Perpetual litigation: Supreme Court asked to void cityhood law ruling

MANILA, Philippines – A former lawmaker has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to nullify its ruling last year upholding the legality of the conversion of 16 municipalities into cities, arguing that the conversion had encouraged graft and corruption.

In a motion for reconsideration-in-intervention filed last June 15, former Negros Oriental Rep. Jacinto Paras supported the appeal filed by the League of Cities of the Philippines (LPC) last Jan. 5 seeking the nullification of the court’s Dec. 21 ruling.

Paras, who authored the bill that sought the conversion of Guihulngan town in his province into a city, said the conversion had “bred graft and corruption.”

He said the internal revenue allotment (IRA) of Guihulngan City rose from P64 million to P280 million in 2008 and P310 million in 2009 but the increased allotment did not trickle down to its constituents because of cases of overpricing, manipulation of public bidding rules, and falsification of public documents among local officials.

He also said the conversion of Guihulngan town into a city violates the equal protection clause under Article III Section 1 of the Constitution, which requires that a plebiscite be held before a province, city, municipality or barangay may be created, merged, abolished or its boundaries altered.

In November 2008, the Court declared the so-called cityhood laws unconstitutional, a ruling that became final and executory on May 21 last year.

On Dec. 21 last year, however, the Court reversed its decision after concerned municipal mayors supporting the cityhood laws filed an appeal. It declared the laws constitutional and ordered the Commission on Elections to hold plebiscites in 16 municipalities to determine if the constituents favor the conversion of their towns into cities.

In its appeal last Jan. 5, the LCP asked the SC to annul its Dec. 21 ruling, saying the reversal of the final ruling is a violation of Court rules.

“This (the reversal of a final decision) will set a bad precedent and will disturb the well-established legal principles on finality of judgment,” LCP said in its petition.

LCP also noted that after the SC declared the cityhood laws unconstitutional, the Comelec and the Department of Budget and Management had adjusted the IRA for the 16 converted municipalities.

The petitioners claimed that “letters” were sent to individual judges “aimed at influencing the voting in this case” and they were not informed of the existence of these letters.

They said the new ruling “was issued in brazen disregard” of their rights to due process because they were not “fully apprised of the proceedings in this case.”

The LCP also questioned the participation of Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Roberto Abad, and Martin Villarama Jr. in the voting for the Dec. 21 decision because they did not participate in the deliberations.

“They were not yet members of the SC on 18 November 2008 when the decision on this case was promulgated,” the petitioners said.

In the Dec. 21 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 -the cityhood laws -do not violate Article X Section 10 or the equal protection clause under Article III Section 1 of the Constitution.