municipalities

Published March 9, 2011 3:56pm

By SOPHIA DEDACE, GMA News

(Updated 4:51 p.m.) A group of city mayors on Wednesday urged the Supreme
Court to revert to its 2008 ruling stating that 16 municipalities later declared as
cities are ineligible to become cities. In its 40-page motion for reconsideration,
the League of Cities in the Philippines (LCP) said the Supreme Court should once
again rule as unconstitutional the 16 laws declaring the 16 municipalities as
cities.
Timeline of the Cityhood Case
Original decision – 16 cityhood laws held unconstitutional March 2007 –
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) asks the Supreme Court (SC) to
declare 16 cityhood laws unconstitutional. Nov. 18, 2008 – SC rules 16
cityhood laws are unconstitutional.16 LGUs’ first Motion for
ReconsiderationDec. 9, 2008 – 16 affected local government units (LGUs) file
their first Motion for Reconsideration (MR). Jan. 19, 2009 – Atty. Estelito
Mendoza, counsel for the 16 LGUs, writes letter to the SC asking for justices
who inhibited themselves to cast their votes. March 31, 2009 – SC denies first
MR filed by 16 LGUs. 16 LGUs’ second Motion for Reconsideration April 2009 –
16 LGUs file a second MR. April 28, 2009 – SC junks second MR as a
“prohibited pleading." May 14, 2009 – 16 LGUs file ‘Motion to Amend the
Resolution of April 28’. May 21, 2009 – Entry of judgment of SC’s Nov. 18
ruling that the 16 cityhood laws are unconstitutional. June 2, 2009 – Because
of the entry of judgment, SC junks the 16 LGUs motion to amend. June 30, 2009
– DBM provides for a re-computation of internal revenue allotment (IRA) for
cities in 2009 following the entry of judgment on the reversion of 16 newly-
created cities back to municipalities. September 22, 2009 – The Commission
on Elections issues a resolution that the voters in the 16 LGUs shall vote not as
cities but as municipalities in the May 10, 2010 elections Second decision – SC
reverses itself for the first time, 16 cities held constitutional 16 LGUs file MR
regarding SC’s June 2 resolution. Dec. 21, 2009 – SC reverses itself and rules
that 16 cityhood laws are constitutional, grants all motions filed by the 16
 LGUs, sets aside all previous SC rulings on this, and recalls the entry of
judgment. Third Decision – SC’s second reversal, 16 cityhood laws again
unconstitutional Jan. 5, 2010 – LCP files Motion to annul, and Motion for
Reconsideration for December 21, 2009 decision. Aug. 24, 2010 – SC reverses
itself for a second time and reinstates its Nov. 2008 decision that the 16
cityhood laws are unconstitutional. Fourth Decision – SC’s third reversal, 16
LGUs now cities again Sept. 13, 2010 – 16 LGUs file MR and Motion to Set Case
for an Oral Argument, but Motion for Oral Argument gets denied. Feb. 15, 2011
– SC reverses itself for the third time by deciding that 16 towns can again be
declared cities. March 9, 2011 – LCP files MR regarding Feb. 15 SC ruling. -
MRT, GMA News
In a show of force, more than 40 city mayors led a protest march to the Supreme
Court before filing the appeal. They were joined by hundreds of their supporters
and residents of the local governments they head. The LCP is seeking that the
following cities be made municipalities again:

 Lamitan in Basilan;
 Baybay in Leyte;
 Bogo in Cebu;
 Catbalogan in Samar
 Tandag in Surigao del Sur;
 Borongan in Samar;
 Tayabas in Quezon;
 Tabuk in Kalinga;
 Bayugan in Agusan del Sur;
 Batac in Ilocos Norte;
 Mati in Davao Oriental;
 Guihulngan in Negros Oriental;
 Cabadbaran in Agusan del Norte;
 El Salvador in Misamis Oriental;
 Carcar in Cebu; and
 Naga in Cebu.
The group said the national government’s Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for
the 122 cities will be reduced because of the addition of the 16 new cities. First
ruling in 2008 already final
advertisement

In their appeal, the city mayors — led by LCP president Oscar Rodriguez of San
Fernando City, Pampanga — argued that the court’s November 2008 ruling
declaring the 16 cityhood laws as unconstitutional was already final and
executory. Hence, the court should not have entertained the municipalities'
appeals when the Nov. 2008 ruling was handed down, they said. [See timeline of
the cityhood cases] “The Court can no longer modify, alter, or amend a judgment
that had long become final, executory, and continues to be implemented and
executed," the LCP said. “Because the decision of Nov. 18, 2008 had become final
by operation of law as well as explicit order of the Honorable Court, the entry of
judgment was issued on May 21, 2009. Accordingly, the decision of Nov. 18, 2008
was executed and implemented (and its finality acknowledged)," it added. The
LCP then asked the high court to set aside its recent Feb. 15, 2011 decision that
ruled that the 16 cityhood laws do not violate the 1987 Constitution. “It is most
respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court reconsider and set aside its
resolution dated Feb. 15, 2011 and reinstate the 18 November 2008 resolution
declaring the 16 cityhood laws unconstitutional," the LCP said. Flip-flopping
court The court’s Feb. 15, 2011 ruling is its fourth judgment on the cityhood case.
The first decision was rendered on Nov. 18, 2008, declaring as unconstitutional
several laws converting the municipalities into cities. The second decision was
made on Dec. 21, 2009, reversing the Nov. 2008 decision and ruling that the
towns can be declared as cities. Last Aug. 24, 2010, the Supreme Court made its
second reversal and reinstated its Nov. 2008 decision. In its latest ruling, the high
court made another reversal and granted the appeal of the 16 municipalities,
which are now cities once again. But the LCP, in its motion for reconsideration,
said despite the clear pronouncement that the Nov. 18, 2008 decision was
already final and executory, respondent municipalities still filed another motion
for reconsideration appealing the Aug. 24, 2010 decision that was in favor of the
LCP. Why the municipalities should not be cities The LCP maintained that the 16
cityhood laws violated the 1987 Constitution because the 16 towns were
declared as cities even if the concerned local governments have not met the
P100-million annual revenue allotment required by the Local Government Code.
The 16 laws being questioned only imposed a minimum annual revenue of P20
million. Section 10, Article X of the Constitution says that no city “may be created,
divided, merged or abolished or its boundary substantially altered, except in
accordance with the criteria established by the Local Government Code." In its
motion for reconsideration, the LCP likewise said that it was unfair that the 16
new cities only had to meet the P20-million annual revenue requirement when
five other municipalities — Sta. Rosa and Biñan in Laguna, San Juan in Batangas,
Trece Martires in Cavite, and Navotas — were made cities because they met the
P100-million annual revenue requirement imposed by the Local Government
Code. Internal Revenue Allotment battle The creation of the 16 new cities means
that the national government’s IRA for 122 existing cities will be reduced. Puerto
Princesa, Palawan Mayor Edward Hagedorn earlier said that the SC’s recent
decision would wreak havoc on his city’s development plans that are dependent
on P20 million coming from the IRA to the city. For his part, Alaminos City,
Pangasinan mayor Hernani Braganza warned that the 122 cities stand to lose as
much as P3.7 billion in IRA once municipalities could easily be converted into
cities in the same manner as the 16 municipalities. Solons to mayors: Don’t be
greedy Meanwhile, lawmakers from the House of Representatives, whose
constituencies include the cities in question, appealed to LCP members “not to
bully" the smaller municipalities that the high court deemed eligible to become
cities. “I appeal to LCP not to be too greedy. Let us allow the poor municipalities
to develop and provide social services to its people," Eastern Samar Rep. Ben
Evardone said at a press briefing Wednesday. He likewise appealed to the SC
justices “to stand their ground" and not to give in to the “pressure" being exerted
by the city mayors “Sana naman itong mga taga-LCP, huwag naman kami i-bully.
Huwag din i-bully ang SC (I hope the LCP will stop bullying us and the SC). We
also desire to have the luxury of good infrastructure and social services," he said.
Cebu Rep. Eduardo Gullas said the LCP should not view the case as a mere
“matter of money" but also an opportunity to promote development in smaller
cities. “It’s all a matter of money. It’s all a matter of IRA. It’s like elder siblings
trying to kill younger siblings in order to have their inheritance undiminished,"
he said. - with Andreo Calonzo/KBK, GMA News