[LocGov] | [IV.

Creation of Municipal Corporations > Statutory Provisions] 1

[LTC]

League of Cities vs. COMELEC (Aug. 2010)

League of Cities of the PH (LCP) vs. COMELEC and several municipalities,cities, and provinces
[GR NO.176951; 177499; 178056] | [Aug. 24, 2010] | [J. Carpio]

FACTS
 For resolution are:
o LCP’s
 Ad cautelam MR
 Motion to Annul the Dec. 21, 2009 SC Decision
o Batangas, Santiago, Legazpi, Iriga, Cadiz and Oroquieta (Cities)’s
 Ad cautelam MR
 Dec. 21, 2009 SC Decision  upheld the constitutionality of the Cityhood Laws
 Art. X, Sec. 10 of the Constitution:
o 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. (Emphasis supplied)

ISSUE
1. WON the Cityhood Laws violate Art. X, Sec. 10 of the Constitution  YES, and therefore
the Cityhood Laws are VOID

RATIO
1. Art. X, Sec. 10 of the Constitution was violated.
a. The provisions is clear in that the creation of local government units must follow the
criteria established in the Local Government Code and not in any other law.
i. There is only one Local Government Code.
ii. 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.
b. The clear intent of the Constitution is to insure that the creation of cities and other
political units must follow the same uniform, non-discriminatory criteria found solely in
the Local Government Code.
c. RA 9009 amended Section 450 of the Local Government Code to increase the income
requirement from ₱20 million to ₱100 million for the creation of a city.
i. 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 ₱100 million income requirement.
ii. Section 450 of the Local Government Code, as amended by RA 9009, does
NOT contain any exemption from this income requirement. In enacting RA
9009, Congress did not grant any exemption to respondent municipalities, even
though their cityhood bills were pending in Congress when Congress passed RA
9009.
d. 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.
 i. Such exemption clearly violates Section 10, Article X of the Constitution and is
thus patently unconstitutional.
ii. TO BE VALID, such exemption must be written in the Local Government
Code and not in any other law, including the Cityhood Laws.
e. RA 9009 is not a law different from the Local Government Code, as it expressly
amended Section 450 of the Local Government Code.
i. It embodies the new and prevailing Section 450 of the Local Government Code.
2. Operative Fact Theory Misapplied
a. Under the operative fact doctrine, the law is recognized as unconstitutional but the
effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left
undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play.
i. In fact, the invocation of the operative fact doctrine is an admission that the law
is unconstitutional.
b. However, the minority’s novel theory, invoking the operative fact doctrine, is that the
enactment of the Cityhood Laws and the functioning of the 16 municipalities as new
cities with new sets of officials and employees operate to contitutionalize the
unconstitutional Cityhood Laws.
i. This novel theory misapplies the operative fact doctrine and sets a gravely
dangerous precedent.
ii. Under the minority’s novel theory, an unconstitutional law, if already
implemented prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality by the Court, can no
longer be revoked and its implementation must be continued despite being
unconstitutional.
1. This view will open the floodgates to the wanton enactment of
unconstitutional laws and a mad rush for their immediate
implementation before the Court can declare them unconstitutional.
c. Thus, applying the operative fact doctrine to the present case, the Cityhood Laws
remain unconstitutional because they violate Section 10, Article X of the Constitution.
i. However, the effects of the implementation of the Cityhood Laws prior to the
declaration of their nullity, such as the payment of salaries and supplies by the
"new cities" or their issuance of licenses or execution of contracts, may be
recognized as valid and effective.
ii. This does not mean that the Cityhood Laws are valid for they remain void. Only
the effects of the implementation of these unconstitutional laws are left
undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play to innocent people who may have
relied on the presumed validity of the Cityhood Laws prior to the Court’s
declaration of their unconstitutionality.
3. Equal Protection Clause Violated
a. As the Court held in the 18 November 2008 Decision, there is no substantial
distinction between municipalities with pending cityhood bills in the 11th
Congress and municipalities that did not have pending bills.
i. 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. The pendency of a cityhood bill in the 11th Congress does
not affect or determine the level of income of a municipality.
ii. Municipalities with pending cityhood bills in the 11th Congress might even have
lower annual income than municipalities that did not have pending cityhood
bills.
b. 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.
 [LocGov] | [IV. Creation of Municipal Corporations > Statutory Provisions] 3
[LTC]

c. Moreover, the fact of pendency of a cityhood bill in the 11th Congress limits the
exemption to a specific condition existing at the time of passage of RA 9009. That
specific condition will never happen again.
i. This violates the requirement that a valid classification must not be limited
to existing conditions only.
d. Further, 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 cities after the effectivity of RA 9009.
e. In addition, limiting the exemption only to the 16 municipalities violates the
requirement that the classification must apply to all similarly situated.
i. Municipalities with the same income as the 16 respondent municipalities cannot
convert into cities, while the 16 respondent municipalities can.
f. THUS  The exemption provisions found in the Cityhood Laws (EVEN IF written in Sec.
450 of LGC) would still be unconstitutional for violation of the equal protection clause

4. CONCLUSION
a. Art. X, Sec. 10 of the Constitution can only be interpreted in one way - that is, all the
criteria for the creation of cities must be embodied exclusively in the Local Government
Code.
b. In this case, the Cityhood Laws, which are unmistakably laws other than the Local
Government Code, provided an exemption from the increased income
requirement for the creation of cities under Section 450 of the Local Government
Code, as amended by RA 9009.
i. Therefore, the Cityhood Laws contravene the letter and intent of Art. X, Sec. 10 of
the Constitution.
c. Adhering to the explicit prohibition in Section 10, Article X of the Constitution does not
cripple Congress’ power to make laws. In fact, Congress is not prohibited from
amending the Local Government Code itself, as what Congress did by enacting RA 9009
i. The unconstitutionality of the Cityhood Laws lies in the fact that Congress
provided an exemption contrary to the express language of the Constitution that
"no… city… shall be created except in accordance with the criteria established in
the local government code."
ii. In other words, Congress exceeded and abused its law-making power,
rendering the challenged Cityhood Laws void for being violative of the
Constitution.

DECISION
 Petition GRANTED.
 Nov. 18, 2008 Decision REINSTATED!
 Cityhood Laws is UNCONSTITUTIONAL