2009-62992 1

League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. COMELEC

Ponente J. Carpio J. Velasco, Jr. J. Carpio J. Bersamin J. Bersamin
Date November 18, 2008 December 21, 2009 August 24, 2010 February 15, 2011 April 12, 2011
Summary The 11th Congress enacted into law 33 bills converting 33 municipalities into cities. However, 24 bills converting municipalities into cities were not acted upon. During the
12th Congress, RA 9009 was passed, 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 was to restrain 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.
The House of Representatives re-adopted Joint Resolution No. 29 as Joint Resolution No. 1 during the 13th Congress and forwarded it to the Senate for approval. As a
result, 16 municipalities filed 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.

The cityhood bills lapsed into law (Cityhood Laws) in 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 averred that the wholesale conversion of municipalities into cities will reduce the share of existing cities in the IRA because more cities will share
the same amount of internal revenue set aside for all cities under Sec. 285, LGC.
Relevant Article X of the Constitution
Provision SECTION 6. Local government units shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them.

SECTION 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the
criteria established in the Local Government Code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
Ruling of the Court

1
2009-62992 2

The City Hood UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL

Laws
(1) Applying the P100 million (1) The Congress thru its plenary (1) The creation of LGUs (1) Congress intended respondent (1) Congress clearly intended that
income requirement is a power can prescribe the must follow the criteria municipalities to be exempted the LGUs covered by the
prospective, not a retroactive criteria established in the LGC and from the coverage of RA 9009 Cityhood Laws be exempted
application of the law  The Constitution employs the not in any other law.  The amendment carried with it from the coverage of R.A. No.
 RA 9009 took effect in 2001 clause “in accordance with the The Constitution requires both the letter and the intent of the 9009
while the cityhood bills became criteria established in the local Congress to stipulate in the law, and such were incorporated Senator Pimentel during the
law more than five years government code” to lay stress LGC all the criteria in the LGC by which the deliberations was cognizant of
later. that it is Congress alone, and no necessary for the creation compliance of the Cityhood Laws the fact that there were
other, which can impose the of a city, including the was gauged. municipalities that had pending
(2) Congress must prescribe all criteria. conversion of a municipality conversion bills during the 11th
the criteria for the creation of  Congress can, via either a into a city. Congress prior to enactment of
a city in the Local consolidated set of laws or a  Congress cannot write (2) The enactment of the Cityhood R.A. No. 9009.
Government Code much simpler, single-subject such criteria in any other Laws is an exercise by  Senator Pimentel made it
 Section 450 of the LGC, as enactment, impose the said law, Congress of its legislative obvious that R.A. No. 9009
amended by RA 9009, does not verifiable criteria of viability. like the Cityhood Laws. power. would not apply to the conversion
provide any exemption from the  These criteria need not This  The LGC is a creation of bills then pending
increased income requirement. be embodied in the local insures that the creation of Congress through its law-making deliberation in the Senate during
The Cityhood Laws, all government code albeit this code cities and other political powers. Congress has the power the 11th Congress.
enacted after the effectivity of RA is the ideal repository to ensure units must follow the same to alter or modify it as it did when
9009, explicitly exempt the element of uniformity. uniform, non-discriminatory it enacted R.A. No. 9009. (2) The imposition of the income
respondent municipalities from Congress can even, after making criteria found solely in the Such power of amendment of requirement of P100 million
the increased income a codification, enact an Local Government Code. laws was again exercised from local sources under R.A.
requirement in Section 450 of the amendatory law.  RA 9009 amended when Congress enacted the No. 9009 was arbitrary
LGC. Such exemption clearly  The passage of amendatory city took effect on 30 June Cityhood Laws. The increased income
violates Section 10, Article X of laws is no different from the 2001. Hence, from that  R.A. No. 9009 amended the requirement of P100M was not
the Constitution and is thus enactment of laws, i.e., the moment the LGC required LGC. Also, the Cityhood Laws the only conclusive indicator for
patently unconstitutional. To be cityhood laws specifically that any municipality also amended R.A. any municipality to survive and
valid, such exemption must exempting a particular political desiring to become a city No. 9009 through the exemption remain viable as a component
be written in the LGC and not in subdivision from the criteria must satisfy the P100 clauses found therein. city. This is evidenced by the fact
any other law, including the earlier mentioned. million income requirement.  Since the Cityhood Laws that even the 59 members of the
Cityhood Laws.  Section 450 does not explicitly exempted the League of Cities have failed to be
(2) The Senate deliberations can contain any exemption from concerned municipalities from the compliant with the new
(3) The Cityhood Laws violate be resorted to determine intent this income requirement, amendatory R.A. No. 9009, such requirement of P100 million
Section 6, Article X of the  The intent or the spirit of the even though these Cityhood Laws are, therefore, threshold income five years after
Constitution law is the law itself, resort should municapalities’ cityhood also amendments to the LGC R.A. No. 9009 became law
 They prevent a fair and just be to the rule that the spirit of the bills were pending in itself. but still remained viable.
distribution of the national taxes law controls its letter. Congress when Congress
to local government units.  The Pimental-Drilon exchange passed RA 9009.

2
2009-62992
(4) Section 450 of the
LGC is clear, plain and
unambiguous
 There can be no resort to
extrinsic aids—like deliberations
of Congress—if the language of
the law is plain, clear and
unambiguous. Courts determine
intent of the law from its literal
language.
(5) The 11th Congress Intent was
not written into the LGC
 Members of Congress
discussed exempting respondent
municipalities from RA 9009, as
shown by the various
deliberations on the matter
during the 11th Congress.
However, Congress did not write
this intended exemption into law.
 Congress cannot create a city
through a law that does not
comply with the criteria or
exemption found in the LGC.
(6) 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.
 The unapproved cityhood bills
filed during the 11th Congress
became mere scraps of paper
upon the adjournment of the 11th
Congress. These hearings and
deliberations cannot be used to
interpret bills enacted into law in
3
eloquently indicates the following (3) Applicability of Equal (3) The local government units
complementary legislative (2) Applicability of Equal Protection Clause covered by the Cityhood
intentions: Protection Clause  REST ON SUBSTANTIAL Laws belong to a class of
a. The then pending cityhood  DOES NOT REST ON DISTINCTION: The their own.
bills would be outside the pale of SUBSTANTIAL determination of the existence of They have proven themselves
the minimum income DISTINCTION: There is no substantial distinction with viable and capable to become
requirement of PhP 100 million substantial distinction respect to respondent component cities of their
that S. Bill No. 2159 between municipalities with municipalities does not simply lie respective provinces.
proposes; and pending cityhood bills in the on the mere pendency of their  They are and have been
b. RA 9009 would not have any 11th Congress and cityhood bills during the 11th centers of trade and
retroactive effect insofar as the municipalities that did not Congress. Rather, it is measured commerce, points of
cityhood bills are concerned. have pending bills. The by the very purpose of the LGC. convergence of transportation,
mere pendency of a  Substantial distinction lies in rich havens of agricultural,
(3) RA 9009 should not be given a cityhood bill in the 11th the capacity and viability of mineral, and other
retroactive effect Congress is not a material respondent municipalities to natural resources, and flourishing
 The inclusion of the exemption difference to distinguish become component cities of their tourism spots.
clause of the cityhood laws is the one municipality from respective provinces.  While the Constitution laid
clear-cut intent of Congress of another for the purpose of  Congress merely recognized down the criteria laid down for the
not according retroactive effect to the income requirement. the capacity creation of LGC, it cannot be
RA 9009.  CLASSIFICATION IS and readiness of respondent justified to insist that the
 The cityhood bills, which were NOT GERMANE TO THE municipalities to become Constitution must have to yield to
already being deliberated upon PURPOSE OF THE LAW: component cities of their every amendment to the LGC
even before the conception of RA The classification criterion respective provinces. despite such amendment
9009, were again being mere pendency of a imminently producing effects
considered during the 13th cityhood bill in the 11th contrary to the original thrusts of
Congress after being tossed Congress is not rationally the LGC to promote autonomy,
around in the two previous related to the decentralization, countryside
Congresses. Specific reference purpose of the law which is development, and the
to the cityhood bills was to prevent fiscally nonviable concomitant national growth.
also made during the municipalities from
deliberations on RA 9009. converting into cities. (4) Cityhood Laws did not violate
 LIMITED TO EXISING their right to a just share in
(4) Applicability of Equal CONDITIONS: The fact of the national taxes
Protection Clause pendency of a cityhood bill  The share of local government
 There was no violation of in the 11th Congress limits units is a matter of percentage,
equal protection clause because the exemption to a specific not a specific amount. It is also
no deprivation of property results condition existing at the dependent on the number of
by virtue of the enactment of the time of passage of RA 9009 existing cities, such that when the
cityhood laws. That specific condition will number of cities increases, then
never happen again. more will divide and share the
3
2009-62992
the 13th or subsequent
Congresses.
(7) Applicability of Equal
Protection Clause
 Section 450 of the LGC as
amended by RA 9009, does not
contain any exemption. The
exemption is contained in the
Cityhood Laws, which are
unconstitutional because such
exemption must be prescribed in
the LGC as mandated in
Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution.
 The one sentence exemption
provision contains no
classification standards or
guidelines differentiating the
exempted municipalities from
those that are not exempted.
 The exemption will be
based solely on the fact that the
16 municipalities had cityhood
bills pending in the 11th
Congress
when RA 9009 was enacted.
 The classification criterion—
mere pendency of a
cityhood bill in the 11th
Congress—is not rationally
related to the purpose of the law
which is to prevent fiscally
nonviable municipalities from
converting into cities.
4
 It is presumptuous on the part  DOES NOT REST ON allocation for cities.
of the LCP member-cities to SUBSTANTIAL  With every newly converted
already stake a claim on the IRA, DISTINCTION: city becoming entitled to share
as if it were their property, as the Municipalities with the the allocation for cities, the
IRA is yet to be allocated. The same income as the 16 percentage of internal revenue
conversion of a municipality into respondent allotment (IRA) entitlement of
a city will only affect its status as municipalities cannot each city will decrease, although
a political unit, but not its property convert into cities, while the the actual amount received may
as such. 16 be more than that received in the
 The equal protection clause respondent municipalities preceding year
does not preclude the state from can.
recognizing and acting upon
factual differences between (3) Operative Fact Doctrine
individuals and classes. It  The operative fact
recognizes laws rests on doctrine never validates or
substantial distinction. constitutionalizes an
REST ON SUBSTANTIAL unconstitutional law.
DISTINCTION: Respondent  The Cityhood Laws
LGUs remain unconstitutional
are substantially different from because
other municipalities desirous to they violate Section 10,
be cities. The respondent LGUs Article X of the Constitution.
had pending cityhood bills before However, the effects of the
the passage of RA 9009. implementation of the
 CLASSIFICATION IS Cityhood Laws prior to the
GERMANE TO THE PURPOSE declaration of their nullity,
OF THE LAW: The classification such as the payment of
is also germane to the purpose of salaries and supplies by the
the new cities or their issuance
law. The exemption of the of licenses or execution of
respondent from the requirement contracts, may be
was meant to reduce the recognized as valid and
inequality occasioned by the effective.
passage of the amendatory RA
9009.
 APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL
MEMBERS OF THE SAME
CLASS: The uniform exemption
clause would apply to
municipalities that had pending
4
2009-62992 5

cityhood bills before the passage

of RA 9009 and were compliant
with then Sec. 450 of the LGC of
1991, which prescribed an
income requirement of PhP 20M.

(5) Operative Fact Doctrine

 The existence of the cities
consequent to the approval of the
creating the cityhood laws in the
plebiscites held in the affected
LGUs is now an operative fact.

Dissent REYES, J. VELASCO, J. CARPIO, J. CARPIO, J.

 Cityhood Laws Do Not Violate  The word “code” in the
Sec. 10, Article 10 of the constitutional provision
Constitution. The cityhood laws refers to a law Congress
merely carry out the intent of R.A. enacts in line with
No. 9009 and are in accordance its plenary power to create
with the “criteria established in local political subdivisions.
the Local Government Code” The Constitution employs
pursuant to Section 10, Article X the clause “in accordance
of the 1987 Constitution. with the criteria established
 The intent of R.A. No. 9009 is in the local government
to exempt respondent code” is to lay stress
municipalities from the income that it is Congress alone,
requirement of P100M. and no other, which can
 The deliberations of Congress define, prescribe
are necessary and impose the criteria.
to ferret out the intent of the The amendatory Republic
legislature in enacting R.A. No. Act (RA) No. 9009
9009. increasing the codified
It was made clear by the income requirement from
Legislature that R.A. Php 20 million to Php 100
million is really
 The Cityhood Laws violate Art
X, Sec 10 of the Constitution. It
failed to follow the criteria
established in the LGC. To be
valid, the exemptions must be
written in the LGC itself, and not
in any other law.
 The Cityhood Laws violate the
equal protection clause. No
substantial distinction between
municipalities with pending
cityhood bills. The classification
criterion is not rationally related to
the purpose of the law which is to
prevent fiscally non-viable
municipalities from converting
into cities.
 The fact of pendency of a
cityhood bill in the 11th Congress
limits the exemption to a specific
condition existing at the time of
 The Cityhood Laws are laws
other than the Local Government
Code.
 The increased income
requirement of ₱100M is neither
arbitrary nor difficult to comply. In
stating that there is no evidence
to support the increased income
requirement, the majority is
requiring the Legislature, to
provide
evidence justifying the economic
rationale, like inflation rates,
for the increase in income
requirement. This Court should
not venture into areas of
analyses obviously
beyond its competence.
 The reduction of the share in
the Internal Revenue Allotment

5
2009-62992
No. 9009 would not have any
retroactive
effect.
Cityhood Laws do not violate
the equal protection clause
because it
rests on substantial distinctions.
The respondent municipalities
had pending cityhood bills before
the passage of R.A. No. 9009.
Thus, “fairness dictates that they
should be given a legal remedy
by which they should be allowed
to prove that they have all the
necessary qualifications for city
status using the criteria set forth
under the Local
Government Code prior to its
amendment by R.A. No.
9009.
no different from the
enactment of any of the
Cityhood Law exempting
the unit covered thereby
from the codified
standards.
 The fact that the
classification applies only
to the conditions prevailing
during the 11th Congress
does not render the
legislative classification
unconstitutionally arbitrary.
As long as the classifying
law is not limited in its
application to conditions
prevailing as of the time of
its enactment, but is
intended to apply
for all times as long as the
contemplated conditions
exist, then
there is no sufficient ground
for invalidation.
 The eventual reduction
of their IRA share resulting
from the creation of the
sixteen (16) respondent
cities is a matter that goes
into into the wisdom of the
congressional
classification.
6
passage of RA 9009. This will adversely affect the cities'
violates the requirement that a economic situation. It boils
valid classification must not be down to equity and fairness,
limited to existing conditions rational allocation of scarce
only. resources, and above all, faithful
 The Cityhood Laws gives the compliance with an express
16 municipalities a unique mandatory provision of the
advantage based on an arbitrary Constitution.
date − the filing of their cityhood
bills before the end of the 11th
Congress - as against all other
municipalities that want to convert
into cities after the effectivity of
RA 9009.
 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.