League of Cities v.

Comelec
Action:
These are consolidated petitions for prohibition with prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
order filed by the League of Cities of the Philippines, City of Iloilo, City
of Calbayog, and Jerry P. Treas assailing the constitutionality of the
subject Cityhood Laws and enjoining the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) and respondent municipalities from conducting plebiscites
pursuant to the Cityhood Laws.
Fact:
During the 11th Congress, Congress enacted into law 33 bills
converting 33 municipalities into cities. However, Congress did not act
on bills converting 24 other municipalities into cities.
During the 12th Congress, Congress enacted into law Republic Act No.
9009 (RA 9009), which took effect on 30 June 2001. RA 9009 amended
Section 450 of the Local Government Code by increasing the annual
income requirement for conversion of a municipality into a city from
P20 million to P100 million. The rationale for the amendment was to
restrain, in the words of Senator Aquilino Pimentel, the mad rush of
municipalities to convert into cities solely to secure a larger share in
the Internal Revenue Allotment despite the fact that they are incapable
of fiscal independence.
After the effectivity of RA 9009, the House of Representatives of the
12th Congress adopted Joint Resolution No. 29, which sought to
exempt from the P100 million income requirement in RA 9009 the 24
municipalities whose cityhood bills were not approved in the 11th
Congress. However, the 12th Congress ended without the Senate
approving Joint Resolution No. 29.
During the 13th Congress, the House of Representatives re-adopted
Joint Resolution No. 29 as Joint Resolution No. 1 and forwarded it to the
Senate for approval. However, the Senate again failed to approve the
Joint Resolution. Following the advice of Senator Aquilino Pimentel, 16
municipalities filed, through their respective sponsors, individual
cityhood bills. The 16 cityhood bills contained a common provision
exempting all the 16 municipalities from the P100 million income
requirement in RA 9009.
On 22 December 2006, the House of Representatives approved the
cityhood bills. The Senate also approved the cityhood bills in February
2007, except that of Naga, Cebu which was passed on 7 June 2007.
The cityhood bills lapsed into law (Cityhood Laws) on various dates
from March to July 2007 without the Presidents signature.

The Cityhood Laws direct the COMELEC to hold plebiscites to

determine whether the voters in each respondent municipality approve
of the conversion of their municipality into a city.
Petitioners filed the present petitions to declare the Cityhood Laws
unconstitutional for violation of Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution, as well as for violation of the equal protection clause.
Petitioners also lament that the wholesale conversion of municipalities
into cities will reduce the share of existing cities in the Internal
Revenue Allotment because more cities will share the same amount of
internal revenue set aside for all cities under Section 285 of the Local
Government Code.
Issue:
The petitions raise the following fundamental issues:
1. Whether the Cityhood Laws violate Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution; and
2. Whether the Cityhood Laws violate the equal protection clause.
Held:
We grant the petitions.
The Cityhood Laws violate Sections 6 and 10, Article X of the
Constitution, and are thus unconstitutional.
First, applying the P100 million income requirement in RA 9009 to the
present case is a prospective, not a retroactive application, because RA
9009 took effect in 2001 while the cityhood bills became law more
than five years later.
Second, the Constitution requires that Congress shall prescribe all the
criteria for the creation of a city in the Local Government Code and not
in any other law, including the Cityhood Laws.
Third, the Cityhood Laws violate Section 6, Article X of the Constitution
because they prevent a fair and just distribution of the national taxes
to local government units.
Fourth, the criteria prescribed in Section 450 of the Local Government
Code, as amended by RA 9009, for converting a municipality into a city
are clear, plain and unambiguous, needing no resort to any statutory
construction.
Fifth, the intent of members of the 11th Congress to exempt certain
municipalities from the coverage of RA 9009 remained an intent and
was never written into Section 450 of the Local Government Code.

Sixth, the deliberations of the 11th or 12th Congress on unapproved

bills or resolutions are not extrinsic aids in interpreting a law passed in
the 13th Congress.
Seventh, even if the exemption in the Cityhood Laws were written in
Section 450 of the Local Government Code, the exemption would still
be unconstitutional for violation of the equal protection clause.

NAVARRO v ERMITA
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: YES. SC now looked at the central policy considerations in the
creation of provinces. They compared the LGC provisions on the
creation of municipalities and cities and how they allow an exception to
the land area requirement in cases of non-contiguity as provided for
under Sections 442 and 450 of the LGC.SC concluded that it must have
been the intent of the legislators to extend such exception to provinces
especially considering the physical configuration of the Philippine
archipelago. In fact, while such exemption was absent under Section
461 of the LGC (provision relating to creation of provinces), such was
incorporated under the LGC-IRR thus correcting the congressional
oversight in said provision and reflecting the true legislative intent.
Moreover, the earlier decisions show a very restrictive construction
which could trench on the equal protection clause, as it actually
defeats the purpose of local autonomy and decentralization as
enshrined in the Constitution. Hence, the land area requirement
should be read together with territorial contiguity.

MO-AD
The Government and the MILF were scheduled to sign a
Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD)
aspect of the GRP-MILF TripoliAgreement on Peace of 2001

in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The GRP-MILF agreement is the

result of a formal peace talks between the parties
in Tripoli, Libya in 2001. The pertinent provisions in the MOAAD provides for the establishment of an associative
relationship between the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) and
the Central Government. It speaks of the relationship between
the BJE and the Philippine government as associative, thus
implying
an
international
relationship
and
therefore
suggesting an autonomous state. Furthermore, under the
MOA-AD, the GRP Peace Panel guarantees that necessary
amendments to the Constitution and the laws will eventually
be put in place. Is the said MOA-AD constitutional?
ANSWER:
No. The SC ruled that the MOA-AD cannot be reconciled with the
present Constitution and laws. Not only its specific provisions but the
very
concept
underlying
them,
namely,
the associative
relationship envisioned between the GRP and the BJE, are
unconstitutional, for the concept presupposes that the associated
entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to
independence, it said. Moreover, as the clause is worded,
it virtuallyguarantees that the necessary amendments to the
Constitution and the laws will eventually be put in place. Neither the
GRP Peace Panel nor the President herself is authorized to
make such a guarantee. Upholding such an act would amount to
authorizing a usurpation of the constituent powers vested only in
Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the people
themselves through the process of initiative, for the only way
that the Executive can ensure the outcome of the amendment process
is through an undue influence or interference with that process. While
the MOA-AD would not amount to an international agreement or
unilateral declaration binding on the Philippines under international
law, respondents act of guaranteeing amendments is, by itself,
already a constitutional violation that renders the MOA-AD fatally
defective.
Justice Santiago said, among others, that the MOA-AD contains
provisions which are repugnant to the Constitution and which will result
in the virtual surrender of part of thePhilippines territorial
sovereignty. She further said that had the MOA-AD been signed by
parties, would have bound the government to the creation of a
separate Bangsamoro state having its own territory, government, civil
institutions, and armed forcesThe sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the Philippines would have been compromised. (GR No.
183591,Province of North Cotabato v. Republic, October 14,
2008)

Notes:
In this case, The Court explained that the Presidential Adviser on
the Peace Process committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed
to carry out the pertinent consultation process, as mandated by EO
No. 3, RA 7160, and RA 8371.
EO No. 3 is replete with mechanics for continuing consultations
on both national and local levels and for a principal forum for
consensus-building.
RA 7160 (the Local Government Code of 1991) requires all
national offices toconduct consultations before any project or
program critical to the environment and human ecology
including those that may call for the eviction of a particular
group of people residing in such locality, is implemented therein.
The MOA-AD is one peculiar program that unequivocally and
unilaterally vests ownership of a vast territory to the Bangsamoro
people, which could pervasively and drastically result to the diaspora
or displacement of a great number of inhabitants from their total
environment.
RA 8371 (the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997) provides for
clear-cut procedure for the recognition and delineation of ancestral
domain, which entails, among other things, the observance of the free
and prior informed consent (FPIC) of the Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous
Peoples. (GR
No.
183591, Province of North Cotabato v. Republic, October 14,
2008)

North cotabato vs. GRP gr no. 183591

>FACTS: The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain
(MOA-AD) brought about by the Government of the republic of the
Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) as an
aspect of Tripoli Agreement of Peace in 2001 is scheduled to be signed
in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
This agreement was petitioned by the Province of North Cotabato for
Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. The
agreement mentions Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) to which it
grants the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and

Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro; authority and jurisdiction over all

natural resources within internal waters. The agreement is composed
of two local statutes: the organic act for autonomous region in Muslim
Mindanao and the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA).
ISSUE: Whether or not the GRP violated the Constitutional and
statutory provisions on public consultation and the right to information
when they negotiated and initiated the MOA-AD and Whether or not
the MOA-AD brought by the GRP and MILF is constitutional
HELD:GRP violated the Constitutional and statutory provisions on
public consultation and the right to information when they negotiated
and initiated the MOA-AD and it are unconstitutional because it is
contrary to law and the provisions of the constitution thereof.
REASONING: The GRP is required by this law to carry out public
consultations on both national and local levels to build consensus for
peace agenda and process and the mobilization and facilitation of
peoples participation in the peace process.
Article III (Bill of Rights)
Sec. 7. The right of people on matters of public concern shall be
recognized, access to official records and to documents and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy development shall
be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided
by law.
Article II
Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law , that state
adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest.
LGC (1991), require all national agencies and officers to conduct
periodic consultations. No project or program be implemented unless
such consultations are complied with and approval mus be obtained.
Article VII (Executive Department)
Sec. 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and
effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members
of the Senate.

Article X. (Local Government)

Sec. 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the
Philippines are the province, cities, municipalities and barangays.
There shall be autonomous regions on Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordillera as hereinafter provided.
Sec. 15. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim
Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities,
municipalities and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive
historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures and
other relevant characteristics within the framework of this constitution
and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the
Republic of the Philippines.
Section 16. The President shall exercise general supervision over
autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.
Sec. 18. The creation of autonomous region shall be effective when
approved by a majority of the votes cast by the constituents units in a
plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only provinces, cities
and geographic areas voting favourably in such plebiscite shall be
included in the autonomous region.
Sec. 20. Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of
this Constitution and national laws, the organic act of autonomous
regions shall provide for legislative powers over:
1. Administrative organization;
2. Creation of sources of revenues;
3. Ancestral domain and natural resources;
4. Personal, family, and property relations;
5. Regional urban and rural planning development;
6. Economic, social, and tourism development;
7. Educational policies;
8. Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and
9. Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion
of the general welfare of the people of the region.
The President has sole authority in the treaty-making.

ARTICLE XVII (AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS)

Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
proposed by:
1. The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
2. A constitutional convention.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under
Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor
later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or
revision.
MOA-AD states that all provisions thereof which cannot be reconciled
with the present constitution and laws shall come into force upon
signing of a comprehensive compact and upon effecting the necessary
changes to the legal framework. The presidents authority is limited to
proposing constitutional amendments. She cannot guarantee to any
third party that the required amendments will eventually be put in
place nor even be submitted to a plebiscite. MOA-AD itself presents the
need to amend therein.