Puerto Princesa Vice Mayor Peter “Jimbo” Maristela is challenging a Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) legal opinion barring vice governors and vice mayors from taking part in deliberations, sponsoring measures, joining standing committees, and delivering privilege speeches while presiding over local councils.
Maristela said the Puerto Princesa City Council would seek clarification from the DILG secretary on Legal Opinion No. 95-2025.
He said the issue could be brought before the courts if the department upheld the restrictions.
“Sa tingin ko pinakasolusyon, susulat sa Secretary ng DILG for clarification patungkol sa bagay na ito,” he said.
The opinion could affect as many as 1,724 vice local chief executives nationwide. The figure covers 82 vice governors, 149 city vice mayors, and 1,493 municipal vice mayors, based on the number of provinces, cities, and municipalities listed by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) as of June 30, 2026.
DILG Puerto Princesa Director Dennis Beltran confirmed the existence and scope of the opinion during the regular session of the Sangguniang Panlungsod on Monday, August 10.
The opinion stated that vice governors and vice mayors may not participate in floor deliberations, introduce or sponsor ordinances and resolutions, sit as members of standing committees, or deliver privilege speeches while serving as presiding officers.
Beltran said the opinion serves as guidance for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, and Sangguniang Bayan. He said it carries persuasive influence because it is based on Supreme Court jurisprudence.
He clarified, however, that an opinion is an administrative agency’s legal advice or interpretation and cannot replace the law or prevailing Supreme Court rulings.
“Ito ay isang legal na gabay na nag-i-enjoy rin ng persuasive influence sa mga umiiral na jurisprudence. Kaya dapat po itong bigyan ng seriousness at respeto,” Beltran said.
“Legal opinion ay nananatiling legal advice or interpretation ng isang administratibong ahensya. Subalit, hindi nito kayang palitan ang sinasabi ng batas, ng existing statute at lalong-lalo na ng umiiral na jurisprudence,” he said.
Beltran cited two Supreme Court decisions dealing with the distinct status of vice governors and vice mayors as presiding officers of their respective councils.
One was the 2004 case of Zamora v. Caballero, which involved a board member serving as temporary presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Compostela Valley.
In that case, the temporary presiding officer relinquished the chair to another board member so he could cast a vote. The Supreme Court ruled that a temporary presiding officer merely steps into the position of the regular presiding officer and cannot exercise greater powers than the official he temporarily replaces.
The Court held that a presiding officer may vote only to break a tie and cannot relinquish the chair to circumvent that restriction.
Beltran said the principle also supports maintaining the neutrality of vice governors and vice mayors, who are elected at large rather than by legislative district.
“The court disfavors, by this prudential principle, the participation of the presiding officer in deliberation on the floor, in sponsorship of measures, and in participation in committees,” he said.
He added that the presiding officer’s restricted right to vote reflects the distinct nature of the position.
“Ito rin po sa Republic Act 7160, ang ating presiding officer can only take part sa pagboto when there is a tie. Ito ang prudential principle of neutrality and impartiality of the presiding officer must always be observed,” Beltran said.
Maristela disagreed that the court rulings categorically prohibited vice local chief executives from sponsoring ordinances and resolutions or delivering privilege speeches.
“Walang sinasabi doon na categorically sinasabi doon na ang vice-mayor o vice-governor ay hindi puwedeng mag-sponsor ng resolusyon at ordinansa,” he said.
Maristela maintained that the Local Government Code includes vice governors and vice mayors in the composition of their respective sanggunian.
“Naniniwala ako na may kapangyarihan ang vice-mayor at vice-governor na magpasa ng panukalang ordinansa at resolusyon at puwedeng mag-privilege speech. Yan po ay base rin sa Local Government Code na ating batas,” he said.
Section 49 of Republic Act No. 7160 identifies the vice governor, city vice mayor and municipal vice mayor as presiding officers of their corresponding legislative bodies. It also provides that a presiding officer may vote only to break a tie.
Maristela argued that preventing vice local chief executives from speaking and introducing measures would restrict their ability to represent the people who elected them.
“Papaano naman natin maitataguyod ang kanilang mga interests, ang ating mga magsasaka, mga mangingisda, maliliit na negosyante at iba pang mga kababayan natin kung hindi tayo papayagang magsalita doon at mag-privilege speech?” he said.
The issue arose in the city council the previous week after Councilor Herbert Dilig asked whether he could temporarily give up his position as presiding officer to deliver a privilege speech.
Councilor Modesto “Jonjie” Rodriguez III cited Legal Opinion No. 95-2025 in response to Dilig’s question. The council then invited Beltran to explain the opinion and its application to local presiding officers.
The council discussed its position during an executive meeting on Monday afternoon.
Maristela said the issue would also be raised before the Palawan chapter of the Vice Mayors’ League of the Philippines and during the organization’s national assembly in September.
