League of Cities v Comelec

Petitioners filed the present petitions to declare the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional for violation of Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, as well as for
violation of the equal protection clause. The SC granted the petition and held that the Cityhood Laws violate Sections 6 and 10, Article X of the Constitution,
and are thus unconstitutional. Petition granted.
 First, applying the P100 million income requirement in RA 9009 to the present case is a prospective, not a retroactive application, because RA
9009 took effect in 2001 while the cityhood bills became law more than five years later.
 Second, 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.
 Third, the Cityhood Laws violate Section 6, Article X of the Constitution because they prevent a fair and just distribution of the national taxes to
local government units.
 Fourth, the criteria prescribed in Section 450 of the Local Government Code, as amended by RA 9009, for converting a municipality into a city are
clear, plain and unambiguous, needing no resort to any statutory construction.
 Fifth, the intent of members of the 11th Congress to exempt certain municipalities from the coverage of RA 9009 remained an intent and was never
written into Section 450 of the Local Government Code.
 Sixth, the deliberations of the 11th or 12th Congress on unapproved bills or resolutions are not extrinsic aids in interpreting a law passed in the
13th Congress.
 Seventh, even if the exemption in the Cityhood Laws were written in Section 450 of the Local Government Code, the exemption would still be
unconstitutional for violation of the equal protection clause.

Rulings League of City 1 League of City 2 League of City 3 League of City 4 League of City 5
Whether the Cityhood Yes. No. Yes. No. No.
Laws are According to the When the 1987 The Constitution is clear. Before Senate Bill 2157 Congress clearly
unconstitutional Constitution, the Constitution speaks of The creation of local (now RA 9009) was intended that the local
creation of local the LGC, the reference government units must introduced, there were government units
government units must cannot be to any specific follow the criteria already 57 bills filed for covered by the Cityhood
follow the criteria statute or codification of established in the Local conversion of 57 Laws be exempted from
established in the Local laws, let alone the LGC Government Code and municipalities into the coverage of R.A. No.
Government Code and of 1991. Be it noted that not in any other law. The component cities. 33 of 9009.
not in any other law. No at the time of the clear intent of the these were enacted into The apprehensions of
other law, not even the adoption of the 1987 Constitution is to insure law during the 11the the then Senate
charter of the city, can Constitution, BP 337, that the creation of Congress. 24 remained President with respect
govern such creation. the then LGC, was still in cities and other political as pending bills – to the considerable
The clear intent of the effect. Accordingly, had units must follow the including the 16 disparity between the
Constitution is to insure the framers of the 1987 same uniform, non- Cityhood Bills now in income requirement of
that the creation of Constitution intended to discriminatory criteria question. P20 million under the
cities and other political isolate the embodiment found solely in the Local The rationale of RA 9009 Local Government Code
units must follow the of the criteria only in the Government Code. (as seen from the (LGC) prior to its
same uniform, non- LGC, then they would sponsorship speech of amendment, and the
discriminatory criteria
found solely in the Local
Government Code. Any
derogation or deviation
from the criteria
prescribed in the Local
Government Code
violates Section 10,
Article X of the
Constitution.
RA 9009 amended
Section 450 of the Local
Government Code to
increase the income
requirement from P20
million to P100 million
for the creation of a city.
This took effect on 30
June 2001. Hence, from
that moment the Local
Government Code
required that any
municipality desiring to
become a city must
satisfy the P100 million
income requirement.
The Cityhood Laws, all
enacted after the
effectivity of RA 9009,
explicitly exempt
respondent
municipalities from the
increased income
requirement in Section
450 of the Local
Government Code, as
amended by RA 9009.
Such exemption clearly
violates Section 10,
Article X of the
have actually referred to
BP 337. Also, they would
then not have provided
for the enactment by
Congress of a new LGC,
as they did in Art. X, Sec.
3 of the Constitution.
Consistent with its
plenary legislative
power on the matter,
Congress can, via either
a consolidated set of
laws or a much simpler,
single-subject
enactment, impose the
said verifiable criteria of
viability. These criteria
need not be embodied
in the LGC, albeit this
code is the ideal
repository to ensure, as
much as possible, the
element of uniformity.
Congress, through the
medium of the cityhood
laws, validly decreased
the income criterion vis-
à-vis the respondent
LGUs, but without
necessarily being
unreasonably
discriminatory, as shall
be discussed shortly, by
reverting to the PhP 20
million threshold what it
earlier raised to PhP 100
million.
Congress to be sure
knew, when RA 9009
RA 9009 took effect June Senator Pimentel) was
30, 2001. It amends the to stop “the mad rush of
LGC, hence, it is part of municipalities wanting
the LGC. Hence, from to be converted into
that moment the Local cities,” and to avoid the
Government Code scenario where we will
required that any be “a nation of all cities
municipality desiring to and no municipalities.”
become a city must Municipalities aspiring
satisfy the P100 million to be cities declare their
income requirement. qualifications by
The Cityhood Laws, all incorporating the
enacted after the Internal Revenue share
effectivity of RA 9009, of the taxes of the
explicitly exempt nation to their regularly
respondent generated revenue –
municipalities from the this would make all
increased income municipalities qualified
requirement in Section to be cities.
450 of the Local While the bill was being
Government Code, as deliberated upon,
amended by RA 9009. Congress was aware of
Such exemption clearly the pendency of
violates Section 10, conversion bills,
Article X of the including those covered
Constitution and is thus by the Cityhood Laws,
patently desiring to become
unconstitutional. To be component cities which
valid, such exemption qualified under the P20
must be written in the million income
Local Government Code requirement of the old
and not in any other law, Section 450 of the LGC.
including the Cityhood During the interpellation
Laws. of Sen. Drilon of Sen.
Pimentel, the latter
stated that it would be
unfair to retroact the
effects of the
amendment to the
P100 million under the
amendment introduced
by R.A. No. 9009 were
definitively articulated
in his interpellation of
Senator Pimentel during
the deliberations on
Senate Bill No. 2157.
The responses of
Senator Pimentel made
it obvious that R.A. No.
9009 would not apply to
the conversion bills then
pending deliberation in
the Senate during the
11th Congress.
R.A. No. 9009 took
effect on June 30, 2001,
when the 12th Congress
was incipient.
The acts of both
Chambers of Congress
(in unanimously voting
for the bill) show that
the exemption clauses
ultimately 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 R.A. No.
9009.
Thereby, R.A. No. 9009,
and, by necessity, the
LGC, were amended, not
by repeal but by way of
the express exemptions
Constitution and is thus was being deliberated
patently upon, of the pendency
unconstitutional. To be of several bills on
valid, such exemption cityhood, wherein the
must be written in the applying municipalities
Local Government Code were qualified under the
and not in any other law, then obtaining PhP 20
including the Cityhood million-income
Laws. threshold. These
included respondent
Uniform and non- LGUs. Thus, equally
discriminatory criteria noteworthy is the
as prescribed in the ensuing excerpts from
Local Government the floor exchange
Code are essential to between then Senate
implement a fair and President Franklin
equitable distribution Drilon and Senator
of national taxes to all
Pimentel , the latter
local government
units. Section 6, Article
stopping short of saying
X of the Constitution. If that the income
the criteria in creating threshold of PhP 100
local government units million under S. Bill No.
are not uniform and 2157 would not apply to
discriminatory, there municipalities that have
can be no fair and just pending cityhood bills.
distribution of the Congress has now made
national taxes to local
its intention to exempt
government units.
express in the
A city with an annual challenged cityhood
income of only P20
laws. Legislative intent is
million, all other
criteria being equal,
part and parcel of the
should not receive the law, the controlling
same share in national factor in interpreting a
taxes as a city with an statute. In construing a
annual income of P100 statute, the proper
million or more. The course is to start out and
criteria of land area, follow the true intent of
population and income, the Legislature and to
as prescribed in Section
adopt the sense that
450 of the Local
best harmonizes with
pending conversion being embodied in the
bills. exemption clauses.
Pimentel did not see the
need to provide for an Contrary to the
express exempting contention of the
clause (for pending bills) petitioners, the 100M
since they were working requirement is arbitrary
under the presumption and difficult to be
that without a complied with.
retroactivity clause, The imposition of the
there would be no such income requirement of
effect. P100 million from local
Even without reference sources under R.A. No.
to the interpellation, it 9009 was arbitrary.
cannot be denied that When the sponsor of the
Congress saw the law chose the specific
wisdom of exempting figure of P100 million,
the 16 municipalities no research or empirical
from complying with the data buttressed the
higher income figure. Nor was there
requirement imposed proof that the proposal
by RA 9009. took into account the
These municipalities are after-effects that were
centers of trade and likely to arise.
commerce, points of With the imposition of
convergence of the 100M requirement,
transportation, rich even the danger the
havens of agricultural, passage of R.A. No. 9009
mineral, and other sought to prevent might
natural resources, and soon become a reality—
flourishing tourism that “metropolis-
spots – thus proving located local
themselves to be viable governments would
and capable of being have more priority in
component cities of terms of funding
their respective because they would
provinces. have more qualifications
to become a city
compared to the far-
flung areas in Mindanao
 Government Code, the context and or in the Cordilleras, or
must be strictly promotes in the fullest whatever.”
followed because such manner the policy and By increasing the
criteria, prescribed by objects of the income requirement
law, are material in
legislature.In fact, any abruptly, cities outside
determining the just
share of local interpretation that runs of Metro Manila would
government units in counter to the be less likely to become
national taxes. Since legislative intent is cities.
the Cityhood Laws do unacceptable and The increased income
not follow the income invalid. requirement of P100
criterion in Section 450 million was not the only
of the Local conclusive indicator for
Government Code, they
any municipality to
prevent the fair and
just distribution of the
survive and remain
Internal Revenue viable as a component
Allotment in violation city.
of Section 6, Article X of This is evidenced by the
the Constitution. fact that even the fifty-
nine (59) members of
the League of Cities
have failed to be
compliant with the new
requirement of the P100
million threshold
income five years after
R.A. No. 9009 became
law (but still remained
viable).
The local government
units covered by the
Cityhood Laws belong to
a class of their own.

Whether the Cityhood Yes. No. Yes. No. No.

Laws violate the equal There is still no valid At its most basic, the equal As the Court held in the There was valid They have proven
protection clause classification to satisfy protection clause 18 November 2008 classification as to the themselves viable and
the equal protection proscribes undue favor as Decision, there is no municipalities with capable to become
clause. The exemption well as hostile substantial distinction pending cityhood bills component cities of
discrimination. Hence, a
will be based solely on between municipalities against those without. their respective
law need not operate with
the fact that the 16 with pending cityhood The purpose of provinces.
municipalities had
cityhood bills pending in
the 11th Congress when
RA 9009 was enacted.
This is not a valid
classification between
those entitled and those
not entitled to
exemption from the
P100 million income
requirement.
There is no substantial
distinction between
municipalities with
pending cityhood bills in
the 11th Congress and
municipalities that did
not have pending bills.
The mere pendency of a
cityhood bill in the 11th
Congress is not a
material difference to
distinguish one
municipality from
another for the purpose
of the income
requirement.
In the same vein, the
exemption provision in
the Cityhood Laws gives
the 16 municipalities a
unique advantage based
on an arbitrary date −
the filing of their
cityhood bills before the
end of the 11th
Congress as against all
other municipalities that
want to convert into
equal force on all persons
or things to be
conformable with Sec. 1,
Art. III of the Constitution.
LCP and the intervenors
cannot plausibly invoke
the equal protection
clause, precisely because
no deprivation of property
results by virtue of the
enactment of the cityhood
laws. The LCP's claim that
the IRA of its member-
cities will be substantially
reduced on account of the
conversion into cities of
the respondent LGUs
would not suffice to bring
it within the ambit of the
constitutional guarantee.
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 bill in the 11th Congress
municipality into a city will
only affect its status as a
political unit, but not its
property as such.
The fundamental right of
equal protection does not
require absolute equality.
It is enough that all
persons or things similarly
bills in the 11th
Congress and
municipalities that did
not have pending bills.
The pendency of a
cityhood bill in the 11th
Congress does not affect
or determine the level of
income of a arbitrarily made. No
municipality.
Municipalities with
pending cityhood bills in
the 11th Congress might
even have lower annual
income than
municipalities that did
not have pending
cityhood bills. In short,
the classification
criterion − mere
pendency of a cityhood
bill in the 11th Congress
− is not rationally
related to the purpose
of the law which is to
prevent fiscally non-
viable municipalities
from converting into
cities.
Moreover, the fact of
pendency of a cityhood
limits the exemption to
a specific condition
existing at the time of
passage of RA 9009.
That specific condition
will never happen again.
This violates the
requirement that a valid
amending the income
requirement (from
P20M to P100M) was to
merely stop the mad
rush of the clamor for
conversion.
The P100M income
requirement was
empirical data to
support setting this
amount. It was imposed
only because it would be
difficult to comply with.
In fact, the amendment
effectively placed
component cities at a
higher standing than
highly urbanized cities –
which only have a P50M
income requirement.
The income
requirement cannot be
conclusively said to be
the only amount
“sufficient, based on
acceptable standards, to
provide for all essential
government facilities
and services and special
functions
commensurate with the
size of the population”
(as per LGC, Sec 7).
While P100M is certainly
higher than 20M, it
cannot be said that
P20M would be
insufficient.
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.
While the Constitution
mandates that the
creation of local
government units 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.
The share of local
government units is a
matter of percentage
under Section 285 of the
LGC, not a specific
amount.
Specifically, the share of
the cities is 23%,
cities after the situated should be treated classification must not In fact, there are existing determined on the basis
effectivity of RA 9009. alike, both as to rights or be limited to existing cities whose income, up of population (50%),
privileges conferred and conditions only. to (the time of writing land area (25%), and
responsibilities or Limiting the exemption the decision), do not equal sharing (25%).
obligations imposed. The
only to the 16 comply with the P100M This share is also
equal protection clause
does not preclude the
municipalities violates income requirement, dependent on the
state from recognizing and the requirement that and some of which have number of existing
acting upon factual the classification must annual income lower cities, such that when
differences between apply to all similarly than P20M. the number of cities
individuals and classes. It situated. Municipalities Despite this fact, these increases, then more
recognizes that inherent in with the same income as cities remain viable as will divide and share the
the right to legislate is the the 16 respondent component cities of allocation for cities.
right to municipalities cannot their provinces. This With every newly
classify, necessarily convert into cities, while proves the arbitrariness converted city becoming
implying that the equality
the 16 respondent of setting the amount of entitled to share the
guaranteed is not violated
by a legislation based on
municipalities can P100M as the new allocation for cities, the
reasonable classification. income requirement. percentage of internal
Classification, to be The distinction is also revenue allotment (IRA)
reasonable, must (1) rest measured by the entitlement of each city
on substantial distinctions; purpose of the LGC’s will decrease, although
(2) be germane to the Declaration of Policy. the actual amount
purpose of the law; (3) not Substantial distinction received may be more
be limited to existing lies in the capacity and than that received in the
conditions only; and (4) viability of the preceding year.
apply equally to all
municipalities to That is a necessary
members of the same
class. The Court finds that
become component consequence of Section
all these requisites have cities. By enacting 285 and Section 286 of
been met by the laws Cityhood Laws, the LGC.
challenged as arbitrary and Congress recognized the
discriminatory under the capacity and viability of
equal protection clause. the 16 municipalities to
become the State's
partners in accelerating
economic growth and
development in the
provincial regions,
which is the very thrust
of the LGC.