see:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2010/08/08271001.php
SC Reinstates 2008 Decision Voiding 16 Cityhood Laws
Posted August 27, 2010; By Jay B. Rempillo
Voting 7-6 with two justices taking no part, the Supreme Court has 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.
In a 16-page resolution penned by Senior Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the Court ruled that there could be no reversal of the November 18, 2008 decision “for a tie-vote cannot result in any court order or directive,” as it noted that the Court was evenly divided when it subsequently voted on the second motion for reconsideration. It further ruled that a tie-vote is a non-majority which cannot overrule a prior affirmative action, which in this case was the November 18, 2008 decision striking down the Cityhood Laws.
The SC En Banc upheld its November 18, 2008 decision when the Court by a majority vote denied respondents’ Commission on Elections, et al. on March 31, 2009 first motion for reconsideration. On April 28, 2009, the SC En Banc, by a split vote, denied a second motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, the November 18, 2008 ruling became final and executory and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on May 21, 2009. However, shortly thereafter, it was realized that there were still pending unresolved motions. Hence, in the resolution of the pending motions, the Court, on December 21, 2009, reversed its November 18, 2008 decision.
“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….[C]ongress 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.”
Joining Justice Carpio are Justices Conchita Carpio Morales, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose C. Mendoza, and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno.
Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. who penned the assailed December 21, 2009 ruling, wrote a dissenting opinion. He was joined in his dissent by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Roberto A. Abad, and Jose Portugal Perez.
Justices Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura and Mariano C. Del Castillo took no part.
The Court ruled that the Constitution is clear that the creation of local government units (LGUs) must follow the criteria established in the LGC and not in any other law. The said Cityhood Laws, all enacted after the effectivity of RA 9009 increasing the income requirement for cityhood from PhP20 million to PhP100 million in sec. 450 of the Local Government Code (LGC), explicitly exempt respondent municipalities from the said increased income requirement.
The Court noted petitioner LCP’s motion to annul the December 21, 2009 ruling that earlier declared as constitutional said Cityhood Laws.
For his part, Justice Velasco opined: “[T]he only conceivable reason why the Constitution employs the clause ‘in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code’ is to lay stress that it is Congress alone, and no other, which can define, prescribe and impose the criteria. The imposition may be effected either in a consolidated set of laws or a single-subject enactment, like RA 9009. And provided the imperatives of the equal protection clause are not transgressed, an exemption from the imposition may be allowed, just like the cityhood laws.”
Declared as unconstitutional were RA Nos. 9389 (Baybay City in Leyte), 9390 (Bogo City in Cebu), 9391 (Catbalogan City in Samar), 9392 (Tandag City in Surigao del Sur), 9393 (Lamitan City in Basilan), 9394 (Borongan City in Samar), 9398 (Tayabas City in Quezon), 9404 (Tabuk City in Kalinga), 9405 (Bayugan City in Agusan del Sur), 9407 (Batac City in Ilocos Norte), 9408 (Mati City in Davao Oriental), 9409 (Guihulngan City in Negros Oriental), 9434 (Cabadbaran City in Agusan del Norte), 9435 (El Salvador City in Misamis Oriental), 9436 (Carcar City in Cebu), and 9491 (Naga City in Cebu). (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)
