Case Summary (G.R. No. 176951)
Factual Background
Sixteen statutes purporting to convert specified municipalities into component cities were enacted after Congress amended the Local Government Code by RA 9009, which raised the income requirement for cityhood under Sec. 450 from P20 million to P100 million. The enacted Cityhood Laws each contained an express exemption from the increased income requirement. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of those Cityhood Laws on the ground that the Constitution confines the criteria for creation of local government units to those established in the Local Government Code and that the exemption constituted invidious classification in violation of the equal protection clause.
Procedural History
On 18 November 2008 the Court En Banc, by majority vote, declared the sixteen Cityhood Laws unconstitutional for violating Art. X, Sec. 10 and the equal protection clause. Respondents filed motions for reconsideration which were denied by a majority on 31 March 2009. A second motion produced a 6-6 tie vote reflected in the 28 April 2009 Resolution that ordered entry of judgment. Entry of judgment was recorded on 21 May 2009. The Court thereafter entertained further pleadings and on 21 December 2009, by a split vote, issued a Decision upholding the constitutionality of the Cityhood Laws and reversing the 18 November 2008 Decision. Petitioners then filed ad cautelam motions for reconsideration and a motion to annul the 21 December 2009 Decision. The Court, upon reexamination, granted the motions for reconsideration and on 24 August 2010 reinstated the 18 November 2008 Decision declaring the sixteen Cityhood Laws unconstitutional.
Issues Presented
The Court addressed whether the Cityhood Laws: (1) violated Art. X, Sec. 10, 1987 Constitution by providing city-creation criteria outside the Local Government Code; (2) contravened the equal protection clause by exempting certain municipalities from the income requirement imposed by RA 9009; (3) could be sustained by the operative fact doctrine so as to validate their continued effect despite being unconstitutional; and (4) whether a tie-vote on a motion for reconsideration deprived the Court of authority to leave the prior majority decision in effect.
Petitioners' Contentions
League of Cities of the Philippines and the other petitioners contended that the challenged Cityhood Laws were unconstitutional because they provided exemptions from the income criterion prescribed in Sec. 450 of the Local Government Code, as amended by RA 9009, in violation of Art. X, Sec. 10 which confines creation criteria to the Local Government Code. Petitioners further argued that the exemptions created an arbitrary classification violative of the equal protection clause and that the 21 December 2009 Decision should be annulled as the Court lacked jurisdiction to reverse a final and executory judgment.
Respondents' Contentions
The respondent municipalities and intervenors maintained that Congress possessed the authority to enact exemptions and that the classifications were reasonable. They urged that the operative fact doctrine and the approval of cityhood in plebiscites justified recognition of city status and that the Court retained jurisdiction to revisit prior rulings before finality in equity and prudence. Intervening cities also stressed the fiscal consequences of additional cities on their internal revenue allotment under Sec. 285 of the Local Government Code.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Court granted the motions for reconsideration of the 21 December 2009 Decision, reinstated the 18 November 2008 Decision, and declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL the Cityhood Laws identified in the Resolution. The Court held that the exemption provisions in those laws violated Art. X, Sec. 10 and the equal protection clause, and therefore the Cityhood Laws were void. The Court noted petitioners' motion to annul the December 21, 2009 Decision.
Legal Basis and Reasoning: Section 10, Article X
The Court construed Art. X, Sec. 10, 1987 Constitution to mean that all criteria for creation of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays must be established exclusively in the Local Government Code. Congress cannot prescribe qualification criteria for creation of a city in laws other than the Local Government Code. The Constitution aims for uniform and non-discriminatory criteria; any derogation from the Local Government Code is constitutionally proscribed.
Legal Basis and Reasoning: RA 9009 and Section 450
The Court found that RA 9009 expressly amended Sec. 450 of the Local Government Code to raise the income requirement to P100 million effective 30 June 2001. RA 9009 is not a law separate from the Local Government Code but an amendment to it. The language of RA 9009 is plain and unambiguous and contains no exemption for municipalities whose cityhood bills were pending; hence no exemption could validly be supplied in later, separate Cityhood Laws.
Legal Basis and Reasoning: Operative Fact Doctrine
The Court reiterated the proper application of the operative fact doctrine: an unconstitutional law remains void but its interim effects, before judicial nullification, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play. The minority’s contention that the operative fact doctrine could constitutionalize an unconstitutional statute was rejected. The Court held that the doctrine can only preserve certain past acts taken in reliance on the presumed validity of the law (such as payment of salaries, issuance of licenses, or execution of contracts), but it cannot validate or constitutionalize the statute itself.
Legal Basis and Reasoning: Equal Protection Clause
The Court concluded that the classification employed by the Cityhood Laws — exemption for municipalities whose cityhood bills were pending in the 11th Congress — was not rationally related to the objective of preventing fiscally non-viable municipalities from becoming cities. The pendency of a bill is not a substantial distinction with respect to a municipality's income and yields an arbitrary advantage tied to an ephemeral date. The exemption therefore violated the equal protection requirement that classifications be germane to the law’s purpose, not limited solely to existing conditions, and applicable to all similarly situated entities.
Legal Basis and Reasoning: Tie-Vote on Motion for Reconsideration
The Court applied Sec. 7, Rule 56, Rules of Court and the En Banc clarificatory Resolution A.M. No. 99-1-09-SC to hold that a tie-vote on a motion for reconsideration results in denial of the motion and leaves prior majority actions intact. The 6-6 tie on the second motion for reconsideration negated any majority to overturn the 18 Novembe
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 176951)
Parties and Posture
- League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), several named cities, and Jerry P. Trenas in his personal capacity filed petitions seeking to annul or reconsider the Court's rulings on cityhood laws.
- Commission on Elections and the named municipalities were respondents to the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Cityhood Laws.
- The Supreme Court, En Banc, initially rendered a decision on 18 November 2008 striking down the challenged Cityhood Laws, and later entertained motions for reconsideration that culminated in subsequent rulings.
- The Court recorded the 18 November 2008 Decision in the Book of Entries of Judgments on 21 May 2009 and thereafter issued a Decision on 21 December 2009 reversing the 18 November 2008 Decision before the present motions for reconsideration were granted.
- The present resolution disposed of ad cautelam motions for reconsideration and a motion to annul the 21 December 2009 Decision and reinstated the 18 November 2008 Decision.
Key Facts
- Congress enacted amendments to the Local Government Code raising the income requirement for cityhood from PhP 20 million to PhP 100 million by enacting Republic Act No. 9009, which took effect on 30 June 2001.
- The subject Cityhood Laws were enacted after the effectivity of RA 9009 and each contained an explicit exemption from the increased income requirement in Section 450 of the Local Government Code, as amended by RA 9009.
- Some municipalities whose cityhood was authorized by the Cityhood Laws had pending cityhood bills in earlier Congresses before the effectivity of RA 9009 and had functioned as cities with corresponding officials, employees, contracts, and fiscal transactions prior to the Court's final ruling.
- The Court en banc was split on the second motion for reconsideration, producing a six-to-six vote and a Resolution of 28 April 2009 that denied the motion for reconsideration by reason of lack of majority and ordered that entry of judgment be made in due course.
- The December 21, 2009 Decision, which reversed the 18 November 2008 Decision, was later challenged by motions to annul and ad cautelam motions for reconsideration that the Court granted in the present resolution.
Statutory Framework
- Section 10, Article X, 1987 Constitution provides that no city shall be created except in accordance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code and subject to plebiscitary approval.
- Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, governs the creation and conversion of local government units.
- Republic Act No. 9009 expressly amended Section 450 of the Local Government Code by increasing the income requirement for conversion into a city to PhP 100 million.
- Section 450 of the Local Government Code, as amended by RA 9009, contains no written exemption from the PhP 100 million income requirement.
Issues
- Whether the Cityhood Laws violated Section 10, Article X, 1987 Constitution by providing exemptions from the income criterion prescribed in the Local Government Code.
- Whether the exemption provisions in the Cityhood Laws violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by creating an arbitrary classification.
- Whether the operative fact doctrine could be invoked to validate or otherwise preserve the Cityhood Laws despite a finding of unconstitutionality.
- Whether a six-to-six tie vote on a motion for reconsideration could reverse or otherwise affect the prior majority en banc decision.
Petitioners' Contentions
- Petitioners argued that the Cityhood Laws were unconstitutional because they exempted the respondent municipalities from the PhP 100 million income requirement introduced by RA 9009, in contravention of Section 10, Article X.
- Petitioners maintained that Congress cannot establish criteria for city creation outside of the Local Government Code and that exemptions must be embodied in the Code itself.
- Petitioners asserted that the six-to-six tie on the second motion for reconsideration left the 18 November 2008 Decision final and executory, rendering the December 21, 2009 reversal null and void.
- Petitioners argued that invoking the operative fact doctrine to constitutionalize an unconstitutional law would produce a dangerous precedent and contravene settled doctrine.
Respondents' Contentions
- Respondents and dissenters contended that Congress retained plenary power to create local government units and could prescribe criteria or exemptions either in the Code or in separate enactments, and that the Cityhood Laws were valid exercises of that power.
- Respondents argued that the classification in the Cityhood Laws was reasonable because it addressed municipalities with pending cityhood bills that had qualified under the original income norm and that the exemption remedied inequality produced by the enactment of RA 9009.
- Respondents maintained tha