Supreme Court violates own rules in cityhood case

By Jesus F. Llanto, Newsbreak Posted at 12/23/2009 8:31 PM | Updated as of 12/24/2009 12:07 PM MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court violated its own rules when it reopened the 16 cityhood laws and eventually reversed itself on the contentious case. By breaking its own rules, the tribunal has also set the stage for "judicial instability," according to Mandaluyong City Mayor Benjur Abalos, president of the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) that had fought against the cityhood of unqualified localities. A member of the Court also warned his colleagues that the SC is inviting "catastrophe" since the reopening of a closed case could encourage other parties to ask for a review of jurisprudence on settled political cases. The LCP went to the Supreme Court last year to ask for the nullification of several republic acts that converted into cities 16 municipalities that failed to meet the requirements for cityhood set by the amended Local Government Code. These localities were

Baybay in Leyte Bayugan in Agusan del Sur Batac in Ilocos Norte Bogo, Naga and Carcar in Cebu Borongan in Eastern Samar Cabadbaran in Agusan del Norte Catbalogan in Samar El Salvador in Misamis Oriental Guihulngan in Negros Oriental Tandag in Surigao del Sur Lamitan in Basilan Tayabas in Quezon Tabuk in Kalinga Mati in Davao Oriental

'Final and executory' On Nov. 18, 2008, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-5, declared as unconstitutional the cityhood laws because they contain provisions that exempt the municipalities from the minimum income requirement of P100 million for them to become cities.

On May 21, 2009, the Court declared as final and executory the nullification of the said cityhood laws. The ruling was recorded in the entry of judgment, which means that the case is closed and the decision is ready for execution. On June 2, 2009, the SC, in en banc resolution finally closed the case of the cityhood laws. In a press statement issued June 10, the Court acknowledged the finality of the case. SC spokesman Midas Marquez said that the SC, in an en banc resolution, has finally closed and terminated the cases which declared the 16 cityhood laws as unconstitutional. The statement said that the High Court held that there can be no doubt of the intention of this Court to consider [these cases] finally closed and terminated. It also stressed that basic is the rule in our judicial system that litigations must be terminated at some point. This indicated that no further motions for reconsideration would be entertained by the Court. Catastrophe in the making Yet, the Court revived the 16 cityhood laws and reversed its decision. Voting 6-4, the tribunal on Monday reversed its ruling. The 35-page ruling penned by Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. declared valid the cityhood laws and set aside the "final and executory" ruling it made several months earlier. In a phone interview, Abalos implied that the SC committed an irregular act. We are saddened and shocked. That is illegal, Abalos told Newsbreak, adding that the case could be a bad precedent. All other decisions could be opened. Abalos stressed that once a ruling had been recorded in the entry of judgment, It is like the death certificate of the case. Justice Antonio Carpio, in his dissenting opinion, warned that the Court's somersault in decided cases "would wreak havoc on well-settled jurisprudence" that could unleash a "catastrophe." "Such an unprecedented ruling would resurrect contentious political issues long ago settled," Carpio said, citing as example the case of the People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action, which gathered enough signatures in 1997 that could lift the constitutional limit on a president's term. Motions for reconsideration Abalos said that the recent ruling of the high tribunal raises question on judicial stability since the decision came after the Supreme Court have already declared that the case is closed.

The LCP has been protesting the conversion of unqualified cities, saying that they eat up portions of the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA) for the existing cities. The IRA is the lifeblood of local government units. Following the May 2009 final ruling of the SC, the Department of Budget and Management issued LBM No. 61, providing for the final allocation of the IRA of the existing cities for 2009. After the first ruling nullifying the cityhood of the 16 LGUs, 2 motions for reconsideration (MR) were filed by the 16 affected LGUs, which called themselves the League of 16. On March 31, 2009, the SC, by a vote of 7-5, denied the first MR for lack of merit. The High Tribunal also said that no further pleadings should be entertained. On April 28, 2009, the Court, by a vote of 6-6, denied a second MR, again for lack of merit. The tribunal also said that no further pleadings should be entertained and that an entry of judgement shall be made in due course. A tie in the voting does not reverse a case. Define 'majority' However, in reversing itself, the Supreme Court said that the deadlocked vote on April 28, 2009, does not reflect the majority of the members. Webster defines 'majority' as 'a number greater than half of a total.' In plain language, this means 50% plus one, said Velasco, who penned the fresh decision. Velasco also said that no violation of equal protection clause has been made by the cityhood laws. While the equal protection guarantee frowns upon the creation of a privileged class without justification, inherent in equality clause is the exhortation for the Legislature to pass laws promoting equality or reducing inequalities. The enactment of the cityhood laws was in real sense an attempt on the part of the Congress to address the inequality dealt the respondent LGUs the decision reads. Ironically, Velasco, the ponente of the new ruling, voted for the nullification of 16 cities in November last year. Carpio, who wrote the dissenting opinion, said that the 6-6 tie vote did not overrule the Nov. 18, 2008, decision that voided the creation of the 16 cities. These prior majority actions of the Court en banc can only be overruled by a new majority vote, not a tie vote because a tie vote cannot over rule prior affirmative action, Carpio wrote.

The tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided, he said, adding that the November 2008 decision and March 2009 resolution much stand in view of the failure of the members of the Court en banc to muster the necessary vote for their reconsideration. (Newsbreak)