Taguig LGU scores OCA for issuing opinion on need of writ of execution to enforce SC land decision

The Taguig City government criticized the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for issuing an opinion that a writ of execution is needed to enforce the Supreme Court (SC) decision transferring 10 barangays in Makati to Taguig. 

In a decision dated Dec. 1, 2021, the SC ruled that the “Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, consisting of Parcels 3 and 4, Psu-2031, is confirmed to be part of the territory of the City of Taguig.”

Taguig Mayor Lani Cayetano at Makati Science High School (Photo from the Taguig City government)

Taguig and Makati’s territorial dispute row escalated when the Taguig City government held the Brigada Eskwela in schools in EMBO (Enlisted Men's Barrio) barangays in Makati that are subject for transfer to Taguig. 

The Makati City government insisted that a writ of execution is needed to enforce the SC decision and cited a letter by Court Administrator Raul Villanueva to Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 64 Executive Judge Gina M. Bibat-Palamos. 

Court Administrator Raul Villanueva told Bibat-Palamos, ““Meanwhile, as an initial assessment, the decision of the Supreme Court's Third Division should be the subject of a writ of execution before the trial court of origin.”

“When the said writ has been implemented by the Department of Interior and Local Government, then that is the reckoning period for the transfer of jurisdiction of cases emanating from the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, consisting of Parcels 3 and 4, Psu-2031, from Makati City to the City of Taguig,” he added. 

In response, the Taguig City government said the SC decision “is clear and unambiguous” that the 10 barangays in Makati belong to Taguig. 

“The preliminary injunction issued by the RTC of Pasig, stopping Makati from exercising jurisdiction over, making improvements on, or treating as part of its territory, Parcels 3 and 4, is made permanent,” it said. 

It said the two portions of the decision “are self-executing. The nature and tenor of the permanent injunction against Makati do not require a writ of execution for the decision to be implemented.” 

The Makati barangays that are subject for transfer to the jurisdiction of Taguig are Cembo, Comembo, Pembo, East Rembo, West Rembo, South Rembo, Pitogo, Post Proper Northside,  Post Proper Southside and Rizal. 

“It is final and executory. As a legal consequence, Makati is automatically and immediately divested of authority over the area. It does not have to do anything. Taguig, by force of the Decision, is legally obliged to immediately exercise jurisdiction over its territory. There cannot be a vacuum in the exercise of jurisdiction on the 10 barangays,” the Taguig City government said. 

It added that OCA’s statement is “a mere opinion” and “does not have the force of law and does not bind Taguig.”

According to the city government, the “initial assessment” of OCA “is not only a non-binding opinion but more importantly beyond the OCA’s legal authority. The Supreme Court has said that it does not issue advisory opinions. How can the OCA issue one?” 

“Beyond the OCA’s patent lack of authority, the ‘initial assessment’ that Taguig allegedly cannot implement the final and executory Decision of the Supreme Court without a writ of execution is contrary to law and rules,” it said. 

It said the OCA opinion “is inconsistent with and disregards the very nature and tenor of the Decision declaring with finality the status of Parcels 3 and 4 and the permanent injunction against Makati which are self-executing.” 

“It supplants the very action of the Supreme Court which merely ‘Noted,’ without more, a previous similar query from the DILG. The OCA seemingly with recklessness issued an opinion where the Supreme Court itself properly held back,” it said. 

The OCA opinion, it added, “effectively suspends the final and executory Decision of the Supreme Court. Worse, it contradicts the proper attitude and conduct approved and encouraged by the Supreme Court in Camarines Norte v. Province of Quezon and Provincial Government of the Quezon v. COMELEC.”

“The opinion thus unfortunately encourages delay and even defiance, instead of respect and immediate voluntary compliance, with  final and executory judgments of the Supreme Court. Government officers should encourage parties to voluntarily and immediately comply with final and executory decisions. A compulsory process is usually necessary only when a losing party refuses to comply. The opinion tends to unwittingly support Makati’s pattern of delaying and obstructing the implementation of the Supreme Court’s Decision,” the city government said. 

It said, “The OCA itself characterizes its pronouncement as an ‘initial assessment.’ Once the facts and legal tenets expounded above are taken into consideration, we believe that the OCA would abandon and withdraw such flawed ‘initial assessment.’”