League of Cities v COMELEC G.R. Nos.

176951, 177499, 178056 November 18, 2008

Facts: During the 11th Congress, Congress enacted 33 bills into law converting 33 municipalities into
cities. However, they did not act on bills converting 24 other municipalities into cities. During the 12 th
Congress, RA 9009 was enacted. This amended Section 450 of the LGC, increasing the annual income
requirement for conversion of a municipality into a city from 20 million pesos to 100 milion pesos.
According to Senator Aquilino Pimentel, this was in order to resent the “mad rush” of conversion of
municipalities in order for them to secure a larger share in the Internal Revenue Allotment despite the
fact that they are incapable of fiscal independence.
After the effectivity of the Act, the House of Representatives of the 12 th Congress sought to
exempt from the 100 million peso income requirement the 24 municipalities whose cityhood bills
were not previously approved by virtue of Joint Resolution No. 29. However, the session ended
without the Senate approving the same.
During the 13th Congress, the House of Representatives re-adopted the Resolution and forwarded
it to the Senate for approval, which again failed to approve the same. Thereafter, 16 municipalities
filed, through their respective sponsors, individual cityhood bills which contained a common provision
exempting all 16 municipalities from the income requirement in the statute. The bills were eventually
approved and lapsed into law (Cityhood Laws) on various dates without the President’s signature.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Cityhood Laws for violation of Section 10, Article X
of the Constitution and for violation of the equal protection clause. They also contend that the
wholesale conversion of municipalities into cities will reduce the share of existing cities in the Internal
Revenue Allotment because more cities will share the same amount of internal revenue set aside for
all cities under Section 285 of the Local Government Code.

Issue: Whether or not the Cityhood Laws are unconstitutional.

Ruling: (2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 decisions, respectively)

First Decision: The Cityhood Laws are unconstitutional because the Constitution itself has made the
Local Government Code the sole repository of the criteria and standards for the creation of any local
government unit; therefore, no other law, not even the charter of a city, can govern such creation.

Second Decision: On Motion for Reconsideration, the Supreme Court reversed the 2008 ruling and
declared the Cityhood Laws constitutional. According to the Court, the intent of the legislators in
approving the bills was to exempt the subject cities from the requirements of RA 9009, considering
that the cityhood bills were proposed at a much earlier date than when RA 9009 was passed into law.

Third Decision: The SC reiterated its 2008 decision, affirming the primacy of the constitutional
requirement the the creation of local government units shall only be based on the uniform criteria set
forth in the Local Government Code. The clear intent of the Constitution is to insure that the creation
of cities and other political units must follow the same uniform criteria found in none other than the
LGC.

Fourth Decision: The Court reverted back to its second ruling, stating that the Cityhood Laws were
constitutional. Deliberations regarding RA 9009 reveal that Senator Pimentel made a remark that it
would not be fair to give the bill retroactive effect as the cityhood bills were still pending in the
Senate.

Final Decision: There was a clear and unmistakable legislative intent to exclude the cityhood bills from
the application of RA 9009, thus recognizing the collective wisdom of Congress.