Golez should sue

Opps! The date of “October 19, 1939” in paragraph 10 on my column last May 16 should read “October 19, 1938.” Sorry for the typo error.

Anyway let’s continue on this issue which is getting more devious although this matter can be discussed in an academic way.

There is no end to the debate whether the Charter Day of Bácolod will be commemorated on June 18 when the law was signed (1938) and took effect or on October 19 (1938) when the first mayor of Bácolod was inducted into office.

When people read into documents data that are not there but rely mainly on what they think, thus making the fact speculative and subjective, no agreement can be reached.

Rep. Anthony Golez insists he is right and the City government is also adamant. Me, it does not matter because historical facts, based on documents, are realities and I believe in this regardless of what others say unless they can show a more authoritative document. They are public officials who are responsible for matters of this nature.

What probably needs to be defined is the term “Charter Day”. Is it the day the law creating a city or its charter was signed and made effective by the law itself or when the executive is inducted into office?

Act 326 is specific by saying that “this Act shall be known as the Charter of the City of Bacolod” and “This act shall take effect upon its approval.”

In a news report Golez was quoted as saying “the consummation of Bacolod’s Charter Day is on October 19 because it is also the day its first mayor was appointed.”

If that were so, why didn’t Act 326 say so? Why did Act 326 say “This act takes effect upon its approval” when it should have said “This act takes effect on induction of the mayor?

Will Golez explain since he said lawyers Bing Leonardia and Cesar Distrito do not know their law to the point of embarrassment?

Is this Charter similar to a marriage that can only be considered completed when the marital act is consummated and not when the priest pronounces the couple to be man and wife? If that were so, how can they go to bed legally if they are not yet husband and wife?

Golez further asked, “How can Bacolod become a city when there is no mayor yet?” To which I ask how can there be a city mayor unless the law creating the city is already effective?

There is an official document that clears this matter a bit because one question that is relevant but nobody bothered to ask so far is, “who was mayor of Bacolod dispensing funds and issuing orders for the inauguration”?

Okay, I don’t want to create another controversy but there it is, an interesting official document but I will leave that to anybody interested.

Another question Golez might like to answer. Is a law immutable that when error is discovered it cannot be changed? Does it assume an ex cathedra character because Congress as representatives of the people cannot be wrong as Golez seems to suggest?

Is the opinion of the National Historical Commission on this issue of no value against the opinion of a congressman since he is a congressman and thus represents the people?

If the answer to the last three questions are positive then Golez and the late Cong. Romeo Guanzon that Golez cites are immutably right.

However, since Golez had raised two issues that he claims to be illegal, then it is incumbent on him to file a case in court and settle this issue. There are authorities on these matters so that the court surely will not find it difficult to decide and settle this issue.

He said that he will bring this issue before the electorate next year. This make the purely documentary and legal issue a political issue. This therefore makes the intent of Golez suspect, but that is his prerogative. He will float or sink with this issue, it seems.

He should sue Mayor Bing Leonardia for usurpation because he “repealed” a law by a mere Executive Order. Since the Sangguniang joined the mayor by passing an ordinance shifting the celebration to June 18 from October they too can be liable for this alleged violation of law.

Golez claims that the disbursement of funds for June 18 celebrations is illegal and since he declares to be guardian of “scarce” public funds, Golez should also sue the city officials for illegal disbursement.

He can go further on by filing a complaint in the Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or whatever venue against Leonardia and Distrito for ignorance of the law.

Anyway he is looking for issues. People might believe and vote for him.*

back to top