Case Digest

Case Digest: LCP VS.
COMELEC
G.R. No. 176951 : February 15, 2011
LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), represented
by LCP National President Jerry P. Treas; CITY OF
CALBAYOG, represented by Mayor Mel Senen S. Sarmiento;
and JERRY P. TREAS, in his personal capacity as
Taxpayer, Petitioners,
v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF BAYBAY,
PROVINCE OF LEYTE; MUNICIPALITY OF BOGO, PROVINCE OF
CEBU; MUNICIPALITY OF CATBALOGAN, PROVINCE OF
WESTERN SAMAR; MUNICIPALITY OF TANDAG, PROVINCE OF
SURIGAO DEL SUR; MUNICIPALITY OF BORONGAN, PROVINCE
OF EASTERN SAMAR; AND MUNICIPALITY OF TAYABAS,
PROVINCE OF QUEZON,Respondents.
FACTS:
These cases were initiated by the consolidated petitions for
prohibition filed by the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), City
of Iloilo, City of Calbayog, and Jerry P. Treas, assailing the
constitutionality of the sixteen (16) laws, each converting the
municipality covered thereby into a component city (Cityhood
Laws), and seeking to enjoin the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) from conducting plebiscites pursuant to the subject
laws.
In the Decision dated November 18, 2008, the Court En Banc, by a
6-5 vote, granted the petitions and struck down the Cityhood Laws
as unconstitutional for violating Sections 10 and 6, Article X, and the
equal protection clause.
In another Decision dated December 21, 2009, the Court En Banc,
by a vote of 6-4, declared the Cityhood Laws as constitutional.
On August 24, 2010, the Court En Banc, through a Resolution, by a
vote of 7-6, resolved the Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration
and Motion to Annul the Decision of December 21, 2009.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Cityhood Bills violate Article X, Section
10 of the Constitution
Whether or not the Cityhood Bills violate Article X, Section 6

and the equal protection clause of the Constitution
HELD: The petition is meritorious.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Cityhood Laws
First issue:
The enactment of the Cityhood Laws is an exercise by Congress of
its legislative power. Legislative power is the authority, under the
Constitution, to make laws, and to alter and repeal them. The
Constitution, as the expression of the will of the people in their
original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity, has vested this power in
the Congress of the Philippines.
The LGC is a creation of Congress through its law-making powers.
Congress has the power to alter or modify it as it did when it
enacted R.A. No. 9009. Such power of amendment of laws was
again exercised when Congress enacted the Cityhood Laws. When
Congress enacted the LGC in 1991, it provided for quantifiable
indicators of economic viability for the creation of local government
unitsincome, population, and land area.
However, Congress deemed it wiser to exempt respondent
municipalities from such a belatedly imposed modified income
requirement in order to uphold its higher calling of putting flesh and
blood to the very intent and thrust of the LGC, which is countryside
development and autonomy, especially accounting for these
municipalities as engines for economic growth in their respective
provinces.
R.A. No. 9009 amended the LGC. But the Cityhood Laws amended
R.A. No. 9009 through the exemption clauses found therein. Since
the Cityhood Laws explicitly exempted the concerned municipalities
from the amendatory R.A. No. 9009, such Cityhood Laws are,
therefore, also amendments to the LGC itself.
Second Issue:
Substantial distinction lies in the capacity and viability of
respondent municipalities to become component cities of their
respective provinces. Congress, by enacting the Cityhood Laws,
recognized this capacity and viability of respondent municipalities to
become the States partners in accelerating economic growth and
development in the provincial regions, which is the very thrust of
the LGC, manifested by the pendency of their cityhood bills during
the 11th Congress and their relentless pursuit for cityhood up to the
present.
The Resolution dated August 24, 2010 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Cityhood Laws are declared CONSTITUTIONAL.

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest: LCP VS.

Whether or not the Cityhood Bills violate Article X, Section 6

You might also like