III.

CREATION & ABOLITION OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS

Digester: John Michael Gabriel Vida
CASE TITLE: League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Coission on !lections (C"M!L!C)# et al.
(G.$. %os. &'()*&# &''+)) and &',-*()
Date of Case: %oveber &,# .--,
DOCTRINES:
As provided by Sec. !" Ar#. $ o% #&e '() Co*s#i#+#io*" Co*,ress s&-.. prescribe -.. #&e
cri#eri- %or #&e cre-#io* o% - ci#y /or -*y o#&er po.i#ic-. +*i#s0 i* #&e Loc-. 1over*2e*# Code
/L1C0 -*d *o# i* -*y o#&er .-3" i*c.+di*, Ci#y&ood L-3s.
T&e c.e-r i*#e*# o% #&e Co*s#i#+#io* is #o e*s+re #&-# #&e cre-#io* o% ci#ies -*d o#&er po.i#ic-.
+*i#s 2+s# %o..o3 #&e s-2e +*i%or2" *o*4discri2i*-#ory cri#eri- %o+*d so.e.y i* #&e L1C. I*
s&or#" #&e cri#eri- %or cre-#io* o% ci#ies -*d o#&er po.i#ic-. +*i#s 2+s# %o..o3 #&e ,+ide.i*es
provided by #&e E5+-. Pro#ec#io* C.-+se o% #&e Co*s#i#+#io*.
Petitioners:
League of Cities of the Phils. (LCP)
Jerr/ P. 0re1as (LCP President)
Cities of 2loilo (represented b/ Ma/or Jerr/ 0re1as) and Calba/og (represented b/ Ma/or Mel
3enen 3ariento)
Cities of 0arlac# 3antiago# 2riga# Ligao# et al (petitioners4in4intervention)
$espondents:
Coission on !lections (C"M!L!C) 5 due to involveent in conducting of plebiscites
Municipalities of 6a/ba/ (Le/te)# 6ogo (Cebu)# Catbalogan (7estern 3aar)# 0andag (3urigao
del 3ur)# 6orongan (!astern 3aar)# 0a/abas (8ue9on)# Laitan (6asilan)# 0abu: (;alinga)#
6a/ugan (<gusan del 3ur)# 6atac (2locos %orte)# Mati (Davao "riental)# Guihulngan (%egros
"riental)# Cabadbaran (<gusan del %orte)# Carcar (Cebu)# and !l 3alvador (Misais "riental).
%ote: the &(
th
unicipalit/# %aga (Cebu) =as not ipleaded in the case as a respondent.

FACTS:
0he case involves consolidated petitions for prohibition fro the petitioners LCP et al# assailing the
constitutionalit/ of the Cit/hood La=s and en>oining C"M!L!C and the respondent unicipalities fro
holding an/ plebiscites pursuant to the Cit/hood La=s in ?uestion.
During the &&
th
Congress# Congress enacted @@ bills converting @@ unicipalities into cities. Ao=ever#
Congress did not act on bills converting .+ other unicipalities into cities.
During the &.
th
Congress# Congress then enacted into la= $< )--)# =hich aended 3ec. +*- of the LGC
and in effect# increasing the annual incoe re?uireent for conversion of a unicipalit/ into a cit/ fro
P.- illion to P&-- illion# =ith the vie= of restraining a Bad rushC for unicipalities to convert into
cities to secure larger 2nternal $evenue <llotents (2$<s). Ao=ever# the Aouse of $epresentatives (A"$)
adopted Joint $esolution %o. .)# =hich sought to eDept the .+ unicipalities =hose cit/hood bills =ere
not approved in the &&
th
Congress fro the increased incoe re?uireents of $< )--). Ao=ever# the &.
th
Congress ended =ithout ac?uiring the 3enateEs approval of Joint $esolution %o. .).
During the &@
th
Congress# ho=ever# the A"$ re4adopted Joint $esolution %o. .) into Joint $esolution %o.
&# and for=arded the sae to the 3enate for approval. 0he 3enate# ho=ever# failed to approve the ne=
Joint $esolution. 7ith the advice of 3enator <?uilino Pientel# &( of the unicipalities filed individual
cit/hood bills =hich contained a coon provision =hich eDepted the fro the incoe re?uireents
of $< )--). 0hese Cit/hood 6ills =ere approved b/ the A"$ on Deceber .--( and the 3enate on
Februar/ .--' (eDcept for %aga# Cebu =hich =as passed on June .--'). 0hese Cit/hood 6ills lapsed
into la= fro March 5 Jul/ .--' =ithout the PresidentEs signature.
0he Cit/hood La=s directed the C"M!L!C to hold plebiscites to deterine 7"% the voters in each of
the respondent unicipalities approve of the conversion of their unicipalit/ into a cit/.
2ssue &:
7"% the Cit/hood
La=s violate 3ection &-#
<rticle G of the
Constitution.
P!0202"%!$E3
C"%0!%02"%:
0he Cit/hood La=s are
unconstitutional for
violation of 3ection &- of
<rticle G of the &),'
Constitution b/
unla=full/ eDepting
the respondent
unicipalities fro
copliance =ith the ne=
iniu incoe
re?uireents provided
b/ the LGC.
Furtherore# the
=holesale conversion of
unicipalities into cities
=ill reduce the 2$<
share of other eDisting
cities as ore cities are
going to share in the
sae aount of internal
revenue set aside b/
3ec. .,* of the LGC.
$!3P"%D!%0E3
C"%0!%02"%:
0he Cit/hood La=s do
not violate 3ection &-#
<rticle G of the
Constitution.
Furtherore# the
respondents invo:e the
principle of non4
retroactivit/ of la=s to
prevent application of
$< )--) on the &(
Cit/hood 6ills that stood
to be affected b/ $<
)--).
3HP$!M! C"H$0:
0he Cit/hood La=s
violate 3ections ( and
&-# <rticle G of the
Constitution. First# the
application of the P&--
illion re?uireent of
$< )--) for
unicipalities should be
applied prospectivel/
and not retroactivel/ as
$< )--) too: effect in
.--&# =hile the
Cit/hood 6ills becae
la= ore than * /ears
later in .--'. (other
reasons provided belo=)
2ssue .:
7"% the Cit/hood
La=s violate the e?ual
protection clause.
P!0202"%!$E3
C"%0!%02"%:
0he Cit/hood La=s in
?uestion are violative of
the !?ual Protection
Clause of the &),'
Constitution# as it
unreasonabl/ provides
special treatent to the
respondents b/
eDepting the fro
copliance =ith the
iniu incoe
re?uireent iposed b/
the LGC.
$!3P"%D!%0E3
C"%0!%02"%:
0he Cit/hood La=s are
not violative of the !?ual
Protection Clause#
asserting the validit/ of
the coon eDeption
provision fro $< )--)
provided in the Cit/hood
6ills.
3HP$!M! C"H$0:
!ven if Congress =rote
the eDeption in the
Cit/hood La=s into the
aendents introduced
in 3ec. +*- of the LGC#
the eDeption =ould still
be unconstitutional for
violation of the !?ual
Protection Clause.
(reasons provided
belo=).
O* Iss+e :
0he 3upree Court stated that:
1. The application of the P100 million requirement of RA 9009 for municipalities should be applied
prospectively and not retroactively as RA 9009 took effect in 2001 !hile the "ityhood #ills became
la! more than $ years later in 200%.
$< )--) becae effective on June @-# .--&# specificall/ aending 3ection +*- of the LGC b/
increasing the incoe re?uireent for conversion of unicipalities into cities to P&-- illion.
0here =as no =ritten eDeption fro this ne= incoe re?uireent. Furtherore# prior to the
enactent of $< )--)# fro a total of *' unicipalities# @@ Cit/hood 6ills passed into la=.
Ao=ever# Congress did not act on the reaining .+ Cit/hood 6ills during the &&
th
Congress.
Furtherore# the &.
th
Congress ad>ourned =ithout approving the Joint $esolution that =as
supposed to eDept the .+ unicipalities =hose Cit/hood 6ills =ere not acted upon during the
&&
th
Congress. During the &@
th
Congress# ho=ever# &( of the .+ unicipalities filed individual
Cit/hood 6ills =ith a coon provision# stating that these unicipalities4turned4cities BIshall be
eDepted fro the incoe re?uireent prescribed under $epublic <ct %o. )--)C. 0he fact still
reains# ho=ever# that Congress passed on these Cit/hood La=s =a/ after $< )--) has been
passed# and therefore the respondents cannot invo:e the principle of non4retroactivit/ of la=s.
2. The "onstitution requires "on&ress to prescribe all criteria for the creation of a city in the '(" and
)*T in any other la! includin& the "ityhood 'a!s.
3ection &-# <rticle G of the &),' Constitution clearl/ states that the creation of local governent
units (LGHs) ust follo= established criteria in the LGC and not in an/ other la=. 0he intent of the
Constitution is to insure that the creation of cities and other political units ust follo= the sae
unifor# non4discriinator/ criteria found solel/ in the LGC. <n/ deviation fro these criteria is a
violation of 3ection &-# <rticle G. 0he aendents introduced b/ $< )--) regarding the ne=
incoe re?uireents too: into effect on .--&# and therefore going for=ard# an/ unicipalit/
desiring to becoe a cit/ ust satisf/ the ne= incoe re?uireents. %o eDceptions =ere
provided in 3ec. +*-# as aended.
<lso# the Cit/hood La=sE coon BeDeptionC clause is unconstitutional as it clearl/ violates 3ec.
&-# <rt. G of the Constitution as the constitutional provision states that an/ eDeption 2+s# be
=ritten in the LGC# and not in an/ other la=# i.e. the Cit/hood La=s.
+. The "ityhood 'a!s also violate ,ec. - Art. . of the 19/% "onstituion as these prevent a fair and 0ust
distribution of national ta1es to local &overnment units.
0he Court also noted that a cit/ =ith an annual incoe of onl/ P.- illion# all other criteria being
e?ual# should not receive the sae share in national taDes as a cit/ =ith an annual incoe of
P&-- illion or ore. 0he criteria of land area# population and incoe# as prescribed in the LGC#
ust be strictl/ follo=ed because these criteria are aterial in deterining the J>ust shareJ of
local governent units in national taDes. 3ince the Cit/hood La=s do not follo= the incoe
criterion in 3ec. +*- of the LGC# the/ prevent a fair and >ust distribution of the 2$<# effectivel/
violating 3ec. (# <rticle G of the Constitution.
2. The criteria prescribed by ,ec. 2$0 of the '(" 3as amended by RA 90094 is described as clear plain
and unambi&uous and therefore there !as no need to resort to any statutory construction.
5urthermore the intent of the 11
th
"on&ress to e1empt certain municipalities from the covera&e of RA
9009 remained only as intent and !as not !ritten into the amendments introduced into ,ec. 2$0 of
the '(".
Congress# in enacting $< )--) did not provide an/ eDeption fro the increased incoe
re?uireent# not even to the respondent unicipalities =hose cit/hood bills =ere then pending
=hen the &&
th
Congress passed $< )--). 3ince 3ec. +*- of the LGC (as aended b/ $< )--))
is clear# plain and unabiguous regarding the increased incoe re?uireent# there is no reason
to go be/ond verba le&is in appl/ing the provision.
0he Court also stated that even though Congress did discuss eDepting the respondent
unicipalities fro $< )--)# Congress did not =rite this intended eDeption into $< )--)# =hich
it could have easil/ done# but it did not do so# passing the bill into la= as $< )--) =ithout such
eDeption given to the .+ unicipalities.
$. The deliberations of the 11
th
or 12
th
"on&ress on unapproved bills are not considered as e1trinsic aids
in interpretin& a la! passed in the 1+
th
"on&ress.
0he Court also stated that since Congress is not a continuing bod/# an/ unapproved cit/hood bills
are considered as Bere scraps of paperC# =ith an/ hearings and deliberations becoing
=orthless upon ad>ournent of Congress. 0herefore# such hearings and deliberations cannot be
used to interpret bills that are enacted into la= in subse?uent Congresses. <s provided b/ 3ec.
&.@# $ule GL2V of the $ules of 3enate and 3ec. ', of the $ules of the Aouse of $epresentatives
regarding Hnfinished 6usiness# all unfinished business at the end of the ter of a Congress -re
dee2ed #er2i*-#ed. 0herefore# an/ deliberations during the &&th Congress on the unapproved
Cit/hood 6ills# as =ell as the deliberations during the &.th and &@th Congresses on the
unapproved resolution eDepting the unicipalities# have no legal significance and do not ?ualif/
as eDtrinsic aids in construing la=s passed b/ subse?uent Congresses.
O* Iss+e 6:
1. 6ven if "on&ress !rote the e1emption in the "ityhood 'a!s into the amendments introduced in ,ec.
2$0 of the '(" the e1emption !ould still be unconstitutional for violation of the 6qual Protection
"lause.
0he eDeption provisions provided in the Cit/hood La=s contain no classifications or guidelines
to differentiate the supposedl/ eDepted unicipalities fro other unicipalities in general. 0he
eDeption# therefore# =ould be based solel/ on the fact that &( of the unicipalities had Cit/hood
6ills pending in the &&
th
Congress =hen $< )--) =as enacted. 0he Court states that this is not a
valid classification to entitle an eDeption fro the increased incoe re?uireent.
<ccording to the Court# the classification in the present case ust be based on substantial
distinctions rationall/ related to a legitiate governent ob>ective =hich is the purpose of the
la=# not liited to eDisting conditions onl/# and applicable to all siilarl/ situated. Furtherore# as
ruled b/ the Court in the earlier cases of 7e (u8man 9r. vs "*:6'6"# and Tiu vs. "ourt of Ta1
Appeals# the !?ual Protection Clause stated in <rt. 222# 3ec. & of the &),' Constitution perits a
valid classification under the follo=ing conditions based on =hat is considered as a reasonable
classification:
a. 0he classification ust rest on substantial distinctions#
b. 0he classification ust be gerane to the purpose of the la=#
c. 0he classification ust not be liited to eDisting conditions onl/# and
d. 0he classification ust appl/ e?uall/ to all ebers of the sae class.
0he Court found that there is no substantial distinction bet=een unicipalities =ith pending
Cit/hood 6ills in the &&
th
Congress and those that did not have pending bills# Furtherore#
unicipalities that did not have pending Cit/hood 6ills =ere not infored that a pending Cit/hood
6ill in the &&
th
Congress =ould be a condition to eDept the fro the P&-- illion incoe
re?uireent# therefore BdeprivingC the of a supposed BchanceC to avail of the BeDeptionC. <lso#
the fact of a pendenc/ of a Cit/hood 6ill in the &&
th
Congress violates the re?uireent that a valid
classification ust not be liited to eDisting conditions onl/# as the fact itself is a specific condition
that =ill never happen again (=ith the &&
th
Congress alread/ over). 0he eDeption is basicall/ a
Buni?ue advantageC based on an arbitrar/ date (=hich =as the filing of a Cit/hood 6ill =ithin the
&&
th
Congress# =hich =as basicall/ over) against other unicipalities that a/ =ant to convert
into cities after the effectivit/ of $< )--). Finall/# liiting the eDeption onl/ to the &(
unicipalities violates the re?uireent that the classification ust appl/ to all parties siilarl/
situated.
Disposi#ive Por#io*:
7A!$!F"$!# the Court G$<%03 the petitions and declares H%C"%3020H02"%<L the Cit/hood La=s#
nael/: $epublic <ct %os. )@,)# )@)-# )@)&# )@).# )@)@# )@)+# )@),# )+-+# )+-*# )+-'# )+-,# )+-)#
)+@+# )+@*# )+@(# and )+)&.
DISSENTIN1 OPINION /7. RE8ES0
1. The "ityhood 'a!s do not violate ,ec. 10 Art. . of the 19/% "onstitution.
Justice $e/es argues that the intent of $< )--) is to eDept the respondent unicipalities fro
the ne= incoe re?uireent# as the Cit/hood La=s provide a uniforl/ =orded eDeption
clause# =hich states: B!Deption fro $.<. )--)IC. Furtherore# it =as pointed out that
Congress intended that the then pending cit/hood bills =ould not be covered b/ the incoe
re?uireent of P&-- illion iposed b/ $.<. %o. )--). 2t =as ade clear b/ the Legislature that
$.<. %o. )--) =ould not have an/ retroactive effect. 0he inclusion of the eDeption clause =as
therefore cited as Bthe clear4cut intent of the Legislature of not giving retroactive effect to $.<. %o.
)--)C# =ith Congress a:ing its intent eDpress through the Cit/hood La=s. Justice $e/es
furtherore points out that the LegislativeEs intent (based fro the interpellations of 3enators
Pientel and Drilon) should be the controlling factor.
Further to this# J. $e/es also points out that the petitioners =ere not able to discharge their onus
probandi of overcoing the presuption of constitutionalit/ accorded to the Cit/hood La=s#
stating that la=s =ill onl/ be declared invalid if the conflict =ith the Constitution is clear be/ond
reasonable doubt# and such declaration is unconstitutionalit/ is done: a) as a last resort# b) =hen
absolutel/ necessar/# c) =hen the statute is in palpable conflict =ith a plain provision of the
Constitution# and (d) =hen the invalidit/ is be/ond reasonable doubt.
J. $e/es then points to the arguents of the a>orit/ opinionEs first ground# stating that Congress
=as a=are that the &( Cit/hood 6ills =ere pending prior to the passage of $< )--)# and
therefore Congress intended the higher incoe re?uireent not to appl/ to the respondents.
<nent the second point# J. $e/es states that the Cit/hood La=s erel/ carr/ out the supposed
intent of $< )--) to eDept the respondent unicipalities. $egarding the third point# J. $e/es
then argues that# =hile it is true that LGHs shall have a B>ust shareC in the national taDes# it is
?ualified b/ the phrase Bas deterined b/ la=C. $egarding the fourth point# J. $e/es argues that
Congress eant not to incorporate its intent in the bill that =ould becoe $< )--)# since
according to 3enator Pientel# it =as BInotInecessar/ to put that provision because =hat =e
are sa/ing here =ill for part of the interpretation of this billC. Furtherore# J. $e/es states that
courts a/ resort to eDtrinsic aids of statutor/ construction li:e the legislative histor/ of the la= if
the literal application of the la= results in absurdit/# ipossibilit/# or in>ustice. Finall/# J. $e/es
argues on the last point that hearings and deliberations conducted during the &&
th
or &.
th
Congress a/ still be used as eDtrinsic aids or reference because the sae cit/hood bills# =hich
=ere filed before the passage of $< )--)# =ere being considered during the &@
th
Congress.
2. The "ityhood 'a!s do not violate the 6qual Protection "lause under ,ec. 1 Art. ;;; of the 19/%
"onstitution by &rantin& special treatment to respondents in e1emptin& them from the imposed
minimum income requirements imposed by RA 9009.
Justice $e/es states that the e?ual protection guarantee does not ta:e a=a/ fro Congress the
po=er to classif/# as long as such classification is based on reasonable classification. For the
classification to be reasonable:
a. 0he classification ust rest on substantial distinctions#
b. 0he classification ust be gerane to the purpose of the la=#
c. 0he classification ust not be liited to eDisting conditions onl/# and
d. 0he classification ust appl/ e?uall/ to all ebers of the sae class.
Ao=ever# Justice $e/es rules that# based on the paraeters# the Cit/hood La=s do not violate
the !?ual Protection Clause.
First# J. $e/es argues that the respondent unicipalities had pending Cit/hood 6ills before the
passage of $< )--)# and that the peculiar conditions of the respondents are considered sufficient
grounds for legislative classification# as (according to a cited sponsorship speech b/ then43enator
Li) fairness dictates that the respondents be given a legal reed/ to allo= the to prove that
the/ fulfill the re?uireents of the LGC for cit/ status prior to the aendents brought forth b/
$< )--). Furtherore# J. $e/es states that courts cannot ?uestion the =isdo of classifications
ade b/ Congress as it is a prerogative of the Legislature.
%eDt# J. $e/es argues that the eDeption of the respondents fro the increased incoe
re?uireent =as desiged to ensure that fairness and >ustice =ere given to the respondents# as
their cit/hood bills =ere not enacted b/ Congress due to Bintervening events and reasons be/on
their controlC. 0herefore# J. $e/es states that these Cit/hood La=s proote e?ualit/ and reduce
the eDisting ine?ualit/ bet=een the respondents and the Jother thirt/4t=o (@.) unicipalitiesJ
=hose cit/hood bills =ere enacted during the &&th Congress.
%eDt# J. $e/es argues that the Cit/hood La=s are curative or reedial statutes# as the/ see: to
prevent an apparent Bin>ustice =hich =ould be coitted to respondentsC. J. $e/es states that
the cit/hood la=s Bare not contrar/ to the spirit and intent of $< )--) because Congress intended
said la= to be prospective# not retroactive# in applicationC. Furtherore# J. $e/es states that to
den/ respondents the sae rights and privileges accorded to the other thirt/4t=o (@.)
unicipalities =hen the/ are under the sae circustances# is tantaount to den/ing respondent
unicipalities the protective antle of the e?ual protection clause# and in effect# the petitioners
theselves are pushing for another violation of the e?ual protection clause.
Finall/# J. $e/es argues that the Cit/hood La=s# in carr/ing out the clear intent of $< )--)# appl/
to unicipalities that had pending cit/hood bills before the passage of $< )--) and =ere
copliant =ith the prior for of 3ection +*- of the Local Governent Code that prescribed an
incoe re?uireent of P.- illion. 2n short# J. $e/es argues that there eDists a separate class of
unicipalities 5 those =ho have applied for cit/hood prior to $< )--)Es enactent (=hich
basicall/ covers the *' applicants for cit/hood).
Justice $e/es then points out in his dissenting opinion the arguent that the Cit/hood La=s en>o/ the
presuption of constitutionalit/# and that the petitioners bear the burden of overcoing the presuption.
2t =as also pointed out that the onus probandi# ho=ever# =as shifted b/ the a>orit/ to the respondents in
as:ing the to prove the constitutionalit/ of the Cit/hood La=s# in violation of the basic rules of evidence.