The Baguio City Regional Trial Court (RTC) First Branch 5 has dismissed a case filed by seven members of the Baguio City Council against Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer Faustino Olowan.
The decision on August 21, Wednesday, put an end to the case filed by city councilors Benny Bomogao, Betty Lourdes Tabanda, Leandro Yangot Jr., Elmer Datuin, Mylen Victoria Yaranon, Vladimir Cayabas, and Liga ng mga Barangay President Rocky Aliping, which stemmed from the reorganization of the council’s standing committees.
The case was about a January 29, 2024 vote covering a motion to reorganize the council committees. The original vote, Olowan ruled, had failed because eight members voted for and seven voted against, which was ruled insufficient as, under the Sangguniang Panlungsod’s Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP), the majority vote is nine, which is derived by dividing the number of present council members by two plus one and rounding it off from 8.5 to nine.
Olowan would subsequently reverse his ruling a week later, citing an error after Councilor Jose Molintas stated that the motion only required a simple majority, which meant eight votes would be valid for the reorganization to take place. The council committees were subsequently reorganized on February 12.
In the case from the seven councilor complainants, they argued that Olowan’s February 5 ruling was against the city council’s IRP, and that Olowan had committed abuse of authority and displayed bias in reversing the initial ruling that would have led to no reorganization. They also sought a permanent injunction to have Olowan prevented from violating the IRP.
Olowan, meanwhile, defended himself by saying that the matter is moot and academic as the reorganization has already taken place, stating that the councilors had not exhausted other remedies before filing the suit, and asserting that the council’s IRP is a set of procedural rules that can be revoked, modified, and waived at the council’s discretion.
The RTC sided with Olowan and stated that the matter is moot and academic, and denied the request for a permanent injunction, stating that there was no evidence of any violation, and that there was merely a disagreement in the interpretation of majority vote guidelines, dismissing the charges.
