Finding the proposed Solo Parents ordinance as discriminatory, Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama vetoed the proposal authored by Councilor Gerardo Carillo.
Rama’s three-page veto letter said that a provision of the ordinance which requires those who will avail of the P5,000 assistance proposed in the ordinance to have voted in three consecutive elections “renders the entire ordinance discriminatory, violative of the equal protection clause or ultra vires in nature.”
This was contrary to Republic Act 8972 or the Solo Parents Welfare Act of 2000 which simply extends government services to solo parents regardless of whether or not they exercised their right to suffrage.
Such a condition has made Carillo’s ordinance “more political than welfare in character,” said Rama’s veto letter which was received by the city council secretariat on June 9.
The mayor also stated that the ordinance is violative of the equal protection clause as it tends to favor a certain group of individuals – referring to active voters from non- active voters, before the subject ordinance applies.
He also referred to the ordinance as an “impractical local legislation” which, according to some sectors of society, will only encourage pre-marital sex among the youth, promiscuity and may even destroy the foundation of families.
Not just cash
Providing mere cash assistance, he said, is not also enough to address the needs of solo parents that will be best addressed if the government adopts the Comprehensive Program for Services mentioned in the national law like giving them skills training, counseling, flexible work schedules, additional paternity leave, scholarship, housing and medical subsidies.
“”The enumerated benefits, not necessarily the cash assistance, provide long-term, practicable, and well-meaning solutions to the pressing needs of solo parents,” Rama’s veto letter said. But Carillo said it seems that Rama has not read the entirety of his authored ordinance.
A copy of Rama’s veto letter was among the items included in yesterday morning’s council session.
Carillo also questioned the validity of the mayor’s veto letter saying that this could only be issued within a period of 10 days after he was furnished with a copy of an approved ordinance as provided for in the Local Government Code.
He said that 26 days has lapsed before Rama issued his veto letter. Still, Carillo moved for the referral of Rama’s veto letter to the council’s laws committee for review.
Vice Mayor Edgar Labella relinquished his post as presiding officer to majority floor leader Margot Osmeña to join in the discussion.
Labella said the issue pending before the council is of legal concern. He told the council that Rama was already on a foreign trip and designated him as acting mayor when the Office of the Mayor was given a copy of the solo parents ordinance on May 14. The ordinance was approved on May 8.
He did not sign the ordinance in his capacity as acting mayor because he was also presiding officer of the City Council when the ordinance was passed.
“For ethical and proper norm, I can’t be signing as acting mayor and presiding officer at the same time,” Labella said.
Labella said he even wrote City Secretary, Cynthia Kahulugan, to take back all approved legislation that needed the mayor’s signature and wait for Rama’s return before copies of such should be sent to his office.
Carillo cited a legal maxim which mentions that “when the law is clear, it does not leave room for interpretation.”
The 10-day period provided for in the Local Government Code cannot be extended. If the mayor is not around, the rule of succession should have been allowed to operate.
Councilor Alvin Arcilla moved that while the council seek the opinion of the laws committee on the validity of Rama’s veto letter, they should also refer the same to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) for comment.
Councilor Sisinio Andales, chairman of the laws committee, asked for a copy of Labella’s letter addressed to Kahulugan.
He also ordered that another copy be sent to DILG.
Related Stories:
Rama cautious on solo parents ordinance
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
