DILG-CAR OPINION NO. 05-116 Series of 2005 10 October 2005 HON. JOHN D.

HANGDAAN Member, Sangguniang Bayan Hungduan, Ifugao THRU: PD GERARDO D. HUMIWAT DILG Provincial Office Lagawe, Ifugao Dear Sir:

Mabuhay!
This refers to your letter-query of 07 October 2005 seeking legal opinion on the following issues relative to the constitution of the Committee of the Whole as well as other matters on local legislation, quote:

1. Whether or not the Vice Mayor can legally preside over Sanggunian Bayan sessions where the body constituted itself as a Committee of the Whole to expedite the deliberation/resolution of a particular item/matter. 2. What does it mean by Committee of the Whole? 3. Under what instances may the Sangguniang Bayan constitute itself as a Committee of the Whole? 4. When an item in the calendar of business is jointly referred to two or more SB Standing Committees for committee study, who should preside over that joint Committee Meeting? 5. Whether or not the Sangguniang Bayan of Hungduan may legally pass a resolution exempting the ABC President, who comes from a far flung Barangay of Hungduan, from the application of Paragraph C, Section 1, Rule Xvi of the Sangguniang Bayan Internal Rules of Procedure.

Before we give our opinion on the above issues, it is noteworthy that all of them relate to the process of local legislation within the Sangguniang Bayan of Hungduan (SB for short) which should be governed by its Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP). We are thus wondering why such issues arose only now when the ninety-day period from the first regular session of the SB within which to promulgate the IRP, pursuant to Section 50 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160), had long lapsed into oblivion. It bears to stress that the IRP is intended to ensure orderly proceedings within the sanggunian so as to avoid unnecessary waste of time and resources in the conduct of its affairs, specifically, in the exercise of its legislative powers. Thus, if only the SB was serious and sincere in promulgating its IRP, the instant issues could have arisen and should have been properly resolved by the sanggunian itself during such promulgation. We presume then that the above issues were not clearly addressed by the IRP of the SB, or, worse, no applicable provision in the IRP was provided for by its authors. If such is the case, it is better for the SB not to constitute the Committee of the Whole (Committee for brevity) until and unless a clear provision is incorporated in its IRP. Now going back to the issues particularly on the first one, logic dictates that the Presiding Officer, to whom the report of the Committee will soon be submitted, should not preside over the committee meeting - although to do otherwise is not utterly illegal or irregular. It must be borne in mind that the Committee, through its Chairman, shall render a report to the Presiding Officer who, in turn, shall bring the question to the SB for formal consideration. So that, just like the special committee, the Committee automatically ceases upon the submission of its report [ORENDAINs SANGGUNIAN RULES OF PROCEDURE, 1993 Revised Edition, p. 60]. It is, therefore, the Chairman, who shall be designated by the Presiding Officer, who shall preside over the meeting proceedings in the Committee. [Ibid.] Anent the second and third issues, the Committee means a committee composed of the entire members of the SB constituted upon majority vote whenever it is the SBs desire to have a speedy resolution of a specific question before it. Unlike that of a regular committee, the report of the Committee will likely be adopted by the SB as a legislative measure in toto or without so much revision and lengthy deliberation. As for the fourth issue, there is really no hard-and-fast rule as to who shall preside over a joint committee meeting. Again, this matter on who shall preside during such a meeting should have been clearly incorporated in the SBs IRP. It is therefore up to the SB to decide as to who shall preside during joint meetings.

Either both chairmen of the committees concerned will preside over the joint committee meeting or only one of them who is chosen based on a selection process to be embodied in the IRP. And with respect to the fifth and last issue, it is better for the SB to just amend its IRP exempting the ABC President from any penal provision thereof based on meritorious grounds instead of passing a separate resolution. It must be emphasized that the power to promulgate its IRP is vested in the SB and any provision thereof can be provided for unless the same is contrary to existing laws. So far, there is no law mandating a local elective official to pay a fine of One Hundred Pesos (PhP 100.00) for his failure to attend flag ceremonies every Monday. We hope to have enlightened you on the matter at hand. Our opinion, however, is without prejudice to a contrary opinion or ruling of higher authorities or tribunal. Warm regards. Very truly yours,

TOMAS A. KIWANG, JR. Regional Legal Counsel

/opinion 05-116