The fate of 16 towns, cities
TALKING POINT
Maasin City (19 January) — Last time I heard, the controversial Supreme Court (SC) decision regarding the 16 new cities case had become final and executory in favor of the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP. This was on May 21, 2009.
Then suddenly, four days before Christmas, 2009, the SC reversed its own supposedly irreversible ruling. As expected, the LCP sought for an appeal, a reconsideration, a re-re-visiting of the case.
When will this stop just so the rule will finally become law, or the law will be the final rule at the absolute, deadest deadline, finished end — and so that the affected local government units can buckle down to work, let go, or move on, either as a municipality or a city… period?
***
Let me quote liberally on the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) editorial essay, Monday, January 18, 2010 issue. This well-written piece about the subject matter at hand is both instructive and informative, and enlightening.
May all those involved find understanding, comprehension, and see the light of reason by a careful reading of the said editorial, parts of which are copied in toto herein for a similar purpose.
***
“The argument against revisiting decisions already deemed final and executory is settled consensus; it is a by-now unremarkable part of the law of the land. (Justice Antonio) Carpio’s dissent offers a vigorous restating of the Court’s previous rulings.
“Well-entrenched is the rule that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, no longer subject to attack and cannot be modified directly or indirectly, and the court which rendered it, including this Court, had lost jurisdiction to modify it.
“The Court laid down this rule precisely: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business, and: (2) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is why courts exist.”
***
“And yet the Supreme Court not only revisited the case; it reversed itself. This unfortunate series of events can only erode the people’s confidence in the rule of law, and undermine the credibility of the Court.
“We can, legitimately, ask: If there is no such thing as a final and executory ruling, can there be an end to legal and judicial controversies? If the Supreme Court declines to respect its own jurisprudence, can anyone expect the ordinary citizens to respect the Court’s rulings?
“If sheer majority rule, not the hallowed principle of facts and the law, determines the decisions of the Supreme Court, can the public stop itself from treating the justices as the politicians they have become?
***
“Carpio’s dissent defined the stakes. ‘Such an unprecedented ruling would resurrect contentious political issues long ago settled… Countless other decisions of this Court would come back to haunt it…
” ‘Such a ruling would destabilize not only this Court, but also the Executive and Legislative Branches… Business transactions made pursuant to final decisions of this Court would also unravel for another round of litigation…
“‘This Court cannot afford to unleash such a catastrophe on the nation.’”
***
May the Justices seriously ponder and consider these very thought provoking, editorial (please see the entire essay on PDI’s Jan. 18, 2010 issue for a comprehensive discussion).
Our country has had real, physical disasters that inflict untold suffering on the people. This particular Court ruling, if not mitigated, is no difference.
Indeed, we cannot afford a Haiti-like quake magnitude calamity, or a 9/11 terrorist attack, in a metaphorical comparison, to damage the integrity of our judicial system.
***
LOCAL FRONT: When the 16 cities issue first cropped up in 2008, Maasin City lost no less than P 20 Million in its Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) share, money that could have been poured into basic services like school buildings and health initiatives to fight malnutrition, among others. In 2009, a sizeable fraction of this “lost” IRA share may have been put back with the May, 2009, decision of the SC. This year, 2010, budgeted appropriations may have to wait again with yet another round of legal battle…
ODDLY YOURS: In 1967, the hit movie “The Graduate” starring the young actor Dustin Hoffman tells about the story of a young man seduced by a much older Ms. Robinson, played by actress Anne Bancroft. The plot in this movie inspired the singers Simon and Garfunkel to compose “Mrs. Robinson” which became an all-time hit song. Fast forward to 2010. A woman in Ireland named Iris Robinson, 60, admitted having an extra-marital affairs with a 19-year old guy. But she’s no so-so lady: she is a lawmaker, and wife of Northern Ireland’s First Minister. The real-life affair evoked memories of the 1960’s reel-life film. And Simon and Garfunkel’s “Mrs. Robinson” shoots the charts again. Part of the lyrics of the song goes like this: “And here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson/Jesus loves you more than you will know… It’s a little secret, just the Robinsons’ affair.” (PIA-Southern Leyte)
