LEAGUE OF CITIES V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 176951
ACTION:
These are consolidated petitions for prohibition with prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order
filed by the League of Cities of the Philippines, City of Iloilo, City of
Calbayog, and Jerry P. Treñas assailing the constitutionality of the subject
Cityhood Laws and enjoining the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
and respondent municipalities from conducting plebiscites pursuant to the
Cityhood Laws.
FACTS:
During the 11th Congress, Congress enacted into law 33 bills converting 33
municipalities into cities. However, Congress did not act on bills converting
24 other municipalities into cities.
During the 12th Congress, Congress enacted into law Republic Act No.
9009 (RA 9009), which took effect on 30 June 2001. RA 9009 amended
Section 450 of the Local Government Code by increasing the annual income
requirement for conversion of a municipality into a city from P20 million to
P100 million. The rationale for the amendment was to restrain, in the
words of Senator Aquilino Pimentel, “the mad rush” of municipalities to
convert into cities solely to secure a larger share in the Internal Revenue
Allotment despite the fact that they are incapable of fiscal independence.
After the effectivity of RA 9009, the House of Representatives of the 12th
Congress adopted Joint Resolution No. 29, which sought to exempt from
the P100 million income requirement in RA 9009 the 24 municipalities
whose cityhood bills were not approved in the 11th Congress. However, the
12th Congress ended without the Senate approving Joint Resolution No. 29.
During the 13th Congress, the House of Representatives re-adopted Joint
Resolution No. 29 as Joint Resolution No. 1 and forwarded it to the Senate
for approval. However, the Senate again failed to approve the Joint
Resolution. Following the advice of Senator Aquilino Pimentel, 16
municipalities filed, through their respective sponsors, individual cityhood
bills. The 16 cityhood bills contained a common provision exempting all the
16 municipalities from the P100 million income requirement in RA 9009.
On 22 December 2006, the House of Representatives approved the
cityhood bills. The Senate also approved the cityhood bills in February
2007, except that of Naga, Cebu which was passed on 7 June 2007. The
cityhood bills lapsed into law (Cityhood Laws) on various dates from March
to July 2007 without the President’s signature.
The Cityhood Laws direct the COMELEC to hold plebiscites to determine
whether the voters in each respondent municipality approve of the
conversion of their municipality into a city.
Petitioners filed the present petitions to declare the Cityhood Laws
unconstitutional for violation of Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, as
well as for violation of the equal protection clause. Petitioners also lament
that the wholesale conversion of municipalities into cities will reduce the
share of existing cities in the Internal Revenue Allotment because more
cities will share the same amount of internal revenue set aside for all cities
under Section 285 of the Local Government Code.
ISSUE:
The petitions raise the following fundamental issues:
1. Whether the Cityhood Laws violate Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution; and
2. Whether the Cityhood Laws violate the equal protection clause.
HELD:
November 18, 2008 Ruling
No. The SC (voting 6-5) ruled that the exemptions in the City Laws is
unconstitutional because sec. 10, Art. X of the Constitution requires that
such exemption must be written into the LGC and not into any other laws.
“The Cityhood Laws violate sec. 6, Art. X of the Constitution because
they prevent a fair and just distribution of the national taxes to
local government units.” “The criteria, as prescribed in sec. 450 of the
LGC, must be strictly followed because such criteria prescribed by law, are
material in determining the “just share” of local government units (LGUs)
in national taxes.”
March 31, 2009 Ruling
No. The SC denied the first Motion for Reconsideration. 7-5 vote.
April 28, 2009 Ruling
No. The SC En Banc, by a split vote (6-6), denied a second motion for
reconsideration.
December 21, 2009 Ruling
Yes. The SC (voting 6-4) reversed its November 18, 2008 decision and
declared as constitutional the Cityhood Laws or Republic Acts (RAs)
converting 16 municipalities into cities. It said that based on Congress’
deliberations and clear legislative intent was that the then pending cityhood
bills would be outside the pale of the minimum income requirement of
PhP100 million that Senate Bill No. 2159 proposes; and RA 9009 would not
have any retroactive effect insofar as the cityhood bills are concerned. The
conversion of a municipality into a city will only affect its status as a
political unit, but not its property as such, it added. The Court held that the
favorable treatment accorded the sixteen municipalities by the cityhood
laws rests on substantial distinction.
The Court stressed that respondent LGUs were qualified cityhood
applicants before the enactment of RA 9009. To impose on them the much
higher income requirement after what they have gone through would
appear to be indeed unfair. “Thus, the imperatives of fairness dictate that
they should be given a legal remedy by which they should be allowed to
prove that they have all the necessary qualifications for city status using the
criteria set forth under the LGC of 1991 prior to its amendment by RA
9009.
NOTE: The November 18, 2008 ruling already became final and executory
and was recorded in the SC’s Book of Entries of Judgments on May 21,
2009.)
August 24, 2010 Ruling
No. The SC (voting 7-6) granted the motions for reconsideration of the
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), et al. and reinstated its November
18, 2008 decision declaring unconstitutional the Cityhood Laws or
Republic Acts (RAs) converting 16 municipalities into cities. “Undeniably,
the 6-6 vote did not overrule the prior majority en banc Decision of 18
November 2008, as well as the prior majority en bancResolution of 31
March 2009 denying reconsideration. The tie-vote on the second motion
for reconsideration is not the same as a tie-vote on the main decision where
there is no prior decision,” the Court said. In the latest resolution, the Court
reiterated its November 18, 2008 ruling that the Cityhood Laws violate sec.
10, Art. X of the Constitution which expressly provides that “no city…shall
be created…except in accordance with the criteria established in the local
government code.” It stressed that while all the criteria for the creation of
cities must be embodied exclusively in the Local Government Code, the
assailed Cityhood Laws provided an exemption from the increased income
requirement for the creation of cities under sec. 450 of the LGC. “The
unconstitutionality of the Cityhood Laws lies in the fact that Congress
provided an exemption contrary to the express language of the
Constitution…Congress exceeded and abused its law-making power,
rendering the challenged Cityhood Laws void for being violative of the
Constitution,” the Court held.
The Court further held that “limiting the exemption only to the 16
municipalities violates the requirement that the classification must apply to
all similarly situated. Municipalities with the same income as the 16
respondent municipalities cannot convert into cities, while the 16
respondent municipalities can. Clearly, as worded the exemption provision
found in the Cityhood Laws, even if it were written in Section 450 of the
Local Government Code, would still be unconstitutional for violation of the
equal protection clause.”
February 15, 2011 Ruling
Yes, the laws are constitutional. The February 15, 2011 resolution is the
fourth ruling since the High Court first resolved the Cityhood case in 2008.
April 12, 2011 Ruling
Yes! It’s final. The 16 Cityhood Laws are constitutional. “We should not ever
lose sight of the fact that the 16 cities covered by the Cityhood Laws not
only had conversion bills pending during the 11th Congress, but have also
complied with the requirements of the [Local Government Code] LGC
prescribed prior to its amendment by RA No. 9009. Congress undeniably
gave these cities all the considerations that justice and fair play demanded.
Hence, this Court should do no less by stamping its imprimatur to the clear
and unmistakable legislative intent and by duly recognizing the certain
collective wisdom of Congress,” the SC said.
The Court stressed that Congress clearly intended that the local
government units covered by the Cityhood Laws be exempted from the
coverage of RA 9009, which imposes a higher income requirement of
PhP100 million for the creation of cities.
“The Court reiterated that while RA 9009 was being deliberated upon, the
Congress was well aware of the pendency of conversion bills of several
municipalities, including those covered by the Cityhood Laws. It pointed
out that RA 9009 took effect on June 30, 2001, when the 12th Congress was
incipient. By reason of the clear legislative intent to exempt the
municipalities covered by the conversion bills pending during the 11th
Congress, the House of Representatives adopted Joint Resolution No. 29
entitled Joint Resolution to Exempt Certain Municipalities Embodied in
Bills Filed in Congress before June 30, 2001 from the coverage of Republic
Act No. 9009. However, the Senate failed to act on the said Joint
Resolution. Even so, the House readopted Joint Resolution No. 29 as Joint
Resolution No. 1 during the 12th Congress, and forwarded the same for
approval to the Senate, which again failed to prove it. Eventually, the
conversion bills of respondents were individually filed in the Lower House
and fellesters.blogspot.com were all unanimously and favorably voted
upon. When forwarded to the Senate, the bills were also unanimously
approved. The acts of both Chambers of Congress show that the exemption
clauses ultimately incorporated in the Cityhood Laws are but the express
articulations of the clear legislative intent to exempt the respondents,
without exception, from the coverage of RA No. 9009. Thereby, RA 9009,
and, by necessity, the LCG, were amended, not by repeal but by way of the
express exemptions being embodied in the exemption clauses.”
The Court held that the imposition of the income requirement of P100
million from local sources under RA 9009 was arbitrary. “While the
Constitution mandates that the creation of local government units must
comply with the criteria laid down in the LGC, it cannot be justified to insist
that the Constitution must have to yield to every amendment to the LGC
despite such amendment imminently producing effects contrary to the
original thrusts of the LGC to promote autonomy, decentralization,
countryside development, and the concomitant national growth.”