Padilla Jr. v. Commission on Elections

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 103328. October 19, 1992.]
HON. ROY A. PADILLA, JR., In his capacity as Governor of

the Province of Camarines Norte, petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
Jose J. Lapak for petitioner.
RESOLUTION
ROMERO, J : p
Pursuant to Republic Act 7155, the Commission on Elections

promulgated on November 13, 1991, Resolution No. 2312 which reads.
"WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 7155 approved on September 6,
1991 creates the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa in the Province of
Camarines Norte to be composed of Barangays Tulay-Na-Lupa, Lugui,
San Antonio, Mabilo I, Napaod, Benit, Bayan-Bayan, Matanlang, Pag-
Asa, Maot, and Calabasa, all in the Municipality of Labo, same
province.
WHEREAS, under Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution
1 the creation of a municipality shall be subject to approval by a
majority of votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly
affected, and pursuant to Section 134 of the Local Government Code
(Batas Pambansa Blg. 337) 2 said plebiscite shall be conducted by the
Commission on Elections;
WHEREAS, Section 6 of said Republic Act No. 7155 provides
that the expenses in holding the plebiscite shall be taken out of the
Contingent Fund under the current fiscal year appropriations; LibLex
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as the Commission hereby

resolves to promulgated (sic) the following guidelines to govern the
conduct of said plebiscite:
1. The plebiscite shall be held on December 15, 1991, in the

areas or units affected, namely the barangays comprising the
proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa and the remaining areas
of the mother Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte (Tan vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 73155, July 11, 1986).
xxx xxx xxx"

In the plebiscite held on December 15, 1991 throughout the
Municipality of Labo, only 2,890 votes favored its creation while 3,439 voters
voted against the creation of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa.
Consequently, the day after the political exercise, the Plebiscite Board of
Canvassers declared the rejection and disapproval of the independent
Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa by a majority of voters. 3
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
Thus, in this special civil action of certiorari, petitioner as Governor of
Camarines Norte, seeks to set aside the plebiscite conducted on December
15, 1991 throughout the Municipality of Labo and prays that a new plebiscite
be undertaken as provided by RA 7155. It is the contention of petitioner that
the plebiscite was a complete failure and that the results obtained were
invalid and illegal because the plebiscite, as mandated by COMELEC
Resolution No. 2312 should have been conducted only in the political unit or
units affected, i.e. the 12 barangays comprising the new Municipality of
Tulay-Na-Lupa namely Tulay-Na-Lupa, Lugui, San Antonio, Mabilo I, Napaod,
Benit, Bayan-Bayan, Matanlang, Pag-asa, Maot, and Calabasa. Petitioner
stresses that the plebiscite should not have included the remaining area of
the mother unit of the Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte. 4
In support of his stand, petitioner argues that with the approval and
ratification of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Article X, Section 10, the
ruling set forth in Tan v. COMELEC 5 relied upon by respondent COMELEC is
now passé, thus reinstating the case of Paredes v. Executive Secretary 6
which held that where a local unit is to be segregated from a parent unit,
only the voters of the unit to be segregated should be included in the
plebiscite. 7
Accordingly, the issue in this case is whether or not respondent
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Resolution
No. 2312 and, consequently, whether or not the plebiscite conducted in the
areas comprising the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa and the
remaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo is valid. LibLex
We rule that respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse in

promulgating Resolution No. 2312 and that the plebiscite, which rejected the
creation of the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa, is valid.
Petitioner's contention that our ruling in Tan v. COMELEC has been
superseded with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, thus reinstating
our earlier ruling in Paredes v. COMELEC is untenable. Petitioner opines that
since Tan v. COMELEC was based on Section 3 of Article XI of the 1973
Constitution 8 our ruling in said case is no longer applicable under Section 10
of Article X of the 1987 Constitution, especially since the latter provision
deleted the words "unit or."
We do not agree. The deletion of the phrase "unit or" in Section 10,
Article X of the 1987 Constitution from its precursor, Section 3 of Article XI of
the 1973 Constitution has not affected our ruling in Tan v. COMELEC as
explained by then CONCOM Commissioner, now my distinguished colleague,
Associate Justice Hilario Davide, during the debates in the 1986
Constitutional Commission, to wit:
Mr. Maambong: While we have already approved the deletion of "unit
or," I would like to inform the Committee that under the
formulation in the present Local Government Code, the words
used are actually "political unit or units." However, I do not know
the implication of the use of these words. Maybe there will be no
substantial difference, but I just want to inform the Committee
about this.
Mr. Nolledo: Can we not adhere to the original "unit or units"? will there
be no objection on the part of the two Gentlemen from the floor?
Mr. Davide: I would object. I precisely asked for the deletion of the
words "unit or" because in the plebiscite to be conducted, it must
involve all the units affected. If it is the creation of a barangay,
the municipality itself must participate in the plebiscite because
it is affected . It would mean a loss of a territory. 9 (Emphasis
supplied)
It stands to reason that when the law states that the plebiscite shall be
conducted "in the political units directly affected," it means that residents of
the political entity who would be economically dislocated by the separation
of a portion thereof have a right to vote in said plebiscite. Evidently, what is
contemplated by the phrase "political units directly affected," is the plurality
of political units which would participate in the plebiscite. 10 Logically, those
to be included in such political areas are the inhabitants of the 12 barangays
of the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa as well as those living in the
parent Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte. Thus, we conclude that
respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
promulgating Resolution No. 2312. LLphil
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,
Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr ., Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Campos, Jr., JJ .,
concur.
Padilla, J ., is on leave.
Footnotes
1. Article X Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution provides: "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."
2. Sec. 134 of Batas Pambansa 337 provides: "Manner of Creation — A Municipality
may be created, named, and its boundaries defined, altered or modified only
by an Act of the Batasang Pambansa, subject to the approval by a majority of
the votes cast in a plebiscite to be held in the unit or units affected. Except
as may otherwise be provided in said Act, the plebiscite shall be conducted
by the Commission on Elections, within one hundred twenty days from the
dated of its effectivity."
3. Annex C, Rollo p. 15.
4. Rollo, pp. 3-4.

5. G.R. No. 73155, July 11, 1986, 142 SCRA 727.
6. G.R. No. 55628, March 2, 1984, 128 SCRA 6.
7. Rollo, p. 36.
8. "No province, city, municipality or barrio 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 the
approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the unit or units
affected." Emphasis ours.
9. Volume 3, Record of the Constitutional Commission, p. 486.
10. Tan v. COMELEC , supra at Footnote No. 4.

Padilla Jr. v. Commission on Elections

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Padilla Jr. v. Commission on Elections

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Padilla Jr. v. Commission on Elections

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 103328. October 19, 1992.]

HON. ROY A. PADILLA, JR., In his capacity as Governor of

Jose J. Lapak for petitioner.

Pursuant to Republic Act 7155, the Commission on Elections

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as the Commission hereby

1. The plebiscite shall be held on December 15, 1991, in the

xxx xxx xxx"

We rule that respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse in

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

1. Article X Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution provides: "No province, city,

4. Rollo, pp. 3-4.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

10. Tan v. COMELEC , supra at Footnote No. 4.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.