G.R. No. 185369 August 3, 2016
J. TOBIAS M. JAVIER and VICENTE H. PICCIO III, Petitioners vs. RHODORA J. CADIAO, ALFONSO V. COMBONG, JR., BENJAMIN E. JUANITAS, CALIXTO G. ZALDIVAR III, DANTE M. BERIONG, FERNANDO C. CORVERA, HECTOR L. FRAGUE and KENNY S. OLANDRES, Respondents

FACTS

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Antique, composed of 13 regular members and the Vice Governor as presiding officer, convened with all 14 present. During the session, Resolution No. 42-2008, which sought to reorganize the SP’s standing committees, was presented as an urgent matter. The resolution was approved with 7 affirmative votes and 6 negative votes. Petitioners, members of the Lakas-CMD block, challenged the resolution’s validity before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). They argued that for urgent matters, the SP’s Internal Rules required a two-thirds vote of all members present, or at the very least, a simple majority based on the total membership including the Vice Governor. With 14 present, they contended that 8 votes (half of 14 plus one) were necessary for a simple majority, which the 7 affirmative votes failed to meet.
The respondents, including Vice Governor Rhodora Cadiao, maintained that the resolution was validly passed. The RTC dismissed the petitioners’ complaint, ruling that the Vice Governor, as presiding officer, should not be counted in determining the majority vote for passing resolutions. The RTC based its decision on Section 67 of the SP’s Internal Rules, which states that “a majority of those voting, there being a quorum, shall decide the issue,” and that abstentions are not counted. The court interpreted this to mean only the 13 regular SP members who were voting, excluding the non-voting presiding officer.

ISSUE

Whether the Vice Governor, as the presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, should be included in the computation of the total membership for determining the required majority vote to pass a resolution.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s ruling, holding that the Vice Governor, as presiding officer, is not included in the base number for computing the majority vote on sanggunian resolutions. The Court clarified the distinction between the Vice Governor’s role and that of regular SP members. While the Vice Governor is a member of the SP for purposes of quorum under Section 53(a) of the Local Government Code, this membership is solely to establish a quorum to conduct business. For the act of voting on ordinances or resolutions, the law is explicit. Section 49(b) of the Local Government Code provides that the Vice Governor “shall vote only to break a tie.” Consequently, the Vice Governor is not a voting member in the ordinary legislative process.
The legal logic is anchored on statutory construction and the specific roles defined by law. The SP’s Internal Rules, particularly Section 67, which requires “a majority of those voting,” must be interpreted in harmony with the Local Government Code. Since the Vice Governor cannot vote except to break a tie, they cannot be considered part of the body of “those voting” on a regular resolution. Therefore, the total number used to calculate a simple majority is properly limited to the regular sanggunian members who are entitled to vote. In this case, with 13 regular members present and voting, 7 affirmative votes constituted a valid majority. The Court emphasized that internal legislative rules, like the SP’s procedure for urgent matters, cannot contravene the substantive voting rules established by the Local Government Code.