Dissenting SC Justice: Flip-flopping on cities ‘made history’

“This Court has made history with its repeated flip-flopping in this case." Thus, Associate Justice Antonio Carpio began his dissenting opinion to the majority decision that the Supreme Court (SC) issued on April 12. Further down he wrote: “Clearly, there were three reversals or flip-flops in this case." He raised four points against the high court’s majority ruling which upheld the conversion of 16 municipalities into cities. He also criticized the strongly-worded concurring opinion of SC Associate Justice Roberto Abad. First, Carpio said an “egregious error" was made because “[s]imply put, there is absolutely nothing in the [16] Cityhood Laws to support the majority decision that the Cityhood Laws further amended the Local Government Code." He pointed out that “[b]y express provision in the Separability Clause of each Cityhood Law, in case of inconsistency between the Cityhood Law and the Local Government Code, the latter shall prevail. Thus, the P100 million income requirement in the Local Government Code prevails over the P20 million income requirement under the Cityhood Laws." He said: “To avoid discrimination and ensure uniformity and equality, the Constitution expressly requires Congress to stipulate in the Local Government Code itself all the criteria necessary for the creation of a city, including the conversion of a municipality into a city. Congress cannot write such criteria in any other law, like the Cityhood Laws." A ‘glaring error’ Second, Carpio called it a “glaring error" for the majority to state that the increased minimum income requirement of P100 million for cityhood conversion was “arbitrarily made" or has made it “extremely difficult for municipalities to become component cities." He said these conclusions were “based on patently and undeniably false and erroneous premises." Carpio lamented that “the [SC] majority does not state that the P100 million income requirement is unconstitutional. The majority simply refuses to apply the prevailing law, choosing instead to apply a repealed law. There is neither law nor logic in the majority decision." He said that it is “unfair to the Legislature" and “grossly erroneous" to say that “increasing the income requirement from P20 million to P100 million ‘simply to make it difficult for the municipalities to become component cities’," noting that the cities of San Juan, Navotas, Sta. Rosa (Laguna), Dasmariñas (Cavite) and Biñan (Laguna) “were created in full compliance with the P100 million income criterion." He added that 21 municipalities have satisfied the P100-million income requirement for the creation of cities and accordingly the League of Cities of the Philippines has endorsed their cityhood applications. These municipalities are Cabuyao and San Pedro in Laguna); Cainta, Taytay, and Binangonan in Rizal; Bacoor, General Trias, Imus, Carmona, and Silang in Cavite; San Pedro, Laguna; Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija; Calaca, Sto. Tomas, Bauan and Nasugbu in Batangas; Mauban in Quezon; Marilao, Sta. Maria and Norzagaray in Bulacan; and Limay in Bataan. He said: “The 16 Cityhood Laws stick out like a sore thumb, starkly showing an obvious violation of the equal protection clause. The Cityhood Laws create distinctly privileged cities with only P20-million annual income, discriminating against cities with P100 million annual income created before and after the enactment of the Cityhood Laws. This kind of discrimination is precisely what Section 10, Article X of the Constitution seeks to prohibit." Allocation of scarce resources Third, Carpio said the reduction of the share in the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) of cities will adversely affect each and every city’s economic situation. He belied the SC majority’s Feb. 15 ruling, which said that the League of Cities protest against the reduction of their IRA “all boils down to money." According to the associate justice, “It boils down to equity and fairness, rational allocation of scarce resources, and above all, faithful compliance with an express mandatory provision of the Constitution." He said that: “The majority gravely loses sight of the fact that ‘the members of petitioner League of Cities are also in need of the same resources’," which were meant “for almost 40 million Filipinos, as compared to only 1.3 million Filipinos in the [16] respondent municipalities." He cited the League’s example made with Davao City: “Stated otherwise, for every peso that each Davaoeño receives, his counterpart in the respondent municipality [one of the 16] will receive more than two pesos." Strict constitutional compliance Fourth, Carpio cited as “gross error" the statement made by Justice Roberto A. Abad in his Concurring Opinion to the SC’s Feb. 15 ruling that “[t]here remains, therefore, substantial compliance with the provision of Section 10, Article X of the Constitution." He said: “There must be strict, not only substantial, compliance with the constitutional requirement because the economic lifeline of existing cities may be seriously affected. Thus, the invocation of ‘substantial compliance’ with constitutional requirements is clearly misplaced in this case." He noted the “wide disparity – an P80 million difference – in the income requirement of P20 million under the old Local Government Code and the P100 million requirement under the prevailing Local Government Code. By any reasonable yardstick known to man since the dawn of civilization, compliance with the old income requirement, which is only 20% compliance with the new income requirement under the prevailing law, cannot be deemed ‘substantial compliance.’ It is like saying that those who obtain a general average of 20% in the Bar Examinations are in ‘substantial compliance’ with the requirement for admission to the Bar where the highest possible score is 100%." Carpio said “applying what Justice Abad calls ‘the lower income requirement of the old code’ is applying a repealed, dead, and non-existent law, which is exactly what the majority decision has done." Carpio concluded his dissenting opinion thus: “Finally, this Court must be true to its sworn duty to uphold, defend, and protect the Constitution fully and faithfully, without ‘indulging in sophistry’ or seeking refuge behind a patently dubious invocation of ‘substantial compliance’ with the Constitution." — VS/KBK, GMA News