BAGUIO CITY – During the February 5 regular session, a heated debate erupted among Baguio City Council members over the interpretation of majority rule in decision-making processes, particularly concerning the reorganization of committee chairmanships.
Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer Faustino Olowan, along with Councilors Peter Fianza and Jose Molintas, argued that a simple majority of eight votes, as per Supreme Court decisions like La Carlota vs. Rojo and Javier vs. Cadiao, suffices for proposed actions, including committee reorganization.
The debate stemmed from a January 29 session where a motion to reorganize standing committees saw eight votes in favor and seven against.
Olowan initially ruled the motion as “lost” based on a misinterpretation of the Sangguniang Panlungsod’s Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP).
Acknowledging his error during the February 5 session, Olowan corrected his ruling, recognizing that eight votes constitute a simple majority for reorganization.
Councilor Betty Lourdes Tabanda challenged Olowan’s authority to unilaterally reverse his ruling, advocating adherence to established rules unless challenged or reversed through due process.
Councilors Vladimir Cayabas and Leandro Yangot raised concerns about potential precedents and implications of the ruling, prompting discussions on revisiting the city council’s IRP.
Despite opposition, committee chairmanships were declared vacant, leading to the selection of new chairpersons on February 12.
Seven councilors filed a case in the Regional Trial Court seeking to halt the reorganization.
The court denied their request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), allowing the process to proceed.
In light of the ongoing legal proceedings, the seven councilors abstained from voting on the reorganization, asserting respect for judicial authority and democratic rights.
The push for reorganization originated from Councilor Jose Molintas, citing complaints about committee inactivity.
Councilor Mylen Victoria Yaranon emphasized the need for clarity and adherence to rules, questioning the necessity of reorganization based on unspecified concerns.
The debate highlights tensions surrounding parliamentary procedures and the balance between adherence to established rules and adapting to legal interpretations and precedents.
Share