‘LEGAL COMPLIANCE’: Why Treñas-allied majority clipped Vice Mayor Baronda’s powers

ILOILO CITY — The Iloilo City Council majority defended restrictions on Vice Mayor Julie Grace “Love-Love” Baronda’s legislative role, arguing that the vice mayor, as presiding officer, does not have the same powers as regular city councilors and that the move merely ensures compliance with existing law.

On Wednesday, the majority councilors cited Section 49 of the Local Government Code; Supreme Court jurisprudence referenced in the Department of the Interior and Local Government’s Legal Opinion No. 95 and in the Committee on Rules report; and the need to preserve impartiality in legislative proceedings.

After Councilor Sheen Marie Mabilog, Baronda’s lone ally, objected, the council voted viva voce, or by voice vote, to adopt the Committee on Rules report and later incorporate the DILG opinion into the council’s Internal Rules of Procedure.

Thirteen councilors, all allies of Mayor Raisa Treñas-Chu, voted in favor, while Mabilog was the lone dissenter.

Section 49 of Republic Act 7160, the Local Government Code, makes the vice mayor the presiding officer of the city council and allows the presiding officer to vote only to break a tie.

The DILG’s Legal Opinion No. 95, series of 2025, interprets that provision to mean that a vice mayor must remain impartial and cannot take part in legislative proceedings as regular council members do.

The Cebu City Council adopted house rules earlier this year that limit the legislative role of Vice Mayor Tomas Osmeña, citing the same opinion.

Councilors explain their votes

Below are the councilors’ explanations of their votes, translated into English and lightly edited for clarity and conciseness while preserving their arguments.

Miguel Treñas: “I support Councilor Rex Sarabia’s committee report. It is very clear. I attended the committee hearing on Oct. 1, where the DILG said the decision to adopt the opinion rests with the local government concerned. It did not say that other cities and provinces were required to adopt it. Therefore, I support Councilor Sarabia’s resolution.”

Maria Irene Ong, ex-officio member and Liga ng mga Barangay president: “I fully agree with the committee’s recommendation. It is legally sound and grounded in law. Section 49 of the Local Government Code explicitly defines the vice mayor’s role, and to expand the vice mayor’s powers without a legal basis would set a dangerous precedent. Therefore, I agree with the DILG opinion and the Supreme Court decision.”

Jelma Crystel Implica, ex-officio member and Sangguniang Kabataan Federation president: “My vote is clearly yes in support of the committee report. I believe that if there were no legal opinion or document supporting this resolution, this would not be pushed. Therefore, my vote is a clear yes.”

Rudolph Jeffrey Ganzon: “My vote is yes. Until there is a legal mandate allowing the vice mayor to perform the same duties as the [city councilor], my vote [remains] yes.”

Alan Zaldivar: “With conviction in my heart, I would like to say yes and support the adoption of the committee report because I do believe that upon hearing all ideas and comments, we must put everything into proper perspective. I hope you [Baronda] are going to respect my decision of voting yes on the adoption of this resolution.”

Johnny Young: “I believe the report is very clear and straightforward. The law of the land, as upheld by the Supreme Court, clearly establishes that the vice mayor does not have the same powers as a regular councilor.

“I want to understand how a vice mayor can claim that her powers have been taken away when, from the beginning, she did not possess those powers under the law. That is my question. I am surprised by the claim that her powers are being removed.

“Another point I would like to address is that, regardless of what other legislative bodies in the provinces have done, we believe that one mistake cannot be corrected by committing another mistake. I do not think our city should become an example for the entire Philippines by failing to apply the law within our own legislative body. Therefore, I vote yes.”

Lyndon Acap: “After hearing and also reviewing the committee report, I think it is legal and in order. The same goes for the DILG opinion. The DILG is the agency responsible for handling local government units, and with that, we should simply follow its opinion. So, I vote yes.”

Mandrie Malabor: “I vote in the affirmative, or yes. The committee report is very detailed and well explained. I have been a legislator for a long time, and I know the functions of the vice mayor as stated in the Local Government Code. For me, the committee report clearly and thoroughly explains these functions.”

Sedfrey Cabaluna: “Besides the committee report, I have been researching this matter for the past several weeks, looking at it from every angle so that we can understand the real reason we have arrived at this situation.

“[…] As important as the other functions are, the vice mayor’s additional responsibilities create the possibility of considerable undue influence. Imagine me debating with the vice mayor, who signs my salary. Imagine me deciding at the committee level whether to approve an ordinance proposed by the vice mayor, who also signs the salaries of my staff. To be honest, it would be very difficult to decide against that proposal.

“Perhaps, after painstaking research, the DILG arrived at this opinion because it wants the vice mayor to remain impartial. If the vice mayor participates in debates without being impartial, regular members of the body would be placed at a disadvantage. Whether or not they win the debate, the vice mayor’s other administrative functions could put them at an extreme disadvantage.

“That undue influence is the reason I will vote yes to the adoption of the committee report. We know how much power a vice mayor has over our administrative functions, and how difficult it can be to debate against that person or to decide whether to rule in favor of or against the vice mayor’s proposal at the committee level.”

Frances Grace Parcon-Torres, member of the Committee on Rules: “Being part of the committee, I agree with the wisdom of our committee chair and the ruling of the committee. However, I would like to stress another point: I also believe in the importance of our Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP). I previously served as majority floor leader, and I believe that, before anything else, if we are indeed going to limit the powers of our vice mayor, we should first do something about our IRP.

“Our report mentioned that there is a hierarchy, but I also believe that, as a legislative council, we must recognize the importance of our IRP.”

Jose Maria “Nene” Dela Llana: “I am not trying to take away the vice mayor’s functions. Why are we splitting hairs? If you have a stomachache, whom do you ask for help? The Department of Health. If you want to have your road asphalted, where do you go? The Department of Public Works and Highways.

“If you have legal questions about what is right or legal, where do you go? The DOH? No, you go to the DILG. During the deliberations with [DILG-6 legal officer Atty. Junine Wednesday Java], I asked her whether the DILG opinion was the latest one. She said yes, it was the latest. I also asked whether there was another DILG opinion that contradicted the current one. She said there was none. Why are we splitting hairs? I vote yes.”

Romel Duron, vice chairperson of the Committee on Rules: “I authored this proposed resolution because I believe this is not an ordinary DILG legal opinion. The DILG’s interpretation is supported by cases cited by the Supreme Court. […] The vice mayor is only a composite member. She does not enjoy the same rights as a regular councilor. Section 49 is very specific: the vice mayor votes only in the event of a tie.

“What would happen if we allowed the vice mayor to sponsor a resolution or ordinance? Would she have to abstain from sponsoring her own measure? If she has many plans or proposals, she can ask any of us, especially her ally, to sponsor them […] I will not agree to allowing this because we would be violating Section 49 of the LGC.”

Rex Marcus Sarabia, chairperson of the Committee on Rules: “Of course, yes.”

Sheen Marie Mabilog: “I object to the adoption of this committee report. I respectfully disagree with the findings and recommendations of the committee report.

“I strongly believe that this move is intended to suppress the vice mayor’s functions as a member of this legislative body. Again, DILG opinions are not binding. [We] are not even following DILG memorandum circulars.

“My question is: Is there anything in the LGC that makes it illegal for the vice mayor to propose ordinances? I see malice in this move.

“From what I see, the division along party lines has become even more pronounced. This is what happens when you are not aligned with this administration: your voice is silenced, and your proposals are brushed aside.

“This will create a dangerous precedent that will affect the conduct, duties, and mandate of the City Council. It will not affect only Vice Mayor Baronda, but also every person who will serve as vice mayor of Iloilo City in the future.

“We may disagree on issues, but every member deserves the opportunity to propose measures and contribute to this legislative body, as long as no provision of the LGC is violated. Political affiliations should never determine whose voice matters.

“The main point of my objection is that I see this as a political move and an act of tyranny by the majority.”

Legal limits

The report of the Committee on Rules, chaired by Sarabia, cited several Supreme Court rulings to establish the legal scope and limitations of the presiding officer’s powers.

It cited Javier v. Cadiao, in which the court ruled that a presiding officer is included in the physical headcount to establish a quorum but is excluded from the total count when calculating a regular majority vote, because the officer’s voting power is strictly limited to breaking ties.

The court also drew a clear distinction between regular council members and the presiding officer.

The high court noted that regular district members represent specific constituencies, with full rights to debate and vote.

In contrast, the presiding officer holds the mandate of the entire body politic and must serve as the “embodiment of impartiality” — meaning the officer is “without liberty to readily take sides, or to cast a vote to every question put upon the body.”

In Zamora v. Caballero, the court affirmed that Section 49 of the Local Government Code strictly restricts the presiding officer’s voting power to tie-breaking situations.

The court also held that an official acting as presiding officer cannot simultaneously exercise the rights of a regular member.

Other cited rulings include Davao City Water District v. Aranjuez, which referenced a concurring opinion by Justice Marvic Leonen. The opinion noted that freedom of expression belongs to everyone, but public officers’ exercise of it may be reasonably regulated in official settings because of their higher obligation of public accountability.

The report also cited Rodrigo v. Sandiganbayan (1999) and PhilHealth v. Commission on Audit (2018) to support the principle that delegated legislative power is strictly bounded and that courts or local bodies cannot expand or insert powers that Congress did not grant.