When Rules Defy Rights

A legislative chamber is meant to be a crucible of ideas, a place where the people’s representatives, through vigorous and often contentious debate, forge the policies that shape a city’s future. It is not meant to be an echo chamber. Yet, in the Iloilo City Council, the sound of a supermajority is drowning out the lone voice of dissent, and in doing so, is trampling on the very principles it is sworn to uphold.

The repeated refusal of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to allow Councilor Sheen Marie Mabilog to deliver a privilege speech on the city’s controversial Real Property Tax (RPT) and its connection to inflation is more than just a procedural spat. It is a dangerous and deliberate suppression of a constitutionally protected right, executed under the flimsy guise of internal rules.

The majority camp, composed of 11 councilors allied with the administration of Mayor Raisa Treñas-Chu, hides behind the excuse that Mabilog’s speech was not on the agenda. But Assistant Majority Floor Leader Romel Duron gave the game away when he declared that if the speech concerned the RPT, the council would not permit it. This is not a matter of procedure; it is a premeditated gag order on a specific, critical topic.

This action flies in the face of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Article VI, Section 11 guarantees parliamentary immunity, stating that no member shall be questioned or held liable “for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.” This immunity is a cornerstone of legislative independence, ensuring that elected officials can speak freely on matters of public concern without fear of reprisal. It is not a mere courtesy to be granted or denied by a majority; it is a fundamental right essential for a functioning democracy. By using their rulebook as a weapon, the 11 councilors are not maintaining order; they are enforcing a political agenda and, in the process, arguably violating their oath to defend the Constitution.

One must ask: what are they so afraid of? The timing of this censorship is particularly telling. It comes as recent data shows Iloilo City’s inflation rate has accelerated past 3%, an alarming trend when inflation in the rest of Western Visayas is reportedly cooling. The administration has repeatedly insisted that there is no direct correlation between their RPT increases and the rising cost of living that is shuttering local businesses and squeezing family budgets.

If their position is so sound and their data so robust, why not welcome the debate? Why not allow Councilor Mabilog to speak and then publicly, methodically, and transparently debunk her points on the session floor for all Ilonggos to see? Their refusal to even engage suggests a profound weakness in their own argument. It creates the inescapable impression that they fear a public discussion might expose an inconvenient truth—that the heavy tax burden is indeed contributing to the economic pain felt across the city. By silencing the debate, they are not winning the argument; they are forfeiting it.

While this political drama unfolds, it is the Ilonggo public that pays the price. Mabilog stated her intention was to focus on “inflation and how it leads to the closure of establishments.” These are not abstract concepts. These are the livelihoods of entrepreneurs, the jobs of employees, and the ability of parents to put food on the table. The council’s refusal to listen to her is a refusal to listen to the cries of the taxpayers they were elected to serve. Instead of a deliberative body tackling the city’s most pressing economic issues, we see a unified bloc protecting a political narrative.

The concept of majority rules is tied to conscientious, deliberative governance. But it this case, it’s plain tyranny of the majority. The Iloilo City Council is at a crossroads. It can continue down this perilous path, cementing its reputation as a rubber stamp where dissent is extinguished, or it can remember its sacred duty.

Every member, particularly the 11 who voted for silence, must ask themselves: Are they serving the public interest or a political alliance? Are they upholding the Constitution or their own power?

The health of our democracy depends on their answer.