You are on page 1of 5

Tan, John Lester A.

PS0942
Prof. Reynold Agnes

G.R. No. 176951

February 15, 2011

LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), Represented by LCP National


President Jerry P. Treas; City of Calbayog, represented by Mayor Mel Senen S.
Sarmiento; and Jerry P. Treas, in his personal capacity as Taxpayer, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; Municipality of Baybay, Province of Leyte; Municipality
of Bogo, Province of Cebu; Municipality of Catbalogan, Province of Western Samar;
Municipality of Tandag, Province of Surigao del Sur; Municipality of Borongan, Province
of Eastern Samar; and Municipality of Tayabas, Province of Quezon, Respondents.
G.R. No. 177499
LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), Represented by LCP National
President Jerry P. Treas; City of Calbayog, represented by Mayor Mel Senen S.
Sarmiento; and Jerry P. Treas, in his personal capacity as Taxpayer, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; Municipality of Lamitan, Province of Basilan;
Municipality of Tabuk, Province of Kalinga; Municipality of Bayugan, Province of Agusan
del Sur; Municipality of Batac, Province of Ilocos Norte; Municipality of Mati, Province of
Davao Oriental; and Municipality of Guihulngan, Province of Negros Oriental,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 178056
LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), Represented by LCP National
President Jerry P. Treas; City of Calbayog, represented by Mayor Mel Senen S.
Sarmiento; and Jerry P. Treas, in his personal capacity as Taxpayer, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; Municipality of Cabadbaran, Province of Agusan del
Norte; Municipality of Carcar, Province of Cebu; Municipality of El Salvador, Province of
Misamis Oriental; Municipality of Naga, Cebu; and Department of Budget and
Management, Respondents.

FACTS:
For consideration of this Court are the following pleadings:
1. Motion for Reconsideration of the "Resolution" dated August 24, 2010 dated
and filed on September 14, 2010 by respondents Municipality of Baybay, et al.;
and
2. Opposition [To the "Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated
August 24, 2010"].
These cases were initiated by the consolidated petitions for prohibition filed by the
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), City of Iloilo, City of Calbayog, and Jerry P.
Treas, assailing the constitutionality of the sixteen (16) laws, each converting the
municipality covered thereby into a component city (Cityhood Laws), and seeking to
enjoin the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from conducting plebiscites pursuant
to the subject laws. In the Decision dated November 18, 2008, the Court En Banc, by a
6-5 vote, granted the petitions and struck down the Cityhood Laws as unconstitutional
for violating Sections 10 and 6, Article X, and the equal protection clause. In the
Resolution dated March 31, 2009, the Court En Banc, by a 7-5 vote, denied the first
motion for reconsideration. On April 28, 2009, the Court En Banc issued a Resolution,
with a vote of 6-6, which denied the second motion for reconsideration for being a
prohibited pleading. On August 24, 2010, the Court En Banc, through a Resolution, by a
vote of 7-6, resolved the Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Annul
the Decision of December 21, 2009, both filed by petitioners, and the Ad Cautelam
Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners-in-intervention Batangas City, Santiago
City, Legazpi City, Iriga City, Cadiz City, and Oroquieta City, reinstating the November
18, 2008 Decision.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the 16 Cityhood Bills violate Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution?
2. Whether or not the Cityhood Laws violate Section 6, Article X and the equal
protection clause of the Constitution?
RULING:
1. The Supreme Court ruled the 16 Cityhood Bills do not violate Article X, Section 10 of
the Constitution.
Article X, Section 10 provides
Section 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided,
merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the
criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority
of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
The enactment of the Cityhood Laws is an exercise by Congress of its legislative power.
Legislative power is the authority, under the Constitution, to make laws, and to alter and
repeal them. The Constitution, as the expression of the will of the people in their original,
sovereign, and unlimited capacity, has vested this power in the Congress of the
Philippines. The grant of legislative power to Congress is broad, general, and
comprehensive. The legislative body possesses plenary powers for all purposes of civil
government. Any power, deemed to be legislative by usage and tradition, is necessarily
possessed by Congress, unless the Constitution has lodged it elsewhere. In fine, except
as limited by the Constitution, either expressly or impliedly, legislative power embraces
all subjects, and extends to matters of general concern or common interest. Without
doubt, the LGC is a creation of Congress through its law-making powers. Congress has
the power to alter or modify it as it did when it enacted R.A. No. 9009. Such power of
amendment of laws was again exercised when Congress enacted the Cityhood Laws.
When Congress enacted the LGC in 1991, it provided for quantifiable indicators of
economic viability for the creation of local government unitsincome, population, and

land area. Congress deemed it fit to modify the income requirement with respect to the
conversion of municipalities into component cities when
Section 450. Requisites for Creation. a) A municipality or a cluster of barangays may
be converted into a component city if it has a locally generated annual income, as
certified by the Department of Finance, of at least One Hundred Million Pesos
(P100,000,000.00) for at least two (2) consecutive years based on 2000 constant
prices, and if it has either of the following requisites: (c) The average annual income
shall include the income accruing to the general fund, exclusive of special funds,
transfers, and non-recurring income.
However, it is a fact that there is a mad rush of municipalities wanting to be converted
into cities. Whereas in 1991, when the Local Government was approved, there were
only 60 cities, today the number has increased to 85 cities, with 41 more municipalities
applying for conversion to the same status. Senator Aquilino Pimentel was
apprehensive that before long this nation will be a nation of all cities and no
municipalities.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Cityhood Laws do not violate Section 6, Article X
and the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Article X, Section 6 provides
Section 6. Local government units shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the
national taxes which shall be automatically released to them.
As this Court has ruled, the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution permits a
valid classification, provided that it: (1) rests on substantial distinctions; (2) is germane
to the purpose of the law; (3) is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) applies
equally to all members of the same class. It should be recalled from the above quoted
portions of the interpellation by Senate President Drilon of Senator Pimentel that the
purpose of the enactment of R.A. No 9009 was merely to stop the "mad rush of
municipalities wanting to be converted into cities" and the apprehension that before long

the country will be a country of cities and without municipalities. It should be pointed out
that the imposition of the P100 million average annual income requirement for the
creation of component cities was arbitrarily made.
Wherefore, the Cityhood LawsRepublic Acts Nos. 9389, 9390, 9391, 9392, 9393,
9394, 9398, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434, 9435, 9436, and 9491 are all
declared CONSTITUTIONAL.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the Motion for Reconsideration of the "Resolution"
dated August 24, 2010, dated and filed on September 14, 2010 by respondents
Municipality of Baybay, et al. is GRANTED. The Resolution dated August 24, 2010 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.