TABUK CITY, Kalinga – The decision is a good precedent. Thus was the comment of a top official of this city on the decision of the Supreme Court reversing itself on the petition filed by the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) against 16 new cities. This is contrary to the published comment of the LCP president and Mandaluyong city mayor Benhur Abalos that the recent decision was a bad precedent.
Vice Mayor Rainier Sarol, a practicing lawyer, said that “the decision is a very good precedent as it in fact clarified the issue on the constitutionality of the cityhood laws.”
“It is now made clear by the recent ruling that in passing upon the issue of constitutionality of a law, the concurrence of the majority of those who took part in the deliberation of a case is required,” Sarol explained.
Sarol is referring to the 6-6 vote on the second motion for reconsideration of the 16 new cities which eventually paved the way for the issuance of an entry of judgment on the case on May 21, 2009.
“It has always been the position of the 16 cities that the 6-6 vote on the motion for reconsideration requires further deliberation on the constitutionality of the laws. This is in accordance with the provision of the Constitution requiring the concurrence of majority of members who took part in the deliberation of a case involving the constitutionality of a law just like in this case,” Sarol said.
In its latest ruling on the case, the SC vindicated the position of the 16 cities when it said that the 6-6 vote then did not comply with Section 4 (2), Article VIII of the Constitution which requires that constitutional questions should be heard by the full court and decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations of the case.
Regarding the allegation of Abalos that a second motion for reconsideration is “deemed illegal,” Sarol said that a second motion for reconsideration is only prohibited if it is not entertained by the tribunal “and in this particular case, the Supreme Court found merit in our second motion for reconsideration.”
“The court has the sole discretion whether or not to entertain the pleading,” Sarol said.
As for the comment of Abalos that the recent SC decision is sending the signal that an entry of judgment can now be opened, Sarol countered that it has always been the position of the 16 new cities that the decision of the court has not become final and executory due to the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration by the respondents.
Sarol also said that Abalos was way out of line when he asked where now will his city get the money to increase the salaries of its employees in compliance with the Standardization Law and also to fund its projects.
“The possibility that the capability of the LCP to pay the salary increases of their employees and to undertake projects will be affected by the recent decision of the Supreme Court is a non-issue because what is involved here is the constitutionality of the cityhood laws,” Sarol said even as he called on the LCP to now respect the decision of the tribunal that the cityhood laws of the 16 municipalities are constitutional. **By Estanislao Albano Jr., ZZW
Vice Mayor Rainier Sarol, a practicing lawyer, said that “the decision is a very good precedent as it in fact clarified the issue on the constitutionality of the cityhood laws.”
“It is now made clear by the recent ruling that in passing upon the issue of constitutionality of a law, the concurrence of the majority of those who took part in the deliberation of a case is required,” Sarol explained.
Sarol is referring to the 6-6 vote on the second motion for reconsideration of the 16 new cities which eventually paved the way for the issuance of an entry of judgment on the case on May 21, 2009.
“It has always been the position of the 16 cities that the 6-6 vote on the motion for reconsideration requires further deliberation on the constitutionality of the laws. This is in accordance with the provision of the Constitution requiring the concurrence of majority of members who took part in the deliberation of a case involving the constitutionality of a law just like in this case,” Sarol said.
In its latest ruling on the case, the SC vindicated the position of the 16 cities when it said that the 6-6 vote then did not comply with Section 4 (2), Article VIII of the Constitution which requires that constitutional questions should be heard by the full court and decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations of the case.
Regarding the allegation of Abalos that a second motion for reconsideration is “deemed illegal,” Sarol said that a second motion for reconsideration is only prohibited if it is not entertained by the tribunal “and in this particular case, the Supreme Court found merit in our second motion for reconsideration.”
“The court has the sole discretion whether or not to entertain the pleading,” Sarol said.
As for the comment of Abalos that the recent SC decision is sending the signal that an entry of judgment can now be opened, Sarol countered that it has always been the position of the 16 new cities that the decision of the court has not become final and executory due to the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration by the respondents.
Sarol also said that Abalos was way out of line when he asked where now will his city get the money to increase the salaries of its employees in compliance with the Standardization Law and also to fund its projects.
“The possibility that the capability of the LCP to pay the salary increases of their employees and to undertake projects will be affected by the recent decision of the Supreme Court is a non-issue because what is involved here is the constitutionality of the cityhood laws,” Sarol said even as he called on the LCP to now respect the decision of the tribunal that the cityhood laws of the 16 municipalities are constitutional. **By Estanislao Albano Jr., ZZW
