Bonifacio Global City (BGC) has long been known for its vibrant environment and modern skyscrapers—a glimpse into a world where idealistic urban environments become reality. But for the last three decades, one very simple question about BGC was left unanswered: "Who owns it?"
This kicked off a protracted legal battle between the cities of Makati and Taguig since 1993. Until this year, when the case was settled with finality.
Historical Background
To fully understand the complicated back-and-forth dispute, one must go back to when Fort Bonifacio wasn't called Fort Bonifacio, but rather Fort McKinley, which was used as an American military base. In the early 20th century, it was divided into four plots: Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 under Survey Plan "Psu-2031."
Following Philippine independence, the parcels of land were given to the Philippine government in 1949, and under Proclamation 423 in 1957, Fort Bonifacio was established as the headquarters of the Philippine Army out of parts of Parcel 2, parts of Parcel 4 and all of Parcel 3. Several barangays composed of residences for soldiers and army personnel were constructed on the site, which became known as the Enlisted Men's Barrios or EMBOs for short.
During Martial Law, President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. granted portions of Fort Bonifacio, including the EMBOs and tracts of the future BGC, to the then Municipality of Makati under Proclamation 2475, which was later edited by President Corazon Aquino under Proclamation 518.
In 1992, the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) was established, which aimed to convert ex-military bases into commercial centers—one of which were several plots of land in Fort Bonifacio, which would give birth to BGC. President Fidel Ramos then granted the plots of land to the BCDA, which together with Metro Pacific Investments Corp (MPIC), a private investment company, founded the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation (FBDC).
However, in 1997, MPIC sold its stake in the FBDC to Ayala Land and Evergreen Holdings, which both kept their stakes in the FBDC together with the BCDA to this day.
First Shots Exchanged
In 1993, the battle began when Taguig filed a civil case against Makati before the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) aiming to nullify Proclamations 2475 and 518, arguing that the land Makati received under the two proclamations were invalid as they “altered Taguig's boundaries without the required plebiscite" as stated in various constitutional articles, such as Article X, Section 10 which laid out that borders of local governments (including municipalities and cities) could not be altered without the approval of a majority of the votes in a plebiscite.
Taguig sought to prevent Makati from exercising jurisdiction over the ceded territory and thwart several Ramos-era officials from disposing of the land covered in Proclamation 518. If Taguig won the civil case, it would effectively reassert control over the affected areas.
While the case was still ongoing, Makati filed its own case in 1996 before the Makati RTC against all other stakeholders involved, including Taguig, the FBDC and the BCDA, to get them to stop asserting control over the disputed territories. In particular, Makati claimed in its petition that Taguig should stop accepting taxes and providing business related documents (such as permits and licenses) in the Fort Bonifacio area, and that the BCDA should likewise stop paying taxes to Taguig. This was Makati's attempt to fire back at Taguig and affirm its authority over the embattled area.
Nevertheless, Taguig, the BCDA and the FBDC all filed motions before the Makati RTC to drop Makati's case, arguing that Taguig's original case before the Pasig RTC was nearly identical to Makati's case and therefore was unnecessary.
In 1998, the Makati RTC agreed and sided with Taguig, dropping Makati's case. Subsequent appeals by Makati to the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court (SC) went nowhere as both courts sided with Taguig and the Makati RTC in voiding the case.
The First Verdict
Back to the original Pasig RTC case, Taguig argued that in both the Psu-2031 and President Carlos Garcia's Proclamation 423, Makati was never mentioned as a recipient or owner of any parcel of land, whereas Taguig was named as the owner of large plots of the land.
Taguig also stated that Proclamations 2475 and 518 should never have taken effect due to the lack of constitutionality. Makati argued that the land that would become Fort McKinley used to be under the jurisdiction of the town of San Pedro Macati (which later became the Municipality of Makati), and that government censuses previously listed Fort McKinley as a part of Makati. Makati also argued that the two proclamations were constitutional, and thus the disputed areas fall into Makati's territory.
In 2011, after 18 years of hearings and deliberations, the Pasig RTC concluded in favor of Taguig, thus declaring Proclamations 2475 and 518 unconstitutional (and therefore invalid) and recognizing Taguig's claim to the land.
That should be the end of the story, but Makati persisted. Appeals were filed and motions for reconsiderations were sent, but when the RTC denied all of them, Makati went to the Court of Appeals for a verdict.
Twists and Turns
The Court of Appeals overturned the findings of the Pasig RTC in 2013 and returned control of Fort Bonifacio to Makati, noting that Proclamations 2475 and 518 did not alter Taguig's borders, but rather sought to confirm that the disputed land indeed belonged to Makati. Hence, a plebiscite was no longer appropriate.
In addition, the CA claimed that some of Taguig's evidence were not "properly identified and authenticated," leading the RTC to come to an "erroneous conclusion." Following this decision, it became Taguig's turn to file motions for appeal and reconsideration, which Makati defended itself against.
Taguig also accused the presiding judge, Judge Gonzales-Sison, of having ties to the Makati government through her husband, Casimiro Sison, who was affiliated with the then-ruling party of Makati. Eventually, this local dispute was elevated to the highest court of the Philippines, the Supreme Court.
In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the Pasig RTC was indeed correct in its decision to deem Taguig the true owner of Fort Bonifacio, and called on Makati to hand over the land. In General Register 235316 (G.R. 235316), the SC stated that "Taguig presented evidence that is more convincing and worthier of belief than proffered by Makati. Consequently, we rule that Taguig has a superior claim to the disputed areas.”
The SC granted Taguig authority over Parcels 3 and 4 and barred Makati from making additional changes in disputed areas. In a decision released two years later, the SC upheld and affirmed the finality of G.R. 235316 in response to Makati's motion for reconsideration, and also stated that no further appeals or motions may be made.
The Taguig government celebrated the fact that "[t]he end of this legal dispute marks the beginning of a new chapter for Taguig and its people."
Meanwhile, Makati Mayor Abigail Binay conceded defeat in a radio interview in July 2023, admitting that "tapos na ang laban" (the fight is over), and called on Taguig to adequately provide government services for the affected residents. The admission of defeat is a far cry from her previous pledge to "fight until all legal remedies are exhausted," and signals the true, undisputed triumph of Taguig.
The Forgotten Side of the Story: the EMBOs
While much of the dispute has settled on BGC, given its prominent position as one of the country's most lucrative financial districts, the EMBOs have also been central to the story. Consisting of eight barangays (six of which end in -embo), over 200,000 people and three square kilometers, the EMBOs would add significant economic value to whichever city would own it. Yet beyond every statistic lies the life and livelihood of a human being—something that is frequently forgotten in the political tug-of-war.
As Taguig attempts to assert its control over the territories, some people there have resisted, as they have enjoyed Makati's patronage for decades. The residents who were born Makati citizens, studied in Makati public schools, paid taxes to Makati, availed of Makati government services and voted in Makati's elections are now finding themselves labeled as Taguigeños. Unsurprisingly, many are angry and protests have been held in the streets, demanding plebiscites to let the people determine the fate of the EMBOs.
To this day, Makati and Taguig still clash over the EMBOs in the shadows, far from the watchful eyes of public attention and media frenzies. The two cities have wrestled over the handover of infrastructure within the EMBOs, most recently over public schools, including the respected Makati Science High School. Makati has accused Taguig of sending officers to "forcibly take over" the schools, while Taguig replied that Makati was attempting to block the handover by barricading the streets in front of the schools. Both sides have also denounced the other's officials as liars, with Taguig claiming that Makati's actions (or inaction) hinders the smooth transition, while Makati argues that Taguig attempts to accelerate the transition without any communication nor due process.
As Makati and Taguig further squabble over the land dispute and the stormy transition, it is important to remember that at the end of the day, it is the ordinary people who are victims of the conflict. Despite being overshadowed by the skyscrapers of BGC, the people of the EMBOs are not a force to be ignored, and one day, they will finally be able to escape the political mudslinging and savagery that has gripped their lands.
Why Did All of This Happen?
The length of the legal battle has led many to wonder: why was it only in 1993 that Taguig pressed their case, and why was Makati so defiant in resisting, even after the Pasig RTC decision?
Surely Taguig should have protested as soon as Proclamations 2475 and 518 were enacted? While the reason could simply be innocent delays in bureaucracy and the legal system, one plausible reason offered by Makati is that Taguig realized the potential billions of pesos in taxes and revenues that could be obtained from the commercialization of Fort Bonifacio after the establishment of the BCDA and the FBDC. Hence, just one year after the law was enacted, Taguig filed the case against Makati, seeking to retrieve the barren fields that it (correctly!) hoped would become a thriving metropolis.
But perhaps, the real reason will never be known, and be one of the many factors in this case that will forever be shrouded in mystery.
Comments