Whether of not the Veto message of the Municipal Mayor is consistent in its entirety or of is ambiguous with regard to the scopre of its application ie.e. the entirety of the ordinance or only to spec

“entirety,” while in other paragraphs, specifically in the conclusion, the Mayor manifested that he only vetoed the 4° Whereas of Resolution No. 336 s. 2024, which was incorporated in the subject Ordinance. e The 2" paragraph of the Veto Message, particularly 3“ line thereof, states that the SB has no power and authority to insert the 4! Where in SB Resolution No. 336, s. 2024. Hence, the following issues: 1. Whether or not the Veto Message of the Municipal Mayor is consistent in its entirety or if it is ambiguous with regard to the scope of its application, i.e., the entirety of the ordinance or only to specific line/item thereof. 2. Whether or not the passage of SB Resolution No. 336, s. 2024 and the enactment of Appropriation Ordinance No. 2024-04 have no legal basis. 3. Whether or not the SB has no power and authority to insert the 4" whereas clause in SB Resolution No. 336, s. 2024. 4. Is it not prudent for the majority of the SB to ask for the list of recipients before the passage of a resolution and enactment of the appropriation ordinance as a supporting document for the release or payments of the incentives and a mechanism to safeguard government funds? 5. Is it legal for the Municipal Mayor to release the incentives to the recipient employees without complying or submitting the list of recipients to the SB? On the first issue, a perusal of the Veto Message in question reveals that it is internally consistent. Contrary to the observation mentioned in SB Resolution No. 001, s. 2025, specifically in the 4" whereas clause thereof, the 18t paragraph of the Veto Message did not explicitly mention that the veto pertains to the entirety of the Appropriation Ordinance. In fact, there is no mention of the word “entirety.” To bolster this, the conclusion part of the Veto Message reads: “IN VIEW OF THE FACT that this VETO MESSAGE covers only the 4‘ WHEREAS as contained in SB Resolution No. 336, Series of 2024 and making it as an integral part of ARPPPROPRIATION ORDINANCE No. 2024-04, this representation is ready and willing to withdraw this veto if the Sangguniang Bayan, for the welfare of the COS and the JO workers of the LGU of Trinidad decides to: (1) Withdraw and/or delete the portion in the 4° WHEREAS of SB Resolution No. 336, Series of 2024 xxx.” (Emphasis ours) As to the second issue, we shall address it along with the third issue, as they both are interrelated. On this, we deem it prudent to interpose a qualified answer thereto. This Department submits that the enactment of the subject ordinance and the passage of the SB resolution in question are well within the authority of the sanggunian; however, the Page 2 of 3