Facts and resolutions about the land dispute of Taguig and Makati for years.
Fort Bonifacio Boundary Dispute
The Fort Bonifacio boundary dispute was an internal territorial dispute in the Philippines between the local governments of Makati, Taguig, and Pateros. The dispute also includes the financial district of Bonifacio Global City (BGC).
Taguig has administration over Bonifacio Global City and some territory to its south as part of Fort Bonifacio. In addition, Pinagsama exercises control over the McKinley Hill area and Palar Village, while Barangay Ususan controls some exclaves along Circumferential Road 5 (C-5), such as Logcom Village, Wildcat Village, and Aranai.
Makati claims the main BGC area, Palar Village, and the lands along C5 up to the walls of Heritage Park to be under the jurisdiction of its barangays, Post Proper Northside and Post Proper Southside, while Ususan's exclaves along the eastbound portion of C-5 are also claimed by Barangay Rizal and Barangay Pembo.
Pateros also claims to control the so-called Embo barangays of Makati and some barangays in Taguig. Pateros's claim includes Bonifacio Global City. However, the legal case it filed is separate from the case involving Makati and Taguig.
Background
The municipality of Pateros, the only municipality in Metro Manila and located near Fort Bonifacio, claims that its original land area was not its present land area of 210 hectares (2.1 km2) but rather 1,040 hectares (10.4 km2), including Fort Bonifacio.
According to their claim, this also included barangays Comembo, Pembo, East Rembo, West Rembo, Cembo, South Cembo, and Pitogo (which are now part of Makati) and Bonifacio Global City, Aranai, Ususan, and Palar in Pinagsama (which was made part of Taguig), based on documents and official maps obtained from several libraries and offices, including the United States Library of Congress and National Archives.
 |
| BGC Skyline |
Pateros's decrease in the territory was attributed to a cadastral mapping of Metro Manila conducted in 1978. The late Pateros Mayor Nestor Ponce challenged the map through an objection letter dated June 23, 1978.
In January 1986, President Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No. 2475, which stated that Fort Bonifacio is in Makati and remains open for disposition. Following these events, a boundary dispute arose, which moved Pateros to request a dialogue with the Municipal Council of Makati in 1990.
Pateros also filed a complaint against Taguig at the Makati RTC in 1996, but the trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The case was moved to the Court of Appeals in 2003 but was denied. The same case was moved to the Supreme Court in 2009, and it was denied again.
In 1993, the municipal government of Taguig filed a case against Makati before the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC), contending "that the areas comprising the Enlisted Men's Barangays (EMBOs), as well as the area referred to as Inner Fort in Fort Bonifacio, were within its territory and jurisdiction." The Pasig court ruled in favor of Taguig in 2011. Makati filed a motion for reconsideration at the Pasig RTC. At the same time, the city filed a petition for an annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals.
The city governments of Makati and Taguig fought over the jurisdiction of Fort Bonifacio because of the area's growth potential. A portion of the base, including the Libingan ng mga Bayani and the Manila American Cemetery, lies within Taguig, while the northern portion, where the Global City development is centered, was considered part of Makati. A 2003 ruling by a judge in the Pasig Regional Trial Court upheld the jurisdiction of Taguig over the entirety of Fort Bonifacio, including the Bonifacio Global City and Pinagsama.
Supreme Court
On June 27, 2008, through Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, the suit of Makati was dismissed, seeking to nullify Special Patents 3595 and 3596 signed by President Fidel V. Ramos, conveying to the Bases Conversion and Development Authority public land in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig. Due to a pending civil case filed by the Taguig city government asking the court to define its territorial boundaries, Makati cannot halt Taguig from collecting taxes on land located in Fort Bonifacio because it does not have any other source of sufficient income.
Further rulings and appeals
On June 16, 2009, the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, denied Pateros' petition against Taguig but ruled that the boundary dispute should be settled amicably by their respective legislative bodies based on Section 118(d) of the Local Government Code. Pursuant to the decision, Pateros invited Taguig to a council-to-council dialogue on October 8, 2009. Four meetings were held, and at the fourth dialogue on November 23, 2009, a joint resolution was made stating that Taguig was requesting a tripartite conference between Pateros, Taguig, and Makati.
On August 5, 2013, after a year and a half of deliberations, the 20-year-long battle was decided in a 37-page decision written by Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison of the Court of Appeals. The ruling says that jurisdiction over Fort Bonifacio has reverted to Makati from Taguig.
The court upheld the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamations 2475 and 518, both of which confirmed that portions of the aforementioned military camps are under the jurisdiction of Makati. The decision also cited the fact that voters from the barangays that are subject to the dispute between Makati and Taguig have long been registered as voters of Makati, thus bolstering the former's jurisdiction over Fort Bonifacio.
Taguig Mayor Lani Cayetano, however, maintained that this decision was not yet final and executory, and asked Justice Gonzales-Sison to recuse herself from the case as it was discovered that her family has close ties with the Binays of Makati.
On August 22, 2013, the Taguig city government filed a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals' Sixth Division, affirming its claim on Fort Bonifacio. With the filing of the motion, Taguig asserted jurisdiction over Fort Bonifacio.
According to Taguig's legal department, jurisprudence, and the rules of procedure in the country's justice system, all say that the filing of a motion for reconsideration suspends the execution of a decision and puts it in limbo. On June 15, 2016, in a 27-page decision by the Second Division of the Supreme Court, the court found Makati guilty of direct contempt for forum shopping.
On October 3, 2017, the Court of Appeals upheld its final decision in favor of the city government of Taguig and not Makati. The Supreme Court also found Makati guilty of forum shopping after simultaneously appealing the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruling and filing a petition before the Court of Appeals, both seeking the same relief. However, Makati maintained its claim over the disputed area.
In a decision released on April 27, 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the 2011 Pasig RTC ruling that declared that the 729 ha (7.29 km2) Bonifacio Global City complex, along with several surrounding barangays of Makati (Pembo, Comembo, Cembo, South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo, and Pitogo), was under the jurisdiction of the Taguig city government. However, Makati released a statement saying that it would continue exercising jurisdiction over areas it controlled until it received an official copy of the decision.
Result
In April 2023, the Supreme Court junked the motion for reconsideration that was filed by Makati to override the court's earlier decision, siding with Taguig. The city government of Taguig released a statement "welcoming the new Taguigeños", referring to the residents of the affected Embo barangays, and saying that the Taguig LGU will start working on the transition and handover of the Embo barangays.
Makati appeal attempt
Makati Mayor Abby Binay claimed that the dispute is "not yet over", stating that her office has received a notice that the Supreme Court has set its case with Taguig for oral arguments. This was contradicted by high court spokesperson Brian Keith Hosaka, who stated that there are no such documents.
The Taguig city government slammed Binay's comment and also expressed belief that her meeting with President Bongbong Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos and Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo was meant to "undermine the probity of our highest officials and subvert the people's trust in the impartiality of justice". Taguig's mayor sought sanctions against Makati for the statement.
On June 29, the SC rejected Makati's motion to file a second appeal, saying that it is generally prohibited under their rules. It also said its en banc "is not an appellate court" and will not entertain further pleadings in the case. Makati's had filed an earlier motion for reconsideration, which was rejected in 2022.
Aftermath and transition
Taguig issued a statement welcoming ten barangays to its jurisdiction. Makati Mayor Abby Binay conceded defeat after the Supreme Court denied Makati's second appeal.
Taguig would extend its scholarship program to residents of the formerly disputed area.
Mayor Binay, on the other hand, pledged to continue to provide assistance to residents in the area. She claimed that Taguig would not be able to do so immediately, noting that its scholarship program has a residency requirement.
Students studying at the University of Makati and residents served by the Ospital ng Makati who are beneficiaries of Makati's social programs would be affected. Taguig claims that Makati should now pay rent for government facilities of Makati now within Taguig.
Makati also suggested holding a plebiscite covering the contested area if both city governments agree.
Taguig proposed the formation of a joint transition body.
With the ruling, the fate of Makati's 2nd district, which covered the disputed area as well as the non-contested barangays of Guadalupe Viejo, Guadalupe Nuevo, and Pinagkaisahan, is uncertain. Makati may be reduced to a single district with Taguig–Pateros gaining a district.
ALSO IN TAGUIG
IMPORTANT NOTE: ang Taguigeño blog ay hindi konektado sa anumang account ng Taguig City government. Ito ay nabuo upang maghatid ng napapanahong balita at impormasyon para sa lahat ng Taguigeño.
WHERE TO STAY IN TAGUIG:
TAGUIGENO IS NOW ON YOUTUBE!
taguig venice, taguig history, taguig bgc, taguig city barangays, taguig city hall, taguig city map, taguig tourist spot, taguig city hall phone number
Post a Comment