Mayor Uy voted LCP Region 8 Representative

Mayor Reynaldo Uy with some LCP officers. (Photo by Caezar Ryan Aquino)

City chief executives voted Mayor Reynaldo Uy as representative of Region 8 in the recent 9^th National Election and 56^th General Assembly of the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP). Both events were held at the Century Park Hotel on July 17, 2010.

Mayor Oscar Rodriguez of San Fernando, Pampanga, Mayor Enrico Echiverri of Caloocan, and Mayor Hernani Braganza of Alaminos,Pangasinan were voted President, Chairperson, and Secretary General, respectively.

As a regional representative, Mayor Uy will sit as an officer in the LCP National Executive Board (NEB) until 2013. The NEB sets the policy direction of the 122-strong organization of cities in the country.

Former LCP Secretary General and now Congressman Mel Senen Sarmiento served as the chairperson of the LCP election. (Ceazar Ryan Aquino)

CHAIRPERSON	Mayor Enrico Echiverrri
VICE-CHAIRMAN	Mayor Paulino Salvador Leachon
PRESIDENT	Mayor Oscar Rodriguez
EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT	Mayor Evelio Leonardia
SECRETARY-GENERAL	Mayor Hernani Braganza
Deputy SG for NCR	Mayor Del De Guzman
Deputy SG for Luzon	Mayor Benjamin Dy
Deputy SG for Visayas	Mayor Jed Patrick Mabilog
Deputy SG for Mindanao	Mayor Sarah Duterte
TREASURER	Mayor Benjie Lim
VICE-PRESIDENT for NCR	Mayor Sherwin Gatchalian
VICE-PRESIDENT for LUZON	Mayor Allen Singson
VICE-PRESIDENT for VISAYAS	Mayor Dan Lim
VICE-PRESIDENT for MINDANAO	Mayor Samuel Co
AUDITOR	Mayor Abraham Tolentino
P.R.O	Mayor Edgardo Pamintuan
DEPUTY P.R.O. for NCR	Mayor Herbert Bautista
DEPUTY P.R.O. for LUZON	Mayor Amadeo Perez IV
DEPUTY P.R.O. for VISAYAS	Mayor Angel Allan Celino
DEPUTY P.R.O. for MINDANAO	Mayor Philip Tan
REGION 1 REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Michael Farinas
REGION 2 REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Amelita Navarro
REGION 3 REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Romeo Capinpin
REGION 4A REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Joaquin Chipeco
REGION 4B REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Edward Hagedorn
REGION 5 REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Linda Gonzales
REGION 6 REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Eric Saratan
REGION 7 REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Karen Villanueva
REGION 8 REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Reynaldo Uy
REGION 9 REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Evelyn Uy
REGION 10 REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Lawrence Cruz
REGION 11 REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Rey Uy
REGION 12 REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Darlene Antonino Custodio
NCR REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Florencio Bernabe
CAR REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Mauricio Domogan
CARAGA REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Ferdinand Amante Junior
ARMM REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Fahada Panaligan Salic
WOMEN’S SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE	Mayor Sonia Aquino
FOCAL PERSON for MDG	Mayor Eric Codilla
FOCAL PERSON for HEALTH	Mayor Patrick Escalante
FOCAL PERSON for MUSLIM AFFAIRS	Mayor Cherry Akbar
FOCAL PERSON for ENVIRONMENT	Mayor Edward Hagedorn

(Photos courtesy of Ceazar Ryan Aquino)

Unleashing catastrophe

Let me share with you the editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer last January 17, 2010.

THE decision of the Supreme Court to reverse itself on the League of Cities case last December, after its original ruling had become final and executory last May, is a ticking time bomb placed directly under the rule of law. When it explodes, the first casualty will be the Court itself.

In the constitutional crisis that shook the country after more than a third of the members of the House of Representatives voted to impeach Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. in 2003, the role of the Court as final arbiter of legal controversies was vigorously affirmed.

At that time, we wrote in this space: “The mere fact that some of the country’s best legal minds ... could not agree on a single position on the issue at hand is not a sign of confusion. It is a sign that the law may be a demanding mistress, but it is not an exact science. It is also proof that, if the Supreme Court did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it. Top lawyers may argue about the constitutionality of an issue, but at a certain point somebody must step in and decide. According to the Constitution, that somebody is not the Senate or the House; it is the Supreme Court.”

But last Dec. 19, a slender majority of six justices voted against this very principle. The Court’s reversal of the original League of Cities decision violated the governing idea that “at a certain point somebody must step in and decide.” The Court had in fact already stepped in and decided on the fate of the 16 cityhood laws that were the subject of the case; they were deemed unconstitutional by majority vote on Nov. 18, 2008; a motion for reconsideration was rejected by majority vote; a second motion for reconsideration was denied by a tie vote. On May 21, 2009, the ruling became final and executory.

And yet the Court decided to open the case again. Justice Antonio Carpio’s withering dissent in the League of Cities case quoted the petitioners’ view that “[n]otably, respondents craftily phrased and titled their motions based on the Court’s last denial order or resolution, and deliberately avoided reference to the previous repeated denials by the Court.” It is a shame that enough members of the Court agreed to reopen the case despite such duplicitous conduct.

It is a bigger shame, indeed it is a cause for apprehension about the future of the high court itself, that enough justices voted to overturn the ruling.

The argument against revisiting decisions already deemed final and executory is settled consensus; it is a by-now-unremarkable part of the law of the land. Carpio’s dissent offers a vigorous restating of the Court’s previous rulings. “Well-entrenched is the rule that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, no longer subject to attack and cannot be modified directly or indirectly, and the court which rendered it, including this Court, had lost jurisdiction to modify it. The Court laid down this rule precisely ‘(1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business, and; (2) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is why courts exist.’”

And yet the Supreme Court not only revisited the case; it reversed itself. This unfortunate series of events can only erode the people’s confidence in the rule of law, and undermine the credibility of the Court. We can, legitimately, ask: If there is no such thing as a final and executory ruling, can there be an end to legal and judicial controversies? If the Supreme Court declines to respect its own jurisprudence, can anyone expect the ordinary citizen to respect the Court’s rulings? If sheer majority rule, not the hallowed principle of facts and the law, determines the decisions of the Supreme Court, can the public stop itself from treating the justices as the politicians they have become?

Carpio’s dissent defined the stakes. “Such an unprecedented ruling would resurrect contentious political issues long ago settled ... Countless other decisions of this Court would come back to haunt it ... Such a ruling would destabilize not only this Court, but also the Executive and Legislative Branches ... Business transactions made pursuant to final decisions of this Court would also unravel for another round of litigation ... This Court cannot afford to unleash such a catastrophe on the nation.”

The bomb is ticking.

still with House Bll 24

Mayor Mel Sarmiento who is the Secretary-General of the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) was in Manila last Monday to be with the other officials of the LCP to explain to the media the Leagues' stand of House Bill 24. Here are some links which contained reports of the LCP stand on HB 24:

Mockery of high court ruling hit (by Gigi Muñoz David)

A group of city mayors is up in arms against the allegedly underhanded tactics being employed by the leaders of 16 towns who are pressing for cityhood that the Supreme Court has already ruled as unconstitutional.

. . . League of Cities president Benhur Abalos, the mayor of Mandaluyong, said some of these town leaders have cast dishonor to the Supreme Court and its members. “They have been writing private letters to the individual justices of the Supreme Court in order to persuade them to change their votes in the case,” Abalos said.

. . . The league said the 16 towns did not meet at least two of three requirements: minimum land area of 100,000 square meters and/or population of 150,000; and an annual locally-generated income of P100,000.

. . . Calbayog City Mayor Mel Senen Sarmiento, league secretary, said the Supreme Court decision of November 2008 prohibited the mayors from filing further pleadings.

. . . In December 2006, the 16 towns filed their cityhood bills in the 13th Congress. The cityhood bills contained a provision exempting them from the income requirement. It is also at this time that the cityhood bills were approved by the House and transmitted to Senate.

. . . The Supreme Court on Nov. 18, 2008 en banc said the various laws creating these new cities indeed violated the Constitution and the local government code. The 16 towns filed a motion for reconsideration in January.

Read the entire article

You may also check these related links:

League of Cities denounces tack of 16 municipalities (The Philippine Star)
16 LGUs scored for ‘sneaky tactics’ to regain cityhood
"Sneaky tactics" to regain cityhood of 16 LGUs deplored
LCP warns of massive retrenchment of city hall employees if number of cities continues to rise
Mockery of high court ruling hit (Manila Standard)
LCP decries revival of ‘dead’ cities

Calbayog City says NO to House Bill No. 24

“The fight is not yet over”, or so said Calbayog City Mayor and League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) Secretary-General Mel Senen Sarmiento in his message during the flag-raising ceremony last Monday, October 5, 2009. He was referring to the new campaign of the LCP against unwarranted cityhood bills that have long-term implications to cities all over the Philippines. This time it is with House Bill No. 24.

House Bill No. 24 authored by Representative Ann Hofer of Zamboanga Sibugay, seeks to exempt capital towns of provinces without cities from the requirements of cityhood specifically on the locally generated income of 100 million pesos. As per LCP memorandum sent to all City Mayors, the House Committee on Local Governments already ‘approved’ the said bill. And based on records, LCP was not invited to express its official position.

A simulation provided by the LCP Secretariat showed that should HB 24 make it as a law, it will mean a significant IRA reduction for all cities. And with the implementation of the Salary Standardization Law (SSL3), it will mean a retrenchment of approximately 20,023 LGU employees all over the country.

For the City of Calbayog, it will be a reduction of Php 121,044,496.07 from its present IRA of Php 621,444,233.00. And the implementation of SSL3 could lead to the retrenchment of 473 employees; and not to mention lesser funds for other basic services.

Mayor Sarmiento said that retrenchment is not something that he can imagine. He said that the same sentiment is shared by the other City Mayors all over the country. He urged everyone to continue the advocacy against undue conversion of cities. He urged the employees to write the Senators on the possible short term and long term effect of HB 24. Calbayog will also join other cities in writing their respective Congressmen requesting for the outright rejection of HB No. 24.

Mayor Sarmiento also reiterated his stand on cityhood and complying with what’s prescribed by the law. He is not against municipalities being converted into cities. As long as these municipalities are qualified especially about the requirement on the locally-generated income, then there would be no reason to oppose such moves.

It would be recalled that early last year, Calbayog joined the LCP in opposing the conversion 16 municipalities into cities. It was a legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Mayor Mel Sarmiento to attend High-Level Symposium on "Cities, Climate Change and Finance" in Barcelona, Spain

Mayor Mel Sarmiento will be in Barcelona, Spain today. He will be participating in the High-Level Symposium on Cities, Climate Change and Finance. He is there upon the invitation of the event organizers namely, the City of Barcelona, the Government of Spain and the World Bank.

This event aims at promoting dialogue around climate-friendly city development paths and facilitating knowledge exchange within and between relevant stakeholder groups - city mayors, senior officials from government and city networks, business leaders, multilateral development organizations, leading thinkers form academia and research - from developing and developed countries.

The symposium, in particular will launch the "City Twinning for Carbon Finance Capacity Development" program, which will be assisted by CF-Assist, World Bank with the support of the Spanish government; and aims at fostering partnerships among cities for networking among peer and knowledge sharing on carbon finance in cities.

The event is also being held in conjunction with Carbon Expo 2009 which will be held in Barcelona, Spain from May 27 - 29, 2009. Said expo will feature the focal theme "Cities and Carbon Finance" in its official Conference and exhibition.

Mayor Sarmiento's expenses for this trip were paid for by the event organizers.