Supreme Court asked: Hold oral arguments on cityhood

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court was asked to hold oral arguments on the constitutionality of laws passed by the 11th Congress that paved the way for the conversion into cities of 16 municipalities – a case where it has reversed its ruling twice already by close margin of votes among justices.

In an 11-page motion filed last week, towns covered by the ruling led by Baybay Municipality in Leyte said an oral argument on the case would help the Court in coming up with a judicious resolution on the issues raised in the petition.

Petitioners represented by former Soli­citor General Estelito Mendoza argued that only six of the current magistrates of the Court have been able to take part in the proceedings since the Court issued its first decision on Nov. 18, 2008, which declared the cityhood laws unconstitutional.

They added that three members of the Court who took part and voted in the resolution of Aug. 14, 2010 were not yet members of the Court at the promulgation of the second ruling on the case on Dec. 21, 2009, which reversed the 2008 ruling and declared the cityhood laws constitutional.

Again ruling on case on Aug. 24, the SC reversed one more time its decision and declared unconstitutional all 16 cityhood laws.

“Oral arguments in the case will therefore be beneficial, not only to the parties but, with all due respect, to the Honorable Court as well, since it will give the members of the Court (particularly those recently appointed) an opportunity to hear the arguments of the parties fully and to subject them to any clarificatory questioning, if necessary,” they said.      

It can be recalled that the High Court has set oral hearings on controversial cases, including the long-standing dispute over the Hacienda Luisita owned by the family of President Aquino, the first executive order of the President on the creation of the truth commission, and the impeachment proceedings against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

The third ruling of the Court on the cityhood laws prompted Baybay town and other concerned municipalities to file another motion for reconsideration – their second and the third in this case.

They reiterated their argument that the cityhood laws are constitutional and that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Congress and Malacanang in approving the said laws.

Petitioners contested the reinstated ruling of the SC that the cityhood laws violated Section 10 Article X of the Constitution, which 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 Court ruled that the cityhood laws have violated R.A. 9009, which took effect in June 2001 or six years before the cityhood laws were passed, that 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.

Mendoza argued that the exemption clause did not provide for an income criterion outside the LGC but merely subjected the 16 Cityhood Laws to the income criterion provided in Section 450 of the LGC prior to its amendment by RA 9009.

“Contrary therefore to what the Court concluded in declaring the 16 Cityhood Laws unconstitutional, each of the 16 Cityhood Laws were subject to an income criterion in the Local Government Code — that provided in its Section 450, prior to its amendment by R.A. 9009,” Mendoza argued.

Mendoza also did not agree with the Court’s ruling that the Cityhood Laws violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution as it allowed 16 municipalities to be converted as cities despite the fact that they complied only with the minimum financial requirement of P20 million effective prior to the amendment of Section 450 by R.A. 9009.

He said stressed that the P100 million income requirement is an “arbitrary” amount which cannot be the basis of the invalidation of the Cityhood Laws.

The LCP, according to Mendoza, has been opposing the Cityhood Laws in order that their share in the internal revenue allotment will not be reduced by the increase of number of cities.

But, the former solicitor general explained that the Constitution does not fix the number of cities, provinces or municipalities as all of them are created by Congress, thus, the existing cities do not have a right to exclude other municipalities from becoming cities.

“In light of the above, no local government unit, including cities, has a vested right to any amount of IRA. The desire of petitioning cities upon which they seek to invalidate the 16 Cityhood Laws is not based on any right actionable under the equal protection clause of the Constitution,” Mendoza claimed.

Mendoza further noted that none of the LCP members became a city because it had an annual income of P100 million or more and many of these cities do not actually have an annual income of P100 million up to now.

On the other hand, Mendoza said no municipality with an annual income of less than P100 million who asked to be converted to a city prior to the effectivity of R.A. 9009 has been denied conversion because its annual income was nor P100 million or more.

Mendoza also said that the Constitution requires that a petition for nullification of a law should be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case.

Mendoza noted that under the 1987 Constitution, the 16 Cityhood Laws were declared unconstitutional in the November 18, 2008 decision with the concurrence of six members of the Court while only seven magistrates concurred in August 24 resolution.

This means, according to Mendoza, less than half of the total members of the Court concurred with the rulings.

“As we turn now the basis upon which the Court by a plurality of a single vote, declared the 16 Cityhood Laws unconstitutional in its resolution of August 24, 2010, respondents respectfully ask the Court to consider anew whether the quantum of persuasion suggested in the jurisprudence in the exercise of its power of judicial review to overcome the presumption of the constitutionality of the 16 Cityhood Laws has been met. Respondents, respectfully, submit...that in the instant cases the quantum of persuasion required to declare laws unconstitutional has not been reached,” Mendoza said.

The resolution last month was the third ruling of the High Court on the petition of the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) that opposed the “wholesale conversion” of municipalities into cities, which would reduce the share of existing cities in the Internal Revenue Allotment.

This change was brought about by the addition to the Court of three new magistrates - Associate Justice Martin Villarama Jr., Jose Mendoza and Maria Lourdes Sereno - since the SC last ruled on the case.

Voting 7-6, the SC granted the motion of LCP filed last Jan. 5 appealing its Dec. 21, 2009 resolution that declared the cityhood laws as constitutional.

Associate Justices Conchita Carpio - Morales, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Villarama, Mendoza and Sereno concurred in this ruling. - Edu Punay