A HEATED debate over proposed amendments to Cebu City Council’s internal house rules briefly stalled the council’s reorganization, as minority members questioned both the timing of the revisions and provisions that would further limit the legislative role of Vice Mayor Tomas Osmeña.
On Tuesday, July 7, 2026, the discussion unfolded before the council proceeded with the approval of its new officers and committee assignments for Fiscal Year 2026-2027.
The issue arose after Councilor Edgardo “Jaypee” Labella II moved for the adoption of the revised House Rules of the 17th Sangguniang Panlungsod.
However, Minority Floor Leader Sisinio Andales immediately objected, saying council members had not been given sufficient time to review the proposed revisions before being asked to approve them.
“I just want to be clarified. Pursuant to procedural due process, it is imperative that every member should be informed of what this new House Rules is before it is adopted,” Andales said.
He pointed out that it was only his first time reading the proposed rules and argued that members should have first been consulted, particularly on provisions that significantly changed the powers previously granted to the vice mayor.
Among the provisions questioned by Andales was the deletion of a section in the previous House Rules that allowed the presiding officer to participate in council deliberations after relinquishing the chair.
The revised version instead provides that the presiding officer “shall maintain impartiality” while presiding over sessions.
Andales asked why the provision had been removed without prior discussion.
“We should be consulted in this,” he said.
He also questioned the removal of language requiring the vice mayor’s approval before proposed ordinances and resolutions could be included in the council agenda.
According to Andales, the vice mayor, as head of the legislative department, should retain authority over matters affecting the conduct of council business.
“What is the purpose of having the vice mayor as head of the legislative department?” he asked.
Responding to the minority’s concerns, Councilor Mikel Rama, vice chairman of the Committee on House Rules and Oversight, said the revisions merely align the council’s internal rules with the interpretation of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) on Section 49 of the Local Government Code.
Rama cited DILG Opinion 95, Series of 2025, issued on August 1, 2025, which relied on Supreme Court rulings in Zamora v. Caballero and Javier v. Cadiao.
According to the DILG opinion, the vice mayor serves as the impartial presiding officer of the sanggunian and, unlike elected councilors, does not represent a specific constituency.
Because of this, Rama said, the vice mayor cannot sponsor or introduce legislative measures, chair standing committees, actively participate in debates, or deliver privilege speeches, except to vote in the event of a tie.
“The proposed House Rules only seek to conform to the mandate of the DILG in interpreting Section 49 of the Local Government Code,” Rama said.
He added that while DILG opinions are not binding on courts, they serve as official guidance for local government units in implementing the law.
Andales, however, maintained that the DILG opinion was merely recommendatory and not conclusive.
He pointed out that the opinion itself states that it was rendered “without prejudice to any contrary opinion, decision or orders of other government agencies and the courts.”
He argued that council members should have been allowed to fully discuss the proposed revisions before voting.
“We are not given a chance. They just spoon-fed us these new House Rules,” Andales said. “Just because you have the majority, you have to silence the minority?”
He also questioned additional provisions that prohibit amendments to certain motions during deliberations, saying these were not found in the previous House Rules.
As the exchanges continued, Councilor Pastor “Jun” Alcover Jr. moved to “divide the house,” saying that since an objection had already been raised, the body should proceed with voting under parliamentary rules.
The council later suspended the session for about a minute, followed by another 10-minute recess, allowing members to discuss possible amendments.
When the session resumed, House Rules Committee Chairman Philip Zafra acknowledged the concerns raised by the minority.
Although he said he personally believed the vice mayor should be allowed to express his views during important deliberations, Zafra noted that the council was constrained by the DILG’s interpretation of the Local Government Code.
“I, for one, would like the vice mayor to chair a committee, but considering this decision and opinion, we are prevailed upon from doing so,” Zafra said.
Councilor Paul Labra also echoed the minority’s concerns, saying the amended House Rules had only been distributed that afternoon and that several council members had not even been consulted before their approval.
Labra proposed creating a working group representing both the majority and minority blocs to review future amendments to the House Rules before they are presented to the council.
To address the concerns, Zafra introduced an amendment deleting the provision that prohibited any amendment to the House Rules within one year of their effectivity or within one year before a regular local election.
The amendment was approved without objection.
The council subsequently adopted the revised House Rules and, through a corollary motion, immediately referred them to the Committee on House Rules and Oversight for further review.
The council likewise approved a separate motion referring the legal issues surrounding the vice mayor’s powers to the DILG for further clarification, particularly on the differing interpretations raised during the session.
Only after resolving the House Rules issue did the council proceed with the reorganization of its leadership and committee assignments for Fiscal Year 2026-2027. (CAV)