PROCEDURAL UPROAR: Baronda rips majority bloc for ‘twisting’ council rules over twin FOI ordinances

By Rjay Zuriaga Castor 

Vice Mayor Lady Julie Grace “Love-Love” Baronda accused members of the City Council’s majority bloc of manipulating internal rules for political gain following a contentious debate over two proposed Freedom of Information (FOI) ordinances.

Baronda made the allegation after the majority allowed two FOI proposals—separately authored by Councilors Nene Dela Llana and Sheen Marie Mabilog—to pass on first reading, despite what she claimed was a violation of the council’s Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP) due to the measures having the same title and intent.

“I will borrow the words of Mayor Raisa Treñas-Chu — this is just politics,” she said.

During the session, Baronda, who presides over the council, raised a point of order and briefly stepped down from the chair, prompting the majority to elect Councilor Miguel Treñas as temporary presiding officer after Mabilog declined her nomination.

“The point of order I raised is just to put things into order in our session, and we can appropriately deliberate the different agenda that we have,” Baronda said.

She acknowledged her motion would likely be overruled but refused to stay silent.

“Even if I am going to point out the legal implications or legal provisions, they can easily twist it,” she said.

“While it is true that the majority rules are being followed, I leave it to their conscience.”

Baronda lamented what she described as the “selective implementation” of the IRP, claiming that rules are only followed when convenient for the majority bloc.

“If it’s advantageous to them or their group, they follow the rules. But if not, they bend them,” she said.

She added that despite expecting her objection to be overruled, she felt compelled to raise it for the record.

“Even though I already expected that my point of order would be overruled, I did not want to remain silent,” she said.

“I would rather raise it early—knowing that I would be overruled—than stay quiet while the rules are being clearly violated right before our eyes.” 

The twin FOI ordinances

Mabilog’s ordinance, approved on first reading last week, is titled “An Ordinance Operationalizing the People’s Right to Access Information and Establishing a Mechanism for the Disclosure of Public Records in Iloilo City, and Providing Funds and Penalties for the Violation.”

Dela Llana’s proposal is titled “An Ordinance Operationalizing the FOI in the City Government of Iloilo, Creating the Central Appeals and Review Committee.”

Both ordinances aim to institutionalize transparency and accountability in local governance through the implementation of an FOI policy.

Baronda clarified that she supports any measure promoting transparency but insisted that council courtesy should have been observed, as Mabilog’s proposal had already passed on first reading.

She cited Rule VII, Section 1 of the IRP, which states that any motion, measure, or proposal already referred to committee shall not be subject to debate prior to final action, allowing only explanatory speeches of no more than five minutes.

She argued that this provision is meant to prevent duplication in legislation.

Majority’s stand

Majority Floor Leader Councilor Rex Marcus Sarabia countered that no actual debate took place during the session, which is consistent with standard first reading procedures that involve only the reading of an ordinance’s title.

He added that full debate typically occurs during the second reading.

Sarabia argued that Dela Llana’s and Mabilog’s proposals differ in title, content, and purpose, and that there is no IRP clause prohibiting the introduction of a measure with a similar intent.

“The vice mayor does not even understand the IRP,” Sarabia said.

“The internal rules are silent,” he added.

“There is no specific provision in the IRP that prohibits the inclusion into the agenda of a measure which has a similar purpose to an existing measure.”

He further asserted that common courtesy is not a sufficient legal basis for rejecting a proposal.

“That is a very weak basis,” he said.

“We have to remember that as members of the City Council, our actions are imbued with public interest.”

Sarabia emphasized that Dela Llana’s version is “complete and more responsive” to calls for transparency and reiterated that the two ordinances are distinct in content.

“If it is exactly the same, I would have to strike it down for being dilatory as provided in the IRP,” he said.

Clash over procedure

Baronda responded that she had raised concerns with Sarabia prior to the session and was advised to integrate Dela Llana’s proposal into Mabilog’s.

She maintained that if the IRP is silent, Robert’s Rules of Order should apply.

She cited Section 38 of Robert’s Rules, which bars the reintroduction of a motion substantially similar to one already pending.

Baronda argued that both ordinances seek to “operationalize” the FOI and create mechanisms for accessing public records.

Dela Llana responded that it is not the vice mayor’s role to determine duplication, noting that such matters fall under the purview of the committee chair.

Mabilog disagreed with the argument that the two ordinances are distinct, stating that both create a central appeals and review committee, albeit under different names.

Dela Llana emphasized that his version includes a working manual and reiterated that “no one has a monopoly on proposing an FOI ordinance.”

He suggested both measures be referred to the same committee for deliberation.

A dangerous precedent

Baronda warned that the council’s action may set a dangerous precedent that could weaken the IRP’s authority.

“If all these rules will no longer be applicable to the City Council, then what provisions are we supposed to follow?” she asked.

“If we allow this, anyone can just file another FOI ordinance in the coming weeks, instead of submitting amendments or suggestions at the committee level.”

She said Mabilog’s ordinance already passed first reading, and councilors supporting it had planned to submit inputs during the committee hearing.

Baronda underscored the importance of legislative courtesy, arguing that any amendments should be discussed at the committee level, not through the filing of a separate ordinance.

She recalled that Mabilog previously filed a proposal seeking an 80 percent reduction in real property tax (RPT), which clashed with Mayor Raisa Treñas’ urgent proposal to extend a 40 percent RPT discount from 2024 to 2028.

That measure failed to pass first reading, with the majority arguing Mabilog should instead submit her suggestions during the committee hearings, as both proposals tackled the same issue.