Ortiz v. Posadas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Seven out of thirteen members of the municipal council of Tabaco, Albay, voted in favor of Ordinance No. 25 concerning cockpits, while six voted against it, with three members absent. Procedural History: One judge of first instance held the ordinance valid, while another held an ordinance enacted under similar circumstances invalid. The Petition: The plaintiff-appellant sought to challenge the validity of Ordinance No. 25.
Issue(s)
Whether Ordinance No. 25 of Tabaco, Albay, is valid. Whether Section 2224 of the Administrative Code requires the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the municipal council for the passage of any ordinance.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is reversed, and another judgment is to issue in the court of origin in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the sum of P400, with costs of both instances against the municipality of Tabaco, Albay. Ordinance No. 25 of Tabaco, Albay, is declared void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of Ordinance No. 25: The Court held that Ordinance No. 25 of Tabaco, Albay, is void. This determination hinges on the interpretation of Section 2224 of the Administrative Code, which mandates specific voting requirements for the passage of municipal ordinances. The factual context reveals that the ordinance did not receive the required majority vote as stipulated by law. The vote count of seven in favor out of thirteen council members, with three absent, did not meet the threshold for a majority of all members. Therefore, the ordinance, lacking the requisite legal affirmation, was deemed invalid from its inception. On the interpretation of Section 2224 of the Administrative Code: The Court clarified that Section 2224 of the Administrative Code, in its English text which governs, is clear and requires no interpretation beyond its plain meaning. The law explicitly states that the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the municipal council shall be necessary for the passage of any ordinance. This requirement is distinct from measures that prevail upon the majority vote of members present at a duly called meeting, except as otherwise specially provided. The Court emphasized that the phrase "creating indebtedness" refers to a proposition and not to an ordinance itself, thereby refuting the contention that only ordinances creating indebtedness require the approval of a majority of all council members. The legislative intent behind this provision is to prevent the approval of ordinances or propositions creating indebtedness by minority votes, a wise policy that the Court must uphold.
Main Doctrine
An ordinance requires the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the municipal council for its passage, regardless of whether it creates indebtedness. An ordinance passed by less than this majority is void.