League of Cities, et al. v.

COMELEC
G.R. 176951, 177499, 178056 – April 12, 2011
J. Bersamin

Topic: Creation and Conversion – Income

Doctrine: 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 them without exception from the coverage of
RA 9009. Thereby, RA 9009, and by necessity, the LGC were amended  not by repeal but by way of the express
exemptions being embodied in the exemption clauses

Petitioner: League of Cities of the Philippines

Respondents: Municipalities turned into cities, namely – Calbayog, Baybay, Bogo, Catbalogan, Tandag, Boronga, Lamitan,
Tabug, Bayugan, Batac, Mati, Guihulngan, Cabadbaran, Carcar, El Salvador, Naga

Case Summary: 57 bills seeking the conversion of municipalities into component cities were filed before the HOR.
However, Congress only acted on 33 of these bills. The Congress was unable to act on 24 bills converting 24 municipalities
into cities. During the 12th Congress, R.A. 9009 became effective revising Section 450 of the LGC. Such amendment
increased the income requirement to qualify for conversion into city from P20M to P100M locally-generated income. In the
13th Congress, 16 of the 24 municipalities filed individual cityhood bills. Each bill contained a common provision exempting
the particular municipality from the P100M income requirement imposed by R.A. 9009. After the Court changed its mind
several times, it finally upheld the constitutionality of the cityhood laws.

Facts:
 During the 11th Congress, a total number of 57 bills were seeking the conversion of certain municipalities into
component cities. Congress, however, only acted on 33 of such bills, and left 24 municipalities left out.
 In the 12th Congress, RA 9009 was enacted into law and revised the LGC by increasing the income requirement for a
municipality to qualify being converted into a city. The change was from P20M annual income to P100M locally
generated income.
 In the 13th Congress, 16 of the 24 municipalities that were left out in the 11 th Congress filed their individual cityhood
bills. Each bill contained a provision exempting the particular municipality from the P100M income requirement
that was newly imposed by RA 9009. The cityhood bills lapsed into law after Pres. Arroyo failed to sign
 After several Decisions ruling that the Cityhood Laws were unconstitutional, the Court was once again tasked to
decide whether or not the laws were indeed against the law
 The case was an Ad Cautelam MFR filed by the petitioners vis-à-vis the Resolution promulgated on February 15,
2011
o The Motion was anchored upon the ground that the Court could no longer modify, alter or amend its
judgment declaring the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional due to the judgment having long become final and
executory
o The petitioners submit that the Cityhood Laws violated both Section 6 and Section 10 of Article X of the
1987 Constitution

Issues + Held:
1. W/N the Cityhood Laws violate Section 6 and Section 10 of Article X of the Constitution, the equal protection clause
and the right of local governments to a just share in the national taxes – NO
 Congress clearly intended for the local government units covered by the Cityhood Laws to be exempted from the
coverage of RA 9009
o It is worthy to mentation that the deliberations on Senate Bill 2157 occurred on October 5, 2000 while the
11th Congress was in session, and the conversion bills were then pending in the Senate
 Thus, the responses of Senator Pimentel with regard to RA 9009, made it obvious that the latter
was not made to apply to the conversion bills then pending deliberation during the 11th Congress
o RA 9009 took effect on June 30, 2001, when the 12th Congress was incipient
 By the clear legislative intent to exempt the municipalities covered by the conversion bills
pending during the 11th Congress, the HOR adopted JR No. 29 entitled Joint Resolution to Exempt
Certain Municipalities Embodied in Bills Filed in Congress before June 30, 2001 from the
Coverage of RA 9009
  Senate failed to act on this JR. Even so, the HOR readopted JR 29 as JR 1 during the 12 th
Congress, and the same was forwarded to Senate for approval. Again, Senate failed to
approve JR 1
 After this, however, the conversion bills of the respondents were individually filed in the
HOR and were all unanimously and favorably voted upon  then approved by Senate
thereafter
 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 them without exception from the coverage of RA 9009
 Thereby, RA 9009, and by necessity, the LGC were amended  not by repeal but by way
of the express exemptions being embodied in the exemption clauses
 Petitioner further contends that new income requirement of P100M from locally generated sources is NOT arbitrary
because it is not difficult to comply with  they even included a list of cities that were able to reach this threshold
(Sta. Rosa Laguna, Navotas, San Juan, among others)
o SC: This contention does NOT persuade
o As indicated in the Resolution of February 15, 2011, 59 existing cities had failed as of 2006 to post an
average annual income of 100M
 The large number of existing cities, virtually 50% of all of them, still unable to comply with the
P100M threshold income even five years after RA9009 took effect
o Pertinent excerpts from the deliberations during Senate Bill 2157:
 Sen. Osmeña: Why would a municipality want to be converted to a city?
 Sen. Pimentel: … only one reason and it is not hidden. Once converted to a city, the municipality
will have roughly more than 3 times the share that it would be receiving over the internal revenue
allotment than it would have if it were to remain a municipality…
 Sen. Pimentel: … the danger here, if we become lax in the requirements, is the metropolis-located
local governments would have more priority in terms of funding because they would have more
qualifications to become a city compared to far-flung areas in Mindanao or in the Cordilleras, or
whatever. Therefore, I Think we should not ease up on the requirements. Maybe we can restore
the word “or” so that if they do not have the 100sqkm of territory, then if they qualify in terms of
population and income, then that would be all right.
o The Court then noted that the municipalities cited by the petitioners as having generated income of P100M
from local sources (Sta. Rosa, Navotas, San Juan, etc.), are either in Metro Manila or in provinces close to
MM.
 In comparison the municipalities covered by the Cityhood Laws are spread out in the different
provinces int eh Philippines, considerably distant from MM
 This reality underscored the danger the enactment of RA 9009 sought to prevent, i.e., that “the
metropolis-located governments would have more priority in terms of funding because they would
have more qualifications to become a city compared to far-flung areas
 This result is antithetical to what the Constitution and the LGC have nobly envisioned in
favor of countryside development and national growth
 This result should be arrested early to avoid unwanted divisive effect on the entire country
due to the LGUs nearer to NCR being afforded easier access to the bigger share in the
national coffers than other LGUs
o The Court noted that there should be no question as to the LGUs covered by the Cityhood Laws as they
belong to a class of their own
 They have proven themselves viable and capable to become component cities of their respective
provinces
 They have been centers of trade and commerce, points of convergence of transportation,
rich havens of agricultural, mineral, and other natural resource, and flourishing tourism
spots
 The Court then stated: Undoubtedly, the imposition of the income requirement of P100M from local sources under
RA 9009 was arbitrary. When the sponsor of the law chose the specific figure, no research or empirical date
buttressed the figure. Nor was there proof that the proposal took into account the after-effects that were likely to
arise.
 The Cityhood Laws do not violate the petitioner’s right to a just share in the national taxes
o It suffices to state that the share of LGUs is a matter of percentage under Section 285 of the LGC, not a
specific amount.
  Specifically, the share of the cities is 23%, determined on the basis of population 50%, land area
25%, and equal sharing 25%
 The above share is also dependent on the number of existing cities, such that when the
number of cities increases, them more will divide and share the allocation for cities
 However, the allocation by the National Government is NOT a constant, and can either
increase or decrease
 With every newly converted city becoming entitled to share the allocation for cities, the
percentage of IRA entitlement of each city will only decrease, although he actual amount
received may be more than that of the preceding year
o As elaborated here and in the February 2011 Resolution, the Cityhood Laws were not violative of the
Constitution and the LGC
 The Respondents are thus entitled to their just share in the IRA allocation for cities
 They have demonstrated their viability as component cities of their respective provinces and are
developing continuously, albeit slowly, because they had to previously share the IRA with about
1,500 municipalities  now only with 120 other cities
 CONCLUSION: “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 11 th Congress, but also have complied with the requirements of the LGC
prior to its amendment by RA 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.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration is denied with finality.

Dissenting Opinions:

J. Carpio
 The creation of local government units must follow the criteria established in the LGC itself and not in any other law
 The Legislature, in enacting RA 9009, is not required by the Constitution to show the Courts data like inflation
figures to support the increased income requirement. As long as the increased income requirement is not impossible
to comply with, such increase is a policy determination involving the wisdom of the law, which exclusively lies
within the province of the Legislature
o The Court should not venture into areas of analyses obviously beyond its competence
 The Constitution expressly requires Congress to stipulate in the LGC itself all the criteria necessary for the creation
of a city, including the conversion of a municipality into a city
o To avoid discrimination and ensure uniformity and equality, such criteria cannot be embodied in any other
law except the LGC
 Under the majority’s ruling it seems like we need not follow the LGC anymore since Congress can always enact a
contrary law and deem it amendatory to the LGC
 Right after the enactment of RA 9009, Congress passed laws converting municipalities into cities using the new
P100M income requirement
o Subsequently, Congress enacted the 16 Cityhood Laws using the old P20M income requirement.
Afterwards, Congress then again passed laws converting additional municipalities into cities using the
P100M requirement!
 The 16 Cityhood Laws stick out like a sore thumb, starkly showing an obvious violation of the
equal protection clause
 The Cityhood Laws create distinctly privileged cities with only P20M annual income,
discriminating against cities with P100M annual income created before AND after the enactment
of the Cityhood Laws.
 This kind of discrimination is exactly what the Constitution seeks to prohibit under
Section 10, Article X when it commands that ‘no city shall be created except in
accordance with the criteria established in the LGC’
 There must be strict compliance with the express command of the Constitution

J. Sereno
 The Constitution did not preclude Congress from revising the standards imposed under the LGC. Congress shall
enjoy the freedom to reconsider the minimum standards under the LGC, if future circumstances for it
o However, the method of revising the criteria must be directly done through an amendatory law of the LGC
(such as RA 9009), and not through the indirect route of creating cities and exempting their compliance
with the established and prevailing standards