Cawaling v Comelec CD

7/27/2019 Cawaling v Comelec CD

1/3

EN BANC G.R. No. 146319, 146342. October 26, 2001 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,J.:

CAWALING vs. COMELEC

FACTS:

Two separate petitions challenging the constitutionality of RA 8806 (issued on 2000 by PresidentEstrada) which created the City of Sorsogon (merging the municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon)

and the validity of the plebiscite conducted by the COMELEC (Plebiscite City Board of Canvassers).

In 2001, invoking his right as a resident and taxpayer of the former Municipality of Sorsorgon,

Benjamin E. Cawaling, Jr. filed the present petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of the

plebiscite on the following grounds:

A. The plebiscite was conducted beyond the required 120-day period from the approval of

RA 8806, in violation of Section 54 thereof; and

B. COMELEC failed to observe the legal requirement of 20 day extensive information

campaign in the Municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon before conducting the plebiscite.

Two days after, he instituted another petition seeking to enjoin the further implementation of RA

No. 8806 for being unconstitutional, contending that:

1. Merging 2 municipalities violates Section 450(a) of the LGC of 1991 ( in relation to

Section 10, Article X of the Constitution) which requires that only a municipality or acluster of barangays may be converted into a component city;

2. RA 8806 contains 2 subjects: (a) creation of the City of Sorsogon and the (b) abolition of

the Municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon, thereby violating the one subject-one bill

rule prescribed by Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution.

Hence, the present petitions which were later consolidated. During its pendency, the newly-created

Sorsogon City had the first election of its officials.

ISSUE:

1. WON RA 8806 violates Section Section 450(a) of the LGC of 1991 (in relation to Section 10,Article X of the Constitution)

2. WON RA 8806 violates the one subject-one bill rule.3. WON RA 8806 is unconstitutional.4. WON the plebiscite conducted by the COMELEC is valid5. WON COMELEC failed to observe the legal requirement of 20 day extensive information

campaign before conducting the plebiscite

HELD:

On Issue No. 1

No.

The phrase A municipality or a cluster ofbarangays may be convertedinto a component city is

not a criterion but simply one of the modes by which a city may be created. Section 10, Article X of

the Constitution allows the merger of LGUs to create a province, city, municipality or barangayin

accordance with the criteria established by the Code. Thus, Section 8 of the Code distinctly


2/3

provides that the creation of an entirely new LGU through a division or a merger of existing local

government units is recognized under the Constitution, provided that such merger or division

shall comply with the requirements prescribed by the Code.

Petitioners contention thatthere is no compelling reason for merging of the 2 municipalities goes

into the wisdom of RA 8806, a matter which the Court is not competent to rule.

On Issue No. 2

No.

Said abolition/cessation was but the logical, natural and inevitable consequence of the merger by

which the City of Sorsogon was created.

The one title-one subject rule is sufficiently complied with if the title is comprehensive enough asto include the general object which the statute seeks to effect, and where, as here, the persons

interested are informed of the nature, scope and consequences of the proposed law and its

operation. Moreover, this Court has invariably adopted a liberal rather than technical construction

of the rule so as not to cripple or impede legislation.

Issue No. 3

No.

The Court hold that petitioner has failed to present clear and convincing proof to defeat the

presumption of constitutionality of R.A. No. 8806. Every statute has in its favor the presumption of

constitutionality. This Court, however, may declare a law, or portions thereof, unconstitutional,

where a petitioner has shown a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a

doubtful or argumentative one.

On Issue No. 4

Yes.

RA 8806 was approved on August 16, 2000. The plebiscite was conducted on December 16, 2000

which is based on the effectivity of the Act which states that it shall take effect upon its publication

in at least 2 newspapers of general and local circulation. The law was published on August 25, 2000

and on September 01, 2000. The latter is the reckoning point in determining the 120-day period

within which to conduct the plebiscite, not from the date of its approval.

In addition, Section 10 of the Code provides:

Section 10. Plebiscite Requirement. No creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantialalteration 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. Such

plebiscite shall be conducted by the Commission on Elections within one hundred twenty (120) days

from the date of the effectivity of the law or ordinance affecting such action, unless said law or

ordinance fixes another date.

The last sentence of Section 10 mandates that the plebiscite shall be conducted within 120 days

from the date of the effectivity of the law, not from its approval. While the same provision allows a


3/3

law or ordinance to fix another date for conducting a plebiscite, still such date must be reckoned

from the date of the effectivity of the law.

Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in theOfficial Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such

publication.

The clause unless it is otherwise provided does not mean that the legislature may make the law

effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date, without its previous publication.

On Issue No. 5

No.

No proof whatsoever was presented by petitioner to substantiate his allegation. The Court sustain

the presumption that the COMELEC regularly performed or complied with its duty under the law in

conducting the plebiscite.

WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DISMISSED for lack of merit.

NOTE:

Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution. 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.

Section 450 of the LGC of 1991. 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 DoF, of at least 20M for the last 2 consecutive

years based on 1991 constant prices, and if it has either of the following requisites:

(i) a contiguous territory of at least 100 square kilometers, as certified by the Lands Management Bureau; or

(ii) a population of not less than 150k inhabitants, as certified by the NSO:

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 1 or more islands. The territory need not be contiguous if it comprises 2 or more

islands.

(c) The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund, exclusive of

specific funds, transfers, and non-recurring income.

Section 8 of the LGC of 1991. 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 LGU 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. x x x.

Documents

Cawaling v Comelec CD