On local governance in Roxas City. Posted Aug 15, 2013. 1:27. The Capiz Times Eavesdrop Don’t Cross the River Charl Boie There is a proverb which warns—“Don’t cross the river if you can not swim the tide.” In Capisnon culture, this proverb may be side-stepped. “Makatabuk gyapon bisan inidu (or langoy idu, meaning the way dogs swim). For several weeks, vice-mayor Dadivas and councilor Julius Abela could not just simply agree on the controversy whether or not a committee report must be submitted in written form to the Secretary to the Sanggunian Panlungsod. At first glance, the issues seem trivial. On second thought, public interest is really at stake. The controversy arose when, on July 3 this year, the Sanggunian Panlungsod (SP) deliberated on a Joint Letters of mayor Celino and vice mayor Dadivas requesting for an authority through an ordinance to transfer/augment any item in the approved annual and supplemental budgets within the same expense class of appropriation under the Executive and Legislative Departments, pursuant to Sec. 336 of the 1991 Local Government Code (LGC). The LGC’s Implementing Rules & Regulations (IRR) specifically states— x x x “No ordinance shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations from one item to another. The local chief executive or the presiding officer of the sanggunian concerned may, by ordinance, be authorized to augmentany item in the approved annual budget for their respective offices from savings in other items within the same expense class of their respective appropriations.” The general rule declares, pursuant to Art. 454 and 418 of the same Code, that savings i) may arise from portions or balance of programmed appropriation free from any obligation or encumbrance, or, from unpaid compensation and related costs pertaining to vacant positions and leaves of absence without pay; ii) shall not be made available for expenditure prior to December 31 of each fiscal year, in compliance with the rule of reversion of unexpended balances of appropriations, and except for continuing appropriations which are allowed by law. Augment or “augmentation” is the operative term here. And not “transfer.” The pertinent section cited in the joint letter request does not contemplate in clear and unambiguous terms the legality of “transfer” of funds. Art. 454 (b) (2) of the Code’s IRR stipulates that “augmentation implies the existence in the budget of an item, project, activity or purpose with an appropriation which upon implementation or subsequent evaluation of needed resources is determined to be deficient.” Very clear. Note well-- The July 23 SP Calendar of Business uses the alternative, symbolic term “transfer/augment” which is obviously deceptive (see Unfinished Business, No. 2, Agenda B). What more the joint letter request undermines the juristic proscription on two titles, if not, subject matters, of an ordinance. Simply put, the phrase ‘transfer of funds’ is different from ‘augmentation of funds, and each phrase bears its own distinct legal implications, requiring divergent protocols. In ‘augmentation’, deficiency must be determined by a proper agency. The item, project, activity or purpose in the annual budget, not in any supplemental budget, must exist and be identifiable. Celino’s and Dadivas’ ‘even date” request, however, do not satisfy this requirement. Further, the authority should apply only to the budget items specified pursuant to Sec. 336, or, Art. 454 (b) (2), IRR, of the Code, and must not result to a plenary, continuing, blanket authority. The Code ‘s IRR, in Art. 417, allows only changes in the annual budget by means of supplemental budgets, and not an authority to augment budget items even within the same class. If the “even date” request of June 26, 2013 for authority to “transfer/augment” funds applies to supplemental budget alone, either certification of funds actually available or a declared public calamity for purposes of budget realignment are required. Hon. Abela’s Committee Report on said “even date’ request did not disclose by way of distinction whether the authority to be granted by the SP applies to supplemental appropriation or to the annual budget, or to any augmentation budgetary appropriations. The same Report only approved the mayor’s request but not the vice mayor’s request. The SP, including the City’s legal office or administrator’s must explain to the people of Roxas City why the Celino’s request was granted while the Dadivas’ appeal was rejected. Failure to explain on any of this department may open the door for any taxpayer to sue either or both the SP members who approved the Celino’s authority and public officers who are tasked to enforce or implement the ordinance granting the authority to “transfer/augment.” During the SP’s July 30 regular session, a legal tussle ensued again between VM Dadivas and Councilor Abela. The more experienced councilor insisted that there is no rule in the existing internal rules which require the submission of a written committee report to either the Office of the Vice Mayor or the Secretary to the Sanggunian Panlungsod. I partly agree with Abela. The councilor also claimed the Report was approved by the majority members of the Committee on Rules and Ordinances. Dadivas, invoking the Sanggunian’s internal rules, asked for any documentary evidence. But Abela only expressed that he will retrieved papers and documents in re the approval of the Report by the Committee members. SP Sec. Dino Beluso, in the August 13 SP Session, attested that Hon. Abela had not yet submitted a written official Report. Who is right? Or What is proper? Dadivas or Abela? I also agree that Dadivas was somewhat relevant in requiring SP Committees to submit their respective reports in written form to the SP Secretary. Dadivas view may be sustained by its Internal Rules No. II, sec. 1, providing that “The parliamentary Rules and Procedures in the Book of Antonio Orendain shall be suppletory to this internal rules.” The pressing, cogent issue is: In case of conflict between the Orendain’s rules and the substantive rules in Art. 107 (IRR, RA 7160), which shall prevail? Two pertinent provisions in this Article 107 should have been complied, to quote: 1) No ordinance x x x shall be considered on second reading in any regular meeting unless it has been reported out by the proper committee to which it was referred or certified as urgent by the local chief executive (d). In the case at bar, the even date request was not yet on second reading, therefore, the distribution of copies to the SP sanggunian members, are not required (f), thus Abela’s view is partly correct. There was no duty or obligation on the part of Hon. Abela to furnish the Offices of the Vice Mayor or the SP Secretary a written report. The law only requires report of the proper committee before an open session of the sanggunian. There is likewise no record as reported by the Committee on Rules and Ordinances that the request was certified as urgent by the mayor. Hence, the Vice Mayor can not demand the submission of the Report. On the issue of Abela’s Committee Report, may be the SP—in the interest of transparency, accountability and justness with fairness—must revisit Art. 107 (g), x x x “Any ordinance or resolution authorizing or directing the payment of money or creating liability, shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all the sanggunian members for its passage.” NOW. What was Abela’s alleged justification for the approval of Celino’s request and the denial of the Dadivas’ request? Did the alleged justification refer to mere approval of and not only to the affirmative vote on, the committee report ordinance granting the mayor’s request? May kamala-malahan diri. May pagtiplang. May pagpatalang. Sapupuhon bala ini ni Pres. Noynoy Aquino? Pasugtan bala ini sang Liberal Party nga pagdumalahan sa Roxas City? Mr. DILG Sec. Mar Roxas, paki-explain. My opinion on this issue is: The substantive provisions of the 1991 LG Code were not complied with. Dadivas’ supporters and Councilor Abela’s political buddies, had all their shortcomings, more likely deliberate and politically-driven. The danger to the public treasury is at hand. Lumusot na ang request ng mayor. Iyon ang totoong budget political agenda. Pres. Noynoy Aquino, kailan ka ba makininig sa amin. Kung hindi mo kaya ngayon, sinu ba ang gagawa nito para sa iyo? Kung hindi ka sumigaw ng “foul”, ambot sa imo da! Finally, I submit that SP Ex-Officio Member Capapas must not be allowed to vote for the grant of the request. Reason. The request was submitted to a Sanggunian Panlungsod of a previous term. On June 26, 2013, Capapas might have an authority to approve and vote for the request. But beyond June 30, she has no longer the moral authority, if not legal authority, to do so. An ex-officio member simply means “by operation of law”, and this phrase is satisfied by Capapas election in 2010. The reckoning of her incumbency must not be by occurrence of an election to office but by the term which the Code prescribed to the SP. The ex-officio position is not the term of the SP. If she be allowed to vote for any measure, a grotesque situation might occur: an ex-officio position subsisting in the face of a new term for members of the Sanggunian Panlungsod. Pnoy, anu ba ‘yan, balot ng kahihiyaan ang mga katropa mo dito. Delicadeza! Never cross the river, ang daming buwaya!
Posted on: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 05:29:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015