Cityhood ruling overturned
by Rey E. Requejo
THE Supreme Court overturned its own decision on the controversial cityhood of 16 towns, this time voting 7-6 to declare as unconstitutional the laws that converted 16 municipalities into cities.
In a 16-page en banc resolution written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the high court granted the motion for reconsideration of the League of Cities of the Philippines, which is opposing the cityhood of the 16 towns.
The high court explained that it did not validly reverse itself when it resolved on a tie-vote the second motion for reconsideration of the 16 towns seeking to uphold the constitutionality of their respective cityhood.
Its latest ruling said that there could be no reversal of the Nov. 18, 2008 decision “for a tie-vote cannot result in any court order or directive,” noting that the court was evenly divided when it subsequently voted on the second motion for reconsideration.
The Supreme Court had earlier denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the 16 towns on March 31, 2009 after it ruled in its Nov. 18, 2008 decision the cityhood laws unconstitutional.
The high court denied a second motion for reconsideration on April 28, 2009 on a split vote. The denial of the second motion supposedly made the Nov. 18, 2008 ruling final and executory.
However, in a strange turn of events, the high court said there were still pending unresolved motions regarding the case. On Dec. 21, 2009, it reversed its Nov. 18, 2008 decision.
“Undeniably, the 6-6 vote did not overrule the prior majority en banc 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,” the high court ruled.
In its latest resolution, the high court reiterated its Nov. 18, 2008 ruling that the cityhood laws of the 16 towns violated Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, which expressly provides that “no city…shall be created…except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code.”
The high court explained that while all criteria for the creation of cities must be embodied exclusively in the Local Government Code, the cityhood laws being questioned provided an exemption from the Code’s increased income requirement for the creation of cities under Sec. 450.
“Limiting the exemption only to the 16 municipalities violates the requirement that the classification must apply to all similarly situated. Municipalities with the same income as the 16 respondent municipalities cannot convert into cities, while the 16 respondent municipalities can. Clearly, as worded the exemption provision found in the Cityhood Laws, even if it were written in Section 450 of the Local Government Code, would still be unconstitutional for violation of the equal protection clause,” it added.
The high court ruled that the Constitution is clear that the creation of local government units must follow the criteria established in the Local Government Code and not in any other law.
The cityhood laws, all enacted after the effectivity of Republic Act 9009 which increased the income requirement for cityhood from P20 million to P100 million under Section 450 of the Local Government Code, explicitly exempt the 16 municipalities from the increased income requirement.
The 16 towns are Baybay City, Leyte; Bogo City, Cebu; Catbalogan City, Samar; Tandag City, Surigao del Sur; Lamitan City, Basilan; Borongan City, Samar; Tayabas City, Quezon; Tabuk City, Kalinga; Bayugan City, Agusan del Sur; Batac City, Ilocos Norte;
Mati City, Davao Oriental; Guihulungan City, Negros Oriental; Cabadbaran City, Agusan del Norte; El Salvador City, Misamis Oriental; Carcar City, Cebu; and Naga City, Cebu.
Top
Copyright Manila Standard Today 2005-2009
Bogo is back to municipality again..
Posting Permissions
