Supreme Court reverses self again, thumbs down 16 new cities

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has reversed a ruling on the constitutionality of laws passed by the 11th Congress on the conversion of 16 muni-cipalities into cities.

In a 16-page resolution released yesterday, the SC reverted to its November 2008 decision declaring the cityhood laws unconstitutional.

A resolution dated Dec. 21, 2009 declared the laws constitutional.

The SC was acting on a petition of the League of Cities of the Philippines against the “wholesale conversion” of municipalities into cities. In questioning the creation of more cities, the LCP cited concerns raised by existing cities over shrinking shares in the Internal Revenue Allotment.

Voting 7-6, the SC granted the appeal of the LCP filed last Jan. 5 against the Dec. 21, 2009 resolution.

The Court, through Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, ruled that the conversion into cities of the 16 municipalities violated Article X Section 10 of the Constitution.

The provision states 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.”

“The unconstitutionality of the cityhood laws lies in the fact that Congress provided an exemption contrary to the express language of the Constitution... Congress exceeded and abused its lawmaking power, rendering the challenged cityhood laws void for being violative of the Constitution,” the SC stressed.

The seven justices agreed that the December 2009 resolution was void and that the Nov. 18, 2008 decision was never reversed in the first place “for a tie-vote cannot result in any court order or directive.”

The justices were referring to the 6-6 vote in April last year denying the Commission on Election’s second motion for reconsideration.

“Undeniably, the 6-6 vote did not overrule the prior majority decision of 18 November 2008, as well as the prior majority en banc Resolution of 31 March 2009 denying reconsideration. The tie-vote on the second motion for reconsideration is not the same as a tie-vote on the main decision where there is no prior decision.”

They added that the November 2008 ruling was also recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on May 21 last year.

But SC records showed that there were still unresolved motions after the recording in the entry of judgment, which prompted the court to issue the December resolution.

Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., in his dissenting opinion, said “the only conceivable reason why the Constitution employs the clause ‘in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code’ is to lay stress that it is Congress alone, and no other, which can define, prescribe and impose the criteria.”

“The imposition may be effected either in a consolidated set of laws or a single-subject enactment, like RA 9009. And provided the imperatives of the equal protection clause are not transgressed, an exemption from the imposition may be allowed, just like the cityhood laws,” he said.

Chief Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad and Jose Portugal Perez also dissented.

Associate Justices Antonio Eduardo Nachura and Mariano del Castillo abstained.

SC spokesman and court administrator Jose Midas Marquez said the new ruling could still be subject to appeal.

“We leave that to the parties if they would file motions after this ruling, considering that there is no declaration in the resolution that this ruling is already final,” he told The STAR.

In the 11th Congress, the House of Representatives enacted into law 33 bills converting municipalities into cities.

Congress did not act on 24 other similar bills.

In the 12th Congress, meanwhile, the House amended Section 450 of the Local Government Code increasing the annual income requirement for conversion of a municipality into a city from P20 million to P100 million.

The amendment was intended to discourage rushed conversion of municipalities into cities.

Later, Congress adopted Joint Resolution 29, which sought to exempt from the P100-million income requirement the 24 municipalities whose cityhood efforts were not approved in the 11th Congress.