Writing finis to Makati-Taguig row

Last June 26, the Supreme Court’s Special Third Division denied the City of Makati’s second omnibus motion, which among others, sought the Court’s leave or approval to file and admit its second motion for reconsideration.

A second motion for reconsideration is generally prohibited under the Rules of Court, the SC said.

Basically, the City of Makati is once again asking the High Court to reconsider its Dec. 1, 2021 ruling which declared certain areas of Makati as being part of the territory of the City of Taguig.

In the same resolution, the High Tribunal also noted without action the City of Taguig’s manifestation with motion, which prayed that the City of Makati and its mayor be required to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for making certain claims in relation to the present case.

On Dec. 1, 2021, the SC’s Third Division denied the City of Makati’s petition for review on certiorari and reinstated with modification the July 8, 2011 decision of the Pasig Regional Trial Court that awarded jurisdiction to Taguig over the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, including 10 barangays, that formed part of Makati.

Then on Sept. 28, 2022, the Court denied with finality Makati’s omnibus motion seeking reconsideration of the Dec. 1, 2021 decision and to refer the case to the SC en banc.

Here, the SC emphasized that the Court en banc is not an appellate court to which decisions of resolutions of a division may be appealed. In the same resolution, it directed that no further pleadings will be entertained and that an entry of judgment be issued immediately.

There should however be no confusion on the difference between the SC decision being final and executory and the actual transfer of jurisdiction to Taguig.

In a reply to a document dated Aug. 14 signed by Makati RTC Branch 64 executive judge Gina Bibat-Palamos, SC administrator Raul Villanueva said as an initial assessment, the SC decision should be the subject of a writ of execution before the trial court of origin. And when this writ has been implemented by the Department of the Interior and Local Government, then that is the reckoning period for the transfer of jurisdiction from Makati to Taguig.

But the local government of Taguig is insisting that it does not need to obtain such a writ to exercise jurisdiction over the 10 barangays that were formerly part of Makati since the SC decision clearly provides that it is final and executory and therefore, the requirement from the SC’s Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) does not have the force of law and does not bind Taguig.

It said that the supposed initial assessment from the OCA, which is an initial assessment, is not only a non-binding opinion but more importantly beyond the OCA’s legal authority.

Makati’s refusal to hand over jurisdiction to Taguig has reminded some observers of the 1989 en banc decision of the SC that ordered Quezon province to perpetually refrain from exercising all acts of jurisdiction or political authority over the disputed territory covering nine barangays as it ordered Quezon to relinquish the same to Camarines Norte.

In 2001, the two provinces went back to the legal battle by filing two different petitions but the SC said that it was an attempt to relitigate the same issues and it was imperative for the Court to write finis to these cases. But the SC said that “every litigation must come to an end; otherwise, it would become even more intolerable than the wrong and injustice it is designed to correct.”

Meanwhile, in the Makati-Taguig row, while the SC has said it would no longer accept any pleadings, motions, letters or any type of communication regarding the case because an entry of judgment has already been made, Makati still sought to file a second MR which fortunately, the SC denied.

And now, the issue regarding the absence of a writ of execution is delaying the transfer further.

Hopefully, the SC can clarify this matter. The OCA’s letter has unfortunately muddled the issue even more.

Legislative immunity

It was French author Voltaire who first coined the phrase “with great power comes great responsibility.”

However, many would remember these words as the advice given by Uncle Ben to the young Peter Parker, aka Spider Man.

The 1987 Constitution provides that a senator or member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years’ imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while Congress is in session, and no member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof. That is legislative or parliamentary immunity.

Unfortunately, this has become a much abused privilege. When Congress defames, you cannot sue “in an age when political lies are being weaponized to increasing effect,” one writer for the New York Times pointed out.

One of the biggest, if not the largest, poultry operator in the Visayas and Mindanao is accusing a member of Congress of using this privilege for personal gain.

Just recently, Leyte Rep. Richard Gomez has filed a resolution calling for the investigation of DBSN Farms and Agriventures Corp. which operates a chicken breeder farm in Palompon, Leyte due to environmental violations, particularly for polluting a watershed with the farm’s dead chicken and chicken dung. DBSN also has a chicken dressing plant in Albuera, Leyte.

Gomez claims that a House investigation found out that the breeder farm has been burying its solid wastes in a dumpsite “illegally excavated” in Barangay San Joaquin.

The Leyte solon based his accusation on a certification by the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) which states that it has no existing records for any permit applied for or application submitted by DBSN/DBSN Breeder Farm relative to any quarry operations in San Joaquin, Palompon, Leyte.

But DBSN Farms’ lawyer Arnel Victor Valena emphasized that no violation has been committed since the company is not engaged in quarrying. Since it is not into quarrying, then there is not need for it to apply for a permit, he said.

As to the claim that DBSN’s dumpsite is inside the protected Palompon Watershed and Forest Reserve, Valena added that this is also false since there is no such dumpsite.

Palompon Mayor Ramon Onate, who owns DBSN Farm, earlier said that Gomez’s actions are politically motivated since Onate supported Gomez’s opponent, former Comelec commissioner Gregorio Larrazabal.

He also welcomed the filing of a case in court by Gomez over alleged environmental violations by the company, saying that the courts are the proper venue to hear his complaints and to decide upon them.

Onate stressed that in the courts, he and Gomez stand on even ground where the latter cannot hide under the dress of congressional immunity.

Meanwhile, Gomez has denied accusations that the investigation on DBSN is politically motivated.

For comments, e-mail at [email protected]