‘THIS IS TYRANNY’: Iloilo City vice mayor loses voice in council after Treñas bloc’s 13-1 vote

ILOILO CITY — Vice Mayor Julie Grace “Love-Love” Baronda has been barred from participating in floor deliberations and serving on regular legislative committees after the Treñas-aligned majority in the City Council voted 13-1 to incorporate a Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) legal opinion into its internal rules.

Baronda denounced the move as an attempt to silence her as a member of the opposition, describing it as “tyranny.”

She accused councilors allied with the Treñas administration of putting politics above public interest.

After nearly two hours of deliberations, the 12th Iloilo City Council on Wednesday adopted DILG Legal Opinion No. 95, Series of 2025, into its Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP), the set of rules that governs how the council conducts its sessions.

In a voice vote, or viva voce, 13 Treñas-allied councilors voted in favor of the measure. Councilor Sheen Marie Mabilog, an ally of Baronda, was the lone objector.

The opinion, issued in August 2025, states that the vice mayor, as presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, is considered a composite member of the legislative body for purposes of determining a quorum.

Citing Section 49 of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991, the DILG said the presiding officer’s voting authority is limited to breaking a tie. Unlike regular councilors, the vice mayor is not entitled to vote on legislative measures unless a tie occurs.

The opinion also states that the vice mayor cannot chair, co-chair, or serve as a member of a regular legislative committee.

It adds that provisions in a council’s internal rules that conflict with the LGC cannot grant the vice mayor powers beyond those provided by law.

Iloilo City is not the first local government to adopt the opinion. The Cebu City Council adopted it in July, limiting the legislative participation of its vice mayor, Tomas Osmeña.

Baronda cries foul

Baronda said the council majority’s decision was intended to silence her and the opposition, which she said had already struggled to advance proposed ordinances and resolutions.

“I do not know what they are afraid of. There are only two of us in the opposition. They are the supermajority. Why are they doing this to us? It is already clear that this is bullying. This is tyranny. They do not want us to speak for the people,” she said.

“It is a design to silence me because it has been a pattern already,” she added.

Baronda cited previous disagreements with Mayor Raisa Treñas-Chu, including the allocation of office space for her and her staff when she assumed office at the new legislative building.

She also pointed to the budget allocated to her office, saying it was lower than those previously provided to former vice mayors.

She said there had also been attempts to reduce funding for her office’s maintenance and operating expenses and staff salaries.

Baronda further cited several ordinances and resolutions she had introduced that remained pending in various committees.

“They are not content with leaving my ordinances and resolutions untouched. They also want to take away my voice in the council,” Baronda said.

She questioned the council’s priorities, noting that the Committee on Rules took 45 days to produce a report on a resolution restricting her legislative functions, while her proposed measures intended to benefit the city had yet to receive sufficient attention.

“At this point, I cannot think of any other reason except politics. Politics is the reason why they want to remove my voice,” she said, accusing the majority of fast-tracking the move to limit her role.

Baronda suggested the majority fears seeing her proactively push for legislation that would benefit the public.

She added that maintaining her privilege to propose laws would not disadvantage the city.

She stressed that DILG-6, the department’s regional office for Western Visayas, had clarified during a committee hearing that the City Council could choose not to adopt Opinion No. 95 because the legal opinion was not legally binding.

“The City Council chose a different path. They chose politics above the common good. That is really a sad day in the history of Iloilo,” she said.

Baronda said the council’s decision would ultimately affect the residents who elected her to represent their interests.

“We were elected to be the voice of the people. Considering that they have taken away my voice, this is not a loss for me alone. The residents of Iloilo City are the ones losing,” she said.

Baronda apologized to her supporters, saying the council’s decision would limit her ability to fulfill her campaign promises. She noted that she would explore other options by lobbying her proposals through some councilors.

She warned that the decision could set a troubling precedent for the city’s legislative body, arguing that elected officials who are not aligned with the mayor could face efforts to restrict their participation.

“It is already clear that if you are not aligned with the mayor. They will do everything for you to to be silenced,” she said.

Baronda said she would explore legal remedies but had yet to finalize a course of action with her legal team.

Committee rejects Baronda’s arguments

Councilor Romel Duron introduced the resolution to adopt the DILG opinion into the council’s IRP on Sept. 2. The Committee on Rules held a hearing on Oct. 5 to deliberate on the proposal.

The resolution was introduced amid tensions between Baronda and the council majority over 12 proposed ordinances and one resolution that she said remained pending or stalled in various committees.

Baronda had previously stepped down from the presiding officer’s rostrum, temporarily handed over the gavel, and taken a seat on the regular legislative floor to sponsor proposed measures, deliver manifestations, and participate in debates.

The same practice had also been observed during the tenure of former Vice Mayor Jeffrey Ganzon.

In its 25-page committee report, the Committee on Rules, chaired by Councilor Rex Marcus Sarabia, rejected Baronda’s arguments for participating in floor deliberations, citing legal restrictions on the vice mayor’s legislative role.

The committee said that while constitutional freedom of expression applies to public officials, its exercise during legislative sessions may be reasonably regulated.

Drawing a line between individual speech and legislative privilege, the report noted that regular district councilors represent specific constituencies with full rights to debate and vote.

In contrast, the report said the vice mayor holds the mandate of the entire body politic and must embody impartiality, which bars her from taking sides or actively participating in floor deliberations.

Under Section 49 of the LGC, the powers delegated to the presiding officer are explicitly enumerated.

Applying the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, or the express mention of one thing excludes all others, the committee held that because the LGC specifically grants the presiding officer the power to vote only to break a tie, all other legislative powers — such as authoring, sponsoring, or debating ordinances — are legally excluded.

The report also dismissed the contention that internal procedural rules can grant the vice mayor legislative initiative.

The committee stressed that an IRP is merely an administrative tool and cannot override national statutes such as the LGC.

It argued that incorporating provisions that grant the vice mayor powers beyond statutory boundaries constitutes an ultra vires act, or one beyond legal authority, by the council.

The committee also emphasized that the vice mayor cannot separate her capacity as a council member from her role as presiding officer.

It argued that the presiding officer cannot temporarily relinquish the chair to act as a regular member, and that yielding the floor to sponsor or deliberate measures violates the LGC and may give rise to administrative liability, including charges of dereliction of duty.

Addressing earlier DILG advisories that permitted presiding officers to sponsor measures, the committee noted that Opinion No. 95 reflects the current interpretation of the LGC and Supreme Court precedent. It said older opinions relied on outdated jurisprudence and are no longer controlling.