top of page

NEWS REPORTS 

POLICE REPORTS 

  • Writer's pictureChristian Malnawa

2 Tinglayan AIP resolutions for 2022 sought to be remanded

Updated: Apr 24, 2022


Tinglayan, Kalinga –Vice Mayor Charles Abay, through a letter, requested the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Kalinga to remand two resolutions involving the Annual Investment Plan of Tinglayan passed by its Sangguniang Bayan members.

Abay alleged that the resolutions did not follow proper procedures and that there are still unresolved issues and concerns to be addressed such as compliance with the guidelines in the Mandanas Ruling on devolution.


The two resolutions passed were Resolution No. 41 Series of 2021 or 'A Resolution Adopting the Annual Investment Plan for the Fiscal Year 2022 of the Municipality of Tinglayan, Kalinga Province” and Resolution No. 42, Series 2021, "A Resolution Adopting Ordinance No. 3 Series of 2021 Annual Budget of Tinglayan for Fiscal Year 2022”.

According to Abay, the approval was “highly suspicious and anomalous for Resolution No 41 Series 2021, as it was only deliberated and debated upon and passed by the members of the Sanggunian in a matter of just one session day”.


Abay said the resolution is a very essential piece of local legislation that requires a laborious and meticulous discussion and deliberation between and among the members of the Sangguniang Bayan.

Both resolutions, Abay claimed, were passed by the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Tinglayan, Kalinga on December 16, 2021.


In his letter, Abay said that the passing of the resolutions is a violation of the legislative procedure as prescribed under the Local Government Code of 1991 and that it was conducted without legal authority since he was not present during the said session.

“Under Section 445 (a) (1) of the Local Government Code of 1991, the Vice Mayor shall be the presiding officer of the Sangguniang Bayan and sign all warrants drawn on the municipal treasury for all expenditures appropriated for the operation of the Sanggunian Bayan,” he wrote.


He added that a member of the council could take his role to preside over a session of the Sanggunian provided that he is on official leave, but in said case, he said that he was not on official leave.

Abay recounted that his office notified the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of a special session originally scheduled on December 14, 2021, specifically to tackle said resolutions. Nevertheless, only four members of the council were present, with no quorum, so the agenda was scheduled for deliberation on a later date.


As for the legislative session conducted by the Sangguniang Bayan on December 16, 2021, Abay said that ‘it was illegal since there was no notice’. Regular sessions of the Sanggunian Bayan of the Municipality of Tinglayan, he added, are calendared every Tuesday.

The legislative session held on December 16, 2021, which was a Friday, he wrote, is then considered only as a special session.


The Vice Mayor quoted Section 52 of the Local Government Code of 1991 stating that in the case of special sessions of the Sanggunian, a written notice to the members shall be served personally at the member's usual place of residence at least 24 hours before the special session is held.

He added that pursuant to the Internal Rules of Procedures of the Sangguniang Bayan of Tinglayan, the presiding officer who, in this specific case, is the Municipal Vice Mayor, is the officer authorized to call for a special session.


Relative to this, the vice mayor disclosed in his letter that on December 15, 2021, without authority or instruction, whether written or otherwise, from the presiding officer, the Secretary to the Sangguniang Bayan, Jaime N. Tuguic, Sr., notified the members of the Sanggunian of a special session scheduled on December 16, 2021, which he considered as a defiance of the authority of the presiding officer who already called for a special session on December 20, 2021.

Because of this, he disclosed that he issued a memorandum to the Secretary of the Sanggunian as a consequence of his action.


“Lastly, assuming for the sake of argument that the legislative session held on December 16, 2021, was with legal authority, Resolution No. 41 Series 2021, "A Resolution Adopting the Annual Investment Plan for the Fiscal Year 2022" was not included in the notice for the above special session. Under the Local Government Code of 1991, no other matters may be considered at a special session except those stated in the notice,” he further wrote.

With said justifications, Abay said that the passage of the two resolutions is contrary to the legislative procedure, as prescribed by the Local Government Code of 1991 and that there was a clear usurpation of the authority vested in the Office of the Vice Mayor.






LISTEN TO STATION 1 RADIO: CLICK ME
OTHER NEWS

Follow Guru Press Cordillera on Facebook for more News and Information
867 views

Related Posts

See All