GR 176951; (November, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 176951 , 177499, 178056; November 18, 2008
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) represented by LCP National President Jerry P. Treñas, City of Iloilo represented by Mayor Jerry P. Treñas, City of Calbayog represented by Mayor Mel Senen S. Sarmiento, and Jerry P. Treñas in his personal capacity as taxpayer, petitioners, vs. Commission on Elections; Municipality of Baybay, Province of Leyte; Municipality of Bogo, Province of Cebu; Municipality of Catbalogan, Province of Western Samar; Municipality of Tandag, Province of Surigao del Sur; Municipality of Borongan, Province of Eastern Samar; and Municipality of Tayabas, Province of Quezon, respondents. ( G.R. No. 176951 ). League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) represented by LCP National President Jerry P. Treñas, City of Iloilo represented by Mayor Jerry P. Treñas, City of Calbayog represented by Mayor Mel Senen S. Sarmiento, and Jerry P. Treñas in his personal capacity as taxpayer, petitioners, vs. Commission on Elections; Municipality of Lamitan, Province of Basilan; Municipality of Tabuk, Province of Kalinga; Municipality of Bayugan, Province of Agusan del Sur; Municipality of Batac, Province of Ilocos Norte; Municipality of Mati, Province of Davao Oriental; and Municipality of Guihulngan, Province of Negros Oriental, respondents. (G.R. No. 177499). League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) represented by LCP National President Jerry P. Treñas, City of Iloilo represented by Mayor Jerry P. Treñas, City of Calbayog represented by Mayor Mel Senen S. Sarmiento, and Jerry P. Treñas in his personal capacity as taxpayer, petitioners vs. Commission on Elections; Municipality of Cabadbaran, Province of Agusan del Norte; Municipality of Carcar, Province of Cebu; and Municipality of El Salvador, Misamis Oriental, respondents. (G.R. No. 178056).
FACTS
During the 11th Congress, 33 municipalities were converted into cities. Congress did not act on bills for 24 other municipalities. In the 12th Congress, Republic Act No. 9009 (RA 9009) took effect, amending the Local Government Code by increasing the annual income requirement for municipal conversion from P20 million to P100 million. The House adopted Joint Resolution No. 29 to exempt the 24 pending municipalities from the new requirement, but the Senate did not approve it. In the 13th Congress, 16 municipalities filed individual cityhood bills containing a common exemption clause from the P100 million income requirement. These bills lapsed into law (the Cityhood Laws) without the President’s signature, directing the COMELEC to hold plebiscites. Petitioners, including the League of Cities of the Philippines and existing cities, filed petitions assailing the constitutionality of the Cityhood Laws for violating Section 10, Article X of the Constitution and the equal protection clause, arguing that the laws would reduce the Internal Revenue Allotment of existing cities.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Cityhood Laws violate Section 10, Article X of the Constitution .
2. Whether the Cityhood Laws violate the equal protection clause.
RULING
The Court granted the petitions, declaring the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional.
1. The Cityhood Laws violate Sections 6 and 10, Article X of the Constitution . Applying the P100 million income requirement in RA 9009 is a prospective application, as RA 9009 took effect in 2001, while the cityhood bills became law more than five years later. The Constitution requires Congress to prescribe all criteria for city creation in the Local Government Code, not in any other law like the Cityhood Laws. The Cityhood Laws also violate Section 6, Article X by preventing a fair distribution of national taxes to local government units. The criteria in Section 450 of the Local Government Code, as amended by RA 9009, are clear and unambiguous. The intent of past Congresses to exempt certain municipalities remained an intent and was never written into the Code. Deliberations on unapproved bills from past Congresses are not aids in interpreting laws passed later.
2. The Cityhood Laws violate the equal protection clause. Even if the exemption were written into the Local Government Code, it would be unconstitutional for violating equal protection. The exemption arbitrarily singles out the 16 municipalities for preferential treatment without a substantial distinction, failing the rational basis test. The classification is not germane to the purpose of RA 9009, which was to restrain the “mad rush” of municipalities converting into cities despite fiscal incapability.