Cagas vs. COMELEC

COMELEC possesses residual power to conduct a plebiscite beyond the deadline prescribed by law when compliance with the statutory period is rendered impossible by circumstances analogous to force majeure, provided the rescheduled date is reasonably close to the original deadline and the right of suffrage would otherwise be defeated.

Marc Douglas IV C. Cagas was the representative of the first legislative district of Davao del Sur and authored House Bill No. 4451, which sought to create the Province of Davao Occidental out of the present Province of Davao del Sur. The bill was enacted into law as Republic Act No. 10360, the Charter of the Province of Davao Occidental, approved by President Benigno S. Aquino III on 14 January 2013. Section 46 of R.A. No. 10360 directed COMELEC to conduct a plebiscite for the creation of the new province within sixty days from the law's effectivity. The Constitution, under Sections 10 and 11 of Article X, requires that no province may be created except subject to approval by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected, but does not specify a fixed date for the holding of such plebiscites—unlike its provisions for legislative and presidential elections.

R.A. No. 10360, the Charter of the Province of Davao Occidental, was passed by the House of Representatives on 28 November 2012 and by the Senate on 5 December 2012, and was approved by the President on 14 January 2013. The law was published in the Philippine Star and the Manila Bulletin on 21 January 2013, and took effect fifteen days thereafter, on 5 February 2013. Section 46 of R.A. No. 10360 required COMELEC to conduct a plebiscite for the creation of the new province within sixty days from the date of effectivity, or until 6 April 2013.

As early as 27 November 2012—before R.A. No. 10360 had even taken effect—COMELEC had already suspended the conduct of all plebiscites as a matter of policy, in view of preparations for the 13 May 2013 National and Local Elections. On 9 July 2013, COMELEC extended this suspension by resolving to defer action on the holding of all plebiscites until after the 28 October 2013 Barangay Elections. During a meeting on 31 July 2013, COMELEC decided to hold the plebiscite for the creation of Davao Occidental simultaneously with the 28 October 2013 Barangay Elections to save on expenses, and approved the conduct of the Concept of Execution through Minute Resolution No. 13-0926 on 6 August 2013.

On 6 September 2013, COMELEC promulgated Resolution Nos. 9771 and 9772. Resolution No. 9771 set the calendar of activities and periods of prohibited acts for the plebiscite, with the plebiscite period running from 28 September 2013 to 12 November 2013, the information campaign period from 28 September to 26 October 2013, and plebiscite day on 28 October 2013. Resolution No. 9772 provided for the posting of copies of R.A. No. 10360 and the conduct of information campaigns prior to the plebiscite. By the time the petition was filed, COMELEC had already scheduled the shipment and deployment of election paraphernalia to all precincts in Davao del Sur, except Davao City, and had defrayed substantial funds for bidding, cleansing of the voters registration list, printing of ballots, constitution of the Board of Election Inspectors, training and assignment of personnel, and information dissemination.

On 9 October 2013, Cagas filed the present petition for prohibition, asserting that COMELEC lacked authority to hold the plebiscite on 28 October 2013 because the 60-day period under Section 46 of R.A. No. 10360 had already lapsed, and that only Congress could amend or modify the statutory schedule. The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the respondents, countered that the Constitution does not fix a period for holding plebiscites, that logistical and financial impossibility rendered compliance with the 60-day period untenable, and that public interest demanded the plebiscite proceed as scheduled.

• Usurpation of Legislative Power: Petitioner argued that COMELEC was without authority or legal basis to amend or modify Section 46 of R.A. No. 10360 by mere minute resolution, because only Congress can validly amend, repeal, or modify existing laws, rendering COMELEC's suspension of the plebiscite unconstitutional.
• Lapse of Statutory Period: Petitioner maintained that COMELEC had no authority or legal basis to hold the plebiscite on 28 October 2013 because Section 46 of R.A. No. 10360 had already lapsed, the 60-day period being absolute and mandatory.
• Absence of Adequate Remedy: Petitioner asserted that he had no other adequate remedy to prevent COMELEC from holding the plebiscite on 28 October 2013 except through the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, given that COMELEC had already commenced preparations for the synchronized plebiscite.

• Constitutional Silence on Plebiscite Timing: Respondent countered that the 1987 Constitution does not fix the period for holding a plebiscite for the creation of a local government unit, unlike its provisions for legislative and presidential elections.
• Logistical and Financial Impossibility: Respondent argued that there was logistical and financial impossibility for COMELEC to hold the plebiscite at a mere two months' notice, given the concurrent preparations for the 13 May 2013 National and Local Elections, which would have required reconfiguring PCOS machines, procuring separate election paraphernalia, and appointing separate boards of election inspectors.
• Legislative Intent: Respondent maintained that legislative intent favored the implementation of R.A. No. 10360, and that public interest demanded the plebiscite be conducted.
• Absence of Grave Abuse of Discretion: Respondent argued that COMELEC did not abuse its discretion in issuing the questioned resolutions, the synchronization being an exercise of prudence to minimize expense.

• COMELEC's Authority to Reschedule: Whether COMELEC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it resolved to hold the plebiscite for the creation of the Province of Davao Occidental on 28 October 2013, simultaneous with the Barangay Elections, beyond the 60-day period prescribed by Section 46 of R.A. No. 10360.

• COMELEC's Authority to Reschedule: No. COMELEC did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The constitutional grant of power to COMELEC to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections includes the residual power to conduct a plebiscite beyond the deadline prescribed by law when compliance is