THIRD DIVISION
MANUEL E. ZAMORA,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
147767
January 14, 2004
-versus-
GOVERNOR
JOSE R.
CABALLERO, ANESIO M. RANARIO,IN HIS CAPACITY
AS PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATOR,MARIANO KINTANAR,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL AUDITOR,CARMEN R. RASUL,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL TREASURER,ROLANDO L. OSORIO,
BELINDA G. APAWAN, ARMANDO L. SERAS,RUWEL PETER S.
GONZAGA,
ARMANDO C. CODILLA, RAUL B. BASA,AND GRACIANO C.
ARAFOL, JR.,
Respondents. |
D E C I S I
O N
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Petitioner Manuel Zamora,
a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Compostela Valley (the
Sanggunian),
seeks to invalidate all acts executed and resolutions issued by the
Sanggunian
during its sessions held on February 8 and 26, 2001 for lack of quorum.
It appears that on February
6, 2001, Vice-Governor Reynaldo Navarro sent a written notice of a
special
session on February 7, 2001.[1]
Upon the request of Governor Jose R. Caballero, however, the scheduled
special session was reset to February 8, 2001 without the benefit of a
written notice.[2]
On February 8, 2001,
the Sanggunian thus held a special session to, among other things,
allow
the Governor to deliver his State of the Province Address. As only
seven
members of the fourteen-member Sanggunian were present,[3]
no resolution was considered.cralaw:red
On February 26, 2001,
the Sanggunian held its 4th regular session during which it issued
Resolution
No. 05[4]
declaring the entire province of Compostela Valley under a state of
calamity
and Resolution No. 07[5]
authorizing the Governor to, on behalf of the province, enter into a
construction
contract (Contract) with Allado Construction Company, Inc. (the Allado
Company) for the completion of Phase II of the construction of the
capitol
building. During the same session, the Sanggunian accepted the letter
of
irrevocable resignation submitted by Board Member Gemma Theresa M.
Sotto.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While only eight members
of the Sanggunian were present at the commencement of the session on
February
26, 2001, the Journal of the Proceedings (Journal) and Resolution Nos.
05 and 07 showed that a total of thirteen members attended it.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner thus filed
a petition[8]
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nabunturan, Compostela Valley
against the Governor, et al., challenging the validity of the acts of
the
Sanggunian on February 26, 2001, alleging that while the Journal and
Resolutions
indicated the presence of 13 members, the Sanggunian nonetheless
"conducted
official business without a quorum"[9]
as only seven of its fourteen members were actually present when the
irrevocable
letter of resignation of Board Member Sotto was noted,[10]
and the motions to declare the entire province of Compostela Valley
under
a state of calamity[11]
and to authorize the Governor to enter into the Contract with the
Allado
Company[12]
were approved.[13]
Petitioner additionally
alleged that when the vote respecting Resolution No. 05 was taken, only
the remaining six members voted for the adoption thereof, the then
presiding
officer Board Member Rolando Osorio not having cast his vote;[14]
that when Resolution No. 07 was taken up, however, then presiding
officer
Osorio,[15]
relinquished his seat to Board Member Graciano Arafol after the six
members
present unanimously voted on the said resolution in the affirmative,
following
which Osorio cast his vote as a member also in the affirmative, thereby
authorizing the Governor to enter into the Contract with Allado
Company;
and that Board Member Arafol thereafter relinquished his seat as
presiding
officer to Board Member Osorio who once again assumed the duties of a
presiding
officer.[16]
Petitioner furthermore
challenged the validity of the special session of February 8, 2001 for
lack of quorum, there being only seven members of the Sanggunian in
attendance,
and for lack of written notice sent to all members at least 24 hours
before
the holding of the special session in accordance with Section 52 (d)[17]
of the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC).[18]
Respondents, on the
other hand, contended that since Board Member Sotto was in the United
States[19]
at the time the questioned acts were executed and resolutions adopted,
the actual number of Board Members then in the country was thirteen
which
should be the basis of the determination of a quorum.cralaw:red
Branch 3 of the RTC
of Nabunturan, at Compostela Valley, by Order[20]
of April 24, 2001, dismissed the petition upon the following
ratiocination:
Gemma Theresa
M. Sotto should not be counted as member for the purpose of determining
the number to constitute a quorum because she is in the United States
of
America. However, sub-paragraph (b) [of section 53 of the Local
Government
Code] states and provides for compulsion of any member absent without
any
justifiable cause.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is interpreted
by the Supreme Court in the case of Jose Avelino, petitioner vs.
Mariano
J. Cuenco, respondent, G.R. No. L-2821, March 4, 1949.cralaw:red
Gemma Theresa M. Sotto
is beyond the reach of the legal processes of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
and could not be arrested to compel her to attend its session. Quorum
should
be determined on the basis of the actual number of members of the body
concerned rather than upon its full membership which is fourteen (14).
Therefore, in this case, with seven (7) members of the thirteen (13)
members
present in constitutive of a quorum. x x x
Moreover, Presidential
Decree 1818[21]
prohibits the issuance of a restraining order or injunction in any case
involving government infrastructure projects.[22]
(emphases omitted)
Hence, the present petition
for Certiorari under Rule 45, faulting the trial court for erroneously
(1) applying the case of Avelino v. Cuenco[23]
to a controversy involving a local government unit; (2) taking judicial
notice of Board Member Sotto’s being in the United States without proof
thereof; and (3) ruling that to grant a Temporary Restraining Order
would
be in violation of P.D. 1818.[24]
Respondents question
the authority of the Court to look beyond the Journal and Resolutions
of
the Sanggunian[25]
and assert that the construction of the capitol building[26]
cannot be enjoined. And they too assert that the presence of thirteen
members
at the February 26, 2001 session should be conclusive on the strength
of
Arroyo v. De Venecia[27]
and U.S. v. Pons.[28]
Citation of these cases is misplaced, however.cralaw:red
In Arroyo v. De Venecia,
this Court refused to inquire into allegations that the House of
Representatives
failed to comply with the rules of procedures which the House itself
promulgated
absent any showing that there was a violation of a constitutional
provision
or of the rights of private individuals.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In U.S. v. Pons, this
Court did not go beyond the legislative journals which it found clear
and
explicit, it holding that to disprove the entries in the journals,
evidence
must be adduced based merely upon the memory or recollection of
witnesses
in contrast to journals which are the acts of the Government or
sovereign
itself.[29]
In the instant case,
this Court is not called upon to inquire into the Sanggunian’s
compliance
with its own rules. Rather, it is called upon to determine whether the
Sanggunian complied with the LGC, a law enacted by Congress, and its
Implementing
Rules.cralaw:red
Moreover, the Journal
of the Sanggunian is far from clear and explicit as to the presence of
a quorum when the questioned acts were taken. It does not indicate how
many members were actually present when the body voted on the motions
leading
to the adoption of Resolution Nos. 05 and 07. While the Journal and the
Resolutions show that 13 members attended the session,[30]
the Journal shows that only six members were called by the presiding
officer
to vote on the motions.[31]
Six members whose names appear in attendance, namely: Vice Governor
Navarro
and Board Members Zamora, Yanong, Castillo, Andres and Gentugaya, were
not called and, save for the absent Vice Governor,[32]
no explanation was given therefor.cralaw:red
Coincidentally, in Resolutions
05 and 07, the names of the Board Members who were not called upon to
vote,
including petitioner as he had in the meantime left, are followed by
two
asterisks (**).cralaw:red
Additionally, it was
clearly noted by petitioner, when he asked permission to leave the
session,
that only seven members were left:
SP Member ZAMORA : Mr.
President, I move to adjourn, Mr. President.cralaw:red
SP Member ARAFOL : Objection
Mr. President.cralaw:red
SP Member ZAMORA : Mr.
President, before the objection, before objection Mr. President, I
would
like to invite everybody to go at my service I have a patient nga
gi-pagawas
na sa hospital nga i-uli na sa Awao, it’s been there for one hour so I
really have to go I have to carry that patient to Awao Mr. President.cralaw:red
SP Member OSORIO : You
are excused Honorable…chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SP Member ZAMORA : Okay,
then remember that you’re only seven Mr. President.cralaw:red
SP Member ARAFOL : No
problem.cralaw:red
SP Member ZAMORA : Okay
so it’s alright for you to decide. The seven of you. I would like to
manifest
in the record that before further discussion that…
SP Member GONZAGA :
Mr. President he is already excused Mr. President.cralaw:red
SP Member ZAMORA : Yes
but I would like to make statement first for the record, for the
record.
That I do not want Mr. President that the incident of the of the State
of the Province Address will be repeated Mr. President, wherein there
are
only seven members present and the quorum was declared Mr. President. x
x x
SP Member GONZAGA :
That’s only your opinion.[33]
(underscoring supplied)
Respondents themselves
admit that there were only seven members present when the motions were
voted upon:
26. Nevertheless, even
if that remark constituted a proper question on quorum, it is a matter
of fact that there were still seven (7) members present. x x x [T]here
is a quorum since seven is a majority of thirteen (13). x x x[34]
(emphasis supplied)
Clearly, this Court
is constrained to look into the proceedings of the Sanggunian as
recorded
in the Journal and not just rely on Resolution Nos. 05 and 07 to
determine
who and how many participated in the consideration thereof. The placing
of the asterisks after the names of five members in the Resolutions is
highly irregular and suspicious especially since both resolutions
indicate
that petitioner, whose name is also followed by asterisks, was present
even if it is clear from the Journal that he had already left the
session
before the Sanggunian took note of the resignation of Board Member
Sotto
and voted on the motions.cralaw:red
Respondents’ other contention
that the construction of the capitol building cannot be enjoined in
light
of Malaga v. Penachos, Jr.[35]
fails to convince. In Malaga, this Court declared that although
Presidential
Decree No. 1818 prohibits any court from issuing injunctions in cases
involving
infrastructure projects, the prohibition extends only to the issuance
of
injunctions or restraining orders against administrative acts in
controversies
involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases. On
issues
clearly outside this dimension and involving questions of law, this
Court
declared that courts could not be prevented from exercising their power
to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.[36]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondents maintain
that the exception in Malaga as indicated above should not be applied
in
the instant case because there was therein a defect in the compliance
with
procedural rules on bidding. In contrast, respondents stress, the
bidding
for the construction of the capitol building in which the winner was
the
Allado Company was not defective, they adding that Resolution 07 simply
authorized the Governor to formalize the Contract necessary for the
full
implementation of the project.[37]
This Court fails to
see the essential difference between Malaga and the instant case.cralaw:red
In both cases, the defect
in the Contract relates to the non-compliance with the mandate of a law
respecting requirements before validly entering into a contract. In
Malaga,
the defect pertained to bidding. In the present case, the alleged
defect
pertains to the required number of votes necessary to authorize the
Governor
to enter into a construction contract.cralaw:red
Clearly then, what is
at issue in this case is not the propriety or the wisdom of entering
into
the Contract for the construction of the capitol building, which is
beyond
the power of this Court to enjoin, but the Sanggunian’s compliance with
the requirements prescribed under the LGC before it may grant the
Governor
authority to enter into the Contract, which issue falls under the
exception
to the proscription against injunctions in cases involving
infrastructure
projects, as held in Malaga.cralaw:red
On the applicability
of Avelino[38]
to the present case: The issue in said case was whether there was a
quorum
in a meeting attended by only 12 of 24 senators, one having been in the
hospital while another was out of the country. This Court held that
although
the total membership of the Senate was 24, the presence of 12 members
already
constituted a quorum since the 24th member was outside the country and
beyond the coercive power of the Senate.[39]
In the instant case,
there is nothing on record, save for respondents’ allegation, to show
that
Board Member Sotto was out of the country and to thereby conclude that
she was outside the coercive power of the Sanggunian when the February
8 and 26, 2001 sessions were held. In fact it is undisputed that the
leave
form filed by said Board Member before the Department of Interior and
Local
Government (DILG) did not mention that she was going out of the country.[40]
Petitioner’s contention that the trial court cannot take judicial
notice
of Board Member Sotto’s whereabouts is thus well taken. On this score,
the instant case is outside the application of the doctrine in Avelino.cralaw:red
A court may take judicial
notice of matters of public knowledge, or those which are capable of
unquestionable
determination or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
functions.[41]
With respect to disputed facts, however, the court must receive
evidence
thereof, with notice to the parties.[42]
Also, in Avelino, the
legislative body involved was the Senate and the applicable rule on
quorum
was that embodied in Article VI, Section 10 of the 1935 Constitution
which
reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 10. x x x
(2) A majority of each
House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number
may
adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members
in such manner and under such penalties as such House may provide.[43]
(emphasis supplied)
The present case, however,
involves a local legislative body, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Compostela
Valley Province, and the applicable rule respecting quorum is found in
Section 53(a) of the LGC which provides:
Section 53. Quorum.-
(a) A majority of all
members of the sanggunian who have been elected and qualified shall
constitute
a quorum to transact official business. Should a question of quorum be
raised during a session, the presiding officer shall immediately
proceed
to call the roll of the members and thereafter announce the results.
(emphasis
supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Quorum" is defined
as that number of members of a body which, when legally assembled in
their
proper places, will enable the body to transact its proper business or
that number which makes a lawful body and gives it power to pass upon a
law or ordinance or do any valid act.[44]
"Majority," when required to constitute a quorum, means the number
greater
than half or more than half of any total.[45]
In fine, the entire membership must be taken into account in computing
the quorum of the sangguniang panlalawigan, for while the constitution
merely states that "majority of each House shall constitute a quorum,"
Section 53 of the LGC is more exacting as it requires that the
"majority
of all members of the sanggunian.elected and qualified" shall
constitute
a quorum.cralaw:red
The difference in the
wordings of the Constitution and the LGC is not merely "a matter of
style
and writing" as respondents would argue, but is actually a matter of
"meaning
and intention."[46]
The qualification in the LGC that the majority be based on those
"elected
and qualified" was meant to allow sanggunians to function even when not
all members thereof have been proclaimed.[47]
And, while the intent of the legislature in qualifying the quorum
requirement
was to allow sanggunians to function even when not all members thereof
have been proclaimed and have assumed office, the provision necessarily
applies when, after all the members of the sanggunian have assumed
office,
one or some of its members file for leave. What should be important
then
is the concurrence of election to and qualification for the office. And
election to, and qualification as member of, a local legislative body
are
not altered by the simple expedient of filing a leave of absence.cralaw:red
The trial court should
thus have based its determination of the existence of a quorum on the
total
number of members of the Sanggunian without regard to the filing of a
leave
of absence by Board Member Sotto. The fear that a majority may, for
reasons
of political affiliation, file leaves of absence in order to cripple
the
functioning of the sanggunian is already addressed by the grant of
coercive
power to a mere majority of sanggunian members present when there is no
quorum.[48]
A sanggunian is a collegial
body. Legislation, which is the principal function and duty of the
sanggunian,
requires the participation of all its members so that they may not only
represent the interests of their respective constituents but also help
in the making of decisions by voting upon every question put upon the
body.
The acts of only a part of the Sanggunian done outside the parameters
of
the legal provisions aforementioned are legally infirm, highly
questionable
and are, more importantly, null and void. And all such acts cannot be
given
binding force and effect for they are considered unofficial acts done
during
an unauthorized session.cralaw:red
Board Member Sotto is
then deemed not resigned because there was no quorum when her letter of
irrevocable resignation was noted by the Sanggunian. For the same
reason,
Resolution Nos. 05 and 07 are of no legal effect.cralaw:red
Even assuming arguendo
that there were indeed thirteen members present during the questioned
February
26, 2001 session, Resolution No. 05 declaring the entire province of
Compostela
Valley under state of calamity is still null and void because the
motion
for its approval was approved by only six members.[49]
When there are thirteen members present at a session, the vote of only
six members can not, at any instance, be deemed to be in compliance
with
Section 107(g)[50]
of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the LGC which requires the
concurrence
of the approval by the majority of the members present and the
existence
of a quorum in order to validly enact a resolution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The motion to grant
the Governor authority to enter into the construction contract is also
deemed not approved in accordance with the law even if it received
seven
affirmative votes, which is already the majority of thirteen, due to
the
defect in the seventh vote. For as priorly stated, as the Journal
confirms,
after all six members voted in the affirmative, Board Member Osorio, as
acting presiding officer, relinquished his seat to Board Member Arafol
and thereafter cast his vote as a member in favor of granting authority
to the Governor.[51]
This Court is faced
with an act clearly intended to circumvent an express prohibition under
the law – a situation that will not be condoned.[52]
The LGC clearly limits the power of presiding officers to vote only in
case of a tie, to wit:
Section 49. Presiding
Officer. – (a) The vice-governor shall be the presiding officer of the
sangguniang panlalawigan x x x. The presiding officer shall vote only
to
break a tie.cralaw:red
(b) In the event of
inability of the regular presiding officer to preside at a sanggunian
session,
the members present and constituting a quorum shall elect from among
themselves
a temporary presiding officer. x x x (Italics in the original. Emphasis
supplied)
While acting as presiding
officer, Board Member Osorio may not, at the same time, be allowed to
exercise
the rights of a regular board member including that of voting even when
there is no tie to break. A temporary presiding officer who merely
steps
into the shoes of the presiding officer could not have greater power
than
that possessed by the latter[53]
who can vote only in case of a tie.cralaw:red
Lastly, for a resolution
authorizing the governor to enter into a construction contract to be
valid,
the vote of the majority of all members of the Sanggunian, and not only
of those present during the session, is required in accordance with
Section
468[54]
of the LGC in relation to Article 107[55]
of its Implementing Rules.cralaw:red
Even including the vote
of Board Member Osorio, who was then the Acting Presiding Officer,
Resolution
No. 07 is still invalid. Applying Section 468 of the LGC and Article
107
of its Implementing Rules, there being fourteen members in the
Sanggunian,
the approval of eight members is required to authorize the governor to
enter into the Contract with the Allado Company since it involves the
creation
of liability for payment on the part of the local government unit.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the petition
is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Order of the Regional Trial Court of
Nabunturan,
Compostela Valley dated April 24, 2001 is hereby reversed and set
aside.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Resolution Nos. 05 and
07 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Compostela Valley approved on
February
26, 2001 declaring the entire Province of Compostela Valley under a
state
of calamity and granting authority to the Provincial Governor to enter
into a general construction agreement, respectively, are hereby
declared
null and void.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Vitug, J., (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez,
and Corona, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 43.
[2]
Id. at 6.
[3]
Id. at 45-46. In attendance were:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Rolando
Osorio Regular Member
Graciano
Arafol Regular Member
Belinda
Apawan Regular Member
Armando
Seras Regular Member
Ruwel
Peter Gonzaga Regular Member
Armando
Codilla PCL Federation Representative
Raul
S. Basañes LNMB Federation Representative
[4]
Rollo at 59-60; "A Resolution Declaring the Entire Province of
Compostela
Valley Under a State of Calamity."
[5]
Rollo at 62-63; "A Resolution Authorizing Hon. Jose R. Caballero,
Governor,
to Sign for and in Behalf of the Province, the Corrected/Amended
General
Construction Agreement, to be Executed Between the Allado Construction
Company, Inc., and the Province of Compostela Valley, for the
Construction
of a Four-Storey Provincial Capitol Building Phase II."
[6]
Rollo at 109-110.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 64. The Journal shows that the following members were present:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Hon.
Reynaldo B. Navarro Vice Governor (Presiding Officer)
Hon.
Manuel E. Zamora SP Member (late)
Hon.
Manolo T. Yanong SP Member
Hon.
Rolando L. Osorio SP Member (late)
Hon.
Reynaldo Q. Castillo SP Member
Hon.
William S. Andres SP Member (late)
Hon.
Graciano C. Arafol SP Member
Hon.
Belinda G. Apawan SP Member (late)
Hon.
Armando L. Seras SP Member
Hon.
Ruwel Peter S. Gonzaga SP Member (late)
Hon.
Armando C. Codilla SP Member
Hon.
Raul S. Basañes SP Member
Hon.
Ramil L. Gentugaya SP Member
Absent:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hon.
Gemma Theresa M. Sotto SP Member
[8]
Rollo at 31-123.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 34-36.
[10]
Id. at 57.
[11]
Id. at 58.
[12]
Id. at 61.
[13]
Per certification of the Sanggunian Secretary, the following were
present:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Hon.
Rolando Osoriochanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hon.
Graciano C. Arafol, Jr.
Hon.
Belinda G. Apawan
Hon.
Armando L. Seras
Hon.
Ruwel Peter S. Gonzaga
Hon.
Armando C. Codilla
Hon.
Raul S. Basa?es
It
appears from the minutes that Vice Governor Reynaldo B. Navarro left
the
session before adjournment and Rolando Osorio was appointed to preside
in the session. Manolo T. Yanong, Reynaldo Q. Castillo and Ramil L.
Gentugaya
who were present at the commencement of the session were not present
when
the actions were taken. Manuel E. Zamora and William S. Andres, who
arrived
late for the session, were likewise not present.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Rollo at 112-113.
[15]
Vice Governor Reynaldo B. Navarro relinquished the chair to Board
Member
Osorio to attend to official business.
[16]
Rollo at 120-121.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Section 52. Sessions. – x x x
x
x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d)
In the case of special sessions of the sanggunian, a written notice to
the members shall be served personally at the member’s usual place of
residence
at least twenty-four (24) hours before the special session is held.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Unless
otherwise concurred in by two-thirds (2/3) vote of the sanggunian
members
present, there being a quorum, no other matters may be considered at a
special session except those stated in the notice.
x
x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Republic Act 7160.
[19]
Rollo at 128-131.
[20]
Id. at 152-158.
[21]
("Prohibiting Courts from Issuing Restraining Orders or Preliminary
Injunctions
in Cases Involving Infrastructure and Natural Resource Development
Projects
of, and Public Utilities Operated by, the Government."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Rollo at 156-157.
[23]
83 Phil 17 (1949).
[24]
Rollo at 13.
[25]
Id. at 164, 169-170.
[26]
Id. at 164, 170-172.
[27]
277 SCRA 268 (1997).
[28]
34 Phil. 729 (1916).
[29]
Id. at 733.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Rollo at 64.
[31]
Id. at 112-113, 120-121. Those who voted were Armando C. Codilla, Raul
S. Basañes, Armando L. Seras, Ruwel Peter S. Gonzaga, Belinda G.
Apawan and Graciano C. Arafol with Rolando Osorio as presiding officer.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Rollo at 59, 62, 106-107.
[33]
Id. at 104-105.
[34]
Id. at 169.
[35]
213 SCRA 516 (1992).
[36]
Id. at 523-524.
[37]
Rollo at 171.
[38]
Supra.
[39]
Id. at 21-22.
[40]
Rollo at 19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
Section 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court.
[42]
Salamera v. Sandiganbayan, 303 SCRA 217, 229 (1999).
[43]
The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains a similarly worded provision
in Article VI, Section 16 (2).
[44]
Javellana v. Tayo, 6 SCRA 1042, 1048-1049 (1962).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
Perez v. Dela Cruz, 27 SCRA 587, 603 (1969).
[46]
Rollo at 166.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
A.Q. Pimentel, Jr., The Local Government Code of 1991 The Key to
National
Development 162 (1993). The proponent of the Local Government Code
explains:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This
section was meant to cover situations when less than all the members of
the Sanggunian have been elected and qualified. For example, it can
happen
that out of ten members of a Sanggunian, only five have been elected
and
qualified, that is, they have been proclaimed and have assumed office.
The other five members may be facing electoral protests of some kind as
the others have not, therefore, been elected and qualified.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[48]
Section 53 (b), Local Government Code.
Section
53. Quorum – x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b)
Where there is no quorum, x x x a majority of the members present may
adjourned
from day to day and may compel the immediate attendance of any member
absent
without justifiable cause by designating a member of the sanggunian, to
be assisted by a member or members of the police force assigned in the
territorial jurisdiction of the local government unit concerned, to
arrest
the absent member and present him at the session.
[49]
Rollo at 112-113.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
Article 107. Ordinances and Resolutions. – The following rules shall
govern
the enactment of ordinances and resolutions:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x
x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(g)
No ordinance of resolution passed by the sanggunian in a regular or
special
session duly called for the purpose shall be valid unless approved by a
majority of the members present, there being quorum. x x x (Italics in
the original. Emphasis supplied)
[51]
Rollo at 120-121.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[52]
Vide Perez v. Dela Cruz, 27 SCRA 587 (1969).
[53]
Ibid. at 602.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[54]
Section 468. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. – (a) x x x
(iii)
Subject to the provisions of Book II of this Code and applicable laws
and
upon majority vote of all members of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
authorize
the provincial governor to negotiate and contract loans and other forms
of indebtedness; (Italics in the original. Emphases supplied)
x
x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[55]
Article 107. Ordinances and Resolutions. – The following rules shall
govern
the enactment of ordinances and resolutions:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x
x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(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. (Italics in the
original. Emphasis supplied)
x
x x
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |