To the Ralloses, justice is delayed

The constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of expression allows individuals to impart, receive, and seek ideas, information, and opinions of all kinds without interference. Let me however, add the phrase “except when necessary” as a debate-prone coletilla. As we are wont to say, everyone is entitled to his opinion, opposing views are not just tolerated. They must be protected as they are essential for the existence of society. It is for this reason that I have adopted the practice not to react to comments to my write-ups coming from readers.

After I wrote the article ‘City Taxpayers and Ralloses, Victims of Delayed Justice’ few weeks ago, I received two sets of seemingly-contrasting feedbacks. They were neither in support of what I wrote nor against it. One stand came in via a call thru my landline telephone and the other thru text messaging. The bits of information they relayed to me enticed me to write this sequel to my previous article.

The caller is an intelligent supporter of former mayor Michael Rama. He stepped aside the contention which I expressed in that previous article. My caller said that when the former mayor questioned before the Supreme Court the award in favor of the Ralloses for the expropriation of their Sambag Uno property, Rama only tried to protect the city. In Rama’s line of reasoning, the Ralloses were not entitled to the compensation in millions of pesos.

With a resort to the judicial system, where was the perceived delayed justice, my caller asked? It was, to him, a part of due process arguing that justice does not grind fast but it grinds well. And he proceeded to a rather unexpected thought. According to him, even if with the eventual dismissal of the Rama legal thrust resulting in the ballooning of the sum compensable to the Ralloses, there was no prejudice to the city taxpayers. He paused though when he heard that if Rama, as the city mayor, had opted to pay, only about ?130 million plus would have been taken out of city’s coffers instead of the presently accumulated sum of almost half a billion pesos.

The other feedback mentioned about a reported annotation of the court’s decision on a valuable piece of land owned by Cebu City located at the South Road Properties. This real estate asset is valued at some ?5 billion being somehow encumbered by a half-a-billion peso burden due in favor of the Ralloses of many years. In the mind of the person who sent the feedback, the annotation written on the city’s certificate of title did not delay justice as in fact it ensured that the Ralloses’ just compensation claim can, eventually, be fully settled.

The point I made in the previous column is that there is a court decision ordering the city to pay to the Ralloses just compensation for their property that was taken for public use. The decision directed the payment of legal interest. That judicial ruling was issued years ago. But, the Ralloses have not been paid yet. The principle “justice delayed is justice denied," implies that if a court judgment is not delivered in a timely manner, the legal relief is ineffective. A delay in the enforcement of a final decision renders it useless. In addition to causing ongoing harm to the aggrieved party, and they are the Ralloses, in this situation, it undermines public faith in the judiciary.