[] The difference between that move against then vice guv Hilario Davide III and this move against Osmeña: House rules against Junjun turned out to conform with the law while those against Tomas would stop a violation of the law.
[] City Council decision is perfectly legal -- the changes conform with the law and jurisprudence -- but minority BOPK questions alleged irregularity in amending the House rules.
[] VM Osmeña has slammed the replacement of Kons Michelle Abellana-Cellona as committee on health chairperson. On the loss of his powers as a member of the City Council, Tomas says that "would not silence him from speaking out on issues affecting the city." The restrictions, of course, do not gag him off the floor of the City Council. He can hold press conferences, issue press releases, talk and write at internet forums.
[] The limits on Osmeña as City Council member are not imposed by the City Council but by the law and the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and enforced by such authorities overseeing LGUs as DILG or Department of the Interior and Local Government.
[] The Cebu City Council merely heeded authorities and enforced law and regulations on the legislative process. In its particular case, the city Sanggunian corrected a wrong or omission that had been practiced for many years.
LAST Tuesday (July 7, 2026), the Cebu City Council changed its IRP or Internal Rules of Procedure, along with its annual reorganization of leadership.
The resolution, sponsored by Councilor Edgardo "Jaypee" Labella II, was approved in an open voice vote by the Barug-Kusug-dominated Sanggunian.
Expected were changes in committee leadership and composition. Not expected was enforcement of the law and jurisprudence on the functions of the vice mayor. Which, as one newspaper put it, "clipped the powers" of VM Tomas Osmeña.
Since June 30, 2025 when the vice mayor and other members of the City Council assumed office, VM Tomas had been performing functions that, under the law and court rulings, do not lawfully belong to vice mayors of towns and cities and vice governors of provinces.
Not his fault. Under the City Council's IRP or house rules -- during the past several terms of various mayors and vice mayors/presiding officers -- the practice had been to allow VMs to perform like the other members of the local legislature.
Functions denied VM under new rules
The IRP amendments include known restrictions on vice mayors and vice governors, which are contained in DILG Opinion #95 of August 1, 2025.
The DILG opinion based its pronouncement on the Local Government Code and as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Javier vs. Cadiao (GR#185369, August 3, 2016).
Relying on that legal authority, VM Osmeña is thus...
* Prohibited from sponsoring a resolution or ordinance or serving as chairperson or member of a committee;
* Limited to voting only in case of a tie or deadlock;
* No longer required or allowed to approve a proposed resolution or ordinance before its filing by a councilor;
* Can no longer take part in deliberations, usually done by the simple act of relinquishing the seat of presiding officer.
VM presides sessions, breaks ties
That's as far as the vice mayor's legislative "public" functions, mostly performed during the City Council session, will go.
Tomas presides sessions and breaks ties, as a lawyer-journalist summed it up.
Other VM functions the public doesn't see live-streamed or publicized in the news media include appointing officials and employees of the City Council and signing papers for expenses in the operation of the legislature.
In VM Tomas's case, Osmeña -- being also the leader of BOPK to which Mayor Nestor Archival Sr. and its councilors belong -- is assumed to have a huge role in policy-making by the administration.
But he is not 'just a clerk'
To be sure, he's "not just a clerk" as VM Osmeña lamented he might become when his functions were questioned last April (2026) in an exchange of words with Councilor Mikel Rama at the City Council.
The VM, as presiding officer, steers discussion on the floor but as referee or judge, not as participant or protagonist in a debate.
That alone is a huge job, requiring knowledge of House rules and parliamentary procedure, comprehension and communication skills, immense patience, a sense of fairness and acumen in resolving conflict.
The provision of law and its intent have been explained by the high court in a number of rulings.
The SC said the vice mayor, or vice governor, "represents the entire body politic, rather than a specific district."
Is move political? Of course, it is Barug and Kusug were beaten in the 2025 election, losing the two highest positions in the executive department. But they later fused, thus becoming the majority, over BOPK, in the City Council.
That dominance has enabled the Barug-Kusug majority to control the committees and, yes, enforced the restraints on VM Tomas.
The political season is barely a few months away. Some even say it's already on.
'Epitome of impartiality,' SC says
Vice governors and vice mayors -- in the language of the Supreme Court -- shall be "the epitome of impartiality" in the Provincial Board or the City Council.
That's supposed to explain the restrictions on their functions as Sanggunian members.
Which is what the law provides and how the courts and authorities overseeing LGUs interpret. Which is: a vice mayor/vice governor must be as independent and fair as he or she can be.
He won't shut up, Tomas says again
The vice mayor didn't quickly react to the recent City Council move against him. When he did, he told CDN Digital, he would not be silenced; he'd continue to talk about incompetence and corruption.
Earlier, last April in that session face-off with ex-mayor Mike Rama's councilor son, VM Tomas told Mikel, "Don't tell me to keep my mouth shut because I will not keep it shut."
Tomas repeats that line, this time to the public.
Restrictions on vice mayors and vice governors have been in the statute books and DILG archives for some time. No critical vice mayor or vice governor has been silenced. He or she just cannot do it within the Sanggunian. Not when the House rules enforce the limits set on presiding officers by the law and jurisprudence.
Flaw in amendments
The unresolved issue on the July 7, 2026 resolution, affecting regularity if not validity of the restrictions against VM Tomas, is the alleged flaw in approving the amendments.
That includes complained lack of notice to minority councilors and no prior discussion and consultation.
DILG opinion doesn't bind Sanggunian?
Councilor Sisenio Andales of the minority BOPK has not given up its position that the DILG opinion of August 1, 2025 carries only "persuasive, not binding" force.
A counter-thrust to that position can be this:
* Question: If that is true -- assuming that the City Council cannot be legally bound by the DILG opinion, even though DILG says it is based on the law and jurisprudence -- who decides whether to accept and be bound by the said opinion?
* Answer: The City Council, as it is now composed, which has imposed the restrictions on the vice mayor.
What next: Would DILG change opinion?
Maybe because of Andales' objection and it wants to be sure, the City Council has endorsed the legal issue to DILG.
DILG might change its opinion and admit it erred in understanding and interpreting the law and the SC decisions. The turnaround could pave the way for restoring the "rights" of the vice mayor.
Improbable but possible.
As it looks now, before the DILG opinion becomes, ah, legally binding, that can be used, if it suits its political interest, by the party controlling the local legislature.
The Gwen Garcia-controlled PB did it to then vice governor Hilario Davide III, only that at the time, it didn't use the DILG opinion.
All that Junjun Davide could explain, after the first 100 days of his two terms (2019-20255), was "I was gagged."