Javier vs. Cadiao

The Vice Governor, as presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, is counted as a member of the SP for purposes of ascertaining the existence of a quorum, but is excluded from the determination of the number that constitutes the majority vote, the Vice Governor's right to vote being merely contingent and arising only to break a tie.

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Antique, composed of ten regular members elected by district, three ex-officio members representing the Councilors' League, the Association of Barangay Captains, and the Sangguniang Kabataan Federation, and the Vice Governor as presiding officer, was the legislative body at the center of the dispute. The Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160) governs the composition, quorum, and voting requirements of local sanggunians, while the SP's own Internal Rules of Procedure supplements these provisions on matters such as urgent items and the manner of voting. The case arose from a shift in party allegiances within the SP that altered the balance of power between the Lakas-CMD majority and the NPC minority, precipitating a reorganization of standing committees.

For the years 2007 to 2010, respondent Vice Governor Rhodora J. Cadiao served as the presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Antique. On the first regular session held on July 5, 2007, the Lakas-CMD bloc was considered the majority party, counting among its members petitioners J. Tobias M. Javier and Vicente H. Piccio III, Vice Governor Cadiao, and SP member Benjamin E. Juanitas. Piccio was designated as Majority Floor Leader. The NPC was the minority party with four members, including respondent Alfonso V. Combong, Jr., later joined by an independent SP member who allied with the NPC. The SP also had three ex-officio members: the President of the Councilors' League of Antique, the President of the Association of Barangay Captains, and the President of the Sangguniang Kabataan Federation.

Thereafter, Juanitas left the majority party and joined the NPC, then headed by Combong. Vice Governor Cadiao followed suit. Recognizing that the NPC had gained numerical superiority, Combong proposed Resolution No. 42-2008, which sought the reorganization of the standing committees of the SP. The resolution was included as an "urgent matter" in the agenda of the SP's fifth regular session.

During the fifth regular session on February 7, 2008, all SP members were in attendance — ten regular members, three ex-officio members, and Vice Governor Cadiao as presiding officer, totaling fourteen. Amidst fiery arguments, the Combong Resolution was approved with seven voting in favor and six against. Piccio was replaced by Juanitas as Majority Floor Leader, and several Lakas-CMD members were divested of chairmanship or membership in the SP's standing committees.

To challenge the legality of the resolution's passage, the Lakas-CMD bloc filed a Complaint for Injunction with Urgent Prayer for TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction before the RTC, arguing that as an "urgent matter," the resolution required an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all members present under Section 62 of the SP's Internal Rules of Procedure, meaning nine affirmative votes were necessary since all fourteen members were present. Alternatively, they cited Article 107(g) of the IRR of the LGC, contending that at least eight affirmative votes — a simple majority of fourteen — were required. The RTC found that the Vice Governor should not be counted in determining the majority, that seven votes out of the thirteen voting members sufficed, and that Section 62 of the IRP could not impose a more stringent standard than the LGC itself required. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding no grave or irreparable injury.

• Majority Vote Requirement: Petitioners argued that Article 107(g) of the IRR of the LGC requires "a majority of all the members present, there being a quorum," which differs from Section 67 of the IRP of the SP, which speaks of "a majority of all the members actually voting." The LGC should prevail, requiring eight affirmative votes from a 14-member SP including the Vice Governor.
• Vice Governor as SP Member: Petitioners maintained that under Section 467(a) of the LGC, the SP "shall be composed of the provincial vice governor as presiding officer, the regular sanggunian members," and that in Gamboa, Jr. vs. Aguirre, Jr., the Court ruled that the Vice Governor is a member of the SP, and should therefore be counted in the base number for determining the majority.
• Urgent Matters and Two-Thirds Vote: Petitioners contended that while the LGC has specifically enumerated situations requiring two-thirds votes, nothing in the law suggests the list is exclusive. Section 62 of the IRP of the SP dealt with "urgent matters" and imposed the more stringent two-thirds affirmative vote requirement, which the SP was empowered to adopt under Section 50 of the LGC.
• DILG Opinion: Petitioners invoked DILG Opinion No. 6, series of 2001, which stated that if a session is attended by all 14 members including the Vice Governor, eight votes constitute a quorum.
• Majority Floor Leader Designation: Petitioners averred that Juanitas, who received the least number of votes among the SP members, cannot be designated as Majority Floor Leader without violating Sections 5 and 6(a), Rule III of the IRP of the SP, which require that the member with the highest percentage of votes among the majority party serve as Majority Floor Leader.

• Status of Vice Governor: Respondents contended that the Vice Governor is the SP's Presiding Officer, but that does not make him a regular member thereof.
• Urgent Matters Not in LGC: Respondents argued that the LGC lists instances when a two-thirds vote is required and makes no mention of "urgent matters." What the law does not include, it excludes.
• Consummated Act and Mootness: Respondents insisted that an injunctive relief could no longer be issued since the SP's reorganization was already a consummated act, and that the Lakas-CMD block had not suffered any grave or irreparable damage.
• Jurisdiction: Respondents contended that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the complaint.
• Political Alliances: Respondents reiterated that the person designated as Majority Floor Leader cannot permanently hold the position, as political affiliations and alliances affect designations.

• Vice Governor in Majority Determination: Whether the Vice Governor, as presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, should be counted in the determination of what number constitutes the majority.
• Applicability of IRP vs. IRR of LGC: Whether Section 67 of the IRP of the SP, which provides for "a majority of those voting," should govern over Article 107(g) of the IRR of the LGC, which requires "a majority of the members present."
• Two-Thirds Vote for Urgent Matters: Whether the two-thirds affirmative vote requirement under Section 62 of the IRP of the SP for "urgent matters" should apply to the passage of Resolution No. 42-2008.
• DILG Opinions: Whether the DILG opinions on the matter should be accorded weight.
• Majority Floor Leader Designation: Whether the designation of Juanitas as Majority Floor Leader violated Sections 5 and 6(a), Rule III of the IRP of the SP.

• Vice Governor in Majority Determination: No. The Vice Governor is counted as a member of the SP for quorum purposes but is excluded from the base number for determining the majority vote, the right to vote being contingent and arising only to break a tie.
• Applicability of IRP vs. IRR of LGC: The IRP provision on the manner of voting (Section 67) was correctly applied; the Vice Governor's presence does not inflate the denominator for the majority calculation.
• Two-Thirds Vote for Urgent Matters: N/A — the Court did not resolve this issue, having collapsed the first, second, and fourth issues into a single question and declined to address the remaining issues.
• DILG Opinions: N/A — the Court did not separately resolve this issue.
• Majority Floor Leader Designation: N/A — the Court declined to resolve this issue, holding it beyond the Court's province to declare a legislative act invalid solely for non-compliance with internal rules.

• Vice Governor in Majority Determination: The Court relied on La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, et al. vs. Atty. Rojo, which interpreted Section 457 of the LGC on the composition of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. There, the Court held that the vice-mayor, as presiding officer, is a "member" of the sanggunian because he is mandated under Section 49 of the LGC to vote to break a tie; to construe otherwise would create an absurd situation where the presiding officer who votes to break a tie is not considered a member. Accordingly, the Vice Governor forms part of the composition of the SP and is counted for quorum purposes. However, the nature of the presiding officer's position is distinct from that of regular and ex-officio members. The Vice Governor is elected at large and holds the mandate of the entire body politic, whereas regular members are elected by district and ex-officio members represent their respective groups. Regular and ex-officio members enjoy full rights of participation, including debating and voting, in pursuit of their constituencies' interests. The Vice Governor, as presiding officer, must be the embodiment of impartiality, without liberty to readily take sides. Section 49 of the LGC explicitly provides that "the presiding officer shall vote only to break a tie." Including the Vice Governor in the base number for majority determination would inflate the required votes even on matters where the presiding officer has no right to vote, adversely affecting the statutory prohibition. Justice Brion's concurring opinion in La Carlota was cited to illustrate this: if a 13-member sanggunian requires two-thirds concurrence for suspension or expulsion (eight votes), including the presiding officer would raise membership to fourteen and require nine votes, negatively impacting the prohibition against the presiding officer's voting. In the instant case, seven of the thirteen voting members voted for the resolution and six against; a majority was already obtained with no tie to break. To count the presiding officer in the majority determination would admit deadlocks as ordinary incidents, incapacitating the SP from addressing issues and diminishing its responsiveness and accountability.

• Applicability of IRP vs. IRR of LGC: The Court found that the RTC correctly applied Section 67 of the IRP of the SP, which provides that "a majority of those voting, there being a quorum, shall decide the issue" and that "an abstention shall not be counted as a vote." The thirteen SP members voted, with seven in favor and six against; a majority was obtained without the Vice Governor's vote. The proceedings were in accordance with Section 49 of the LGC, Article 102 of the IRR of the LGC, and Section 67 of the IRP of the SP. The RTC also correctly noted that the LGC specifically enumerates instances requiring two-thirds votes — Sections 11, 21, 50(5), and 54(a) — and that Section 62 of the IRP cannot rise above its source and impose more stringent standards than the LGC itself necessitates.

• Contingent Voting Right of the Presiding Officer — The Vice Governor, as presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, is a member of the SP for purposes of ascertaining the existence of a quorum, but is excluded from the determination of the number constituting the majority vote. The presiding officer's right to vote is merely contingent and arises only when there is a tie to break, pursuant to Section 49 of the LGC. This doctrine rests on the distinction between the presiding officer's at-large mandate — requiring impartiality — and the district or group-specific mandates of regular and ex-officio members, who enjoy full rights of participation including voting on every question.
• Internal Rules Cannot Exceed Statutory Source — An internal rule of procedure of a sanggunian cannot impose more stringent voting requirements than the Local Government Code itself provides. The LGC specifically enumerates the instances requiring two-thirds votes; an IRP provision on "urgent matters" cannot rise above its statutory source to demand a higher threshold.
• Judicial Non-Interference in Internal Legislative Rules — It is beyond the Court's province to declare a legislative act invalid solely for non-compliance with internal rules of procedure, as distinguished from statutory or constitutional requirements.

• "The Vice Governor, as the Presiding Officer, shall be considered a part of the SP for purposes of ascertaining if a quorum exists. In determining the number which constitutes as the majority vote, the Vice Governor is excluded. The Vice Governor's right to vote is merely contingent and arises only when there is a tie to break." — This passage states the core holding of the case, articulating the dual treatment of the Vice Governor: inclusion for quorum, exclusion for majority vote determination.

• "As the Presiding Officer of the SP, he or she is without liberty to readily take sides, or to cast a vote to every question put upon the body. It follows then that the law cannot reasonably require that the Vice Governor be included in the determination of the required number of votes necessary to resolve a matter every time the SP votes on an issue." — This passage provides the rationale for excluding the Vice Governor from the majority calculation, grounded in the presiding officer's duty of impartiality.

• "To hold that the Presiding Officer should be counted in detennining the required number of votes necessary to uphold a matter before the SP shall be counter-productive. It would admit deadlocks as ordinary incidents in the conduct of business of the SP, which in effect incapacitates the said body from addressing every issue laid before it." — This passage articulates the practical consequence of including the presiding officer in the vote base, reinforcing the doctrinal exclusion through a policy-based argument.

• La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, et al. vs. Atty. Rojo, 686 Phil. 477 (2012) — Controlling precedent. The Court interpreted Section 457 of the LGC on the composition of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and held that the vice-mayor, as presiding officer, is a "member" of the sanggunian because he is mandated to vote to break a tie. This case was relied upon to establish that the Vice Governor is part of the SP for quorum purposes while distinguishing the nature of the presiding officer's participation.
• Gamboa, Jr. vs. Aguirre, Jr., 369 Phil. 1133 (1999) — Cited by petitioners for the proposition that the Vice Governor is a member of the SP. The Court acknowledged this citation but distinguished the Vice Governor's membership for quorum purposes from the determination of the majority vote.
• Pimentel, Jr. vs. Hon. Aguirre, 391 Phil. 84 (2000) — Cited in connection with the constitutional provisions on local autonomy (Article X, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution).
• Arroyo vs. De Venecia, 353 Phil. 623, 630 (1998) — Cited for the principle that it is beyond the Court's province to declare a legislative act invalid solely for non-compliance with internal rules.
• Ilusorio vs. Baguio Country Club Corporation, G.R. No. 179571, July 2, 2014, 728 SCRA 592, 598 — Cited for the mootness doctrine, supporting the dismissal of the petition as the parties' terms of office had ended.
• Funa vs. Manila Economic and Cultural Office, et al., 726 Phil. 63, 81 (2014) — Cited for the exception to the mootness doctrine where public interest warrants resolution despite mootness.

• Section 49, Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) — Provides that the vice-governor shall be the presiding officer of the sangguniang panlalawigan and that "the presiding officer shall vote only to break a tie." This provision was central to the Court's holding that the Vice Governor's voting right is contingent.
• Section 457, Local Government Code — Defines the composition of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, including the city vice-mayor as presiding officer. Interpreted in La Carlota to mean the presiding officer is a "member" of the sanggunian.
• Section 467(a), Local Government Code — Provides that the SP "shall be composed of the provincial vice governor as presiding officer, the regular sanggunian members." Petitioners invoked this to argue the Vice Governor is a member of the SP.
• Section 41, Local Government Code — Provides the manner of election of SP members: the Vice Governor is elected at large, while regular members are elected by district. The Court used this distinction to justify the different treatment of the presiding officer in voting.
• Article 107(g), IRR of the Local Government Code — States that no ordinance or resolution shall be valid unless approved by "a majority of the members present, there being a quorum." Petitioners argued this required eight votes; the Court upheld the RTC's application of Section 67 of the IRP instead.
• Section 67, Rule XVIII, Internal Rules of Procedure of the SP — Provides that "a majority of those voting, there being a quorum, shall decide the issue" and that abstentions are not counted. The RTC applied this provision, which the Court upheld.
• Section 62, Rule XVI, Internal Rules of Procedure of the SP — Requires an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members present for items considered as "urgent matters." Petitioners argued this applied; the RTC held it could not rise above the LGC, and the Court did not separately resolve this issue.
• Sections 11, 21, 50(5), and 54(a), Local Government Code — Specifically enumerate instances requiring two-thirds votes of the sanggunian. The RTC cited these to show the LGC's enumerated two-thirds requirements do not include "urgent matters."

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Diosdado M. Peralta, Jose Portugal Perez, and Francis H. Jardeleza concurred. No separate concurring opinions were written.