League of Cities of the Philippines vs. COMELEC

 - CASE DIGEST -

League of Cities of the Philippines vs. COMELEC

 

SUBJECT: LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION

Topic: RA 9009 on income requirement for cities; Cityhood Laws exemption

FACTS: These are consolidated petitions for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order filed by the League of Cities of the Philippines, City of Iloilo, City of Calbayog, and Jerry P. Treñas assailing the constitutionality of the subject Cityhood Laws and enjoining the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and respondent municipalities from conducting plebiscites pursuant to the Cityhood Laws.

 

During the 12th Congress, Congress enacted into law Republic Act No. 9009 (RA 9009), which took effect on 30 June 2001. RA 9009 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. 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 in RA 9009 the 24 municipalities whose cityhood bills were not approved in the 11th Congress. However, the 12th Congress ended without the Senate approving Joint Resolution No. 29.

During the 13th Congress, the House of Representatives re-adopted Joint Resolution No. 29 as Joint Resolution No. 1. The 16 cityhood bills contained a common provision exempting all the 16 municipalities from the P100 million income requirement in RA 9009. The cityhood bills lapsed into law (Cityhood Laws) on various dates from March to July 2007 without the President’s signature. The Cityhood Laws direct the COMELEC to hold plebiscites to determine whether the voters in each respondent municipality approve of the conversion of their municipality into a city.

Petitioners filed the present petitions to declare the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional for violation of Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, as well as for violation of the equal protection clause.

 

ISSUE: Whether the Cityhood Laws violate Section 10, Article X of the Constitution on the creation of LGUs in accordance with the criteria in the local government code, and not in any other law.

 

RULING:

• ·   1^st ruling – unconstitutional (2008)
• ·       2^nd ruling – valid (2009)
• ·       3^rd ruling – unconstitutional (2010)
• ·       4^th ruling – valid (2011 FINAL RULING)

RATIO on FINAL RULING: Congress intended that those with pending cityhood bills during the 11^th Congress would not be covered by the new and higher income requirement of 100 million imposed by RA 9009. The exemption clause found in the individual cityhood bills are the express articulation of that intent of Congress to exempt respondent municipalities from the coverage of RA 9009.

It cannot be denied (based on the exchange of Senate President Drilon and Senator Pimentel during the deliberation of RA 9009) that Congress saw the wisdom of exempting the municipalities from complying with the higher income requirement (from 20Million to 100 Million) imposed by the LGC as amended by RA 9009. Indeed these municipalities have proven themselves viable and capable to become component cities of their respective provinces. It is also acknowledge that they were centers of trade and commerce, points of convergence of transportation, rich havens of agricultural, mineral, and other natural resources, and flourishing tourism spots. In this regard, it is worthy to mention that this distinctive traits, makes it’s a self-sufficient cities.