Also posted on the author’s Facebook page in this link.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1FdLU1q2vy
Give credit to Konsi Jose “Joemol” Molintas for coming out in the open and explicitly stating his position on the market redevelopment issue.
I appreciate his candor and willingness to engage.
I don’t want to misquote Joe so although I will paraphrase him for brevity, I will only use the same words that he himself used.
Joe wants to uphold consistency and respect the Council’s “decision” in 2020 when it passed a resolution adopting the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) modality for the market redevelopment. He notes that key councilors who are now voicing opposition, namely Bomogao, Yaranon, and Lawana had every opportunity to seek its reconsideration but did not.
Let me start with the obvious. Bomogao, Yaranon and Lawana are no longer key councilors now voicing opposition. They are just ordinary citizens now voicing opposition against any corporate takeover of the city market, whether in whole or in part, directly or indirectly.
In fairness, when they were still city councilors until June 30, 2025 there was no mechanism for them to do what Joe thinks they should have done, either.
Joe used the word “reconsideration” (which the three ostensively did not seek) because he premised his stance on the City Council making a “decision.”
Naturally, when you have a decision that you don’t like, yes you DO have the privilege to ask for reconsideration.
But you do NOT seek reconsideration after the voting on a RESOLUTION—which is NOT a “decision.”
A “decision” is an ORDER handed down by an adjudicator resolving a dispute, and favoring one party over an adversary.
There was no “adjudicator,” no dispute, and no disputing parties involved in the passage of that resolution.
That resolution POLLED the councilors on what they thought was the more viable modality for sourcing the money needed to redevelop the city market.
Resolution No. 399 series of 2020 was a “multiple choice” vote, not a bipolar policy question.
The scenario was not, “It has been moved and seconded that we adopt the PPP modality, all those in favor raise your hand…”
If the question was phrased that way, then you can talk of a “majority vote” being 50% plus one of the quorum. Since 14 councilors answered the roll call at the start of the session then 7+1 or EIGHT VOTES would be the majority vote.
Seven votes fall short of the majority, Joe—not that it matters, because the idea of a “majority vote” does NOT apply here.
The voting was called along the line of which of the 3 modes of pursuing market development by (1) PPP, (2) EQUITY FINANCING, or (3) STRAIGHT LOAN do the councilors personally prefer?
That means there were actually FOUR choices, abstention being the fourth.
The breakdown of the vote was 7-4-1-1.
Seven councilors (Alangsab, Bagbagen, Bomogao, Fariñas, Lawana, Orcales, Ortega) voted for PPP.
Four councilors (Allad-iw, Cayabas, Cosalan, Yaranon) voted for Equity Financing.
Councilor Weygan was the lone vote for Straight Loan.
Councilor Tabanda abstained.
Councilor Sembrano was out of the session hall when the voting took place although she participated fully during the deliberations and was part of the quorum. Technically, a non-vote, provided you were present, is an abstention.
So, really, the breakdown is 7-4-1-2.
There was NO MAJORITY because (1) the majority would be EIGHT VOTES, but more importantly (2) the concept of a “majority vote” only applies to a bipolar question but NOT to a “multiple choice” vote.
Let me put it in a way I am sure Joe would understand: the total number of votes cast for city councilor in last May’s election was 614,140.
[This figure is NOT the number of registered voters, which is only 168,000. This number is the total number of votes cast for all 12 councilors combined. – Ed.]
A “majority” of that would be 307,071 and NONE of the 12 councilors obtained that “majority vote.” Not even one. Not even close.
The Number 1 Councilor Edison Bilog who garnered 58,218 votes only got 9.4%.
Even Joemol’s own 56,196 votes is only 9.1%.
But of course, it’s silly of me to talk about a “majority vote” in a multiple-seat race, like the City Council. It’s a fallacy. That 614,140 “total votes cast” actually incorporates some individual’s vote that had been counted twelve times—because you would normally vote for 12 councilors in your ballot.
Same thing.
Now you see why applying the term “majority” to the SEVEN votes among 14 councilors faced with four choices is a FALLACY, to say nothing of the fact that seven is literally one vote short of EIGHT, which is the true majority vote anyway.
Secondly–no, Joe a Resolution is NOT considered a law in any law school in the entire Philippines.
A law has to be promulgated. The City Council rarely, if ever, publishes its RESOLUTIONS. It may do it for p-r purposes, of course.
On the other hand, it is required by law to publish ALL ordinances. Because ordinances have the coercive enforceability and binding effect of LAW. You can punish citizens for violating an ordinance, but not a resolution.
Even Congress itself routinely passes a Resolution congratulating Manny Pacquiao everytime he wins another weight division belt, expessing the profound gratitude of this nation for the honor he brought to the country, heaping upon the guy praises fit for a god.
Will you go to jail if you refuse to genuflect before a statue of His Holiness Manny Pacquiao? Of course not.
My point in this long-winded explanation is that a RESOLUTION will not estop a City Council from DISCARDING a “decision” of its own if it must remain responsive to “salus populi est suprema lex.”
The welfare of the People is the highest law.
I get what Joe means that the City Council is a perpetual institution capable of self-succession and remains the same political “person” regardless of any change in the identity of individuals comprising it.
I get that.
But that does NOT mean it can never change its mind or, worse, that it is PROHIBITED from doing so.
If even an ordinance can be REPEALED, with more reason a mere resolution can be ignored. You don’t even have to “repeal” it. At no time was it ever carved in granite.
If we follow Joemol’s philosophy that we must be consistent by never going against past persuasion, we would end up a country, and a city, where NO LAW is ever repealable.
Thank God in our 1987 Constitution and Civil Code, there can be NO UNREPEALABLE law.
I beg our city councilors, from now on PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS ARGUMENT AGAIN. There are many other points you can raise, defend and contend with.
But, “Sorry awan maaramidan tayon ta adda diay 2020 Resolution” is NOT one of them.
We’ll just start with this point first. Then we’ll go through the rest of the other points Joe raised.
You see? THIS is how you practice democratic dialogue—by ENGAGING rather than running away from the people or forcing them through a rigged “consultation” with a cattle prod.
If you CONVERSE with the people you raise the odds that you might actually HEAR what they are saying.
That’s why for making his position clear and unmistakable, I thank Joemol. Even though I can sense that he is leaning towards voting YES TO SM, I won’t give up appealing to the better angels of his nature to VOTE NO.
At least now I know we’re on opposite sides, I shall have to redouble my effort to try to win him over. I won’t give up on you, pañero.*
The post above can also be found on the author’s Facebook account in the link below.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1FdLU1q2vy