Supreme Court defers voting on case of cities reverted to towns

MANILA , Philippines   – Saying that two new justices have yet to study the case of the cities reverted back to towns and two other senior jurists are on leave, the Supreme Court en banc yesterday deferred the resolution of the appeal of the 16 cities to reconsider its November 18, 2008 decision that declared their cityhood unconstitutional.

“They decided to defer the resolution of the case to give the two new Justices every opportunity to be able to study the case and decide which (way) their votes should go,” said Midas Marquez in reference to newly-appointed SC justices Mariano del Castillo and Robert Abad. They replaced SC jurists Alicia Austria-Martinez and Dante Tinga.

Marquez also said that the justices present in yesterday’s en banc also have to wait for senior justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Leonardo Quisumbing to come back after their leave to participate in the voting.

 “We’d like everyone to have the opportunity to vote in this particular case, considering that it is really big,” said Marquez.

Of the 15 justices, 13 were present in yesterday’s deliberation.

There is no definite schedule yet as to when the voting for the third motion of the 16 cities will be, added the PIO chief.

The 16 cities filed its third motion for reconsideration last June, shortly after the High Court, in a 6-6 vote, junked their earlier pleading, which asked to review its main decision promulgated last November 18.

Meanwhile, upon learning of the deferment, Naga Mayor Valdemar Chiong said this may be favorable to them considering that Santiago’s votes in the past were in their favor. He added that the delay could also give the two new justices time to study the case and if they get lucky they can get them as well. 

In the past, it had always been a tie voting. And a tie vote does not reverse the main decision, as in the case of the 16 cities.

Aside from Naga, Carcar and Bogo in Cebu, the other voided cities are Baybay, Leyte; Catbalogan, Samar; Tandag, Surigao del Sur; Borongan, Eastern Samar; Tayabas, Quezon Province; Lamitan, Basilan; Tabuk, Kalinga Apayao; Bayugan, Agusan del Sur; Batac, Ilocos Norte; Mati, Davao Oriental; Guihulngan, Negros Oriental; Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte and El Salvador, Misamis Oriental.

In a six-page extended resolution dated June 2, 2009, the High Court said “there can be no doubt of the intention of this Court to consider (these cases) finally closed and terminated. Basic is the rule in our judicial system that litigations must end and terminated at some point”.

Last November 18, 2008, the Supreme Court, in a 6-5 vote, had nullified the 16 cityhood laws saying the 16 cities did not meet the income requirement of P100 million as dictated by RA 9009 for the conversion of a town to a city. It was the League of the Cities of the Philippines, in its petition, that questioned the constitutionality of the allegedly “wholesale” conversion of these cities.

Last December these nullified cities, through their lawyer former solicitor general Estelito Mendoza, filed their first motion for reconsideration, which was denied last January 13 by the High Court, citing that there was no substantial argument being raised.

The aggrieved party again filed its second motion for reconsideration in April, but on a 6-6 vote last April 28, for lack of merit, the court again denied the said appeal.

Last May 21, the 16 cities filed a pleading asking the court to review its main decision. It was however denied in a June 10 decision of the court en banc.

Meanwhile, Marquez clarified that since the aggrieved party has a pending motion before the court, the main decision is still not final.

“May MR pa so hindi pa final…status quo siguro,” he said, adding the 16 cities are still cities until the Supreme Court makes it decision on the case final and executory.

As to the problems with the Department of Budget and Management, which is now slashing the Internal Revenue Allotment of the affected cities, Marquez advised that they “manifest their concern before the court, and let it decide on it.” – Liv G. Campo/BRP   (THE FREEMAN)