Javier v. Cadiao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: For the years 2007-2010, Vice Governor Rhodora J. Cadiao presided over the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Antique. Initially, the Lakas ng Tao-Christian Muslim Democrats (Lakas-CMD) was the majority party. Subsequently, two members, including Vice Governor Cadiao, switched to the Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC), which then gained superiority in numbers. The NPC proposed Resolution No. 42-2008 (Combong Resolution) to reorganize the SP's standing committees. During the SP's fifth regular session on February 7, 2008, all 14 members were present. The Combong Resolution was approved with seven (7) votes in favor and six (6) against, leading to the replacement of the Majority Floor Leader and the divestment of some Lakas-CMD members from committee positions. Procedural History: The Lakas-CMD block filed a Complaint for Injunction with Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, Antique, Branch 12. They argued that the Combong Resolution, considered an "urgent matter," required a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members present or, at least, a simple majority of eight (8) votes, and that its passage with only seven (7) votes was invalid. The RTC dismissed the complaint, upholding the validity of the resolution, and ruled that the Vice Governor should not be counted in determining the majority vote. The RTC reasoned that Section 67 of the SP's Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP) should apply, which states that a majority of those voting decides the issue, and that the Vice Governor's vote is only to break a tie. The RTC also noted that the Local Government Code (LGC) did not provide for a two-thirds (2/3) vote requirement for "urgent matters." The Petition: Petitioners Javier and Piccio III assailed the RTC's Order before the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the majority vote determination, the Vice Governor's inclusion in the base number for majority calculation, the applicability of the two-thirds (2/3) vote for urgent matters, the disregard of DILG opinions, and alleged violations of the SP's IRP concerning the Majority Floor Leader designation.
Issue(s)
Whether the Vice Governor, as the presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, should be counted in the determination of what number constitutes a majority vote. Whether the passage of Resolution No. 42-2008 required a two-thirds (2/3) vote as an "urgent matter." Whether the RTC erred in disregarding pertinent executive pronouncements or opinions of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) on the matter. Whether the designation of the Majority Floor Leader violated the SP's Internal Rules of Procedure.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court, however, resolved the issue concerning the Vice Governor's participation in voting for the guidance of the bench, bar, and public, despite the case being moot and academic due to the termination of the parties' terms of office.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Vice Governor should be counted in determining the majority vote: The Court held that the Vice Governor, as the Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP), is considered a part of the SP for the purpose of ascertaining the existence of a quorum. However, for the determination of the number that constitutes a majority vote, the Vice Governor is excluded. This is because the Vice Governor's right to vote is contingent and arises only when there is a tie to break, as explicitly stated in Section 49 of the Local Government Code (LGC). The Court reasoned that the Vice Governor, as the embodiment of impartiality, should not be included in the determination of the required votes for every issue, as this would incapacitate the SP from addressing matters effectively. The Court cited the case of La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, et al. v. Atty. Rojo which interpreted a similar provision regarding the composition of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, emphasizing that the presiding officer votes only to break a tie. Including the presiding officer in the base number for majority calculation, even if they cannot vote in that instance, could negatively impact the statutory prohibition against their general voting participation and affect the numerical value of required voting levels. The Court reiterated that the Vice Governor's role is to ensure the SP effectively conducts its business for the general welfare of the province, not to represent a particular group or readily take sides. Therefore, while present for quorum, their vote is reserved for deadlocks. On the issue of the two-thirds (2/3) vote requirement for "urgent matters": The Court found that the petition was rendered moot and academic. However, it reiterated the RTC's finding that the Local Government Code (LGC) specifically enumerates instances where a two-thirds (2/3) vote is required, and "urgent matters" are not among them. Section 62, paragraph (2) of the SP's Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP), which imposed a two-thirds (2/3) affirmative vote requirement for urgent matters, cannot rise above its source and impose more stringent standards than what the LGC itself necessitates. The LGC is silent on what constitutes an "urgent matter" that would warrant dispensing with the three-reading rule. Thus, the Court did not find merit in the argument that the Combong Resolution, considered an urgent matter, required a two-thirds (2/3) vote. On the issue of disregarding DILG opinions: The Court deemed this issue moot and academic, as it had already resolved the core issue regarding the Vice Governor's vote. The Court's pronouncements on the interpretation of the LGC and the SP's IRP would supersede any conflicting DILG opinion. The Court's primary role is to interpret and apply the law, and its interpretation is binding. Therefore, any prior DILG opinion that contradicts the Court's ruling would be rendered without force. On the alleged violation of IRP regarding the Majority Floor Leader: The Court also deemed this issue moot and academic. It reiterated that it is beyond the Court's province to declare a legislative act as invalid solely for non-compliance with internal rules, especially when the terms of office of the parties involved have already expired. The Court emphasized that legislative bodies have latitude to promulgate their own rules of procedure, provided they do not violate higher laws. However, when the core issue of the case is moot, the Court generally refrains from delving into collateral matters concerning internal procedural compliance, particularly when the parties no longer hold their positions.
Main Doctrine
The Vice Governor, as the Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, shall be counted for purposes of ascertaining the existence of a quorum, but shall be excluded in the determination of the number that constitutes the majority vote, as his right to vote is contingent and arises only when there is a tie to break.