Conflicting viewpoints on the restructuring of the standing committees persist, creating a deep divide among members of the Baguio City Council.
With the awaited verdict of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on what constitutes a majority vote in the proceedings of the local legislative body, the dispute continues and a swift resolution appears to be uncertain.
Earlier, a debate among the city council members has emerged regarding the interpretation of majority rule in decision-making processes, particularly regarding the reorganization of committee chairmanships.
The reorganization garnered support from eight members, namely Councilors Jose Molintas, Peter Fianza, Arthur Allad-iw, Isabelo Cosalan Jr., Lilia Farinas, Fred Bagbagen, Maximo Hilario Edwin Jr. (Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representative), and John Rhey Mananeng (Sangguniang Kabataan Federation President).
On the other hand, opposition to the reorganization came from seven council members: Councilors Elmer Datuin, Benny Bomogao, Betty Lourdes Tabanda, Leandro Yangot Jr., Mylen Victoria Yaranon, Vladimir Cayabas, and Rocky Aliping (Liga ng mga Barangay President).
Vice Mayor Faustino Olowan initially ruled that the motion for a reorganization was lost based on the statement of Atty. Brenner Bengwayan, Secretary to the Sanggunian, that the majority vote, according to the Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP), is calculated by dividing the number of present council members by two and adding one. Thus, with 15 council members present, dividing by two yields 7.5, and adding one results in 8.5 which is rounded off to 9.
However, after recognizing a legal precedent citing a simple majority of eight votes, Olowan “corrected the error” during the subsequent council session by revoking his earlier ruling and affirmed that the reorganization could proceed.
In response, the seven councilors argued that Olowan’s initial ruling should be upheld unless formally challenged or reversed through the council’s established processes. They expressed concerns about possible procedural irregularities.
Asserting their democratic rights, they sought legal recourse to address perceived discrepancies in the reorganization process. They claimed that Vice Mayor Olowan’s unilateral correction of his ruling did not align with the established procedures and may set a precedent that undermines the council’s adherence to its rules.
In the case they filed before the RTC, they sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent the reorganization of the committees from taking place.
However, by the time the issue was brought to court, the reorganization had already happened in another council session. In its ruling, the court said it could not stop the reorganization as it had already taken place, and trying to undo it would be beyond its authority. Thus, the court denied the request for the issuance of a TRO and a status quo.
On February 13 and February 24, 2024, the seven councilors submitted subsequent formal manifestations expressing their firm stand that the proceedings held during the regular session on February 5 and 12, 2024 regarding the committee reorganization were “null and void.” They reiterated their call for a status quo prior to February 5, 2024.
Vice Mayor Olowan implored the seven councilors to embrace their newly assigned committees, relinquish jurisdiction over matters previously under their purview, and address all responsibilities now entrusted to their respective new committees.
In his privilege speech during the regular session on March 4, 2024, Councilor Bagbagen highlighted his stance as one of the 8 councilors who supported the reorganization. He asserted that all city council members should respect both the court’s decisions and the rulings of Olowan as the presiding officer. He criticized the seven councilors for their “defiance” of the court ruling.
However, the seven councilors remain firm in their stance and stress that the issue of what defines a majority vote is still pending before the court.
The impending court ruling raises critical questions:
Should the court determine that the majority vote requires eight members, would the city council revise its IRP accordingly? However, if the court ruled that the majority vote is 9, would all decisions following the reorganization be deemed null and void? **Jordan G. Habbiling
