THE Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bohol has ‘killed’ the Ordinance No. 017-2023 proposed by Board Member Vierna Mae Boniel Maglasang for being redundant.
This came after BM Gloria Gementiza objected to the proposed measure and voting ensued during the session held on January 9, 2024.
Presiding Officer Vice-Gov. Dionisio Victor Balite proceeded to the voting and the result: BMs Venzencio B. Arcamo, Vierna Mae F. Boniel, Aldner R. Damalerio and Elpidio L. Bonita favored it.
“Seven (7) Members voted against the approval on second reading of Proposed Provincial Ordinance No. 017-2023, Prohibiting Any Act of Discrimination Based on Sex, Age, Gender, Disability, Race, Status, Sexual Orientation and Religious Affiliation and Penalizing the Same.”
Those who opposed the measure are: BMs Gloria B. Gementiza, Lucille Y. Lagunay, Greg Crispinito L.Jala, Nathaniel O. Binlod, Jiselle Rae A. Villamor, Romulo G. Cepedoza, and SK chair Lawrence C. Ancla.
BMs Tomas Abapo, Jr. and Tita V. Baja abstained.
Gementiza explained why she objected to the said measure.
“The said Ordinance is superfluous unnecessary as there are already existing laws both in the national and local which pertains to the discrimination such as the GAD Code, Magna Carta of Women, RA 10911 of the anti-age discrimination in Employment Act, Labor Code and such laws which are more specific as the case may be and can be found in the proposed ordinance; and The Proposed Ordinance does not provide a specific act punishable which would warrant the localization of existing laws. The Ordinance is open to various interpretations and may become unnecessary litigious in the future.”
The voting proceeded despite the appeal of Boniel-Maglasang. She stressed that the ordinance “will not only protect individuals from discrimination but also create awareness about the importance of treating every person with respect and dignity. It will provide a legal framework to address instances of discrimination and hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. By penalizing acts of discrimination, this ordinance will serve as a deterrent and help create a safer and more inclusive environment for all.”
Prior to voting, Arcamo asked Gementiza to cite a specific law providing anti-discrimination provisions. “Because I understand when I researched, there is yet no national law pertaining to discrimination, although there is a bill, but until now no law has been passed.”
BM Villamor explained her vote against the measure.
“For me, I subscribe to the opinion that first it is not timely, that it shall be passed at this stage of deliberation. Since, as we look back on the legislative process, in fact, in the committee level, I am one of those who voted for its passage and deliberation for second reading in the plenary.”
“So, previously, while we were having deliberation in the plenary, there were supervening factors that were also considered,” she said.
It was not immediately known if the rules of proceedings in the conduct of the SP plenary session allow whether the immediate refiling of the ‘killed’ proposed measure, or refile it in the next term of the SP. (ricobedencio@yahoo.com)
