|
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Tomas bid v. Talisay ‘violates law, grammar’
By Karlon N. Rama
Sun.Star Staff Reporter
“Let sleeping dogs lie” hardly qualifies as legal maxim. But then, “stirring up a hornet’s nest” doesn’t meet the criteria of jurisprudence either.
So in ruling to uphold the presumption that Congress knew what it was doing, when it transformed the town of Talisay into the component city that it is now, did the Court of Appeals (CA) “ignore” a piece of “evidence?”
Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña, addressing a press conference, clearly believes so and is expected to file a motion within the week, asking the CA to reconsider its ruling.
He reiterated how a National Statistics Office census in May 2000 placed Talisay’s population at 148,110, falling short of the requirement of 150,000.
But the CA, in its 17-page decision to dismiss Osmeña’s original petition against the Talisay City charter, did rule on the evidence.
And, in the ruling, the appellate court said it does not “overturn the presumption that Congress duly took note, deliberated upon, studied and considered all evidence germane to the population of Talisay City.”
Intent
“We must look again at the legislative intent, which is that for as long as the required income is satisfied, the local government unit is not obligated strictly with both minimum population and land area conditionalities,” it ruled.
“Here, the economic standing of Talisay City has never been put in issue because years before it became a component city, it has consistently raised its revenues as a first-class municipality in the Province of Cebu, as proven by records before us,” it added.
But the Cebu City mayor can still try his luck and bring to the Supreme Court his petition to nullify Talisay’s conversion to a city.
With the issue of population being put to rest, unless the High Tribunal rules otherwise, Osmeña’s second argument against the validity of Talisay’s cityhood—the lack of the requisite land area—crumbles in the face of an indefinite pronoun.
Unless, according to a law professor, a provision in one section of the Local Government Code is changed, Talisay doesn’t have to have that much land area for it to remain a city.
It was the indefinite pronoun “either” that created problems for Osmeña’s petition before the Court of Appeals.
‘Either’
Section 10, Article 10 of the Constitution states that no province, city or municipality may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered “except in accordance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code.”
Section 450 of Chapter I, Title III and Book III of the Local Government Code, meanwhile, states that a municipality may be converted into a component city if it posts an average annual income of at least P20 million for two consecutive years and if it has “either” one of two other requisites.
The two requisites: either 100 square kilometers of land area or a population of not less than 150,000.
Talisay, according to the CA ruling, complied with the requirement for an annual income of P20 million, minimum.
And, with the issue of the census upheld, it is deemed to have complied with the population requirement.
“Section 450 of the Local Government Code expressly uses the word `either’ and not `and’, which clearly signifies that either of the requirements of land area or population should be complied with by the local government unit concerned. Stated differently, both the land area and population need not be concurrently complied with. It is enough that one of these two conditions are met,” the ruling read.
Viability
Besides, according to the ruling, the legislative intent of the law is merely to insure that a potential new city is “viable.”
“The primary consideration in requiring compliance with the said minimum requirement is to ensure that the local government unit concerned can adequately provide basic services and facilities to its constituents,” the ruling read.
“Thus, a liberal interpretation regarding the verifiable indicators would be more in keeping with the manifest intent of the law,” it added.
Petition
Osmeña, in his petition, earlier asked for the nullification of Republic Act 8979, the Talisay City Charter.
He said the creation of the city failed to comply with “constitutional and statutory requirements” and that it has resulted in a reduction of the Cebu City Government’s Internal Revenue Allotment from the National Government.
This third argument was also declared baseless.
“Any decrease or increase in the IRA of any local government unit is not a right that may be legally demanded by the City of Cebu or any other city, for that matter,” the CA declared.
Talisay City’s claim over some 54 hectares of Cebu City’s South Reclamation Project has soured relations between the neighboring cities.
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (May 25, 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
|
