‘Once more, with feeling’ - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos
As soon as I have the available time, I will digest and critique the flip-flopping 2008, 2009, and 2010 decisions of the Supreme Court in re: the mysterious political-law case of the cityhood of 16 big towns in the country, wherein the SC, like an innocent teener, changed its brilliant mind at least twice, notwithstanding the final character of the 2009 decision, thus, unwittingly contributing for a while to the confused state of constitutional law in the country and to the diminished respect of the bench and the bar for the judiciary as a noble and enlightened institution.
Click the link above, which is the detailed and intelligent column of veteran writer and thinker Juan Mercado that appeared in the issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer today, where, inter alia, he stated, thus:
****
In a 7-6 decision, the Court last week whacked 16 cities back into towns. That reversed its December 2009 decision authorizing the 16 to fund city halls. But that had also overturned a November 2008 ruling which declared the 16 cityhood laws unconstitutional.
Got that? No? Hindi ka nag-iisa. Consider this judicial zig-zag one “zag” at a time. Start with the latest “zig”, as the Inquirer reported: “SC: It’s a final no to 16 new cities.”
“With two justices abstaining, the Supreme Court reversed itself anew in the controversial case of 16 cityhood laws. This time, it reinstated its 2008 decision that declared these laws unconstitutional.”
Justice Antonio Carpio is arguably the best Supreme Court chief justice we never had. The Constitution “expressly provides that no city shall be created except in accordance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code,” Carpio writes in this new decision. “Clearly, the cityhood laws contravene the letter and intent of … the Constitution.” Congress in fact “exceeded and abused its law-making power.”
Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Martin Villarama Jr. and Jose Mendoza concurred. So did mint-new Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.
The clobbered 16 are: Baybay, Leyte; Bogo, Naga and Carcar, Cebu; Catbalogan, Samar; Tandag, Surigao del Sur; Lamitan, Basilan; Borongan, Eastern Samar; Tayabas, Quezon; Tabuk, Kalinga; Bayugan, Agusan del Sur; Batac, Ilocos Norte; Mati, Davao Oriental; and Guihulngan, Negros Oriental.
The 16 opted for palusot. They badgered the 14th Congress to exempt them from a task borne by others, i.e., to generate P100 million in local income. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo winked at this cushy shortcut via exemptions by letting the 16 bills lapse into law.
The Court shredded a motion for reconsideration by the 16 towns. By a 7-5 vote, in March 2009, the Court slammed the door shut “with finality for lack of merit.” Following entry of judgment, the Court added: “No further pleadings shall be entertained.”
“We are not final because we are infallible” Justice Robert Jackson wrote of the US Supreme Court. “But [we are] infallible only because we are final.”
In the Arroyo Court, alas, “‘final’ does not mean definitive, decisive, conclusive, unchangeable or unappealable,” Sun Star noted. It can also mean “changeable, inconclusive or revocable.”
Thus, the Court made a U-turn on Dec. 21 last year. Prohibited pleadings were entertained. And what lacked merit morphed into the meritorious. Read Justice Presbitero Velasco’s reversal ponencia.
A whiff of scandal surfaced. Inquirer’s editorial, “Dear Justice,” revealed that the counsel for the 16 “cities,” Estelito Mendoza, wrote a “For-Your-Eyes-Only letter” to justices. In January 2009, Mendoza asked that the justices, who didn’t participate in deliberations, be allowed to vote anyway. “Mendoza did not deny the existence of the letters,” the Inquirer noted. “It is clear… that they tried to pull a fast one over us.”
“Unethical,” cried League of Cities vice chair Paulino Salvador Leachon. “This is completely against the law—to write the court seeking a favorable decision,” the Calapan mayor said. “We were not provided with those secret documents.”
Today, the 16 must paint over city hall signs and shed new hire. They must yank their hands out from the Internal Revenue Allotment of 121 other cities.
That “sweat-free” cash spurred the stampede to clone cities. In 1991, there were 60 cities. Many were of dubious viability. The total soared to 131 in June 2007.
Shell cities “strained the national government’s ability to finance these units,” the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank warned as early as 2000. “The small size of LGUs prevent them from generating their own revenues.”
Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. dissented—as expected. He found the decision “rather startling.”
Returning the Court to constitutional moorings is indeed startling. Now, will the Court start breaking free of the Sisyphus syndrome, “a perpetual circuit of never final litigations”?
In the realm of the dead, Sisyphus was sentenced to roll a huge stone up a steep hill, Greek mythology tells us. There was an eternal handcuff. On reaching the summit, the stone would skid to the bottom.
The Carpio ponencia may have ended that syndrome insofar as the issue is concerned. But what about equally jolting flip-flops, as in the Flight Attendants vs Philippine Airlines case, to cite just one?
The new decision on the 16 towns scuttled plans of congressmen to send 27 more towns hurtling down Exemption Highway to become cities. It reinforces the Court decision to scrub Dinagat Island as the 81st province.
After a plebiscite, Dinagat had been proclaimed and officials appointed, then Gov. Geraldine Ecleo-Villaroman argued. The island’s failure to meet criteria of land area, population and income “was irrelevant.”
This proposition is “fraught with mischief … and creates a dangerous precedent,” snapped Justice Diosdado Peralta. The Court would “not passively accept a fait accompli for an illegal province… The error should not provide the very excuse for perpetuation of such wrong… The Court should interpret and indicate what the law is and should be.”
****
see:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100831-289661/Once-more-with-feeling
