Urdaneta Mayor Courts Suit In Case He Appoints 7 Dads

 By Mortz C. Ortigoza, MPA

DO the five remaining lawmakers of Urdaneta City and the newly installed mayor Blesildo "Doc Bles" Sumera considered the various legal scenarios I cited below why until now they still don’t have the five recommended solons for the Sangguniang Panlungsod for the mayor to appoint as mandated by the city’s 1998 Charter.

After former Mayor Julio “Rammy” Parayno III, Vice Mayor Jimmy Parayno, and Councilors Franco Paolo Del Prado Sr., Warren Andrada, Aurelio Agsalud, Franklin Villanueva, Jhan Hero Sumera and Alfonso Del Prado received on October 15, 2026 the order from the Ombudsman of their dismissal from the government service, perpetual disqualification from public office, and forfeiture of retirement benefits for Grave Misconduct (for the two Paraynos) and Gross Neglect of Duty (for the councilors) , I wrote on my blog:

“Here Section 45 (c) of the Local Government Code on Permanent Vacancies in the Sanggunian:
" In case or permanent vacancy is caused by a sanggunian member who does not belong to any political party, the LOCAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE  (Pangasinan Governor for a component city) (emphasis by the writer) shall, upon recommendation of the sanggunian concerned, appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy”.

Sumera and Vice Mayor Rio Esteves -- who were former councilors - are part of the deficit in the number of lawmakers in the august chamber.

The 1998 Charter of Urdaneta City “(Republic Act No. 8480, February 10, 1998) An Act Converting the Municipality of Urdaneta in the Province of Pangasinan Into a Component City to be Known as the City of Urdaneta” mandated on Paragraph (3) Section 23:

“In case the permanent vacancy is caused by a sanggunian member who does not belong to any political party, the CITY MAYOR (emphasis by the writer) shall, upon recommendation of the sangguniang panlungsod, appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy”.

The misplaced words “city mayor” done by Congress at that section was a synonym of “local chief executive” provided in paragraph C Section 45 of the 1991 Local Government Code (LGC).

At first blush, one can say that the 1998 Charter is superior than the 1991 general law LGC as based on the following legal maxims below:

“Special Law Over General Law (Lex Specialis Derogat Legi Generali)”

“Later Law Over Prior Law (Lex Posterior Derogat Legi Priori)”

EXEMPTION

But there is an exemption when the prior law becomes superior to the latter law: The constitutional mandate.

According to Section 1 Article X (Local Government) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution: “The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide… for the qualifications, election, APPOINTMENT (emphasis by the writer) and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials,…”

There is also a 1996 jurisprudence of Fariñas v. Barba (G.R. No. 116763, April 19, 1996) that cited: “(T)he CITY MAYOR (emphasis by the writer) shall, upon recommendation of the sangguniang panlungsod, appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy” was a misnomer or illegal.

HIGHEST COURT

The Supreme Court explained:

 “But who is the "local chief executive" referred? And which is the "sanggunian concerned"? With respect to the first ("local chief executive"), petitioners look to Section 45(a) for the answer and say that it is the governor, with respect to vacancies in the Sangguniang Panlungsod of component cities and Sangguniang Bayan, or the mayor with respect to vacancies in the sangguniang Barangay.

Section 63. Preventive Suspension - (a) Preventive suspension may be imposed:

(1) By the President, if the respondent is an elective official of a province, a highly urbanized or an independent component city;

(2) By the governor, if the respondent is an elective official of a component city or municipality; or

(3) By the mayor, if the respondent is an elective official of the barangay. . .

To be sure the President of the Philippines cannot be referred to as "local chief executive" in Section 45(c) but it is apparent that the phrase is a misnomer and that the choice of this phrase was simply dictated by the need to avoid, for stylistic reasons, interminably repeating the officials on whom the power to appoint is conferred. Perhaps "authorities concerned" would have been a more accurate generic phrase to use”.

THE POSER

After the Supreme Court resolved the dilemma brought by the misnomer and stating it that the local executive being mentioned in paragraph C Section 45 is indeed the governor, will Mayor Sumera follow the 1991 LGC instead of the 1998 City Charter?

Failure to heed the LGC means the newly minted mayor courts a tax payer suit by facing a Petition for Quo Warranto and Prohibition at the Regional Trial Court of the city.