Case Summary (G.R. No. 56350)
Procedural History of Challenge
• Petition for prohibition filed September 2008 consolidated three dockets (G.R. Nos. 176951, 177499, 178056).
• En banc granted petitions Nov 18, 2008 (6–5), invalidating the laws for failing to adhere to LGC criteria and violating equal protection.
• Motions for reconsideration filed; first denied March 31, 2009 (6–5); second motion denied April 28, 2009 (6–6).
Presumption of Constitutionality and Court’s Power
The Court underscored that statutes enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality. A challenged law will be upheld unless its unconstitutionality is “clear and beyond reasonable doubt.” Courts may relax procedural rules to prevent injustice and uphold the Legislature’s valid exercise of power.
Criteria “Established in the Local Government Code”
Article X, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution requires LGU creation “in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code.” The term “code” refers generally to the body of statutory criteria set by Congress, not exclusively to the codified LGC of 1991. Congress may amend or supplement those criteria in separate laws.
Legislative Intent to Exempt Pending Bills
Senate debates reveal that RA 9009’s amended income requirement was not intended to apply retroactively to municipalities with cityhood bills already pending. Both Senator Pimentel and Senator Drilon confirmed the absence of retroactive effect on pending measures. Consequently, each cityhood law contains an express exemption clause from RA 9009’s ₱100 million requirement.
Equal Protection and Reasonable Classification
Petitioners’ equal‐protection challenge fails because:
- Respondent municipalities constitute a reasonable class—those with pending cityhood bills and prior compliance with the ₱20 million threshold.
- The exemption advances fairness by mitigating the abrupt mid‐stream change (“rules in the middle of the game”) caused by RA 9009.
- The classification is germane to the purpose of preventing inequitable treatment of similarly situated municipalities.
Operative Fact Doctrine
The municipalities have already held their plebiscites, elected city officials, and funct
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 56350)
Procedural History and Posture
- Three consolidated petitions (G.R. Nos. 176951, 177499 & 178056) filed by the League of Cities of the Philippines, City of Iloilo, City of Calbayog, and a private taxpayer seeking prohibition to restrain the Commission on Elections from holding plebiscites under sixteen newly enacted cityhood laws.
- 18 November 2008 en banc Decision (6–5) granted the petitions and nullified the cityhood laws as violative of Art. X, Sec. 10 (Local Government Code criteria) and the Equal Protection Clause.
- First motion for reconsideration denied by resolution of 31 March 2009 (6–6 tie, deemed denial).
- Second motion for reconsideration denied by resolution of 28 April 2009 (6–6 tie, deemed denial); entry of judgment ordered on 21 May 2009.
- Subsequent motions by respondents to reopen or amend the 28 April 2009 resolution deemed prohibited pleadings and expunged.
- Present ruling grants the remaining motions for reconsideration, recalls the entry of judgment, and decides the constitutional issues on the merits.
Undisputed Factual Antecedents
- 11th Congress (1998–2001): 57 cityhood bills filed—33 enacted, 24 left pending.
- RA 9009 (2001) amended Sec. 450, Local Government Code: raised city-conversion income requirement from ₱20 million to ₱100 million (2000 prices).
- House Joint Resolution No. 29 (12th Congress) and HJR No. 1 (13th Congress) sought to exempt pending municipalities from RA 9009 but failed Senate approval.
- In the 13th Congress, 16 municipalities filed individual cityhood bills containing an express exemption from RA 9009’s increased income threshold; all 16 lapsed into law in March–July 2007, directing COMELEC to hold plebiscites within 30 days.
Issues Presented
- Whether the sixteen cityhood laws:
• Violate Art. X, Sec. 10 of the Constitution by imposing criteria outside the Local Government Code;
• Offend the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating among municipalities through special exemptions.
Applicable Constitutional and Legal Provisions
- Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 10: creation or alteration of local government units only “in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code,” subject to plebiscite approval.