Padilla vs. COMELEC

The phrase "political units directly affected" in Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution includes both the proposed new political unit and the parent unit from which territory is to be segregated, such that a plebiscite for the creation of a new municipality must be conducted in both areas.

Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution requires that the creation of a municipality be subject to approval by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite "in the political units directly affected." This provision succeeded Section 3, Article XI of the 1973 Constitution, which used the phrase "unit or units affected." The interpretive question—whether the plebiscite electorate includes only the seceding unit or also the parent unit—had been addressed in Tan vs. COMELEC (1986) and Paredes vs. Executive Secretary (1984), with conflicting results.

Republic Act No. 7155, approved on September 6, 1991, created the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa in the Province of Camarines Norte, to be composed of twelve barangays—Tulay-Na-Lupa, Lugui, San Antonio, Mabilo I, Napaod, Benit, Bayan-Bayan, Matanlang, Pag-Asa, Maot, and Calabasa—all then part of the Municipality of Labo in the same province. Section 6 of the Act provided that the expenses for holding the plebiscite would be taken from the Contingent Fund under the current fiscal year appropriations. Pursuant to the Act and to Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2312 on November 13, 1991, setting the guidelines for the plebiscite. The resolution scheduled the plebiscite for December 15, 1991, to be held 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.

On December 15, 1991, the plebiscite was conducted throughout the Municipality of Labo. Of the votes cast, 2,890 favored the creation of the new municipality while 3,439 voted against it. 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 votes. Petitioner, the Governor of Camarines Norte, then filed a special civil action of certiorari before the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the plebiscite and praying that a new one be conducted. Petitioner contended that the plebiscite was a complete failure and that the results were invalid because, under COMELEC Resolution No. 2312 as mandated by Republic Act No. 7155, the plebiscite should have been conducted only in the political unit or units affected—i.e., the twelve barangays comprising the proposed new municipality—and should not have included the remaining area of the mother Municipality of Labo.

• Scope of Plebiscite: Petitioner argued that the plebiscite should have been conducted only in the twelve barangays comprising the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa, not throughout the entire Municipality of Labo, and that including the remaining areas of the mother municipality rendered the plebiscite a complete failure with invalid and illegal results.
• Supersession of Tan vs. COMELEC: Petitioner maintained that with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Section 10, Article X—which deleted the words "unit or" from its 1973 counterpart—the ruling in Tan vs. COMELEC was superseded, thereby reinstating Paredes vs. Executive Secretary, 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 participate in the plebiscite.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Resolution No. 2312.
• Validity of the Plebiscite: Whether the plebiscite conducted in both the areas comprising the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa and the remaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo is valid.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Resolution No. 2312, the phrase "political units directly affected" in the 1987 Constitution properly encompassing both the proposed new unit and the parent municipality.
• Validity of the Plebiscite: Yes, the plebiscite is valid. The deletion of "unit or" from the 1973 Constitution did not alter the rule in Tan vs. COMELEC, which remains controlling.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner's contention that the deletion of the phrase "unit or" from Section 3, Article XI of the 1973 Constitution in favor of Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution superseded Tan vs. COMELEC and reinstated Paredes vs. Executive Secretary was rejected. The Court examined the records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and found that then Commissioner Hilario Davide, who had requested the deletion of "unit or," expressly explained during the debates that the deletion was intended to ensure that "it must involve all the units affected," because the creation of a new unit from a parent unit "would mean a loss of a territory" for the latter. The deletion thus did not narrow the scope of the plebiscite but confirmed its breadth. The phrase "political units directly affected" contemplates a plurality of political units, and residents of the political entity who would be economically dislocated by the separation of a portion thereof have a right to vote. COMELEC therefore acted within constitutional bounds in including both the twelve barangays and the remaining areas of the Municipality of Labo.
• Validity of the Plebiscite: Because the plebiscite was properly conducted in all political units directly affected—both the proposed new municipality and the parent municipality losing territory—the results obtained were valid. The rejection of the creation of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa by a majority of votes cast was accordingly upheld.

• Political Units Directly Affected — Under Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, the phrase "political units directly affected" contemplates a plurality of political units that would participate in a plebiscite for the creation, division, merger, abolition, or boundary alteration of a local government unit. This includes not only the proposed new unit but also the parent unit from which territory is to be segregated, because the inhabitants of the parent unit would be economically dislocated by the separation. The deletion of the phrase "unit or" from the 1973 Constitution did not narrow the scope of the plebiscite; the Constitutional Commission debates confirm that the deletion was intended to ensure inclusion of all affected units. The doctrine was applied to uphold COMELEC's Resolution No. 2312, which conducted the plebiscite throughout the entire Municipality of Labo, including both the twelve barangays of the proposed Tulay-Na-Lupa and the remaining areas of the mother municipality.

• "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 plebiscite because it is affected. It would mean a loss of a territory." — This statement by then CONCOM Commissioner (later Justice) Hilario Davide during the 1986 Constitutional Commission debates was cited by the Court as the authoritative contemporaneous interpretation of the deletion of "unit or," confirming that the 1987 Constitution intended to include all affected units in the plebiscite.
• "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." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi, defining the scope of "political units directly affected" and establishing the right of inhabitants of the parent municipality to participate in the plebiscite.
• "Evidently, what is contemplated by the phase 'political units directly affected,' is the plurality of political units which would participate in the plebiscite." — This sentence establishes the doctrinal reading that "political units" is plural by design, encompassing both the segregating and the parent units.

• Tan vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 73155, July 11, 1986, 142 SCRA 727 — Controlling precedent followed. The Court held that the plebiscite for the creation of a new local government unit must be conducted in both the unit to be created and the parent unit. The Court found that the 1987 Constitution did not supersede this ruling, as the deletion of "unit or" was intended to reinforce—not narrow—the inclusion of all affected units.
• Paredes vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 55628, March 2, 1984, 128 SCRA 6 — Earlier precedent distinguished and not reinstated. It 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. The Court rejected petitioner's argument that the 1987 Constitution revived this ruling.

• Section 10, Article X, 1987 Constitution — Provides that 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. Applied as the constitutional basis for determining the scope of the plebiscite electorate.
• Section 134, Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 337) — Provides that a municipality may be altered or modified only by an Act of the Batasang Pambansa, subject to approval by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite to be held in the unit or units affected, and that the plebiscite shall be conducted by COMELEC within 120 days from the date of effectivity. Cited as the statutory basis for COMELEC's authority to conduct the plebiscite.
• Republic Act No. 7155 — Created the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa in the Province of Camarines Norte, composed of twelve barangays from the Municipality of Labo. Section 6 provided that plebiscite expenses be taken from the Contingent Fund. The Act was the legislative basis for the plebiscite challenged in the petition.

Narvasa (C.J.), Gutierrez Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide Jr., Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and Campos Jr., JJ., concurred. Padilla, J., was on leave.