8/7/2019 cityhood 1

1/2

They seem to be veering away from the legal processes and embark on another tack this timebordering on the extra legal. Some senior LCP officials have gone on record ascribing ill motives

on some members of the high tribunal as the reason for their latest debacle. This underhandedand desperate move partakes of smearing the Supreme Court using a so-called secret letter which

noted lawyer Estelito Mendoza was supposed to have written to selected justices while the

debates over the cityhood laws raged. They insinuated that Mendoza unduly influenced the highcourt with that secret letter. Well, it turns out that was not the case at all. That was more of anopen letter requesting all the justices, not just a select few, to vote on this critical issue. Copies of

the letter were given to all the justices and even the Solicitor General was asked to comment onthe issue. How can that be a secret letter at all? In any event, that underhanded operation should

be the subject of an investigation by the high court if only to discipline those who have takensuch liberties with the court. But that will be another story.

It was all about money: What strikes us in the high courts Feb.15 decision is the fact that all

along the petitioners have made inaccurate assertions about the said cityhood laws. They coveredtheir real motives with paeans to constitutionality and equal protection where at bottom it

was all about the money.

Why so? Well, the petitioners advised that the cityhood laws violated the provisions of the LocalGovernment Code of 1991 as amended by RA 9009 which took effect on June 30, 2001

prescribing the terms and conditions for the creation of cities. These requisites upped thestandards in terms of population, land area and income which, at first blush, would have really

disqualified many if not all of the 16 cities. What they conveniently forgot is the fact that theprior to the enactment of RA 2009, there were already 57 bills filed for the conversion of 57

municipalities into cities using the old standards. Thirty three of these bills were enacted into lawduring the 11th Congress, the rest remained pending bills. Among these were the 16

municipalities subject of the questioned cityhood laws which were finally passed during the 13th

Congress with express provisions exempting them from the stricter coverage of RA 9009. In fact,no less than then Sen. Nene Pimentel who authored RA 9009 advised during the deliberationsthat the 16 municipalities which had pending conversion bills were not covered by the new

requirements. In other words, they were already in play and should not be subjected to the newrules on a whim as the petitioners wanted to. They were, for all intents and purposes, still

covered by the old standards. Yet, the petitioners conveniently failed to advise the Court aboutthis and proceeded to harangue if not blinded all comers with paeans to the law.

Well, the high court in its latest ruling finally exposed this untruth and more. The high courtreferred to the exchanges between Pimentel and other members of the Senate to affirm the view

that indeed the sixteen cities, far from being unduly favored, were actually only fighting for theirrights acquired by the tedious process of conversion which started years before the new standards

came into play. The court also advised that the passage of RA 9009 was meant only to delay ifnot stop the mad rush, in the conversion of other municipalities into cities and not to prevent

those which have pending initiatives to do so. In a word, it was meant to have a proactive not aretroactive effect. In fact, the court noted that there were at least 59 chartered cities out of 86

whose incomes remain below P100 million and, if the petitioners arguments were to be upheld,should revert to being municipalities. That would be absurd to say the least.

8/7/2019 cityhood 1

2/2

But what was more instructive was the high tribunals finding that far from reducing the share ofthe existing cities of the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA) with the enactment of the said

cityhood laws the shares of most if not all of the LCP members actually increased. Thatargument which was bandied about by the petitioners in a bid to gain public sympathy was

stricken down by the court when it listed those cities which actually gained more rather than had

their shares reduced after the conversion. The court then took the occassion to lecture thepetitioners about the need to open up the local government units to the possibilities ofdevelopment which their conversion would presumably provide. Indeed, the argument about

sharing got the court to advise the petitioners to moderate their hunger for such largesse. Afterall, as the majority justices pointed out they should, on their own, have the capacity to provide

the basic services and the environment needed and not rely on their share of the IRA. They wereadmonished not to act as haughty and greedy older children who resent in sharing their

inheritance with the younger children. That kind of attitude has no place in a fast moving, highlycompetitive world where the LGUs and their citizens must have equal opportunities to upgrade

themselves and share in the nations wealth. As correctly pointed out by unleashing thepotentials of these converted municipalities the national income pie gets bigger and the sharing

more responsive and equitable. Would the LCP members rather be labeled as scrooge and anti-development? I hope not.