Makati versus Taguig
The decision of the Supreme Court in Makati v. Taguig (Third Division, Dec. 1, 2021, penned by J Ricardo R. Rosario, with the concurrence of JJs Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Division chairperson, Rosmari D. Carandang, Rodil V. Zalameda, and Jose Midas P. Marquez) and its subsequent resolutions denying Makati’s motions, spawned high-profile controversies, especially among the officials of the two contending cities.
TO UNDERSTAND THE DECISION, LET US BEGIN WITH THE FACTS. On July 8, 2011, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig (Branch 153 presided by Judge Briccio C. Ygaña) held that “Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation consisting of Parcels 3 and 4, Psu-2031, is confirmed part of the territory of the plaintiff City of Taguig.” The RTC also made permanent its earlier preliminary injunction prohibiting Makati “from exercising jurisdiction over, making permanent improvements on, or otherwise treating as part of its territory, Parcels 3 and 4, Psu-2031 comprising Fort Bonifacio.”
On the disputed parcels are 10 barangays named Pembo, Comembo, Cembo, South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo, Pitogo, Rizal, Post Proper Northside, and Post Proper Southside, which are generally known as political bailiwicks of the family of former vice president Jejomar Binay.
Also located in the area are several public schools, the Ospital ng Makati, the elite Makati Science High School, the Fort Bonifacio High School, the Makati City Jail, several police stations, and fire stations, all of which were built, funded, and/or maintained by Makati.
After several dizzying skirmishes in several RTC branches and appeals therefrom to several divisions of the Court of Appeals (CA), the CA “Special Former Sixth (6th) Division” finally issued two resolutions, dated March 8, 2017, and Oct. 3, 2017, dismissing Makati’s appeal from the decision of the RTC of Pasig. From the CA, Makati elevated its defeat to the Supreme Court which, sadly for Makati, affirmed the lower courts’ holdings.
WHILE THE SUPREME COURT RULED that the parcels in question were “part of the territory of the City of Taguig,” and that Makati was permanently enjoined “from exercising jurisdiction over, making improvements on, or otherwise treating [them] as part of its territory,” it did not say that the parcels were “owned” by Makati or by Taguig.
The Court merely held that Taguig could exercise jurisdiction over the contested area, meaning that it shall exercise governance powers and functions delegated to it by the Constitution and the law, including the power to impose taxes (especially real estate taxes), to issue (or not to issue) business permits and licenses, and to receive a share in the revenues collected by the national government.
The functions and responsibilities of the national government were not affected, much less diminished, by the Court’s ruling. Hence, the Department of Education—either directly or indirectly through its regional offices—still exercises the same functions and responsibilities over all the schools therein.
Consequently, I agree with Vice President and concurrent Secretary of Education Sara Duterte in continuing to exercise her supervisory powers over the schools in the disputed area, and with Interior Secretary Benhur Abalos in directing the national police forces to continue safeguarding peace and order therein. The same rule applies to Health Secretary Teodoro Herbosa in promoting the health and well-being of the populace whether they live in Makati or in Taguig.
PROPRIETARY RIGHTS ARE ALSO NOT AFFECTED by a change of political boundaries. Titles to real estate and other property are not altered, erased, or diminished by a change in local governance. Thus, if Makati has Torrens Certificate of Titles over the land on which the schools, hospitals, police stations, etc. it claims to own, and the facilities it funded thereon, then its absolute ownership subsists together with the rights of ownership flowing therefrom, as asserted by Makati Mayor Abby Binay.
So, too, the political rights of the Filipino citizens residing in these parcels are not affected. Their rights to vote and to be voted for are not reduced or enhanced. The Commission on Elections (Comelec) could stop the confusion by issuing rules and regulations decreeing that voters already registered need not register again for the barangay elections on Oct. 30. And candidates who have filed their certificates of candidacies need not submit new ones with the caveat that, if elected, they would no longer serve any barangay of Makati but only of Taguig. The Comelec may use the same precincts and polling places already prepared for these areas prior to the finality of the Court’s decision.
I do not pretend to have absolute power or knowledge, only humble suggestions on how to end, or at least minimize, the unnecessary controversies spawned by the Court’s decision. With patience, reason, and logic, the controversies need not deteriorate into confrontation and further confusion. Finally, I plead for the virtue of humility from the victors and for the grace of acceptance from the vanquished in this and in any other litigation.
Comments to [email protected]
