Thursday, April 28, 2011

Cityhood Laws Constitutional

The Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-6 denied for lack of merit and with finality the Motion for Reconsideration of its February 15, 2011 ruling that declared constitutional several Republic Acts that converted some municipalities into cities. The Court said "we should not lose sight of the fact that the 16 cities covered by the cityhood laws not only had conversion bills pending during the 11th Congress, but have also complied with the requirements of the Local Government Code. The SC stressed that congress clearly intended that the local government units covered by the cityhood laws be exempt from the coverage of RA9009, which imposes a higher income requirement of PhP100 million for the creation of cities.
This issue has put the Court in the limelight with its repeated flip-flopping in this case. But, Justice Abad opined that such charge was unfair. He stressed that the Justices did not decide to change their minds on a mere whim. The two contending parties filed motions for reconsideration and the Justices had no options but perform their duties and vote on the same. 
No one can dispute the right of a judge, acting on a motion for reconsideration, to change his mind regarding the case. The rules are cognizant of the fact that human judges could err and that it would merely be fair and right for them to correct their perceived errors upon a motion for reconsideration.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

PD 27 v. RA 6657

Which Agrarian Law between Presidential Decree No. 27 and Republic Act No. 6657 should apply in the determination of just compensation on lands covered under PD27? 
The agrarian reform process is still incomplete when the just compensation to be paid to the landowners has yet to be settled. Land valuation process of rice and/or corn lands placed under the coverage of PD 27/EO 228, which has not been completed upon the effectivity or passage of RA6657 should be determined and the process concluded under RA6657 and not under PD 27. It would be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 more so if the DAR  failed to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. It would be highly inequitable on the part of the landowners to compute just compensation using the values at the time of the taking in 1972, and not at the time of payment, considering that the government and the farmer beneficiaries have already benefited from the land although ownership thereof has not yet been transferred in their names.