Case Summary (G.R. No. 139346-50)
Constitutional Provision on City Creation and Uniform Criteria
Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution mandates that the creation, division, merging, abolition, or boundary alteration of local government units—including cities—must conform exclusively to criteria established in the Local Government Code and be subject to a plebiscite. This clause obliges Congress to formulate all substantive requirements for city creation within the Local Government Code, thereby precluding separate laws from setting different or conflicting standards. The constitutional intent is to maintain uniform, non-discriminatory rules for cityhood, preventing piecemeal or preferential enactments.
RA 9009 and the Income Requirement for Cityhood
RA 9009 amended Section 450 of the LGC, raising the required locally generated average annual income for municipalities seeking cityhood from PhP 20 million to PhP 100 million. This amendment took effect on June 30, 2001, and notably lacks any exemption clauses for municipalities whose cityhood bills were pending during its enactment. Hence, the increased income threshold universally applies to all prospective cities.
Unconstitutionality of the Cityhood Laws for Exempting Respondents from Income Requirement
The sixteen Cityhood Laws in question granted explicit exemptions to the respondents from the increased income requirement under RA 9009—effectively allowing conversion to city status without meeting the new P100 million income floor. Since these exemptions are found outside the Local Government Code and contradict its provisions, the Court held them to be unconstitutional under Section 10, Article X of the Constitution. Congress overstepped its legislative authority by enacting separate laws that frustrated the uniform standards established in the LGC. The Court emphasized that the plain language of RA 9009 as an amendment to the LGC leaves no room for exemptions.
Operative Fact Doctrine and Its Proper Application
The Court discussed the operative fact doctrine, which acknowledges that effects of an unconstitutional law may remain valid if executed before the judicial declaration of its invalidity, to avoid undue hardship and inequity. The Court rejected the minority’s novel theory that such effects could “constitutionalize” the law itself. Instead, the doctrine applies only to preserve past actions taken in good faith reliance on presumed valid laws, not to validate an inherently unconstitutional statute. Consequently, while the Cityhood Laws remain void, actions taken by the newly created cities before the declaration of nullity—such as payments and contracts—may continue to be recognized to prevent injustice.
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause: Arbitrary Classification
The Court found that the Cityhood Laws also violated the equal protection clause by granting exemptions based solely on the fact that the municipalities filed cityhood bills before RA 9009's enactment during the 11th Congress. This criterion was not a substantial or rational basis related to the purpose of the law, which was to assure fiscal viability of cities. The classification was arbitrary and limited to a condition that could never recur, thereby discriminating against municipalities not sharing this status. Such selective exemption did not apply uniformly to all similarly situated municipalities, creating an impermissible privileged class. Thus, the Cityhood Laws contained classifications that failed to uphold constitutional equal protection standards.
Tie-Vote on Motion for Reconsideration and Finality of Earlier Decision
The Court clarified procedural rules under Section 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, and a prior en banc Resolution, that a tie vote on a motion for reconsideration results in denial of the motion, leaving the prior decision intact. Although there was a 6-6 split on the second motion for reconsideration, this deadlock did not overturn the original November 18, 2008 Decision declaring the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional. The entry of judgment for this decision became final and executory, and no tie vote can reverse a prior majority ruling. Hence, the 2008 Decision remains the binding ruling on the case.
Conclusion: Reinstatement of the Declaration of Unconstitutionality
The Supreme Court granted the motions for reconsideration of the December 21, 2009 Decision that had originally upheld the Cityhood Laws, and reinstated the November 18, 2008 Decision declaring the sixteen Cityhood Laws unconstitutional for violating Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and the equal protection clause. Congress’s enactment of separate laws exempting certain municipalities from the uniform income requirement set in the Local Government Code constituted an abuse of legislative power. The Court accordingly declared Republic Act Nos. 9389, 9390, 9391, 9392, 9393, 9394, 9398, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434, 9435, 9436, and 9491 void.
Dissenting Opinion: Jurisdiction, Legislative Power, and Reasonableness of Classification
Justice Velasco, Jr. dissented, arguing that the November 18, 2008 Decision had not truly attained finality due to ongoing motions and the complex procedural history, includin
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 139346-50)
Background and Parties Involved
- Petitioners included the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) represented by LCP National President Jerry P. Treaas, the cities of Iloilo and Calbayog represented by their respective mayors, and Jerry P. Treaas in his personal capacity as taxpayer.
- Respondents were numerous municipalities from various provinces contesting the enactment and constitutionality of certain Cityhood Laws.
- Petitioner-intervenors included other cities such as Tarlac, Santiago, Iriga, Legazpi, among others, who joined the proceeding as interested parties.
- The case consolidated multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of sixteen Cityhood Laws enacted by Congress creating municipalities into cities, which allegedly violated the Constitution.
Procedural History
- On November 18, 2008, the Supreme Court En Banc struck down the sixteen Cityhood Laws for violating Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and the equal protection clause.
- Respondents filed motions for reconsideration which were denied on March 31, 2009, and again denied on April 28, 2009 by a split vote.
- Despite the previous denials, on December 21, 2009, the Court En Banc reversed its earlier decision and upheld the constitutionality of the Cityhood Laws.
- Petitioners filed motions to reconsider and annul the December 21, 2009 decision.
- Upon reexamination, the Court found merit in the motions for reconsideration and reinstated the November 18, 2008 decision declaring the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional.
Violation of Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution
- Section 10, Article X explicitly provides that no city shall be created except in accordance with criteria established in the Local Government Code (LGC) and approved by a majority of votes cast in the affected political units.
- The Constitution requires that all criteria for the creation or conversion of local government units into cities must be embodied only in the Local Government Code.
- Congress cannot establish separate or contrary criteria in any other law such as the Cityhood Laws.
- Republic Act (RA) 9009 amended Section 450 of the LGC increasing the income requirement for cityhood from P20 million to P100 million, effective June 30, 2001.
- The sixteen Cityhood Laws, enacted after RA 9009’s effectivity, exempted respondent municipalities from satisfying the increased income requirement.
- This exemption was held unconstitutional because it contravened the Constitution’s mandate that such criteria must be found exclusively in the Local Government Code.
- RA 9009, as an amendment to Section 450 of the LGC and not a separate law, embodies the prevailing law and contains no exemption for the municipalities.
- The plain and unambiguous text of the law mandates compliance with the P100 million income requirement for conversion into a city.
Application of the Operative Fact Doctrine
- The operative fact doctrine recognizes that an unconstitutional law remains void but its effects prior to being declared unconstitutional may be allowed to stand as a matter of equity and fair play.
- This doctrine may protect acts performed in good faith reliance on the law, such as the election of city officials or execution of contracts by the new cities before the Court’s nullification.
- However, the doctrine does not validate or constitutionalize the unconstitutional law itself.
- The minority’s theory that implementation of an unconstitutional law renders it constitutional misapplies this doctrine and poses a dangerous precedent encouraging violation of the Constitution.
- The doctrine modifies or mitigates the effects of the law but does not change its invalidity.