Beyond 80/40: Finding the Fair Price for Iloilo’s Progress

The second thud of the gavel, dismissing Iloio City Councilor Sheen Marie Mabilog’s proposed 80% real property tax (RPT) reduction without so much as a second, was more than just a procedural defeat for the opposition.

For thousands of Ilonggo taxpayers, it felt like the closing of a door on a much-needed conversation. The scene at the Sangguniang Panlungsod on July 30 encapsulates the current, untenable standoff in our city: a political war of extremes that leaves the average citizen caught in the financial crossfire.

As residents, we are not blind to the city’s progress. We see the infrastructure projects and appreciate the ambition. But we also feel the very real strain of the 2024 RPT hike—the first valuation adjustment in 18 years, which saw tax bills swell by as much as 300%.

We understand Councilor Mabilog’s frustration when she says the council seems “blind and deaf to the suffering of the taxpayers.” Her example of a property owner whose tax liability jumped from ₱10,000 to ₱18,000, even with the city’s 40% discount, is not an abstract hypo­thetical. It is the lived reality in households across Iloilo, forcing families to choose between paying dues and buying necessities. When Mabilog says the tax is “breaking the back of our people,” she gives voice to a genuine public grievance.

On the other hand, we are not naive. We want a functional, thriving city, and that requires funding. Councilor Rex Marcus Sarabia, as Appropriations Chair, has a duty to protect the city’s fiscal health. His warning of a “catastrophic impact” from an 80% RPT cut cannot be dismissed as mere political rhetoric. The projected ₱1.056 billion in RPT collections for 2025 is the lifeblood for essential services—the Special Education Fund for our children, the Quick Response Fund for emergencies, and the social and economic programs that uplift our communities. A government cannot run on sentiment, and Sarabia’s demand for data over “emotional allegations” is, from a governance perspective, a responsible position.

Herein lies the great failure. Our city’s leadership is presenting us with a false choice between two extremes: a drastic 80% reduction that the administration deems reckless, and a 40% discount that many taxpayers feel is insufficient. The real tragedy is not that Mabilog’s ordinance failed, but that there appears to be no genuine effort to find a viable middle ground. The chamber is mired in accusations of political bias versus claims of half-baked proposals. This impasse serves no one. The path forward is not through political victory, but through pragmatic compromise. If 80% is too high and 40% is too low, then it is the council’s collective duty to commission an independent, data-driven study to find the right number—one that provides meaningful relief to citizens without crippling the city’s operations.

This leads to the heart of the issue: trust. The city government can bridge this divide not by winning the argument, but by changing the conversation. Mabilog’s call for transparency in how tax revenues are used is the key. To the average citizen, hearing that the city has a budget surplus while their personal taxes triple is understandably confusing.

To justify this painful hike, the administration must do more than list abstract budget items like “general government functions.” It must embark on a radical campaign of transparency. Show us the money at work. Create a public portal that tracks RPT collections and links them to specific, tangible outcomes: “Your taxes this quarter helped pave this street in Jaro.” “This new drainage project in Mandurriao was funded by your RPT.” When taxpayers can see a direct line between the money leaving their pockets and the improvements in their daily lives, the tax burden becomes an investment in our shared future.

It is time to move beyond the political theater. The challenge for Councilor Mabilog and her allies is to propose a relief package grounded in the fiscal realities Sarabia defends. The challenge for the majority is to acknowledge the genuine hardship behind the “emotional allegations” and to proactively demonstrate why every peso of the increased tax is essential.

Ultimately, this debate is not about councilors winning points against each other. It is about our leaders truly listening to the Ilonggo community and working together to define a vision of progress that is both ambitious in its scope and equitable in its cost.