'Supreme Court ruling on cityhood law unleashes catastrophe in government, judiciary'

MANILA, Philippines - The new ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) upholding the constitutionality of the cityhood laws passed by the 11th Congress has unleashed a “catastrophe” in both the judiciary and government, a senior justice said.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who led three other SC justices in dissenting from the ruling of the Court last month that gave the Commission on Elections (Comelec) the go signal to hold plebiscites in 16 municipalities to determine whether their constituents favor their conversion into a city, said such a ruling would “destabilize not only this Court but also the executive and legislative branches of government.”

“Any ruling of the Court that a tie-vote on a motion for reconsideration reverses a prior majority vote on the main decision would wreak havoc on well-settled jurisprudence of this Court. The Court cannot afford to unleash such a catastrophe on the nation,” he stressed in his dissenting opinion.

Justice Carpio also believes that the reversal of the earlier SC ruling that was already declared final and executory in May last year would “resurrect contentious political issues long ago settled, such as the PIRMA initiative in Santiago and the people’s initiative in Lambino.

“Countless other decisions of this Court would come back to haunt it, long after such decisions have become final and executory following the tie-votes on the motions for reconsideration which resulted in the denial of motions,” he warned.

Three other justices agreed with this opinion: Associate Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales, Arturo Brion, and Diosdado Peralta.

Justice Carpio wrote the earlier ruling of the Court in November 2008 declaring as unconstitutional the cityhood laws, which was declared final and executory but was reversed by the SC in a ruling last Dec. 21 after six justices voted to grant the appeal of concerned local governments.

Carpio penned the dissenting opinion in the new ruling.

“To repeat, the court, by a majority vote, ruled that the 16 Cityhood Laws are unconstitutional in its 18 November 2008 decision. The court, by another majority vote, denied the first motion for reconsideration of the 18 November 2008 decision. Then, the court, by a split-vote, denied the second motion for reconsideration. Contrary to respondents’ (the town mayors) perception, there is nothing left unresolved by this court. The 18 November 2008 decision became final on 21 May 2009. As a consequence, it has become immutable and unalterable, no longer subject to attack and cannot be modified directly or indirectly by this court, which had lost jurisdiction to alter it,” he said in his dissenting opinion.

In the new majority decision penned by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, justices of the High Court voted 6-4 in ruling that Republic Acts 9389, 9390, 9391, 9392, 9393, 9394, 9398, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434, 9435, 9436, and 9491 (cityhood laws) do not violate Article X Section 10 or the equal protection clause under Article III Section 1 of the Constitution.

Section 10 provides that “no province, city, municipality or barangay shall be created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.”

In setting aside its earlier ruling on the case, the High Court also explained that the 6-6 vote for the decision rendered in April last year “does not reflect the majority of the members of the Court as required under Section 4 (2), Article VIII of the Constitution.”