TABUK CITY, KALINGA – In the face of the alleged denial of the motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) that the cityhood laws of the 16 “new cities” including this city are unconstitutional, Mayor Camilo Lammawin, Jr. told the media that the city is not yet giving up.
He did not, however, say if that is the position of the 15 other “new cities.”
Citing information from an insider, Lammawin said that the high court during its session last Tuesday junked the motion for reconsideration on a vote of 6-5, the same vote when the court struck down the new status of the 16 local government units last October.
The insider said that Justices Arturo Brion, Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Leonardo Quisumbing, Dante Tinga and Deosdado Peralta voted against the 16 cities while Justices Renato Corona, Teresita Leornardo-de Castro, Minita Chico-Nazario, Presbitero Velasco, Jr. and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago voted in their favor. Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Justice Eduardo Natchura inhibited themselves.
Lammawin commented that the real motive of the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) for challenging the cityhood laws in the SC is not constitutionality but money as they claim that the conversion of the 16 “new cities” reduces their internal revenue allotments (IRAs) because there are more now sharing the portion for cities of the national internal revenue pie.
Lammawin contended that the conversion of the 16 cities could not be unconstitutional because conversions of towns are done through the guidelines of the Local Government Code or RA 7160, a law which has been passed by Congress and which it also has the prerogative to amend.
The LCP argued that the cityhood laws are unconstitutional because, according to the Constitution, the conversion of towns should follow the process set in RA 7160 and the cityhood laws violate RA 9009 which amended RA 7160 by raising the income requirement for towns applying to become cities from P20M to P100M exclusive of their IRA.
Lammawin maintains that as deliberated, RA 9009 had exempted the 16 cities from the new income requirement on the premise that their cityhood bills were already pending in Congress when RA 9009 was passed in 2001. **By Estanislao Albano Jr., ZZW
He did not, however, say if that is the position of the 15 other “new cities.”
Citing information from an insider, Lammawin said that the high court during its session last Tuesday junked the motion for reconsideration on a vote of 6-5, the same vote when the court struck down the new status of the 16 local government units last October.
The insider said that Justices Arturo Brion, Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Leonardo Quisumbing, Dante Tinga and Deosdado Peralta voted against the 16 cities while Justices Renato Corona, Teresita Leornardo-de Castro, Minita Chico-Nazario, Presbitero Velasco, Jr. and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago voted in their favor. Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Justice Eduardo Natchura inhibited themselves.
Lammawin commented that the real motive of the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) for challenging the cityhood laws in the SC is not constitutionality but money as they claim that the conversion of the 16 “new cities” reduces their internal revenue allotments (IRAs) because there are more now sharing the portion for cities of the national internal revenue pie.
Lammawin contended that the conversion of the 16 cities could not be unconstitutional because conversions of towns are done through the guidelines of the Local Government Code or RA 7160, a law which has been passed by Congress and which it also has the prerogative to amend.
The LCP argued that the cityhood laws are unconstitutional because, according to the Constitution, the conversion of towns should follow the process set in RA 7160 and the cityhood laws violate RA 9009 which amended RA 7160 by raising the income requirement for towns applying to become cities from P20M to P100M exclusive of their IRA.
Lammawin maintains that as deliberated, RA 9009 had exempted the 16 cities from the new income requirement on the premise that their cityhood bills were already pending in Congress when RA 9009 was passed in 2001. **By Estanislao Albano Jr., ZZW
1 comment:
0, cialis online,
Post a Comment