|
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Court orders Cebu coast road reopened
By Karlon N. Rama
CEBU CITY -- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) wants the Cebu South Coastal Road opened again. In a 16-page order dated Monday, RTC Judge Soliver Peras granted lawyer Alfredo Sipalay’s prayer for the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction.
Peras ordered the Cebu City Government to “remove all obstacles at the south coastal road and to cease and desist and refrain from exercising acts that would prevent all motorists from passing the south coastal road” at least from 5 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Although the court is yet to rule on the actual merits of Sipalay’s petition for injunction, Peras noted that “the funds used to build the south coastal road came from the National Government, the supervision of which (was) undertaken by...the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).”
“While it is true that the construction of the South Reclamation Project (SRP) is being undertaken by the Cebu City Government, in which the south coastal road traverses, it does not follow that the road is owned by the Cebu City Government. There is absence to any proof to that effect,” he also said.
Doomed
SRP Manager Paul Villarete, in an interview, said he would leave it to the Office of the City Attorney to file the necessary motions against the preliminary injunction, saying he was “not in the position to question the ruling of the court.”
“But my belief on the matter, which is based on a technical and engineering standpoint, remains—the coastal road should be closed to traffic,” he said.
Lawyer Gloria Lastimosa-Dalawampu, for her part, welcomed the ruling, and is optimistic that Peras will ultimately grant the issuance of a writ of injunction.
“The City Government really does not have any legal basis to stand on. Their case was doomed from the very beginning. They do not have the authority to do what they did,” she said.
The south coastal road, despite being located inside the City-owned SRP, was never a Cebu City project and therefore is not a Cebu City property, she said.
“He (Mayor Tomas Osmeña) can lay claim to the SRP. But he cannot presume to have authority over a national road. It is a national road, established for a very public purpose,” she said.
Triumph
In a press statement, Rep. Eduardo Gullas said Peras’ decision is the “triumph of the rule of law over the rule one man.”
“It validates my position that the opening of the coastal road should not depend upon the whim of a single person even if he happens to be the mayor of Cebu City,” said Gullas (Cebu, 1st district).
Sipalay, in his capacity as taxpayer and resident of Cebu City, filed the injunction suit last April 15. He named Osmeña, City Administrator Francisco Fernandez and Villarete as defendants.
Sipalay said the closure order Osmeña issued earlier that month was illegal because it violated the general welfare clause of the Constitution. It also prejudiced him as a motorist because it forces him to use the traffic-prone national highway.
In a supplemental pleading, he also said the closure stemmed from the hostility between Osmeña and Gullas, a former Talisay City mayor, over a portion of the SRP, which Talisay is laying claim to.
Sipalay wanted the court to declare the closure order invalid and, until then, to issue a preliminary mandatory injunction order allowing the public at least temporary access to the road.
His suit drew support from members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines who, citing public welfare, filed a motion for intervention through lawyer Dalawampu. They wanted to be counted as co-petitioners. Peras’ order Monday also granted that motion.
Pass
The Cebu City Government, which immediately sought the dismissal of the suit, said the closure of the road was for security purposes and to ensure that the work on a segment of the reclamation project goes unhampered.
The City Hall questioned Sipalay’s legal personality to file the suit and argued that the court cannot issue any injunctive order, preliminary or otherwise, to government infrastructure projects.
It cited Republic Act 8975 and Supreme Court Administrative Circular 11-2000, which prohibit the issuance of temporary restraining orders against government infrastructure programs.
The City also said the suit was moot because the south coastal road is, in a technical sense, open to motorists. All that is required is for people to secure a pass from the mayor’s office.
Sipalay clarified that he was not asking the court to stop the implementation of an infrastructure project, like the SRP, but the implementation of an order declaring the closure of a national road.
He also criticized the security pass scheme, saying it violates the Constitutional provision on equal protection under laws. Besides, he said, the mayor hasn’t even published guidelines on who may avail themselves of the security passes. (Sun.Star Cebu)
(October 18, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
|
|
[return to top]
[home]
|
|
Australia negotiates anti-terror accord with RP