WHY ARE the members of the League of Cities opposing the conversion of 16 municipalities into cities? Because of greed and selfishness. They will have to share the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) funds for cities with the 16 new cities. Thus, they think that their shares would be much less.
In the words of the Supreme Court: “It is like the elder siblings (old cities) wanting to kill the newly-borns so that their inheritance would not be diminished.”
In short, in their greed, the older cities want the IRA fund only to themselves.
And why do municipalities want to become cities? Because their share in the IRA fund would be higher. Also, they can increase the rate of taxes they collect from their residents. Thus, they would have more money not only to give more and better services to their constituents but also to spur development.
The League of Cities opposing the cityhood of the 16 new cities “have completely overlooked the need of respondent municipalities (new cities) to become effective vehicles intending to accelerate economic growth in the countryside,” the Court said.
Moreover, a comparison of the amounts the older cities will receive from the IRA show that the reduction would be very little because the 16 new cities would be able to increase their tax collections and thus contribute immensely to the IRA fund.
I read the latest decision of the SC en banc (after changing its mind four times) upholding the cityhood of the 16 cities, and I will quote here the reasons of the justices for changing their minds.
On the claim of the League of Cities that the cityhood laws violated RA 9009 which increased the requirement from P20 million to P100 million of the income of a municipality wanting to become a city, the SC said:
“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 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 grant of legislative power to Congress is broad, general and comprehensive. The legislative body possesses plenary powers for all purposes of civil government. Any power, deemed to be legislative by usage and tradition, is necessarily possessed by Congress, unless the Constitution has lodged it elsewhere.
“In fine, except as limited by the Constitution, either explicitly or impliedly, legislative power embraces all subjects, and extends to matters of general concern or common interest.
“Without doubt, the Local Government Code (LGC) is a creation of Congress through its lawmaking powers. Congress has the power to alter or modify it as it did when it enacted RA 9009 (increasing the income requirement for cityhood from P20 million to P100 million). Such power of amendment of laws was again exercised when Congress enacted the cityhood laws (exempting the new cities from the income requirement).
“Undeniably, RA 9009 amended the Local Government Code. But it is also true that, in effect, the cityhood laws amended RA 9009 through the exemption clauses found therein. Since the cityhood laws explicitly exempted the concerned municipalities from the amendatory RA 9009, such cityhood laws are, therefore, also amendments to the LGC itself.”
On the issue of “flip-flopping” when the tribunal changed its mind four times, the Court asked: How come the League of Cities did not complain when the Court reversed its ruling in their favor? Now that it has reversed its earlier ruling in favor of the new cities, they complain.
The Court further said: “As a rule, a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that: ‘No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.’ Thus, a decision becomes final and executory after 15 days from receipt of the denial of the first motion for reconsideration.
“However, when a motion for leave to file and admit a second motion for reconsideration is granted by the Court, the Court therefore allows the filing of the second motion for reconsideration. In such a case, the second motion for reconsideration is no longer a prohibited pleading.”
“Finally,” the Court concluded, “we should not be restricted by technical rules of procedure at the expense of the transcendental interest of justice and equity. While it is true that litigation must end, even at the expense of errors in judgment, it is nobler rather for this Court of last resort, as vanguard of truth, to toil in order to dispel apprehensions and doubt, as the following pronouncement of this Court instructs: ‘To justify a court in pronouncing a legislative act unconstitutional, or a provision of a state constitution to be in contravention of the Constitution x x x, the case must be so clear as to be free from doubt, and the conflict of the statute with the Constitution must be irreconcilable…’
“Therefore, in no doubtful case will the judiciary pronounce a legislative act to be contrary to the Constitution. To doubt the constitutionality of a law is to resolve the doubt in favor of its validity.”
* * *
KAPIHAN NOTES: Guests at next Monday’s Kapihan sa Manila at the Diamond Hotel are Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, new AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Eduardo Oban and Sen. Loren Legarda.