Feb 15, 2011 These cases were initiated by the consolidated petitions for prohibition filed by the League

of Cities of the Philippines (LCP , , assailing the constitutionality of the si!teen (1" laws, each con#erting the $unicipality co#ered thereby into a co$ponent city (Cityhood Laws , and see%ing to en&oin the Co$$ission on 'lections (C()'L'C fro$ conducting plebiscites pursuant to the sub&ect laws* +n the ,ecision dated -o#e$ber 1., 200., the Court En Banc, by a "/5 #ote, granted the petitions and struc% down the Cityhood Laws as unconstitutional for #iolating 0ections 10 and ", 1rticle 2, and the e3ual protection clause* +n the 4esolution dated )arch 51, 2006, the Court En Banc, by a 7/5 #ote, denied the first $otion for reconsideration* (n 1pril 2., 2006, the Court En Banc issued a 4esolution, with a #ote of "/", which denied the second $otion for reconsideration for being a prohibited pleading* +n its 8une 2, 2006 4esolution, the Court En Banc clarified its 1pril 2., 2006 4esolution , the Court allowed the filing of the second $otion for reconsideration* Thus, the second $otion for reconsideration was no longer a prohibited pleading* 9owe#er, for lac% of the re3uired nu$ber of #otes to o#erturn the 1. -o#e$ber 200. ,ecision and 51 )arch 2006 4esolution, the Court denied the second $otion for reconsideration in its 2. 1pril 2006 4esolution* Then, in another ,ecision dated ,ece$ber 21, 2006, the Court En Banc, by a #ote of "/ :, declared the Cityhood Laws as constitutional* (n 1ugust 2:, 2010, the Court En Banc, through a 4esolution, by a #ote of 7/", resol#ed the Ad Cautelam )otion for 4econsideration and )otion to 1nnul the ,ecision of ,ece$ber 21, 2006, reinstating the -o#e$ber 1., 200. ,ecision* 9ence, the afore$entioned pleadings* ,ecision; Considering these circu$stances where the Court En Banc has twice changed its position on the constitutionality of the 1" Cityhood Laws, and especially ta%ing note of the no#elty of the issues in#ol#ed in these cases, the )otion for 4econsideration of the <4esolution= dated 1ugust 2:, 2010 deser#es fa#orable action by this Court base on the following cogent points; 1 The 16 Cityhood Bills do not violate Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution; 2)The Cityhood La s do not violate Section 6, Article X and the e!ual "rotection clause of the Constitution#

1 >ndeniably, 4*1* -o* 6006 a$ended the L?C* @ut it is also true that, in effect, the Cityhood Laws a$ended 4*1* -o* 6006 through the e!e$ption clauses found therein* 0ince the Cityhood Laws e!plicitly e!e$pted the concerned $unicipalities fro$ the a$endatory 4*1* -o* 6006, such Cityhood Laws are, therefore, also a$end$ents to the L?C itself* For this reason, we re#erse the -o#e$ber 1., 200. ,ecision and the 1ugust 2:, 2010 4esolution on their strained and stringent #iew that the Cityhood Laws, particularly their e!e$ption clauses, are not found in the L?C* 2 >pon $ore profound reflection and deliberation, we declare that there was #alid classification, and the Cityhood Laws do not #iolate the e3ual protection clause* Aerily, the deter$ination of the e!istence of substantial distinction with respect to respondent $unicipalities does not si$ply lie on the $ere pendency of their cityhood bills during the 11 th Congress* This Court sees the bigger picture* The e!istence of substantial distinction with respect to respondent $unicipalities co#ered by the Cityhood Laws is $easured by the purpose of the law, not by 4*1* -o* 6006, but by the #ery purpose of the L?C, as pro#ided in its 0ection 2 (a * The &ustness in the act of Congress in enacting the Cityhood Laws beco$es ob#ious, especially considering that 55 $unicipalities were con#erted into co$ponent cities al$ost i$$ediately prior to the enact$ent of 4*1* -o* 6006* +n the enact$ent of the Cityhood Laws, Congress $erely too% the 1" $unicipalities co#ered thereby fro$ the disad#antaged position brought about by the abrupt increase in the inco$e re3uire$ent of 4*1* -o* 6006, ac%nowledging the <pri#ilege= that they ha#e already gi#en to those newly/con#erted co$ponent cities, which prior to the enact$ent of 4*1* -o* 6006, were undeniably in the sa$e footing or <class= as the respondent $unicipalities* Congress $erely recogniBed the capacity and readiness of respondent $unicipalities to beco$e co$ponent cities of their respecti#e pro#inces* Congress, who holds the power of the purse, in enacting the Cityhood Laws, only sought the well/being of respondent $unicipalities, ha#ing seen their respecti#e capacities to beco$e co$ponent cities of their pro#inces, te$porarily stunted by the enact$ent of 4*1* -o* 6006* @y allowing respondent $unicipalities to con#ert into co$ponent cities, Congress desired only to uphold the #ery purpose of the L?C, i.e., to $a%e the local go#ern$ent units <en&oy genuine and $eaningful local autono$y to enable the$ to attain their fullest de#elop$ent as

self/reliant co$$unities and $a%e the$ $ore effecti#e partners in the attain$ent of national goals,= which is the #ery $andate of the Constitution* Finally, we should not be restricted by technical rules of procedure at the e!pense of the transcendental interest of &ustice and e3uity* Chile it is true that litigation $ust end, e#en at the e!pense of errors in &udg$ent, it is nobler rather for this Court of last resort, as #anguard of truth, to toil in order to dispel apprehensions and doubt $%&'&()'&, the )otion for 4econsideration of the <4esolution= dated 1ugust 2:, 2010, dated and filed on 0epte$ber 1:, 2010 by respondents )unicipality of @aybay, et al* is *'A+T&,# The 4esolution dated 1ugust 2:, 2010 is '&-&'S&, and S&T AS.,&# The Cityhood LawsD4epublic 1cts -os* 65.6, 6560, 6561, 6562, 6565, 656:, 656., 6:0:, 6:05, 6:07, 6:0., 6:06, 6:5:, 6:55, 6:5", and 6:61Dare declared C)+ST.T/T.)+AL 1ugust 2:, 2010 (n 1. -o#e$ber 200., the 0upre$e Court En Banc, by a $a&ority #ote, struc% down the sub&ect 1" Cityhood Laws for #iolating 0ection 10, 1rticle 2 of the 16.7 Constitution and the e3ual protection clause* (n 51 )arch 2006, the 0upre$e Court En Banc, again by a $a&ority #ote, denied the respondentsE first $otion for reconsideration* (n 2. 1pril 2006, the 0upre$e Court En Banc, by a split #ote, denied the respondentsE second $otion for reconsideration* 1ccordingly, the 1. -o#e$ber 200. ,ecision beca$e final and e!ecutory and was recorded, in due course, in the @oo% of 'ntries of 8udg$ents on 21 )ay 2006* 9owe#er, after the finality of the 1. -o#e$ber 200. ,ecision and without any e!ceptional and co$pelling reason, the Court En Banc unprecedentedly re#ersed the 1. -o#e$ber 200. ,ecision by upholding the constitutionality of the Cityhood Laws in the ,ecision of 21 ,ece$ber 2006* ,ecision; >pon ree!a$ination, the Court finds the $otions for reconsideration $eritorious and accordingly reinstates the 1. -o#e$ber 200. ,ecision declaring the 1" Cityhood Laws unconstitutional* A. Violation of Section 10, Article X of the Constitution

+n enacting 41 6006, Congress did not grant any e!e$ption to respondent $unicipalities, e#en though their cityhood bills were pending in Congress when Congress passed 41 6006* The Cityhood Laws, all enacted after the effecti#ity of 41 6006, e!plicitly e!e$pt respondent $unicipalities fro$ the increased inco$e re3uire$ent in 0ection :50 of the Local ?o#ern$ent Code, as a$ended by 41 6006* Such e0e1"tion clearly violates Section 10, Article X of the Constitution and is thus "atently unconstitutional# La s# To 2e valid, such e0e1"tion 1ust 2e ritten in the Local *overn1ent Code and not in any other la , includin3 the Cityhood

B. Operative Fact Doctrine 1pplying the operati#e fact doctrine to the present case, the Cityhood Laws re$ain unconstitutional because they #iolate 0ection 10, 1rticle 2 of the Constitution* 9owe#er, the effects of the i$ple$entation of the Cityhood Laws "rior to the declaration of their nullity, such as the pay$ent of salaries and supplies by the <new cities= or their issuance of licenses or e!ecution of contracts, $ay be recogniBed as #alid and effecti#e* This does not $ean that the Cityhood Laws are #alid for they re$ain #oid* (nly the effects of the i$ple$entation of these unconstitutional laws are left undisturbed as a $atter of e3uity and fair play to innocent people who $ay ha#e relied on the presu$ed #alidity of the Cityhood Laws prior to the CourtEs declaration of their unconstitutionality*

C. Equal rotection Clause 1s the Court held in the 1. -o#e$ber 200. ,ecision, there is no substantial distinction between $unicipalities with pending cityhood bills in the 11th Congress and $unicipalities that did not ha#e pending bills* The $ere pendency of a cityhood bill in the 11th Congress is not a $aterial difference to distinguish one $unicipality fro$ another for the purpose of the inco$e re3uire$ent* .n short, the classification criterion is not rationally related to the "ur"ose of the la hich is to "revent fiscally non4via2le 1unici"alities fro1 convertin3 into cities#

+n addition, li$iting the e!e$ption only to the 1" $unicipalities #iolates the re3uire$ent that the classification $ust apply to all si$ilarly situated D. !ie"Vote on a #otion for $econsi%eration .( T%& -)T.+* '&S/LTS .+ A T.&, T%& 5)T.)+ ()' '&C)+S.,&'AT.)+ .S ,&&5&, ,&+.&,# The Court6s "rior 1a7ority action on the 1ain decision stands affir1ed# The "/" tie/#ote by the Court en banc on the second $otion for reconsideration necessarily resulted in the denial of the second $otion for reconsideration* .n short, the 18 +ove12er 2008 ,ecision and the 91 5arch 200: 'esolution, affir1ed# 1dhering to the e!plicit prohibition in 0ection 10, 1rticle 2 of the Constitution does not cripple CongressE power to $a%e laws* +n fact, Congress is not prohibited fro$ a$ending the Local ?o#ern$ent Code itself, as what Congress did by enacting 41 6006* The unconstitutionality of the Cityhood Laws lies in the fact that Congress pro#ided an e!e$ption contrary to the e!press language of the Constitution that <no city shall be created e!cept in accordance with the criteria established in the local go#ern$ent code*= +n other words, Congress e!ceeded and abused its law/$a%ing power, rendering the challenged Cityhood Laws #oid for being #iolati#e of the Constitution* $%&'&()'&, we *'A+T the $otions for reconsideration of the 21 ,ece$ber 2006 ,ecision and '&.+STAT& the 1. -o#e$ber 200. ,ecision declaring /+C)+ST.T/T.)+AL the Cityhood Laws, na$ely; 4epublic 1ct -os* 65.6, 6560, 6561, 6562, 6565, 656:, 656., 6:0:, 6:05, 6:07, 6:0., 6:06, 6:5:, 6:55, 6:5", and 6:61* hich ere 2oth reached ith the concurrence of a 1a7ority of the Court en &anc, are not reconsidered 2ut stand