Navigating Cityhood in the Philippines: Strict Adherence to Local Government Code Criteria

Becoming a city in the Philippines unlocks significant advantages, including a larger share of national revenues. However, this Supreme Court case highlights that the path to cityhood is strictly regulated and requires unwavering adherence to the criteria set forth in the Local Government Code. Attempts to bypass these established rules, even with legislative action, will face intense judicial scrutiny. This case serves as a crucial reminder that shortcuts in local governance and deviations from constitutional mandates will not be tolerated.

G.R. No. 176951, G.R. No. 177499, and G.R. No. 178056 (League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) v. Commission on Elections)

INTRODUCTION

Imagine municipalities striving for progress, eager to elevate their status and access greater resources to better serve their constituents. This ambition often leads to cityhood aspirations. However, the legal road to becoming a city in the Philippines is paved with specific requirements designed to ensure genuine readiness for this elevated status. The League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) v. Commission on Elections case emerged from a challenge to the cityhood of sixteen municipalities, questioning whether these municipalities truly met the constitutionally mandated criteria for cityhood. At the heart of the legal battle was a fundamental question: Can Congress create exceptions to the criteria for cityhood defined in the Local Government Code? This case delves into the complexities of local governance, constitutional compliance, and the sometimes turbulent journey of municipalities seeking to become cities.

LEGAL CONTEXT: THE CONSTITUTION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE

The legal framework governing the creation of cities in the Philippines is firmly rooted in the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC), specifically Republic Act No. 7160. Section 10, Article X of the Constitution is unequivocal:

“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.”

This provision mandates that the creation of cities must strictly adhere to the criteria defined within the LGC. Initially, the LGC set specific requirements concerning income, population, and land area for municipalities aspiring to become cities. Crucially, Republic Act No. 9009, which took effect in 2001, amended the income requirement, significantly increasing the average annual income threshold from P20 million to P100 million. This amendment was intended to ensure that newly created cities possessed sufficient financial capacity to function effectively and provide necessary services to their constituents. The legal challenge in LCP v. COMELEC revolved around whether sixteen municipalities, whose cityhood laws were enacted after R.A. 9009, could be exempted from this higher income requirement.

CASE BREAKDOWN: A DECADE-LONG LEGAL BATTLE

The saga began when sixteen municipalities, relying on then-pending cityhood bills from the 11th Congress (before R.A. 9009 took effect), had laws passed in the 13th Congress converting them into cities. These Cityhood Laws contained provisions exempting them from the newly increased P100 million income requirement, adhering instead to the previous P20 million threshold. The League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), representing existing cities, challenged the constitutionality of these sixteen Cityhood Laws before the Supreme Court, arguing that they violated Section 10, Article X of the Constitution by circumventing the criteria in the amended LGC.

The case journeyed through a complex procedural maze within the Supreme Court, marked by several reversals and shifts in rulings:

• November 18, 2008: The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of LCP, declaring the 16 Cityhood Laws unconstitutional, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the LGC criteria.
• April 28, 2009: A motion for reconsideration by the respondent municipalities resulted in a tie vote (6-6), effectively upholding the earlier decision declaring the laws unconstitutional. An entry of judgment was even issued, seemingly finalizing the ruling.
• December 21, 2009: In a dramatic turn, the Supreme Court, revisiting the case, reversed its earlier stance and declared the Cityhood Laws constitutional. This reversal was partly attributed to a re-evaluation of procedural issues and the legislative intent behind the exemptions.
• August 24, 2010: Another reversal occurred. The Court, on motion for reconsideration by LCP, reinstated its original November 18, 2008 decision, again declaring the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional.
• February 15, 2011: In the final resolution being analyzed, the Supreme Court, yet again, reversed course. It denied LCP’s motion for reconsideration and upheld the constitutionality of the 16 Cityhood Laws. The Court reasoned that the exemption clauses in the Cityhood Laws were a valid expression of legislative intent to amend the LGC for these specific municipalities.

In its final resolution, the Supreme Court emphasized that:

“Congress clearly intended that the local government units covered by the Cityhood Laws be exempted from the coverage of R.A. No. 9009… The acts of both Chambers of Congress show that the exemption clauses ultimately incorporated in the Cityhood Laws are but the express articulations of the clear legislative intent to exempt the respondents, without exception, from the coverage of R.A. No. 9009.”

The Court further justified its decision by highlighting the unique circumstances of these municipalities, noting their pending cityhood bills prior to R.A. 9009 and their demonstrated viability and readiness for city status. The Court also downplayed the significance of the increased income requirement, arguing that the previous P20 million threshold was sufficient and that the P100 million requirement could disproportionately favor already wealthy metropolitan areas.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LEGISLATORS

Despite the ultimate upholding of the Cityhood Laws in this specific case, the LCP v. COMELEC decision underscores several critical principles and practical implications:

• Strict Constitutional Mandate: The Constitution’s directive in Section 10, Article X, linking local government creation to LGC criteria, is a fundamental principle. While the Court ultimately upheld the exemptions in this instance, it was a highly contentious and repeatedly revisited decision, signaling the Court’s general adherence to this constitutional mandate.
• Legislative Intent vs. Constitutional Compliance: The case highlights the tension between legislative intent and strict constitutional compliance. While the Court acknowledged Congress’s intent to exempt these municipalities, the intense legal battle demonstrates that such exemptions must be carefully scrutinized and justified within the constitutional framework.
• Income Requirement as a Guideline: The Court’s reasoning suggests a more flexible interpretation of the income requirement, viewing it as a guideline rather than an absolute, inflexible barrier, especially when considering the unique historical and economic contexts of municipalities.
• Procedural Rigor: The protracted procedural history of this case, with multiple reversals, emphasizes the importance of procedural correctness and thorough deliberation in judicial decision-making, especially in cases with significant public interest and constitutional implications.

KEY LESSONS

• For Municipalities Aspiring for Cityhood: Focus on robustly meeting the criteria outlined in the current Local Government Code. Do not rely on potential exemptions or legislative shortcuts, as these are subject to intense legal challenges.
• For Legislators: While legislative intent is important, any attempts to create exceptions to LGC criteria for cityhood must be meticulously justified and carefully crafted to withstand constitutional scrutiny. Direct amendments to the LGC itself may be a more legally sound approach than creating exemptions through separate cityhood laws.
• For Legal Professionals: The LCP v. COMELEC case is a complex study in constitutional law, local government law, and administrative procedure. It provides valuable insights into the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 10, Article X, and the dynamics of judicial review in local governance matters.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What is the current income requirement to become a city in the Philippines?

A: As of the amendment by R.A. 9009, the income requirement is an average annual locally generated income of at least P100 million for the last two consecutive years, based on 2000 constant prices. It’s crucial to check for any further amendments to the LGC.

Q: Does meeting the income requirement automatically guarantee cityhood?

A: No. Income is just one of the criteria. Municipalities must also meet requirements related to population and land area, as specified in the Local Government Code. Furthermore, a plebiscite among affected residents is required to approve the conversion.

Q: Can Congress create a city even if it doesn’t meet the LGC criteria?

A: The LCP v. COMELEC case shows that while Congress might attempt to create exemptions, these are highly vulnerable to legal challenges and intense judicial scrutiny. Strict adherence to the LGC criteria is generally required by the Constitution.

Q: What is the role of the Supreme Court in cityhood cases?

A: The Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter of constitutional compliance. It reviews Cityhood Laws to ensure they adhere to Section 10, Article X of the Constitution and the criteria established in the Local Government Code. The LCP v. COMELEC case demonstrates the Court’s willingness to scrutinize these laws rigorously.

Q: What are the potential benefits of becoming a city?

A: Cities generally receive a larger share of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) from the national government compared to municipalities. City status can also attract more investment, enhance local autonomy, and potentially improve access to services and infrastructure.

Q: Was the Supreme Court’s decision in LCP v. COMELEC unanimous?

A: No, the decisions in this case, especially the reversals, were often closely divided, reflecting the complex legal and policy issues involved. There were dissenting opinions highlighting concerns about constitutional compliance and equal protection.

Q: What is the significance of the Separability Clause in the Cityhood Laws?

A: The Separability Clause, present in each Cityhood Law, actually reinforces the primacy of the Local Government Code. It states that if any provision of the Cityhood Law is inconsistent with the LGC, the LGC prevails. This clause, ironically, was used by dissenting justices to argue against the constitutionality of the exemptions.

ASG Law specializes in local government law and constitutional law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.