8/8/2019 League of Cities-news
1/2
uring the 11th Congress, 57 bills seeking the conversion of
municipalities into component cities were filed before the
Hopresentatives. However, Congress acted only on 33 bills. It did
not act on bills converting 24 other municipalities into
uring the 12th Congress, R.A. No. 9009 became effective revising
Section 450 of the Local Government Code. It increasecome
requirement to qualify for conversion into a city from P20 million
annual income to P100 million locally-generated inthe 13th
Congress, 16 of the 24 municipalities filed, through their
respective sponsors, individual cityhood bills. Each oyhood bills
contained a common provision exempting the particular municipality
from the 100 million income requireposed by R.A. No. 9009.e the
cityhood laws converting 16 municipalities into cities
constitutional?
ovember 18, 2008 Ruling
o. The SC (voting 6-5) ruled that the exemptions in the City
Laws is unconstitutional because sec. 10, Art. X of the Constit
quires that such exemption must be written into the LGC and not
into any other laws. The Cityhood Laws violate sec. 6, the
Constitution because they prevent a fair and just distribution of
the national taxes to local government units. The crprescribed in
sec. 450 of the LGC, must be strictly followed because such
criteria prescribed by law, are mate
termining the just share of local government units (LGUs) in
national taxes. (League of Cities of the Philippines v. CoR No.
176951, November 18, 2008)
arch 31, 2009 Ruling
. The SC denied the first Motion for Reconsideration of
respondents Commission on Elections, et al..
pril 28, 2009 Ruling
o. The SC En Banc, by a split vote (6-6), denied the second
motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, the November 18,ing
became final and executory and was recorded in the Book of Entries
of Judgments on May 21, 2009. However, s
ereafter, it was realized that there were still pending
unresolved motions. Hence, in the resolution of the pending
motionurt, on December 21, 2009, reversed its November 18, 2008
decision. (SC Reinstates 2008 Decision Voiding 16 Cityws, Court
News Flash, Posted August 27, 2010; By Jay B. Rempillo)
ecember 21, 2009 Ruling
s. The SC (voting 6-4) reversed its November 18, 2008 decision
and declared as constitutional the Cityhood Laws or Repts (RAs)
converting 16 municipalities into cities. It said that based on
Congress deliberations and clear legislative intenat the then
pending cityhood bills would be outside the pale of the minimum
income requirement of PhP100 million that Sl No. 2159 proposes; and
RA 9009 would not have any retroactive effect insofar as the
cityhood bills are concernednversion of a municipality into a city
will only affect its status as a political unit, but not its
property as such, it addedurt held that the favorable treatment
accorded the sixteen municipalities by the cityhood laws rests on
substantial distinc
e Court stressed that respondent LGUs were qualified cityhood
applicants before the enactment of RA 9009. To impoem the much
higher income requirement after what they have gone through would
appear to be indeed unfair. Thuperatives of fairness dictate that
they should be given a legal remedy by which they should be allowed
to prove that theythe necessary qualifications for city status
using the criteria set forth under the LGC of 1991 prior to its
amendment b09. (GR No. 176951, League of Cities of the Philippines
v. COMELEC; GR No. 177499, League of Cities of the Philippin
OMELEC; GR No. 178056, League of Cities of the Philippines v.
COMELEC, December 21, 2009)
ugust 24, 2010 Ruling
o. The SC (voting 7-6) granted the motions for reconsideration
of the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), et alnstated its
November 18, 2008 decision declaring unconstitutional the Cityhood
Laws or Republic Acts (RAs) converti
unicipalities into cities. Undeniably, the 6-6 vote did not
overrule the prior majority en banc Decision of 18 November 20ell
as the prior majority en banc Resolution of 31 March 2009 denying
reconsideration. The tie-vote onlester.blogspot.com second motion
for reconsideration is not the same as a tie-vote on the main
decision where there
or decision, the Court said. In the latest resolution, the Court
reiterated its November 18, 2008 ruling that the Cityhoodolate sec.
10, Art. X of the Constitution which fellester.blogspot.com
expressly provides that no cityshall be createdeaccordance with the
criteria established in the local government code. It stressed that
while all the criteria for the creaties must be embodied
exclusively in the Local Government Code, the assailed Cityhood
Laws provided an exemption fro
creased income requirement for the creation of cities under sec.
450 of the LGC.
he unconstitutionality of the Cityhood Laws lies in the fact
that Congress provided an exemption contrary to the exnguage of the
Constitution.Congress exceeded and abused its law-making power,
rendering the challenged Cityhoodid for being violative of the
Constitution, the Court held.
e Court further held that limiting the exemption only to the 16
municipalities violates the requirement that the classificust apply
to all similarly situated. Municipalities with the same income as
the 16 respondent municipalities cannot conveies, while the 16
respondent municipalities can. Clearly, as worded the exemption
provision found in the Cityhood Laws, ewere written in Section 450
of the Local Government Code, would still be unconstitutional for
violation of the equal proteause. Posted by Atty. Fel
Brillantes/fellester.blogspot.com (GR No. 176951, League of Cities
of the Philippines v. Comele
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2010/08/08271001.phphttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2010/08/08271001.phphttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2010/08/08271001.phphttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2010/08/08271001.phphttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2010/08/08271001.phphttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2010/08/08271001.php
