League of Cities vs.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 176951
June 28, 2011

League of Cities declared the Cityhood Laws of 16 municipalities unconstitutional for violating
provisions in Article X of the 1987 Philippine Constitution relating to Local Government Code,
and the equal protection clause.
Facts:
The 11th Congress failed to convert 24 other municipalities into cities while the 33
municipalities were granted. The 12th Congress enacted Republic Act 9009 which amended the
Section 450 of the Local Government Code by increasing income requirement from P20M to
P100M to those municipalities converted into cities. After R.A 9009 took effectivity, Joint
Resolution No. 29 was adopted exempting 24 municipalities whose Cityhood bills were not
approved by the 11th Congress, from P100M income requirement. Yet, the 12th Congress adjourned
the session without the Senate approving the Joint Resolution. The 13th Congress re-adopted Joint
Resolution No. 29 as Joint Resolution No. 1. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to approve again the
resolution. The 16 of the 14 municipalities mentioned in the unapproved Joint Resolution/s filed
individual Cityhood bills. In its provisions, said Cityhood bills includes exempting each of 16
municipalities from P100M income requirement prescribed in Section 450 of LGC as amended by
R.A. 9009. As a result, the Cityhood bills were approved by the Congress. The Cityhood bills then
direct the COMELEC to hold plebiscites to determine whether the voters in each respondent
municipality approve its conversion into a city.
The League of Cities filed a petition against COMELEC and 16 municipalities because it
found out that the Cityhood Laws passed in Congress violated Section 6 and Section 10 of the
Article X of the PH Constitution in preventing a fair and just distribution of national taxes (income
requirement allotment) to local government units as well as not following the criteria provided and
established in the LGC itself in creating/breaking up of cities. The COMELEC responded that it
was only enjoined from conducting plebiscites in pursuant to the Cityhood laws.
The petition was then elevated to the Supreme Court. The rulings, however, fluctuated from
unconstitutionality to validity of the Cityhood Laws. The first ruling of the Supreme Court declared
the petition/the 16 Cityhood Laws unconstitutional for seven (7) reasons: (1) The R.A. 9009 has
prospective application that is conformable to Article 4 of the Civil Code, “Laws shall have no
retroactive effect…”, therefore nullifying the invocation of the respondent municipalities on the
principle of retroactivity of laws which is not applicable to R.A 9009; (2) The exemption from
income requirement must be written in LGC not in Cityhood Laws; (3) The Cityhood Laws
prevented fair distribution of income in LGUs; (4) The Section 450 of LGC is plain, clear, and
unambiguous providing no exemption of pending municipalities thus serving the principal interest
of the law and did not go beyond its provisions; (5) The exemption remained an intent only and
not written in Section 450 of LGC; (6) Inapplicability of the deliberations from 11th Congress to
13th Congress because the Congress is not a continuing body which makes the unfinished business
terminated as pursuant to the Section 123, Rule XLIV of the Rules of Senate; and (7) the Cityhood
Laws violated the equal protection clause. In the contrary, the second ruling on December 21, 2009
declared the petition valid. In the third decision on August 24, 2010, the Court reinstated the
unconstitutionality of the Cityhood Laws. The fourth ruling declared it again as constitutional.
The Supreme Court’s fifth and latest Resolution denied Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration
(re-argument over the petition) and reiterated its final decision over the Cityhood Laws as
constitutional.
Based on these decisions and flip-flopping rulings, the Supreme Court declared the
Cityhood Laws in its finality as constitutional and valid.
In Supreme Court’s final ruling, Justice Sereno with her declaration that the Cityhood Laws
are constitutional, raised her concerns over the highly irregular and unprecedented acts of motions
for reconsideration made by the Court before arriving at its finality of decision-making. The flip-
flopping decisions of the Court in the past had weakened the public confidence over the stability
of the rule of law and bolstered its failure to abide by its own internal rules and certainty of its
decisions. The re-arguments over the case have turned Court’s better reasoning into poor ones
enfeebling the principle of immutability applied to Court, that is, the finality of Court’s decision
over a case. However, Justice Sereno pointed that the Court’s denial for Ad Cautelam Motion for
Reconsideration over the Cityhood Laws’ constitutionality were made from the lessons it
experienced from the past in appropriating the judicial junction towards stability, certainty, and
predictability of its decisions to perform a just and orderly society. Indeed, this repeated
fluctuations of decisions intends to ensure that both right and justice will succeed against faulty
decisions that is conformable to Article X of Civil Code, “In case of doubt in the interpretation or
application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail”
leaning towards the authoritative and finality of law. For Justice Sereno, the duty to bring justice
for the LGUs intended to be exempt from the income requirement is warranted to legislatures
themselves not on the Court’s decision. The remedy should be put on the legislature enacting
amendatory laws on the LGC to show its disapproval over the R.A 9009 amendment, as suggested
by the Justice herself. Since the Congress has been required by the Constitution to stipulate in the
LGC of all the criteria necessary for creating/abolishing a city, it has the right to deliver and enforce
the demands of the LGC with its power of legislate laws as well as protect the interest of all LGUs
against unjust distribution of incomes. Therefore, the duty and remedy is transfixed to the
legislative branch not of the Supreme Court’s. Accordingly, Justice Sereno pressed for the finality
and immutability of Court’s decision over other cases to preserve justice and stability of society
leaning towards the orderly conduct of affairs only to serve public interest explicitly.