On SC's recent decision on cityhood laws Gullas: 'We're not raising the white flag yet'

CEBU, Philippines - Despite the denial of the second motion for reconsideration filed by the 16 cities to hopefully overturn the main decision of the Supreme Court that declared their city laws unconstitutional, first district Rep Eduardo R. Gullas and two affected city mayors still refuse to concede, saying they will exhaust all available legal remedies just to win the case.

Gullas, in a press conference at his office at the University of the Visayas yesterday, said “we are not raising our white flag yet,” especially that they have a lot of strong points to argue, which they will include in their pleading next week.

He cited that based on Article 8 (Judicial Department) Section 4(2) of the 1987 Constitution, the recent 6-6 vote of the SC does not constitute the “majority” of the voting members.

“All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon,” provided Article 8 Section 4(2) of the 1987 Constitution.

Gullas said that to constitute a majority of the vote, it should have been 7-6, hence, the decision is “not final.”

The veteran lawmaker said that although they will be already on their third motion, he still believes “we will have the last laugh.”

He however refuses to call it their third motion for reconsideration, and through their lawyer Estelito Mendoza, they will entitle it “something else” this time.

In its April 28 ruling, the Supreme Court en banc had voted 6-6 the second motion for reconsideration filed by the 16 cities, appealing the court’s earlier decision that found the “cityhood laws” that converted them into cities null and void as they did not meet the income requirements for them to be converted into cities.

The court, this time, rejected the second motion, saying it was a “prohibited reading,” as according to lawyer Midas Marquez, the court’s spokesman, that under the Rules of Court, the aggrieved party should have filed a motion for a “leave of court” first before lodging its second motion for reconsideration.

The second motion for reconsideration was filed last April 14.

To this, Gullas, who is a practicing lawyer, refuted that it was a prohibited pleading, saying that such reasoning is “so technical a basis to declared laws unconstitutional.”

In the latest decision, those who maintained their earlier stand, finding the cityhood laws of the 16 cities unconstitutional, were Justices Antonio Carpio, Arturo D. Brion, Conchita Carpio Morales, Dante O. Tinga , Leonardo A. Quisumbing, and Diosdado Peralta.

Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. wrote with dissenting opinion to the case, and was joined by Justices Renato C. Corona, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago. Newly appointed Justice Lucas Bersamin had also voted for the constitutionality of the cityhood of the 16 cities.

And like Gullas, both Naga City Mayor Valdemar Chiong and Carcar City Mayor Patrick Barcenas said they “will fight to the last breath” and “exhaust all available legal remedies” just so they could win their case.

The cities of Naga and Carcar, along with Bogo, are among those 16 affected cities affected to this court decision.

It was Gullas who filed the House bills converting the towns of Naga and Carcar into cities being a part of his congressional district.

Chiong said that this time, among the strong points they will include in their arguments is the fact that the six justices who voted against their appeal in November did not request Santiago, although he was on leave, but was available to vote. He added that while other justices, who were reportedly out of the country, were contacted so they could participate in the voting, which was in favor of the LCP, Santiago was not even notified.

Santiago found the 16 cityhood laws constitutional as can be gleaned in her participation in the last two voting processes.

The Supreme Court voted 6-5 in November, minus Santiago. – Liv G. Campo/WAB (THE FREEMAN)