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 12thCongress, 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
/2011/04/04141101.php)