16 CITYHOOD LAWS

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 12 th
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/2011/04/04141101.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)