p. 2Res. No. 074-sb2013Sangguniang BayanBalete, Aklan
- - -
“WHEREAS, this Sanggunian stands by the common understanding that IRPs like any other
parliamentary rules are procedural and are hardly permanent in nature, however, abiding onthe hierarchy of its sources in the following order:a.
the 1987 Constitution;b.
the Local Government Code of 1991;c.
Adopted Internal Rules of Procedures of its predecessors;e.
Parliamentary Authors; andg.
Customs and Usages.
“WHEREAS, perusal of the 1987 Constituti
on yielded no specific parliamentary rulesapplicable to the Sanggunian as it only mentioned of some rules or procedures to be observedby Congress while in the Local Government Code of 1991, each sanggunian is mandated perSection 50 thereof, a portion of which, read as follows:
‘(a) On the first regular session following the election of its members
and within ninety (90) days thereafter, the Sanggunian concerned shall
update its existing
rules of procedure.’ (RA 7160, Sec.
emphasis supplied as to the statutory construction used by theframers of RA 7160
Following the rules of Statutory Construction, the word ‘adopt’ clearly shows the intent of the
framers of LGC for the saggunian to have it in a form of a resolution and could not meanotherwise. Delving further into RA 7160 would show that Section 48 up to Section 59 thereof provide for some parliamentary rules applicable to the sanggunians, which include the mannerof review on enactments by higher sanggunians, among others;
WHEREAS, judicial decisions as in Arroyo v. De Venecia (G.R. No. 127255, August 14,2007) called to mind previous case in Osmeña v. Pendatun, viz.:
"At any rate, courts have declared that 'the rules adopted bydeliberative bodies are subject to revocation, modification or waiver
at the pleasure of the body adopting them
.' And it has been said that 'Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and with their observance, the courts have no concern. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body.'
This is reechoed in Romulo v. Yñiguez (L-71908, February 4, 1986) where the Supreme Courtruled that IRPs are not laws but are simply procedural rules to be observed by the Sanggunianfor its orderly conduct of sessions and this it can even be waived, disregarded or suspended bythe deliberative body;
“WHEREAS, its has been the practice of the predecessors of the current set of members
of this Sanggunian of
the existing rules of procedures, whereby ithad not called for a public hearing to present their intricacies and communicate their dynamismbefore the public, nor subjected them to a three-reading principle and had enacted or ordainedupon and presented thereafter to the Mayor for his approval, thus to finally forward to thataugust Body for review and approval. Records will also show that IRPs have not been publishedin newspaper of either general or local circulation; thus as they aptly put in Latin,
stare decisiset non quieta movere
(follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled);