SC: It’s a final no to 16 new cities

By Nikko Dizon Philippine Daily Inquirer VOTING 7-6 with two justices abstaining, the Supreme Court has reversed itself anew in the controversial case of 16 cityhood laws, this time reinstating its 2008 decision that declared these laws unconstitutional. In a 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the Court said that a tie-vote on the second motion for reconsideration cannot reverse the Nov. 18, 2008, decision of the high tribunal on the case. Aside from Carpio, those who voted in favor of reinstating the 2008 decision were Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Martin Villarama Jr., Jose Mendoza and Maria Lourdes Sereno. Dissenter Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., who penned the 2009 ruling that reversed the 2008 decision, wrote a dissenting opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice Renato Corona and Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad and Jose Perez. Those who took no part in the voting were Justices Antonio Nachura and Mariano del Castillo. The Nov. 18, 2008, decision declared the cityhood laws unconstitutional and denied a March 31, 2009, motion for reconsideration filed by the Commission on Elections (Comelec). Today's activists learn lessons of failed cityhood drives.(REAL ESTATE QUARTERLY TOMORROW'S EAST L.A.): An article from: Los Angeles Business Journal “These priority 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 overrule a prior affirmative action,” the high court said in its latest decision, promulgated on Aug. 24. Tedious The Supreme Court, by a split-vote of 6-6, denied a second motion for reconsideration on April 28, 2009. Subsequently, the November 2008 ruling became final and executory and recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgement on May 21, 2009. “However, shortly thereafter, it was realized that there were still pending unresolved motions. Hence, in the resolution of pending motions, the court, on Dec. 21, 2009, reversed its Nov. 18, 2008, decision,” the Supreme Court said in a press statement Friday. The majority said the denial of the second motion for reconsideration by a split vote, “inevitably rendered the [Nov. 18, 2008] decision final.” Declared as unconstitutional were the city status of Baybay in Leyte, Bogo in Cebu, Catbalogan in Samar, Tandag in Surigao del Sur, Lamitan in Basilan, Borongan in Samar, Tayabas in Quezon, Tabuk in Kalinga, Bayugan in Agusan del Sur, Batac in Ilocos Norte, Mati in Davao Oriental, Guihulngan in Negros Oriental, Cabadbaran in Agusan del Norte, El Salvador in Misamis Oriental, Carcar in Cebu and Naga in Cebu. No other interpretation In reaffirming the original decision of the Supreme Court, the justices reiterated that the Constitution “expressly provides that no city shall be created except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code.” “This provision can only be interpreted in one way,” said the latest Supreme Court decision. “Clearly, the cityhood laws contravene the letter and intent of … the Constitution,” it said. The justices also said Congress “exceeded and abused its law-making power.” In his dissenting opinion, however, Velasco said he found the decision “rather startling.” Velasco insisted that exemptions from requirements of cityhood are allowed by the Constitution. Mayors thankful Officers of the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) on Friday hailed the Supreme Court decision. “The League of Cities of the Philippines is thankful to the members of the Supreme Court who opted to observe the Constitution, judicial precedents and the law concerning conversion of municipalities into cities,” City of San Fernando Mayor Oscar Rodriguez, the LCP president, said. “The last bulwark of democracy has spoken,” said Angeles City Mayor Edgardo Pamintuan, the LCP public relations officer. With a report from Jun Malig, Inquirer Central Luzon