Submitted by: Noriel M.

Almario
Public Corporations
Atty. Lapid



LEAGUE OF CITIES V. COMELEC [G.R. NO. 176951]
April 12, 2011

Facts:
During the 11th Congress, 57 bills seeking the conversion of municipalities into component cities
were filed before the House of Representatives. However, Congress acted only on 33 bills. It did
not act on bills converting 24 other municipalities into cities. During the 12th Congress, R.A. No.
9009 became effective revising Section 450 of the Local Government Code. It increased the
income requirement to qualify for conversion into a city from P20 million annual income to P100
million locally-generated income. In the 13th Congress, 16 of the 24 municipalities filed, through
their respective sponsors, individual cityhood bills. Each of the cityhood bills contained a
common provision exempting the particular municipality from the 100 million income
requirement imposed by R.A. No. 9009.

Issue:
Whether or not the cityhood laws converting 16 municipalities into cities constitutional?

Ruling:
Yes. In April 12, 2011, the Supreme Court finally held that the 16 Cityhood Laws are
constitutional. We should not ever lose sight of the fact that the 16 cities covered by the
Cityhood Laws not only had conversion bills pending during the 11th Congress, but have also
complied with the requirements of the Local Government Code prescribed prior to its amendment
by RA No. 9009. Congress undeniably gave these cities all the considerations that justice and fair
play demanded. Hence, this Court should do no less by stamping its imprimatur to the clear and
unmistakable legislative intent and by duly recognizing the certain collective wisdom of
Congress, the SC said.

The Court stressed that Congress clearly intended that the local government units covered by the
Cityhood Laws be exempted from the coverage of RA 9009, which imposes a higher income
requirement of PhP100 million for the creation of cities.

The Court reiterated that while RA 9009 was being deliberated upon, the Congress was well
aware of the pendency of conversion bills of several municipalities, including those covered by
the Cityhood Laws. It pointed out that RA 9009 took effect on June 30, 2001, when the 12th
Congress was incipient. By reason of the clear legislative intent to exempt the municipalities
covered by the conversion bills pending during the 11th Congress, the House of Representatives
adopted Joint Resolution No. 29 entitled Joint Resolution to Exempt Certain Municipalities
Embodied in Bills Filed in Congress before June 30, 2001 from the coverage of Republic Act No.
9009. However, the Senate failed to act on the said Joint Resolution. Even so, the House
readopted Joint Resolution No. 29 as Joint Resolution No. 1 during the 12th Congress, and
forwarded the same for approval to the Senate, which again failed to prove it. Eventually, the
conversion bills of respondents were individually filed in the Lower House and
fellesters.blogspot.com were all unanimously and favorably voted upon. When forwarded to the
Senate, the bills were also unanimously approved. The acts of both Chambers of Congress show
that the exemption clauses ultimately incorporated in the Cityhood Laws are but the express
articulations of the clear legislative intent to exempt the respondents, without exception, from the
coverage of RA No. 9009. Thereby, RA 9009, and, by necessity, the LCG, were amended, not by
repeal but by way of the express exemptions being embodied in the exemption clauses.

The Court held that the imposition of the income requirement of P100 million from local sources
under RA 9009 was arbitrary. While the Constitution mandates that the creation of local
government units must comply with the criteria laid down in the LGC, it cannot be justified to
insist that the Constitution must have to yield to every amendment to the LGC despite such
amendment imminently producing effects contrary to the original thrusts of the LGC to promote
autonomy, decentralization, countryside development, and the concomitant national growth.


NAVARRO VS ERMITA [G.R. No. 180050]
April 12, 2011

Facts:
Republic Act No. 9355 created a province of Dinagat Islands, formerly part of Surigao Del Norte.
It was questioned for constitutionality for not being in compliance with the population or the land
area requirements of the Local Government Code under Sec. 461. Previous decisions relating to
this case declared the creation of the province as unconstitutional.

Issue:
Is the creation of Dinagat Islands as a separate province constitutional?

Held:
No. The SC ruled that the population of 120,813 is below the Local Government Code (LGC)
minimum population requirement of 250,000 inhabitants. Neither did Dinagat Islands, with an
approximate land area of 802.12 square kilometers meet the LGC minimum land area
requirement of 2,000 square kilometers. The Court reiterated its ruling that paragraph 2 of Article
9 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code, which exempts
proposed provinces composed of one or more islands from the land area requirement, was null
and void as the said exemption is not found in Sec. 461 of the LGC. There is no dispute that in
case of discrepancy between the basic law and the rules and regulations implementing the said
law, the basic law prevails, because the rules and regulations cannot go beyond the terms and
provisions of the basic law, held the Court. (GR No. 180050, Navarro v. Ermita, May 12, 2010)

The Republic, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, and Dinagat filed their
respective motions for reconsideration of the Decision. In its Resolution dated May 12, 2010, the
Supreme Court denied the said motions.


Comparison of the ruling of the Supreme Court in both cases: