𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐏 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍.

𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐏 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐚𝐰.

𝐓𝐚𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐠 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐁𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐨 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝟑 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝟒 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐬𝐮-𝟐𝟎𝟑𝟏.

1. The dispositive portion of the Supreme Court’s final decision is clear and unambiguous:

a. Parcels 3 & 4 of Psu 2031 (which comprises the 10 barangays) belong to Taguig.
b. The preliminary injunction issued by the RTC of Pasig, stopping Makati from exercising jurisdiction over, making improvements on, or treating as part of its territory, Parcels 3 and 4, is made permanent.

These two (2) dispositions are self-executing. The nature and tenor of the permanent injunction against Makati do not require a writ of execution for the decision to be implemented.

2. The 10 barangays within Parcels 3 & 4 have been confirmed and declared as within the territory of Taguig. It is final and executory. As a legal consequence, Makati is automatically and immediately divested of authority over the area. It does not have to do anything. Taguig, by force of the Decision, is legally obliged to immediately exercise jurisdiction over its territory. There cannot be a vacuum in the exercise of jurisdiction on the 10 barangays.

3. The respective territories of Taguig and Makati have been defined by law and confirmed by the Supreme Court. The Charters of both Taguig (RA No. 8487) and Makati (RA No. 7854) incorporated in their provisions (Section 2) the final disposition of their territorial dispute. The effect of the Supreme Court Decision being incorporated in their Charters is such that the 10 Barangays in Parcels 3 and 4, by force of law, are automatically included in the territory of Taguig, while the same are automatically excluded from the territory of Makati. Makati cannot exercise jurisdiction over an area that belongs to Taguig. To require a writ of execution is to suspend the binding force of subsisting laws.

4. Makati as a political unit and its officials are mandated to faithfully execute our laws. Its officials swore to obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities. The decision of the Supreme Court is part of the laws of the land. Makati’s territory has been delineated by its Charter and the Decision. Why does it not obey? For the officials of Makati to continue to assert jurisdiction over the EMBOs is to violate not only their oaths, but also Section 2 of their very own Charter, as well as the laws on public officers. More than being a party to the case, immediate compliance with the Supreme Court Decision is demanded not just by their oaths as public servants but by the laws of the Philippines.

5. Similarly, all agencies of the government must immediately respect, recognize, and for those particularly affected, voluntarily implement final and executory Decisions of the Supreme Court without insisting on a writ of execution. The required posture or response has been set by jurisprudence. In Camarines Norte v. Province of Quezon (G.R No. 80796, 11 October 2001) and Provincial Government of Quezon v. COMELEC (G.R No. 132885, 11 October 2001) the Supreme Court commended the COMELEC, the DBM, the DOF, and the DENR for recognizing the Supreme Court’s decision holding the disputed 9 barangays therein as part of Camarines Norte’s jurisdiction, and at the same time held in contempt officials of Quezon Province for disregarding the finality of the Supreme Court’s decision. Government agencies must respect and abide by a final decision.

6. In matters of injunction, the Supreme Court has ruled that where a party has actual notice of an injunction, it is bound by the injunction from that time, and will be punished for a violation thereof, even though it may not have been served or may have been served on it defectively. By its nature, a writ of injunction is immediately executory so much so that as a rule it cannot be stayed on appeal. What more an injunction that has been made permanent by the Supreme Court and has attained finality.

7. Makati has circulated a supposed “initial assessment” from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of the Supreme Court addressed to the Executive Judge of RTC Makati.  The opinion stated that the “Decision [ of the Supreme Court] should be subject of a writ of execution before the trial court of origin” which will be implemented by the DILG. Being a mere opinion, this statement does not have the force of law and does not bind Taguig.

8. With Makati brandishing a supposed OCA “initial assessment” which it uses to obstruct the implementation of the Supreme Court Decision, Taguig is constrained to set the record straight and rectify the misinformation and confusion the Makati statement has caused.

9. With due respect to the OCA, Taguig believes the supposed “initial assessment” is not only a non-binding opinion but more importantly beyond the OCA’s legal authority.

10. The Supreme Court has said that it does not issue advisory opinions. How can the OCA issue one?

11. While the OCA is mandated to act on matters of public assistance and information requests, its authority does not extend to matters that involve administrative or judicial adjudications. Its authority to advise lower courts is also limited to “routine administrative matters where the Supreme Court has laid down guiding policies”. The matter relating to Taguig exercising its rights as the winning party involves a judicial adjudication. It is definitely not a “routine administrative matter”.

12. Beyond the OCA’s patent lack of authority, the “initial assessment” that Taguig allegedly cannot implement the final and executory Decision of the Supreme Court without a writ of execution is contrary to law and rules.

a.It is inconsistent with and disregards the very nature and tenor of the Decision declaring with finality the status of Parcels 3 and 4 and the permanent injunction against Makati which are self-executing.

b.It violates and disregards RA No. 7854 which excluded Parcels 3 and 4 from Makati’s territory, and RA No. 8487 which included the same in Taguig’s territory.

c.It supplants the very action of the Supreme Court which merely “Noted”, without more, a previous similar query from the DILG. The OCA seemingly with recklessness issued an opinion where the Supreme Court itself properly held back.

d.It effectively suspends the final and executory Decision of the Supreme Court. Worse, it contradicts the proper attitude and conduct approved and encouraged by the Supreme Court in Camarines Norte v. Province of Quezon and Provincial Government of the Quezon v. COMELEC..