Case Summary (G.R. No. 176951)
Key Dates
• 30 June 2001 – Effectivity of Republic Act No. 9009, raising the income requirement for cityhood from ₱20 million to ₱100 million.
• 22 December 2006 – House approval of sixteen individual cityhood bills, each containing an exemption from RA 9009’s income requirement.
• March–July 2007 – Cityhood bills lapse into law without presidential signature.
• 18 November 2008 – En banc decision issued.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, especially:
– Article X, Section 6 (just share of national taxes)
– Article X, Section 10 (criteria for creation of local government units must be in the Local Government Code)
• Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), particularly Section 450 as amended by RA 9009
• Equal Protection Clause (Article III, Section 1)
Factual and Legislative Background
• 1998–2001 (11th Congress): 57 cityhood bills filed; 33 enacted, 24 left pending.
• 2001–2004 (12th Congress): Enactment of RA 9009, increasing city‐income threshold; failed Joint Resolution No. 29 to exempt the 24 pending municipalities.
• 2004–2007 (13th Congress): Refiling as House Joint Resolution No. 1 (still unapproved by Senate); adoption of Senator Pimentel’s advice to file sixteen separate bills with identical exemption clauses.
• Each new Cityhood Law directs COMELEC to conduct a plebiscite and imposes no income requirement for the sixteen municipalities.
Procedural History
Petitions for prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction filed March–June 2007. Twenty‐six cities intervened. Pleadings consolidated by the Court en banc, oral arguments heard on 11 March 2008. No TRO or injunction issued; plebiscites ratified all conversions and COMELEC proclaimed the municipalities as cities.
Issues Presented
- Do the Cityhood Laws violate Article X, Section 10 by ignoring the mandatory criteria in the Local Government Code?
- Do they breach the Equal Protection Clause by granting an arbitrary exemption to the sixteen municipalities?
Prospective Application of RA 9009
• RA 9009 took effect 30 June 2001 and amended Section 450 of the LGC.
• The sixteen cityhood bills were filed before and became law after RA 9009’s effectivity, making the exemption prospective, not retroactive.
Exclusive Criteria in the Local Government Code
• Article X, Section 10 mandates that all creation/conversion criteria be prescribed in the LGC.
• Section 450 (as amended by RA 9009) sets income (₱100 million), population (150,000), or land area (100 km²) requirements.
• The Cityhood Laws’ exemption clauses, enacted outside the LGC, conflict with the Constitution’s requirement of a single, uniform code.
Violation of Article X, Section 6 (Just Share of Taxes)
• Section 6 requires LGUs’ “just share” of national taxes to be determined by law.
• Uniform criteria in the LGC ensure equitable distribution (Section 285 IRA formula).
• Exempting qualified municipalities from income thresholds distorts the fair apportionment among cities.
Statutory Construction and Legislative History
• The language of Section 450 is clear and unambiguous—no exemptions.
• Extrinsic aids (e.g., debates in the 11th and 12th Congress) cannot override the plain text unless literal application leads to absurdity.
• Even if legislative intent existed to exempt pending bills, it was never codified in Section 450; special laws cannot amend the LGC criteria.
Equal Protection Analysis
• Classifications are permissible if they (1) rest on substantial distinctions, (2) are germane to t
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 176951)
Facts
- Petitioners (League of Cities of the Philippines, City of Iloilo, City of Calbayog, and Jerry P. TreAas) filed consolidated petitions for prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction/TRO to enjoin COMELEC and respondent municipalities from enforcing 16 Cityhood Laws.
- During the 11th Congress (1998–2001), 33 municipalities were converted into cities; 24 others had cityhood bills pending.
- In the 12th Congress, RA 9009 (effective June 30, 2001) amended Section 450 of the Local Government Code, raising the income requirement for cityhood from ₱20 million to ₱100 million.
- House Joint Resolution No. 29 sought—but failed—to exempt the 24 pending municipalities from RA 9009’s new requirement.
- In the 13th Congress, 16 of those municipalities filed individual cityhood bills containing a common exemption clause from RA 9009’s income requirement.
- Those bills lapsed into law (RA 9389–9491) in March–July 2007, directing COMELEC to hold plebiscites.
- Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of these Cityhood Laws for violating Section 10, Article X (creation of LGUs) and the equal protection clause, and for threatening to dilute existing cities’ Internal Revenue Allotments (IRAs).
Issues
- Do the Cityhood Laws violate Section 10, Article X of the Constitution by prescribing exceptions to the Local Government Code’s cityhood criteria?
- Do the Cityhood Laws violate the equal protection clause by granting special treatment to certain municipalities?
Ruling
- The petitions are GRANTED.
- The Cityhood Laws are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL for violating:
• Section 10, Article X (creation of LGUs must follow criteria established solely in the LGC and approved by plebiscite), and
• Section 6, Article X (uniform criteria essential for fair IRA distribution). - Exemption clauses in the Cityhood Laws cannot stand.
Preliminary Matters
- Prohibition (Rule 65, Sec. 2) is the proper remedy to prevent COMELEC from enforcing plebiscite directives under unconstitutional laws.
- League of Cities of the Philippines: Has organizational standing under Section 499, LGC, to protect city government interests.
- Petitioners-in-intervention (existing cities): Have standing due to threate