IN PROTEST OF SC RULING League of Cities eyes mass actions

CEBU, Philippines - Toledo City Mayor Arlene Zambo said that the 120 mayors of the different cities nationwide comprising League of Cities in the Philippines might hold mass actions because of their disappointment on the recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the 16 newly created cities, including Bogo, Naga and Carcar in Cebu.

Zambo, secretary of the League of Cities in the Philippines, said they already heard of the decision as early as December 8 when they had their Christmas party.

Zambo said that all of the city mayors were disappointed by the SC decision considering that the high tribunal already ruled on the matter with finality.

“Last time nag-meet mi everybody was very disappointed,” Zambo said overdyLA.

Zambo believes that “politics” played a role in the Supreme Court’s reversal of itself. She did not anymore elaborate about it.

“Part of it politika gyud,” Zambo said.

Zambo said it is very surprising and lamentable that the Supreme Courtreversed itself when it had already ruled with finality declaring the creation of the 16 new cities as null and void for not having complied with the income requirement under the amended Local Government Code.

She said the high tribunal in fact mentioned in its decision when it denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by the 16 new cities that no more pleadings will be entertained.

However, to their surprise the Supreme Court reopened the case and entertained the third motion for reconsideration which was the basis of the high tribunal in reversing its earlier decision.

“If the Supreme Court can do that, kinsa pa may atong kasandigan,” Zamboasked.

Zambo however said they have not finalized their decision yet on what action to take but among the options that they are looking into is to file a motion for reconsideration.

The mayor also mentioned the possibility of holding mass action.

Asked what she meant by “mass action” Zambo did not anymore elaborate saying they have not agreed their final action yet. But she said holding rallies in front of the Supreme Court may not be part of their action.

The 120 cities comprising the league have opposed the creation of the new cities because their share of the internal revenue allotment from the nationalgovernment is affected.

In Toledo City alone, Zambo said her IRA share was reduced by P45 million when the 16 new cities started to collect their shares earlier. It was stopped when the Supreme Court ruled that their creation was illegal.

However, last week the high court reversed itself.

In a vote of 6-4, the high tribunal upheld the constitutionality of the creation of the new cities. Justices Martin Villarama, Jr., Roberto Abad, Presbitero Velasco, Lucas Bersamin, Teresita De Castro and Mariano Del Castillo favored the new cities.

On the other hand justices Bernardo Carpio, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta and Conchita Morales stood firm on the court’s earlier decision that declaredthe creation of the new cities as unconstitutional.

The SC, in November last year, granted the petition filed by the League of Cities of the Philippines and several provincial government officials seeking to nullify the Cityhood Laws enacted by Congress.

The High Tribunal upheld the argument of petitioners that the Cityhood Laws violated Article X Section 10 and the equal protection clause of the Constitution since it prevents a fair and just distribution of the national taxes to local government units.

Another argument presented by the petitioners is that these new cities have not complied with the P100 million income requirement required under the Local Government Code.

The new cities that also include Baybay, Leyte; Catbalogan, Samar; Lamitan, Basilan; Mati, Davao Oriental; Bayugan, Agusan del Sur; Borongan, Eastern Samar; Batac, Ilocos Norte; Tabuk, Kalinga; Tandag, Surigao del Sur; El Salvador, Misamis Oriental; Guihulngan, Negros Oriental; Tayabas, Quezon; and Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, then filed a motion for reconsideration on the ruling. But the Supreme Court dismissed it on April.— Fred P. Languido/NLQ (FREEMAN NEWS)