City dads ask Ombudsman to drop plaint

CEBU, Philippines - Nine Cebu City councilors sued over the deferment of the P2.8 billion supplemental budget have asked the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas to dismiss the complaint against them.

The deferment of the SB-1 deliberation was based on “justifiable grounds,” the nine councilors allied with the Bando Osmeña Pundok Kauswagan (BOPK) insisted.

In a January 18 counter-affidavit, the councilors further said that deliberation and enactment of any supplemental budget is within the “exclusive domain” of the members of the City Council being legislators.

Just recently, the Office of the Ombudsman found enough reason to proceed with the criminal and administrative investigation into the complaint filed by city taxpayers Rolando Zozobrado, Sofio Miral, and Bernardo Tamundo against the councilors.

The three claimed to have been affected when the councilors deferred the deliberation on the SB-1 which contains, among others, the P87-million allocation for garbage collection and tipping fee and P2.4 billion for the prepayment of the South Road Properties loan.

Named respondents in the complaint are councilors Margarita Osmeña, Sisinio Andales, Alvin Arcilla, Nestor Archival, Roberto Cabarrubias, Alvin Dizon, Eugenio Gabuya Jr., Mary Ann delos Santos and Nida Cabrera.

According to the councilors, the anti-graft office should dismiss the complaint since it has no jurisdiction to hear it. They described the complaint as “baseless, unfounded, malicious, and pure canard.”

“It is settled in law that the legislative branch, when it comes to enactment of laws, is supreme within its own sphere. That is the function of separation of powers, which is central and fundamental in our system of law,” they said.

They cited a jurisprudence of Calderon vs. Corale wherein the Supreme Court ruled that “deciding on what laws to pass is a legislative prerogative.”

With this, the councilors said no one can dictate them when it comes to enactment of laws.

“The law vested upon us enough power and discretion to decide when to deliberate on SB-1, with only better judgment as our tool and the public welfare as our ultimate guide,” the counter-affidavit further read.

They added that “the law discourages the enactment of a supplemental budget.”

They cited a provision under the revised Local Government Code that “changes in the annual budget are discouraged by the Code. All concerns of a local government are supposed to be taken care of financially in the annual budget.”

They also attached the minutes of the session wherein the councilors “extensively discussed and deliberated” the additional budget.  — (FREEMAN)