The Supreme Court (SC) denied Caloocan City’s petition challenging the constitutionality of the Malabon City Charter, citing the failure to follow the proper procedure for resolving boundary disputes under the Local Government Code (LGC).
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division directed the Cities of Caloocan and Malabon to settle their territorial boundary dispute before their Sanggunians, in accordance with the LGC.
Caloocan filed a petition for declaratory relief, arguing that Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9019 or the Malabon City Charter unconstitutionally altered Caloocan’s boundaries without a plebiscite or the direct vote of the qualified voters of Caloocan.
Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution requires the conduct of a plebiscite in the local government units (LGUs) affected by a change in territorial boundaries.
Malabon argued that the disputed areas were never part of Caloocan and have always been under Malabon’s jurisdiction. This claim is supported by records from the Geodetic Survey Division of the Lands Management Bureau.
The RTC ruled in favor of Caloocan, declaring the Malabon City Charter invalid due to the lack of a plebiscite.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, stating that the dispute should have first been brought for settlement before the Sanggunian of both cities, as mandated by the LGC.
The SC agreed with the CA, ruling that Caloocan’s direct petition before the RTC was premature.
Section 118 of the LGC states that boundary disputes involving two or more highly urbanized cities (HUCs) shall be jointly referred to their respective Sanggunians for settlement. If no settlement is reached, the concerned Sanggunian shall try the dispute. Any party may then elevate the Sanggunian’s decision to the RTC.
Here, the same portions of land are being claimed by Caloocan and Malabon, both HUCs, as part of their respective territorial boundaries. Such boundary dispute should have first been referred to the concerned Sanggunians for settlement.
The SC also emphasized that resolving the boundary dispute involves a review of factual issues, which falls outside its jurisdiction as the SC is not a trier of facts.
It further reiterated its policy of refraining from ruling on constitutional issues if the dispute can be settled on other grounds.
The SC, ”while being the final arbiter of actual cases and controversies, does not possess the exclusive competence to read and interpret the organic law as this power and duty is shared with the other branches of government and the people themselves.”
(Press release courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)
Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.
