The issue of quorum

Pregnant with grave dangers. This was how a distinguished member of the Supreme Court described a situation that took place in the august halls of the Philippine Senate, not long after the Second World War.

The highest tribunal then was confronted with the problem of whether or not to exercise jurisdiction over a disturbing issue. Was the matter of determining what constituted quorum in a Senate session an issue that the upper chamber of the legislature had exclusive jurisdiction?

That the Supreme Court ruled  it had constitutional anchor to wrestle with the issue only showed that probing the depths of quorum was vital to national interest.Well, really I do not want to sound the alarming signals. While the question of whether there is quorum for the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City to do business does not pose grave perils to our city, it is important for us to have a little understanding of what is obtaining.

For a starter, there is a suspension order against Mayor Michael Rama, Vice Mayor Edgardo Labella and 12 members of our City Council. There are, as a result, only four city councilors left and the president of the ABC. Two of the remaining Sanggunian members had to ascend the ladder of leadership to become our mayor and vice mayor. This succession of government positions has decimated the number of our City Council to three members, namely James Cuenco, Richie Osmeña and Philip Zafra.

The question that confronts us is what constitutes quorum of the present City Council?

Here is an opinion. The Local Government Code provides that "a majority of all the members of the Sanggunian who have been elected and qualified shall constitute a quorum to transact official business."

The eminent constitutionalist Vicente Sinco in commenting on a provision of the 1935 Charter which reads "a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business" asked if the fundamental law meant the majority of all the members present in the Philippines excluding those who are on vacation abroad. Fr Joaquin Bernas, in his discourse on a similarly worded provision in the 1987 Charter, says that "the basis for computing the majority of the legislative body for the purpose of determining the existence of a quorum should normally be the total membership of the body."

In the case that reached the Supreme Court on the question of quorum, the Senate had 24 members but one of them was out of the country. Since that senator was outside the coercive power of the Senate, the number to be reckoned in determining quorum was only 23. Are suspended councilors of the same category as a senator vacationing abroad to be considered as beyond the coercive power of the Sanggunian such that they are not to be counted in determining quorum? If the answer were in the affirmative, the attendance of any two of councilors Cuenco, Osmeña and Zafra should suffice to establish the quorum.

There was a news report that Acting Vice Mayor Lea Japson sought clearance from the DILG to hold a session. Her actuation showed that, at the back of  her mind, she was unsure whether they had the number sufficient to satisfy the quorum required. Differently stated, Japson must have discerned that it was imprudent to consider the presence of  just three members of the Sanggunian whose total membership is 17, as constitutive of a quorum. For indeed how can two councilors plus vice mayor carry the voice of 17?

When Congress discussed the bill that is now the Local Government Code, the legislators never imagined the situation that Cebu City is in where about three-fourths of its entire City Council membership would leave the country for a vacation abroad or would get suspended. Their insistence on the word ALL as basis to determine quorum anticipated the absence of a member or two.

In fine, should the acting vice mayor proceed to call a session with only two councilors attending, I can reprise the words of Justice Moran fearing grave dangers.