City of Pasig vs. COMELEC, et. al.
,
G.R. No. 125646, September 10, 1999
(314 SCRA 179)
Ponente:
Ynares-Santiago, J.
Facts:
The City of Pasig claims the area of proposed Barangay Karangalan
and Barangay Napico as part of its jurisdiction/territory while the
Municipality of Cainta claims that these proposed barangays encroached
upon areas within its own jurisdiction/territory.
The Municipality of Cainta moved to suspend or cancel the
respective plebiscites scheduled creating Barangay Karangalan and
Barangay Napico, and filed Petitions with the Commission on Elections.
The Municipality of Cainta called the attention of the COMELEC to a
pending case before the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, for settlement of boundary
dispute. The COMELEC ordered the plebiscite for the creation of Barangay
Karangalan to be held in abeyance. However the COMELEC ruled
differently with respect to the creation of Barangay Napico, saying that the
petition has become moot and academic by reason of the holding of
plebiscite on March 15, 1997.
Issue:
Whether or not the plebiscites scheduled for the creation of
Barangays Karangalan and Napico should be suspended or cancelled in
view of the pending boundary dispute between the two local governments.
Ruling:
The boundary dispute between the Municipality of Cainta and the
City of Pasig presents a prejudicial question which must first be decided
before plebiscites for the creation of the proposed barangays may be held.
In the case of Mariano, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, the Supreme
Court held that the importance of drawing, with precise strokes the
territorial boundaries of a local unit of government cannot be
overemphasized. The boundaries must be clear for they define the limits of
the territorial jurisdiction of a local government unit. It can legitimately
exercise powers of government only within the limits of its territorial
jurisdiction. Beyond these limits, its acts are ultra vires. Needless to state,
any uncertainty in the boundaries of local government units will sow costly
conflicts in the exercise of governmental powers which ultimately will
prejudice the people's welfare.
Therefore, the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay Karangalan
should be held in abeyance pending final resolution of the boundary
dispute between the City of Pasig and the Municipality of Cainta by the
Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City. In the same vein, the plebiscite held
on March 15, 1997 to ratify the creation of Barangay Napico, Pasig City,
should be annulled and set aside.
Badua vs. Cordillera Bodong Administration
G.R. No. 92649, February 14, 1991
(94 SCRA 10)
Ponente:
Griño-Aquino, J.
Facts:
Spouses Leonor and Rosa Badua, herein as petitioners, allegedly
own a farm land in Lucaga, Lumaba, Villaviciosa, Abra. In July 1989, they
were forcibly ejected from the land by virtue of a "decision" of the Cordillera
Bodong Administration in Case No. O, entitled "David Quema vs. Leonor
Badua."
The Baduas filed a petition "for Special and Extraordinary Reliefs"
alleging that the decision of the Cordillera Bodong Administration is null
and void because they were denied due process or formal hearing and the
Cordillera Bodong Administration has no judicial power nor jurisdiction over
the petitioners nor over the private respondent as neither of them are
members of the Maeng Tribe.
Respondents filed their comment alleging that the Maeng Tribe is a
cultural minority group of Tingguians inhabiting the interior mountain town
of Villaviciosa, Abra. The tribe is a part of the Cordillera Bodong
Association or Administration whose military arm is the Cordillera People's
Liberation Army. The tribal court, or council of elders, is composed of
prominent and respected residents in the locality. It decides and settles all
kinds of disputes more speedily than the regular courts, without the
intervention of lawyers.
Issue:
Whether a tribal court of the Cordillera Bodong Administration can
render a valid and executory decision in a land dispute is the legal issue
presented by this petition.
Ruling:
In Cordillera Regional Assembly Member Alexander P. Ordillo, et al.
vs. The Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 93054, December 4,
1990, the Court en banc, found that in the plebiscite that was held on
January 23, 1990 pursuant to Republic Act 6766, the creation of the
Cordillera Autonomous Region was rejected by all the provinces and city of
the Cordillera region, except Ifugao province, hence, the Cordillera
Autonomous Region did not come to be. Therefore, the indigenous or
special courts, the CBA, the CPLA do not legally exist.
Such tribal courts are not a part of the Philippine judicial system
which consists of the Supreme Court and the lower courts which have
been established by law (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution). They do not
possess judicial power. Like the pangkats or conciliation panels created by
P.D. No. 1508 in the barangays, they are advisory and conciliatory bodies
whose principal objective is to bring together the parties to a dispute and
persuade them to make peace, settle, and compromise.
An amicable settlement, compromise, and arbitration award
rendered by a pangkat, if not seasonably repudiated, has the force and
effect of a final judgment of a court (Sec. 11, P.D. 1508), but it can be
enforced only through the local city or municipal court to which the
secretary of the Lupon transmits the compromise settlement or arbitration
award upon expiration of the period to annul or repudiate it (Sec. 14, P.D.
1508). Similarly, the decisions of a tribal court based on compromise or
arbitration, as provided in P.D. 1508, may be enforced or set aside, in and
through the regular courts today.
Therefore, the decision rendered on February 18, 1989 by the
Maeng Tribal Court in Case No. 0, entitled "David Quema vs. the Leonor
Badua," is hereby annulled for lack of jurisdiction.
Binay vs. Domingo
G.R. No. 92389, September 11, 1991
(201 SCRA 508)
Ponente:
Paras, J.
Facts:
Petitioner Municipality, through its Council, approved Resolution No.
60, known as “Burial Assistance Program”. Under the said program, the
qualified beneficiaries, upon fulfillment of other requirements, would
receive the amount of five hundred pesos (P500.00) cash relief from the
Municipality of Makati. However, respondent COA disapproved Resolution
No. 60 and disallowed in audit the disbursement of finds for the
implementation thereof.
COA is of the position that (1) the resolution has no connection to
alleged public safety, general welfare, safety, etc. of the inhabitants of
Makati; (2) government funds must be disbursed for public purposes only;
and, (3) it violates the equal protection clause since it will only benefit a
few individuals.
Issue:
Whether or not Resolution No. 60, re-enacted under Resolution No.
243, of the Municipality of Makati is a valid exercise of police power under
the general welfare clause.
Ruling:
The police power is a governmental function, an inherent attribute of
sovereignty, which was born with civilized government. It is founded largely
on the maxims, "Sic utere tuo et ahenum non laedas and "Salus populi est
suprema lex. Its fundamental purpose is securing the general welfare,
comfort and convenience of the people.
Police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal
corporations. Before a municipal corporation may exercise such power,
there must be a valid delegation of such power by the legislature which is
the repository of the inherent powers of the State.
Municipal governments exercise this power under the general
welfare clause. Pursuant thereto they are clothed with authority to "enact
such ordinances and issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry
out and discharge the responsibilities conferred upon it by law, and such
as shall be necessary and proper to provide for the health, safety, comfort
and convenience, maintain peace and order, improve public morals,
promote the prosperity and general welfare of the municipality and the
inhabitants thereof, and insure the protection of property therein.
Resolution No. 60, re-enacted under Resolution No. 243, of the
Municipality of Makati is a paragon of the continuing program of our
government towards social justice. The Burial Assistance Program is a
relief of pauperism, though not complete. The loss of a member of a family
is a painful experience, and it is more painful for the poor to be financially
burdened by such death. Resolution No. 60 vivifies the very words of the
late President Ramon Magsaysay 'those who have less in life, should have
more in law." This decision, however must not be taken as a precedent, or
as an official go-signal for municipal governments to embark on a
philanthropic orgy of inordinate dole-outs for motives political or otherwise.
Thus, this petition is hereby GRANTED.
o0o
