League of Cities of the Philippines represented by LCP national President Jerry P Tenas, et al v
COMELEC, et al, GR No 176951, GR No 177499, GR No 178056, August 24, 2010
Case Digest
Ponente: J. Carpio
Petitioner: League of Cities of the Philippines represented by LCP national President Jerry P
Tenas, et al
Respondent: COMELEC
Facts:
Supreme Court en banc, struck down the subject 16 of the Cityhood Laws for violating Section
10, Article X of the Constitution. Respondents filed a petition for reconsideration which was denied by the
Honorable Court. A second motion for reconsideration was also denied until on the 18th of November
2008, the judgement became final and executory.
The Court then on the 19th of December 2009, unprecedentedly reversed its decision upholding
the constitutionally of the Cityhood Laws.
Issue:
WON the court could reverse the decision it already rendered?
Ratio:
Yes. The operative fact doctrine never validates or constitutionalizes an unconstitutional
law. Under the operative fact doctrine, the unconstitutional law remains unconstitutional, but the effects of
the unconstitutional law, prior to its judicial declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of
equity and fair play. In short, the operative fact doctrine affects or modifies only the effects of the
unconstitutional law, not the unconstitutional law itself.
Thus, applying the operative fact doctrine to the present case, the Cityhood Laws remain
unconstitutional because they violate Section 10, Article X of the Constitution. However, the effects
of the implementation of the Cityhood Laws prior to the declaration of their nullity, such as the payment of
salaries and supplies by the “new cities” or their issuance of licenses or execution of contracts, may be
recognized as valid and effective. This does not mean that the Cityhood Laws are valid for they remain
void. Only the effects of the implementation of these unconstitutional laws are left undisturbed as a
matter of equity and fair play to innocent people who may have relied on the presumed validity of the
Cityhood Laws prior to the Court’s declaration of their unconstitutionality.
