Endless SC case? The case of the 16 cities.

"The cityhood declaration was deemed unconstitutional by the SC and was affirmed by its decision on the respondents’ MR. As a matter of fact, there was already an entry of judgment of the decision. Then a second MR was filed by the 16 new cities. This time, in a very unusual and unprecedented move, the SC reversed its decision and declared the cityhood of the 16 cities constitutional."

"The League of Cities, which sued the 16 new cities, filed a motion for reconsideration, emphasizing the role of the personal letters of the new lawyer of the 16 cities, Estelito Mendoza, who asked that the justices who were absent during the first deliberation and voting, which declared the cityhood unconstitutional, be allowed to participate and vote on the same issue. The League of Cities objected to Mendoza’s personal letters as it was not put on record and was therefore unknown to the league; thus, the league failed to refute or answer the letters’ contents."


Think Bits
What more do they want?
By Ricky Poca
Cebu Daily News First Posted 08:39:00 08/31/2010


* * *

It would be best for the Supreme Court to clear an issue that has caused confusion for many over the reversal of a previous reversal of its decision on the legality of the cityhood of 16 municipalities. When does a Supreme Court decision become final and how many motions for reconsideration (MR) can it entertain? What is the legal consequence of a motion for reconsideration on the decisions of lower courts and quasi-judicial agencies that cannot be implemented because it is believed the filing of an MR prevents or stops the implementation of the decision?

The cityhood declaration was deemed unconstitutional by the SC and was affirmed by its decision on the respondents’ MR. As a matter of fact, there was already an entry of judgment of the decision. Then a second MR was filed by the 16 new cities. This time, in a very unusual and unprecedented move, the SC reversed its decision and declared the cityhood of the 16 cities constitutional.

The League of Cities, which sued the 16 new cities, filed a motion for reconsideration, emphasizing the role of the personal letters of the new lawyer of the 16 cities, Estelito Mendoza, who asked that the justices who were absent during the first deliberation and voting, which declared the cityhood unconstitutional, be allowed to participate and vote on the same issue. The League of Cities objected to Mendoza’s personal letters as it was not put on record and was therefore unknown to the league; thus, the league failed to refute or answer the letters’ contents.

I think the Supreme Court should look into the propriety of the action taken by Estelito Mendoza in sending personal letters to SC justices, as well as its own decision to give due course to Mendoza’s request.

Lately, the SC has reversed itself again, this time declaring as unconstitutional the cityhood of the 16 cities. It reaffirmed its original decision, because the December 2009 decision on the 16 cities’ MR was arrived at with a 6-6 vote, thus not enough to reverse the original decision but merely maintain the status quo instead. Again, this is another controversy the SC should look into: why was the 6-6 vote construed to favor the 16 cities’ cause when it was already dead? For all intents and purposes, the end result of a tie vote would practically mean that the motion is defeated; thus, in this case, the second MR should have been dismissed because it failed to get a majority vote from the SC.

I am hoping that the SC will finally put to rest the issue of cityhood for the 16 municipalities. It should reaffirm and reestablish its policy of not entertaining a second MR. Rep. Eduardo Gullas of Cebu’s 1st district says the latest decision of the SC is not yet final. Whew! So when is it going to be final?

I think this issue should be resolved with finality because members of the League of Cities have been complaining about the reduction of their internal revenue allotments. The true cities should be given their due.

The issue of whether a motion for reconsideration can stay the execution of a decision of a court is equally important. I am asking this given the experience we had in the election cases of Benhur Salimbangon and Tining Martinez in the 4th district congressional race and that of Maria Luisa Loot and Augusto Mayor in Daan Bantayan town. In both cases, the courts stopped the execution of the decisions because of the MRs filed.

It is hoped that the Supreme Court, being the highest judicial authority, will put many of the confusing decisions it created to rest.

see:
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20100831-289725/What-more-do-they-want