Full text of article December 1, 2014 Jg2214 Manifesto on the Abela-Dadivas Rift Virgilio Solidum Clavel, MPM Columnist, The Capiz Times Everybody makes mistakes. For several days now, the broadcast media feasted on the rift between the Office of the Mayor and the Sanggunian Panlungsod of Roxas (SP-R). Vexed that Capisnons would be misled, this political update needs to be put forward. The political rift surfaced when Vice Mayor Ronnie Dadivas fingered Mayor Angel Allan Celino a suspect in the illegal or fraudulent selling of tricycle franchises. Dadivas triggered the creation of Committee of the Whole (CoW), as allegedly constituted on October 14 SP-R session, to investigate the “franchise scam.” For reasons known to him alone, SP-R member Julius Abela initiated the inclusion of item 18 in the Business of the Day of the Sanggunian’s 62nd Regular Session held on October 28, 2014. Item 18 reads, “Letter dated 24 October 2014 of Hon. Julius L. Abela, Chairman, Committee on Rules & Ordinances, on the issue whether the creation of the Committee on the Whole to investigate the alleged selling of Tricycle franchise by Vice Mayor Ronnie T. Dadivas is valid or not, if not validly constituted what are its effects, implications and consequences.” During SP-R 62nd Regular Session, Abela moved to defer the adoption of the October 14, 2014 Minutes of the Previous Session. In the next 63rd Regular Session on November 4, he informed the City Sanggunian that said Minutes, as requested by the Committee on Rules & Ordinance (CRO), had not yet been submitted. The non-submission of Minutes prompted Abela to refuse to put his signature on the same. Abela asserted that the November 4 Calendar of Business had “no valid agenda.” He has a legitimate point based on Rule VI, Sec. V-1 of the SP-R’s Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP; City Ordinance No. 030-2009) which commands the CRO the exercise responsibility to pass on, hence authority over, “All Matters relating to the aspects of an action taken up or submitted to the Sanggunian; x x x Approval of the Agenda and all matters relating to order and decorum as outlined in the Internal Rules of Procedure.” This legislative intent is reiterated in Rule V, Sec. II-b of the City’s IRP, to quote the pertinent part: x x x the Secretary to the Sanggunian… shall prepare the agenda, subject to the calendar of the Chairman of the Committee on Rules particularly Rule VII x x x With due respect, there is no enumerated provision in Rule V of the SP-R’s Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP) that the Presiding Officer is authorized or empowered to approve the agenda of the Calendar of Business. At this juncture, I submit that the Abela’s and Dadivas’ respective discourses are partly correct, not wholly precise to establish legal validity. I suspect, miscommunication fueled by political passion or pressure animated the rift. A historical review on the concept of Committee of the Whole (CoW) can clarify the rift, thus help resolve the issue raised in Calendar of Business Item 18 of the SP-R’s Regular Session. A Committee of the Whole (CoW), first of all, is an inherent, not an express, power of a Sanggunian in Philippine jurisdiction. Normally, CoW “is a device in which a legislative body or other deliberative assembly is considered one large committee. All members of the legislative body are members of such committee. This is usually done for the purposes of discussion and debate of the details of bills and other main motions.” (Wikipedia). The Committee of the Whole (CoW) is resorted to by a deliberative assembly or council where or when—1) the assembly does not wish to refer to a committee (a proposed ordinance/resolution or a legislative measure) ; 2) the subject matter is not well digested and put into proper form for its definite action; 3) and for any reason, that the assembly or council desires to consider a subject with all the freedom of an ordinary committee (2013 Robert’s Rules Online: RulesOnline). To form one requires a “motion to commit” a legislative subject matter or concern to a Committee of the Whole than to a standing committee. The Abela’s discourse asserted the absence of a “main motion” to create a CoW. The two or three SP-R members present during the alleged Dadivas-sponsored CoW is debatable. Given the requirement of a valid quorum, the minimum five-person committee membership, and the required majority vote to create a CoW during a regular session of the Sanggunian Panlungsod of Roxas, the Abela discourse is fairly reasonable. The Dadivas discourse, on the other hand, appears to be acceptable too but may not be quite legally satisfactory. Leaving for a while the issue of the legality of the CoW creation, Sanggunian Presiding Officer Dadivas maintained that the Sanggunian Panlungsod of Roxas has authority to investigate the truth, the reason why the Committee of the Whole “has been organized.” He opined, reechoing Pres. Noynoy Aquino’s call, “(A)ng sentro sang iskandalo nagapangayu sang solusyon”… (agud matapna, annotation supplied) ang “pagbaligya-anay sang city (franchise) numbers.” Nga-a indi pagpangunahan sang Executive? Kung indi naton pag-imbestigahan, sin-o ang maga imbestiga? Democracy is alive, and we live in a (country, annotation supplied) democracy where checks and balance is paramount. Under the powers separation doctrine in Philippine democracy, the Sanggunian Panlungsod is a co-equal, separate and independent body,,, Drowned by the textual life of rules, by contestable facts used as political ammunition, and collision of interpretive application of these rules and facts to the present issue, Gen. Eisenhower once wrote: When you’re wrong, admit to it…Learn from your mistakes. “A fellow who never makes a mistake takes his orders from the one who does.” (Herbert Prochnov). In the words of James Madison, “(P)ower is of an encroaching nature” and must be “effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” Elsewhere in his Federalist Papers, he stressed, “(T)hese checking and balancing components combine elements of both representative and deliberative legitimacy, while preventing any branch from overstepping its constitutionally assigned bounds. Checks and balances thus operate as both shield and sword for liberty. They protect against the overweaning ambition of any one branch of government, while affirmatively supporting the values of political freedom and equal consideration that render government just.” At the rate the Abela-Dadivas rift persists, three courses of action may be taken, singularly or in combination: 1) Humility on the part of the protagonists; 2) Use of intermediary acceptable to both political camps; 3) Agenda compromise managed by the Liberal Party (LP) through either Pres. Noynoy Aquino or SILG Mar Roxas. “Humility shall take part of the truth, not falsehood” (Thomas Aquinas). Its opposite is pride, which tends “to make good appear evil and find fault with the noblest actions” (Sirach 11:30). Regardless of who is at fault, or whose mandate is to be vindicated, public interest must be upheld, and public welfare served. During the October 14 SP-R session, the gendered voice of councilors Cora Tiangco, Trina Ignacio and Linlin Lim to ensure the “fair distribution” scheme and the need for a standard in the awarding of city tricycle franchises was actually a germane articulation of public interest. The rift could have ended on that date. On the contrary, it unlocked a wider scope of political landmine, peddling personal ambitions, press relation agenda, bruised egos, electoral alliances which are all detrimental to public welfare. Unfortunately, the gendered voice failed to assert itself when Cora Tiangco to abandon her earlier position. The three female councilors, Trina, Linlin and Cora could have made a landmark statement of shared principle that the awarding of said franchises must be fair based on germane policy standard. A separate amendment proposal to Agdalipe’s proposed Ordinance to amend Sec. 1 of City Ordinance No. 30-2001 might have been a wise motion; or at its best a new Ordinance incorporating the proviso of a mandatory “fair distribution” scheme anchored on a just, reasonable standard in granting city tricycle franchise numbers The nine (9) councilors, honorables Erwin Sicad, Trina Marie Ignacio, Mathhew James Viterbo, Cezar Yap, Jennifer Poliran Erlynne Lim, Jose Agdalipe, Virgilo Santos and Julius Abela (acting as chief champion) had neither yet expressed nor entertained the practicability of an intermediary. Vice Mayor Dadidas, on a November 25 media briefing after the SP-R’s session adjournment for lack of quorum, did not contemplate a resolution to address the rift by means of an intermediary, acceptable to both political cliques. In my own opinion, Madam Judy Araneta Roxas is better champion to mediate a compromise caused by personal tantrums of local political lieutenants. Mar Roxas is second choice, Pres. Noynoy, last. Agenda compromise is the best option. Dadivas, on his last term as Vice-Mayor, is expected to scout for higher position. Abela and Tiangco, on the other hand, are most vulnerable for defeat, including Yap and Agdalipe, in the next elections. These political conditions are strategically advantageous to a mediator to produce a win-win compromise. In just a simple go signal from Mar Roxas, Dadivas can be appointed regional director of Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) or consul to a Philippine embassy in Europe or Asia. Problem solved. Public pulse hints that Dadivas had a slim chance of winning the city’s mayoralty post. A vice gubernatorial post offer for him, Dadivas has a 60-40 winning chance, given the del Rosario and Dadivas combined electoral turf. The worst is still to happen. Public interest is in peril now. Public welfare is bound to be obscenely sidetracked. Ambition indeed made many false. Pride spawns a web of lies, resulting to delay or denial of the needed public service. Standing tough on their resolve, the aforesaid 9 councilors issued/passed a collegial resolution “Declaring Loss of Confidence in Vice Mayor Ronnie T. Dadivas as Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.” The resolution, dated November 11, was included in the Business of the Day (item agenda C) of the November 20 Special Session held, on authority of a 2/3-vote rule of the SP-R IRP, at the Conference Room of the City Mayor’s Office. On the same day, the resolution of loss of confidence was made available to the local press. Determined to put a good fight, Dadivas through counsel filed on November 20 an Injunction with Prayer For Issuance of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order (Civil Case No. V-48-14, it being handwritten) aimed to restrain honorables Abela, Sicad, Ignacio, Viterbo, Yap, Poliran, Lim, Agdalipe and Santos “from holding a special session not endowed with public interests (Art. 105 (2) (i), Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the 1991 Local Government (LG) of the Phil; See Walker v. Southern Ry., 385 U.S. 196, 87 S. Ct. 365, 17 L. Ed. 2d 294 [1966]; see recent Philippine case laws enunciated in Limbona vs. Mangelin, Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals and Taule vs. Santos). As voter and a member of the Press, I am bringing to the bar of public opinion the following issues or concerns that may help resolve the rift among members of the SPR. Compromise is a better proposition than confrontation. Undisputably, Vice Mayor Dadivas’ zeal to investigate the alleged illegal sale of city tricycle franchises is an issue involving public interest. But the manner of creating the Committee of the Whole (CoW) appeared to be irregular and not in accord with SP-R’s Internal Rules and Procedures. Well settled in Philippine jurisprudence that “… (O)ur government is not of men but of law” (Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil). Abela’s insistence to comply with the internal rules and procedures (IRP) is likewise within the bounds of rule of law. If fact, the IRP—being a neutral benchmark-- is a check and balancing measure to any gross abuse of power or actions ultra vires committed by sanggunian members. It may also serve as a weapon by the minority against totalitarianism of the majority. Taking stock of certain grey areas in the City’s IRP, the City Mayor’s October 27 Request-Letter (C.4 item agenda of the November 4 Regular Session) to investigate SP presiding officer Dadivas for malicious and slanderous accusations against the former is not proper. The letter, for it to merit legal sanction, should have been filed before the Office of the President pursuant to Art. 124 (5) (8) and Art. 125 vis-à-vis Art. of the 1991 LG Code. (See Sec. 4, Art. X, Phil Const. The item agenda C.18 of the earlier 62nd Regular Session on October 28, although likely fitting, was defeated on the floor, without prejudice to the lawfulness or regularity in complying with parliamentary protocols. A resolution or proposed ordinance, and not a letter, should have been the form when agenda C.18 was presented and “moved” in the plenary. Letters, based on the City’s IRP, are acceptable when these emanate from private persons or the public in general (See Rule VII, para 1, sentence 2, of City ordinance No. 030-2009, so-called Amended Internal Rules of Procedure of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Roxas City). Moreover, the calling and holding of the Nov. 20 special session of the 9-councilors is fraught with legal infirmities. Reasons: Ought to be in proper motion, it needs to be presented during a regular or plenary session of the sanggunian.” The voting of 2/3-vote did not take place again in regular or plenary session. There is no record kept by the Secretary to the Sanggunian, even if their signatures appear on a document denominated Notice of Special Session, dated November 18. The City IRP is silent or obscure on this issue. On the other hand, the Dadivas Petition for Injunction, Civil Case No. V-48-14, violates the principle of “exhaustion of administrative means,” thus premature and fatal to the petition’s cause of action. “The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly… The administrative process is intended to provide less expensive and more speedy solutions to disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review and provides a system of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts – for reasons of law, comity, and convenience – will not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum.” (University of the Philippines v. Catungal, Jr., et al., (G.R. No. 121863, May 5, 1997) As a general rule, a case cannot prosper until all the remedies have been exhausted at the administrative level, (Pacana vs. Consunji, 108 SCRA 631[1981]; Pestañas et al. v. Dyogi, et al., 81 SCRA 574 [1978]; Antonio v. Tanco, 65 SCRA 448 [1975]; see also Madrinan v. Sinco, 110 Phil 160; Cruz vs. Del Rosario, 119 Phil). As the Supreme Court held in Abe-Abe et al. v. Manta (90 SCRA 524, 531 [1979]), “When an adequate remedy may be had within the Executive Department of the government, but nevertheless, a litigant fails or refuses to avail himself of the same, the judiciary shall decline to interfere. This traditional attitude of the courts is based not only on convenience but likewise on respect; convenience of the party litigants and respect for a co-equal office in the government. If a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to (the) court.” In fine, public welfare is at the losing end as a result of the rift in the Sanggunian Panlungsod of Roxas. The Capisnons gain nothing. Time for the protagonists to let go of their respective ambitions, and to move on in responsibly working for the best interests of the people.
Posted on: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 07:25:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015