Constitutional Law Cityhood Laws; Equal protection.

The petitioners in this case reiterate their position that the Cityhood Laws violate Section 6 and Section 10 of Article of the Constitution! the Equal "rotection Clause! and the ri#ht of local #overn$ents to a %ust share in the national ta&es. This was denied 'y the Supre$e Court. Con#ress clearly intended that the local #overn$ent units covered 'y the Cityhood Laws 'e e&e$pted fro$ the covera#e of (.A. )o. *00* +the Cityhood Law,. The -ouse of (epresentatives adopted .oint (esolution )o. /*! entitled Joint Resolution to Exempt Certain Municipalities Embodied in Bills Filed in Congress before June 30, 2001 from t e co!erage of Republic "ct #o$ %00%. -owever! the Senate failed to act on .oint (esolution )o. /*. Even so! the -ouse of (epresentatives readopted .oint (esolution )o. /* as .oint (esolution )o. 1 durin# the 1/th Con#ress! and forwarded .oint (esolution )o. 1 to the Senate for approval. A#ain! the Senate failed to approve .oint (esolution )o. 1. Thereafter! the conversion 'ills of the respondents were individually filed in the -ouse of (epresentatives! and were all unani$ously and favora'ly voted upon 'y the 0e$'ers of the -ouse of (epresentatives. The 'ills! when forwarded to the Senate! were li1ewise unani$ously approved 'y the Senate. The acts of 'oth Cha$'ers of Con#ress show that the e&e$ption clauses ulti$ately incorporated in the Cityhood Laws are 'ut the e&press articulations of the clear le#islative intent to e&e$pt the respondents! &it out exception! fro$ the covera#e of (.A. )o. *00*. There'y! (.A. )o. *00*! and! 'y necessity! the L2C! were a$ended! not 'y repeal 'ut 'y way of the e&press e&e$ptions 'ein# e$'odied in the e&e$ption clauses. 'eague of Cities of t e ( ilippines etc$, et al$ !$ C)ME'EC, et al$*'eague of Cities of t e ( ilippines etc$, et al$ !$ C)ME'EC, et al$*'eague of Cities of t e ( ilippines etc$, et al$ !$ C)ME'EC, et al$, +$R$ #o$ 1,-%.1*+$R$ #o$ 1,,/%%*+$R$ #o$ 1,00.-$ "pril 12, 2011 $ Cityhood Laws; .ust share in national ta&es. The share of local #overn$ent units is a $atter of percenta#e under Section /34 of the Local 2overn$ent Code +L2C,! not a specific a$ount. Specifically! the share of the cities is /56! deter$ined on the 'asis of population +406,! land area +/46,! and equal sharin# +/46,. This share is also dependent on the nu$'er of e&istin# cities! such that when the nu$'er of cities increases! then $ore will divide and share the allocation for cities. -owever! the Supre$e Court noted that the allocation 'y the )ational 2overn$ent is not a constant! and can either increase or decrease. 7ith every newly converted city 'eco$in# entitled to share the allocation for cities! the percenta#e of internal revenue allot$ent +8(A, entitle$ent of each city will decrease! althou#h the actual a$ount received $ay 'e $ore than that received in the precedin# year. That is a necessary consequence of Section /34 and Section /36 of the L2C. 8n this case! since the conversion 'y the Cityhood Laws is not violative of the Constitution and the L2C! the respondents are thus also entitled to their %ust share in the 8(A allocation for cities. 'eague of Cities of t e ( ilippines etc$, et al$ !$ C)ME'EC, et al$*'eague of Cities of t e ( ilippines etc$, et al$ !$ C)ME'EC, et al$*'eague of Cities of t e ( ilippines etc$, et al$ !$ C)ME'EC, et al$, +$R$ #o$ 1,-%.1*+$R$ #o$ 1,,/%%*+$R$ #o$ 1,00.-$ "pril 12, 2011 $ E&penditure of "u'lic 9unds; (equire$ents. The Ad$inistrative Code of 1*3: e&pressly prohi'its the enterin# into contracts involvin# the e&penditure of pu'lic funds unless two prior require$ents are satisfied. 9irst! there $ust 'e an appropriation law authori;in# the e&penditure required in the contract. Second! there $ust 'e attached to the contract a certification 'y the proper accountin# official and auditor that funds have 'een appropriated 'y law and such funds are availa'le. 9ailure to co$ply with any of these two require$ents renders the contract void. The clear purpose of these require$ents is to insure that #overn$ent contracts are never si#ned unless supported 'y the correspondin# appropriation law and fund availa'ility. The Supre$e Court found that the three contracts 'etween "hilippine )ational (ailways +")(, and <anlaon do not co$ply with the require$ent of a certification of appropriation and fund availa'ility. Even if a certification of appropriation is not applica'le to ")( if the funds used are internally #enerated! still a certificate of fund availa'ility is required. Thus! the three contracts 'etween ")( and <anlaon were found to 'e void for violation of Sections =6! =:! and =3! Chapter 3! Su'title >! Title 8! >oo1 ? of the Ad$inistrative Code of 1*3:! as well as Sections 34! 36! and 3: of the 2overn$ent Auditin# Code of the "hilippines. ( ilippine #ational Rail&a1s !$ 2anlaon Construction Enterprises, Co$, 3nc$, +$R$ #o$ 102%-,$ "pril -, 2011 $ 'ocus 4tandi. 9or a party to have locus standi! one $ust alle#e @such a personal sta1e in the outco$e of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so lar#ely depends for illu$ination of difficult constitutional questions.A >ecause constitutional cases are often pu'lic actions in which the relief sou#ht is li1ely to affect other persons! a preli$inary question frequently arises as to this interest in the constitutional question raised. 8t cannot 'e denied that $ovantsBintervenors will suffer direct in%ury in the event their Cr#ent 0otion to (ecall Entry of .ud#$ent is

denied and their 0otion for Leave to 8ntervene and to 9ile and to Ad$it 8ntervenorsD 0otion for (econsideration of the (esolution is denied with finality. 8ndeed! accordin# to the Supre$e Court! they have sufficiently shown that they have a personal and su'stantial interest in the case! such that if the (esolution orderin# finality 'e not reconsidered! their election to their respective positions durin# the 0ay 10! /010 polls and its conco$itant effects would all 'e nullified and 'e put to nau#ht. Rodolfo +$ #a!arro, et al$ 5s$ Executi!e 4ecretar1 Eduardo Ermita, et al$, +$R$ #o$ 1000.0$ "pril 12, 2011 $ 0oot and acade$ic "rinciple; E&ception. The @$oot and acade$icA principle is not a $a#ical for$ula that can auto$atically dissuade the courts fro$ resolvin# a case. Courts will decide cases! otherwise $oot and acade$ic! ifE +1, there is a #rave violation of the Constitution; +/, there is an e&ceptional character of the situation and the para$ount pu'lic interest is involved; +5, the constitutional issue raised requires for$ation of controllin# principles to #uide the 'ench! the 'ar! and the pu'lic; and +=, the case is capa'le of repetition yet evadin# review. Rodolfo +$ #a!arro, et al$ 5s$ Executi!e 4ecretar1 Eduardo Ermita, et al$, +$R$ #o$ 1000.0$ "pril 12, 2011 $ Administrative Law 2overn$ent E$ployee; Fishonesty; 0isconduct. Fishonesty is defined as the conceal$ent or distortion of truth in a $atter of fact relevant to oneDs office or connected with the perfor$ance of his duty. Gn the other hand! $isconduct is a trans#ression of so$e esta'lished or definite rule of action! is a for'idden act! is a dereliction of duty! is willful in character! and i$plies wron#ful intent and not $ere error in %ud#$ent. 0ore particularly! it is an unlawful 'ehavior 'y the pu'lic officer. The ter$! however! does not necessarily i$ply corruption or cri$inal intent. 8n this case! petitionerDs acts were found 'y the Supre$e Court as clearly reflectin# his dishonesty and #rave $isconduct. -e allowed the Spouses A'uan to use his position as SSS Senior 0e$'er Services (epresentative to $a1e their @clientsA 'elieve that he could #ive the$ undue advanta#e H over others without the sa$e connection H 'y processin# their SSS clai$s faster. Li1ewise! his acts! accordin# to the SC! i$ply $alevolent intent! and not $erely error in %ud#$ent. -e was aware of what the Spouses A'uan were doin# and was co$plicit in the sa$e. At the very least! accordin# to the Supre$e Court! he failed to stop the ille#al trade! and that constitutes willful disre#ard of the laws and rules. Jerome Japson !$ Ci!il 4er!ice Commission, +$R$ #o$ 10%/,%$ "pril 12, 2011 $ Agrarian Law A#rarian (efor$; (i#ht to %ust co$pensation. Apart fro$ the require$ent that co$pensation for e&propriated land $ust 'e fair and reasona'le! co$pensation! to 'e @%ust!A $ust also 'e $ade without delay. 8n si$pler ter$s! for the #overn$entDs pay$ent to 'e considered %ust co$pensation! the landowner $ust receive it in full without delay. 8n the present case! it is undisputed that the #overn$ent too1 the petitionersD lands on Fece$'er *! 1**6; the petitioners only received full pay$ent of the %ust co$pensation due on 0ay *! /003. This circu$stance! 'y itself! was found 'y the Supre$e Court as already confir$in# the unconsciona'le delay in the pay$ent of %ust co$pensation. "() Fruits Corporation and 6i7o (lantation, 3nc$ !$ 'and Ban8 of t e ( ilippines, +$R$ #o$ 1-/1%.$ "pril ., 2011 $ Local Government Code Local 2overn$ent; (equisites for creation of province. The central policy considerations in the creation of local #overn$ent units are econo$ic via'ility! efficient ad$inistration! and capa'ility to deliver 'asic services to their constituents. The criteria prescri'ed 'y the Local 2overn$ent Code! i$e$! inco$e! population and land area! are all desi#ned to acco$plish these results. 7ithout dou't! the pri$ordial criterion in the creation of local #overn$ent units! particularly of a province! is econo$ic via'ility. This is the clear intent of the fra$ers of the L2C. -owever! there is an e&e$ption provided in the Local 2overn$ent Code in ter$s of the land area require$ent. 7hen the local #overn$ent unit to 'e created consists of one +1, or $ore islands! it is e&e$pt fro$ the land area require$ent as e&pressly provided in Section ==/ and Section =40 of the L2C! if the local #overn$ent unit to 'e created is a $unicipality or a co$ponent city! respectively. This e&e$ption is a'sent in the enu$eration of the requisites for the creation of a province under Section =61 of the L2C! althou#h it is e&pressly stated under Article *+/, of the L2CB 8((. The Supre$e Court found no reason why this e&e$ption should not apply also to provinces. 8n fact! the Supre$e Court o'served that considerin# the physical confi#uration of the "hilippine archipela#o! there is a #reater li1elihood that islands or #roup of islands would for$ part of the land area of a newlyBcreated province than in $ost cities or $unicipalities. 8t is! therefore! lo#ical to infer that the #enuine le#islative policy decision was e&pressed in Section ==/ +for $unicipalities, and Section =40 +for co$ponent cities, of the L2C! 'ut was inadvertently o$itted in Section =61 +for provinces,. Thus! when the e&e$ption was e&pressly provided in Article *+/, of the L2CB8((! the inclusion was intended to correct the con#ressional

oversi#ht in Section =61 of the L2C H and to reflect the true le#islative intent. The Court thus upheld the validity of Article *+/, of the L2CB8((. Rodolfo +$ #a!arro, et al$ 5s$ Executi!e 4ecretar1 Eduardo Ermita, et al$, +$R$ #o$ 1000.0$ "pril 12, 2011 $