There was some drama in the session held by the Cebu City Sanggunian Panlungsod last week. It took place when the council considered a resolution authorizing the city mayor to negotiate the sale and disposition of some portions of the South Road Properties.
Earlier on, various reports came from the different media outlets in the city on the then proposed resolution aimed at giving authority to the mayor to make money for the city coffers out of the SRP. I use the word 'various' because the reports carried the uncommon perceptions of media outlets. One report for example, presented the fact that the measure was proposed by councilors coming from the two opposing political groups in the city, as indicated by their signatures. And it proceeded to show the need for the realizable sales to fund city projects.
Another presentation of the same news item, however, carried the view that the city councilors belonging to the group of former Congressman Tomas R. Osmeña, who signed the said measure were on the way out of BOPK. It incorporated into its report a possible political repercussion. In fact, it suggested that the approval of the resolution could start the break-up of the BOPK because such act of BOPK councilors could be taken to mean that they were going to the side of Team Rama. That perception placed the item on the radar of analysts in the session last week.
Indeed, the drama arose as soon as the proposed resolution came up. A motion to approve it was seconded by a councilor who signed it previously. It appeared that the chair did not accept the second on the ground that the legislator who registered the second was one of the original signatories as proponents. I am not aware if they have it in their house rules that a second to a motion should come only from a non-signatory to a proposed measure but, I believe that the ruling was not anchored on solid parliamentary rule such that I suggest that the city council should revisit the situation.
I have two things for our honorable city council to consider in reviewing their rule on the matter. One. The council always includes in its Agenda letters from non-city councilors like other government officials and even private individuals. These letters are listed as endorsements of certain sanggunian members. During their session, it can only be a councilor who can move for any action on the letter even if the letter itself contains a proposition. It is not the letter-writer who makes the motion. In this context, the letter-writer may be considered as a proponent of the idea but it is the councilor who moves for the council to take action on the idea.
Two. It is possible that a proposed resolution is filed by a city councilor and so the sanggunian considers him as the proponent. He does it before the deadline set by the house rules. But the proponent may, for any valid reason, be absent from the session. What will happen to the proposed resolution if indeed, when the session day comes, the proponent is absent? It is practiced by our sanggunian that, out of parliamentary courtesy, the measure is, upon motion of another member, deferred or postponed.
But there are times that the intended resolution carries with it a tinge of urgency. The city council action on it cannot be further delayed. Despite the application of parliamentary courtesy, it is important for the sanggunian not to postpone its action. In that event, the sanggunian, on motion of a member who is present in the session, can move for its approval. He is certainly not the proponent, but he is the movant.
On these two instances therefore, it can be seen that a movant of a motion is not necessarily its proponent. Last week, in the resolution authorizing the mayor to negotiate the sale of some SRP lots, the signatures showed who the proponents were, but the one councilor who moved for its approval was the movant. Anyone of the other 'proponents' could have seconded the motion.
Of course, the city council can adopt, in its house rules, whatever its members perceive as a process that can help the sanggunian achieve its legislative work efficiently and substantively. The issue presented by the situation discussed here needs to be clarified.