The Supreme Court (SC) announced Monday it has denied a petition filed by Caloocan City, challenging the constitutionality of the Malabon City Charter over failure to follow the proper procedure for resolving boundary disputes under the Local Government Code (LGC).
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio Kho, Jr., the SC Second Division directed the cities of Caloocan and Malabon to settle their territorial boundary dispute before their city councils in accordance with the LGC.
Caloocan filed a petition for declaratory relief, citing Section 2 of said charter, which 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.
For its part, Malabon argued that the disputed areas were never part of Caloocan, which is supported by records from the Geodetic Survey Division of the Lands Management Bureau.
Caloocan’s direct petition before the RTC was premature, according to the SC.
Section 118 of the LGC states that boundary disputes involving two or more highly urbanized cities (HUCs) shall be jointly referred to their respective councils for settlement.
If no settlement is reached, the concerned city council shall try the dispute, after which any party may then elevate the said decision to the regional trial court.
Resolving the boundary dispute involves a review of factual issues, which falls outside its jurisdiction as the SC is not a trier of facts.
