Thursday, June 11, 2009 [ manilatimes.net ]
By William B. Depasupil, Reporter
THE High Tribunal has ruled with finality, declaring as unconstitutional the cityhood laws that elevated the status of 16 municipalities into cities in violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The Court en banc handed down the ruling after it junked in its March 31, 2009 and April 28, 2009 resolutions the first and second motions for reconsideration filed by the respondent cities and refrained the parties from filing further pleadings.
The High Tribunal, in a six-page extended resolution, said: “. . . there can be no doubt of the intention of this Court to consider G.R. Nos. 176951, 177499, and 178056 finally closed and terminated. Basic is the rule in our judicial system that litigations must end and terminate at some point.”
On March 11 this year, the League of Cities of the Philippines asked the High Court to declare as unconstitutional the conversion into cities of the 16 municipalities, namely Baybay, Leyte; Bogo, Cebu; Naga, Cebu; Catbalogan, Samar; Lamitan, Basilan; Mati, Davao Oriental; Bayugan, Agusan del Sur; Borongan, Eastern Samar; Batac, Ilocos Norte; Tabuk, Kalinga; Tandag, Surigao del Sur; El Salvador, Misamis Oriental; Carcar, Cebu; Guihulngan, Negros Oriental; Tayabas, Quezon; and Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte.
In its petition, the LCP said the laws creating the new cities are void for violating the provision of Republic Act 7160, the Local Government Code, requiring the municipalities to have a generated income of at least P100 million each for the last two consecutive years.
The law also requires a municipality to have at least a population of 150,000 and a land area of 100 square kilometers before it can be converted into a city, the petition added.
The LCP said the representatives in Congress of these municipalities pushed for their conversion into cities despite the failure of the municipalities to meet the provisions of the law.
Records showed that on November 18, 2008, the High Court, by a vote of 6-5, nullified the 16 Cityhood Laws. On January 13, 2009, it denied with finality the motion for reconsideration, there being no substantial arguments raised.
On March 31, 2009, acting on the January 19, 2009 letter of former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza, which urged members of the Court who inhibited themselves from the case to participate, “the Court re-voted on the motion for reconsideration and resolved by a vote of 7-5 to deny the motion for reconsideration with finality for lack of merit, the basic issues raised therein having been passed upon already.”
In the same ruling, the Court also decreed that no further pleadings shall be entertained.
However, the Court later allowed the filing of a second motion for reconsideration. On April 28, 2009, by a vote of 6-6, the Court denied the second motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, and also “since a majority of the Court did not vote to grant it.” On May 5, 2009, respondents’ counsel received a copy of the 28 April 2009 Resolution.
Generally, a decision becomes final 15 days from receipt by the parties of the denial of the first motion for reconsideration. However, when a second motion for reconsideration is considered and denied by the Court, such as in this case, the decision becomes final 15 days from receipt by the parties of the denial of the second motion for reconsideration.
Consequently, on May 21, 2009, 15 days after May 5, 2009 (the date of receipt by respondents of the denial of the second motion for reconsideration), the November 18, 2008 decision of the Court became final and executory, and was forthwith recorded in the book of entries of judgments.
The Court thus resolved to expunge the subsequent pleadings on the merits of the case, and merely noted the May 28, 2009 letter-request of former Solicitor General Mendoza to recall the entry of judgment in this case.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
