09 Miranda v. Aguirre

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 133064. September 16, 1999.]
JOSE C. MIRANDA, ALFREDO S. DIRIGE, MANUEL H. AFIADO,

MARIANO V. BABARAN and ANDRES R. CABUYADAO,
petitioners, vs. HON. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, In his capacity as
Executive Secretary; HON. EPIMACO VELASCO, in his
capacity as Secretary of Local Government, HON. SALVADOR
ENRIQUEZ, in his capacity as Secretary of Budget, THE
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
HON. BENJAMIN G. DY, in his capacity as Governor of Isabela,
THE HONORABLE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF
ISABELA, ATTY. BALTAZAR PICIO, in his capacity as Provincial
Administrator, and MR. ANTONIO CHUA, in his capacity as
Provincial Treasurer, respondents, GIORGIDI B. AGGABAO,
intervenor.
Nelia P. Natividad for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for public respondent.
Aggarao and Sto. Domingo for intervenor.
SYNOPSIS
In 1998, by virtue of RA No. 8528, the City of Santiago, Isabela was converted
from an independent component city to a component city. Herein assailed is the
constitutionality of RA No. 8528 on the ground of lack of provision in the said law
submitting the same for ratification by the people of Santiago City in a proper
plebiscite.
The Court held that the Constitution requires a plebiscite. In the case at bar, the
issue is whether the downgrading of Santiago City from an independent
component city to a mere component requires the approval of the people of
Santiago City. The resolution of the issue depends on whether or not the
downgrading of Santiago City falls within the meaning of creation, division,
merger, abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of municipalities per
Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution. A close analysis of the said
constitutional provision will reveal that the common denominator is the material
change in the political and economic rights of the local government units directly
affected as well as the people therein. It is precisely for this reason that the
Constitution requires the approval of the people in the political units "directly
affected." Further, Section 10, Chapter 2 of the Local Government Code and Rule
II, Article 6, par. (f)(1) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Local
Government Code reiterate the constitutional requirement.
SYLLABUS
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; PARTIES; CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW
CAN BE CHALLENGED BY ONE WHO WILL SUSTAIN A DIRECT INJURY AS A
RESULT OF ITS ENFORCEMENT; CASE AT BAR. — The constitutionality of law can
be challenged by one who will sustain a direct injury as a result of its
enforcement. Petitioner Miranda was the mayor of Santiago City when he filed
the present petition in his own right as mayor. It is also indubitable that the
change of status of the city of Santiago from independent component city to a
mere component city will affect his powers as mayor. The injury that he would
sustain from the enforcement of R.A. No. 8528 is direct and immediate. Then, the
other petitioners are residents and voters in the city of Santiago. They have the
right to be heard in the conversion of their city thru a plebiscite to be conducted
by the COMELEC. The denial of this right in R.A. No. 8528 gives them proper
standing to strike the law as unconstitutional. HEDSCc
2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT; JUDICIAL POWER;

JUSTICIABLE ISSUE; CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW, NECESSARILY INCLUDED
THEREIN. — Section 1 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution defines judicial
power as including "the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government." To be sure, the cut between a political and justiciable issue has
been made by this Court in many cases and need no longer mystify us. The
petition at bar presents a justiciable issue. Petitioners claim that under Section
10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution they have a right to approve or disapprove
R.A. No. 8528 in a plebiscite before it can be enforced. Whether or not petitioners
have the said right is a legal not a political question. For whether or not laws
passed by Congress comply with the requirements of the Constitution pose
questions that this Court alone can decide. The proposition that this Court is the
ultimate arbiter of the meaning and nuances of the Constitution need not be the
subject of a prolix explanation.
3. ID.; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; CONVERSION OF THE CITY OF SANTIAGO FROM AN
INDEPENDENT COMPONENT CITY TO A COMPONENT CITY; UNCONSTITUTIONAL
IN THE ABSENCE OF A PLEBISCITE. — R.A. No. 8528 is unconstitutional. The
conversion of the city of Santiago from an independent component city to a
component city should be submitted to its people in a proper plebiscite. Section
10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides "No province, city, municipality,
o r barangay may be created, or divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary
substantially altered except in accordance with the criteria established in the
local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in
a plebiscite in the political units directly affected." A close analysis of the said
constitutional provision will reveal that the creation, division, merger, abolition or
substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units involve a common
denominator — material change in the political and economic rights of the local
government units directly affected as well as the people therein. It is precisely
for this reason that the Constitution requires the approval of the people "in the
political units directly affected." Section 10, Article X addressed the undesirable
practice in the past whereby local government units were created, abolished,
merged or divided on the basis of the vagaries of politics and not of the welfare
of the people. Thus, the consent of the people of the local government unit
directly affected was required to serve as a checking mechanism to any exercise
of legislative power creating, dividing, abolishing, merging or altering the
boundaries of local government units. It is one instance where the people in their
sovereign capacity decide on a matter that affects them -— direct democracy of
the people as opposed to democracy thru people's representatives. This plebiscite
requirement is also in accord with the philosophy of the Constitution granting
more autonomy to local government units. The changes that will result from the
downgrading of the city of Santiago from an independent component city to a
component city are many and cannot be characterized as insubstantial. Section
10, Chapter 2 of the Local Government Code and Rule II, Article 6, paragraph (f)
(1) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code is
in accord with the Constitution. The rules therein cover all conversions, whether
upward or downward in character, so long as they result in a material change in
the local government unit directly affected, especially a change in the political
and economic rights of its people.
4. ID.; ID.; ALTERATION OF BOUNDARY OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT;
CONDITIONS. — Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution imposes two
conditions — first, the creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial
alteration of boundary of a local government unit must meet the criteria fixed by
the Local Government Code on income, population and land area and second, the
law must be approved by the people "by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite in the political units directly affected."
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROVISIONS THEREOF UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CODE; DISCUSSED. — In accord with Section 10, Article IX of the Constitution,
Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Local Government Code fixed the required criteria and
they involve requirements on income, population and land area. These
requirements, however, are imposed to help assure the economic viability of the
local government unit concerned. They were not imposed to determine the
necessity for a plebiscite of the people. Indeed, the Local Government Code does
not state that there will be no more plebiscite after its requirements on income,
population and land area have been satisfied. On the contrary, Section 10,
Chapter 2 of the Code provides for the necessity of a plebiscite. Said plebiscite
shall be conducted by the COMELEC within one hundred twenty (120) days from
the date of the effectivity of the law or ordinance effecting such action, unless
said law or ordinance fixes another date."
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PURPOSES; DISCUSSED. — The two requirements under
Section 10 of Article IX of the Constitution have different purposes. The criteria
fixed by the Local Government Code on income, population and land area are
designed to achieve an economic purpose. They are to be based on verified
indicators, hence, Section 7, Chapter 2 of the Local Government Code requires
that these "indicators shall be attested by the Department of Finance, the
National Statistics Office, and the Lands Management Bureau of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources." In contrast, the people's plebiscite is
required to achieve a political purpose — to use the people's voice as a check
against the pernicious political practice of gerrymandering. There is no better
check against this excess committed by the political representatives of the
people themselves than the exercise of direct people power.
BUENA, J., dissenting opinion:
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; "CONVERSION" OF BOUNDARY
OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS; ELUCIDATED TO JUSTIFY THE ABSURDITY OF
PLEBISCITE THEREIN. — Conversion does not appear in the 1987 Constitution
nor in the Section 10, Chapter 2 of the Local Government Code. Surprisingly,
Rule II, Article 6, paragraph (f)(1) of the Implementing Rules of the Local
Government Code included conversion in the enumeration of the modes of
changing the status of local government units. Then, the Local Government Code
uses the term "conversion" only in some instances. Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr.
defines "conversion, "'as "the elevation of an LGU from one level to another, like
converting a municipality to a city or a component city to a highly urbanized one
or the raising of the classification of one municipality, city or province from a
fourth class category to third, second or first." It is my humble opinion therefore
that the requirement of a plebiscite does not apply to the case at bar which does
not involve the upgrading or elevation of Santiago City but a downgrading
thereof.
2. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE; IMPLEMENTING RULES

AND REGULATIONS; THE LATTER CANNOT EXPAND THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS
OF THE FORMER. — I am not convinced that a mere Rule and Regulation
intended to implement the Local Government Code can expand the terms and
provisions clearly expressed in the basic law to be implemented. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Justice Puno, in his ponencia in the case of Iglesia ni Kristo v. CA, opined
that "(T)his rule is void for it runs smack against the hoary doctrine that
administrative rules and regulations cannot expand the letter and spirit of the
law they seek to enforce.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; R.A. NO. 8528;
CONSTITUTIONALITY THEREOF DEFENDED, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A
PLEBISCITE, IN RESPECT TO THE DECISION OF THE LAW MAKING BODY. — The
proceedings in the Senate show that the Committee on Local Government, to
which H.B. No. 8729 was referred, reported back to the Senate with the
recommendation that it be approved with an amendment providing for a
plebiscite. However, after the deliberations in the Senate, the Committee on
Local Government decided to withdraw the foregoing proposed amendment.
Hence, on February 6, 1998, the Republic Act No. 8528, the constitutionality of
which is challenged by the petitioners, was approved. Be that as it may, may this
Court properly require a plebiscite for the validity of said law when Congress
itself, which had been given the opportunity to include such a requirement,
decided against it? Are we not supplanting our judgment over that of Congress, a
co-equal branch of government entrusted by the Constitution to enact laws? I
respectfully submit that we may not do so without disturbing the balance of
power as apportioned and delineated by the Constitution.
4. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; LAWS; PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY,
FAVORED. — In a situation where the supposed breach of the constitution is
doubtful, equivocal and, at best, based on argumentative implications, I believe
that, as we have ruled in a plethora of cases, every law has in its favor, the
presumption of constitutionality and in case of doubt, the Court must exert every
effort to prevent the invalidation of the law and the nullification of the will of the
legislature that enacted it and the executive that approved it.
VITUG, J., separate opinion:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; CONVERSION OF THE CITY OF
SANTIAGO, ISABELA, FROM AN INDEPENDENT TO A COMPONENT CITY;
PLEBISCITE, REQUIRED. — I share the opinion of the majority of my colleagues
that, for the reasons expressed in the ponencia, a plebiscite is essential in order
to render effective the conversion of the City of Santiago, Isabela, from an
independent to a component city. I take the view that a plebiscite can be held
conformably with the provisions of the Local Government Code.
MENDOZA, J., dissenting opinion:
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; CHANGE IN THE
CLASSIFICATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT; WHEN POPULAR APPROVAL
REQUIRED. — Not every change — however "material" and far-reaching — in the
classification of a local government unit requires popular approval. Only if the
reclassification involves changes in income, population, and land area of the local
government unit is there a need for such changes to be approved by the people,
for then there would be a creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial
alteration of the boundary of a local government unit, as the case may be, within
the meaning of Art. X, §10 of the Constitution.
2. ID.; ID.; CONVERSION OF AN INDEPENDENT COMPONENT CITY TO A
COMPONENT CITY IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION OF THE BOUNDARY OF A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT SO AS TO REQUIRE A PLEBISCITE FOR THEIR
APPROVAL. -— The conversion from an independent component city to a
component city involves no such changes in income, population, or land area.
There may be changes in the voting rights of the residents of the city, the
supervision of the city's administration, and the city's share in the local taxes, as
petitioners point out, but such changes do not amount to the creation, division,
merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of the boundary of a local government
unit so as to require a plebiscite for their approval. An independent component
city and an ordinary component city are both component cities, as distinguished
from highly urbanized cities. The only difference between them is that the
charters of the independent component cities prohibit their voters from voting
for provincial elective officials and such cities are independent of the provinces in
which they are located. The fact is that whether the City of Santiago is an
independent component city or an ordinary component city, it is subject to
administrative supervision, with the only difference that, as an independent
component city, it is under the direct supervision of the President of the
Philippines, whereas, as an ordinary component city, it will be subject to the
supervision of the President through the province. That is hardly a distinction. For
the fact is that under the Constitution, the President of the Philippines exercises
general supervision over all local governments. Nor does it matter that
ordinances passed by the city councils of component cities are subject to review
(not approval as the Court says) by the provincial boards for the purpose of
determining whether the ordinances are within the powers of the city councils to
enact. For that matter, ordinances passed by the city councils of independent
component cities are likewise subject to review, although by the Office of the
President. The reason for this is to be found in Art. X, §4 of the Constitution.
3. ID.; ID.; LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT; DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS. — The
defining characteristics of a local government unit are its income, population, and
local area, as §§450 and 452 of the LGC provide. These are referred to in §7 of
the LGC and its Implementing Rules as the "verifiable indicators of viability and
projected capacity to provide services." Tested by these standards, there is no
change in the City of Santiago requiring the approval of the people in a
plebiscite.
4. ID.; ID.; R.A. NO. 7720 AND R.A. NO. 8528 COMPARED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
HOLDING A PLEBISCITE. — The conversion of the then Municipality of Santiago
in Isabela Province by R.A. No. 7720 was an act of creation. It was based on the
municipality's satisfying the requisites for the creation of a city as provided in
the LGC. These requisites are based on the "verifiable indicators" of income,
population, and land area and, therefore, the conversion of what was once a
municipality into a city needed approval in a plebiscite. But the conversion of
Santiago City from an independent component city into a component city under
RA No. 8528 involves no more than a change in the right of the people (i.e., the
registered voters of the city) to vote for provincial elective officials. By analogy,
when a municipality is converted into a city, a city is created, and when the city
is reverted into a municipality, the city is abolished. Both acts of creation and
abolition require the approval of the people in a plebiscite called for the purpose.
But when an independent component city is converted into a component city, it
is not created into another form, it is not divided, it is not merged with another
unit of local government, it is not abolished, much less is its boundary
substantially altered. Indeed, this is not the first time that an independent
component city is converted into a component city without a plebiscite. There is,
therefore, no reason for requiring that the reclassification of Santiago City as a
component city must be approved by the majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
and for holding that, because R.A. No. 8528 contains no provision for such
plebiscite, it is unconstitutional. IDESTH
DECISION
PUNO, J : p
This is a petition for a writ of prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction
assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8528 converting the city of
Santiago, Isabela from an independent component city to a component city. LLjur
On May 5, 1994, Republic Act No. 7720 which converted the municipality of
Santiago, Isabela into an independent component city was signed into law. On
July 4, 1994, the people of Santiago ratified R.A. No. 7720 in a plebiscite. 1
On February 14, 1998, Republic Act No. 8528 was enacted. It amended R.A. No.
7720. Among others, it changed the status of Santiago from an independent
component city to a component city, viz:
"AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED
7720 — AN ACT CONVERTING THE MUNICIPALITY OF SANTIAGO INTO AN
INDEPENDENT COMPONENT CITY TO BE KNOWN AS THE CITY OF
SANTIAGO.
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
Philippines in Congress assembled:
"SECTION 1. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7720 is hereby amended by
deleting the words "an independent" thereon so that said Section will read
as follows:
'SECTION 2. The City of Santiago . — The Municipality of Santiago
shall be converted into a component city to be known as the City of
Santiago, hereinafter referred to as the City, which shall comprise
of the present territory of the Municipality of Santiago, Isabela. The
territorial jurisdiction of the City shall be within the present metes
and bounds of the Municipality of Santiago.' cdll
"SECTION 2. Section 51 of Republic Act No. 7720 is hereby amended

deleting the entire section and in its stead substitute the following:
'SECTION 51. Election of Provincial Governor, Vice-Governor,
Sangguniang Panlalawigan Members, and any Elective Provincial
Position for the Province of Isabela. — The voters of the City of
Santiago shall be qualified to vote in the elections of the Provincial
Governor, Vice-Governor, Sangguniang Panlalawigan members and
other elective provincial positions of the Province of Isabela, and
any such qualified voter can be a candidate for such provincial
positions and any elective provincial office.'
"SECTION 3. Repealing Clause. — All existing laws or parts thereof

inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly.
"SECTION 4. Effectivity. — This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
"Approved."
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8528. 2 They alleged as ground
the lack of provision in R.A. No. 8528 submitting the law for ratification by the
people of Santiago City in a proper plebiscite. Petitioner Miranda was the mayor
of Santiago at the time of the filing of the petition at bar. Petitioner Afiado is the
President of the Liga ng mga Barangay ng Santiago City. Petitioners Dirige,
Cabuyadao and Babaran are residents of Santiago City.
In their Comment, respondent provincial officials of Isabela defended the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 8528. They assailed the standing of petitioners to file
the petition at bar. They also contend that the petition raises a political question
over which this Court lacks jurisdiction. llcd
Another Comment was filed by the Solicitor General for the respondent public
officials. The Solicitor General also contends that petitioners are not real parties
in interest. More importantly, it is contended that R.A. No. 8528 merely
reclassified Santiago City from an independent component city to a component
city. It allegedly did not involve any "creation, division, merger, abolition, or
substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units," hence, a
plebiscite of the people of Santiago is unnecessary.

A third Comment similar in tone was submitted by intervenor Giorgidi B.
Aggabao, 3 a member of the provincial board of Isabela. 4 He contended that both
the Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991 do not require a
plebiscite "to approve a law that merely allowed qualified voters of a city to vote
in provincial elections. The rules implementing the Local Government Code
cannot require a plebiscite. He also urged that petitioners lacked locus standi.
Petitioners filed a Reply to meet the arguments of the respondents and the
intervenor. They defended their standing. They also stressed the changes that
would visit the city of Santiago as a result of its reclassification.
We find merit in the petition.
First. The challenge to the locus standi of petitioners cannot succeed. It is now an
ancient rule that the constitutionality of law can be challenged by one who will
sustain a direct injury as a result of its enforcement. 5 Petitioner Miranda was the
mayor of Santiago City when he filed the present petition in his own right as
mayor and not on behalf of the city, hence, he did not need the consent of the
city council of Santiago City. It is also indubitable that the change of status of the
city of Santiago from independent component city to a mere component city will
affect his powers as mayor, as will be shown hereafter. The injury that he would
sustain from the enforcement of R.A. No. 8528 is direct and immediate and not a
mere generalized grievance shared with the people of Santiago City. Similarly,
the standing of the other petitioners rests on a firm foundation. They are
residents and voters in the city of Santiago. They have the right to be heard in
the conversion of their city thru a plebiscite to be conducted by the COMELEC.
The denial of this right in R.A. No. 8528 gives them proper standing to strike the
law as unconstitutional.
Second. The plea that this court back off from assuming jurisdiction over the
petition at bar on the ground that it involves a political question has to be
brushed aside. This plea has long lost its appeal especially in light of Section 1 of
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which defines judicial power as including
"the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government." To
be sure, the cut between a political and justiciable issue has been made by this
Court in many cases and need no longer mystify us. In Tañada v. Cuenco, 6 we
held: cda
"xxx xxx xxx

"The term 'political question' connotes what it means in ordinary parlance,
namely, a question of policy. It refers 'to those questions which under the
Constitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity;
or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to
the legislative or executive branch of the government.' It is concerned
with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure."
In Casibang v. Aquino, 7 we defined a justiciable issue as follows:

"A purely justiciable issue implies a given right, legally demandable and
enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy
granted and sanctioned by law, for said breach of right."
Clearly, the petition at bar presents a justiciable issue. Petitioners claim that
under Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution they have a right to
approve or disapprove R.A. No. 8528 in a plebiscite before it can be enforced. It
ought to be self-evident that whether or not petitioners have the said right is
a legal not a political question. For whether or not laws passed by Congress
comply with the requirements of the Constitution pose questions that this
Court alone can decide. The proposition that this Court is the ultimate arbiter
of the meaning and nuances of the Constitution need not be the subject of a
prolix explanation.
Third. The threshold issue is whether R.A. No. 8528 is unconstitutional for its
failure to provide that the conversion of the city of Santiago from an independent
component city to a component city should be submitted to its people in a proper
plebiscite. We hold that the Constitution requires a plebiscite. Section 10, Article
X of the 1987 Constitution provides:
"No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, or divided,
merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered except in
accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and
subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the
political units directly affected."
cdphil
This constitutional requirement is reiterated in Section 10, Chapter 2 of the

Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160), thus:
"SECTION 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be
created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered
except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government
code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite in the political units directly affected."
The power to create, divide, merge, abolish or substantially alter boundaries of

local government units belongs to Congress. 8 This power is part of the larger
power to enact laws which the Constitution vested in Congress. 9 The exercise of
the power must be in accord with the mandate of the Constitution. In the case at
bar, the issue is whether the downgrading of Santiago City from an independent
component city to a mere component city requires the approval of the people of
Santiago City in a plebiscite. The resolution of the issue depends on whether or
not the downgrading falls within the meaning of creation, division, merger,
abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of municipalities per Section 10,
Article X of the Constitution. A close analysis of the said constitutional provision
will reveal that the creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration
of boundaries of local government units involve a common denominator —
material change in the political and economic rights of the local government
units directly affected as well as the people therein. It is precisely for this reason
that the Constitution requires the approval of the people "in the political units
directly affected." It is not difficult to appreciate the rationale of this
constitutional requirement. The 1987 Constitution, more than any of our
previous Constitutions, gave more reality to the sovereignty of our people for it
was borne out of the people power in the 1986 EDSA revolution. Its Section 10,
Article X addressed the undesirable practice in the past whereby local
government units were created, abolished, merged or divided on the basis of the
vagaries of politics and not of the welfare of the people. Thus, the consent of the
people of the local government unit directly affected was required to serve as a
checking mechanism to any exercise of legislative power creating, dividing,
abolishing, merging or altering the boundaries of local government units. It is
one instance where the people in their sovereign capacity decide on a matter
that affects them — direct democracy of the people as opposed to democracy
thru people's representatives. This plebiscite requirement is also in accord with
the philosophy of the Constitution granting more autonomy to local government
units. LibLex
The changes that will result from the downgrading of the city of Santiago from
an independent component city to a component city are many and cannot be
characterized as insubstantial. For one, the independence of the city as a political
unit will be diminished. The city mayor will be placed under the administrative
supervision of the provincial governor. The resolutions and ordinances of the city
council of Santiago will have to be reviewed by the Provincial Board of Isabela.
Taxes that will be collected by the city will now have to be shared with the
province. Petitioners pointed out these far reaching changes on the life of the
people of the city of Santiago, viz: 10
"Although RESPONDENTS would like to make it appear that R.A. No. 8528
had "merely re-classified" Santiago City from an independent component
city into a component city, the effect when challenged (sic) the Act were
operational would be, actually, that of conversion. Consequently, there
would be substantial changes in the political culture and administrative
responsibilities of Santiago City, and the Province of Isabela. Santiago City
from an independent component city will revert to the Province of
Isabela, geographically, politically and administratively. Thus, the territorial
land area of Santiago City will be added to the land area comprising the
province of Isabela. This will be to the benefit or advantage of the
Provincial Government of Isabela on account of the subsequent increase
of its share from the internal revenue allotment (IRA) from the National
Government (Section 285, R.A. No. 7160 or the Local Government Code
of 1991). The IRA is based on land area and population of local
government units, provinces included.
"The nature or kinds, and magnitude of the taxes collected by the City
Government, and which taxes shall accrue solely to the City Government,
will be redefined (Section 151, R.A. No. 7160), and may be shared with
the province such as taxes on sand, gravel and other quarry resources
(Section 138, R.A. No. 7160), professional taxes (Section 139, R.A. No.
7160), or amusement taxes (Section 140, R.A. No. 7160). The Provincial
Government will allocate operating funds for the City. Inarguably, there
would be a (sic) diminished funds for the local operations of the City
Government because of reduced shares of the IRA in accordance with
the schedule set forth by Section 285 of the R.A. No. 7160. The City
Government's share in the proceeds in the development and utilization of
national wealth shall be diluted since certain portions shall accrue to the
Provincial Government (Section 292, R.A. No. 7160).
"The registered voters of Santiago City will vote for and can be voted as
provincial officials (Section 451 and 452 [c], R.A. No. 7160). cda
"The City Mayor will now be under the administrative supervision of the
Provincial Governor who is tasked by law to ensure that every
component city and municipality within the territorial jurisdiction of the
province acts within the scope of its prescribed powers and functions
(Section 29 and 465 (b) (2) (i), R.A. No. 7160), and to review (Section 30,
R.A. No. 7160) all executive orders submitted by the former (Section 455
(b) (1) (xii), R.A. No. 7160) and (R)eportorial requirements with respect to
the local governance and state of affairs of the city (Section 455 (b) (1)
(xx), R.A. No. 7160). Elective city officials will also be effectively under the
control of the Provincial Governor (Section 63, R.A. No. 7160). Such will
be the great change in the state of the political autonomy of what is now
Santiago City where by virtue of R.A. No. 7720, it is the Office of the
President which has supervisory authority over it as an independent
component city (Section 25, R.A. No. 7160; Section 4 (ARTICLE X), 1987
Constitution).
"The resolutions and ordinances adopted and approved by the
Sangguniang Panlungsod will be subject to the review of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan (Sections 56, 468 (a) (1) (i), 468 (a) (2) (vii), and 469 (c) (4),
R.A. No. 7160). Likewise, the decisions in administrative cases by the
former could be appealed and acted upon by the latter (Section 67, R.A.
No. 7160)."
It is markworthy that when R.A. No. 7720 upgraded the status of Santiago
City from a municipality to an independent component city, it required the
approval of its people thru a plebiscite called for the purpose. There is neither
rhyme nor reason why this plebiscite should not be called to determine the
will of the people of Santiago City when R.A. No. 8528 downgrades the status
of their city. Indeed, there is more reason to consult the people when a law
substantially diminishes their right. Rule II, Article 6, paragraph (f) (1) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code is in
accord with the Constitution when it provides that: cdtai
"(f) Plebiscite — (1) no creation, conversion, division, merger, abolition, or

substantial alteration of boundaries of LGUS shall take effect unless
approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the
purpose in the LGU or LGUs affected. The plebiscite shall be conducted
by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) within one hundred twenty
(120) days from the effectivity of the law or ordinance prescribing such
action, unless said law or ordinance fixes another date.
"xxx xxx xxx."
The rules cover all conversions, whether upward or downward in character, so

long as they result in a material change in the local government unit directly
affected, especially a change in the political and economic rights of its people.
A word on the dissenting opinions of our esteemed brethren. Mr. Justice Buena
justifies R.A. No. 8528 on the ground that Congress has the power to amend the
charter of Santiago City. This power of amendment, however, is limited by
Section 10, Article X of the Constitution. Quite clearly, when an amendment of a
law involves the creation, merger, division, abolition or substantial alteration of
boundaries of local government units, a plebiscite in the political units directly
affected is mandatory. He also contends that the amendment merely caused a
transition in the status of Santiago as a city. Allegedly, it is a transition because
no new city was created nor was a former city dissolved by R.A. No. 8528. As
discussed above, the spirit of Section 10, Article X of the Constitution calls for the
people of the local government unit directly affected to vote in a plebiscite
whenever there is a material change in their rights and responsibilities. They
may call the downgrading of Santiago to a component city as a mere transition
but they cannot blink away from the fact that the transition will radically change
its physical and political configuration as well as the rights and responsibilities of
its people.
On the other hand, our esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Mendoza, posits the
theory that "only if the classification involves changes in income, population, and
land area of the local government unit is there a need for such changes to be
approved by the people . . . ." Cdpr
With due respect, such an interpretation runs against the letter and spirit of
section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution which, to repeat, states: "No
province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged,
abolished, or its boundary substantially altered except in accordance with the
criteria established in the Local Government Code and subject to approval by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected." It
is clear that the Constitution imposes two conditions — first, the creation,
division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of boundary of a local
government unit must meet the criteria fixed by the Local Government Code on
income, population and land area and second, the law must be approved by the
people "by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly
affected."
In accord with the Constitution, sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Local Government
Code fixed the said criteria and they involve requirements on income, population
and land area. These requirements, however, are imposed to help assure the
economic viability of the local government unit concerned. They were not
imposed to determine the necessity for a plebiscite of the people. Indeed, the
Local Government Code does not state that there will be no more plebiscite after
its requirements on income, population and land area have been satisfied. On the
contrary, section 10, Chapter 2 of the Code provides: "No creation, division,
merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government
units shall take effect unless approved by a majority of the votes casts in a
plebiscite called for the purpose in the political unit or units directly affected. Said
plebiscite shall be conducted by the COMELEC within one hundred twenty (120)
days from the date of the effectivity of the law or ordinance effecting such
action, unless said law or ordinance fixes another date." 11 Senator Aquilino
Pimentel, the principal author of the Local Government Code of 1991, opines
that the plebiscite is absolute and mandatory. 12
It cannot be overstressed that the said two requirements of the Constitution
have different purposes. The criteria fixed by the Local Government Code on
income, population and land area are designed to achieve an economic purpose.
They are to be based on verified indicators, hence, section 7, Chapter 2 of the
Local Government Code requires that these "indicators shall be attested by the
Department of Finance, the National Statistics Office, and the Lands
Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources."
In contrast, the people's plebiscite is required to achieve a political purpose — to
use the people's voice as a check against the pernicious political practice of
gerrymandering. There is no better check against this excess committed by the
political representatives of the people themselves than the exercise of direct
people power. As well-observed by one commentator, as the creation, division,
merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries are ". . . basic to local
government, it is also imperative that these acts be done not only by Congress
but also be approved by the inhabitants of the locality concerned. . . . By giving
the inhabitants a hand in their approval, the provision will also eliminate the old
practice of gerrymandering and minimize legislative action designed for the
benefit of a few politicians. Hence, it promotes the autonomy of local
government units." 13
The records show that the downgrading of Santiago City was opposed by certain
segments of its people. In the debates in Congress, it was noted that at the time
R.A. No. 8528 was proposed, Santiago City has been converted to an independent
component city barely two and a half (2 1/2) years ago and the conversion was
approved by a majority of 14,000 votes. Some legislators expressed surprise for
the sudden move to downgrade the status of Santiago City as there had been no
significant change in its socio-economic-political status. The only reason given for
the downgrading is to enable the people of the city to aspire for the leadership of
the province. To say the least, the alleged reason is unconvincing for it is the
essence of an independent component city that its people can no longer
participate or be voted for in the election of officials of the province. The people
of Santiago were aware that they gave up that privilege when they voted to be
independent from the province of Isabela. There was an attempt on the part of
the Committee on Local Government to submit the downgrading of Santiago
City to its people via a plebiscite. The amendment to this effect was about to be
voted upon when a recess was called. After the recess, the chairman of the
Committee announced the withdrawal of the amendment "after a very
enlightening conversation with the elders of the Body." We quote the debates,
viz: 14
"BILL ON SECOND READING

H.B. No. 8729 — City of Santiago
"Senator Tatad. Mr. President, I move that we consider House Bill No.
8729 as reported out under Committee Report No. 971.
"The President. Is there any objection? [Silence] there being none, the
motion is approved. llcd
"Consideration of House Bill No. 8729 is now in order. With the

permission of the Body, the Secretary will read only the title of the bill
without prejudice to inserting in the Record the whole text thereof.
"The Acting Secretary [Atty. Raval]. House Bill No. 8729, entitled
AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF R.A. NO. 7720 ENTITLED "AN
ACT CONVERTING THE MUNICIPALITY OF SANTIAGO INTO AN
INDEPENDENT COMPONENT CITY TO BE KNOWN AS THE CITY OF
SANTIAGO
The following is the full text of H.B. No. 8729
Insert
"Senator Tatad. Mr. President, for the sponsorship, I ask that the
distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Local Government be
recognized. cdll
"The President. Senator Sotto is recognized.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF SENATOR SOTTO

"Mr. President. House Bill No. 8729, which was introduced in the House
by Congressman Antonio M. Abaya as its principal author, is a simple
measure which merely seeks to convert the City of Santiago into a
component city of the Province of Isabela.
"The City of Santiago is geographically located within, and is physically an
integral part of the Province of Isabela. As an independent component
city, however, it is completely detached and separate from the said
province as a local political unit. To use the language of the Explanatory
Note of the proposed bill, the City of Santiago is an 'island in the provincial
milieu.'
"The residents of the city no longer participate in the elections, nor are
they qualified to run for any elective positions in the Province of Isabela.
"The Province of Isabela, on the other hand, is no longer vested with the
power and authority of general supervision over the city and its officials,
which power and authority are now exercised by the Office of the
President, which is very far away from Santiago City. llcd
Being geographically located within the Province of Isabela, the City of

Santiago is affected, one way or the other, by the happenings in the said
province, and is benefited by its progress and development. Hence, the
proposed bill to convert the City of Santiago into a component city of
Isabela.
"Mr. President, it is my pleasure, therefore, to present for consideration

of this august Body Committee Report No. 971 of the Committee on
Local Government, recommending approval, with our proposed
committee amendment, of House Bill No. 8729.
"Thank you, Mr. President.
"The President. The Majority Leader is recognized.

"Senator Tatad. Mr. President, I moved (sic) that we close the period of
interpellations.
"The President. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the
period of interpellations is closed.
"Senator Tatad. I move that we now consider the committee
amendments.
"Senator Roco. Mr. President.
"The President. What is the pleasure of Senator Roco?
"Senator Roco. Mr. President, may I ask for a reconsideration of the

ruling on the motion to close the period of interpellations just to be able to
ask a few questions?
"Senator Tatad. May I move for a reconsideration of my motion, Mr.
President.
"The President. Is there any objection to the reconsideration of the

closing of the period of interpellations? [Silence] There being none, the
motion is approved. prcd
"Senator Roco is recognized.
"Senator Roco. Will the distinguished gentleman yield for some questions?
"Senator Sotto. Willingly, Mr. President.
"Senator Roco. Mr. President, together with the Chairman of the

Committee on Local Government, we were with the sponsors when we
approved this bill to make Santiago a City. That was about two and a half
years ago. At that time, I remember it was the cry of the city that it be
'independent.' Now we are deleting that word 'independent.'
"Mr. President, only because I was a co-author and a co-sponsor, for the
Record, I want some explanation on what happened between then and
now that has made us decide that the City of Santiago should cease to be
independent and should now become a component city.
"Senator Sotto. Mr. President, the officials of the province said during the
public hearing that they are no longer vested with the power and
authority of general supervision over the city. The power and authority is
now being exercised by the Office of the President and it is quite far from
the City of Santiago.
"In the public hearing, we also gathered that there is a clamor from some
sectors that they want to participate in the provincial elections.
"Senator Roco. Mr. President, I did not mean to delay this. I did want it on
record, however. I think there was a majority of 14,000 who approved
the charter, and maybe we owe it to those who voted for that charter
some degree of respect. But if there has been a change of political will,
there has been a change of political will, then so be it.
dctai
"Thank you, Mr. President.

"Senator Sotto. Mr. President, to be very frank about it, that was a very
important point raised by Senator Roco, and I will have to place it on the
Record of the Senate that the reason why we are proposing a committee
amendment is that, originally, there was an objection on the part of the
local officials and those who oppose it by incorporating a plebiscite in this
bill. That was the solution. Because there were some sectors in the City of
Santiago who were opposing the reclassification or reconversion of the
city into a component city.

"Senator Roco. All I wanted to say, Mr. President — because the two of us
had special pictures (sic) in the city — is that I thought it should be put on
record that we have supported originally the proposal to make it an
independent city. But now if it is their request, then, on the manifestation
of the Chairman, let it be so.
"Thank you.
"Senator Drilon. Mr. President.

"Senator Drilon. Will the gentleman yield for a few questions, Mr.
President?
"Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. cda
"Senator Drilon. Mr. President, further to the interpellation of our good

friend, the Senator from Bicol, on the matter of the opinion of the citizens
of Santiago City, there is a resolution passed by the Sanggunian on
January 30, 1997 opposing the conversion of Santiago from an
independent city.
"This opposition was placed on records during the committee hearings.
And that is the reason why, as mentioned by the good sponsor, one of
the amendments is that a plebiscite be conducted before the law takes
effect.
"The question I would like to raise — and I would like to recall the
statement of our Minority Leader — is that, at this time we should not be
passing it for a particular politician.
"In this particular case, it is obvious that this bill is being passed in order
that the additional territory be added to the election of the provincial
officials of the province of Isabela.
"Now, is this for the benefit of any particular politician, Mr. President.
"Senator Sotto. If it is, I am not aware of it, Mr. President.
"Senator Alvarez. Mr. President. dctai
"The President. With the permission of the two gentlemen on the Floor,
Senator Alvarez is recognized.
"Senator Alvarez. As a born inbred citizen of this city, Mr. President, may I
share some information.
"Mr. President, if we open up the election of the city to the provincial

leadership, it will not be to the benefit of the provincial leadership,
because the provincial leadership will then campaign in a bigger territory.
"As a matter of fact, the ones who will benefit from this are the citizens of
Santiago who will now be enfranchised in the provincial electoral process,
and whose children will have the opportunity to grow into provincial
leadership. This is one of the prime reasons why this amendment is being
put forward.
"While it is true that there may have been a resolution by the city council,
those who signed the resolution were not the whole of the council. This
bill was sponsored by the congressman of that district who represents a
constituency, the voice of the district.
"I think, Mr. President, in considering which interest is paramount, whose

voice must be heard, and if we have to fathom the interest of the people,
the law which has been crafted here in accordance with the rules should
be given account, as we do give account to many of the legislations
coming from the House on local issues. prcd
"Senator Drilon. Mr. President, the reason why I am raising this question is
that, as Senator Roco said, just two-and-a-half years ago we passed a bill
which indeed disenfranchised — if we want to use that phrase — the
citizens of the City of Santiago in the matter of the provincial election.
Two-and-a-half years after, we are changing the rule.
"In the original charter, the citizens of the City of Santiago participated in
a plebiscite in order to approve the conversion of the city into an
independent city. I believe that the only way to resolve this issue raised by
Senator Roco is again to subject this issue to another plebiscite as part of
the provision of this proposed bill and as will be proposed by the
Committee Chairman as an amendment.
"Thank you very much, Mr. President.

"Senator Alvarez. Mr. President, the Constitution does not require that the
change from an independent to a component city be subjected to a
plebiscite.
"Sections 10, 11, 12 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides as

follows:
'SECTION 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be

created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially
altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the
local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.'
LexLib
"This change from an independent city into a component city is none of

those enumerated. So the proposal coming from the House is in
adherence to this constitutional mandate which does not require a
plebiscite.
"Senator Sotto. Mr. President, the key word here is 'conversion'. The word
'conversion' appears in that provision wherein we must call a plebiscite.
During the public hearing, the representative of Congressman Abaya was
insisting that this is not a conversion; this is merely a reclassification. But
it is clear in the bill.
"We are amending a bill that converts, and we are converting it into a
component city. That is how the members of the committee felt . That is
why we have proposed an amendment to this, and this is to incorporate a
plebiscite in as much as there is no provision on incorporating a plebiscite.
Because we would like not only to give the other people of Santiago a
chance or be enfranchised as far as the leadership of the province is
concerned, but also we will give a chance to those who are opposing it.
To them, this is the best compromise. Let the people decide, instead of
the political leaders of Isabela deciding for them.
"Senator Tatad. Mr. President.
"Senator Tatad. At this point, Mr. President, I think we can move to close
the period of interpellations.
motion is approved.
"Senator Tatad. I move that we now consider the committee

amendments, Mr. President. LLphil
motion is approved.
"Senator Sotto. On page 2, after line 13, insert a new Section 3, as

follows:
"SECTION 3. SECTION 49 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7720 IS HEREBY

AMENDED BY DELETING THE ENTIRE SECTION AND IN ITS STEAD
SUBSTITUTE THE FOLLOWING:
"SECTION 49. PLEBISCITE. — THE CONVERSION OF THE CITY OF
SANTIAGO INTO A COMPONENT CITY OF THE PROVINCE OF ISABELA
SHALL TAKE EFFECT UPON THE RATIFICATION OF THIS ACT BY A
MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE OF SAID CITY IN A PLEBISCITE WHICH SHALL
BE HELD FOR THE PURPOSE WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS FROM THE
APPROVAL OF THIS ACT. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS SHALL
CONDUCT AND SUPERVISE SUCH PLEBISCITE.
"The President. Is there any objection?
"Senator Enrile. Mr. President.

"The President. Senator Enrile is recognized.
"Senator Enrile. I object to this committee amendment, Mr. President.
"SUSPENSION OF SESSION
"Senator Tatad. May I ask for a one-minute suspension of the session. dctai
"The President. The session is suspended for a few minutes if there is no

objection. [There was none]
"It was 7:54 p.m.
"RESUMPTION OF SESSION
"At 7:57 p.m., the session was resumed.
"The President. The session is resumed.
"Senator Sotto is recognized.

''Senator Sotto. Mr. President, after a very enlightening conversation with
the elders of the Body, I withdraw my amendment.
"The President. The amendment is withdrawn.

"Senator Maceda. Mr. President.
"The President. Senator Maceda is recognized.
"Senator Maceda. We wish to thank the sponsor for the withdrawal of the
amendment.
"Mr. President, with due respect to the Senator from Isabela — I am no

great fan of the Senator from Isabela — but it so happens that this is a
local bill affecting not only his province but his own city where he is a
resident and registered voter.
"So, unless the issue is really a matter of life and death and of national
importance, senatorial courtesy demands that we, as much as possible,
accommodate the request of the Senator from Isabela as we have done
on matters affecting the district of other senators. I need not remind
them. Cdpr
"Thank you anyway, Mr. President.
"Senator Alvarez. Mr. President.

"The President. Senator Alvarez is recognized.
"Senator Alvarez. Mr. President, may I express my deepest appreciation

for the statement of the gentleman from Ilocos and Laguna. Whatever he
may have said, the feeling is not mutual. At least for now, I have suddenly
become his great fan for the evening.
"May I put on record, Mr. President, that I campaigned against the
cityhood of Santiago not because I do not want it to be a city but
because it had disenfranchised the young men of my city from aspiring
for the leadership of the province. The town is the gem of the province.
How could we extricate the town from the province?
"But I would like to thank the gentleman, Mr. President, and also the
Chairman of the Committee.
"Senator Tatad. Mr. President.

"Senator Tatad. There being no committee amendments, I move that the

period of committee amendments be closed.
"The President. Shall we amend the title of this bill by removing the word
'independent' preceding 'component city'?
"Senator Sotto. No, Mr. President. We are merely citing the title. The main
title of this House Bill No. 8729 is 'An Act Amending Certain Sections of
Republic Act 7720'. The title is the title of Republic Act 7720. So, I do not
think that we should amend that anymore.
"The President. What is the pending motion? Will the gentleman kindly
state the motion? llcd

"Senator Tatad. I move that we close the period of committee
amendments.
motion is approved.
"Senator Tatad. Unless there are any individual amendments, I move that
we close the period of individual amendments.
period of individual amendments is closed.
"APPROVAL OF H.B. NO. 8729 ON SECOND READING
"Senator Tatad. Mr. President, I move that we vote on Second Reading on

House Bill No. 8729.
"The President. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, we

shall now vote on Second Reading on House Bill No. 8729.
"As many as are in favor of the bill, say aye.
"Several Members. Aye

"As many as are against the bill, say nay. [Silence]
"House Bill No. 8729 is approved on Second Reading."
The debates cannot but raise some quizzical eyebrows on the real purpose for
the downgrading of the city of Santiago. There is all the reason to listen to the
voice of the people of the city via a plebiscite. cdll
In the case of Tan, et al. vs. COMELEC, 15 BP 885 was enacted partitioning the
province of Negros Occidental without consulting its people in a plebiscite. In his
concurring opinion striking down the law as unconstitutional, Chief Justice
Teehankee cited the illicit political purpose behind its enactment, viz:
"The scenario, as petitioners urgently asserted, was 'to have the creation
of the new Province a fait accompli by the time elections are held on
February 7, 1986. The transparent purpose is unmistakably so that the
new Governor and other officials shall by then have been installed in
office, ready to function for purposes of the election for President and
Vice President.' Thus, the petitioners reported after the event: 'With
indecent haste, the plebiscite was held; Negros del Norte was set up and
proclaimed by President Marcos as in existence; a new set of
government officials headed by Governor Armando Gustilo was
appointed; and, by the time the elections were held on February 7, 1986,
the political machinery was in place to deliver the 'solid North' to ex-
President Marcos. The rest is history. What happened in Negros del Norte
during the elections — the unashamed use of naked power and
resources — contributed in no small way to arousing 'people's power' and
steel the ordinary citizen to perform deeds of courage and patriotism that
makes one proud to be a Filipino today.
"The challenged Act is manifestly void and unconstitutional. Consequently,

all the implementing acts complained of, viz. the plebiscite, the
proclamation of a new province of Negros del Norte and the appointment
of its officials are equally void. The limited holding of the plebiscite only in
the areas of the proposed new province (as provided by Section 4 of the
Act) to the exclusion of the voters of the remaining areas of the integral
province of Negros Occidental (namely, the three cities of Bacolod, Bago
and La Carlota and the Municipalities of Las Castellana, Isabela, Moises
Padilla, Pontevedra, Hinigaran, Himamaylan, Kabankalan, Murcia, Valladolid,
San Enrique, Ilog, Cauayan, Hinoba-an and Sipalay and Candoni), grossly
contravenes and disregards the mandate of Article XI, section 3 of the
then prevailing 1973 Constitution that no province may be created or
divided or its boundary substantially altered without 'the approval of a
majority of the votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected.' It is plain
that all the cities and municipalities of the province of Negros Occidental,
not merely those of the proposed new province, comprise the units
affected. It follows that the voters of the whole and entire province of
Negros Occidental have to participate and give their approval in the
plebiscite, because the whole province is affected by its proposed division
and substantial alteration of its boundary. To limit the plebiscite to only the
voters of the areas to be partitioned and seceded from the province is as
absurd and illogical as allowing only the secessionists to vote for the
secession that they demanded against the wishes of the majority and to
nullify the basic principle of majority rule."
LLphil
Mr. Justice Mendoza and Mr. Justice Buena also cite two instances when allegedly
independent component cities were downgraded into component cities without
need of a plebiscite. They cite the City of Oroquieta, Misamis Occidental, 16 and
the City of San Carlos, Pangasinan 17 whose charters were amended to allow
their people to vote and be voted upon in the election of officials of the province
to which their city belongs without submitting the amendment to a plebiscite.
With due respect, the cities of Oroquieta and San Carlos are not similarly
situated as the city of Santiago. The said two cities then were not independent
component cities unlike the city of Santiago. The two cities were chartered but
were not independent component cities for both were not highly urbanized cities
which alone were considered independent cities at that time. Thus, when the
case of San Carlos City was under consideration by the Senate, Senator Pimentel
explained: 18
". . . Senator Pimentel. The bill under consideration, Mr. President, merely
empowers the voters of San Carlos to vote in the elections of provincial
officials. There is no intention whatsoever to downgrade the status of the
City of San Carlos and there is no showing whatsoever that the
enactment of this bill will, in any way, diminish the powers and
prerogatives already enjoyed by the City of San Carlos. In fact, the City of
San Carlos as of now, is a component city. It is not a highly urbanized
city. Therefore, this bill merely, as we said earlier, grants the voters of the
city, the power to vote in provincial elections, without in any way
changing the character of its being a component city. It is for this reason
that I vote in favor of this bill."
It was Senator Pimentel who also sponsored the bill 19 allowing qualified
voters of the city of Oroquieta to vote in provincial elections of the province of
Misamis Occidental. In his sponsorship speech, he explained that the right to
vote being given to the people of Oroquieta City was consistent with its status
as a component city. 20 Indeed, during the debates, former Senator Neptali
Gonzales pointed out the need to remedy the anomalous situation then
obtaining ". . . where voters of one component city can vote in the provincial
election while the voters of another component city cannot vote simply
because their charters so provide." 21 Thus, Congress amended other charters
of component cities prohibiting their people from voting in provincial
elections. prLL
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted. Republic Act No. 8528 is declared
unconstitutional and the writ of prohibition is hereby issued commanding the
respondents to desist from implementing said law.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Kapunan, Panganiban, Pardo, Gonzaga-Reyes and
Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., please see separate opinion.
Mendoza, J., please see dissenting opinion.
Quisumbing and Purisima, JJ., join Justice Mendoza in his dissent.
Separate Opinions
VITUG, J.:
I share the opinion of the majority of my colleagues that, for the reasons
expressed in the ponencia, a plebiscite is essential in order to render effective the
conversion of the City of Santiago, Isabela, from an independent to a component
city. I would not go to the extent, however, of declaring Republic Act No. 7720
unconstitutional; instead, with due respect, I take the view that a plebiscite can
be held conformably with the provisions of the Local Government Code: I do not
see, in this instance, a serious incompatibility in having Republic Act No. 7720
stand along with the Local Government Code. cdtai
MENDOZA, J., dissenting:
The issue in this case is whether the conversion of the City of Santiago in Isabela
province from an independent component city to a component city constitutes
the creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of the boundary
of a city within the contemplation of Art. X, §10 of the Constitution so as to
require the approval of the people in a plebiscite. The Court, in declaring R.A. No.
8528 unconstitutional for lack of provision for a plebiscite, does not say that the
reclassification of Santiago City as an ordinary component city constitutes
creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of boundary.
Nonetheless, the Court today holds that because the reclassification of the city
would result in a "material change in the political and economic rights of the
local government units directly affected as well as the people therein," the
approval of the law in a plebiscite is required.
With all due respect I submit that not every change — however "material" and
far-reaching — in the classification of a local government unit requires popular
approval. Only if the reclassification involves changes in income, population, and
land area of the local government unit is there a need for such changes to be
approved by the people, for then there would be a creation, division, merger,
abolition, or substantial alteration of the boundary of a local government unit, as
the case may be, within the meaning of Art. X, §10 of the Constitution. Thus, the
Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160), in implementing the constitutional
provision in question, states:
SECTION 7. Creation and Conversion. — As a general rule, the creation of
a local government unit or its conversion from one level to another level
shall be based on verifiable indicators or viability and projected capacity to
provide services, to wit:LexLib
(a) Income. — It must be sufficient, based on acceptable standards, to

provide for all essential government facilities and services and special
functions commensurate with the size of its population, as expected of
the local government unit concerned;
(b) Population. — It shall be determined as the total number of inhabitants
within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government unit concerned;
and
(c) Land Area. — It must be contiguous, unless it comprises two (2) or

more islands or is separated by a local government unit independent of
the others; properly identified by metes and bounds with technical
descriptions; and sufficient to provide for such basic services and
facilities to meet the requirements of its populace.
Compliance with the foregoing indicators shall be attested to by the

Department of Finance (DOF), the National Statistics Office (NSO), and the
Lands Management Bureau (LMB) of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR).
SECTION 8. Division and Merger. — Division and merger of existing local

government units shall comply with the same requirements herein
prescribed for their creation: Provided, however, That such division shall
not reduce the income, population, or land area of the local government
unit or units concerned to less than the minimum requirements
prescribed in this Code: Provided, further, That the income classification
of the original local government unit or units shall not fall below its
current income classification prior to such division.
The income classification of local government units shall be updated
within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Code to reflect the
changes in their financial position resulting from the increased revenues
as provided herein.
SECTION 9. Abolition of Local Government Units . — A local government

unit may be abolished when its income, population, or land area has been
irreversibly reduced to less than the minimum standards prescribed for
its creation under Book III of this Code, a certified by the national
agencies mentioned in Section 7 hereof to Congress or to the sanggunian
concerned, as the case may be. LLphil
The law or ordinance abolishing a local government unit shall specify the
province, city, municipality, or barangay with which the local government
unit sought to be abolished will be incorporated or merged.
The conversion from an independent component city to a component city

involves no such changes in income, population, or land area. There may be
changes in the voting rights of the residents of the city, the supervision of the
city's administration, and the city's share in the local taxes, as petitioners point
out, but such changes do not amount to the creation, division, merger, abolition,
or substantial alteration of the boundary of a local government unit so as to
require a plebiscite for their approval. An independent component city and an
ordinary component city are both component cities, as distinguished from highly
urbanized cities. 1 The only difference between them is that the charters of the
independent component cities prohibit their voters from voting for provincial
elective officials and such cities are independent of the provinces in which they
are located. 2 Thus, the Local Government Code provides:
SECTION 450. Requisites for Creation. — (a) A municipality or a cluster of
barangays may be converted into a component city if it has an average
annual income, as certified by the Department of Finance, of at least
Twenty million pesos (P20,000,000.00) for the last two (2) consecutive
years based on 1991 constant prices, and if it has either of the following
requisites: cdll
(i) a contiguous territory of at least one hundred (100) square kilometers,

as certified by the Lands Management Bureau; or
(ii) a population of not less than one hundred fifty thousand (150,000)
inhabitants, as certified by the National Statistics Office:
Provided, That, the creation thereof shall not reduce the land area,
population, and income of the original unit or units at the time of said
creation to less than the minimum requirements prescribed herein.
(b) The territorial jurisdiction of a newly-created city shall be properly
identified by metes and bounds. The requirement on land area shall not
apply where the city proposed to be created is composed of one (1) or
more islands. The territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two (2)
or more islands.
(c) The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the
general fund, exclusive of special funds, transfers, and nonrecurring
income.
SECTION 451. Cities, Classified. — A city may either be component or
highly urbanized: Provided, however, That the criteria established in this
Code shall not affect the classification and corporate status of existing
cities.
Independent component cities are those component cities whose
charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials.
Independent component cities shall be independent of the province. LLjur
SECTION 452. Highly Urbanized Cities. — (a) Cities with a minimum

population of two hundred thousand (200,000.00) inhabitants, as
certified by the National Statistics Office, and with the latest annual
income of at least Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00) based on 1991
constant prices, as certified by the city treasurer, shall be classified as
highly urbanized cities.
(b) Cities which do not meet the above requirements shall be considered
component cities of the province in which they are geographically
located. If a component city is located within the boundaries of two (2) or
more provinces, such city shall be considered a component of the
province of which it used to be a municipality.
(c) Qualified voters of highly urbanized cities shall remain excluded from
voting for elective provincial officials.
Unless otherwise provided in the Constitution or this Code, qualified
voters of independent component cities shall be governed by their
respective charters, as amended, on the participation of voters in
provincial elections.cdll
Qualified voters of cities who acquired the right to vote for elective
provincial officials prior to the classification of said cities as highly
urbanized after the ratification of the Constitution and before the
effectivity of this Code, shall continue to exercise such right.
The Court says that the changes resulting from the reclassification of Santiago
City as an ordinary component city "cannot be considered insubstantial." For one,
it is said, its independence will be diminished because the city mayor will be
placed under the administrative supervision of the provincial governor. For
another, the resolutions and ordinances of the city council will have to be
approved by the provincial board of Isabela.
The fact is that whether the City of Santiago is an independent component city
or an ordinary component city, it is subject to administrative supervision, with
the only difference that, as an independent component city, it is under the direct
supervision of the President of the Philippines, whereas, as an ordinary
component city, it will be subject to the supervision of the President through the
province. 3 That is hardly a distinction. For the fact is that under the Constitution,
the President of the Philippines exercises general supervision over all local
governments. 4
Nor does it matter that ordinances passed by the city councils of component
cities are subject to review (not approval as the Court says) by the provincial
boards for the purpose of determining whether the ordinances are within the
powers of the city councils to enact. 5 For that matter, ordinances passed by the
city councils of independent component cities are likewise subject to review,
although by the Office of the President. 6 The reason for this is to be found in Art.
X, §4 of the Constitution which provides:
The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over
local governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and
municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to component
barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within
the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. prLL
In any case, these are not important differences which determine whether the
law effecting them should be approved in a plebiscite. The defining characteristics
of a local government unit are its income, population, and local area, as §§450
and 452 of the LGC provide. These are referred to in §7 of the LGC and its
Implementing Rules as the "verifiable indicators of viability and projected
capacity to provide services." Tested by these standards, there is no change in the
City of Santiago requiring the approval of the people in a plebiscite.
The majority states: "It is markworthy that when R.A. No. 7720 upgraded the
status of Santiago City from a municipality to an independent component city, it
required the approval of its people thru a plebiscite called for the purpose. There
is neither rhyme nor reason why this plebiscite should not be called to determine
the will of the people of Santiago City when R.A. No. 8528 downgrades the
status of their city." The conversion of the then Municipality of Santiago in
Isabela Province by R.A. No. 7720 was an act of creation. It was based on the
municipality's satisfying the requisites for the creation of a city as provided in
the LGC, to wit:
SECTION 450. Requisites for Creation. — (a) A municipality or a cluster of
barangays may be converted into a component city if it has an average
annual income, as certified by the Department of Finance, of at least
Twenty million pesos (P20,000,000.00) for the last two (2) consecutive
years based on 1991 constant prices, and if it has either of the following
requisites: prcd
(i) a contiguous territory of at least one hundred (100) square kilometers,

as certified by the Lands Management Bureau; or
(ii) a population of not less than one hundred fifty thousand (150,000)
inhabitants, as certified by the National Statistics Office;
Provided, That, the creation thereof shall not reduce the land area,
population, and income of the original unit or units at the time of said
creation to less than the minimum requirements prescribed herein.
(b) The territorial jurisdiction of a newly-created city shall be properly

identified by metes and bounds. The requirement on land area shall not
apply where the city proposed to be created is composed of one (1) or
more islands. The territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two (2)
or more islands.
(c) The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the
general fund, exclusive of special funds, transfers, and nonrecurring
income. LibLex
As thus indicated these requisites are based on the "verifiable indicators" of

income, population, and land area and, therefore, the conversion of what was
once a municipality into a city needed approval in a plebiscite. But the conversion
of Santiago City from an independent component city into a component city
involves no more than a change in the right of the people (i.e., the registered
voters of the city) to vote for provincial elective officials.
If an analogy is needed, it is to the reversion of a component city — whether
independent or ordinary — to the status of a municipality. For then the city is
actually abolished and abolition, as stated in the Art. X, §10 of the Constitution,
must be approved by the majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite. Stated
otherwise, when a municipality is converted into a city, a city is created, and
when the city is reverted into a municipality, the city is abolished. Both acts of
creation and abolition require the approval of the people in a plebiscite called for
the purpose. But when an independent component city is converted into a
component city, it is not created into another form, it is not divided, it is not
merged with another unit of local government, it is not abolished, much less is
its boundary substantially altered.
Indeed, this is not the first time that an independent component city is converted
into a component city without a plebiscite. The City of Oroquieta, created as an
independent component city in 1969 by R.A. No. 5518, was converted into a
component city in 1989 by R.A. No. 6726, while the City of San Carlos, created
as an independent component city in 1965 by R.A. No. 4487, was converted into
a component city by R.A. No. 6843 in 1990. In both cases, the conversion was
made without submitting the matter to a plebiscite.
There is, therefore, no reason for requiring that the reclassification of Santiago
City as a component city must be approved by the majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite and for holding that, because R.A. No. 8528 contains no provision for
such plebiscite, it is unconstitutional. cdasia
It is easy to sympathize with calls for plebiscites as an exercise of direct

democracy by the people. But, although the Constitution declares that
"Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from
them," it also provides that we are a "republican State." 7 It is thus a
representative form of government that we have. With few exceptions, we have
vested the legislative power in the Congress of the Philippines. 8 This means that
when an act of the people's representatives assembled in Congress is duly
passed and approved by the President in the manner prescribed in the
Constitution, the act becomes a law 9 without the need of approval or ratification
by the people in order to be effective. 10
This is the theory of representative government. Such a government is no less
democratic because it is indirect. In some ways it is better than direct
government given the complexity of modern society, let alone the volatility of
voters and their susceptibility to manipulation. In this age of mass
communication there is less reason to distrust the judgment of the people's
representatives in Congress on matters such as this and, therefore, no reason to
require the people to manifest their sovereign will, except where this is expressly
required by the Constitution. LLpr
For the foregoing reasons, I vote to dismiss the petition in this case.
BUENA, J., dissenting:
With all due respect to my esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno,
whose well-written ponencia expresses his opinion with clarity, I regret that I am
unable to agree that Republic Act No. 8528 should be declared as
unconstitutional for the following reasons:
1. Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides that —
"Section 10, Article X. — No province, city, municipality, or barangay may
be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially
altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the Local
Government Code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected."
cdphil
Section 10 Chapter 2 of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) provides:
"Section 10, Chapter 2. — Plebiscite Requirement. No creation, division,
merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries of local
government units shall take effect unless approved by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose in the political unit or units
directly affected. Said plebiscite shall be conducted by the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) within one hundred twenty (120) days from the
date of effectivity of the law or ordinance effecting such action, unless
said law or ordinance fixes another date."
In short, conversiondoes not appear in the 1987 Constitution nor in the Section
10, Chapter 2 of the Local Government Code. Surprisingly, Rule II, Article 6,
paragraph (f) (1) of the Implementing Rules of the Local Government Code
included conversion in the enumeration of the modes of changing the status of
local government units, thus:
"(f) Plebiscite. — (1) No creation, conversion, division, merger, abolition,

or substantial alteration of boundaries of LGUs shall take effect unless
approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the
purpose in the LGU or LGUs affected. The plebiscite shall be conducted
by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) within one hundred twenty
(120) days from the effectivity of the law or ordinance prescribing such
action, unless said law or ordinance fixes another date.
xxx xxx xxx." (emphasis supplied)
Other than that, the Local Government Code uses the term "conversion" only in
the following instances: (1) Section 7, which provides that "[a]s a general rule,
the creation of a local government unit or its conversion from one level to
another shall be based on verifiable indicators of viability and projected capacity
to provide services, to wit: . . .;" (2) Section 450, which provides for the requisites
for the "conversion" of a municipality or a cluster of barangays into a component
city; and (3) Section 462, which involves the "conversion" of existing sub-
provinces into regular provinces. LLpr
Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. defines 1 "conversion," as "the elevation of an LGU

from one level to another, like converting a municipality to a city or a component
city to a highly urbanized one or the raising of the classification of one
municipality, city or province from a fourth class category to third, second or
first." It is my humble opinion therefore that the requirement of a plebiscite does
not apply to the case at bar which does not involve the upgrading or elevation of
Santiago City but a downgrading thereof.
2. I am not convinced that a mere Rule and Regulation intended to implement
the Local Government Code can expand the terms and provisions clearly
expressed in the basic law to be implemented. As aptly contended by the Solicitor
General in his Comment on the petition viz.:
"It is a settled jurisprudence that the power of administrative agencies to
promulgate rules and regulations must be in strict compliance with the
legislative enactment. Thus, in Tayug Rural Bank vs. Central Bank of the
Philippines (146 SCRA 129-30), this Honorable Court ruled that in the case
of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation to
implement said law, the basic law prevails as said rule or regulation can
not go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law. Neither can
such rules and regulations extend or expand the letter and spirit of the
law they seek to implement. (Iglesia ni Kristo vs. Court of Appeals , 259
SCRA 529)" 2
As a matter of fact, Mr. Justice Puno, in his ponencia in the above cited case of
Iglesia ni Kristo, opined that "(T)his rule is void for it runs smack against the
hoary doctrine that administrative rules and regulations cannot expand the letter
and spirit of the law they seek to enforce. 3
3. The proceedings in the Senate show that the Committee on Local
Government, to which H.B. No. 8729 was referred, reported back to the Senate
with the recommendation that it be approved with the following amendment: prcd
"SECTION 3. Section 49 of Republic Act No. 7720 is hereby amended by

deleting the entire section and in its stead substitute the following:
"SECTION 49. PLEBISCITE. — THE CONVERSION OF THE CITY OF
SANTIAGO INTO A COMPONENT CITY OF THE PROVINCE OF
ISABELA SHALL TAKE EFFECT UPON THE RATIFICATION OF THIS
ACT BY A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE OF SAID CITY IN A PLEBISCITE
WHICH SHALL BE HELD FOR THE PURPOSE WITHIN (60) DAYS
FROM THE APPROVAL OF THIS ACT. THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS SHALL CONDUCT AND SUPERVISE SUCH PLEBISCITE."
However, after the deliberations in the Senate, the Committee on Local

Government decided to withdraw the foregoing proposed amendment. Hence, on
February 6, 1998, the Republic Act No. 8528, the constitutionality of which is
challenged by the petitioners, was approved.
Be that as it may, may this Court properly require a plebiscite for the validity of
said law when Congress itself, which had been given the opportunity to include
such a requirement, decided against it? Are we not supplanting our judgment
over that of Congress, a co-equal branch of government entrusted by the
Constitution to enact laws? I respectfully submit that we may not do so without
disturbing the balance of power as apportioned and delineated by the
Constitution.
4. I likewise submit that we must consider the ramifications of a declaration of
unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. 8528 on Republic Act No. 6726 (1989) and
Republic Act No. 6843 (1990), respectively allowing the voters of the City of
Oroquieta (Misamis Oriental) and San Carlos City (Pangasinan) to vote and be
voted for any of the respective provincial offices, in effect downgrading them
from independent component cities to component cities. The resulting confusion
on the political structures of the local government units involved would surely be
disastrous to the order and stability of these cities. cda
5. Finally, in a situation where the supposed breach of the constitution is

doubtful, equivocal and, at best, based on argumentative implications, I believe
that, as we have ruled in a plethora of cases 4 , every law has in its favor, the
presumption of constitutionality and in case of doubt, the Court must exert every
effort to prevent the invalidation of the law and the nullification of the will of the
legislature that enacted it and the executive that approved it.
I therefore vote to dismiss the petition.
Footnotes
1. See Section 4 of R.A. No. 7720.

2. See Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution.
3. The intervention was granted on June 30, 1998.
4. After R.A. No. 8528 was enacted, COMELEC reallocated the seats for the provincial
board in Isabela. It added one (1) seat to the 4th district where Santiago City
belongs. The intervenor won the additional seat in the May 11, 1998 elections.
5. Sanidad vs. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333 (1976).

6. 100 Phil. 1101 (1957).
7. 92 SCRA 642 (1979).
8. Mendenilla v. Onandia, 115 Phil. 534 (1962).

9. Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
10. Reply of Petitioners, pp. 7-9.
11. See also Rule II, Article 6, par. F(1) of the Implementing Rules of the Local
Government Code.
12. Pimentel, The Local Government Code of 1991, The Key to National Development,
p. 36.
13. Hector S. de Leon, Philippine Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, 1991 ed., p. 509.
14. Journal of the Senate, 10th Congress, 3rd Regular Session, Session No. 55,
February 3, 1998, pp. 92-100.
15. 142 SCRA 727, 753-754 (1986).
16. See R.A. No. 6720 which amended R.A. No. 5518.
17. See R.A. No. 6843 which amended R.A. No. 4487.
18. Record of the Senate, October 20, 1989, p. 795.
19. House Bill No. 1881; Committee Report Nos. 73 and 76 in the Senate.
20. Record of the Senate, November 25, 1988, p. 763.
21. Ibid., p. 764. See Record of the Senate, October 6, 1989, p. 506 where the cases
of the cities of Naga and Ormoc were cited as examples.
MENDOZA, J., dissenting:
1. See LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, §451.
2. CONST., ART. X, §12; LGC, §451.
3. LGC, §25.
4. ART. X, §4.
5. LGC, §468(a)(1)(i).
6. Id., §25(a).
7. ART. II, §1.

8. ART. VI, §1.
9. Id., §§26-27.
10. In the following cases, the Constitution requires a plebiscite or a referendum to

approve or ratify an act of Congress or of the President: (1) the creation,
division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of the boundary of a local
government unit [Art. X, §10]; (2) the creation of a special metropolitan political
subdivision [Id., §11]; (3) the creation of an autonomous region [Id., §18]; (4)
the adoption of a new name, national anthem, or national seal for the country
[Art. XVI, §2]; (5) referral to the people of the question whether to call a
constitutional convention [Art. XVII, §3]; (6) ratification of constitutional
amendments [Art. XVII, §4]; and (7) the adoption of a treaty allowing foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities in the Philippines if Congress decides to refer
the matter to the people [Art. XVIII, §25].
Direct lawmaking by the people is provided through initiative and
referendum [Art. VI, §32; R.A. No. 6735] and ratification of constitutional
amendments through a plebiscite [Art. XVII, §4].
BUENA, J., dissenting:
1. In The Local Government Code of 1991, The Key to National Development, 1993
ed., p. 34.
2. Rollo, p. 110.
3. Iglesia ni Kristo vs. Court of Appeals , 259 SCRA 529, pp. 547-548.
4. Tan vs. People, 290 SCRA 117 (1998); Tano vs. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 (1997);
Padilla vs. Court of Appeals , 269 SCRA 402 (1997); Alvarez vs. Guingona, Jr.,
252 SCRA 695 (1996); Drilon vs. Lim, 235 SCRA 135 (1994); Garcia vs. Comelec,
227 SCRA 100 (1993).

09 Miranda v. Aguirre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

09 Miranda v. Aguirre

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

09 Miranda v. Aguirre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 133064. September 16, 1999.]

JOSE C. MIRANDA, ALFREDO S. DIRIGE, MANUEL H. AFIADO,

Nelia P. Natividad for petitioner.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT; JUDICIAL POWER;

2. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE; IMPLEMENTING RULES

"SECTION 2. Section 51 of Republic Act No. 7720 is hereby amended

"SECTION 3. Repealing Clause. — All existing laws or parts thereof

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

"xxx xxx xxx

In Casibang v. Aquino, 7 we deﬁned a justiciable issue as follows:

This constitutional requirement is reiterated in Section 10, Chapter 2 of the

The power to create, divide, merge, abolish or substantially alter boundaries of

"(f) Plebiscite — (1) no creation, conversion, division, merger, abolition, or

The rules cover all conversions, whether upward or downward in character, so

"BILL ON SECOND READING

"Consideration of House Bill No. 8729 is now in order. With the

"The President. Senator Sotto is recognized.

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF SENATOR SOTTO

Being geographically located within the Province of Isabela, the City of

"Mr. President, it is my pleasure, therefore, to present for consideration

"The President. The Majority Leader is recognized.

"Senator Roco. Mr. President, may I ask for a reconsideration of the

"The President. Is there any objection to the reconsideration of the

"Senator Roco is recognized.

"Senator Roco. Mr. President, together with the Chairman of the

"Thank you, Mr. President.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

"Senator Drilon. Mr. President.

"Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. cda

"Senator Drilon. Mr. President, further to the interpellation of our good

"Senator Sotto. If it is, I am not aware of it, Mr. President.

"Senator Alvarez. Mr. President. dctai

"Mr. President, if we open up the election of the city to the provincial

"I think, Mr. President, in considering which interest is paramount, whose

"Thank you very much, Mr. President.

"Sections 10, 11, 12 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides as

'SECTION 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be

"This change from an independent city into a component city is none of

"The President. The Majority Leader is recognized.

"Senator Tatad. I move that we now consider the committee

"Senator Sotto. On page 2, after line 13, insert a new Section 3, as

"SECTION 3. SECTION 49 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7720 IS HEREBY

"The President. Is there any objection?

"Senator Enrile. Mr. President.

"Senator Enrile. I object to this committee amendment, Mr. President.

"The President. The session is suspended for a few minutes if there is no

"The President. The session is resumed.

"Senator Sotto is recognized.

"The President. The amendment is withdrawn.

"The President. Senator Maceda is recognized.

"Mr. President, with due respect to the Senator from Isabela — I am no

"Thank you anyway, Mr. President.

"Senator Alvarez. Mr. President.

"Senator Alvarez. Mr. President, may I express my deepest appreciation

"Senator Tatad. Mr. President.

"Senator Tatad. There being no committee amendments, I move that the

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

"Senator Tatad. Mr. President, I move that we vote on Second Reading on