Supreme Court reverses itself on cityhood row

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) has reversed its ruling that declared unconstitutional the cityhood laws passed by the 11th Congress.

The SC directed the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to hold plebiscites in 16 municipalities to determine whether their constituents favor their conversion into a city.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, the SC justices voted 6-4 in ruling that Republic Acts 9389, 9390, 9391, 9392, 9393, 9394, 9398, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434, 9435, 9436, and 9491 (cityhood laws) do not violate Section 10, Article X or the equal protection clause under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution.

Section 10 provides that “no province, city, municipality or barangay shall be created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.”

In setting aside its ruling on the case issued last April 28, the SC also explained that the 6-6 vote then did not reflect the majority of its members as required under Section 4 (2), Article VIII of the Constitution.

The provision requires all cases involving constitutionality of a treaty or international agreement to be heard by the full court and decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations of the case.

“Accordingly, the motions of the respondent LGUs, in light of the 6-6-vote, should be deliberated anew until the required concurrence on the issue of the validity or invalidity of the laws in question is, on the merits, secured,” the SC said.

Contrary to its earlier rulings, the SC now held that the cityhood laws do not violate Section 10, Article X of the Constitution as well as the equal protection clause under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution.

Concurring were Justices Renato Corona, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, and Martin Villarama Jr.

Justice Antonio Carpio wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Conchita Carpio Morales, Arturo Brion, and Diosdado Peralta.

Chief Justice Reynato Puno, Antonio Eduardo Nachura, and Mariano del Castillo did not participate.

All cityhood laws, enacted after the effectivity of RA 9009 increasing the income requirement for cityhood from P20 million to P100 million in Section 450 of the Local Government Code (LGC), explicitly exempt respondent municipalities from this increased income requirement.

In its earlier ruling, the SC upheld the petition of the League of Cities of the Philippines, which argued that the “wholesale conversion” of municipalities into cities would reduce the share of existing cities in the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA), since more cities would share the same amount of internal revenue set aside for cities.

The SC also ruled then that the cityhood laws violated RA 9009, which took effect in June 2001 or six years before the laws were passed, that amended Section 450 of the Local

Government Code by increasing the annual income requirement for conversion of a municipality into a city from P20 million to P100 million.

The amendment was intended to discourage the rush of municipalities to convert into cities for the purpose of getting a larger share of the IRA despite the fact that they are incapable of fiscal independence.

But in its new decision, the SC 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 indeed appear to be unfair.

During the 11th Congress, the House of Representatives enacted into law 33 bills converting 33 municipalities into cities. However, Congress did not act on bills converting 24 other municipalities into cities.

The “League of 16” claimed that the passage of RA 9009 “intently” exempted the remaining 24 cityhood bills before it was ratified into law.

city from P20 million to P100 million.

After the effectivity of RA 9009, the House of Representatives of the 12th Congress adopted Joint Resolution No. 29, which sought to exempt from the P100-million income requirement the 24 municipalities whose cityhood bills were not approved in the 11th Congress.

Out of the 24 municipalities, only 16 expressed their intention to be converted into cities, namely Baybay (Leyte), Bogo (Cebu), Catbalogan (Samar), Tandag (Surigao del Sur), Borongan (Eastern Samar), Tayabas (Quezon province), Lamitan (Basilan), Tabuk (Kalinga), Bayugan (Agusan del Sur), Batac (Ilocos Norte), Mati (Davao Oriental), Guihulngan (Negros Oriental), Cabadbaran (Agusan del Norte), Carcar (Cebu), El Salvador (Misamis Oriental), and Naga (Cebu).

The House and the Senate later approved the cityhood bills, which lapsed into law on various dates from March to July 2007.   –Edu Punay (The Philippine Star)