BAGUIO CITY – On August 21, 2024, the Regional Trial Court First Branch 5, Baguio City dismissed the case filed by seven members of the Baguio City Council against Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer Faustino Olowan on the issue of reorganizing the standing committees.
Previously, Councilors Benny Bomogao, Betty Lourdes Tabanda, Leandro Yangot Jr., Elmer Datuin, Mylen Victoria Yaranon, Vladimir Cayabas, and Liga ng mga Barangay President Rocky Aliping filed an action for injunction, requesting the court to prevent the reorganization and enjoining the city council’s presiding officer to refrain from violating the local legislative body’s Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP).
On January 29, 2024, Olowan ruled that the motion for a reorganization of the standing committees had failed as it did not receive the required majority votes.
Eight members voted in favor while seven voted against the motion.
He based this ruling 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 council members who voted in favor of the reorganization were Councilors Jose Molintas, Peter Fianza, Arthur Allad-iw, Isabelo Cosalan Jr., Lilia Farinas, Fred Bagbagen, Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representative Maximo Hilario Edwin Jr., and Sangguniang Kabataan Federation President John Rhey Mananeng.
On the other hand, those who voted against it were Bomogao, Tabanda, Yangot, Datuin, Yaranon, Cayabas, and Aliping.
On February 5, 2024, Olowan reversed his ruling, acknowledging an error after recognizing Molintas’ statement that the motion required only a simple majority of eight votes.
Consequently, all chairpersonships of the standing committees were declared vacant which led to the reorganization on February 12, 2024.
In the case they filed before the RTC, the seven opposing councilors argued that Olowan had incorrectly ruled during the February 5 council session as the reversal was against the IRP of the Baguio City Council which require a motion for consideration to be presented while the matter is still under the city council’s control.
They also asserted that Olowan’s reversal of his first ruling was considered an abuse of authority and a display of bias, further arguing that the 8.5 majority votes should be rounded off to nine since fractional members are not possible.
They added that the vote result of eight members in favor and seven against did not meet the required majority of nine votes as per the city council’s IRP.
In his written answer to the case filed against him, Olowan pointed out that the reorganization issue was “political” and not within the jurisdiction of the court.
He said since the reorganization had been carried out, the councilors’ complaint was considered moot and academic.
Olowan also argued that the seven councilors had not exhausted administrative remedies such as seeking legal opinions from the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).
Likewise, he asserted that the city council’s IRP are procedural rules that the local legislative body can modify, revoke, or waive at its discretion.
Based on these arguments, the vice mayor requested the court to dismiss the case.
In its August 21 decision, the RTC stated it found merit in the defendant’s argument on mootness and agreed that the reorganization had already taken place, rendering the complaint irrelevant.
With regard to the request for a permanent injunction to prevent the vice mayor from violating the city council’s IRP, the court denied this request, pointing out that the complaint “did not state a cause of action” and the plaintiffs did not provide any “allegations” or evidence showing that the defendant had actually committed a violation.
The court added that the issue was merely a disagreement over how to interpret what constitutes a majority vote, not a violation of the rules.
As a result, the court dismissed the case.