Inquiry on the Qualified Majority Requirement and Review Authority of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan

The first issue seeks clarification on the qualified majority required for the SB of Ipil, which is composed of twelve (12) members: eight (8) regular members, three (3) ex- officio members, and the Vice-Mayor as presiding officer. Section 447(a)(2)(iii) of the Code provides that the Sangguniang Bayan may authorize the Municipal Mayor to negotiate and contract loans and other forms of indebtedness “upon the majority vote of all the members of the sangguniang bayan.” The phrase “majority vote of all the members’ is significant. By its plain language, the requirement refers not to a majority of those present during a particular session, but to a majority reckoned from the entire membership of the sanggunian. As we explicated in DILG Opinion No. 46. S. 2015: “The phrase ‘majority vote of all the members of the sangguniang bayan ‘is what we call approval by the qualified majority of the sanggunian. The approval of an ordinance is to be voted not just by the majority of those present in a session there being a quorum but by the majority of all the members of the sanggunian (counted individually) duly elected and qualified regardless of whether all of them were present or not in a particular session, there being a quorum.” Indeed, said provision is categorical in requiring not a mere majority of those present during a session, but of all the members composing the Sanggunian. Now, in understanding how this majority is computed, it is necessary to distinguish between two related but separate concepts: membership in the sanggunian and the right to vote. Jurisprudence has consistently recognized that while the Vice-Mayor votes only in case of a tie under Section 49(a) of the Code, this limitation pertains to voting alone. It does not remove the Vice-Mayor from the statutory composition of the sanggunian. In other words, the Vice-Mayor remains part of the sanggunian’s membership for purposes of determining its full complement. This principle was affirmed in La Carlota City v. Rojo?, where it was enunciated that the Vice-Mayor, although limited to tie-breaking votes, remains a “member” for purposes of determining the entire composition of the sanggunian. Thus, in applying the voting requirement under Section 447(a)(2)(iii), the Vice-Mayor is still included in determining the total membership base. Applying these principles, and guided by the definition of “majority” articulated in Santiago v. Guingona’, that is ‘the number greater than half or more than half of any total’, the correct voting base for the SB of Ipil is twelve (12) members. A majority of all the members, therefore, is seven (7). With respect to the second issue on whether the SP acted beyond its authority in declaring the SB loan ordinance ultra vires due to the lack of the required number of votes and the absence of a prior Monetary Board resolution, the Department is of the view that this matter involves questions touching on the legality and propriety of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s power to review and nullify municipal ordinances. As such, the issue is one that is best resolved in the appropriate judicial forum. ? G.R. No. 181367, April 24, 2012. 3. G.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1998. Page 2 of 4