League of Cities vs Comelec
2
LEAGUE OF CITIES VS COMELEC, GR NO. 176951, APRIL 12, 2011 Facts: The Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioners vis-à-vis the Resolution promulgated on February 15, 2011. To recall, the said Resolution promulgated on February 15, 2011 granted the Motion for Reconsideration of the respondents presented against the Resolution dated August 24, 2010, reversed the Resolution dated August 24, 2010, and declared the 16 Cityhood Laws — Republic Acts Nos. 9389, 9390, 9391, 9392, 9393, 9394, 9398, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434, 9435, 9436, and 9491 — constitutional. Now, the petitioners anchor their Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration upon the primordial ground that the Court could no longer modify, alter, or amend its judgment declaring the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional due to such judgment having long become final and executory. The petitioners’ contention that the Cityhood Laws violated their right to a just share in the national taxes. They also submit that the Cityhood Laws violated Section 6 and Section 10 of Article X of the Constitution, as well as the Equal Protection Clause. The respondents contended and reiterated their arguments with respect to a tie-vote upon an issue of constitutionality. On December 21, 2009, the Court, resolving the Motion To Amend Resolution of April 28, 2009 etc. and voting anew on the Second Motion For Reconsideration in order to reach a concurrence of a majority, promulgated its Decision granting the motion and declaring the Cityhood Laws as constitutional. Issue: Did the Supreme Court violate the rules of procedure, the principles of res judicata and immutability of final judgement? Ruling: No. It is worth repeating that the actions taken herein were made by the Court en banc strictly in accordance with the Rules of Court and its internal procedures. There has been no irregularity attending or tainting the proceedings. There is also an adherence to the doctrine of res judicata . As such, the operation of the principle of immutability of judgments is also executed. As elaborated, the court ruled that the Cityhood Laws were not violative of the Constitution and the LGC. The respondents are thus also entitled to their just
description
Political Law
Transcript of League of Cities vs Comelec
LEAGUE OF CITIES VS COMELEC, GR NO. 176951, APRIL 12, 2011Facts: The Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration was fled by the petitioners vis--vis the Resolution promulated on February !"# $%!!& To recall# the saidResolution promulated on February !"# $%!! ranted the Motion forReconsideration of the respondents presented aainst the Resolution dated Auust$'# $%!%# reversedtheResolutiondatedAuust $'# $%!%# anddeclaredthe!(Cityhood )aws * Republic Acts +os& ,-.,# ,-,%# ,-,!# ,-,$# ,-,-# ,-,'# ,-,.#,'%'# ,'%"# ,'%/# ,'%.# ,'%,# ,'-'# ,'-"# ,'-(# and ,',! * constitutional&+ow# the petitioners anchor their Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsiderationupon theprimordial roundthat theCourt couldnoloner modify# alter# or amendits0udment declarin the Cityhood )aws unconstitutional due to such 0udmenthavin lon become fnal and e1ecutory& The petitioners2 contention that theCityhood )aws violated their riht to a 0ust share in the national ta1es& Theyalsosubmit that the Cityhood )aws violated 3ection ( and 3ection !% of Article 4 of theConstitution# as well as the 56ual 7rotection Clause&The respondents contended and reiterated their aruments with respect to a tie-vote upon an issue of constitutionality& 8n 9ecember $!# $%%,# the Court# resolvintheMotionToAmendResolutionof April $.# $%%,etc& andvotinanewonthe3econd Motion For Reconsideration in order to reach a concurrence of a ma0ority#promulated its 9ecision rantin the motion and declarin the Cityhood )aws asconstitutional&:ssue: 9id the 3upreme Court violate the rules of procedure# the principles of res0udicata and immutability of fnal 0udement;Rulin:+o&:t is worth repeatin that the actions ta
