The 12th Congress enacted RA 9009, amending the LGC, by increasing the

annual income requirement for conversion of a municipality into a city from

P20M to P100M.
This was enacted so municipalities wouldnt be in a rush to convert into cities
in order to secure a larger share in the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA).
But Congress adopted a Joint Resolution which sought to exempt from the
P100M income requirement the 24 municipalities whose cityhood bills were
pending in the 11th Congress.
Said Resolution failed to materialize.
16 of the municipalities filed individual cityhood bills, exempting them from
the P100M income requirement, which were approved by Congress.
The Cityhood Laws directed the COMELEC to hold plebiscites to determine
whether the voters in each municipality approve of the conversion.
Petitioners claim that the 16 Cityhood Laws violated Sec. 6 and 10 of Art. X of
the Constitution, as well as the Equal Protection Clause.
They also sought to enjoin COMELEC and respondent municipalities from
conducting plebiscites pursuant to the Cityhood Laws.
The present case is the 2nd MR to the Resolution of the SC which held that the
Cityhood Laws were constitutional.

Issue 1: WON the MR may still be entertained

Held: NO
The MR was actually a second MR, which is a prohibited pleading.
It may be entertained only for extraordinarily persuasive reasons and after an
express leave has been first obtained.
Issue 2: WON the Cityhood Laws violate Sections 6 and 10 of Art. X of the
Constitution
Held: NO
Congress clearly intended that the LGUs covered by the Cityhood Laws be
exempted from the coverage of RA 9009.
The deliberations show that RA 9009 would not apply to the conversion bills
then pending in the Senate during the 11 th Congress.
The conversion bills of the respondent municipalities were individually filed in
the House of Representatives and Senate, and were all unanimously and
favorably voted upon by the Members of the House and the Senate.
The exemption clauses incorporated in the Cityhood Laws are but the express
articulations of the clear legislative intent to exempt the respondents,
without exception, from the coverage of RA 9009.
RA 9009, and by necessity, the LGC, were amended, not by repeal but by way
of the express exemptions being embodied in the exemption clauses.
While the Constitution mandates the creation of LGUs must comply with the
criteria laid down in the LGC, it cannot be justified to insist that the
Constitution must have to yield to every amendment to the LGC despite such
amendment imminently producing effects contrary to the original thrusts of

the LGC to promote autonomy, decentralization, countryside development,

and the concomitant national growth.
If a strict interpretation of the Constitution would be followed, two of the
conversion laws have to be struck down for being unconstitutional (laws
converting the municipalities of San Juan and Navotas into highly urbanized
cities) since the President had not classified both municipalities as highly
urbanized cities upon proper application and ratification in a plebiscite, as
required by Sec. 453 of the LGC.

Issue: WON the Cityhood Laws violate the Equal Protection Clause
Held: No
The LGUs covered by the Cityhood Laws belong to a class of their own.
They have proven themselves viable and capable to become component
cities of their respective provinces. They are and have been centers of trade
and commerce, points of convergence of transportation, rich havens of
agricultural, mineral and other natural resources, and flourishing tourism
spots.
Issue: WON the P100M income requirement was arbitrary
Held: YES
When the sponsor of the law chose the specific figure of P100M, no research
or empirical data buttressed the figure.
Nor was there proof that the proposal took into account the after-effects that
were likely to arise.
Issue: WON the Cityhood Laws violated the petitioners right to a just share in the
national taxes
Held: NO
The share of LGUs is a matter of percentage, not a specific amount,
Specifically, the share of the cities is 23%, determined on the basis of
population (50%), land area (25%), and equal sharing (25%).
This share is also dependent on the number of existing cities, such that when
the number of cities increases, then more will divide and share the allocation
for cities.
The allocation by the National Govt is not a constant, and can either increase
or decrease.
With every newly converted city becoming entitled to share the allocation for
cities, the percentage of IRA entitlement of each city will decrease, although
the actual amount received may be more than that received in the preceding
year.
They respondents are entitled to their just share in the IRA allocation for
cities.
The respondents demonstrated their viability as component cities of their
respective provinces and are developing continuously.
Local government units do not subsist only on locally generated income, but
also depend on the IRA to support their development.

They can spur their own developments and thereby realize their great
potential of encouraging trade and commerce in the far-flung regions in the
country.