Case Digest (G.R. No. 176951)
Facts:
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 176951, 177499, 178056, December 21, 2009, Supreme Court En Banc, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (the LCP, the City of Iloilo, the City of Calbayog, and Jerry P. Trenas) filed consolidated petitions for prohibition challenging the constitutionality of sixteen Republic Acts that converted specified municipalities into component cities (the “cityhood laws”) and sought to enjoin the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from conducting plebiscites under those laws. Numerous cities intervened in support of petitioners-in-intervention.
The factual background is that during the 11th Congress fifty‑seven cityhood bills were filed; thirty‑three lapsed into law. During the Senate deliberations that resulted in Republic Act No. 9009 (RA 9009), which amended Section 450 of Republic Act No. 7160 (the Local Government Code or LGC) to raise the income requirement for cityhood to PhP100 million, legislators discussed whether pending cityhood bills would be subject to the new standard. Senator Pimentel indicated the new threshold should not retroactively affect pending bills. In the 13th Congress sixteen municipalities refiled or pursued individual cityhood bills, each containing a clause exempting the subject municipality from the PhP100 million requirement; those measures lapsed into law in 2007 (R.A. Nos. 9389, 9390, 9391, 9392, 9393, 9394, 9398, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434, 9435, 9436, 9491). Each law directed COMELEC to hold a plebiscite.
On November 18, 2008, the Court en banc, in a 6–5 vote (ponencia by Justice Carpio), granted the petitions and declared the sixteen cityhood laws unconstitutional for allegedly violating Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and the equal‑protection clause. Respondent LGUs moved for reconsideration; the Court issued a March 31, 2009 resolution denying reconsideration (reflecting division). Respondents filed a second motion for reconsideration; an April 28, 2009 resolution recorded a 6–6 tie and “denied” certain motions and declared the second motion for reconsideration a prohibited pleading. Respondent LGUs filed further motions (including a May 14, 2009 motion to amend the April 28 resolution and a June 2, 2009 motion). The Court, noting that the April 28, 2009 6–6 vote left the question of the constitutionality of the laws unresolved for want of the required majority under Article VIII, Section 4(2), recalled entry of judgment and granted the respondent LGUs’ motions for reconsideration, thus re‑opening the November 18, 2008 Decision for redeliberation. After reconsideration, the Court reversed its prior ruling, upheld the cityho...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural — Did the 6–6 tie vote on a motion for reconsideration leave undecided the question of the constitutionality of the cityhood laws so that the Court could re‑deliberate and require a majority concurrence under Art. VIII, Sec. 4(2) of the 1987 Constitution?
- Substantive — Do the cityhood laws violate Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution (that creation of local government units must be "in accordance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code")?
- Substantive — Do the cityhood laws offend the equal‑protection clause (Art. III, Sec. 1) by impermissibly grant...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)