Councilors mull court relief on session conflict

CEBU, Philippines — To resolve conflicting sides of the two-day impasse at Cebu City Council last week, Vice Mayor Edgardo Labella said interested parties can avail of relief in the proper forum like filing cases before the court.

During yesterday’s regular session, Labella and two other city councilors delivered separate privilege speeches to air their sentiments on last week’s session.

“I maintain that the rulings made by the Chair (presiding officer, Labella) were in consonance with the rule of law and of public policy. If there are further issues that may arise from the said session, it is my humble submission that this assembly has already dispensed its duty and reliefs may be availed of by any other interested party in other fora or court,” the vice mayor told members of the City Council.

Last Wednesday, Bando Osmeña-Pundok Kauswagan councilors resumed the session when Labella and eight of his allied councilors left the hall, which paved for the approval of the two resolutions.

One is authorizing Mayor Tomas Osmeña to sign the joint venture agreement with Universal Hotels and Resorts Inc. (UHRI) for an P18-billion project at SRP and another for the special use application for a Central Material Facility and Landfill in Barangay Binaliw.

Labella and the opposition councilors stood firm on their stand that they left the session hall since the session was “properly adjourned.”

Acting City Secretariat Roy Vincent Alix already manifested that records and stenographic notes indicated that there was an adjournment of the session before Labella’s camp left the session hall.

With the controversial two-day regular session last week, the two local camps expressed conflicting stand on the approval of the two contested resolutions as BOPK allies believe that the approval was valid because the session has not yet officially ended before Labella and eight councilors left the hall.

Labella said the session was adjourned because it was moved by Councilor Raymond Alvin Garcia and duly seconded by Councilor Joel Garganera.

Garcia agreed with Labella, adding that he has not heard of any objections from the BOPK councilors that would express their opposition about the adjournment.

Garcia said all he heard during that time was the “motion for a recess” from other members of the City Council.

Councilor Margarita Osmeña, for her part, said both parties can bring the matter to the court if they believe that the approval of the two resolutions were invalid.

In a separate speech, Councilor Mary Ann de los Santos read the “Dysfunctional and comical” column of The Freeman’s columnist, Atty. Ian Vincent Manticajon, who said that the “tug-of-war” in the council has been a political reality in the city for several years.

In a separate speech, City Councilor Sisinio Andales recalled the technicality during the two-day impasse at the City Council last August 7 to August 8.

Andales said the heated arguments at the council, which lasted over 14 hours, started when City Councilor Jose Daluz III invoked a parliamentary inquiry to the committee report which is an incidental motion.

Because of the parliamentary inquiry of Daluz, Labella ruled to strike out the two contested resolutions.

In a 9-8 vote, Labella killed the appeal of Delos Santos who expressed objection on the ruling of Labella. The killing of the appeal of Delos Santos, Labella said needs a two-third vote or 12 members of the City Council, which has not been attained.

“Instead of sustaining the voice of the majority, the chair, perhaps caught in embarrassment and for lack of legal procedural merits, the chair continued to sustain his earlier ruling by declaring it an amendment to the House Rule which needs 2/3 votes,” Andales said.

Andales believes that Labella “made errors” in his ruling due to the procedural lapses yet bold enough to deny the rights of the BOPK as majority bloc in the council. (FREEMAN)