THE Supreme Court (SC) has reversed itself for the second time on the issue of whether the cityhood laws, which allow 16 municipalities to be converted into cities, is constitutional.
After declaring the cityhood laws unconstitutional in a ruling issued on August 24, 2010, the Court, in Tuesday’s en banc session, reversed that decision with a vote of 7-6-2, and reinstated its December 21, 2009, decision which affirmed the constitutionality of the laws.
At a press briefing, Court Administrator and spokesman Jose Midas Marquez explained that the reversal of the Court’s 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 might not put an end to the issue since it is expected that the League of Cities of the Philippines (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.
The Court granted the motion for reconsideration filed by the 16 municipalities whose laws had earlier been declared unconstitutional.
Declared as valid and constitutional are the cityhood laws Republic Acts (RA) 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).
The Court held that the cityhood laws, enacted after the effectivity of RA 9009 or the Local Government Code, explicitly exempt respondent municipalities from the increased-income requirement, to qualify as cities, 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.
Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Martin Villarama Jr., Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Arturo Brion and Diosdado Peralta maintained the position that the laws are unconstitutional.
Associate Justices Mariano del Castillo and Antonio Eduardo Nachura took no part anew on the resolution of the issue.
In its November 18, 2008 ruling, the Court, voting 6-5, granted the petition filed by LCP seeking to declare unconstitutional the cityhood laws.
Justice Carpio penned the November 18 decision which held that the laws violate Sections 6 and 10, Article X of the Constitution.
Carpio explained that the exemption in the cityhood laws is unconstitutional because the Constitution requires that such exemption must be written into the LGC and not into any other laws.
The Court subsequently dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by the municipalities with a vote of 6-6 on 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 under Section 285 of the LCG.
However, on December 21, 2009, with a vote of 6-4, the Court reversed the November 18, 2008 ruling—on the ground 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 Court as contemplated in Section 4 (2), Article VIII of the Constitution, which requires all cases involving constitutionality of a treaty and 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, on August 24, the Court, voting 7-6, granted the motions for reconsideration of the LCP and reinstated its November 18, 2008, decision declaring the cityhood laws unconstitutional.
No comments:
Post a Comment