Title
League of Cities of the Philippines vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 176951
Decision Date
Nov 18, 2008
24 municipalities sought cityhood via laws exempting them from P100M income requirement; SC ruled these laws unconstitutional, violating constitutional mandates and equal protection.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 176951)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Consolidation and Parties
    • Petitioners
      • League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), represented by National President Jerry P. TreAas
      • City of Iloilo, represented by Mayor Jerry P. TreAas
      • City of Calbayog, represented by Mayor Mel Senen S. Sarmiento
      • Jerry P. TreAas in his personal capacity as taxpayer
    • Respondents
      • Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
      • Sixteen (16) municipalities converted by the Cityhood Laws (e.g., Baybay, Bogo, Catbalogan, etc.)
      • Cities intervening (existing cities contesting IRA dilution)
  • Legislative Background
    • 11th Congress (1998–2001)
      • Enacted 33 bills converting municipalities into cities
      • Left 24 cityhood bills pending
    • 12th Congress (2001–2004)
      • Republic Act No. 9009 (June 30, 2001) amended LGC §450, raising income requirement from ₱20 M to ₱100 M
      • House Joint Resolution No. 29 to exempt 24 pending municipalities failed in the Senate
    • 13th Congress (2004–2007)
      • Re-adopted exemption resolution (Joint Resolution No. 1) but Senate again failed to approve
      • Sponsors filed 16 individual cityhood bills with a common exemption clause from RA 9009
      • Bills lapsed into law (RA 9389 to 9491) in March–July 2007, directing COMELEC to hold plebiscites
  • Proceedings in the Supreme Court
    • Petitioners filed consolidated petitions for prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief under Rule 65
    • Petitions-in-intervention by 26 existing cities; supplemental petition adding Naga City and DBM
    • Oral arguments held March 11, 2008; COMELEC conducted plebiscites; Laws ratified; DBM released IRAs

Issues:

  • Whether the Cityhood Laws violate Section 10, Article X of the Constitution by exempting certain municipalities from the income requirement prescribed in LGC §450 as amended by RA 9009.
  • Whether the Cityhood Laws violate the equal protection clause (Section 1, Article III) by granting a special exemption to the respondent municipalities.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.