CEBU, Philippines - The Department of Interior and Local Government yesterday said that the two councilors who got the lowest votes in those cities that were reverted back to towns should be removed from their posts once the Supreme Court ruling will be made final.
Before he gave this answer, Mar Angelo delos Santos of the DILG-Manila law department was hesitant to give a legal opinion about the matter because their office had not yet received the Supreme Court ruling that rejected the cityhood of 16 new cities, including Carcar, Naga and Bogo, all in Cebu.
While cities are allowed to have at least 10 councilors to act as the local government units’ legislators, the municipalities are only entitled to eight councilors.
When the cityhood issue of the 16 new cities was still pending before the Supreme Court and they were still allowed to retain their city status, the Commission on Elections also allowed 10 seats for councilors in the said LGUs.
Granting that the latest Supreme Court ruling would already become final and executory, there is a question of what will happen to the two councilors because the law only allows eight councilors for a municipality.
After consulting with his superior about the issue, Delos Santos said assuming that the Supreme Court did not mention in its ruling of what will happen to the two councilors who got the lowest votes, it is the DILG’s opinion that they should be removed.
He said if the concerned councilors will insist on retaining their position then any taxpayers can file a petition for mandamus before the court to implement the rule of law.
The DBM officials said once they will receive the copy of the SC ruling only then will they reduce the Internal Revenue Allotment of the 16 cities reverted back to towns.
Section 450 of the Local Government Code provides that a municipality or cluster of barangays can be converted into a city if it has an average annual income of at least P20 million or its population has reached 150,000 and it has a contiguous territory of 100 square kilometers.
The Supreme Court declared void the laws that converted the 16 towns into cities because Section 450 of the Local Government Code was already amended with the enactment of Republic Act 9009 that increased the required annual income of a municipality to P100 million to be allowed to be upgraded to a city.
“The creation of local government units must follow the criteria established in the Local Government Code and not in any other law...The Constitution requires Congress to stipulate in the Local Government Code 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,” the SC decision read.
Aside from Naga, Carcar and Bogo, the other cities that will be affected with the latest Supreme Court ruling are Baybay in Leyte, Catbalogan in Samar, Borongan in Eastern Samar, Batac in Ilocos Norte, Tabuk in Kalinga, Tayabas in Quezon, Guihulngan in Negros Oriental, Tandag in Surigao del Sur, Cabadbaran in Agusan del Norte, El Salvador in Misamis Oriental, Mati in Davao Oriental, Bayugan in Agusan del Sur, and Lamitan in Basilan.
The League of Cities of the Philippines also opposes the conversion of said municipalities to city status as it takes a chunk out of their respective IRAs.
Cebu City’s IRA reached P960 million in 2009, but it is expected to increase this year.
Meanwhile, Cebu Governor Gwendolyn Garcia assures to provide financial support to Carcar, Naga and Bogo.
“If someone will come to the Capitol of course tabangan gyud.I assured my support to help them financially which could be their most immediate need,” she said.
The Supreme Court has already ruled with finality and the High Tribunal reversed its ruling and deemed unconstitutional the laws creating 16 new cities, where Cebu 1st District Rep. Eduardo Gullas authored the bills creating the cities of Naga and Carcar last 2007.
Since the 16 municipalities are not allowed to join the LCP, the governor plans to discuss with the LCP to let the municipalities be their “guests”. (THE FREEMAN)