LEAGUE OF CITIES v COMELEC

GR 176951
November 18, 2008
Carpio, J

FACTS:
These are consolidated petitions for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction or TRO assailing the constitutionality of the subject,
Cityhood Laws and enjoining the COMELEC from conducting plebiscites,
pursuant to said law.
During the 11th Congress, Congress enacted into law 33 bills that
converted 33 municipalities into cities. However, Congress did not act on
bills that were supposed to convert 24 other municipalities. During the
12th Congress, Congress enacted RA 9009, which took effect on June 30,
2001. It amended Sec 450 of the Local Government Code, by increasing
the annual income requirement for the conversion of a municipality into a
city from Php20 million to Php100 million. This was to restrain the mad
rush of municipalities to convert into cities for a larger share in the
Internal Revenue Allotment, even when they were incapable of fiscal
independence.
After the effectivity of the RA, the House of Representatives adopted
Joint Resolution No. 29, which sought to exempt the Php100 million
income requirement to the 24 municipalities whose cityhood bills were not
approved during the 11th Congress. However, the 12th Congress ended
without the Senate approving the said Joint Resolution.
During the 13th Congress, the House of Representatives re-adopted
the Joint Resolution No.29 as Joint Resolution No. 1 and forwarded it to
Senate for approval. However, the Senate failed to approve it. However,
after the advice of Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, 16 municipalities filed, through
their respective sponsors, individual cityhood bills, which contained a
common provision exempting them from the Php100 million requirement
under RA 9009.
On December 22, 2006, the House of Representatives approved the
cityhood bills. The Senate also approved of which in February 2007,
except for Naga, Cebu, which was approved on June 7, 2007. The cityhood
bills lapsed into law on various dates from March to July 2007, without the
Presidents signature.
The said Cityhood Laws direct the COMELEC to hold plebiscites
which would determine if the voters in the respondent municipality would
approve of the conversion of their municipality into a city.
Petitioners alleged that the Cityhood laws are unconstitutional for
violating Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution, as well, as violating the
equal protection clause. Petitioners also alleged that the wholesale
conversion of municipalities into cities will reduce the share of existing
cities in the Internal Revenue Allotment.
ISSUES:
1. W/N the Cityhood Laws violate Article X, Sec 10 of the
Constitution?
2. W/N the Cityhood Laws violate the equal protection clause?
HOLDING:
1. Yes. The Cityhood Laws violate Article X, Sections 6 and 10. The said
application of the Php100 million income requirement is prospective
in application, and not retroactive. RA 9009 took effect in 2001,
while the cityhood bills became law more than 5 years later.
Furthermore, Article X, Sec 10 of 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. The said criteria in Section 450 of the Local
Government Code is clear, plain, and unambiguous, needing no
resort to any statutory construction. The intent of the members of
the 11th Congress to exempt certain municipalities from RA 9009
remained as mere intentions and were never written into Sec 450 of
the LGC. The deliberations of the 11 th or 12th Congress on
unapproved bills or resolutions are not extrinsic aids in interpreting
laws passed in the following Congress. The said laws also violated
Section 6 because they prevent a fair and just distribution of the
national taxes to local government units. Local Government Units
shall have just share in the national taxes. However, if the criteria in
creating LGUs are not uniform and are discriminatory, there can be
no fair and just distribution of the national taxes to LGUs.
2. Yes. The criteria for such exemption to the Php100 million annual
income requirement can be scrutinized as a possible violation of the
equal protection clause. It can be assailed on the ground of absence
of a valid classification. However, the said Section does not contain
any exemption, but it can be seen in the Cityhood Laws, which are
unconstitutional because such exemption must be prescribed in the
Local Government Code, by virtue of Article X, Section 10 of the
Constitution. The exemption was based on the fact that the 16
municipalities had cityhood bills pending in the 11 th Congress when
RA 9009 was enacted. This is not a valid classification. To be valid,
the said qualification must be based on substantial distinctions,
rationally related to a legitimate government objective which is the
purpose of the law, not limited to existing conditions only, and
applicable to all similarly situated.
a. There is no substantial distinction between municipalities with
pending cityhood bills in the 11th Congress and municipalities
that did not have pending bills. It is not a material difference
to distinguish one municipality from the other for the purpose
of the income requirement.
b. Mere pendency of a cityhood bill is not rationally related to the
purpose of the law which is to prevent fiscally non-viable
municipalities from converting into cities. In fact, some
municipalities with pending cityhood bills may have lower
annual income compared to municipalities that do not have
pending cityhood bills.
c. The fact of pendency of a cityhood bill in the 11 th Congress
limits the exemption to a specific condition existing at the
time of passage of RA 9009. That specific condition will never
 happen again. And thus, it violates the requirement that the
valid classification must not be limited to existing conditions
only.
d. Limiting the exemption only to the 16 municipalities violates
the requirement that the classification must apply to all
similarly situated. Municipalities with the same income as the
16 respondent municipalities cannot convert into cities, while
the 16 respondent municipalities can.
DECISION:
Petitions are granted and the Cityhood laws, RA Nos. 9389, 9390,
9391, 9391, 9393, 9394, 9498, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434,
9435, 9436, and 9491 are declared unconstitutional.

NOTES:
- Test of valid classification under equal protection clause:
o Substantial distinctions
o Germane to the purpose of the law
o Not limited to existing conditions
o Applies to all entities under the same class.
- Municipalities:
o Baybay, Leyte
o Bogo, Cebu
o Catbalogan, Western Samar
o Tandag, Surigao del Sur
o Borongan, Eastern Samar
o Tayabas, Quezon
o Lamitan, Basilan
o Tabuk, Kalinga
o Bayugan, Agusan del Sur
o Batac, Ilocos Norte
o Mati, Davao Oriental
o Guihulngan, Negros Oriental
o Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte
o Carcar, Cebu
o El Salvador, Misamis Oriental
o Naga, Cebu (not a respondent in the case)