G.R. No. 33885 - Ortiz vs. Posadas, Jr.

The controversy concerns Ordinance No. 25 of the municipality of Tabaco, Albay, which pertained to cockpits.
The municipal council, composed of thirteen members, conducted a vote on the ordinance.
The vote results recorded were seven votes in favor, six against, with three members absent.

One judge of first instance declared the ordinance valid, while another judge, in a similar case involving an ordinance enacted under analogous circumstances, ruled it invalid.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for resolution on the matter regarding the validity of the ordinance.

The keeping of a journal of municipal proceedings, which records the yeas and nays upon the passage of ordinances, propositions to create any liability against the municipality, and any other proposition requested by a member.
That the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the municipal council is necessary for the passage of any ordinance or proposition creating indebtedness.
That other measures may be passed by the majority vote of the members present at a duly called meeting, unless otherwise provided.

The decision highlights that “creating indebtedness” concerns propositions and not ordinances, and clarifies that all ordinances require the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire council.

Although the Spanish text of the statute may be ambiguous, the ruling relied on the clear English text.
The court interpreted that the legislative intent was to ensure that ordinances or propositions creating indebtedness could not be approved by a mere minority of members present, thereby enforcing a strict majority requirement.
The case also referenced corroborative authority, notably McLean v. City of East St. Louis, as a supporting argument in addressing similar statutory provisions in another jurisdiction.

Whether Ordinance No. 25, passed by a vote where a majority of all municipal council members was not obtained due to the absence of some members, is valid.
The issue of whether the passage of an ordinance (regardless of whether it creates indebtedness) requires the affirmative vote of a majority of all members, as mandated by Section 2224 of the Administrative Code.

The precise meaning and application of the terms “ordinance” and “proposition creating indebtedness” within the context of the statutory provision.
Whether legislative intent supports a different application or interpretation where only ordinances creating indebtedness require such majority, leaving other ordinances subject to a mere majority of members present.

Whether the requirements stated in Section 2224 fully reflect the legislative intention to prevent the approval of ordinances by a minority vote, particularly in hastily called meetings.
The extent to which similar cases and statutory interpretations (like McLean v. City of East St. Louis and Hibbard & Co. vs. City of Chicago) inform the present case's decision.