In my entry,"Portrait of a Warlord,Part II:Romeo Jalosjos Sr."I briefly discussed the primary motivation for creating new provinces.As I noted,the new province receives its own IRA,or Internal Revenue Allocation as well as PDAF,or Priority Development Assistance Fund,or as even the Presidents call it,"Pork Barrel Funds."The majority of Philippine Politicians having entered politics soley to enrich themselves and their families,the desire to create new ways in which to siphon off money from the Government is always close to the surface.The other side of the coin,the silver lining if you will,is that in doing this the politicians are also inadvertently spurring Economic and Social Development within their new AOR (Area of Responsibility).This is all the more so when politicians succeed in creating a new Congressional District.
One recent,ongoing attempt at creating a new province has been bandied about by the Supreme Court;the Dinagat Islands sit catacorner to the northeast shore of Mainland Mindanao,in the Leyte Gulf.A quiet,unassuming place it 1 of 4 Mindanowan provinces that have been declared Pacified and as such have been de-militarised.The other three provinces are:
1) Surigao del Norte,the province from whence Dinagat seceded
2) Misamis Oriental,another northern province,to the west of Agusan del Norte Province
3) Camiguin,another island province,this one having been created from Misamis Oriental Province
Upon Pacification the AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines) formally turns over Peace and Order Operations to the LGU,or Local Government Unit (municipal and provincial government).To date,since their much ballyhooed Pacification,both Misamis Oriental and Suriago del Norte have seen the predictable re-surgence of NPA activity.So much for last words.Though the two island provinces,Camiguin and Dinagat have remained insurgency free,the actual fact of the matter is that neither ever harboured any guerillas.When attacks took place there,as a spectuacular company sized assault did on Dinagat in 2008,it was always from elements situated on the mainland who ferried themselves over in watercraft.
Dinagat is primarily know for two things:
1) Chromite mining
2) The headquarters of a messianic religious cult and its very large and well armed paramilitary:The Philippines Benevolent Missionaries Association,or PBMA,centered in the municipality of San Jose.
Founded in the very early-1960s the cult controls virtually every aspect of a follower's life and since the vast majority of people living on Dinagat are PBMA members it is a surreal and somewhat forbidding place,though on the surface it appears to be anything but.The PBMA is led by Ruben Ecleo Jr.who holds the grandiose title,"Supreme Master"in addition to his other title,Representative of the Lone District of Dinagat in the 15th Congress.Ecleo is quite an interesting person,having murdered his wife in 2002 and chopped her into bits and pieces but that is fodder for yet another,"Portrait of a Warlord"entry.
In this entry I want to explore the recent battles over provincial lines,congressional districts,and cityhood status.
In December of 2006 by virtue of RA (Republic Act) #9355,"An Act Creating the Province of Dinagat Islands,"the Dinagat Islands seceded from Surigao del Norte Province and became a province of its own.As is ALWAYS the case opponents of the move,mostly LGU officials from Surigao del Norte whose IRAs and PDAF shares would now decrease significantly,challenged this development.Petitioning the Supreme Court the plaintiffs,3 residents of Surigao del Norte proper:
1) Rodolfo G.Navarro,lead Plaintiff
2) Victor F.Bernal
3) Rene O.Medina,
describing themselves as"Taxpayers"argued that RA #9355 was Un-constitutional,citing Article X,Section 10 of 1987 Constitution which specifies that all LGUs (Local Government Units,as in towns,cities and provinces) must adhere to RA #7160,the Local Government Code of 1991 when creating new juridicial entities.They argued that the Respondents,the Provincial Government of Dinagat,did not adhere to the Code because within the Code there is a specific pre-requisite with regard to a minimum area of any potential province.Article 9,Section 1 specifies a minimum area of 2,000 square kilometers.Dinagat however,collectively (over the entire group of islands) merely amounts to a total area of 802.12 square kilometers.They also cited the Code's requirement of contigious provincial borders.On February,10th,2010 the Supreme Court ruled on the Petition,overturning RA #9355 in a 9 to 6 vote and nullifying the creation of Dinagat Province.
Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta for the Majority agreed with the Petitioner(s) in that the 1987 Constitution mandates LGU adherance to the Local Government Code of 1991 when creating new juridicial entities (LGU units).Associate Justice Peralta also sought to negate the primary rationale offered for circumventing the pre-requisite minimum area clause,Article 9,Section 2 of the Local Government Code of 1991 which allows an exemption to the 2,000 square kilometer watermark in stating that provinces composed of one or more islands are exempt from having to meet that onus.Not so said Associate Justice Peralta.
With regards to Article 9,Section 2 Peralta opined,"(It) cannot be considered an executive construction of the criteria prescribed by the Local Government Code of 1991.It is an extraneous provision not intended by the Local Government Code and,therefore is null and void."With that Associate Justice Peralta found Dinagat lacking on minimum area.I am not a jurist so it may simply be an elementary judicial matter of which I am under-equipped to notice much less evaluate BUT for the life of me it seems as if Peralta arbitrarily decreed a statute within the Code null and void simply to support his otherwise untenable position,thus his lack of citations and/or explanations.The Constitution mandates adherance to the Code.While the Code DOES clearly state the watermark for minimum area it ALSO allows the aforementioned exemption.So,forgive me if I am oblivious here,but it appears to me that the Code hasn't been rejected at all by the proponents of Dinagat Province.In his Opinion Peralta deemed Article 9,Section 2 to NOT be an"executive construct."Are we to infer then that the exemption was inserted into the code surreptitiously?That is the clear inference I am taking away from here.
However,the preceding becomes much less earth shattering when one realises that Associate Justice Peralta ALSO cited the watermark for population.The Code specifies a minimum population of 250,000 within the proposed provincial borders as tallied by the NSO,or National Statistics Office.The 2000 Census gives a population of 106,951 for the Dinagat Islands.Unlike the issue of minimum area there is no exemption offered on this issue.
Almost immediately after the February 2010 Ruling Dinagat Governor Geraldin Ecleo Villaroman,Congressman Ecleo's sister,filed a Motion for Reconsideration.The Solicitor General followed suit and filed its own Motion for Reconsideration as well,both asking the Supreme Court to re-consider its 2010 ruling on the matter.On May 12th,2010 the Court denied both Motions on Lack of Merit and on May 18th the Ruling was deemed Final,entered into the so called,"Book of Judgements"and that SHOULD HAVE BEEN the end of it.Amazingly,and perhaps desperately,on May 26th Governor Ecleo Villaroman filed a second Motion for Reconsideration.Monkey see,monkey do,on May 28th the Solicitor General filed ITS second Motion for Reconsideration as well.Their decision to do so is quite curious because of an incredibly basic axiom of the Philippine Justice System;Rules of Court,Section 2,Rule 52 plainly states,"No second Motion for Reconsideration of a Judgement or Final Resolution by the same party shall be entertained."
Where as before the LGU officials from Surigao del Norte Province were dead set against the secession of Dinagat they now moved to the diametric opposite end of the issue and themselves filed a"Motion for Leave to Intervene and to File and to Admit Intervenors' Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 12,2010."This long winded document was asking the Court's indulgence to enter the fray as concerned stakeholders.The synchronised Local and National Elections had just taken place on May 10th,2010 and LGU officials of Surigao del Norte Province were seeking to preserve their just desserts.Where as before the provincial officials had merely been trying to get a greater share of Government funds,now they were trying to merely retain their newly elected positions.Should Dinagat remain nullified it would then be re-folded back into Surigao del Norte Province.IF THAT happened many of Surigao del Norte's LGU officials would be out of a job.
The Motion,filed by:
1) Congressman Francisco T.Matugas
2) Governor Sol T.Matugas
3) Vice Governor Arturo Carlos A.Egay
4) Provincial Councilor Simeon Vicente G.Castrence
5) Provincial Councilor Mamerto D.Galanida
6) Provincial Councilor Margarito M.Longos
7) Provincial Councilor Cesar M.Bagundol
was Denied on July 20th,2010,with the Court citing Section 2,Rule 19 of the Rules of Court which bars any Motion for Intervention after Final Judgement has been rendered.
On October 22nd,2010 Dinagat's Governor Ecleo Villaroman filed an"Urgent Omnibus Motion,"which was notated as,"to Resolve Motion for Leave of Court to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration and to Set Aside Entry of Judgement."Some may see Villaroman's Motion as an example of tenacity.Me?I simply see it as obnoxious.On October 29th the aforementioned LGU officials from Surigao del Norte Province,collectively labeled by the Court as the"Intervenors"filed yet another Motion in the case,"Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of Judgement."In his Minority Opinion on the March 29th,2011 Ruling,which I will discuss shortly,Associate Justice Brion stated that he saw the 2 closely timed Motions as evidence of connivance between Governor Ecleo Villaroman and the Intervenors.
On March 29th,2011 the Supreme Court ruled,but only in response to the Intervenors' Motion of October 29th.Noting that despite the Intervenors lacking personality (meaning direct connection to the case),that in fact the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court,Section 3,Rule 15 does allow the filing of a Second Motion for Reconsideration"in the higher interest of justice."However no mention was made of the glaring contradiction between the"Rules of the Court",vis a vis its Section 5,Rule 37 which bars a Second Motion and the aforementioned"Internal Rules of the Supreme Court"which DOES.Yet another glaring contradiction within Philippine Governance in action.In the Ruling,in a vote mirroring the original Ruling of February,2010,the Court voted 9 to 6.For the Minority Associate Justice Arturo D.Brion wrote that the Majority,authored by Associate Justice Eduardo Nachura is a travesty and an embarassment.This highly unusual example of incredible dissent within the Supreme Court only came to the surface because of Brions revulsion at the Court's latest example of"flip-flopping."It is worth pointing outthat in the original Ruling of February,2010 Associate Justice Nachura was the author of the Minority Opinion where as in this last Ruling he authored the Majority,the epitome of a"flip flop."
So...Dinagat remains a province.
No comments:
Post a Comment