The Supreme Court (SC) was asked on Monday, Oct. 28, to stop the Taguig City local government from enforcing its ordinance that increased the number of city councilors from 16 to 24 in its two councilor districts.
In a petition, retired SC associate justice Dante O. Tinga told the High Court that the city resolution is unconstitutional. He sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO).
Tinga named the Commission on Elections (Comelec) as one of the respondents in the petition for issuing its own resolution that implements Taguig City’s resolution dated Sept. 16, 2024.
Also named respondents were the House of Representatives, the Senate. and the Taguig City Council.
It was not known immediately if the petition would be tackled in Tuesday’s, Oct. 29, full court session of the SC.
A copy of the petition was not immediately available. Tinga’s camp, however, issued a press briefer that highlights the arguments raised in the petition.
In seeking to declare the city resolution unconstitutional, the petition told the SC that “the increase of the number of city councilors or city council seats requires a law and the power to do such exclusively pertains to Congress, and there is no law delegating the power to increase the number of city councilor seats to the city council.”
It also sought to declare unconstitutional the concurrent resolution passed by both houses of Congress ratifying Taguig City’s ordinance.
It raised three grounds: “the concurrent resolution of Congress did not undergo the prescribed three readings for a measure to become law under the Constitution, it did not bear the required signature of the President, also under the Constitution, and even a joint resolution approved by both Houses of Congress that passed through three readings in the two chambers and approved by the President was declared ‘void and unconstitutional’ in so far as it purports to amend a provision of an earlier law….”
At the same time, the petition stated “the legal problem could have been avoided had the registered voters of the 10 EMBO barangays been fully enfranchised, as they should be, through an appropriate law – a law making the 10 EMBO barangays the third legislative district of Taguig City and making it also its third councilor district.”
Tinga said that “as early as June 26, 2024, he wrote Speaker Martin Romualdez to propose the creation of a new legislative district out of the 10 EMBOs, with a draft bill and introductory note enclosed.”
He said there was enough time to enact the law when he made the proposal.
However, Tinga said: “Regrettably, nothing came out of the letter. The two representatives of Taguig City reportedly declined to sign the bill.”
In April 2023, the SC affirmed its 2021 decision which declared as owned by the Taguig City government the 729-hectare Bonifacio Global City Complex and several barangays in Makati City.
In its 2021 decision, the SC ruled that based on historical, documentary, and testimonial evidence, the contested areas fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Taguig City.
Written by Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the decision declared permanent the 1994 injunction issued by the Pasig City RTC which stopped the Makati City government “from exercising jurisdiction over, making improvements on, or otherwise treating as part of its territory Parcels 3 and 4, Psu 2031, comprising Fort Bonifacio, including the so-called Inner Fort comprising of Barangays Pembo, Comembo, Cembo, South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo and Pitogo.”
The Philippine Army headquarters, Navy installation, Marines’ headquarters, Consular area, JUSMAG area, Heritage Park, Libingan ng mga Bayani, AFP Officers Village and the so-called six villages are situated in the said areas.
“Considering the historical evidence adduced, cadastral surveys submitted, and the contemporaneous acts of lawful authorities, We find that Taguig presented evidence that is more convincing and worthier of belief than those proffered by Makati,” the SC ruled.
The Makati City government filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the SC.
Thereafter, an entry of judgment was issued by the SC which declared final its 2021 decision.