16 cities just became towns again after SC decision

lamitan City in Basilan is now plain old Lamitan again. It shares the fate of 15 other cities, after the Supreme Court reinstated a 2008 decision declaring as “unconstitutional" the cityhood laws converting 16 municipalities into cities.

A previous law required towns aspiring to become cities to earn at least P100 million annually, which none of the 16 did.

Voting 7-6, with two justices not taking part, the SC reinstated its Nov. 18, 2008 decision declaring as unconstitutional the Republic Acts (RAs) converting 16 municipalities into cities.

Declared as unconstitutional were:

• RA 9389 (Baybay City in Leyte);
• RA 9390 (Bogo City in Cebu);
• RA 9391 (Catbalogan City in Samar);
• RA 9392 (Tandag City in Surigao del Sur);
• RA 9393 (Lamitan City in Basilan);
• RA 9394 (Borongan City in Samar);
• RA 9398 (Tayabas City in Quezon);
• RA 9404 (Tabuk City in Kalinga);
• RA 9405 (Bayugan City in Agusan del Sur);
• RA 9407 (Batac City in Ilocos Norte);
• RA 9408 (Mati City in Davao Oriental);
• RA 9409 (Guihulngan City in Negros Oriental);
• RA 9434 (Cabadbaran City in Agusan del Norte);
• RA 9435 (El Salvador City in Misamis Oriental);
• RA 9436 (Carcar City in Cebu);
• RA 9491 (Naga City in Cebu).

In a 16-page resolution penned by Senior Justice Antonio Carpio, the SC ruled that its Nov. 18, 2008 decision could not be reversed because “a tie-vote cannot result in any court order or directive."

The SC noted that the Court was evenly divided when it subsequently voted on the second motion for reconsideration.

The Court ruled that the Constitution is clear that the creation of local government units (LGUs) must follow the criteria established in the Local Government Code (LGC) and not in any other law.

The cityhood laws that were questioned were all enacted after RA 9009 became effective. This law increased the income requirement for cityhood from P20 million to P100 million in sec. 450 of the Local Government Code (LGC).

The Court noted petitioner League of Cities of the Philippines' motion to annul the Dec. 21, 2009 ruling that earlier declared as constitutional the cityhood laws.

Motion for reconsideration denied

The SC en banc upheld its Nov. 18, 2008 decision and denied the respondents’ —the Commission on Elections (Comelec), et al.— first motion for reconsideration on March 31, 2009.

On April 28, 2009, the SC en banc, by a split vote, denied a second motion for reconsideration.

The Nov. 18, 2008 ruling thus became final and executory. However, the SC realized that there were still unresolved motions. Thus, on Dec. 21, 2009, the court reversed its Nov. 18, 2008 decision.

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 provides that “no city…shall be created … except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code."

The court stressed that while all the criteria for the creation of cities must be embodied exclusively in the Local Government Code (LGC), the 16 cityhood laws provided an exemption from the “increased income requirement" needed 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 said.

The Court added 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."

Aside from Justice Carpio, those who voted for the voiding the cityhood laws were Justices Conchita Carpio Morales, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Martin Villarama, Jr., Jose Mendoza, and Maria Lourdes Sereno.

Those who dissented were Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Justices Presbitero Velasco, Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, and Jose Portugal Perez.

Justices Antonio Eduardo Nachura and Mariano Del Castillo did not take part in the voting. – VVP/HS, GMANews.TV

source:gma