MAKATI City Mayor Abigail Binay yesterday asked the Taguig City Regional Trial Court to issue a status quo ante order against the Taguig City government for its alleged unilateral attempts to implement the Supreme Court decision on the 10 EMBO barangays without first securing a writ of execution.
Binay was accompanied by City Administrator Claro Certeza and City Legal Officer Michael Camiña in filing the “Urgent Motion for Clarification with Prayer for the Issuance of a Status Quo Ante Order” before Branch 153 of the Taguig City RTC.
In her plea, Binay cited the supposed attempts of the Taguig City government headed by Mayor Lani Cayetano to “unilaterally and arbitrarily” implement the SC decision without any writ of execution from the trial court.
Binay said the High Court has consistently ruled that a “status quo order is warranted in order to promote common good as well as protect the public interest” in similar cases.
“Makati only wants an orderly administration of the Supreme Court decision with the least disruption to the residents and the uninterrupted delivery of basic services in the affected areas,” she said, adding that Taguig’s move to execute the SC’s order without a valid writ of execution has allegedly caused alarm and confusion among residents of the affected EMBO barangays.
Among these moves, she added, are supposed attempts to enter the premises of a housing project owned by Makati City, as well as to forcibly take possession of several school buildings and health centers in the affected barangays.
“Taguig cannot simply take the law into its own hands and act as it pleases without any writ of execution issued by the court. Because of Taguig’s arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious attempts to unilaterally implement the SC decision in a piece-meal manner, the people’s welfare has been unduly prejudiced by Taguig City and has created unwarranted tension and confusion among the residents and various government agencies,” part of the urgent motion read.
Binay also said the High Court’s order did not expressly order any part of the decision to be immediately executory, nor did it expressly mention in the dispositive part the exact metes and bounds of Parcels 3 and 4 or the barangays covered by the order.
“Makati City, therefore, asked the trial court to clarify and confirm the necessity of Taguig City first obtaining a writ of execution as well as the court determining the exact metes and bounds of Parcels 3 and 4 of PSU-2031 before the SC Decision can be implemented,” Binay said.
She said the motion will allow the Makati City government to assert its rights as owner of properties located in the disputed barangays.
“The present case involves a territorial dispute. It does not involve ownership of properties located within the disputed territory,” she added.
Last August, the Office of the Court Administrator said a writ of execution must first be secured by Taguig City to implement the transfer of jurisdiction of 10 barangays from Makati affected by the SC ruling on the territorial dispute between the two cities.
Court Administrator Raul Villanueva issued the clarification upon the query of Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 64 Executive Judge Gina Bibat-Palamos.
“As an initial assessment, the decision of the Supreme Court’s Third Division should be the subject of a Writ of Execution before the trial court of origin. When the said writ has been implemented by the Department of the Interior and Local Government, then that is the reckoning period for the transfer of jurisdiction of cases emanating from the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, consisting of Parcels 3 and 4, from Makati City to the City of Taguig,” Villanueva said in reply to Bibat-Palamos’ query.
Villanueva added that until then, “all cases currently filed and pending before the first and second level courts in Makati City should continue to be tried, heard and decided by the said courts.”
In her July 25 query, Bibat-Palamos said she decided to bring the issue to the OCA after concerns had been raised before her office regarding the jurisdiction of pending cases whose venue is affected by the SC ruling.
