The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-4, reversed Tuesday its November 18, 2008 decision and declared as constitutional the cityhood laws or Republic Acts converting 16 municipalities into cities.

In a 35-page decision penned by Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., the Court granted the second motion for reconsideration of the Court’s earlier decision which had ruled that the said cityhood laws violated Sections 6 and 10, Article X of the Constitution.

Declared as valid and constitutional are RA Nos. 9389 for Baybay City in Leyte), 9390 (Bogo City in Cebu), 9391 (Catbalogan City in Samar), 9392 (Tandag City in Surigao del Sur), 9393 (Lamitan City in Basilan), 9394 (Borongan City in Samar), 9398 (Tayabas City in Quezon), 9404 (Tabuk City in Kalinga), 9405 (Bayugan City in Agusan del Sur) RA 9407 (Batac City in Ilocos Norte), 9408 (Mati City in Davao Oriental), 9409 (Guihulngan City in Negros Oriental), 9434 (Cabadbaran City in Agusan del Norte), 9435 (El Salvador City in Misamis Oriental), 9436 (Carcar City in Cebu), and 9491 (Naga City in Cebu).

All cityhood laws, enacted after the effectivity of RA 9009 increasing the income requirement for cityhood from P20 million to P100 million in sec. 450 of the Local Government Code (LGC), explicitly exempted the respondent municipalities from the said income requirement.

Concurring with the decision were Justices Renato C. Corona, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Roberto A. Abad, and Martin S. Villarama, Jr. Justice Antonio T. Carpio wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Conchita Carpio Morales, Arturo D. Brion, and Diosdado M. Peralta.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, and Mariano C. Del Castillo did not take part.

The Court held that consistent with its plenary legislative power on the matter, Congress can, via either a consolidated set of laws or a much simpler, single-subject enactment, impose the said verifiable criteria of viability [for cityhood].

These criteria need not be embodied in the Local Government Code, albeit it is the ideal repository to ensure, as much as possible, the element of uniformity. Congress can even, after making a codification, enact an amendatory law adding to the existing layers of indicators earlier codified, just as efficaciously as it may reduce the same, the decision said.

The Court held that the favorable treatment accorded the 16 municipalities by the cityhood laws rests on substantial distinction. It noted that respondent LGUs had pending cityhood bills before the passage of RA 9009 and the year before the amendatory RA 9009, respondent LGUs had already met the income criterion exacted for cityhood under the LGC of 1991.