VETO POWER OF THE PRESIDENT WHEN NO MEASURES ARE PASSED BY THE COUNCIL

[Guest Steven V. Agraviador]

The President wants to be given authority by the council to inter into and sign a loan agreement with a specific bank. The council refuses to give him the authority, stating the reasons thereto. The President countered that he will veto the refusal of the council. Can he do the veto when there is no measure passed?

[Guest Edgar]

The President countered that he will veto the refusal of the council. Can he do the veto when there is no measure passed?

No, not even when there is a measure passed.

You might ask the president where he thinks his "veto power" comes from. It's not RONR.

[Gary Novosielski]

Since he has no power to enter into a loan agreement now, the council doesn't need to do anything in order to "refuse" it, except to do nothing.

While you're correct that it would be impossible to veto a question which hasn't been passed, what's more important is that it's impossible to veto something when you have no veto power in the first place. According to RONR, presidents have no such power, and while in office must carry out the will of the assembly even if they disagree with it.

[Tim Wynn]

The President wants to be given authority by the council to inter into and sign a loan agreement with a specific bank. The council refuses to give him the authority, stating the reasons thereto. The President countered that he will veto the refusal of the council. Can he do the veto when there is no measure passed?

Do the bylaws (or a higher governing document) give the president some "veto" power? RONR certainly doesn't.

[Tim Wynn]

Since he has no power to enter into a loan agreement now, the council doesn't need to do anything in order to "refuse" it, except to do nothing.

According to RONR, presidents . . . while in office must carry out the will of the assembly even if they disagree with it.

I wouldn't go with such a broad statement, which will prove inaccurate.

[Gary Novosielski]

I wouldn't go with such a broad statement, which will prove inaccurate.

Maybe, but narrowing it to the scenario at hand, if we reverse the roles, and say that the assembly decided to take out the loan and the president felt it was unwise, wouldn't the president still be duty-bound to execute the required paperwork?

[Tim Wynn]

Maybe, but narrowing it to the scenario at hand, if we reverse the roles, and say that the assembly decided to take out the loan and the president felt it was unwise, wouldn't the president still be duty-bound to execute the required paperwork?

In the general case, as I imagine you're imagining it, yes. But, for clarity, I'll add that if the assembly's will is that he violate the bylaws, the president would be bound by duty to refuse.

[Gary Novosielski]

In the general case, as I imagine you're imagining it, yes. But, for clarity, I'll add that if the assembly's will is that he violate the bylaws, the president would be bound by duty to refuse.

One would hope that he (or the presiding officer, if someone else) would have ruled that motion out of order to begin with.

[Guest Steven V. Agraviador]

Thank you all for the comments, they help.But to further shed light to the situation, the situation comes from a provision of the charter which states -"SEC. 54. Approval of Ordinances. – (a) Every ordinance enacted by the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan shall be presented to the provincial governor or city or municipal mayor, as the case may be. If the local chief executive concerned approves the same, he shall affix his signature on each and every page thereof; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the sanggunian, which may proceed to reconsider the same. The sanggunian concerned may override the veto of the local chief executive by two-thirds (2/3) vote of all its members, thereby making the ordinance or resolution effective for all legal intents and purposes." This is the source.

[Guest Edgar]

This is the source.

But, alas, this is not the place for interpreting that source. Though I'd say that if nothing has been "enacted", there's nothing to veto.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, now that we know that this is an ordinance, and there is some superior rule about vetoing, you'll need to follow that rule. I've edited my former post to strike what would be superseded.

However, I would stand by my original statement: "Since he has no power to enter into a loan agreement now, the council doesn't need to do anything in order to "refuse" it, except to do nothing." If they don't pass something, there is nothing for him to veto, but in this instance what's more important is that there is nothing for him to sign, which is what he would need.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you everybody. Your comments have been very helpful.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Thank you everybody. Your comments have been very helpful.

Throw a starving dog a scrap, and he's yours forever.

c.t. 5