Court. The effect of this was stated by CJ Hilario
the complaint, resolving the opposition to the notice of disallowance and motion for Davide in People vs. Magallanes:
reinvestigation is not a prerequisite.
As a consequence of these amendments, the Sandiganbayan partly lost its exclusive
original jurisdiction in cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, as
amended; R.A. No. 1379,24 and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal
Code,25 it retains only cases where the accused are those enumerated in subsection SC: No.
a, Section 4 above and, generally, national and local officials classified as Grade 27 Section 5, Article IX-C of the Constitution provides that:
and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (R.A. No.
6758). Moreover, its jurisdiction over other offenses or felonies committed by public The Congress shall provide for the standardization of compensation of government
officials and employees in relation to their office is no longer determined by the officials and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled
prescribed penalty, viz., that which is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment corporation with original charters, taking into account the nature of the responsibilities
for six years or a fine of P6,000.00; it is enough that they are committed by those pertaining to, and the qualifications required for their positions.
public officials and employees enumerated in subsection a, Section 4 above.
However, it retains its exclusive original jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases filed This provision is not unique to the 1987 Constitution. The 1973 Constitution, in
pursuant to or in connection with E.O. Nos. 1,26 2,27 14,28 and 14-A. Section 6, Article XII thereof, contains a very similar provision pursuant to which then
President Marcos, in the exercise of his legislative powers, issued Presidential
Purpose: to free up the Sandiganbayan’s dockets and devote their time to big Decree No. 985.32cräläwvirtualibräry
cases. Sandiganbayan now no longer needs to try lower-ranked officials, that
duty now rests with the regular courts. The regular courts will be vested with However, with the advent of the new Constitution, and in compliance therewith,
the jurisdiction of cases involving less-ranking officials (those occupying Congress enacted R.A. No. 6758. Section 2 thereof declares it the policy of the State
positions corresponding to salary grade twenty-seven (27) and below and PNP to provide equal pay for substantially equal work and to base differences in pay upon
members with a rank lower than Senior Superintendent. Will be more substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and qualification requirements
convenient to people living in the provinces since they no longer need to go to of the positions."
Manila to file their complaints against their local officials. Meanwhile the
Sandiganbaya exercises jurisdiction over those cases involving The “Grade” system under PD 985, which is in a nutshell a means for lumping
officials falling under Salary Grade 27. offciaials with similar duties and responsibilities together, was adopted by Congress
pursuant to this.
Although some positions of Grade 27 and above are stated by name in Section 4 a.,
the position of Municipal Mayor is not among them. Nevertheless, Congress provided Definition of “Grade” under PD 985: “Includ[ing] all classes of positions which,
a catchall in Section 4 a. (5), thus: although different with respect to kind or subject matter of work, are sufficiently
equivalent as to level of difficulty and responsibilities and level of qualification
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under the requirements of the work to warrant the inclusion of such classes of positions
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. within one range of basic compensation.

Such a catchall is necessary, for it would be impractical, if not impossible, for The Grade is therefore a means of grouping positions sufficiently equivalent as
Congress to list down each position created or will be created pertaining to Grades 27 to level of difficulty and responsibilities and level of qualification requirements
and above. of the work so that they may be lumped together in one range of basic
compensation.”
At the time the case was decided, Volume III of the 1997 edition of the Index of
Occupational Services, Position Titles and Salary Grades, which was prepared by the Congress, under Section 8 of R.A. No. 6758, fixed the Salary Grades of officials
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) pursuant to Republic Act No. 6758,31 holding constitutional positions, then delegated the rest to the DBM. subject to the
otherwise known as the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, lists standards contained in R.A. No. 6758.
the following positions under Salary Grade 27. The position of Municipal Mayor I was
included under it. The position occupied the same salary grade under the 1989 For positions below those mentioned under Section 8 of RA 6758, Section 9
version of the Index. directs the DBM to prepare the Index of Occupational Services guided by (a) the
Benchmark Position prescribed in Section 9,36 and (b) the following factors:
Petitioners: But Mayor Rodriguez occupied Salary Grade 24 pursuant to the amount
of the salary he was receiving [petitioners showed a salary schedule under Sec. 7 of (1) the education and experience required to perform the duties and
RA 6758 to prove this] responsibilities of the position;
 WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the Temporary Restraining
(2) nature and complexity of the work to be performed; Order issued by this Court on 28 August 1996 LIFTED. SO ORDERED. Davide,
Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Melo, and Pardo, JJ., concur.
(3) the kind of supervision received;

(4) mental and/or physical strain required in the completion of the NOTES:
work;
Commission on Audit Circular No. 85-156-B:
(5) nature and extent of internal and external relationships;
SECTION 55. REPORTING FRAUD/UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES. If after evaluation of
(6) kind of supervision exercised; the findings, the auditor is convinced that the evidence sufficiently discloses
the fraud and other unlawful activities and identifies the perpetrators thereof,
(7) decision-making responsibility;
he shall prepare the sworn statements of the examining witnesses and/or other
(8) responsibility for accuracy of records and reports; witnesses and make a report to the Manager/Regional Director concerned,
attaching thereto copies of the pertinent affidavits and other supporting
(9) accountability for funds, properties and equipment; and documents.

(10) hardship, hazard and personal risk involved in the job. SECTION 56. INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION. If criminal prosecution is
warranted, the Regional Director/Manager concerned with respect to National
- pursuant to these factors, the Index for Occupational Services, Position, Titles and Government Agencies/government Owned or Controlled Corporations or
Salary Grades, was developed in 1989 and later revised in 1997. In both versions, the Provincial/City Auditors with respect to local government units shall prepare a
position of Municipal Mayor was assigned a Salary Grade 27. Though Mayor letter-complaint and file the same with the Tanodbayan or the local deputized
Rodriguez’ salary fell beneath the threshold of that classification, the SC stated that Tanodbayan prosecutor within ten (10) days from receipt of the report from the
pursuant to Sec. 10 and 19RA 6758, the salary that a municipal mayor gets depends examining auditor, attaching thereto copies of the sworn statements or
on the funds of the LGU. So he still falls under Salary Grade 27, even if his salary is affidavits of witnesses and other pertinent documents.
smaller than that recommended by the law.

Thus, a local government officials actual salary may be less than what the Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Presidential Decree
Salary Schedule under Section 7 prescribes, depending on the class and No. 1861:
financial capability of his or her respective local government unit. This
circumstance, however, has no bearing on such officials Grade. As the SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:
foregoing discussion shows, on officials salary is determined by the Grade
accorded his position, and ultimately by the nature of his position the level of (a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
difficulty and responsibilities and level of qualification requirements of the
work. To give credence to petitioners argument that Mayor Rodrigos salary (1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the
determines his Grade would be to misconstrue the provisions of R.A. No. 6758, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II,
and ignore the constitutional and statutory policies behind said law. Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code;
Dispositive:
(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in
Petitioner mayors position having been classified as Grade 27 in accordance with relation to their office, including those employed in government-owned or
R.A. No. 6758, and having been charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where
3019, petitioner is subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, as defined by the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or
Section 4 a. of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975. By virtue of imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00; PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
the same Section 4 a., as amended, his co-accused are also subject to the Anti-Graft that offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the penalty
Courts jurisdiction. prescribed by law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for six
(6) years or a fine of P6,000.00 shall be tried by the proper Regional Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court. (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;

Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975: (4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to
the provisions of the Constitution; and
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. -- the Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction in
all cases involving: (5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, b. Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and employees
Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the mentioned in subsection (a) of this section in relation to their office.
principal accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive
the commission of the offense: Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying positions
director and higher, otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher, of the corresponding to salary grade 27 or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), Act No. 6758, or PNP officers occupying the rank of superintendent or higher,
specifically including: or their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper
Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective
panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
provincial department heads;

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city Volume III of the 1997 edition of the Index of Occupational Services, Position
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads. Titles and Salary Grades, which was prepared by the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) pursuant to Republic Act No. 6758,31 otherwise known as
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, lists the following
higher; positions under Salary Grade 27, including the position of Municipal Mayor I:

(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of Assistant Commissioner of Internal Revenue
higher rank; Assistant Regional Cabinet Secretary
Assistant Regional Executive Secretary
Board Member I
(e) PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank; Chairman, Police Regional Appellate Board
Chief of Mission, Class II
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and City Government Department Head III
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
City Trial Court Judge
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or
Clerk of the Commission
controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
Commission Member I
foundations; Court Attorney VI
Court of Appeals Reporter II
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and up Deputy Administrator I
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; Deputy Commissioner I
Deputy Executive Director III SEC. 19. Funding Source. The funding sources for the amounts necessary to
Deputy Insurance Commissioner implement this Act shall be as follows:
Director III
Executive Clerk of Court II
(a) x x x
Executive Director II
Government Corporate Attorney III
Graft Investigation Officer II (b) For local government units, the amount shall be charged against their
Municipal Mayor I respective funds. Local government units which do not have adequate or
Professor IV sufficient funds shall only partially implement the established rates as may be
Project Manager III approved by the Joint Commission under Section 8 of Presidential Decree No.
Prosecutor II 1188: Provided, That any partial implementation shall be uniform and
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
proportionate for all positions in each local government unit: Provided further,
Public Attorney IV
Regional Treasurer That savings from National Assistance to Local Government Units (NALGU)
Register of Deeds IV funds may be used for this purpose.
Sangguniang Panlalawigan Member
Sangguniang Panlungsod Member II
Scientist II
Solicitor II
Special Prosecution Officer II
State Counsel IV
SUC President I
SUC Vice-President III

SEC. 8. Salaries of Constitutional Officials and their Equivalent. Pursuant to

Salary Grade
President of the Philippines -33
Vice-President of the Philippines- 32
President of the Senate - 32
Speaker of the House of Representatives -32
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court -32
Senator- 31
Member of the House of Representatives - 31
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court -31
Chairman of a Constitutional Commission under Article IX, 1987 Constitution -
31
Member of a Constitutional Commission under Article IX, 1987 Constitution – 30

SEC. 10. Local Government Units (LGUs). -- The rates of pay in LGUs shall be
determined on the basis of the class and financial capability of each LGU:
Provided, That such rates of pay shall not exceed the following percentages of
the rates in the salary schedule prescribed under Section 7 hereof:

xxxx