Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTBaguio City

EN BANC
G.R. No. 176951 April 12, 2011
LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES LCP!, r"pr"#"$%"& '( LCP N)%io$)l
Pr"#i&"$% *"rr( P. Tr"+)#, Ci%( o- C)l')(o., r"pr"#"$%"& '( M)(or M"l S"$"$ S.
S)r/i"$%o, )$& *"rr( P. Tr"+)#, i$ 0i# p"r#o$)l 1)p)1i%( )# T)2p)("r, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, M3$i1ip)li%( o- 4)(')(, Pro5i$1" o- L"(%", M3$i1ip)li%(
o- 4o.o, Pro5i$1" o- C"'3, M3$i1ip)li%( o- C)%')lo.)$, Pro5i$1" o- 6"#%"r$ S)/)r,
M3$i1ip)li%( o- T)$&)., Pro5i$1" o- S3ri.)o &"l S3r, M3$i1ip)li%( o- 4oro$.)$,
Pro5i$1" o- E)#%"r$ S)/)r, )$& M3$i1ip)li%( o- T)()')#, Pro5i$1" o-
73"8o$, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 177999
LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES LCP!, r"pr"#"$%"& '( LCP N)%io$)l
Pr"#i&"$% *"rr( P. Tr"+)#, Ci%( o- C)l')(o., r"pr"#"$%"& '( M)(or M"l S"$"$ S.
S)r/i"$%o, )$& *"rr( P. Tr"+)#, i$ 0i# p"r#o$)l 1)p)1i%( )# T)2p)("r, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, M3$i1ip)li%( o- L)/i%)$, Pro5i$1" o- 4)#il)$,
M3$i1ip)li%( o- T)'3:, Pro5i$1" o- ;)li$.), M3$i1ip)li%( o- 4)(3.)$, Pro5i$1" o-
A.3#)$ &"l S3r, M3$i1ip)li%( o- 4)%)1, Pro5i$1" o- Ilo1o# Nor%", M3$i1ip)li%( o- M)%i,
Pro5i$1" o- <)5)o Ori"$%)l, )$& M3$i1ip)li%( o- G3i03l$.)$, Pro5i$1" o- N".ro#
Ori"$%)l, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 17=056
LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES LCP!, r"pr"#"$%"& '( LCP N)%io$)l
Pr"#i&"$% *"rr( P. Tr"+)#, Ci%( o- C)l')(o., r"pr"#"$%"& '( M)(or M"l S"$"$ S.
S)r/i"$%o, )$& *"rr( P. Tr"+)#, i$ 0i# p"r#o$)l 1)p)1i%( )# T)2p)("r, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, M3$i1ip)li%( o- C)')&')r)$, Pro5i$1" o- A.3#)$ &"l
Nor%", M3$i1ip)li%( o- C)r1)r, Pro5i$1" o- C"'3, M3$i1ip)li%( o- El S)l5)&or, Pro5i$1"
o- Mi#)/i# Ori"$%)l, M3$i1ip)li%( o- N).), C"'3, )$& <"p)r%/"$% o- 43&."% )$&
M)$)."/"$%, Respondents.
R E ! " # $ % ! N
4ERSAMIN, J.:
&e consider and resolve the Ad Cautela' (otion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners
vis-)-vis the Resolution pro'ulgated on *ebruary +,, -.++.
$o recall, the Resolution pro'ulgated on *ebruary +,, -.++ granted the (otion for
Reconsideration of the respondents presented against the Resolution dated August -/,
-.+., reversed the Resolution dated August -/, -.+., and declared the +0 Cityhood "a1s
2 Republic Acts Nos. 3453, 343., 343+, 343-, 3434, 343/, 3435, 3/./, 3/.,, 3/.6, 3/.5,
3/.3, 3/4/, 3/4,, 3/40, and 3/3+ 2 constitutional.
No1, the petitioners anchor their Ad Cautela' (otion for Reconsideration upon the
pri'ordial ground that the Court could no longer 'odify, alter, or a'end its 7udg'ent
declaring the Cityhood "a1s unconstitutional due to such 7udg'ent having long beco'e final
and executory. $hey sub'it that the Cityhood "a1s violated ection 0 and ection +. of
Article 8 of the Constitution, as 1ell as the E9ual Protection Clause.
$he petitioners specifically ascribe to the Court the follo1ing errors in its pro'ulgation of the
assailed *ebruary +,, -.++ Resolution, to 1it:
%. $;E ;!N!RAB"E C!#R$ ;A N! <#R%=%C$%!N $! PR!(#">A$E $;E
RE!"#$%!N !* +, *EBR#AR? -.++ BECA#E $;ERE % N! "!N>ER AN?
AC$#A" CAE !R C!N$R!@ER? $! E$$"E.
%%. $;E RE!"#$%!N C!N$RA@ENE $;E +336 R#"E !* C%@%" PR!CE=#RE
AN= RE"E@AN$ #PRE(E C!#R$ %#ANCE.
%%%. $;E RE!"#$%!N #N=ER(%NE $;E <#=%C%A" ?$E( %N %$
=%RE>AR= !* $;E PR%NC%P"E !* RE <#=%CA$A AN= $;E =!C$R%NE !*
%((#$AB%"%$? !* *%NA" <#=>(EN$.
%@. $;E RE!"#$%!N ERR!NE!#"? R#"E= $;A$ $;E %8$EEN A+0B
C%$?;!!= B%"" =! N!$ @%!"A$E AR$%C"E 8, EC$%!N 0 AN= +. !* $;E
+356 C!N$%$#$%!N.
@. $;E %8$EEN A+0B C%$?;!!= "A& @%!"A$E $;E EC#A" PR!$EC$%!N
C"A#E !* $;E C!N$%$#$%!N AN= $;E R%>;$ !* "!CA" >!@ERN(EN$
$! A <#$ ;ARE %N $;E NA$%!NA" $A8E.
Ruling
#pon thorough consideration, 1e deny the Ad Cautela' (otion for Reconsideration for its
lacD of 'erit.
%.
Procedural %ssues
&ith respect to the first, second, and third assign'ents of errors, supra, it appears that the
petitioners assail the 7urisdiction of the Court in pro'ulgating the *ebruary +,, -.++
Resolution, clai'ing that the decision herein had long beco'e final and executory. $hey
state that the Court thereby violated rules of procedure, and the principles of res 7udicata and
i''utability of final 7udg'ents.
$he petitioners posit that the controversy on the Cityhood "a1s ended 1ith the April -5,
-..3 Resolution denying the respondentsE second 'otion for reconsideration vis-)-vis the
Nove'ber +5, -..5 =ecision for being a prohibited pleading, and in vie1 of the issuance of
the entry of 7udg'ent on (ay -+, -..3.
$he Court disagrees 1ith the petitioners.
%n the April -5, -..3 Resolution, the Court ruled:
By a vote of 0-0, the (otion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of 4+ (arch -..3 is
=EN%E= for lacD of 'erit. $he 'otion is denied since there is no 'a7ority that voted to
overturn the Resolution of 4+ (arch -..3.
$he econd (otion for Reconsideration of the =ecision of +5 Nove'ber -..5 is =EN%E= for
being a prohibited pleading, and the (otion for "eave to Ad'it Attached Petition in
%ntervention dated -. April -..3 and the Petition in %ntervention dated -. April -..3 filed by
counsel for "udivina $. (as, et al. are also =EN%E= in vie1 of the denial of the second
'otion for reconsideration. No further pleadings shall be entertained. "et entry of 7udg'ent
be 'ade in due course.
<ustice Presbitero <. @elasco, <r. 1rote a =issenting !pinion, 7oined by <ustices Consuelo
?nares-antiago, Renato C. Corona, (inita Chico-NaFario, $eresita "eonardo-=e Castro,
and "ucas P. Bersa'in. Chief <ustice Reynato . Puno and <ustice Antonio Eduardo B.
Nachura tooD no part. <ustice "eonardo A. Cuisu'bing is on leave.
+
&ithin +, days fro' receipt of the April -5, -..3 Resolution, the respondents filed a (otion
$o A'end Resolution !f April -5, -..3 By =eclaring %nstead $hat RespondentsE G(otion for
Reconsideration !f the Resolution !f (arch 4+, -..3G And G(otion *or "eave $o *ile, And
$o Ad'it Attached Hecond (otion *or Reconsideration !f $he =ecision =ated Nove'ber
+5, -..5E Re'ain #nresolved And $o Conduct *urther Proceedings $hereon, arguing therein
that a deter'ination of the issue of constitutionality of the +0 Cityhood "a1s upon a 'otion
for reconsideration by an e9ually divided vote 1as not binding on the Court as a valid
precedent, citing the separate opinion of then Chief <ustice Reynato . Puno in "a'bino v.
Co''ission on Elections.
-
$hus, in its <une -, -..3 Resolution, the Court issued the follo1ing clarification of the April
-5, -..3 Resolution, viF:
As a rule, a second 'otion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading pursuant to ection -,
Rule ,- of the Rules of Civil Procedure 1hich provides that: GNo second 'otion for
reconsideration of a 7udg'ent or final resolution by the sa'e party shall be entertained.G
$hus, a decision beco'es final and executory after +, days fro' receipt of the denial of the
first 'otion for reconsideration.
;o1ever, 1hen a 'otion for leave to file and ad'it a second 'otion for reconsideration is
granted by the Court, the Court therefore allo1s the filing of the second 'otion for
reconsideration. %n such a case, the second 'otion for reconsideration is no longer a
prohibited pleading.
%n the present case, the Court voted on the second 'otion for reconsideration filed by
respondent cities. %n effect, the Court allo1ed the filing of the second 'otion for
reconsideration. $hus, the second 'otion for reconsideration 1as no longer a prohibited
pleading. ;o1ever, for lacD of the re9uired nu'ber of votes to overturn the +5 Nove'ber
-..5 =ecision and 4+ (arch -..3 Resolution, the Court denied the second 'otion for
reconsideration in its -5 April -..3 Resolution.
4
As the result of the aforecited clarification, the Court resolved to expunge fro' the records
several pleadings and docu'ents, including respondentsE (otion $o A'end Resolution !f
April -5, -..3 etc.
$he respondents thus filed their (otion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of <une -,
-..3, asseverating that their (otion $o A'end Resolution !f April -5, -..3 etc. 1as not
another 'otion for reconsideration of the Nove'ber +5, -..5 =ecision, because it assailed
the April -5, -..3 Resolution 1ith respect to the tie-vote on the respondentsE econd (otion
*or Reconsideration. $hey pointed out that the (otion $o A'end Resolution !f April -5,
-..3 etc. 1as filed on (ay +/, -..3, 1hich 1as 1ithin the +,-day period fro' their receipt of
the April -5, -..3 ResolutionI thus, the entry of 7udg'ent had been pre'aturely 'ade. $hey
reiterated their argu'ents 1ith respect to a tie-vote upon an issue of constitutionality.
%n the epte'ber -3, -..3 Resolution,
/
the Court re9uired the petitioners to co''ent on the
(otion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of <une -, -..3 1ithin +. days fro' receipt.
As directed, the petitioners filed their Co''ent Ad Cautela' &ith (otion to Expunge.
$he respondents filed their (otion for "eave to *ile and to Ad'it Attached GReply to
PetitionersE HCo''ent Ad Cautela' &ith (otion to ExpungeEG, together 1ith the Reply.
!n Nove'ber +6, -..3, the Court resolved to note the petitionersE Co''ent Ad Cautela'
&ith (otion to Expunge, to grant the respondentsE (otion for "eave to *ile and Ad'it Reply
to PetitionersE Co''ent Ad Cautela' 1ith (otion to Expunge, and to note the respondentsE
Reply to PetitionersE Co''ent Ad Cautela' 1ith (otion to Expunge.
!n =ece'ber -+, -..3, the Court, resolving the (otion $o A'end Resolution !f April -5,
-..3 etc. and voting ane1 on the econd (otion *or Reconsideration in order to reach a
concurrence of a 'a7ority, pro'ulgated its =ecision granting the 'otion and declaring the
Cityhood "a1s as constitutional,
,
disposing thus:
&;ERE*!RE, respondent ">#sE (otion for Reconsideration dated <une -, -..3, their
G(otion to A'end the Resolution of April -5, -..3 by =eclaring %nstead that RespondentsE
H(otion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of (arch 4+, -..3E and H(otion for "eave to
*ile and to Ad'it Attached econd (otion for Reconsideration of the =ecision =ated
Nove'ber +5, -..5E Re'ain #nresolved and to Conduct *urther Proceedings,G dated (ay
+/, -..3, and their second (otion for Reconsideration of the =ecision dated Nove'ber +5,
-..5 are >RAN$E=. $he <une -, -..3, the (arch 4+, -..3, and April 4+, -..3 Resolutions
are RE@ERE= and E$ A%=E. $he entry of 7udg'ent 'ade on (ay -+, -..3 'ust
accordingly be RECA""E=.
$he instant consolidated petitions and petitions-in-intervention are =%(%E=. $he
cityhood la1s, na'ely Republic Act Nos. 3453, 343., 343+, 343-, 3434, 343/, 3435, 3/./,
3/.,, 3/.6, 3/.5, 3/.3, 3/4/, 3/4,, 3/40, and 3/3+ are declared @A"%= and
C!N$%$#$%!NA".
! !R=ERE=.
!n <anuary ,, -.+., the petitioners filed an Ad Cautela' (otion for Reconsideration against
the =ece'ber -+, -..3 =ecision.
0
!n the sa'e date, the petitioners also filed a (otion to
Annul =ecision of -+ =ece'ber -..3.
6
!n <anuary +-, -.+., the Court directed the respondents to co''ent on the 'otions of the
petitioners.
5
!n *ebruary /, -.+., petitioner-intervenors City of antiago, City of "egaFpi, and City of
%riga filed their separate (anifestations 1ith upple'ental Ad Cautela' (otions for
Reconsideration.
3
i'ilar 'anifestations 1ith supple'ental 'otions for reconsideration 1ere
filed by other petitioner-intervenors, specifically: City of CadiF on *ebruary +,, -.+.I
+.
City of
Batangas on *ebruary +6, -.+.I
++
and City of !ro9uieta on *ebruary -/, -.+..
+-
$he Court
re9uired the adverse parties to co''ent on the 'otions.
+4
As directed, the respondents
co'plied.
!n August -/, -.+., the Court issued its Resolution reinstating the Nove'ber +5, -..5
=ecision.
+/
!n epte'ber +/, -.+., the respondents ti'ely filed a (otion for Reconsideration of the
GResolutionG =ated August -/, -.+..
+,
$hey follo1ed this by filing on epte'ber -., -.+. a
(otion to et G(otion for Reconsideration of the HResolutionE dated August -/, -.+.G for
;earing.
+0
!n Nove'ber +3, -.+., the petitioners sent in their !pposition J$o the G(otion for
Reconsideration of HResolutionE dated August -/, -.+.GK.
+6
!n Nove'ber 4., -.+.,
+5
the
Court noted, a'ong others, the petitionersE !pposition.
!n <anuary +5, -.++,
+3
the Court denied the respondentsE (otion to et G(otion for
Reconsideration of the HResolutionE dated August -/, -.+.G for ;earing.
$hereafter, on *ebruary +,, -.++, the Court issued the Resolution being no1 challenged.
%t can be gleaned fro' the foregoing that, as the <une -, -..3 Resolution clarified, the
respondentsE econd (otion *or Reconsideration 1as not a prohibited pleading in vie1 of
the CourtEs voting and acting on it having the effect of allo1ing the econd (otion *or
ReconsiderationI and that 1hen the respondents filed their (otion for Reconsideration of the
Resolution of <une -, -..3 9uestioning the expunging of their (otion $o A'end Resolution
!f April -5, -..3 etc. A1hich had been filed 1ithin the +,-day period fro' receipt of the April
-5, -..3 ResolutionB, the Court opted to act on the (otion for Reconsideration of the
Resolution of <une -, -..3 by directing the adverse parties through its epte'ber -3, -..3
Resolution to co''ent. $he sa'e per'itting effect occurred 1hen the Court, by its
Nove'ber +6, -..3 Resolution, granted the respondentsE (otion for "eave to *ile and Ad'it
Reply to PetitionersE Co''ent Ad Cautela' 1ith (otion to Expunge, and noted the attached
Reply.
(oreover, by issuing the Resolutions dated epte'ber -3, -..3 and Nove'ber +6, -..3,
the Court: AaB rendered ineffective the tie-vote under the Resolution of April -5, -..3 and the
ensuing denial of the (otion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of (arch 4+, -..3 for lacD
of a 'a7ority to overturnI AbB, re-opened the =ecision of Nove'ber +5, -..5 for a second
looD under reconsiderationI and AcB lifted the directive that no further pleadings 1ould be
entertained. $he Court in fact entertained and acted on the respondentsE (otion for
Reconsideration of the Resolution of <une -, -..3. $hereafter, the Court proceeded to
deliberate ane1 on the respondentsE econd (otion for Reconsideration and ended up 1ith
the pro'ulgation of the =ece'ber -+, -..3 =ecision Adeclaring the Cityhood "a1s valid and
constitutionalB.
%t is also inaccurate for the petitioners to insist that the =ece'ber -+, -..3 =ecision
overturned the Nove'ber +5, -..5 =ecision on the basis of the 'ere Reflections of the
(e'bers of the Court. $o be sure, the Reflections 1ere the legal opinions of the (e'bers
and for'ed part of the deliberations of the Court. $he reference in the =ece'ber -+, -..3
=ecision to the Reflections pointed out that there 1as still a pending incident after the April
-5, -..3 Resolution that had been ti'ely filed 1ithin +, days fro' its receipt,
-.
pursuant to
ection +., Rule ,+,
-+
in relation to ection +, Rule ,-,
--
of the Rules of Court. Again, the
Court did act and deliberate upon this pending incident, leading to the issuance of the
=ece'ber -+, -..3 =ecision Adeclaring the Cityhood "a1s free fro' constitutional infir'ityB.
%t 1as thereafter that the Court rendered its August -/, -.+. Resolution Areinstating the
Nove'ber +5, -..5 =ecisionB, to correct 1hich the respondentsE (otion for Reconsideration
of the GResolutionG =ated August -/, -.+. 1as filed. And, finally, the Court issued its
*ebruary +,, -.++ Resolution, reversing and setting aside the August -/, -.+. Resolution.
%t is 1orth repeating that the actions taDen herein 1ere 'ade by the Court en banc strictly in
accordance 1ith the Rules of Court and its internal procedures. $here has been no
irregularity attending or tainting the proceedings.
%t also relevant to state that the Court has fre9uently disencu'bered itself under
extraordinary circu'stances fro' the shacDles of technicality in order to render 7ust and
e9uitable relief.
-4
!n 1hether the principle of i''utability of 7udg'ents and bar by res 7udicata apply herein,
suffice it to state that the succession of the events recounted herein indicates that the
controversy about the +0 Cityhood "a1s has not yet been resolved 1ith finality. As such, the
operation of the principle of i''utability of 7udg'ents did not yet co'e into play. *or the
sa'e reason is an adherence to the doctrine of res 7udicata not yet 1arranted, especially
considering that the precedential ruling for this case needed to be revisited and set 1ith
certainty and finality.
%%.
ubstantive %ssues
$he petitioners reiterate their position that the Cityhood "a1s violate ection 0 and ection
+. of Article 8 of the Constitution, the E9ual Protection Clause, and the right of local
govern'ents to a 7ust share in the national taxes.
$he Court differs.
Congress clearly intended that the local govern'ent units covered by the Cityhood "a1s be
exe'pted fro' the coverage of R.A. No. 3..3. $he apprehensions of the then enate
President 1ith respect to the considerable disparity bet1een the inco'e re9uire'ent of P-.
'illion under the "ocal >overn'ent Code A">CB prior to its a'end'ent, and the P+..
'illion under the a'end'ent introduced by R.A. No. 3..3 1ere definitively articulated in his
interpellation of enator Pi'entel during the deliberations on enate Bill No. -+,6. $he then
enate President 1as cogniFant of the fact that there 1ere 'unicipalities that then had
pending conversion bills
during the ++th Congress prior to the adoption of enate Bill No. -+,6 as R.A. No.
3..3,
-/
including the 'unicipalities covered by the Cityhood "a1s. %t is 1orthy of 'ention that
the pertinent deliberations on enate Bill No. -+,6 occurred on !ctober ,, -... 1hile the
++th Congress 1as in session, and the conversion bills 1ere then pending in the enate.
$hus, the responses of enator Pi'entel 'ade it obvious that R.A. No. 3..3 1ould not
apply to the conversion bills then pending deliberation in the enate during the ++th
Congress.
R.A. No. 3..3 tooD effect on <une 4., -..+, 1hen the +-th Congress 1as incipient. By
reason of the clear legislative intent to exe'pt the 'unicipalities covered by the conversion
bills pending during the ++th
Congress, the ;ouse of Representatives adopted <oint Resolution No. -3, entitled <oint
Resolution to Exe'pt Certain (unicipalities E'bodied in Bills *iled in Congress before <une
4., -..+ fro' the coverage of Republic Act No. 3..3. ;o1ever, the enate failed to act on
<oint Resolution No. -3. Even so, the ;ouse of Representatives readopted <oint Resolution
No. -3 as
<oint Resolution No. + during the +-th Congress,
-,
and for1arded <oint Resolution No. + to
the enate for approval. Again, the enate failed to approve <oint Resolution No. +.
At this 7uncture, it is 1orth1hile to consider the 'anifestation of enator Pi'entel 1ith
respect to <oint Resolution No. +, to 1it:
(AN%*E$A$%!N !* ENA$!R P%(EN$E"
;ouse <oint Resolution No. + seeDs to exe'pt certain 'unicipalities seeDing conversion into
cities fro' the re9uire'ent that they 'ust have at least P+.. 'illion in inco'e of locally
generated revenue, exclusive of the internal revenue share that they received fro' the
central govern'ent as re9uired under Republic Act No. 3..3.
$he procedure follo1ed by the ;ouse is 9uestionable, to say the least. $he ;ouse 1ants the
enate to do a1ay 1ith the inco'e re9uire'ent of P+.. 'illion so that, en 'asse, the
'unicipalities they 1ant exe'pted could no1 file bills specifically converting the' into cities.
$he reason they 1ant the enate to do it first is that Cong. =odo (acias, chair of the ;ouse
Co''ittee on "ocal >overn'ents, % a' told, 1ill not entertain any bill for the conversion of
'unicipalities into cities unless the issue of inco'e re9uire'ent is first hurdled. $he ;ouse
leadership therefore 1ants to shift the burden of exe'pting certain 'unicipalities fro' the
inco'e re9uire'ent to the enate rather than do it itself.
$hat is 'ost unusual because, in effect, the ;ouse 1ants the enate to pass a blanDet
resolution that 1ould 9ualify the 'unicipalities concerned for conversion into cities on the
'atter of inco'e alone. $hen, at a later date, the ;ouse 1ould pass specific bills converting
the 'unicipalities into cities. ;o1ever, inco'e is not only the re9uire'ent for 'unicipalities
to beco'e cities. $here are also the re9uire'ents on population and land area.
%n effect, the ;ouse 1ants the enate to tacDle the 9ualification of the 'unicipalities they
1ant converted into cities piece'eal and separately, first is the inco'e under the 7oint
resolution, then the other re9uire'ents 1hen the bills are file to convert specific
'unicipalities into cities. $o repeat, this is a 'ost unusual 'anner of creating cities.
(y respectful suggestion is for the enate to re9uest the ;ouse to do 1hat they 1ant to do
regarding the applications of certain 'unicipalities to beco'e cities pursuant to the
re9uire'ents of the "ocal >overn'ent Code. %f the ;ouse 1ants to exe'pt certain
'unicipalities fro' the re9uire'ents of the "ocal >overn'ent Code to beco'e cities, by all
'eans, let the' do their thing. pecifically, they should act on specific bills to create cities
and cite the reasons 1hy the 'unicipalities concerned are 9ualified to beco'e cities. !nly
after the ;ouse shall have co'pleted 1hat they are expected to do under the la1 1ould it be
proper for the enate to act on specific bills creating cities.
%n other 1ords, the ;ouse should be re9uested to finish everything that needs to be done in
the 'atter of converting 'unicipalities into cities and not do it piece'eal as they are no1
trying to do under the 7oint resolution.
%n 'y long years in the enate, this is the first ti'e that a resort to this subterfuge is being
undertaDen to favor the creation of certain cities. % a' not saying that they are not 9ualified.
All % a' saying is, if the ;ouse 1ants to pass and create cities out of certain 'unicipalities,
by all 'eans let the' do that. But they should do it follo1ing the re9uire'ents of the "ocal
>overn'ent Code and, if they 1ant to 'aDe certain exceptions, they can also do that too.
But they should not use the enate as a ploy to get things done 1hich they the'selves
should do.
%ncidentally, % have reco''ended this 'ode of action verbally to so'e leaders of the ;ouse.
;ad they follo1ed the reco''endation, for all % Dno1, the 'unicipalities they had envisioned
to be covered by ;ouse <oint Resolution No. + 1ould, by no1 L if not all, at least so'e L
have been converted into cities. ;ouse <oint Resolution No. +, the ;ouse, in effect, caused
the delay in the approval in the applications for cityhood of the 'unicipalities concerned.
"astly, % do not have an a'end'ent to ;ouse <oint Resolution No. +. &hat % a' suggesting
is for the enate to re9uest the ;ouse to follo1 the procedure outlined in the "ocal
>overn'ent Code 1hich has been respected all through the years. By doing so, 1e uphold
the rule of la1
and 'ini'iFe the possibilities of po1er play in the approval of bills converting 'unicipalities
into cities.
-0
$hereafter, the conversion bills of the respondents 1ere individually filed in the ;ouse of
Representatives, and 1ere all unani'ously and
favorably voted upon by the (e'bers of the ;ouse of Representatives.
-6
$he bills, 1hen
for1arded to the enate, 1ere liDe1ise unani'ously approved by the enate.
-5
$he acts of
both Cha'bers of Congress sho1 that the exe'ption clauses ulti'ately incorporated in the
Cityhood "a1s are but the express articulations of the clear legislative intent to exe'pt the
respondents, 1ithout exception, fro' the coverage of R.A. No. 3..3. $hereby, R.A. No.
3..3, and, by necessity, the ">C, 1ere a'ended, not by repeal but by 1ay of the express
exe'ptions being e'bodied in the exe'ption clauses.
$he petitioners further contend that the ne1 inco'e re9uire'ent of P+.. 'illion fro' locally
generated sources is not arbitrary because it is not difficult to co'ply 1ithI that there are
several 'unicipalities that have already co'plied 1ith the re9uire'ent and have, in fact,
been converted into cities, such as ta. Rosa in "aguna AR.A. No 3-0/B, Navotas AR.A. No.
3456B and an <uan AR.A. No. 3455B in (etro (anila, =as'ariMas in Cavite AR.A. No. 36-4B,
and BiMan in "aguna AR.A. No. 36/.BI and that several other 'unicipalities have supposedly
reached the inco'e of P+.. 'illion fro' locally generated sources, such as Bauan in
Batangas, (abalacat in Pa'panga, and Bacoor in Cavite.
$he contention of the petitioners does not persuade.
As indicated in the Resolution of *ebruary +,, -.++, fifty-nine A,3B existing cities had failed
as of -..0 to post an average annual inco'e of P+.. 'illion based on the figures contained
in the certification dated =ece'ber ,, -..5 by the Bureau of "ocal >overn'ent. $he large
nu'ber of existing cities, virtually ,.N of the', still unable to co'ply 1ith the P+.. 'illion
threshold inco'e five years after R.A. No. 3..3 tooD effect renders it fallacious and probably
un1arranted for the petitioners to clai' that the P+.. 'illion inco'e re9uire'ent is not
difficult to co'ply 1ith.
%n this regard, the deliberations on enate Bill No. -+,6 'ay prove enlightening, thus:
enator !s'eMa %%%. And could the gentle'an help clarify 1hy a 'unicipality 1ould 1ant to
be converted into a cityO
enator Pi'entel. $here is only one reason, (r. President, and it is not hidden. %t is the fact
that once converted into a city, the 'unicipality 1ill have roughly 'ore than three ti'es the
share that it 1ould be receiving over the internal revenue allot'ent than it 1ould have if it
1ere to re'ain a 'unicipality. o 'ore or less three ti'es or 'ore.
enator !s'eMa %%%. %s it the additional funding that they 1ill be able to en7oy fro' a larger
share fro' the internal revenue allocationsO
enator Pi'entel. ?es, (r. President.
enator !s'eMa %%%. No1, could the gentle'an clarify, (r. President, 1hy in the original
Republic Act No. 6+0., Dno1n as the "ocal >overn'ent Code of +33+, such a 1ide gap 1as
'ade bet1een a 'unicipality21hat a 'unicipality 1ould earn2and a cityO Because
essentially, to a personEs 'ind, even 1ith this ne1 re9uire'ent, if approved by Congress, if a
'unicipality is earning P+.. 'illion and has a population of 'ore than +,.,... inhabitants
but has less than +.. s9uare Dilo'eters, it 1ould not 9ualify as a city.
enator Pi'entel. ?es.
enator !s'eMa %%%. No1 1ould that not be 9uite arbitrary on the part of the 'unicipalityO
enator Pi'entel. %n fact, (r. President, the ;ouse version restores the GorG. o, this is a
'atter that 1e can very 1ell taDe up as a policy issue. $he chair of the co''ittee does not
say that 1e should, as 1e Dno1, not listen to argu'ents for the restoration of the 1ord GorG in
the population or territorial re9uire'ent.
enator !s'eMa %%%. (r. President, 'y point is that, % agree 1ith the gentle'anEs GandG, but
perhaps 1e should bring do1n the area. $here are certainly very cro1ded places in this
country that are less than +.,... hectares2+.. s9uare Dilo'eters is +.,... hectares. $here
'ight only be 3,... hectares or 5,... hectares. And it 1ould be unfair if these 'unicipalities
already earning P+..,...,... in locally generated funds and have a population of over
+,.,... 1ould not be 9ualified because of the si'ple fact that the physical area does not
cover +.,... hectares.
enator Pi'entel. (r. President, in fact, in (etro (anila there are any nu'ber of
'unicipalities. an <uan is a specific exa'ple 1hich, if 1e apply the present re9uire'ents,
1ould not 9ualify: +.. s9uare Dilo'eters and a population of not less than +,.,....
But 'y reply to that, (r. President, is that they do not have to beco'e a cityO
enator !s'eMa %%%. Because of the inco'e.
enator Pi'entel. But they are already earning a lot, as the gentle'an said. !ther1ise, the
danger here, if 1e beco'e lax in the re9uire'ents, is the 'etropolis-located local
govern'ents 1ould have 'ore priority in ter's of funding because they 1ould have 'ore
9ualifications to beco'e a city co'pared to far-flung areas in (indanao or in the Cordilleras,
or 1hatever.
$herefore, % thinD 1e should not probably ease up on the re9uire'ents. (aybe 1e can
restore the 1ord GorG so that if they do not have the +.. s9uare Dilo'eters of territory, then if
they 9ualify in ter's of population and inco'e, that 1ould be all right, (r. President.
enator !s'eMa %%%. (r. President, % 1ill not belabor the point at this ti'e. % Dno1 that the
distinguished gentle'an is considering several a'end'ents to the "ocal >overn'ent Code.
Perhaps this is so'ething that could be further refined at a later ti'e, 1ith his per'ission.
o % 1ould liDe to thanD the gentle'an for his graciousness in ans1ering our 9uestions.
enator Pi'entel. % also thanD the gentle'an, (r. President.
-3
$he Court taDes note of the fact that the 'unicipalities cited by the petitioners as having
generated the threshold inco'e of P+.. 'illion fro' local sources, including those already
converted into cities, are either in (etro (anila or in provinces close to (etro (anila. %n
co'parison, the 'unicipalities covered by the Cityhood "a1s are spread out in the different
provinces of the Philippines, including the Cordillera and (indanao regions, and are
considerably very distant fro' (etro (anila. $his reality underscores the danger the
enact'ent of R.A. No. 3..3 sought to prevent, i.e., that Gthe 'etropolis-located local
govern'ents 1ould have 'ore priority in ter's of funding because they 1ould have 'ore
9ualifications to beco'e a city co'pared to the far-flung areas in (indanao or in the
Cordilleras, or 1hatever,G actually resulting fro' the abrupt increase in the inco'e
re9uire'ent. @erily, this result is antithetical to 1hat the Constitution and ">C have nobly
envisioned in favor of countryside develop'ent and national gro1th. Besides, this result
should be arrested early, to avoid the un1anted divisive effect on the entire country due to
the local govern'ent units closer to the National Capital Region being afforded easier
access to the bigger share in the national coffers than other local govern'ent units.
$here should also be no 9uestion that the local govern'ent units covered by the Cityhood
"a1s belong to a class of their o1n. $hey have proven the'selves viable and capable to
beco'e co'ponent cities of their respective provinces. $hey are and have been centers of
trade and co''erce, points of convergence of transportation, rich havens of agricultural,
'ineral, and other natural resources, and flourishing touris' spots. %n his speech delivered
on the floor of the enate to sponsor ;ouse <oint Resolution No. +, enator "i' recogniFed
such uni9ue traits,
4.
viF:
%t 'ust be noted that except for $andag and "a'itan, 1hich are both second-class
'unicipalities in ter's of inco'e, all the rest are categoriFed by the =epart'ent of *inance
as first-class 'unicipalities 1ith gross inco'e of at least P6. 'illion as per Co''ission of
Audit Report for -..,. (oreover, $andag and "a'itan, together 1ith Borongan, Catbalogan,
and $abuD, are all provincial capitals.
$he 'ore recent inco'e figures of the +- 'unicipalities, 1hich 1ould have increased further
by this ti'e, indicate their readiness to taDe on the responsibilities of cityhood.
(oreover, the 'unicipalities under consideration are leading localities in their respective
provinces. Borongan, Catbalogan, $andag, Batac and $abuD are ranDed nu'ber one in
ter's of inco'e a'ong all the 'unicipalities in their respective provincesI Baybay and
Bayugan are nu'ber t1oI Bogo and "a'itan are nu'ber threeI Carcar, nu'ber fourI and
$ayabas, nu'ber seven. Not only are they pacesetters in their respective provinces, they are
also a'ong the frontrunners in their regions L Baybay, Bayugan and $abuD are nu'ber t1o
inco'e-earners in Regions @%%%, 8%%%, and CAR, respectivelyI Catbalogan and Batac are
nu'ber three in Regions @%%% and %, respectivelyI Bogo, nu'ber five in Region @%%I Borongan
and Carcar are both nu'ber six in Regions @%%% and @%%, respectively. $his si'ply sho1s that
these 'unicipalities are viable.
Petitioner "eague of Cities argues that there exists no issue 1ith respect to the cityhood of
its 'e'ber cities, considering that they beca'e cities in full co'pliance 1ith the criteria for
conversion at the ti'e of their creation.
$he Court considers the argu'ent too s1eeping. &hat 1e pointed out 1as that the previous
inco'e re9uire'ent of P-. 'illion 1as definitely not insufficient to provide the essential
govern'ent facilities, services, and special functions vis-)-vis the population of a co'ponent
city. &e also stressed that the increased inco'e re9uire'ent ofP+.. 'illion 1as not the only
conclusive indicator for any 'unicipality to survive and re'ain viable as a co'ponent city.
$hese observations 1ere unerringly reflected in the respective inco'es of the fifty-nine A,3B
'e'bers of the "eague of Cities that have still failed, re'arDably enough, to be co'pliant
1ith the ne1 re9uire'ent of the P+.. 'illion threshold inco'e five years after R.A. No. 3..3
beca'e la1.
#ndoubtedly, the i'position of the inco'e re9uire'ent of P+.. 'illion fro' local sources
under R.A. No. 3..3 1as arbitrary. &hen the sponsor of the la1 chose the specific figure
of P+.. 'illion, no research or e'pirical data buttressed the figure. Nor 1as there proof that
the proposal tooD into account the after-effects that 1ere liDely to arise. As already
'entioned, even the danger the passage of R.A. No. 3..3 sought to prevent 'ight soon
beco'e a reality. &hile the Constitution 'andates that the creation of local govern'ent units
'ust co'ply 1ith the criteria laid do1n in the ">C, it cannot be 7ustified to insist that the
Constitution 'ust have to yield to every a'end'ent to the ">C despite such a'end'ent
i''inently producing effects contrary to the original thrusts of the ">C to pro'ote
autono'y, decentraliFation, countryside develop'ent, and the conco'itant national gro1th.
(oreover, if 1e 1ere no1 to adopt the stringent interpretation of the Constitution the
petitioners are espousing, 1e 'ay have to apply the sa'e restrictive yardsticD against the
recently converted cities cited by the petitioners, and find t1o of the' 1hose conversion
la1s have also to be strucD do1n for being unconstitutional. $he t1o la1s are R.A. No.
3456
4+
and R.A. No. 3455,
4-
respectively converting the 'unicipalities of an <uan and
Navotas into highly urbaniFed cities. A cursory reading of the la1s indicates that there is no
indication of co'pliance 1ith the re9uire'ents i'posed by the ">C, for, although the t1o
local govern'ent units concerned presu'ably co'plied 1ith the inco'e re9uire'ent of P,.
'illion under ection /,- of the ">C and the inco'e re9uire'ent of P+.. 'illion under the
a'ended ection /,. of the ">C, they obviously did not 'eet the re9uire'ents set forth
under ection /,4 of the ">C, to 1it:
ection /,4. =uty to =eclare ;ighly #rbaniFed tatus.2%t shall be the duty of the President
to declare a city as highly urbaniFed 1ithin thirty A4.B days after it shall have 'et the
'ini'u' re9uire'ents prescribed in the i''ediately preceding ection, upon proper
application therefor and ratification in a plebiscite by the 9ualified voters therein.
%ndeed, R.A. No. 3456 and R.A. No. 3455 evidently sho1 that the President had not
classified an <uan and Navotas as highly urbaniFed cities upon proper application and
ratification in a plebiscite by the 9ualified voters therein. A further perusal of R.A. No. 3456
reveals that an <uan did not 9ualify as a highly urbaniFed city because it had a population
of only +-,,,,5, contravening the re9uired 'ini'u' population of -..,... under ection
/,- of the ">C. uch non-9ualification as a co'ponent city 1as conceded even by enator
Pi'entel during the deliberations on enate Bill No. -+,6.
$he petitionersE contention that the Cityhood "a1s violated their right to a 7ust share in the
national taxes is not acceptable.
%n this regard, it suffices to state that the share of local govern'ent units is a 'atter of
percentage under ection -5, of the ">C, not a specific a'ount. pecifically, the share of
the cities is -4N, deter'ined on the basis of population A,.NB, land area A-,NB, and e9ual
sharing A-,NB. $his share is also dependent on the nu'ber of existing cities, such that 1hen
the nu'ber of cities increases, then 'ore 1ill divide and share the allocation for cities.
;o1ever, 1e have to note that the allocation by the National >overn'ent is not a constant,
and can either increase or decrease. &ith every ne1ly converted city beco'ing entitled to
share the allocation for cities, the percentage of internal revenue allot'ent A%RAB entitle'ent
of each city 1ill decrease, although the actual a'ount received 'ay be 'ore than that
received in the preceding year. $hat is a necessary conse9uence of ection -5, and ection
-50 of the ">C.
As elaborated here and in the assailed *ebruary +,, -.++ Resolution, the Cityhood "a1s
1ere not violative of the Constitution and the ">C. $he respondents are thus also entitled to
their 7ust share in the %RA allocation for cities. $hey have de'onstrated their viability as
co'ponent cities of their respective provinces and are developing continuously, albeit slo1ly,
because they had previously to share the %RA 1ith about +,,.. 'unicipalities. &ith their
conversion into co'ponent cities, they 1ill have to share 1ith only around +-. cities.
"ocal govern'ent units do not subsist only on locally generated inco'e, but also depend on
the %RA to support their develop'ent. $hey can spur their o1n develop'ents and thereby
realiFe their great potential of encouraging trade and co''erce in the far-flung regions of
the country. ?et their potential 1ill effectively be stunted if those already earning 'ore 1ill still
receive a bigger share fro' the national coffers, and if co''ercial activity 1ill be 'ore or
less concentrated only in and near (etro (anila.
%%%.
Conclusion
&e should not ever lose sight of the fact that the +0 cities covered by the Cityhood "a1s not
only had conversion bills pending during the ++th Congress, but have also co'plied 1ith the
re9uire'ents of the ">C prescribed prior to its a'end'ent by R.A. No. 3..3. Congress
undeniably gave these cities all the considerations that 7ustice and fair play de'anded.
;ence, this Court should do no less by sta'ping its i'pri'atur to the clear and un'istaDable
legislative intent and by duly recogniFing the certain collective 1isdo' of Congress.
&;ERE*!RE, the Ad Cautela' (otion for Reconsideration Aof the =ecision dated +,
*ebruary -.++B is denied 1ith finality.
! !R=ERE=.
LUCAS P. 4ERSAMIN
Associate <ustice
&E C!NC#R:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief <ustice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate <ustice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate <ustice
PRES4ITERO *. >ELASCO, *R.
Associate <ustice
ANTONIO E<UAR<O 4. NACHURA
Associate <ustice
TERESITA *. LEONAR<O?<E
CASTRO
Associate <ustice
ARTURO <. 4RION
Associate <ustice
<IOS<A<O M. PERALTA
Associate <ustice
MARIANO C. <EL CASTILLO
Associate <ustice
RO4ERTO A. A4A<
Associate <ustice
MARTIN S. >ILLARAMA, *R.
Associate <ustice
*OSE PORTUGAL PERE@
Associate <ustice
*OSE CATRAL MEN<O@A
Associate <ustice
MARIA LOUR<ES P. A. SERENO
Associate <ustice
C E R $ % * % C A $ % ! N
Pursuant to ection +4, Article @%%% of the Constitution, % certify that the conclusions in the
above decision had been reached in consultation before the case 1as assigned to the 1riter
of the opinion of the Court.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief <ustice