The Supreme Court (SC) has rejected a petition by Caloocan City challenging the constitutionality of the Malabon City Charter, ruling the city pursued the wrong legal remedy in a boundary dispute.

In a 21-page decision released in February 2025 but dated November 2024, the court’s Second Division said the core issue was a boundary dispute that should have been resolved through joint referral to the local councils of both cities.

“The Court, while being the final arbiter of actual cases and controversies, does not possess the exclusive competence to read and interpret the organic law as this power and duty is shared with the other branches of government and the people themselves,” said the SC.

Caloocan had filed a petition for declaratory relief, arguing that Section 2 of Republic Act 9019, the Malabon City Charter, unconstitutionally altered its boundaries without a plebiscite.

Malabon countered that the disputed areas had always been under its jurisdiction, a claim supported by records from the Lands Management Bureau’s Geodetic Survey Division.

A Regional Trial Court initially ruled in favor of Caloocan, declaring the Malabon Charter unconstitutional. However, the Court of Appeals reversed that decision, stating the dispute should have been brought before the city councils of both cities for settlement.

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling, directing the cities to comply with Section 118(d) and (e) of the Local Government Code of 1991 and its implementing rules, which mandate that boundary disputes between highly urbanized cities be referred to their respective councils for settlement.

Penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., the decision leaves open the possibility of judicial recourse if the local councils fail to resolve the dispute.