ONDAY, MAY 23, 2011

16 Cityhood Laws Constitutional (2011 update)

During the 11th Congress, 57 bills seeking the conversion of municipalities
into component cities were filed before the House of Representatives.
However, Congress acted only on 33 bills. It did not act on bills converting 24
other municipalities into cities. During the 12th Congress, R.A. No. 9009
became effective revising Section 450 of the Local Government Code. It
increased the income requirement to qualify for conversion into a city from
P20 million annual income to P100 million locally-generated income. In the
13th Congress, 16 of the 24 municipalities filed, through their respective
sponsors, individual cityhood bills. Each of the cityhood bills contained a
common provision exempting the particular municipality from the 100 million
income requirement imposed by R.A. No. 9009. Are the cityhood laws
converting 16 municipalities into cities constitutional?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

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.” (League of Cities
of the Philippines v. Comelec GR No. 176951, November 18, 2008)

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. (GR No. 176951, League of
Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC; GR No. 177499, League of Cities of the
Philippines v. COMELEC; GR No. 178056, League of Cities of the Philippines v.
COMELEC, December 21, 2009) 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 banc Resolution 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.” (GR No. 176951, League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec; GR
No. 177499, League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec; GR No. 178056,
League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec, August 24, 2010)

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, 2011Ruling

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.”(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2011/04/0414
1101.php)

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.” (GR No. 176951, League of City of the
Philippines v. COMELEC; GR No. 177499, League of City of the Philippines v.
COMELEC: GR No. 178056, League of City of the Philippines v. COMELEC, April
12, 2011)