Baybay City No More

            In a recent decision, the Supreme Court, voting 7-5, declared as unconstitutional cityhood laws passed by Congress concerning 16 municipalities, among which is my hometown in Leyte, Baybay.  The High Court granted the petition filed by the League of Cities of the Philippines which sought for the nullification of the cityhood laws.  Put simply, the law, specifically Republic Act No. 9389 from which the cityhood of Baybay emanates, is now declared void and unconstitutional.

 

            This may come out as an unpleasant surprise to many Baybayanos who already are getting used to the gratifying idea of Baybay as a city.  But perhaps to a few of us, who were aware of this extant petition pending before the Supreme Court, the idea of cityhood may still turn out to be far from being a permanent certainty.

            What makes the Supreme Court take on the role of a kill-joy to the Baybayanos?  The answer is: the Constitution.  The Court ruled that the cityhood laws violate Sections 10, Article 10, as well as the equal-protection clause, of the Constitution.  It basically requires that Congress shall prescribe all the criteria for the creation of a city in the Local Government Code, not in any other law, therefore including the cityhood laws.

            Section 10 of Article 10 of the Constitution provides that “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 (LGC) and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.”

Moreover, the Court recognizes a clear violation of Section 6, Article X of the Constitution when the enacted laws appear to prevent a fair and just distribution of the national taxes to local government units.

It now appears that the citihood of Baybay and that of the other fifteen municipalities, were legislated by way of a noticeable circumvention of a clear and unambiguous provision of the Constitution.

But why?  Why did our honorable and brilliant lawmakers resort to this legislative maneuver?    It is because Baybay and the other municipalities no longer qualify for citihood under Republic Act No. 9009 which increased the income requirement, to qualify conversion into a city, from P 20million to P100 million.   In order to pursue that much coveted citihood, our bright legislators enacted these laws—actually, laws that practically exempt Baybay and the other fifteen towns from the new requirement.

A news article of the Business Mirror, contains a brief narrative how Congress came about into passing these cityhood laws, and which eventually brought about the recent SC ruling:

During the 11th Congress, Congress enacted into law 33 bills converting 33 municipalities into cities. However, Congress did not act on bills converting 24 other municipalities into cities.

During the 12th Congress, it enacted into law RA 9009 which took effect on June 30, 2001, amending Section 450 of the LGC by increasing the annual income requirement for conversion of a municipality into a city from P20 million to P100 million.

The amendment was made to restrain the “mad rush” of municipalities to convert into cities solely to secure a larger share in the internal revenue allotment despite the fact that they are incapable of fiscal independence.

After the effectivity of RA 9009, the House of Representatives of the 12th Congress adopted Joint Resolution 29, which sought to exempt from the P100-million income requirement the 24 municipalities, whose cityhood bills were not approved in the 11th Congress.

However, only 16 out of the 24 municipalities heeded the advice of Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr. to file, through their respective sponsors, individual city
hood bills.

The 16 cityhood bills contained a common provision exempting all the 16 municipalities—Baybay (Leyte); Bogo (Cebu); Catbalogan (Samar); Tandag (Surigao del Sur); Borongan (Eastern Samar); Tayabas (Quezon province); Lamitan (Basilan); Tabuk (Kalinga); Bayugan (Agusan del Sur); Batac (Ilocos Norte); Mati (Davao Oriental); Guihulngan (Negros Oriental); Cabadbaran (Agusan del Norte); Carcar (Cebu); El Salvador (Misamis Oriental); and Naga (Cebu).

The House and the Senate later approved the cityhood bills which lapsed into law on various dates from March to July 2007.

In declaring the cityhood laws unconstitutional, the SC stressed that the Constitution requires that Congress shall prescribe all the criteria for the creation of a city in the LGC, and not in any other law, including the cityhood laws.

“The Constitution is clear. The creation of local government units must follow the criteria established in the Local Government Code and not in any other law. There is only one Local Government Code. The Constitution requires Congress to stipulate in the Local Government Code all the criteria necessary for the creation of a city, including the conversion of a municipality into a city. Congress cannot write such criteria in any other law, like the cityhood laws,” the SC said.

Furthermore, the SC said the cityhood laws failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 450 of the LGC, as amended by RA 9009.

It noted that Congress, in enacting RA 9009, did not provide any exemption from the increased income requirement, not even to the respondent municipalities.

“Since the law is clear, plain and unambiguous that any municipality desiring to convert into a city must meet the increased income requirement, there is no reason to go beyond the letter of the law in applying Section 450 of the Local Government Code, as amended by RA 9009,” the SC added.

Concurring in the ruling were Chief Justice Reynato Puno, Senior Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, Associate Justices Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio Morales, Presbitero Velasco Jr. and Arturo Brion.

Dissenting were Associate Justices Ruben Reyes, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Minita Chico-Nazario, Adolfo Azcuna and Renato Corona.

Associate Justices Dante Tinga and Antonio Eduardo Nachura took no part in the deliberation; while Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago is on leave.

                 I’ve visited Baybay a couple of weeks ago, and I still love the place, its innate rustic charms.  There certainly is no other place like it.  City or not.