ended already their respective term. Being the remaining highest officer of the PCL as Treasurer, he assumed and will continue to hold the position of the President until the next election of the PCL, which will be held by September 2022. He said that there is a letter and the authority to assume issued by the PCL. He said that he took an oath with Provincial Governor Humerlito A. Dolor, as witnessed by Provincial Vice Governor Ejay L. Falcon.

With respect to the presence of Hon. Ahop R. Agate as IPMR and as Ex-Officio Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Hon. Brucal said that he just wanted to cite legal and factual backgrounds on the election of sectoral representatives to serve as Sangguniang Panlalawigan Ex-Officio Member, but clarified that he is not objecting the recognition of Hon. Agate as one of the SP Ex-Officio Members. He said that there are conflicting laws, (1) Section III, Article 10 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution ('Constitution'); (2) Section 9, Rule 10 of the Constitution; (3) Section 41 of the Local Government Code of 1991 ('LGC of 1991'); and (4) provisions of the Indigenous People's Rights Act ('IPRA') , which require interpretation. He also manifested that there is pending request by the previous Sangguniang Panlalawigan to the Department of Justice (DOJ), per Provincial Resolution No. 5276-2022, for the issuance of a legal opinion relative to the said matter. However, until this date, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is yet to receive the said legal opinion. He also said that the Provincial Board Members' League of the Philippines ('PBMLP') - MIMAROPAChapter,onJune15, 2022, likewise passed similar th resolution requesting the 19 Congress of the Philippines to initiate the conduct of urgent legislative enquiry in connection with the NCIP's designation as IPMR as sectoral representative in/or Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, under the LGC of 1991 for the purpose of reconciling or amending the said conflicting laws. He opined that under the IPRA, there is no express repeal or amendment of affected provisions of the LGC of 1991. He said that he made the said manifestation so that he will not preempt the DOJ Legal Opinion when the same is received by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

On the manifestation of Hon. Brucal, Hon. Jomarc Philip E. Dimapilis also expressed his sentiment on the election of IPMR and the designation of Hon. Agate as SP Ex-Officio Member. Regarding the request of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for legal opinion from the DOJ, he opined that Hon. Brucal might be barking at the wrong tree considering that the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) has already issued plethora of legal opinions on the matter. He opined that there is no conflict in the interpretation of laws, as the IPRA mandates that the Indigenous Peoples (IPs) shall be given mandatory representation in the local policy making bodies and other local councils. According to him, the IPRA is a special law which mandates the protection of the IPs. He said that he is saddened by the fact that due to the said enquiry by the previous Sangguniang Panlalawigan to the DOJ, the IPs have been deprived of their voice in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. He enumerated some DILG opinions pertaining to the IPMR, to wit: (1) DILG Legal Opinion No. 20, S. 2011, stating that no ordinances or any other action are not necessary; and (2) DILG Legal Opinion No. 23, S. 2011 which provides that questions of qualifications and existence of disqualification, the proper recourse shall be not to question the assumption of the IPMR but to ask the NCIP whether or not there is disqualification of the IPMR or there is a problem on the validity on the designation of the IPMR.

Likewise, the Honorable Rolando H. Ruga made a manifestation on the matter under discussion. He said that there are two laws at hand, the LGC of 1991 and the IPRA. He said that under the LGC of 1991, it is clear that concerned sectors have been given the right for representation such as the IPs. According to him, it is also given clearer provisions under the IPRA. Pertaining to the request of the previous Sangguniang Panlalawigan to the DOJ for legal opinion, he opined that the DILG, which is the implementing agency of the LGC of 1991, and the NCIP, which is the implementing agency of the IPRA, had issued already several legal opinions stating that there is already a need to give opportunity to the IPs for mandatory representation in the local policy making bodies. Thus, according to him, it is no longer necessary to wait for the legal opinion of the DOJ regarding the said issues