a good friend told me this afternoon that the supreme court had given its final decision reverting tandag to its old status as first class municipality.
The Supreme Court should not be pilloried for this; the subject Cityhood law is unconstitutional. Nor should it be depicted as one cold-blooded mammal for not giving a thought on the ensuing mess. It is not to be faulted if the toothpaste is out and it cannot be put back in. The Court settled on these declarations:
1. The Equal Protection Clause has been grossly disregarded. The exemption on the P100 Million requirement is unfair and discriminatory as an LGU with P20M income is raised to the same level as that with P100M. This runs counter to Section 6, Article X of the 1987 Constitution which mandates that there should be fair and just distribution of the national taxes to LGUs. (among the many issues, it is the spectre of more partakers in the IRA buffet of cities which sends shivers to the bones of Mayors Abalos, Trenas and Casurra) 2. The exemption, a modification of the existing criteria for the creation of cities, should not just be by virtue of the law of conversion but by the provisions of the Local Government Code or by a law amending the code. 3. The law which raised the income bar for cityhood was passed much ahead of the law converting Tandag into a city. It does not matter if the latter law was introduced ahead as a bill; it is the passage of a bill into a republic act which makes it a law. The application is prospective and not retroactive; hence, any municipality who later aspires to become a city must duly comply with the P100M requirement.
The decision, it must be stressed, does not foreclose a later application for cityhood by Tandag. If the contrary claims are all true, it should not be so arduous to introduce a new bill converting Tandag into a city and to cause its passage into a law.
attorney quinonez, is that you? thanks for deconstructing the citihood law for us.
i really don't know the facts behind the case. all i know is that there has been unsavory accusations hurled against the supreme court. but you're right, the highest court of the land doesn't have to take the flak because---how do you say that in law school?----res ipsa loquitor.
i'm all for citihood, but only if it doesn't subvert the obtaining factors.
Guilty as guessed, hehe.Forgot to hide in my anonimity cloak anymore. Forgot I've navigated from my account when I left my comment. Anyway, just my way of putting to record my insights on this.When I gave a lecture in SSPSC last February (hosted by the always affable Sir Cenoc),I gathered from the Brgy.Captains in attendance (from Tandag,Tago and Cortes)that most of them earnestly believe that the SC was bought. This is unfair to the institution considering that those who peddled these malicious insinuations have not come forward to refute and strike as erroneous the point by point discussion by the Court.I've watched from a close range the oral argumentations in the SC on this and,sadly,the position of the respondents crumbled by the less persuasive arguments they've assidiously relied.
The Supreme Court should not be pilloried for this; the subject Cityhood law is unconstitutional. Nor should it be depicted as one cold-blooded mammal for not giving a thought on the ensuing mess. It is not to be faulted if the toothpaste is out and it cannot be put back in. The Court settled on these declarations:
ReplyDelete1. The Equal Protection Clause has been grossly disregarded. The exemption on the P100 Million requirement is unfair and discriminatory as an LGU with P20M income is raised to the same level as that with P100M. This runs counter to Section 6, Article X of the 1987 Constitution which mandates that there should be fair and just distribution of the national taxes to LGUs. (among the many issues, it is the spectre of more partakers in the IRA buffet of cities which sends shivers to the bones of Mayors Abalos, Trenas and Casurra)
2. The exemption, a modification of the existing criteria for the creation of cities, should not just be by virtue of the law of conversion but by the provisions of the Local Government Code or by a law amending the code.
3. The law which raised the income bar for cityhood was passed much ahead of the law converting Tandag into a city. It does not matter if the latter law was introduced ahead as a bill; it is the passage of a bill into a republic act which makes it a law. The application is prospective and not retroactive; hence, any municipality who later aspires to become a city must duly comply with the P100M requirement.
The decision, it must be stressed, does not foreclose a later application for cityhood by Tandag. If the contrary claims are all true, it should not be so arduous to introduce a new bill converting Tandag into a city and to cause its passage into a law.
attorney quinonez, is that you? thanks for deconstructing the citihood law for us.
ReplyDeletei really don't know the facts behind the case. all i know is that there has been unsavory accusations hurled against the supreme court. but you're right, the highest court of the land doesn't have to take the flak because---how do you say that in law school?----res ipsa loquitor.
i'm all for citihood, but only if it doesn't subvert the obtaining factors.
thanks for leaving a comment.
Guilty as guessed, hehe.Forgot to hide in my anonimity cloak anymore. Forgot I've navigated from my account when I left my comment. Anyway, just my way of putting to record my insights on this.When I gave a lecture in SSPSC last February (hosted by the always affable Sir Cenoc),I gathered from the Brgy.Captains in attendance (from Tandag,Tago and Cortes)that most of them earnestly believe that the SC was bought. This is unfair to the institution considering that those who peddled these malicious insinuations have not come forward to refute and strike as erroneous the point by point discussion by the Court.I've watched from a close range the oral argumentations in the SC on this and,sadly,the position of the respondents crumbled by the less persuasive arguments they've assidiously relied.
ReplyDeletehi, atty jaybee.
ReplyDeleteyup, i heard about it too. 25M per? ^_^ but i agree with you, tandag's arguments just simply didn't wash.
interestingly, the score was kept at 6-5, or so my friend told me, with the same justices inhibiting themselves.