The Supreme Court
has spoken

Published by the Visayan Daily Star Publications, Inc.

NINFA R. LEONARDIA Editor-in-Chief & President

CARLA P. GOMEZ Editor GUILLERMO TEJIDA III Desk Editor NANETTE L. GUADALQUIVER Busines Editor NIDA A. BUENAFE Sports Editor RENE GENOVE Bureau Chief, Dumaguete MAJA P. DELY Advertising Coordinator

CARLOS ANTONIO L. LEONARDIA Administrative Officer

We sympathize with the 16 municipalities in the country that had been converted into cities in the past few years and had been functioning as such all this time, but whose status had been invalidated by the Supreme Court recently.

The invalidation had been initiated by the League of Cities – the existing ones, that is – who pointed out that the conversions had not followed the procedure prescribed under the Local Government Code and had not complied with the requirements it has set out.

The requisites for cityhood are simple enough: the area being proposed must have the prescribed income, territory and population. The converted towns did not meet all or some of the requirements, and yet they were converted into cities by congressional act.

The 16 converted towns did not take easily to the reversion of their status and raised the question to the courts. However, the Supreme Court has been firm about it – the municipalities did not qualify for cityhood under Philippine Laws.

As for the original cities, who compose the membership of the League of Cities, they, too, have reason to defend their turf, in a manner of speaking. The creation willy-nilly of too many new cities, has affected their own share in the Internal Revenue Allotment that, for many of them, practically serves as a lifeline to their existence.

The leaders of the divested “cities” have argued that their reversion would result in some 45,000 job losses for their constituents, which could be a great economic blow especially during these difficult times. However, as lawyers like to argue, Dura lex, sed lex – the law is harsh but it is the law. And none are more obligated to obey the law and give good examples to their constituents than the officials and leaders of the government units involved.*