Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 26

Mayors to protest SC flip-flop on cityhood case

By Jorge Cario, ABS-CBN News


Posted at 03/08/2011 6:04 PM | Updated as of 03/08/2011 6:04 PM

City mayors all over the country are bracing for a big fight in the Supreme Court when they file Wednesday their motion for reconsideration
against the High Court's decision allowing the conversion of sixteen municipalities into new cities.
The 122-strong League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) held a general assembly in Century Park-Sheraton Hotel in Malate, Manila in
preparation for Wednesday's event where they will march towards the Supreme Court building in Ermita to file the MR.
The Motion will be filed in connection with the Supreme Court's February 15, 2011 ruling that reversed its earlier decision declaring the
creation of 16 municipalities as "unconstitutional."
The municipalities include:
Batac, Ilocos Norte
Tayabas, Quezon
Naga, Cebu
Bogo, Cebu
Carcar, Cebu
Guihulngan, Negros Oriental
Baybay, Leyte
Borongan, Eastern Samar
Catbalogan, Samar
El Salvador, Misamis Oriental
Mati, Davao Oriental
Bayugan, Agusan Del Sur
Cabadbaran, Agusan Del Norte
Tandag, Surigao Del Sur
Lamitan, Basilan
Tabuk, Kalinga
Based on a document provide by LCP, all sixteen municipalities do not meet the criteria for cityhood on annual income, while the municipality
of El Salvador failed to meet any of the criteria at all.
LCP President Oscar Rodriguez, mayor of San Fernando, Pampanga, said it was surprising for the High Court to reverse itself. "2008 pa
lang tapos na yan dahil sabi noon ng Supreme Court unconstitutional dahil di nga naabot yung requirements na magkaroon ng P100 million
income per annum at 10,000 hectares na area," explained Rodriguez, who is a lawyer.
Former Senator Nene Pimentel, who authored the Local Government Code, joined the city mayors in the general assembly. "This will set a
bad precedent, baka sa bandang huli sa buong mundo tayo lang ang bansa na puro lungsod at wala nang munisipyo," he said.
Aside from the constitutionality of the decision, the mayors are fearing that the new cities will eat a large chunk of the Internal Revenue
Allotment that cities get from the national government.
LCP Secretary-General Mayor Hernani Braganza of Alaminos, Pangasinan said almost P3 billion worth of IRA will be slashed from the share
of the cities to provide for the 16 new cities.
"Almost 11,000 employees din po mawawalan ng trabaho pag nangyari yan. Sacrifice din yung mga programmed na projects for housing,
Philhealth, irrigation, environmental protection pati yung basura na milyon-milyon ang kailangan," he said.

Puerto Princesa, Palawan Mayor Edward Hagedorn said his city is subsisting only on its IRA since they have banned industries that can
destroy their city. Logging and mining are the industries wanting to move into Puerto Princesa, according to Hagedorn, and if P20 million
worth of IRA will be taken away from them, their city will suffer a big loss.
"Willing naman po kaming mag-part sa ibang municipalities as long it's done the legal way," said Hagedorn.
The local executives and their supporters will converge tomorrow at the corner of Taft and Kalaw avenue at 9:30 a.m. before marching to
Padre Faura street to file their Motion for Reconsideration. This will be followed by a protest action.

Mayors hold protest vs SC's cityhood rulings


By Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 03/09/2011 6:11 PM | Updated as of 03/09/2011 6:11 PM

MANILA - Forty-five mayors out of 122 cities nationwide led their supporters in holding a rally at Padre Faura St., Malate, Manila directed at
the February 15, 2011 Supreme Court (SC) decision upholding the constitutionality of cityhood laws.
The laws will lead to the conversion of 16 municipalities into cities.
The group slammed the court's flip-flopping on the case.
On November 18, 2008, the SC ruled the cityhood laws unconstitutional.
On December 21, 2009, it reversed the ruling.
Then again, on August 24, 2010, it decided to uphold the original ruling.
And finally, last February, it upheld the constitutionality of the creation of the 16 new cities.
The group filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) today in an effort to ask the court to revert to its original ruling, maintaining that the Local
Government Code must be the measure in creating cities.
The code states a municipality must have an annual income of at least P100 million for it to be converted into a city.
Some P3.7 billion worth of Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) will be lost to local governments with the creation of the 16 new cities.

Other Headlines

2 comments
Facts on Cityhood Controversy
by Chef Lapu-lapu on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 08:02
There is too much misinformation on the controversial cityhood laws of the 15 municipalities. HERE ARE THE FACTS.
1. Sec. 10, Art. 10 of the Constitution provides that "no xxx city xxx may be created xxx except in accordance with the criteria established in
the Local Government Code xxx"

2. In 1991, Congress enacted the LGC. Specifically, the following sections of the Code provide:
"SECTION 7. Creation and Conversion. - "xxx the creation of a local government code 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 service and special functions
commensurate with the size of its population xxx; (b) Population xxx; and (c) Land Area xxx."
"SECTION 449. Manner of Creation. - A city may be created xxx only by an Act of Congress xxx"
"SECTION 450. Requisites for Creation. - xxx A municipality xxx may be converted into a component city if it has an average annual income
xxx of at least Twenty million pesos (P20,000,000.00) for the last two (2) consecutive years xxx"
"SECTION. 451. Cities, Classified. - A city may either be component or highly urbanized xxx. Independent component cities are those
component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials. xxx"
"SECTION 452. Highly Urbanized Cities. - (a) Cities with a minimum population of two hundred thousand (200,000) inhabitants xxx and with
the latest annual income of at least Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00) xxx shall be classified as highly urbanized cities.
(b) Cities which do not meet the above requirements shall be considered component cities of the province in which they are geographically
located. xxx"
3. During the 11th Congress (1998-2001), 57 bills were passed by the House of Representatives seeking the conversion of 57 municipalities
into component cities. Of the 57, 33 were passed and 24 were not acted by the Senate.
4. The 16 municipalities, which are the subject of the recent controversial decision of the Supreme Court, were included in the 24 cityhood
bills not acted by the Senate during the 11th Congress.
5. During the 11th Congress, while the 24 cityhood bills were pending with the Senate, Senator Pimentel sponsored Senate Bill 2157,
amending Section 450 of the LGC, as follows: "A municipality xxx may be converted into a component city if it has a locally generated
average annual income xxx of at least One hundred million pesos (P100,000,000.00) xxx." The said Senate Bill later became RA 9009 on 20
March 2011 (11th Congress). Its purpose, according to Senator Pimentel, is to "prevent the mad rush of municipalities wanting to be
converted into cities."
6. During the deliberation of Senate Bill 2157, the Record of the Senate shows that then Senate President Franklin Drilon inquired on the
effect of raising the income from P20M to P100M to the 24 cityhood bills already approved by the House of Representatives but pending with
the Senate. Senator Pimentel replied that "it might not be fair" to apply the P100M to the pending cityhood bills. The understanding then is
that "those bills which are already pending in the (Senate) will not be affected."
7. The Senate, however, failed to act on the said 24 cityhood bills already pending with the said chamber in the 11th Congress.
8. In the 12th Congress, sponsors of the said 24 cityhood bills not acted by the Senate during the 11th Congress introduced a joint resolution
in the House of Representatives seeking to exempt certain municipalities (including the 16 municipalities in the controversial decision of the
Supreme Court) from the income requirement of P100M. The House of Representatives passed the joint resolution but, again, this was not
acted by the Senate during the 12th Congress.
9. During the 13th Congress, the joint resolution seeking the exemption of certain municipalities was revived. This time, it was acted by the
Senate, which approved the same on second reading. Later, however, Senator Pimentel suggested that instead of the joint resolution, the
House of Representatives pass individual cityhood bills exempting the municipalities mentioned in the joint resolution from the P100Million
income requirement in RA 9009.
10. Consequently, the cityhood bills of the 16 municipalities were refiled and passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate during
the 13th Congress. Senator Lim sponsored the cityhood bills in the Senate.

11. Plebiscites were respectively held in the concerned municipalities and the results of such plebiscites yielded an overwhelming affirmative
votes for the ratification of the cityhood bills.
LEGAL ISSUES RESOLVED IN THE SUPREME COURT:
(1) Whether or not the exemptions from the cityhood annual income of P100M under the LGC, as amended by RA 9009, granted to the 16
municipalities violate Section 10, Article 10 of the Constitution.
(2) Whether or not the said exemptions from the cityhood annual income requirement violate the equal protection of the laws.
(3) Whether or not the filing of the application of the 16 municipalities for cityhood status prior to the enactment of RA 9009 gave rise to a
valid substantial distinction to justify their exemption.
MY OPINION:
ANG DESISYON NA IEXEMPT ANG 16 MUNICIPALITIES FROM THE P100M INCOME REQUIREMENT AY TAMA.
UNA, YAN NAMAN TALAGA ANG INTENTION NG RA 9009. MALIWANAG YAN SA DELIBERASYON NG SENADO SA SENATE BILL
2157. HINDI KASAMA SA COVERAGE ANG 126 MUNICIPALITIES. ANG INTERPRETASYON NA GANITO AY KELANGAN DAHIL
MUKHANG MAY PROBLEMA ANG RA 9009 DAHIL TINAASAN NYA ANG INCOME REQUIREMENT NG COMPONENT CITIES TO
P100M, PERO DI NAMAN NAAMENDYAHAN ANG INCOME REQUIREMENT NA P50M PARA MAGING HIGHLY URBANIZED CITY ANG
ISANG COMPONENT CITY. ITO AY ISANG ABSURDITY.
PANGALAWA, HINDI NAMAN NAG-AAPLY ANG EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS DITO DAHIL KAHIT NA QUALIFIED SA INCOME
REQUIREMENT ANG ISANG MUNICIPALITY, KUNG AYAW NG KONGRESO NA MAGING CITY ITO WALANG MAGAGAWA ANG
MUNICIPALITY. TINGNAN NINYO ANG NANGYARI SA 24 MUNICIPALITIES NA INAPROVE NA NOONG 11th CONGRESS NG KAMARA
PERO HINDI INAKSYONAN NG SENADO NOONG 11th CONGRESS. KUNG RIGHT ITO NA NAVIOLATE, E DAPAT PEDE IMANDAMUS
ANG SENADO NOON NA IPASA NA ANG 16 MUNICIPALITIES DAHIL NASATISFY NAMAN NILA ANG P20MILLION INCOME
REQUIREMENT BEFORE THE AMENDMENT IN RA 9009.

Nothing secret about letters on cityhood issue: mayor


By Edith Regalado, The Philippine Star
Posted at 02/28/2011 11:39 AM | Updated as of 02/28/2011 5:19 PM

DAVAO CITY, Philippines Mayor Michelle Rabat of Mati City in Davao Oriental denied insinuations made by the League of Cities of the
Philippines (LCP) that the counsel of the 16 newly created cities had sent secret letters to the Supreme Court justices.
Rabat insisted that there was nothing secret to the letters sent by lawyer Estelito Mendoza, legal counsel of the 16 new cities, to the SC that
recently issued a ruling in favor of the conversion into cities of the 16 municipalities.
The LCP, an organization of local cities, had urged the Court to release to the public the secret letters that the city mayors claimed had
prompted the justices to flip-flop and reverse the previous decision rejecting the creation of the 16 new cities.
LCP president Mayor Oscar Rodriguez of San Fernando, Pampanga, said they were puzzled with what prompted the SC to resurrect the
cases from the grave after it received an unusual communication from a law firm representing the 16 cities.
Lawyer Joseph Morigomen, LCP legal counsel, said the two letters bore the letterhead Estelito Mendoza and Associates.
Morigomen said the Supreme Court received on Jan. 19, 2009 the two letters regarding the controversial case questioning the
constitutionality of the establishment of the new cities.

Rabat revealed though that the letters were actually requests for then Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo
Nachura to cast their votes on the issue of constitutionality instead of abstaining.
Rabat said the request was made when the Supreme Court gave a 6-6 vote on the issue. She said the votes of Puno and Nachura could
have broken the deadlock.
That was a valid request. All he said was since its an issue on constitutionality the tie should be broken thus the request for the two
abstaining justices to vote. But still they did not vote, Rabat said.
Like a rollercoaster ride, the Supreme Court recently voted in favor of the League of 16, composed of 16 towns after the Court had earlier
nullified the cityhood laws that converted the 16 towns into cities.
The Court said in its earlier ruling that one of the requirements for cityhood is that the town should have an annual income of at least P100
million.
In the latest ruling, the SC stated that the16 towns that became cities in 2007 could stay as cities.
Voting 7-6, its the fifth time the SC has ruled on the case, and the third reversal. The ruling said the conversion of the 16 towns into cities
met all legal requirements.
The LCP opposed the creation of the 16 new cities because that would result in the reduction of the shares the cities from the internal
revenue allotment (IRA).
The league won the first round. The SC ruled on Nov. 18, 2008 that the 16 towns were not exempted from the new P100-million income
requirement, and could not be considered cities. It affirmed the decision in May 2009. The vote was 6-5.
At the time, the SC said: In view of the denial of the second motion for reconsideration, no further pleadings shall be entertained. Let the
entry of judgment be made in due course.
But in December 2009, the SC reversed its decision. It said that the towns were exempted from the new income requirement and the laws
that made them cities were valid. The vote was 6-4.
Nearly a year later, on Aug. 24, 2010, the SC granted a motion for reconsideration that the LCP filed. It reinstated its original decision that the
municipalities did not meet the requirements for cityhood.
Earlier this month, the SC went back to its ruling in December 2009. The new cities can stay cities, after all.
It said these laws were all consistent with the Constitution: Republic Act 9389 (creating Baybay City in Leyte), 9390 (Bogo City in Cebu),
9391 (Catbalogan City in Samar), 9392 (Tandag City in Surigao del Sur), 9393 (Lamitan City in Basilan), 9394 (Borongan City in Samar),
9398 (Tayabas City in Quezon), 9404 (Tabuk City in Kalinga), 9405 (Bayugan City in Agusan del Sur), 9407 (Batac City in Ilocos Norte),
9408 (Mati City in Davao Oriental), 9409 (Guihulngan City in Negros Oriental), 9434 (Cabadbaran City in Agusan del Norte), 9435 (El
Salvador City in Misamis Oriental), 9436 (Carcar City in Cebu), and 9491 (Naga City in Cebu).
Mayor Rodriguez said the SC decision is not only final and executory, it was deemed executed with the Department of Budget and
Managements final IRA allocation in 2008 and the resolution of the Comelec.
Alaminos City Mayor Hernani Braganza, LCP secretary-general, said they are now studying their option to file an impeachment case against
the justices who voted for the reversal of the decision.
Impeachment is just one of the options, he said.
DILG supports the LCP protest

Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo maintained that the requirements of law should be followed in the conversion of a
municipality into a city.
Robredo recently told editors of The STAR that the law should be applied to the case of 16 localities, which have been embroiled in endless
litigation on their conversion into cities.
Let us comply with the requirements of the law, Im not against the conversion proceedings but they must comply with the requirements.
Hindi sila nag-comply, hindi naman talaga sila qualified, said Robredo, who had previously served as Naga City mayor.
Robredo said the issue on IRA share of the local government units could be one of the major factors that prompted the municipalities
involved to insist on their conversion into cities. Simple math shows the cities get bigger share of the IRA, and thats the reason why the
towns want to become cities, he said.
(Under the policy on IRA share) 23 percent is divided by 120 cities, 30 percent is divided by 1,400 towns. Kung ikaw nasa munisipyo, at
naghahati-hati 1,400, lipat ka na sa 120 na maghati sa 23 percent, yan talaga ang dahilan kung bakit gusto lumipat lahat, Robredo
explained. (If you were a town and numbered 1,400, better to transfer to the 120 and share 23 percent).
He said during the term of former President Joseph Estrada, P50 million was the income bracket for a local government unit to be converted
into city.
Congress later increased the income bracket to P100 million.
Although the issue on the conversion remains in court, Robredo said the 16 municipalities involved in the litigation have elected 10 councilors
during the last May 10 elections, perhaps in anticipation of city status. A town only has eight councilors.
The latest reversal of the SC decision came after one of the associate justices voted in favor of the 16 new cities. With Cecille Suerte
Felipe

SC reverses self a third time in cityhood laws


By Ira Pedrasa, abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 02/17/2011 4:05 AM | Updated as of 02/17/2011 4:05 AM

MANILA, Philippines - It seems that the Supreme Court (SC) could not make up its mind.
It reversed for the nth time its decision in connection with 16 Cityhood Laws, this time saying that these are constitutional.
In a press briefing, Court Administrator and SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez explained the latest ruling on the Cityhood Laws should not
come as a surprise considering that the case "is unusual and the vote of the justices [had been very] tight."
Marquez also noted that the high court has changed 8 justices when the first ruling was made in 2008 and was reversed later after 8 new
justices were installed. He said the composition of the SC influences its decisions.
The original decision was in November 18, 2008, where the high court, in a vote of 6-5, granted the petition filed by the League of Cities of
the Philippines (LCP) seeking to declare as unconstitutional the Cityhood Laws.
It was reversed in a ruling issued on December 21, 2009.
The unconstitutionality of the laws was subsequently affirmed on August 24, 2010. The latest ruling was on Tuesday, February 15.
The cityhood bills automatically lapsed into laws on various dates from March to July 2007.

The cityhood laws covered the municipalities of:

Baybay, Leyte;
Bogo, Carcar and Naga in Cebu;
Catbalogan, Samar;
Tandag, Surigao del Sur;
Borongan, Eastern Samar;
Tayabas, Quezon;
Lamitan, Basilan;
Tabuk, Kalinga;
Bayugan, Agusan del Sur;
Batac, Ilocos Norte;
Mati, Davao Oriental;
Guihulngan, Negros Oriental;
Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte; and,
El Salvador, Misamis Oriental.

Marquez clarified though that this may not be the final ruling as the parties may file a motion for reconsideration, where the SC can deny and
uphold the third ruling or, again, make a reversal.
"This is really a very unusual case. I have yet to hear another case which has gone this way," Marquez said.
The Court held that the Cityhood Laws, all enacted after the effectivity of RA 9009 or the Local Government Code , exempted the
municipalities from the increased income requirement from P20 million to P100 million.
Among the justices who voted to declare the Cityhood Laws constitutional were Chief Justice Renato Corona, Associate Justices Presbitero
Velasco, Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, Jose Perez, and Jose Mendoza.
Justice Mendoza previously voted against the Cityhood Laws.
Associate Justices Antonip Carpio, Martin Villarama, Jr., Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Arturo Brion and Diosdado Peralta
maintained the position that the Cityhood Laws are unconstitutional.
Associate Justices Mariano del Castillo and Antonio Eduardo Nachura again took no part on the resolution of the case.
Justice Carpio penned the November 18 decision, explaining that the exemptions in the Cityhood Laws should not stay since the Constitution
requires that such exemption must be written in the LGC and not in any other law.
The Court subsequently dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by the municipalities with a vote of 6-6 last April 28, 2009.
On December 21, 2009, with a vote of 6-4, the Court reversed the original decision saying that a deadlock vote does not show the sentiment
of the majority of the magistrates.
Justice Velasco who penned the December 21 ruling granted the second motion for reconsideration filed by the municipalities.
Velasco explained that the 6-6 vote does not reflect the decision of the majority of the members as provided in Section 4 (2), Article VIII of
the Constitution which requires all cases involving constitutionality of a treaty, international agreement shall be heard by the SC en banc and
decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations of the case.
There has been several changes in the membership of the SC at that time.
But in August 24, the high court, with a vote of 7-6, granted the motions for reconsideration of the LCP. -- with a report from Ina Reformina,
ABS-CBN News

Cities' league: SC reversal of ruling a 'mockery of justice'


abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 02/18/2011 1:17 AM | Updated as of 02/18/2011 8:27 AM

MANILA, Philippines - The League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) said Thursday the Supreme Court's decision to overturn its earlier ruling
rejecting the creation of 16 new cities mocks the justice system.
LCP president Oscar Rodriguez said the SC overturning the ruling and setting aside its "final and executory" decision is a "mockery of
justice."
The LCP is opposing the conversion of 16 cities after it was discovered that these local government units do not meet the P100 million
income requirement set by the Local Government Code.
City mayors are now deciding between filing a motion for reconsideration or an impeachment complaint against the SC justices who voted to
overturn the decision.
Third reversal
The SC has reversed itself for the third time on the issue of whether or not the Cityhood Laws, which allow 16 municipalities to be converted
into cities, is constitutional or not.
The high Court, during last Tuesdays regular en banc session, reversed the decision declaring the laws unconstitutional with a vote of 7-6-2,
and reinstated its earlier decision affirming the constitutionality of the said laws.
Declared as valid and constitutional -- again -- are Republic Act numbers:
1. 9389 (Baybay City in Leyte)
2. 9390 (Bogo City in Cebu)
3. 9391 (Catbalogan City in Samar)
4. 9392 (Tandag City in Surigao del Sur)
5. 9393 (Lamitan City in Basilan)
6. 9394 (Borongan City in Samar)
7. 9398 (Tayabas City in Quezon)
8. 9404 (Tabuk City in Kalinga)
9. 9405 (Bayugan City in Agusan del Sur)
10. 9407 (Batac City in Ilocos Norte)
11. 9408 (Mati City in Davao Oriental)
12. 9409 (Guihulngan City in Negros Oriental),
13. 9434 (Cabadbaran City in Agusan del Norte)
14. 9435 (El Salvador City in Misamis Oriental)
15. 9436 (Carcar City in Cebu)
16. 9491 (Naga City in Cebu)
The Court granted the motion for reconsideration filed by the 16 municipalities whose laws had earlier been declared unconstitutional.
The SC held that the Cityhood Laws, all enacted after the effectivity of RA 9009 or the Local Government Code, explicitly exempt respondent
municipalities from the increased income requirement from P20 million to P100 million in Section 450 of the LGC.
Among the justices who voted to declare the Cityhood Laws constitutional were Chief Justice Renato Corona, Associate Justices Presbitero
Velasco, Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, Jose Perez, and Jose Mendoza.
Justice Mendoza previously voted against the Cityhood Laws.

Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Martin Villarama, Jr., Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Arturo Brion and Diosdado Peralta
maintained the position that the Cityhood Laws are unconstitutional.
Associate Justices Mariano del Castillo and Antonio Eduardo Nachura took no part anew on the resolution of the issue.

Not once but thrice: SC changes position again on 16 'cities'


abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 02/16/2011 5:31 PM | Updated as of 02/17/2011 2:03 PM

MANILA, Philippines - Not once, but thrice.


The Supreme Court (SC) has reversed itself for the third time on the issue of whether or not the Cityhood Laws, which allow 16 municipalities
to be converted into cities, is constitutional or not.
The Court, during last Tuesdays regular en banc session, reversed the decision declaring the laws unconstitutional with a vote of 7-6-2, and
reinstated its earlier decision affirming the constitutionality of the said laws.
Declared as valid and constitutional -- again -- are Republic Act numbers:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

9389 (Baybay City in Leyte)


9390 (Bogo City in Cebu)
9391 (Catbalogan City in Samar)
9392 (Tandag City in Surigao del Sur)
9393 (Lamitan City in Basilan)
9394 (Borongan City in Samar)
9398 (Tayabas City in Quezon)
9404 (Tabuk City in Kalinga)
9405 (Bayugan City in Agusan del Sur)
9407 (Batac City in Ilocos Norte)
9408 (Mati City in Davao Oriental)
9409 (Guihulngan City in Negros Oriental),
9434 (Cabadbaran City in Agusan del Norte)
9435 (El Salvador City in Misamis Oriental)
9436 (Carcar City in Cebu)
9491 (Naga City in Cebu)

The Court granted the motion for reconsideration filed by the 16 municipalities whose laws had earlier been declared unconstitutional.
The Court held that the Cityhood Laws, all enacted after the effectivity of RA 9009 or the Local Government Code, explicitly exempt
respondent municipalities from the increased income requirement from P20 million to P100 million in Section 450 of the LGC.
Among the justices who voted to declare the Cityhood Laws constitutional were Chief Justice Renato Corona, Associate Justices Presbitero
Velasco, Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, Jose Perez, and Jose Mendoza.
Justice Mendoza previously voted against the Cityhood Laws.
Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Martin Villarama, Jr., Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Arturo Brion and Diosdado Peralta
maintained the position that the Cityhood Laws are unconstitutional.
Associate Justices Mariano del Castillo and Antonio Eduardo Nachura took no part anew on the resolution of the issue.

Constitutional, then unconstitutional


In a ruling on November 18, 2008, the Court, voting 6-5, granted the petition filed by the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) seeking to
declare as unconstitutional the Cityhood Laws.
Justice Carpio penned the November 18 decision, which held that the Cityhood Laws violate Sections 6 and 10, Article X of the Constitution.
Five months later, the Court dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by the municipalities. It voted 6-6 last April 28, 2009.
The LCP has been opposing the cityhood laws saying that the wholesale conversion of municipalities into cities will greatly reduce the cities
share in the Internal Revenue Allotment, since more cities will partake of the internal revenue set aside for all cities.
The first reversal came on December 21, 2009. From its earlier position that the Cityhood laws are unconstitutional, the Court voted 6-4 to
declare the laws as constitutional.
In effect, the Court reversed the November 18, 2008 ruling saying that a deadlock vote does not show the sentiment of the majority of the
magistrates.
Justice Velasco who penned the December 21 ruling granted the second motion for reconsideration filed by the municipalities.
Velasco explained that the 6-6 vote does not reflect the majority of the members of the contemplated in Section 4 (2), Article VIII of the
Constitution that requires all cases involving constitutionality of a treaty or international agreement shall be heard by the SC en banc and
decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations of the case.
The second reversal occurred on August 24, 2010 when the Court--again--ruled that the Cityhood laws are unconstitutional.
Voting 7-6, the Court granted the motions for reconsideration of the LCP and reinstated its November 18, 2008 decision.
The third reversal came 7 months later--on February 16, 2011.
'Unusual case'
At a press briefing, Court Administrator and spokesman Midas Marquez explained that reversal of the Courts ruling on the Cityhood Laws
should not come as a surprise considering that the case is unusual and the vote of the justices was very tight.
Marquez indicated that the latest ruling may not put an end on the issue since it is expected that the LCP will still file a motion for
reconsideration.
This is really a very unusual case. I have yet to hear another case which has gone this way, Marquez said.

Lamitan mayor back to work after 90-day suspension


By David Santos, ABS-CBN News Zamboanga
Posted at 01/26/2011 12:31 AM | Updated as of 01/26/2011 12:31 AM

LAMITAN, Philippines - Employees of the Lamitan town hall welcomed Mayor Roderick Furigay when he reported back to work on Tuesday
morning.
In November last year, the Sandiganbayan placed Furigay under a 90-day preventive suspension order for a pending graft case.

Furigay is facing a complaint for alleged violation of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, after he hired a former
government official to review Lamitan's aging Revenue Tax Code.
Despite completing the suspension order, Furigay was still visibly disappointed with the outcome of the case, insisting he "did not deserve
the punishment" imposed on him.
Furigay, however, was grateful that the suspension gave him the opportunity to spend more time with his kids.
He said that he was satisfied with the performance of Lamitan Vice-Mayor Arleigh Eisma, who was designated as office-in-charge during his
absence.
Both Furigay and Eisma admitted that the recent months were indeed challenging for Lamitan amid a series of kidnapping and murder cases
in the town.
Furigay said that peace and order will be on top of his priorities now that he has returned at the helm.
Another challenge that Lamitan government has to hurdle is the Supreme Court's decision that declared its cityhood as unconstitutional.
Lamitan is part of the so-called League of 16, which was formed by municipalities whose cityhood conversion bids were unsanctioned by the
high court.

SC urged to reverse anew ruling on 16 cityhood laws


abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 09/15/2010 2:51 PM | Updated as of 09/15/2010 2:51 PM

MANILA, Philippines - Local officials are asking Supreme Court magistrates to change their minds yet again on the constitutionality of
Cityhood Laws or Republic Acts (RAs) that converted 16 municipalities into cities.
The Supreme Court ruled on the cityhood laws 3 times, first declaring them unconstitutional in November 18, 2008 and then reversing its
decision and declaring the laws legal. Last month, the High Court reinstated its November 18, 2008 decision declaring as unconstitutional the
16 Cityhood Laws.
In a 69-page motion for reconsideration filed by the Municipality of Baybay et al., though their counsel, former Solicitor General Estelito
Mendoza, the respondents maintained that the 16 Cityhood Laws are constitutional and that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of Congress and Malacanang in approving the said laws.
The petitioners said the 1987 Constitution requires that a petition for nullification of a law should be decided with the concurrence of a
majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case .
Mendoza also noted that only 7 Supreme Court justices concurred with the August 24, 2010 resolution, while 6 others dissented.
As we turn now the basis upon which the Court by a plurality of a single vote, declared the 16 Cityhood Laws unconstitutional in its
resolution of August 24, 2010, respondents respectfully ask the Court to consider anew whether the quantum of persuasion suggested in the
jurisprudence in the exercise of its power of judicial review to overcome the presumption of the constitutionality of the 16 Cityhood Laws has
been met. Respondents, respectfully, submit...that in the instant cases the quantum of persuasion required to declare laws unconstitutional
has not been reached, Mendoza said.
Last month, the High Tribunal reversed its December 21, 2009 ruling and deemed unconstitutional the laws creating 16 new cities.
According to the SC, the Constitution requires that Congress shall prescribe all the criteria for the creation of a city in the Local Government
Code and not in any other law, including the Cityhood Laws.

It said the assailed Cityhood Laws provided an exemption from the increased income requirement for the creation of cities under Section 450
of the LGC. Republic Act 9009 amended Section 450 of the LGC to increase the income requirement from P20 million to P100 million for the
creation of a city without any exemption.
Declared as unconstitutional were RA Nos. 9389 (Baybay City in Leyte), 9390 (Bogo City in Cebu), 9391 (Catbalogan City in Samar), 9392
(Tandag City in Surigao del Sur), 9393 (Lamitan City in Basilan), 9394 (Borongan City in Samar), 9398 (Tayabas City in Quezon), 9404
(Tabuk City in Kalinga), 9405 (Bayugan City in Agusan del Sur), 9407 (Batac City in Ilocos Norte), 9408 (Mati City in Davao Oriental), 9409
(Guihulngan City in Negros Oriental), 9434 (Cabadbaran City in Agusan del Norte), 9435 (El Salvador City in Misamis Oriental), 9436
(Carcar City in Cebu), and 9491 (Naga City in Cebu). (GR No. 176951, League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec; GR No. 177499,
League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec; GR No. 178056, League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec, August 24, 2010)
Mendoza said the Cityhood Laws complied with the minimum financial requirement of P20 million effective prior to the amendment of Section
450 by RA 9009. He said the P100 million income requirement is an arbitrary amount that cannot be the basis of the invalidation of the
Cityhood Laws.
The former solicitor general said the League of Cities of the Philippines has been opposing the Cityhood Laws in order that their share in the
internal revenue allotment will not be reduced by the increase of number of cities.
He explained that the Constitution does not fix the number of cities, provinces or municipalities as all of them are created by Congress, thus,
the existing cities do not have a right to exclude other municipalities from becoming cities.

SC reverses self, backs decision voiding 16 new cities


abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 08/27/2010 5:52 PM | Updated as of 08/27/2010 5:52 PM

MANILA, Philippines - Voting 7-6 with two justices taking no part, the Supreme Court on Friday reinstated its November 18, 2008 decision
declaring as unconstitutional the Cityhood Laws or Republic Acts converting 16 municipalities into cities.
In a 16-page resolution penned by Senior Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the Court ruled that there could be no reversal of the November 18,
2008 decision "for a tie-vote cannot result in any court order or directive," as it noted that the Court was evenly divided when it subsequently
voted on the second motion for reconsideration.
It further ruled that a tie-vote is a non-majority which cannot overrule a prior affirmative action, which in this case was the November 18, 2008
decision striking down the Cityhood Laws.
"Undeniably, the 6-6 vote did not overrule the prior majority en banc Decision of 18 November 2008, as well as the prior majority en banc
Resolution of 31 March 2009 denying reconsideration. The tie-vote on the second motion for reconsideration is not the same as a tie-vote on
the main decision where there is no prior decision," the Court said.
Joining Justice Carpio are Justices Conchita Carpio Morales, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose C.
Mendoza, and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno.
Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. who penned the assailed December 21, 2009 ruling, wrote a dissenting opinion. He was joined in his
dissent by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Roberto A. Abad, and Jose
Portugal Perez.
Justices Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura and Mariano C. Del Castillo took no part.
According to the SC, the Constitution requires that Congress shall prescribe all the criteria for the creation of a city in the Local Government
Code and not in any other law, including the Cityhood Laws.

The said Cityhood Laws, all enacted after the effectivity of RA 9009 increasing the income requirement for cityhood from P20 million to P100
million in sec. 450 of the Local Government Code (LGC), explicitly exempt respondent municipalities from the said increased income
requirement.
Declared as unconstitutional were RA Nos. 9389 (Baybay City in Leyte), 9390 (Bogo City in Cebu), 9391 (Catbalogan City in Samar), 9392
(Tandag City in Surigao del Sur), 9393 (Lamitan City in Basilan), 9394 (Borongan City in Samar), 9398 (Tayabas City in Quezon), 9404
(Tabuk City in Kalinga), 9405 (Bayugan City in Agusan del Sur), 9407 (Batac City in Ilocos Norte), 9408 (Mati City in Davao Oriental), 9409
(Guihulngan City in Negros Oriental), 9434 (Cabadbaran City in Agusan del Norte), 9435 (El Salvador City in Misamis Oriental), 9436
(Carcar City in Cebu), and 9491 (Naga City in Cebu). (GR No. 176951, League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec; GR No. 177499,
League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec; GR No. 178056, League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec, August 24, 2010)

SC denies plea to nullify cityhood laws


abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 08/01/2010 5:05 PM | Updated as of 08/02/2010 12:57 AM

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court has dismissed a motion filed by a former lawmaker seeking to nullify an earlier decision upholding
the constitutionality of 16 cityhood laws.
In an en banc resolution, the high court denied the motion for leave to intervene of former Negros Oriental Rep. Jacinto Paras asking it to
reconsider a decision last December 21.
In December, the high court gave way to the second appeal of 16 municipalities.
The cityhood bills automatically lapsed into laws on various dates from March to July 2007.
The cityhood laws covered the municipalities of: Baybay, Leyte; Bogo, Carcar and Naga in Cebu; Catbalogan, Samar; Tandag, Surigao del
Sur; Borongan, Eastern Samar; Tayabas, Quezon; Lamitan, Basilan; Tabuk, Kalinga; Bayugan, Agusan del Sur; Batac, Ilocos Norte; Mati,
Davao Oriental; Guihulngan, Negros Oriental; Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte; and El Salvador, Misamis Oriental.
Ironically, Paras was the author of the Guihulngan cityhood law.
He earlier however admitted that its conversion, a premature move, would further lure corrupt officials.
In fact, Guihulngans conversion did not improve the living conditions of the people there, he had said.
The abrupt increase of its internal revenue allotment to P310 million in 2009 from P280 million in 2008 brought about more cases of graft and
corruption, he had alleged.#

League of Cities raises more arguments vs cityhood


by Joel San Juan, BusinessMirror
Posted at 01/11/2010 12:30 AM | Updated as of 01/11/2010 12:31 AM

MANILA, Philippines The League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) has proffered more arguments to convince the Supreme Court to set
aside its decision issued on December 21, 2009, which declared as constitutional 16 cityhood laws.
In its 22-page motion to annul, the LCP, through its lawyer Joseph Marigomen, insisted that the December 21 ruling should be annulled for
being a void judgment contrary to the Constitution and the Rules of Court.

The SC, in the said decision, abandoned its decision and final resolution dated November 18, 2008, and April 28, 2009, respectively,
declaring 16 cityhood laws unconstitutional and insteadgranted the second motion for reconsideration filed by several municipalities seeking
to declare as valid and constitutional Republic Acts 9389, 9390, 9391, 9392, 9393, 9394, 9398, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434,
9435,9436 and 9491.
The 16 cityhoodlaws contained a common provision exempting all the 16 municipalitiesBaybay (Leyte); Bogo (Cebu); Catbalogan
(Samar); Tandag (Surigao del Sur); Borongan (Eastern Samar); Tayabas (Quezon province); Lamitan (Basilan); Tabuk (Kalinga); Bayugan
(Agusan del Sur); Batac (Ilocos Norte); Mati (Davao Oriental); Guihulngan (Negros Oriental); Cabadbaran (Agusan del Norte); Carcar
(Cebu); El Salvador (Misamis Oriental); and Naga (Cebu) from the P100-million income requirement for the conversion of a municipality into
a city and directing theCommission on Elections to conduct a plebiscite to determine whether the voters approved of their conversion into
cities.
In setting aside its final ruling on the case, the Court explained that the 6-6 vote does not reflect the majority of the members as
contemplated in Section 4 (2), Article VIII of the Constitution, which requires all cases involving constitutionality of a treaty, international
agreement shall be heard by the SC en banc and decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the
deliberations of the case.
But the LCP, composed of 120 cities all over the country,stressed that said ruling was issued in gross violation of its rights to due process
since it was not fully apprised of the proceedings in the case.
It assailed the letters and other pleadings addressed to the individual justices of the SC that were aimed at influencing the voting in this
case.
The LCP said it was totally kept in the dark about the existence of the documents, thus, it was not for them to fully present and plead their
case before the SC.
The petitioners added that the voting in the December 21 decision should be nullified for being in violation of Article VIII, Section 4 (2) of the
Constitution, which mandates that all cases involving constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law should be
heard by the Court en banc and decided by majority of its members who actually took part in the deliberation on the issues.
However, the group noted that five of the associate justicesDiosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Roberto Abad and
Martin Villarama, Jr.who took part in the December 21 decision did not participate in the deliberations on the issue.
The LCP said the five justices were not yet members of the SC on November 18, 2008 when the decision on the case was first promulgated.
Considering the clear intent of the framers of Section 4 (2), petitioners most humbly and respectfully submit that Justices Peralta, Bersamin,
Abad, [Del Castillo]and Villarama may not vote in this case because they were not yet members of the Court at the time the main case and
the motion for reconsideration were being deliberated upon, and thus they could not possibly have actually [taken] part in the deliberations
on the issues in the case and voted thereon, the LCP stressed.
In addition, the LCP maintained that the November 18, 2008 decision had already become final and executory and can no longer be
modified.
The LCP pointed out that the first motion to reconsider the Nov. 18, 2008 decision filed by several municipal mayors was denied with finality
by the SC on March 31, 2009 with an order that no further pleadings shall be entertained.
Thereafter, it said the SC ordered an entry of judgment that was recorded on May 21, 2009 after the second motion for reconsideration was
denied on April 28, 2009.
It is beyond doubt that the decision of 18 November 2008 had already become final and this case had already been terminated. The settled
rule is that a final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable, is no longer subject to attack, and cannot be modified directly or
indirectly, and the court which rendered it, including the Supreme Court, had lost jurisdiction to modify it, the LCP said quoting various
decisions handed down by the Court.

Supreme Court violates own rules in cityhood case


By Jesus F. Llanto, Newsbreak
Posted at 12/23/2009 8:31 PM | Updated as of 12/24/2009 12:07 PM

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court violated its own rules when it reopened the 16 cityhood laws and eventually reversed itself on the
contentious case.
By breaking its own rules, the tribunal has also set the stage for "judicial instability," according to Mandaluyong City Mayor Benjur Abalos,
president of the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) that had fought against the cityhood of unqualified localities.
A member of the Court also warned his colleagues that the SC is inviting "catastrophe" since the reopening of a closed case could
encourage other parties to ask for a review of jurisprudence on settled political cases.
The LCP went to the Supreme Court last year to ask for the nullification of several republic acts that converted into cities 16 municipalities
that failed to meet the requirements for cityhood set by the amended Local
Government Code.

Check related stories:

GMA Creating Too Many LGUs


As year ends, GMA creates more
LGUs
Cities Contemplate Tax Boycott,
Work Stoppage
Less IRA Forcing Mindanao Cities
to Cut Down on Services, Workers
With less IRA, some cities may lose
competitiveness
Supreme Court strikes down
cityhood of 16 towns
Mayors glad, sad over SC decision
voiding 16 cities
'Lawmakers should be careful in
passing cityhood laws'
Supreme Court resurrects 16
cityhood laws

These localities were

Timeline: Cities vs cities

Baybay in Leyte
Bayugan in Agusan del Sur
Batac in Ilocos Norte
Bogo, Naga and Carcar in Cebu
Borongan in Eastern Samar
Cabadbaran in Agusan del Norte
Catbalogan in Samar
El Salvador in Misamis Oriental
Guihulngan in Negros Oriental
Tandag in Surigao del Sur
Lamitan in Basilan
Tayabas in Quezon
Tabuk in Kalinga
Mati in Davao Oriental

'Final and executory'


On Nov. 18, 2008, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-5, declared as unconstitutional the cityhood laws because they contain provisions that
exempt the municipalities from the minimum income requirement of P100 million for them to become cities.
On May 21, 2009, the Court declared as final and executory the nullification of the said cityhood laws. The ruling was recorded in the entry
of judgment, which means that the case is closed and the decision is ready for execution.
On June 2, 2009, the SC, in en banc resolution finally closed the case of the cityhood laws.
In a press statement issued June 10, the Court acknowledged the finality of the case. SC spokesman Midas Marquez said that the SC, in an
en banc resolution, has finally closed and terminated the cases which declared the 16 cityhood laws as unconstitutional.
The statement said that the High Court held that there can be no doubt of the intention of this Court to consider [these cases] finally closed
and terminated. It also stressed that basic is the rule in our judicial system that litigations must be terminated at some point.
This indicated that no further motions for reconsideration would be entertained by the Court.
Catastrophe in the making
Yet, the Court revived the 16 cityhood laws and reversed its decision. Voting 6-4, the tribunal on Monday reversed its ruling.
The 35-page ruling penned by Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. declared valid the cityhood laws and set aside the "final and executory" ruling it
made several months earlier.
In a phone interview, Abalos implied that the SC committed an irregular act.
We are saddened and shocked. That is illegal, Abalos told Newsbreak, adding that the case could be a bad precedent. All other decisions
could be opened.
Abalos stressed that once a ruling had been recorded in the entry of judgment, It is like the death certificate of the case.
Justice Antonio Carpio, in his dissenting opinion, warned that the Court's somersault in decided cases "would wreak havoc on well-settled
jurisprudence" that could unleash a "catastrophe."

"Such an unprecedented ruling would resurrect contentious political issues long ago settled," Carpio said, citing as example the case of the
People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action, which gathered enough signatures in 1997 that could lift the constitutional limit on a
president's term.
Motions for reconsideration
Abalos said that the recent ruling of the high tribunal raises question on judicial stability since the decision came after the Supreme Court
have already declared that the case is closed.
The LCP has been protesting the conversion of unqualified cities, saying that they eat up portions of the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA)
for the existing cities. The IRA is the lifeblood of local government units.
Following the May 2009 final ruling of the SC, the Department of Budget and Management issued LBM No. 61, providing for the final
allocation of the IRA of the existing cities for 2009.
After the first ruling nullifying the cityhood of the 16 LGUs, 2 motions for reconsideration (MR) were filed by the 16 affected LGUs, which
called themselves the League of 16.
On March 31, 2009, the SC, by a vote of 7-5, denied the first MR for lack of merit. The High Tribunal also said that no further pleadings
should be entertained.
On April 28, 2009, the Court, by a vote of 6-6, denied a second MR, again for lack of merit. The tribunal also said that no further pleadings
should be entertained and that an entry of judgement shall be made in due course.
A tie in the voting does not reverse a case.
Define 'majority'
However, in reversing itself, the Supreme Court said that the deadlocked vote on April 28, 2009, does not reflect the majority of the
members.
Webster defines 'majority' as 'a number greater than half of a total.' In plain language, this means 50% plus one, said Velasco, who penned
the fresh decision.
Velasco also said that no violation of equal protection clause has been made by the cityhood laws.
While the equal protection guarantee frowns upon the creation of a privileged class without justification, inherent in equality clause is the
exhortation for the Legislature to pass laws promoting equality or reducing inequalities. The enactment of the cityhood laws was in real sense
an attempt on the part of the Congress to address the inequality dealt the respondent LGUs the decision reads.
Ironically, Velasco, the ponente of the new ruling, voted for the nullification of 16 cities in November last year.
Carpio, who wrote the dissenting opinion, said that the 6-6 tie vote did not overrule the Nov. 18, 2008, decision that voided the creation of the
16 cities.
These prior majority actions of the Court en banc can only be overruled by a new majority vote, not a tie vote because a tie vote cannot over
rule prior affirmative action, Carpio wrote.
The tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided, he said, adding that the November 2008 decision and March 2009 resolution much
stand in view of the failure of the members of the Court en banc to muster the necessary vote for their reconsideration. (Newsbreak)

Supreme Court resurrects 16 cityhood laws

Business Mirror
Posted at 12/23/2009 11:17 AM | Updated as of 12/23/2009 11:49 AM

MANILA, Philippines - Saying that a deadlock vote does not show the sentiment of the majority of the justices, the Supreme Court (SC) on
Monday abandoned its final decision declaring 16 cityhood laws unconstitutional.
Instead, in a 35-page decision penned by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, the Court en banc, with a vote of 6-4, granted the second
motion for reconsideration filed by several municipalities seeking to declare as valid and constitutional Republic Acts 9389, 9390, 9391,
9392, 9393, 9394, 9398, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434, 9435, 9436 and 9491.
The 16 cityhood laws contained a common provision exempting all the 16 municipalitiesBaybay (Leyte); Bogo (Cebu); Catbalogan
(Samar); Tandag (Surigao del Sur); Borongan (Eastern Samar); Tayabas (Quezon province); Lamitan (Basilan); Tabuk (Kalinga); Bayugan
(Agusan del Sur); Batac (Ilocos Norte); Mati (Davao Oriental); Guihulngan (Negros Oriental); Cabadbaran (Agusan del Norte); Carcar
(Cebu); El Salvador (Misamis Oriental); and Naga (Cebu) from the P100-million income requirement for conversion of a municipality into a
city and directing the Commission on Elections to conduct a plebiscite to determine whether the voters approved of their conversion into
cities.
In setting aside its final ruling on the case issued on April 28, the Court explained that the 6-6 vote does not reflect the majority of the
members of the idea contemplated in Section 4 (2), Article VIII of the Constitution, which requires all cases involving constitutionality of a
treaty, international agreement shall be heard by the SC en banc and decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who
actually took part in the deliberations of the case.
And be it remembered that the inconclusive 6-6 tie vote reflected in the April 28, 2009, resolution was the last vote on the issue of whether
or not the cityhood laws infringe the Constitution. Accordingly, the motions of the respondent local governments, in light of the 6-6 vote,
should be deliberated anew until the required concurrence on the issue of the validity or invalidity of the laws in question is, on the merits,
secured, the Court said.
Contrary to its earlier rulings, the Court now held that the cityhood laws do not violate Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, as well as the
equal protection clause under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution.
Section 10 provides that no province, city, municipality or barangay shall 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 League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), in a petition, opposed the cityhood laws, saying that the wholesale conversion of
municipalities into cities will greatly reduce the cities share in the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA), since more cities will partake of the
internal-revenue allotment set aside for all cities under Section 285 of the Local Government Code (LGC).
In its November 18, 2008, the Court granted LCPs petition to declare unconstitutional the cityhood laws and denied the motion for
reconsideration filed by the municipalities in a ruling issued on March 31.
Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who penned the said decision, held that Section 10, Article X requires that Congress shall prescribe all the
criteria for the creation of a city in the LGC and not in any other law, such as the cityhood laws.
Furthermore, the Carpio decision stressed the the cityhood laws failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 450 of the LGC, as amended by
RA 9009, which increased the annual income requirement for conversion of a municipality into a city from P20 million to P100 million.
Carpio noted that Congress, in enacting RA 9009, did not provide any exemption from the increased income requirement, not even to the
respondent municipalities.
However, in its new ruling, the Court pointed out that the authority to create, divide, merge or abolish boundaries of a city is essentially
legislative in nature.

Since Congress has the power to create political units, the SC said it can surely exercise the lesser authority of requiring a set of criteria and
standards for their creation, which need not to be embodied in the LGC.
In this case, the amendatory RA 9009 upped the already codified income requirement from P20 million to P100 million. At the end of the
day, the passage of amendatory laws is no different from the enactment of laws, i.e, the cityhood laws specifically exempting a particular
political subdivision from the criteria earlier mentioned. Congress, in enacting the exempting law/s, effectively decreased the already codified
indicators, the Court said.
The SC further noted that the exemption of the 16 municipalities from the P100-million income requirement is reasonable, since their
cityhood bills had been pending even before the passage of RA 9009.
Because of events they had absolutely nothing to do with, a spoiler in the form of RA 9009 supervened. Now, then, to impose on them the
much higher income requirement after what they have gone through would appear to be indeed unfair, the Court said.
The Court also stressed that the LCP cannot invoke the supposed violation of the equal-protection clause in seeking to declare
unconstitutional the cityhood laws, since no deprivation of property results by virtue of the enactment of the cityhood laws.
Indeed, it is presumptuous on the part of the LCP member-cities to already stake a claim on the IRA, as if it were their property, as the IRA
is yet to be allocated. For the same reason, the municipalities that are not covered by the uniform-exemption clause in the cityhood laws
cannot validly invoke constitutional protection. For, at this point, the conversion of a municipality into a city will only affect its status as a
political unit, but not its property as such, the SC added.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Martin Villarama Jr., Roberto Abad, Lucas Bersamin and
Renato Corona.
Those who dissented were Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio Morales, Diosdado Peralta and Arturo Brion.
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno and Associate Justices Mariano del Castillo and Antonio Eduardo Nachura took no part in the deliberations.
It can be recalled that during the 11th Congress, Congress enacted into law 33 bills converting 33 towns into cities. However, Congress did
not act on bills converting 24 other municipalities into cities.
Meanwhile, the 12th Congress enacted into law RA 9009, which took effect on June 30, 2001, which amended Section 450 of the Local
Government Code by increasing the annual income requirement for conversion of a town into a city from P20 million to P100 million.
The amendment was made to restrain the mad rush of municipalities to convert into cities solely to secure a larger share in the IRA despite
the fact that they are incapable of fiscal independence.
After the effectivity of RA 9009, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 12th Congress adopted Joint Resolution 29, which
exempted from the P100-million income requirement the 24 towns whose cityhood bills were not approved in the 11th Congress.
However, only 16 out of the 24 towns heeded the advice of Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. to file, through their respective sponsors, individual
cityhood bills.

Supreme Court resurrects 16 cityhood laws


Business Mirror
Posted at 12/23/2009 11:17 AM | Updated as of 12/23/2009 11:49 AM

MANILA, Philippines - Saying that a deadlock vote does not show the sentiment of the majority of the justices, the Supreme Court (SC) on
Monday abandoned its final decision declaring 16 cityhood laws unconstitutional.

Instead, in a 35-page decision penned by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, the Court en banc, with a vote of 6-4, granted the second
motion for reconsideration filed by several municipalities seeking to declare as valid and constitutional Republic Acts 9389, 9390, 9391,
9392, 9393, 9394, 9398, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434, 9435, 9436 and 9491.
The 16 cityhood laws contained a common provision exempting all the 16 municipalitiesBaybay (Leyte); Bogo (Cebu); Catbalogan
(Samar); Tandag (Surigao del Sur); Borongan (Eastern Samar); Tayabas (Quezon province); Lamitan (Basilan); Tabuk (Kalinga); Bayugan
(Agusan del Sur); Batac (Ilocos Norte); Mati (Davao Oriental); Guihulngan (Negros Oriental); Cabadbaran (Agusan del Norte); Carcar
(Cebu); El Salvador (Misamis Oriental); and Naga (Cebu) from the P100-million income requirement for conversion of a municipality into a
city and directing the Commission on Elections to conduct a plebiscite to determine whether the voters approved of their conversion into
cities.
In setting aside its final ruling on the case issued on April 28, the Court explained that the 6-6 vote does not reflect the majority of the
members of the idea contemplated in Section 4 (2), Article VIII of the Constitution, which requires all cases involving constitutionality of a
treaty, international agreement shall be heard by the SC en banc and decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who
actually took part in the deliberations of the case.
And be it remembered that the inconclusive 6-6 tie vote reflected in the April 28, 2009, resolution was the last vote on the issue of whether
or not the cityhood laws infringe the Constitution. Accordingly, the motions of the respondent local governments, in light of the 6-6 vote,
should be deliberated anew until the required concurrence on the issue of the validity or invalidity of the laws in question is, on the merits,
secured, the Court said.
Contrary to its earlier rulings, the Court now held that the cityhood laws do not violate Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, as well as the
equal protection clause under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution.
Section 10 provides that no province, city, municipality or barangay shall 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 League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), in a petition, opposed the cityhood laws, saying that the wholesale conversion of
municipalities into cities will greatly reduce the cities share in the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA), since more cities will partake of the
internal-revenue allotment set aside for all cities under Section 285 of the Local Government Code (LGC).
In its November 18, 2008, the Court granted LCPs petition to declare unconstitutional the cityhood laws and denied the motion for
reconsideration filed by the municipalities in a ruling issued on March 31.
Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who penned the said decision, held that Section 10, Article X requires that Congress shall prescribe all the
criteria for the creation of a city in the LGC and not in any other law, such as the cityhood laws.
Furthermore, the Carpio decision stressed the the cityhood laws failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 450 of the LGC, as amended by
RA 9009, which increased the annual income requirement for conversion of a municipality into a city from P20 million to P100 million.
Carpio noted that Congress, in enacting RA 9009, did not provide any exemption from the increased income requirement, not even to the
respondent municipalities.
However, in its new ruling, the Court pointed out that the authority to create, divide, merge or abolish boundaries of a city is essentially
legislative in nature.
Since Congress has the power to create political units, the SC said it can surely exercise the lesser authority of requiring a set of criteria and
standards for their creation, which need not to be embodied in the LGC.
In this case, the amendatory RA 9009 upped the already codified income requirement from P20 million to P100 million. At the end of the
day, the passage of amendatory laws is no different from the enactment of laws, i.e, the cityhood laws specifically exempting a particular
political subdivision from the criteria earlier mentioned. Congress, in enacting the exempting law/s, effectively decreased the already codified
indicators, the Court said.

The SC further noted that the exemption of the 16 municipalities from the P100-million income requirement is reasonable, since their
cityhood bills had been pending even before the passage of RA 9009.
Because of events they had absolutely nothing to do with, a spoiler in the form of RA 9009 supervened. Now, then, to impose on them the
much higher income requirement after what they have gone through would appear to be indeed unfair, the Court said.
The Court also stressed that the LCP cannot invoke the supposed violation of the equal-protection clause in seeking to declare
unconstitutional the cityhood laws, since no deprivation of property results by virtue of the enactment of the cityhood laws.
Indeed, it is presumptuous on the part of the LCP member-cities to already stake a claim on the IRA, as if it were their property, as the IRA
is yet to be allocated. For the same reason, the municipalities that are not covered by the uniform-exemption clause in the cityhood laws
cannot validly invoke constitutional protection. For, at this point, the conversion of a municipality into a city will only affect its status as a
political unit, but not its property as such, the SC added.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Martin Villarama Jr., Roberto Abad, Lucas Bersamin and
Renato Corona.
Those who dissented were Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio Morales, Diosdado Peralta and Arturo Brion.
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno and Associate Justices Mariano del Castillo and Antonio Eduardo Nachura took no part in the deliberations.
It can be recalled that during the 11th Congress, Congress enacted into law 33 bills converting 33 towns into cities. However, Congress did
not act on bills converting 24 other municipalities into cities.
Meanwhile, the 12th Congress enacted into law RA 9009, which took effect on June 30, 2001, which amended Section 450 of the Local
Government Code by increasing the annual income requirement for conversion of a town into a city from P20 million to P100 million.
The amendment was made to restrain the mad rush of municipalities to convert into cities solely to secure a larger share in the IRA despite
the fact that they are incapable of fiscal independence.
After the effectivity of RA 9009, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 12th Congress adopted Joint Resolution 29, which
exempted from the P100-million income requirement the 24 towns whose cityhood bills were not approved in the 11th Congress.
However, only 16 out of the 24 towns heeded the advice of Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. to file, through their respective sponsors, individual
cityhood bills.

Mayors glad, sad over SC decision voiding 16 cities


by JESUS F. LLANTO, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak
Posted at 11/19/2008 3:31 PM | Updated as of 12/23/2009 8:43 PM

Mayors of cities that have experienced a substantial decrease in allocation as result of the creation of new cities welcomed the Supreme
Court decision voiding the laws converting 16 municipalities into cities.
City mayors interviewed by abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak said the decision of the High Tribunal proves that the requirements for cityhood
set by the Local Government Code (LGC) should be strictly followed and that there should be no exemptions in conversion of towns into
cities.
The Supreme Court, voting 7-5, nullified the conversion of 16 municipalities into cities by granting the petition of the League of Cities of the
Philippines (LCP) seeking to declare as unconstitutional the 16 cityhood laws. The LCP claimed that the 16 cities were created even if they
did not meet the minimum income requirements for cityhood.

The decision of High Tribunal will reduce the number of cities in the Philippines from 136 to 120.
Among the cities whose cityhood laws have been voided by the Supreme Court are: Batac in Ilocos Norte; Tabuk in Kalinga; Tayabas in
Quezon; Baybay in Leyte; Catbalogan in Samar; Borongan in Eastern Samar; Guihulngan in Negros Oriental; Bogo, Naga and Carcar in
Cebu; Tandag in Surigao del Sur; Cabadbaran in Agusan del Norte; El Salvador in Misamis Oriental; Mati in Davao Oriental; Bayugan in
Agusan del Sur; and, Lamitan in Basilan.
The SC said that the creation of local government units should only follow the provision of the LGC and that the Congress did not provide
any exemption in the minimum income requirement for cityhood.
According to Section 450 of the LGC, a municipality or cluster of barangays can be converted into a city if it has an average annual income
of at least P20 million, and any of the following: a contiguous territory of at least 100 square kilometers or a population of at least 150,000
inhabitants. Republic Act 9009, however, amended the provision and raised the minimum income requirement to P100 million.
No short cuts to cityhood
Mandaluyong City Mayor Benhur Abalos, president of the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) told abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak that
they are thankful because of the SC decision. We welcome the decision of the Supreme Court.
Abalos said that the LCP is not against the conversion of municipalities into cities. He said they are only opposing short cuts to attain
cityhood because the parameters required to be a city are established.
When Navotas and San Juan were converted into cities, we welcomed them because they met all the requirements for cityhood, Abalos
told abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak.
Iligan City Mayor Lawrence Cruz, likewise, welcomed the Supreme Court decision and said that the issue is not about curtailment of the
municipalities right to aspire for city hood but about meeting the requirements.
This [the SC decision] only proves that the law [on conversion to cities of municipalities] should be followed. Cruz told abscbnNews.com/Newsbreak.
Meanwhile, Zamboanga City Mayor Celso Lobregat said he was very happy with the SC decision because it gives equal protection to the
cities.
There are no exceptions to become a city, Lobregat told abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak. Some municipalities have waited for years to meet
the requirements to become cities. Why are you going to give exemptions?
More cities, less IRA
Earlier this year, the LCP filed the petition and pointed out that the conversion of the more citiesparticularly those that did not meet the
requirementshave resulted in lesser funds for the old cities. LCP said that the old cities share in the national taxes of collected by the
national government or the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) have been eaten up by the new cities.
Puerto Princesa, for instance, received an IRA increase of P1.7 million this year instead of the expected P146.7 million before the conversion
of the 16 new cities. Davao Citys expected IRA has declined from P263.5 million to P69 million while Zamboanga Citys expected IRA
increase was slashed by P35.87 million. The expected IRA increase of the cities of Iligan and Calbayog was reduced by P68.83 million and
P65.84 million, respectively.
Nathaniel von Einsiedel, former United Nations Urban Management Programme regional coordinator for Asia Pacific, told abscbnNews.com/Newsbreak in a previous interview that the big decrease in the IRA share of the cities happened because the increase in IRA
allocation to the cities is not proportional to the number of new cities created.

The IRA is the lifeblood and main source of financing of the local government units (LGUs). A recent report by the Commisson on Audit on
the finances of the local governments showed that IRA represents 62 percent of the LGUs income.
Poor LGUs, especially those who are able to generate small amount of local revenues, depend heavily on the IRA for the delivery of basic
services. Some cities, particularly in Mindanao, that have experienced a decrease in IRA were forced to lay off workers and reduce spending
for services.
Iligan Citys Cruz said that as a result of the IRA reduction, the city government is forced to lay off 500 workers and implement fewer projects.
We were severely affected, Cruz told abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak adding that they are hoping the SC decision would mean a higher IRA
share next year.
Saddened
Meanwhile, local officials of Lamitan Cityone of the 16 cities voided by the SCsaid they were saddened by the decision of the High
Tribunal.
We are very surprised and depressed, Lamitan City mayor Roderick Furigay told abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak.
Lamitan City Mayor Roderick Furigay said that the while they respect the decision of the Supreme Court, they are worried about its effects on
their finances and on the employment of their constituents.
Lamitan councilor Joaquin Puri Jr. said the SC decision would stall development in their areas. We were converted into a component city to
allow development of far-flung areas.
As a result of the decision, Furigay estimated that the IRA of Lamitan may decrease next year from its city-rate level of P218 million to its
municipality rate of P80 million. The decrease in IRA, Furigay said, will displace more than 200 workers and imperil the infrastructure projects
of the city.
Furigay said that he talked to the other 15 mayors and they are planning to file a motion for consideration once they received a copy of the
SC decision.

'Lawmakers should be careful in passing cityhood laws'


By Jesus F. Llanto, abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak
Posted at 12/15/2008 11:17 PM | Updated as of 12/16/2008 1:45 AM

The Supreme Court decision voiding the conversion of 16 municipalities into cities should make lawmakers more careful in passing cityhood
bills, local officials and an expert on local governance said.
Sources interviewed by abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak said that lawmakers should ensure that the criteria set by the Local Government for
cityhood are met before pending cityhood bills are approved to avoid another incident similar to the High Tribunals decision to void cityhood
laws.
In November, the SC, voting 6-5, junked the cityhood laws of three cities in Luzon, seven in the Visayas, and six in Mindanao for failing to
meet the qualifications prescribed by the LGC.
The SC voided the cityhood laws of the following cities: Tabuk in Kalinga; Tayabas in Quezon; Batac in Ilocos Norte; Naga, Bogo and Carcar
in Cebu; Baybay in Leyte; Guihulngan in Negros Oriental; Catbalogan in Samar; Borongan in Eastern Samar; Tandag in Surigao del Sur;
Bayugan in Agusan del Sur; El Salvador in Misamis Oriental; Mati in Davao Oriental; Lamitan in Basilan; and, Cabadbaran in Agusan del
Norte.

As of posting time, local officials of the 16 cities filed a motion for reconsideration at the Supreme Court.
Alex Brillantes, dean of the University of the Philippines National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP-NCPAG), said that
the decision was a positive development because it emphasizes the need to follow the rules in converting towns into cities.
The bottom line is the creation of cities should be done in accordance with the law, Brillantes told abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak.
Follow the LGC
Iloilo City mayor and League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) national chair Jerry Treas told us that the SC ruling proved that no other law
provides the criteria for cityhood but the Local Government code (LGC).
The Local Government Code is the only law that provides the requirement for cityhood, Treas told abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak.
Section 450 of the LGC mandates that a cluster of barangays or a municipality can be converted into a city if it has a minimum income of P20
million and any of the following: a population of at least 150,000 or a contiguous territory of 100 square kilometers. The minimum income
requirement was raised to P100 million because of the passage of Republic Act 9009.
The cityhood laws of the 16 cities contain a provision that exempts them from the minimum income requirement, but the SC said that it is
only the LGC that prescribed the rules on cityhood.
The Constitution requires Congress to stipulate in the Local Government Code all the criteria necessary for the creation of a city, including
the conversion of a municipality into a city. Congress cannot write such criteria in any other law, like the Cityhood Laws, the SC decision
penned by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio reads.
City mayors of old cities we interviewed after the release of the decision hailed it for upholding the provisions set by the LGC. Zamboanga
City Mayor Celso Lobregat told us in a November interview that the decision provides equal protection to all the cities.
There are no exceptions to become a city, Lobregat said. Some municipalities have waited for years to meet the requirements to become
cities. Why are you going to give exemptions?
Impact on pending cityhood bills
Sources interviewed by abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak that the SC decision is expected to make lawmakers stricter when they deal with
pending cityhood bills.
At least 13 municipalities are seeking conversion into cities, research by abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak showed.
A check on the records of bills filed on the committee on local government during the 14th Congress showed that there are seven
municipalities from Luzon, three from the Visayas, and three from Mindanao.
Among the towns vying for cityhood status are: Narvacan in Ilocos Sur, Mabalacat in Pampanga, Dasmarias in Cavite, Bian in Laguna,
Baler in Aurora, Nasugbu in Batangas, Daet in Camarines Norte, Kalibo in Aklan, Binalbagan in Negros Occidental, Midsayap in North
Cotabato, Catarman in Northern Samar, San Francisco in Agusan del Norte and Ipil in Zamboanga Sibugay
Rep. George Arnaiz, chair of the House committee on local government, said that as a result of the SC decision, they would become stricter
in screening applicants for cityhood.
We will make sure that only those who are qualified will be converted, Arnaiz told abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak.

TOWNS VYING FOR


CITYHOOD
1. San Francisco, Agusan
del Sur
2. Dasmarias, Cavite
3. Bian, Laguna
4. Catarman, Northern
Samar
5. Midsayap, North
Cotabato
6. Baler, Aurora
7. Ipil, Zamboanga
Sibugay
8. Kalibo, Aklan
9. Daet, Camarines Norte
10. Mabalacat, Pampanga
11. Binalbagan, Negros
Occidental
12. Nasugbu, Batangas
13. Narvacan , Ilocos Sur

LAND
AREA
(Sq.KM)

POPULATION
(AUG. 2007)

2005 INCOME
CLASSIFICATION
(as a municipality)

392.53

62,881

1st

90.1
43.5

556,330
262,735

1st
1st

464.43

16,060

5th

330.38

123,324

1st

92.55

34,492

4th

366.9

60,686

1st

50.75
58.61
165.8

69,700
94,184
203,307

1st
1st
1st

185.4

64,747

2nd

276.33
98.4

113,926
41,578

1st
2nd

Of the 13 candidates for cityhood, only seven have met the requirement for land area. Only four have population higher than 150,000 while
only nine are classified as 1st class municipalitiesthose that earned an average annual income of P50 million or more during the last three
yearsand may, therefore, have generated the minimum income requirement of P100 million set by RA 9009.
Arnaiz said of all the pending applicants for cityhood, only two municipalities have so far met the requirements set by the LGC.

Related Stories
GMA Creating Too Many LGUs
As year ends, GMA creates more LGUs
IRA Formula Makes Local Governments Complacent
Birth Pains
Cities Contemplate Tax Boycott, Work Stoppage
Less IRA Forcing Mindanao Cities to Cut Down on Services, Workers
With less IRA, some cities may lose competitiveness
Mayors glad, sad over SC decision voiding 16 cities
16 cities to revert to towns; face huge revenue cuts
Cityhood means more IRA
Marlyn Alonte-Naguiat, mayor of Bian in Lagunaa candidate for cityhoodtold abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak said that she hopes her
town could qualify as a city so that it could avail itself of more funding from the national government.
A study by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) showed that the share of a municipality from the revenues generated by
the national government or the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) is usually tripled when it is converted into a city.

If we qualify as a city, we will receive more funding and we can hire additional staff for Ospital ng Bian, our community hospital, Naguiat
said, adding that her town has already met the LGC requirements. She added that Bianwhich hosts IT parkshas generated P700 million
revenues in recent years and has a population of 262,735 as of August 2007.
No to short cuts
LCP chair and Mandaluyong City Mayor Benhur Abalos told us in an interview in November that they are only opposing short cuts to attain
cityhood because the parameters required to be a city are established.
When Navotas and San Juan were converted into cities, we welcomed them because they met all the requirements for cityhood, Abalos
told us.
The 120-member LCP questioned the conversion of the 16 cities because they failed to meet minimum income requirement. It also argued
that these conversions have eaten up the share of old cities in the IRA, which finances the operations of most local government units.
Politicized conversion
The conversion of cities, a city mayor interviewed by abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak said, is usually politicized. The mayor told us that some
congressmen sponsoring cityhood bills lobby very hard and usually bring local officialsfrom municipal mayors to barangay councilors
when the cityhood bills are being discussed in the Congress and in the Senate.
Lawmakers who want to get more votes and support from local officials, the mayor said, naturally will support the conversion.
Brillantes said that conversion of cities should be a political-administrative decision and consider the financial capacity economic viability of
the municipalities.
They [lawmakers] can create as many cities they want as long as they have the capacity to generate revenues, alternative source of income
and collection of taxes, Brillantes told us.
When a municipality is converted into a city, some additional offices are also created like the city prosecutors office, city trial courts and city
schools division, and these require additional workers and expenditures for the newly-created cities.
More allocation to LGUs
Abalos said that there is need to study the current formula used to allocate funds for the LGUs. At present, only 40 percent of the taxes
collected by the national government go to LGUs.
Abalos, who also heads the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP), said the LGU share should be increased either by five or
ten percent. This will serve as a buffer to us whenever new LGU is created.
UPs Brillantes, meanwhile, said that the provisions specifying the minimum income requirement of cities should not be permanent and
should take into account inflation.
A hundred million now will have a different value ten years from now, he told abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi