During the regular session on February 5, 2024, a debate among the members of the Baguio City Council unfolded regarding the interpretation of majority rule in the decision-making process.
Centered around the reorganization of committee chairmanships, the discussion exposed differing views among council members regarding parliamentary procedures and the authority of the chair.
Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer Faustino Olowan, along with Councilors Peter Fianza and Jose Molintas, argued that based on Supreme Court decisions, specifically La Carlota vs. Rojo and Javier vs. Cadiao, a simple majority of eight votes is sufficient to proceed with proposed actions, including the reorganization of committees.
During the council session last January 29, the city council members voted on the proposal to reorganize the standing committees. Eight members voted in favor while seven voted against the motion. Olowan ruled that the motion was “lost” based on the statement of Secretary to the Sanggunian Brenner Bengwayan that, under the Sangguniang Panlungsod’s Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP), the majority vote is 9 which is derived by dividing the number of present council members by two plus one (15/2=7.5+1=8.5) and rounding it off from 8.5 to 9.
The eight council members in favor of reorganization were Councilors Jose Molintas, Peter Fianza, Arthur Allad-iw, Isabelo Cosalan Jr., Lilia Farinas, Fred Bagbagen, Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representative (IPMR) Maximo Edwin, and Sangguniang Kabataan Federation President John Rhey Mananeng.
On the other hand, the seven council members who opposed the reorganization were Councilor Elmer Datuin, Benny Bomogao, Betty Lourdes Tabanda, Leandro Yangot Jr., Mylen Victory Yaranon, Vladimir Cayabas, and Rocky Aliping.
Olowan, during the February 5 session, acknowledged the “error” in the ruling he had made, explaining that he was not aware of the supreme court decisions as cited by Fianza and Molintas. Upon realizing the discrepancy between his ruling and the legal precedents, he “corrected” the “error” by recognizing that a simple majority of eight votes is sufficient for the proposed reorganization of committees.
Councilor Betty Lourdes Tabanda expressed a different perspective, asserting adherence to the rules and procedures established by the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Baguio through its IRP. She said that once the chairman makes a ruling, it must be followed unless the council goes through the process of challenging or reversing it. She questioned whether the chairman has the authority to unilaterally revoke his previous ruling.
Olowan, on the other hand, insisted that he is merely correcting an error based on new information.
Councilor Vladimir Cayabas raised questions about the city council’s IRP. He asked whether there is a need to revisit the IRP in light of the recent developments. He sought clarification on whether the IRP is “erroneous” and if the city council’s actions should be guided by new interpretations or legal precedents, such as the Supreme Court decisions mentioned by Fianza and Molintas.
Councilor Leandro Yangot expressed concern on the implications of the chairman’s ruling and its potential precedents for future council proceedings. He stressed that it is important to understand the ruling’s ramifications and ensure that the body’s decisions are in line with the established IRP.
Despite the opposition, the chairmanships for all committees were declared vacant and the selection for the new committee chairpersons took place on February 12 during the regular session.
On February 12, it was revealed that the seven councilors had filed a case before the Regional Trial Court, seeking an injunction to stop the reorganization process. Initially, the councilors requested a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). However, the court denied the request for a TRO, thus allowing the reorganization to proceed.
In light of the ongoing case, the seven councilors abstained from voting on the reorganization of the committees as they considered the matter sub judice. They expressed that their abstention was a form of respect to the authority of the judiciary in interpreting and resolving disputes related to the reorganization process. They said they were asserting their democratic rights by raising their concerns and seeking legal recourse to address perceived procedural irregularities.
The idea of reorganizing the committees originated from Councilor Jose Molintas. He said some members may have “other priorities” besides their assigned committees, leading to complaints about inactivity.
Councilor Mylen Victoria Yaranon sought to understand the rationale behind the decisions being made, emphasizing the need for clarity and adherence to established rules and guidelines. She questioned the necessity of reorganization, particularly pointing out that only two people had requested it and they had not specified which committee was underperforming. **Jordan G. Habbiling
