see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/191761.pdf
"x x x.
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Ordinance No. 9503-2005 is a local revenue measure. As such, the Local Government Code applies.
SEC. 187. Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings. ‒ The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided, That public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof: Provided, further, That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal: Provided, however, That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee, or charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction.
SEC. 188. Publication of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures. ‒ Within ten (10) days after their approval, certified true copies of all provincial, city, and municipal tax ordinances or revenue measures shall
be published in full for three (3) consecutive days in a newspaper of local circulation: Provided, however, That in provinces, cities and municipalities where there are no newspapers of local circulation, the same may be posted in at least two (2) conspicuous and publicly accessible places.
The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro approved Ordinance No. 9503-2005 on 10 January 2005. Section 5 of said ordinance provided that the “Ordinance shall take effect after 15 days following its
publication in a local newspaper of general circulation for at least three (3) consecutive issues.” Gold Star Daily published Ordinance No. 9503-2005 on 1 to 3 February 2005. Ordinance No. 9503-2005 thus took effect on 19 February 2005. CEPALCO filed its petition for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court on 30 September 2005, clearly beyond the 30-day period provided in Section 187. CEPALCO did not file anything before the Secretary of Justice. CEPALCO ignored our ruling in Reyes v. Court of
Appeals on the mandatory nature of the statutory periods:
Clearly, the law requires that the dissatisfied taxpayer who questions the validity or legality of a tax ordinance must file his appeal to the Secretary of Justice, within 30 days from effectivity thereof. In case
the Secretary decides the appeal, a period also of 30 days is allowed for an aggrieved party to go to court. But if the Secretary does not act thereon, after the lapse of 60 days, a party could already proceed to seek relief in court. These three separate periods are clearly given for compliance as a prerequisite before seeking redress in a competent court. Such statutory periods are set to prevent delays as well as enhance the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial functions. For this reason the courts construe these provisions of statutes as mandatory.
A municipal tax ordinance empowers a local government unit to impose taxes. The power to tax is the most effective instrument to raise needed revenues to finance and support the myriad activities of local
government units for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the people. Consequently, any delay in implementing tax
measures would be to the detriment of the public. It is for this reason that protests over tax ordinances are required to be done within certain time frames. In the instant case, it is our view that the failure of petitioners to appeal to the Secretary of Justice within 30 days as required by Sec. 187 of R.A. 7160 is fatal to their cause.
As in Reyes, CEPALCO’s failure to appeal to the Secretary of Justice within the statutory period of 30 days from the effectivity of the ordinance should have been fatal to its cause. However, we relax the application of the rules in view of the more substantive matters.
x x x."
