Republic of the
Supreme Court
EN BANC
|
League of Cities of the
Philippines (LCP), represented by LCP National President Jerry
P. Treñas; City of Calbayog,
represented by Mayor Mel Senen S. Sarmiento; and Jerry P. Treñas, in his personal capacity as Taxpayer, Petitioners, - versus - Commission on Elections; Municipality of Baybay, Province of Leyte;
Municipality of Bogo, Province of Cebu; Municipality of Catbalogan, Province
of Western Samar; Municipality of Tandag, Province of Surigao del Sur;
Municipality of Borongan, Province of Eastern Samar; and Municipality of
Tayabas, Province of Quezon, Respondents. X-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X League of Cities of the
Philippines (LCP), represented by LCP National President Jerry
P. Treñas; City of Calbayog,
represented by Mayor Mel Senen S. Sarmiento; and Jerry P. Treñas, in his personal capacity as Taxpayer, Petitioners, -
versus - Commission on
Elections; Municipality of Lamitan, Province of Basilan; Municipality of
Tabuk, Province of Kalinga; Municipality of Bayugan, Province of Agusan del
Sur; Municipality of Batac, Province of Ilocos Norte; Municipality of Mati,
Province of Davao Oriental; and Municipality of Guihulngan, Province of
Negros Oriental, Respondents. X-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X League of Cities of the
Philippines (LCP), represented by LCP National President Jerry
P. Treñas; City of Calbayog,
represented by Mayor Mel Senen S. Sarmiento; and Jerry P. Treñas, in his personal capacity as Taxpayer, Petitioners, - versus - Commission on Elections;
Municipality of Cabadbaran, Province of Agusan del Norte; Municipality of
Carcar, Province of Cebu; Municipality of El Salvador, Province of Misamis
Oriental; Municipality of Naga, Cebu; and Department
of Budget and Management, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 176951 G.R. No. 177499 G.R. No. 178056 Present: CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: February 15, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
BERSAMIN, J.:
For
consideration of this Court are the following pleadings:
1. Motion for Reconsideration of the “Resolution” dated August
24, 2010 dated and filed on September 14, 2010 by respondents Municipality of
Baybay, et al.; and
2. Opposition [To the “Motion for Reconsideration of the
‘Resolution’ dated
Meanwhile, respondents also filed on
A brief background —
These cases were initiated by the
consolidated petitions for prohibition filed by the League of Cities of the
Philippines (LCP), City of Iloilo, City of Calbayog, and Jerry P. Treñas,
assailing the constitutionality of the sixteen (16) laws,[1]
each converting the municipality covered thereby into a component city
(Cityhood Laws), and seeking to enjoin the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
from conducting plebiscites pursuant to the subject laws.
In the Decision dated November 18,
2008, the Court En Banc, by a 6-5
vote,[2]
granted the petitions and struck down the Cityhood Laws as unconstitutional for
violating Sections 10 and 6, Article X, and the equal protection clause.
In the Resolution dated
On
In its
As a rule, a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that: “No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.” Thus, a decision becomes final and executory after 15 days from receipt of the denial of the first motion for reconsideration.
However, when a motion for leave to file and admit a second motion for reconsideration is granted by the Court, the Court therefore allows the filing of the second motion for reconsideration. In such a case, the second motion for reconsideration is no longer a prohibited pleading.
In
the present case, the Court voted on the second motion for reconsideration
filed by respondent cities. In effect,
the Court allowed the filing of the second motion for reconsideration. Thus, the second motion for reconsideration
was no longer a prohibited pleading.
However, for lack of the required number of votes to overturn the
Then, in another Decision dated
On August 24, 2010, the Court En Banc, through a Resolution, by a vote
of 7-6,[7]
resolved the Ad Cautelam Motion for
Reconsideration and Motion to Annul the Decision of December 21, 2009, both
filed by petitioners, and the Ad Cautelam
Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners-in-intervention Batangas City,
Santiago City, Legazpi City, Iriga City, Cadiz City, and Oroquieta City,
reinstating the November 18, 2008 Decision.
Hence, the aforementioned pleadings.
Considering these circumstances where
the Court En Banc has twice changed
its position on the constitutionality of the 16 Cityhood Laws, and especially
taking note of the novelty of the issues involved in these cases, the Motion
for Reconsideration of the “Resolution” dated August 24, 2010 deserves
favorable action by this Court on the basis of the following cogent points:
1.
The 16
Cityhood Bills do not violate Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution.
Article X, Section 10 provides—
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.
The tenor of the ponencias of the November 18, 2008 Decision and the August 24, 2010
Resolution is that the exemption clauses in the 16 Cityhood Laws are
unconstitutional because they are not written in the Local Government Code of
1991 (LGC), particularly Section 450 thereof, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9009, which took effect on June 30, 2001, viz.—
Section 450. Requisites for
Creation. –a) A municipality or a cluster of barangays may be converted into a component city if it has a
locally generated annual income, as certified by the Department of Finance, of
at least One Hundred Million Pesos (P100,000,000.00)
for at least two (2) consecutive years based on 2000 constant prices, and
if it has either of the following requisites:
x x x x
(c) The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund, exclusive of special funds, transfers, and non-recurring income. (Emphasis supplied)
Prior to the amendment, Section 450
of the LGC required only an average annual income, as certified by the
Department of Finance, of at least P20,000,000.00 for the last two (2)
consecutive years, based on 1991 constant prices.
Before
Senate Bill No. 2157, now R.A. No. 9009, was introduced by Senator Aquilino
Pimentel, there were 57 bills filed for conversion of 57 municipalities into
component cities. During the 11th
Congress (June 1998-June 2001), 33 of these bills were enacted into law, while
24 remained as pending bills. Among
these 24 were the 16 municipalities that were converted into component cities
through the Cityhood Laws.
The
rationale for the enactment of R.A. No. 9009 can be gleaned from the
sponsorship speech of Senator Pimentel on Senate Bill No. 2157, to wit—
Senator Pimentel. Mr. President, I would have wanted this bill
to be included in the whole set of proposed amendments that we have introduced
to precisely amend the Local Government Code.
However, it is a fact that there is a mad rush of municipalities wanting to be converted into cities. Whereas in 1991, when the Local Government
was approved, there were only 60 cities, today the number has increased to 85
cities, with 41 more municipalities applying for conversion to the same
status. At the rate we are going, I am apprehensive that before long this
nation will be a nation of all cities and no municipalities.
It is for that reason, Mr. President, that we are proposing among other things, that the financial requirement, which, under the Local Government Code, is fixed at P20 million, be raised to P100 million to enable a municipality to have the right to be converted into a city, and the P100 million should be sourced from locally generated funds.
What has been happening, Mr. President, is, the municipalities aspiring to become cities say that they qualify in terms of financial requirements by incorporating the Internal Revenue share of the taxes of the nation on to their regularly generated revenue. Under that requirement, it looks clear to me that practically all municipalities in this country would qualify to become cities.
It
is precisely for that reason, therefore, that we are seeking the approval of
this Chamber to amend, particularly Section 450 of Republic Act No. 7160, the
requisite for the average annual income of a municipality to be converted into
a city or cluster of barangays which
seek to be converted into a city, raising that revenue requirement from P20
million to P100 million for the last two consecutive years based on 2000
constant prices.[8]
While R.A. No. 9009 was being
deliberated upon, Congress was well aware of the pendency of conversion bills
of several municipalities, including those covered by the Cityhood Laws,
desiring to become component cities which qualified under the P20
million income requirement of the old Section 450 of the LGC. The interpellation of Senate President
Franklin Drilon of Senator Pimentel is revealing, thus—
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair would like to ask for some clarificatory point.
SENATOR PIMENTEL. Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT. This is just on the point of the pending bills in the Senate which propose
the conversion of a number of municipalities into cities and which qualify
under the present standard.
We would like to know the view of
the sponsor: Assuming that this bill
becomes a law, will the Chamber apply the standard as proposed in this bill to
those bills which are pending for consideration?
SENATOR
PIMENTEL. Mr. President, it might not be fair to make this bill, on
the assumption that it is approved, retroact to the bills that are pending in
the Senate conversion from municipalities to cities.
THE PRESIDENT. Will there be an appropriate language crafted to reflect that view? Or does it not become a policy of the Chamber, assuming that this bill becomes a law tomorrow, that it will apply to those bills which are already approved by the House under the old version of the Local Government Code and are now pending in the Senate? The Chair does not know if we can craft a language which will limit the application to those which are not yet in the Senate. Or is that a policy that the Chamber will adopt?
SENATOR
PIMENTEL. Mr. President, personally, I do not think it is necessary to put that
provision because what we are saying here will form part of the interpretation
of this bill. Besides, if there is no
retroactivity clause, I do not think that the bill would have any retroactive
effect.
THE PRESIDENT. So the understanding is that those bills
which are already pending in the Chamber will not be affected.
SENATOR PIMENTEL. These will not be affected, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT. Thank you Mr. Chairman.[9]
Clearly, based on the above exchange,
Congress intended that those with pending cityhood bills during the 11th
Congress would not be covered by the new and higher income requirement of P100
million imposed by R.A. No. 9009. When
the LGC was amended by R.A. No. 9009, the amendment carried with it both the
letter and the intent of the law, and such were incorporated in the LGC by
which the compliance of the Cityhood Laws was gauged.
Notwithstanding
that both the 11th and 12th Congress failed to act upon
the pending cityhood bills, both the letter and intent of Section 450 of the
LGC, as amended by R.A. No. 9009, were carried on until the 13th
Congress, when the Cityhood Laws were enacted.
The exemption clauses found in the individual Cityhood Laws are the
express articulation of that intent to exempt respondent municipalities from
the coverage of R.A. No. 9009.
Even
if we were to ignore the above quoted exchange between then Senate President
Drilon and Senator Pimentel, it cannot be denied that Congress saw the wisdom
of exempting respondent municipalities from complying with the higher income
requirement imposed by the amendatory R.A. No. 9009. Indeed, these municipalities have proven
themselves viable and capable to become component cities of their respective
provinces. It is also acknowledged that
they were centers of trade and commerce, points of convergence of
transportation, rich havens of agricultural, mineral, and other natural
resources, and flourishing tourism spots.
In this regard, it is worthy to mention the distinctive traits of each
respondent municipality, viz—
Batac, Ilocos Norte – It is the biggest municipality of the 2nd
District of Ilocos Norte, 2nd largest and most progressive town in
the
Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte – It is the largest of the eleven (11)
municipalities in the
Borongan,
Lamitan, Basilan – Before
Catbalogan,
Bogo,
Tandag, Surigao del Sur – This over 350 year old capital town the province has long sought its conversion into a city that will pave the way not only for its own growth and advancement but also help in the development of its neighboring municipalities and the province as a whole. Furthermore, it can enhance its role as the province’s trade, financial and government center. [Explanatory Note of House Bill No. 5940, introduced by Rep. Prospero A. Pichay, Jr.]
Bayugan, Agusan del Sur – It is a first class municipality and the biggest in terms of population in the entire province. It has the most progressive and thickly populated area among the 14 municipalities that comprise the province. Thus, it has become the center for trade and commerce in Agusan del Sur. It has a more developed infrastructure and facilities than other municipalities in the province. [Explanatory Note of House Bill No. 1899, introduced by Rep. Rodolfo “Ompong” G. Plaza.]
Carcar, Cebu – Through the years, Carcar metamorphosed from rural to urban and now boast of its manufacturing industry, agricultural farming, fishing and prawn industry and its thousands of large and small commercial establishments contributing to the bulk of economic activities in the municipality. Based on consultation with multi-sectoral groups, political and non-government agencies, residents and common folk in Carcar, they expressed their desire for the conversion of the municipality into a component city. [Explanatory Note of House Bill No. 3990, introduced by Rep. Eduardo R. Gullas.]
Guihulngan,
Tayabas, Quezon – It flourished and expanded into an important politico-cultural center in [the] Tagalog region. For 131 years (1179-1910), it served as the cabecera of the province which originally carried the cabecera’s own name, Tayabas. The locality is rich in culture, heritage and trade. It was at the outset one of the more active centers of coordination and delivery of basic, regular and diverse goods and services within the first district of Quezon Province. [Explanatory Note of House Bill No. 3348, introduced by Rep. Rafael P. Nantes.]
Tabuk, Kalinga – It not only serves as the main hub of commerce and trade, but also the cultural center of the rich customs and traditions of the different municipalities in the province. For the past several years, the income of Tabuk has been steadily increasing, which is an indication that its economy is likewise progressively growing. [Explanatory Note of House Bill No. 3068, introduced by Rep. Laurence P. Wacnang.]
Available
information on Baybay,
Covering an area of
46,050 hectares, Baybay [
Mati [
Mati
is abundant with nickel, chromite, and copper.
Louie Rabat, Chamber President of the Davao Oriental Eastern Chamber of
Commerce and Industry, emphasized the big potential of the mining industry in
the
(<http://www.pia.gov.ph/default.asp?m=12&sec=reader&rp=1&fi=p080115.htm&no.=9&date,
accessed on
Naga [
Class of Municipality 1st class
Province
Distance
from
Number of Barangays 28
No.
of Registered Voters 44,643
as of
Total
No. of Precincts 237
(as of
Ann.
Income (as of
(<http://www.nagacebu.com/index.php?option=com.content&view=article
id=53:naga-facts-and-figures&catid=51:naga-facts-and-figures&Itemid=75>
visited
The enactment of the Cityhood Laws is an exercise by
Congress of its legislative power.
Legislative power is the authority, under the Constitution, to make
laws, and to alter and repeal them.[10] The Constitution, as the expression of the
will of the people in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity, has
vested this power in the Congress of the
Without doubt, the LGC is a creation of Congress through
its law-making powers. Congress has the
power to alter or modify it as it did when it enacted R.A. No. 9009. Such power of amendment of laws was again
exercised when Congress enacted the Cityhood Laws. When Congress enacted the LGC in 1991, it
provided for quantifiable indicators of economic viability for the creation of
local government units—income, population, and land area. Congress deemed it fit to modify the income
requirement with respect to the conversion
of municipalities into component cities when
it enacted R.A. No. 9009,
imposing an amount of P100 million, computed only from locally-generated
sources. However, Congress deemed it
wiser to exempt respondent municipalities from such a belatedly imposed
modified income requirement in order to uphold its higher calling of putting
flesh and blood to the very intent and thrust of the LGC, which is countryside
development and autonomy, especially accounting for these municipalities as
engines for economic growth in their respective provinces.
Undeniably, R.A. No. 9009 amended the LGC. But it is also true that, in effect, the
Cityhood Laws amended R.A. No. 9009 through the exemption clauses found
therein. Since the Cityhood Laws
explicitly exempted the concerned municipalities from the amendatory R.A. No.
9009, such Cityhood Laws are, therefore, also amendments to the LGC
itself. For this reason, we reverse the
2.
The Cityhood
Laws do not violate Section 6, Article X and the equal protection clause of the
Constitution.
Both the
Upon more profound reflection and deliberation, we declare
that there was valid classification, and the Cityhood Laws do not violate the
equal protection clause.
As this
Court has ruled, the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution permits a
valid classification, provided that it: (1) rests on substantial distinctions;
(2) is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) is not limited to existing
conditions only; and (4) applies equally to all members of the same class.[12]
The petitioners argue that there is no substantial
distinction between municipalities with pending cityhood bills in the 11th
Congress and municipalities that did not have pending bills, such that the mere
pendency of a cityhood bill in the 11th Congress is not a material
difference to distinguish one municipality from another for the purpose of the
income requirement. This contention
misses the point.
It should be recalled from the above quoted portions of the
interpellation by Senate President Drilon of Senator Pimentel that the purpose
of the enactment of R.A. No 9009 was merely to stop the “mad rush of
municipalities wanting to be converted into cities” and the apprehension that
before long the country will be a country of cities and without
municipalities. It should be pointed out
that the imposition of the P100 million average annual income
requirement for the creation of component cities was arbitrarily made. To be sure, there was no evidence or
empirical data, such as inflation rates, to support the choice of this amount. The imposition of a very high income
requirement of P100 million, increased from P20 million, was
simply to make it extremely difficult for municipalities to become component
cities. And to highlight such
arbitrariness and the absurdity of the situation created thereby, R.A. No. 9009
has, in effect, placed component cities at a higher standing than highly
urbanized cities under Section 452 of the LGC, to wit—
Section 452. Highly Urbanized Cities. – (a) Cities with a minimum population of
two hundred thousand (200,000) inhabitants, as certified by the National
Statistics Office, and with the latest
annual income of at least Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00) based on
1991 constant prices, as certified by the city treasurer, shall be
classified as highly urbanized cities.
(b) Cities which do not meet above requirements shall be considered component cities of the province in which they are geographically located. (Emphasis supplied)
The P100 million income requirement imposed by R.A.
No. 9009, being an arbitrary amount, cannot be conclusively said to be the only
amount “sufficient, based on acceptable standards, to provide for all
essential government facilities
and services and
special functions
commensurate with the
size of its population,” per Section 7[13]
of the LGC. It was imposed merely
because it is difficult to comply with.
While it could be argued that P100 million, being more than P20
million, could, of course, provide the essential government facilities,
services, and special functions vis-à-vis the population of a municipality
wanting to become a component city, it cannot be said that the minimum amount
of P20 million would be insufficient.
This is evident from the existing cities whose income, up to now, do not
comply with the P100 million income requirement, some of which have
lower than the P20 million average annual income. Consider the list[14]
below—
|
CITY |
AVERAGE ANNUAL INCOME |
|
1. |
5,291,522.10 |
|
2. |
6,714,651.77 |
|
3. |
9,713,120.00 |
|
4. |
13,552,493.79 |
|
5. |
15,808,530.00 |
|
6. |
16,811,246.79 |
|
7. |
19,693,358.61 |
|
8. |
20,529,181.08 |
|
9. |
20,943,810.04 |
|
10. |
22,943,810.04 |
|
11. |
23,034,731.83 |
|
12. |
23,723,612.44 |
|
13. |
24,152,853.71 |
|
14. |
24,279,966.51 |
|
15. |
28,326,745.86 |
|
16. |
30,403,324.59 |
|
17. |
30,572,113.65 |
|
18. |
32,113,970.00 |
|
19. |
32,757,871.44 |
|
20. |
34,254,986.47 |
|
21. |
36,327,705.86 |
|
22. |
37,327,705.86 |
|
23. |
39,454,508.28 |
|
24. |
40,314,620.00 |
|
25. |
40,943,128.73 |
|
26. |
41,870,239.21 |
|
27. |
43,827,060.00 |
|
28. |
44,352,501.00 |
|
29. |
44, 646,826.48 |
|
30. |
46,306,129.13 |
|
31. |
47,351,730.00 |
|
32. |
47,360,716.24 |
|
33. |
49,026,281.56 |
|
34. |
52,609,790.00 |
|
35. |
53,560,580.00 |
|
36. |
54,423,408.55 |
|
37. La |
54,760,290.00 |
|
38. |
56,831,797.19 |
|
39. |
61,556,700.49 |
|
40. Sagay City |
64,266,350.00 |
|
41. |
64,566,079.05 |
|
42. |
66,231,717.19 |
|
43. |
66,302,114.52 |
|
44. |
70,157,331.12 |
|
45. |
70,309,233.43 |
|
46. |
72,621,955.30 |
|
47. |
74,305,000.00 |
|
48. |
74,557,298.92 |
|
49. |
75,757,298.92 |
|
50. |
82,949,135.46 |
|
51. |
83,816,025.89 |
|
52. |
85,397,830.00 |
|
53. |
85,503,262.85 |
|
54. |
87,413,786.64 |
|
55. |
87,964,972.97 |
|
56. Ozamis city |
89,054,056.12 |
|
57. |
89,960,971.33 |
|
58. |
91,425,301.39 |
|
59. |
92,647,699.13 |
The undeniable fact that these cities
remain viable as component cities of their respective provinces emphasizes the
arbitrariness of the amount of P100 million as the new income
requirement for the conversion of municipalities into component cities. This arbitrariness can also be clearly
gleaned from the respective distinctive traits and level of economic
development of the individual respondent municipalities as above submitted.
Verily,
the determination of the existence of substantial distinction with respect to
respondent municipalities does not simply lie on the mere pendency of their
cityhood bills during the 11th Congress. This Court sees the bigger picture. The existence of substantial distinction with
respect to respondent municipalities covered by the Cityhood Laws is measured
by the purpose of the law, not by R.A. No. 9009, but by the very purpose of the
LGC, as provided in its Section 2 (a), thus—
SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy.—(a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities and resources. The process of decentralization shall proceed from the National Government to the local government units.
Indeed,
substantial distinction lies in the capacity and viability of respondent
municipalities to become component cities of their respective provinces. Congress, by enacting the Cityhood Laws,
recognized this capacity and viability of respondent municipalities to become
the State’s partners in accelerating economic growth and development in the
provincial regions, which is the very thrust of the LGC, manifested by the
pendency of their cityhood bills during the 11th Congress and their
relentless pursuit for cityhood up to the present. Truly, the urgent need to become a component
city arose way back in the 11th Congress, and such condition
continues to exist.
Petitioners
in these cases complain about the purported reduction of their “just share” in
the IRA. To be sure, petitioners are
entitled to a “just share,” not a specific amount. But the feared reduction proved to be false
when, after the implementation of the Cityhood Laws, their respective shares
increased, not decreased. Consider the
table[15]
below—
|
CITY |
CY 2006 IRA (Before Implementation of Sixteen [16] Cityhood Laws) |
CY 2008 IRA (Actual Release After Implementation of Sixteen [16] Cityhood Laws) |
|
Bais |
219,338,056.00 |
242,193,156.00 |
|
Batangas |
334,371,984.00 |
388,871,770.00 |
|
Bayawan |
353,150,158.00 |
388,840,062.00 |
|
|
329,491,285.00 |
361,019,211.00 |
|
Calapan |
227,772,199.00 |
252,587,779.00 |
|
Calbayog |
438,603,378.00 |
485,653,769.00 |
|
Cauayan |
250,477,157.00 |
277,120,828.00 |
|
Gen. Santos |
518,388,557.00 |
631,864,977.00 |
|
Gingoog |
314,425,637.00 |
347,207,725.00 |
|
Himamaylan |
248,154,381.00 |
277,532,458.00 |
|
|
358,394,268.00 |
412,506,278.00 |
|
Iriga |
183,132,036.00 |
203,072,932.00 |
|
Legaspi |
235,314,016.00 |
266,537,785.00 |
|
Ligao |
215,608,112.00 |
239,696,441.00 |
|
Oroquieta |
191,803,213.00 |
211,449,720.00 |
|
Pagadian |
292,788,255.00 |
327,401,672.00 |
|
|
239,524,249.00 |
260,515,711.00 |
|
|
182,320,356.00 |
204,140,940.00 |
|
|
508,326,072.00 |
563,679,572.00 |
|
Silay |
216,372,314.00 |
241,363,845.00 |
|
Surigao |
233,968,119.00 |
260,708,071.00 |
|
Tacurong |
179,795,271.00 |
197,880,665.00 |
|
Tagaytay |
130,159,136.00 |
152,445,295.00 |
|
Tarlac |
348,186,756.00 |
405,611,581.00 |
|
Tangub |
162,248,610.00 |
180,640,621.00 |
|
Urdaneta |
187,721,031.00 |
207,129,386.00 |
|
|
176,367,959.00 |
194,162,687.00 |
|
Zamboanga |
918,013,016.00 |
1,009,972,704.00 |
What
these petitioner cities were stating as a reduction of their respective IRA shares
was based on a computation of what they would receive if respondent
municipalities were not to become component cities at all. Of course, that would mean a bigger amount to
which they have staked their claim.
After considering these, it all boils down to money and how much more
they would receive if respondent municipalities remain as municipalities and
not share in the 23% fixed IRA from the national government for cities.
Moreover,
the debates in the Senate on R.A. No. 9009, should prove enlightening:
SENATOR SOTTO. Mr. President, we just want to be enlightened again on the previous qualification and the present one being proposed. Before there were three…
SENATOR PIMENTEL. There are three requisites for a municipality to become a city. Let us start with the finance.
SENATOR SOTTO. Will the distinguished sponsor please refresh us? I used to be the chairman of the Committee on Local Government, but the new job that was given to me by the Senate has erased completely my memory as far as the Local Government Code is concerned.
SENATOR PIMENTEL. Yes, Mr. President, with pleasure. There are three requirements. One is financial.
SENATOR SOTTO. All right. It used to be P20 million.
SENATOR PIMENTEL. It is P20 million. Now we are raising it to P100 million of locally generated funds.
SENATOR SOTTO. In other words, the P20 million before includes the IRA.
SENATOR PIMENTEL. No, Mr. President.
SENATOR SOTTO. It should not have been included?
SENATOR PIMENTEL. The internal revenue share should never have been included. That was not the intention when we first crafted the Local Government Code. The financial capacity was supposed to be demonstrated by the municipality wishing to become a city by its own effort, meaning to say, it should not rely on the internal revenue share that comes from the government. Unfortunately, I think what happened in past conversions of municipalities into cities was, the Department of Budget and Management, along with the Department of Finance, had included the internal revenue share as a part of the municipality, demonstration that they are now financially capable and can measure up to the requirement of the Local Government Code of having a revenue of at least P20 million.
SENATOR SOTTO. I am glad that the sponsor, Mr. President, has spread that into the Record because otherwise, if he did not mention the Department of Finance and the Department of Budget and Management, then I would have been blamed for the misinterpretation. But anyway, the gentleman is correct. That was the interpretation given to us during the hearings.
So now, from P20 million, we make it P100 million from locally generated income as far as population is concerned.
SENATOR PIMENTEL. As far as population is concerned, there will be no change, Mr. President. Still 150,000.
SENATOR SOTTO. Still 150,000?
SENATOR PIMENTEL. Yes.
SENATOR SOTTO. And then the land area?
SENATOR PIMENTEL. As to the land area, there is no change; it is still 100 square kilometers.
SENATOR SOTTO. But before it was “either/or”?
SENATOR PIMENTEL. That is correct. As long as it has one of the three requirements, basically, as long as it meets the financial requirement, then it may meet the territorial requirement or the population requirement.
SENATOR SOTTO. So, it remains “or”?
SENATOR PIMENTEL. We are now changing it into AND.
SENATOR SOTTO. AND?
SENATOR PIMENTEL. Yes.
SENATOR SOTTO. I see.
SENATOR PIMENTEL. That is the proposal, Mr. President. In other words…
SENATOR SOTTO. Does the gentleman not think there will no longer be any municipality that will qualify, Mr. President?
SENATOR PIMENTEL. There may still be municipalities which can
qualify, but it will take a little time.
They will have to produce more babies.
I do not know—expand their territories, whatever, by reclamation or
otherwise. But the whole proposal is
geared towards making it difficult for municipalities to convert into cities.
On the other hand, I would like to advert to
the fact that in the amendments that we are proposing for the entire Local
Government Code, we are also raising the internal revenue share of the
municipalities.
SENATOR SOTTO. I see.
SENATOR PIMENTEL. So that, more or less, hindi naman sila dehado in this particular instance.
SENATOR SOTTO. Well, then, because of that information,
Mr. President, I throw my full support behind the measure.
Thank you, Mr. President.
SENATOR PIMENTEL. Thank you very much, Mr. President. (Emphasis supplied)[16]
From the foregoing, the justness in
the act of Congress in enacting the Cityhood Laws becomes obvious, especially
considering that 33 municipalities were converted into component cities almost
immediately prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 9009. In the enactment of the Cityhood Laws,
Congress merely took the 16 municipalities covered thereby from the
disadvantaged position brought about by the abrupt increase in the income
requirement of R.A. No. 9009, acknowledging the “privilege” that they have
already given to those newly-converted component cities, which prior to the
enactment of R.A. No. 9009, were undeniably in the same footing or “class” as
the respondent municipalities. Congress
merely recognized the capacity and readiness of respondent municipalities to
become component cities of their respective provinces.
Petitioners complain of the projects
that they would not be able to pursue and the expenditures that they would not be
able to meet, but totally ignored the respondent municipalities’ obligations
arising from the contracts they have already entered into, the employees that
they have already hired, and the projects that they have already initiated and
completed as component cities.
Petitioners have completely overlooked the need of respondent
municipalities to become effective vehicles intending to accelerate economic
growth in the countryside. It is like
the elder siblings wanting to kill the newly-borns so that their inheritance
would not be diminished.
Apropos is the following parable:
There was a landowner who went out at
dawn to hire workmen for his vineyard.
After reaching an agreement with them for the usual daily wage, he sent
them out to his vineyard. He came out
about midmorning and saw other men standing around the marketplace without
work, so he said to them, “You too go along to my vineyard and I will pay you
whatever is fair.” They went. He came out again around
Congress, who holds the power of the
purse, in enacting the Cityhood Laws, only sought the well-being of respondent
municipalities, having seen their respective capacities to become component
cities of their provinces, temporarily stunted by the enactment of R.A. No.
9009. By allowing respondent
municipalities to convert into component cities, Congress desired only to
uphold the very purpose of the LGC, i.e.,
to make the local government units “enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy
to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities
and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals,”
which is the very mandate of the Constitution.
Finally, we should not be restricted
by technical rules of procedure at the expense of the transcendental interest
of justice and equity. While it is true
that litigation must end, even at the expense of errors in judgment, it is
nobler rather for this Court of last resort, as vanguard of truth, to toil in
order to dispel apprehensions and doubt, as the following pronouncement of this
Court instructs:
The right and power of judicial tribunals to declare whether enactments of the legislature exceed the constitutional limitations and are invalid has always been considered a grave responsibility, as well as a solemn duty. The courts invariably give the most careful consideration to questions involving the interpretation and application of the Constitution, and approach constitutional questions with great deliberation, exercising their power in this respect with the greatest possible caution and even reluctance; and they should never declare a statute void, unless its invalidity is, in their judgment, beyond reasonable doubt. To justify a court in pronouncing a legislative act unconstitutional, or a provision of a state constitution to be in contravention of the Constitution x x x, the case must be so clear to be free from doubt, and the conflict of the statute with the constitution must be irreconcilable, because it is but a decent respect to the wisdom, the integrity, and the patriotism of the legislative body by which any law is passed to presume in favor of its validity until the contrary is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in no doubtful case will the judiciary pronounce a legislative act to be contrary to the constitution. To doubt the constitutionality of a law is to resolve the doubt in favor of its validity.[18]
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of the
“Resolution” dated
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS
P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
|
See dissenting opinion ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
|
I maintain my vote in the
original ponencia. Hence, I concur with the dissent of J. Carpio CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
No part ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
|
|
I certify that J. De Castro left her vote concurring
with J. Bersamin TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice
|
I join the dissent of J. Carpio ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice
|
I join the dissenting opinion of Justice
Carpio
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice |
(No part) MARIANO C.
Associate Justice |
|
See
concurring opinion ROBERTO A.
ABAD Associate Justice
|
I join the
dissenting opinion of J. Carpio MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice
|
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
JOSE
CATRAL Associate Justice |
I
join the dissent of J. Carpio
MARIA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
certify that the conclusions in the above resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Republic Acts 9389 [Baybay City, Leyte], 9390 [Bogo City, Cebu], 9391 [Catbalogan City, Samar], 9392 [Tandag City, Surigao del Sur], 9393 [Lamitan City, Basilan], 9394 [Borongan City, Samar], 9398 [Tayabas City, Quezon], 9404 [Tabuk City, Kalinga], 9405 [Bayugan City, Agusan del Sur], 9407 [Batac City, Ilocos Norte], 9408 [Mati City, Davao Oriental], 9409 [Guihulngan City, Negros Oriental], 9434 [Cabadbaran City, Agusan del Norte], 9435 [El Salvador City, Misamis Oriental], 9436 [Carcar City, Cebu], and 9491 [Naga City, Cebu].
[2] Penned by
J. Carpio, with JJ.
[3] Justice Velasco, Jr. wrote a Dissenting
Opinion, joined by Justices Ynares-Santiago,
[4] Justice Velasco, Jr. wrote a Dissenting Opinion,
joined by Justices Ynares-Santiago,
[5] Citations omitted.
[6] Penned by J.
Velasco, Jr., with JJ.
[7] Penned by J.
Carpio, with JJ. Carpio-Morales, Brion, Peralta, Villarama,
[8] II Record, Senate, 13th
Congress, p. 164 (
[9]
[10] Review Center Association of the Philippines v. Ermita, G.R. No. 180046, April 2, 2009, 583 SCRA 428, 450, citing Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director-General, National Economic Development Authority, G.R. No. 167798, April 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 623.
[11]
[12] De Guzman, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 391 Phil. 70, 79 (2000); Tiu v. Court of Tax Appeals, 361 Phil. 229, 242 (1999).
[13] SECTION 7. Creation and Conversion. — As a general rule, the creation of a local government unit or its conversion from one level to another level shall be based on verifiable indicators of viability and projected capacity to provide services, to wit:
(a) Income.
— It must be sufficient, based on acceptable standards, to provide for all
essential government facilities and services and special functions commensurate
with the size of its population, as expected of the local government unit
concerned;
(b) Population .— It shall be determined as the total number of inhabitants within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government unit concerned; and
(c) Land Area .— It must be contiguous, unless it comprises two (2) or more islands or is separated by a local government unit independent of the others; properly identified by metes and bound with technical descriptions; and sufficient to provide for such basic services and facilities to meet the requirements of its populace.
Compliance with the foregoing indicators shall be attested to by the Department of Finance (DOF), the National Statistics Office (NSO), and the Lands Management Bureau (LMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). (Emphasis supplied.)
[14] The figures reflect the actual income of the cities for 2006. If R.A. No. 9009 is to be applied such that the figures are expressed in 2000 constant prices, the income of the cities will even be lower. (Certification from the Bureau of Local Government Finance dated December 5, 2008; rollo [G.R. No. 176951], Vol. 5, pp. 3731-3734.)
[15] Based on the letter dated
[16] Committee Amendments re S. No. 2157, Records of the Senate, Vol. II, No. 24, October 5, 2000, pp. 165-166; id. at 3766-3767.
[17] Mat. 20: 1-15.
[18] Churchill v. Rafferty, 32 Phil. 580, 584 (1915).