|
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Nalzaro: Violating the Charter
By Bobby Nalzaro
“This (motion for reconsideration) will be filed even if there's propaganda from the other side. They're all saying that they want me to give up. This is my job as a government official to report any violation of the Constitution.”
This was the reaction of Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña to statements that his move to file a motion for reconsideration on the Court of Appeals decision dismissing his petition questioning the cityhood of Talisay is just an exercise in futility.
What violation of the Constitution is the mayor talking about? Did Congress break any constitutional provision when it enacted the law creating the city of Talisay? No.
I would like to remind Osmeña that the Constitution did not set the criteria for the creation of a new city. The criteria are in the Local Government Code.
What is in the Constitution is a general provision, like Section 10, Article X (Local Government) which states: “No province, city, municipality or barangay maybe created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.”
This provision is reinforced by Section 450 of the Local Government Code that laid down the criteria for creating a new city. These are: annual income of not less than P20 million, population of not less than 150,000 and land area of 100 square kilometers.
Whom are we going to believe, a mayor who is not well versed in legal matters or the associate justices of the 18th Division of the Court of Appeals that decided the case? The justices stated that Republic Act 8979, the law creating Talisay City, “does not suffer from constitutional or statutory infirmities.”
All the issues raised by the mayor in his petition were substantially answered by the CA, including his contention that the creation of Talisay has prejudiced Cebu City's share of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA).
“There is no showing that the petitioner has sustained nor is in imminent danger of sustaining injury or damage as a consequence of RA 8979,” the decision partly read. I hope Tomas knows how to interpret this phrase.
But why zero in only on Talisay in relation to the IRA? Osmeña should also have questioned municipalities in Negros Oriental that have only recently been converted into cities. Didn’t their change in status also increase their IRA share and prejudice the share of the other cities, including Cebu?
One can only laugh at the mayor’s statement that as a government official it is his duty to report any violation of the Constitution considering that he himself is prone to violating the charter.
Didn’t he violate the Constitution, for example, when he pushed for changes in barangay boundaries and give “plum areas” to his favored barangay captains even if these areas do not really belong to their barangays?
Osmeña should read the provision I cited above before opening his mouth.
(bgnalzaro@gmanetwork.com/ 0918-2198333)
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (May 24, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
