LCP hails SC decision, but remains vigilant
Newspaper Sun Star Davao reported that the mayors of the 16 cities were advised by their legal counsel Estelito Mendoza not to personally file their motion for reconsideration. A team from
Not yet over
The filing for the motion of reconsideration is however an anticipated move. Calbayog City Mayor Mel Senen Sarmiento had warned his fellow mayors not to be complacent because the decision is not yet final. He said that the LCP must be ready to counter it. “We must continue to be vigilant. It is a divided court and there’s a possibility that in the Motion for Reconsideration, the ruling might be overturned. This is not yet over,” he added.
Even the SC Chief Justice Reynato Puno, during the launching of Justice on Wheels (JOW) program in Baler, Aurora on November 23, 2008, said that the ruling is still premature.
SC Assistant Court Administrator Midas Marquez, in a news report, said the tribunal only ruled on the basis of the law. Marquez said that the contrary to early reports, the SC voted on 6-5 in favor of LCP. He said the decision may still be reversed in favor of the concerned LGUs, citing several SC rulings.
Earlier in 2007, LCP questioned before the High Court the city conversions of 16 towns that did not comply with the requirements set forth in the Local Government Code (LGC) as amended by Republic Act No. 9009.
In a 24-page decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the High Court backed the complaint of the LCP and said that the various laws creating the 16 cities violated the Constitution and the Local Government Code (LGC).
Unconstitutional
The cityhood laws are unconstitutional because it violated Sections 6 and 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution.
The Constitution 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.”
“The Constitution is clear. The creation of local government units must follow the criteria established in the Local Government Code and not in any other law. There is only one Local Government Code. The Constitution requires Congress to stipulate in the Local Government Code all the criteria necessary for the creation of a city, including the conversion of a municipality into a city. Congress cannot write such criteria in any other law, like the Cityhood Laws,” the High Court said.
The SC also noted that the cityhood laws even ignored Section 450 of the LGC as amended by RA 9009.
The LGC Section 450 sets minimum income requirement for a town to be a city at Php 20 million. RA 9009 amended the provision increasing the minimum income requirement to Php 100 million locally-generated income. None of the 16 municipalities, however, met the P100-million income requirement at the time their cityhood laws were passed.
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause
The High Court also declared the cityhood laws as unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause.
The Court pointed out that the exemption provision contains no classification standards or guidelines differentiating the exempted municipalities from those that are not exempted.
“Limiting the exemption 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," the SC said.
“This is not a valid classification between those entitled and those not entitled to exemption from the P100 million income requirement.” the SC added.
Victory for the Rule of Law
In an official statement, the League of Cities welcomes the SC rule calling it a victory for the rule of law.
In a news interview, LCP President Mayor Benjamin C. Abalos said the decision will benefit the 120-member cities. "The Local Government Code has set parameters for cityhood including the P100 million minimum income. It is unfair to [former] municipalities like
The official LCP statement also said, “The LCP would like to reiterate that we are not against the conversion of municipality into city. What we object is the conversion of a municipality that is not yet prepared to become a city and which has not complied with the requirements of the Constitution and the law”.
LCP National Chairman Mayor Jerry P. Treñas of
Iligan City Mayor Lawrence Cruz added that the LCP advocacy is not an issue of curtailment of the municipalities’ right to aspire for cityhood but about meeting the requirements. “This only proves that the law on conversion to cities of municipalities should be followed.” Mayor Cruz added.
Zamboanga City Mayor Celso Lobregat said he was very happy with the SC decision because it gives “equal protection” to the cities. “There are no exceptions to become a city,” Mayor Lobregat said. “Some municipalities have waited for years to meet the requirements to become cities. Why are you going to give exemptions?”
The sixteen cityhood laws cover the municipalities of Baybay in Leyte; Bogo in Cebu; Catbalogan in Samar; Tandag in Surigao del Sur; Borongan in Eastern Samar; Tayabas in Quezon province; Lamitan in Basilan; Tabuk in Kalinga Apayao; Bayugan in Agusan del Sur; Batac in Ilocos Norte; Mati in Davao Oriental; Guihulngan in Negros Oriental; Cabadbaran in Agusan del Norte; Carcar in Cebu; El Salvador in Misamis Oriental; and Naga in Cebu.
The said laws exempted the 16 municipalities from the P100 locally-generated income requirement in RA 9009. They were approved in February 2007 and lapsed into law on various dates from March to July 2007 without the President Gloria Macapagal’s signature.
Those who voted in favor of the decision were Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Associate Justices Leonardo Quisumbing, Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio Morales, Presbiterio Velasco Jr. and Arturo Biron.
Those who dissented were Associate Justices Ruben Reyes, who wrote a dissenting opinion, Renato Corona, Adolfo Azcuna, Minita Chico-Nazario and Teresita Leonardo-De Castro. Associate Justice Dante Tinga and Associate Justice Antonio Nachura took no part in the decision. Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago is on leave.
