Case Digest (G.R. No. 176951)
Facts:
League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 176951, 177499, and 178056, February 15, 2011, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court. The consolidated disputes arose from petitions for prohibition filed by the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), the City of Iloilo, the City of Calbayog, and Jerry P. Trenas (taxpayer-petitioner), challenging the constitutionality of sixteen Republic Acts (the Cityhood Laws) that converted specified municipalities into component cities and seeking to enjoin the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from holding plebiscites under those Acts.Chronology: The Court En Banc first issued a Decision on November 18, 2008 (6–5) granting the petitions and declaring the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional for violating Article X, Sections 10 and 6 of the Constitution and the equal protection clause. The Court denied the first motion for reconsideration on March 31, 2009 (7–5). A second motion for reconsideration was initially characterized as prohibited under Section 2, Rule 52, but the Court later clarified (June 2, 2009 Resolution) that it had in effect allowed consideration of the second motion, and nonetheless denied it on April 28, 2009 for lack of votes to overturn the November 18 decision.
The Court subsequently reversed course: on December 21, 2009 (6–4) the En Banc declared the Cityhood Laws constitutional. Then, on August 24, 2010 (7–6), the Court en banc again resolved to reinstate the November 18, 2008 Decision and thus struck down the Cityhood Laws. Respondent municipalities filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the August 24, 2010 Resolution (filed September ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s August 24, 2010 Resolution be granted?
- Do the sixteen Cityhood Laws violate Article X, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution (i.e., must criteria for creation of local government units appear only in the Local Government Code)?
- Do the sixteen Cityhood Laws violate Article X, Section 6 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution (including alleged dim...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)