Barangay Appointments: Why Sangguniang Barangay Approval Is Required

A newly elected Punong Barangay may wish to install a new team of barangay officials, but the law does not allow that decision to be made alone. Under the Local Government Code of 1991, the power to appoint or replace the barangay treasurer, secretary, and other appointive officials is shared between the Punong Barangay and the Sangguniang Barangay. The Supreme Court settled this in Alquizola v. Ocol, ruling that without the Sangguniang Barangay's approval, any appointment or dismissal is invalid.

The Legal Basis: Sections 389, 394, and 395 of the Local Government Code

Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, defines the appointment powers of barangay officials.

Section 389(b)(5) states that the Punong Barangay may, "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."

Sections 394 and 395 reinforce this rule. Both provide that the barangay secretary and barangay treasurer "shall be appointed by the punong barangay with the concurrence of the majority of all the sangguniang barangay members."

The word "concurrence" is significant. It means the Sangguniang Barangay's role is not merely advisory—it is a condition precedent to a valid appointment. The Punong Barangay cannot act unilaterally.

The Case: Alquizola v. Ocol

After the 1997 barangay elections, Ramon Alquizola, Sr. became Punong Barangay of Barangay Tubod in Iligan City. He replaced several officials appointed by the previous administration, including Barangay Treasurer Gallardo Ocol and Barangay Secretary Camilo Penaco, and submitted his new appointees to the Sangguniang Barangay for approval. The Sangguniang Barangay rejected them.

Despite the rejection, Alquizola proceeded with the dismissals and replacements. The dismissed officials filed a complaint for quo warranto, mandamus, and prohibition with the Regional Trial Court, which ruled in their favor. The RTC held that the dismissals were invalid for lack of Sangguniang Barangay approval. Alquizola appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's ruling. It held that the power to "replace" necessarily includes both the removal of the incumbent and the appointment of the successor—and both require Sangguniang Barangay approval. The Court explained that "to replace" means to take the place of, serve as a substitute for, or fill the post of an incumbent.

The Court also addressed the general principle that the power to appoint includes the power to remove. While that principle exists, it is not absolute and may be modified by law. Here, the Local Government Code expressly modified it by requiring Sangguniang Barangay approval for both appointment and replacement.

What This Means for Barangay Governance

The ruling establishes a clear system of checks and balances at the barangay level.

For Punong Barangays: The appointment power is not absolute. Attempting to bypass the Sangguniang Barangay will result in legally invalid appointments and expose the Punong Barangay to legal challenges.

For Sangguniang Barangays: The council is not a rubber stamp. It has a genuine, legally mandated role in personnel decisions, allowing it to exercise oversight over the Punong Barangay's choices.

For barangay appointees: The treasurer, secretary, and other appointive officials enjoy security of tenure. They cannot be removed at the sole discretion of the Punong Barangay, which discourages politically motivated dismissals.

Practical Takeaways

• Approval is mandatory. The Punong Barangay must obtain the approval of a majority of all Sangguniang Barangay members before appointing or replacing the treasurer, secretary, or other appointive officials.
• Removal and appointment are inseparable. The Sangguniang Barangay's approval covers both the dismissal of the incumbent and the appointment of the replacement.
• Rejected appointments are invalid. If the Sangguniang Barangay refuses to approve a proposed appointment, the incumbent remains in office or the position stays vacant.
• Legal remedies exist. Officials dismissed without Sangguniang Barangay approval may file quo warranto, mandamus, or prohibition to challenge the validity of the replacement and seek reinstatement.
• The rule applies to key positions. The ruling directly covers the barangay treasurer, secretary, and other appointive officials under Section 389(b)(5).

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.