pubcorp last batch

7/24/2019 Pubcorp Last Batch

1/114

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 104732 June 22, 1993

ROBERTO A. FLORES, DANEL !. FGUEROA, ROGELO T. PALO, DOMNGO A.JADLOC, CARLTO T. CRU" #n$ MANUEL P. RE!ES, petitioner,vs.

%ON. FRAN&LN M. DRLON, E'e(u)*+e Se(e)#-, #n$ RC%ARD J.GORDON, respondents.

Isagani M. Jungco, Valeriano S. Peralta, Miguel Famularcano, Jr. and Virgilio E.

Acierto for petitioners.

BELLOSLLO, J.:

The constitutionality of Sec. !, par. "d#, of R.A. $%%$,1 other&ise 'no&n as the(Bases Conversion and )evelop*ent Act of ++%,( under &hich respondent Mayor

Richard . -ordon of lon/apo City &as appointed Chair*an and Chief E0ecutive

fficer of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority "SBMA#, is challen/ed in this ori/inal

petition &ith prayer for prohibition, preli*inary in1unction and te*porary restrainin/

order (to prevent useless and unnecessary e0penditures of public funds by &ay of

salaries and other operational e0penses attached to the office . . . .(2 Para/raph "d#reads 2

"d# Chairman administrator 2 The President shall appoint a

professional *ana/er as ad*inistrator of the Subic Authority &ith a

co*pensation to be deter*ined by the Board sub1ect to the

approval of the Secretary of Bud/et, &ho shall be the ex

oficio chair*an of the Board and &ho shall serve as the chief

e0ecutive officer of the Subic Authority3 Proided, ho!eer, "hat for

the first #ear of its operations from the effectiit# of this Act, the

ma#or of the Cit# of $longapo shall %e appointed as the chairman

and chief executie officer of the Su%ic Authorit#"e*phasis

supplied#.

Petitioners, &ho clai* to be ta0payers, e*ployees of the 4.S. 5acility at the Subic,

6a*bales, and officers and *e*bers of the 5ilipino Civilian E*ployees Association in4.S. 5acilities in the Philippines, *aintain that theproiso in par. "d# of Sec. ! herein7

above 8uoted in italics infrin/es on the follo&in/ constitutional and statutory

provisions3 "a# Sec. $, first par., Art. 9:7B, of the Constitution, &hich states that (&n'o

electie official shall %e eligi%le for appointment or designation in an# capacit# to an#

pu%lic officer or position during his tenure,(3 because the City Mayor of lon/apoCity is an elective official and the sub1ect posts are public offices; "b# Sec. t?he President shall . . . . appoint all other

officers of the -overn*ent &hose appoint*ents are not other&iseproided for by

la&, and those &ho* he *ay be authori@ed by la& to appoint(,4 since it &asCon/ress throu/h the 8uestionedproisoand not the President &ho appointed the

Mayor to the sub1ect posts; and, "c# Sec. %


2/114

No elective official shall be eli/ible for appoint*ent or desi/nation

in any capacity to any public office or position durin/ his tenure.

4nless other&ise allo&ed by la& or by the pri*ary functions of his

position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or

e*ploy*ent in the -overn*ent or any subdivision, a/ency or

instru*entality thereof, includin/ /overn*ent7o&ned or controlled

corporations or their subsidiaries.

The section e0presses the policy a/ainst the concentration of several public positions

in one person, so that a public officer or e*ployee *ay serve full7ti*e &ith dedication

and thus be efficient in the delivery of public services. 9t is an affir*ation that a public

office is a full7ti*e 1ob. ence, a public officer or e*ployee, li'e the head of an

e0ecutive depart*ent described in Ciil (i%erties )nion . Executie Secretar#, *.+.

o. --/0, andAnti1*raft (eague of the Philippines, Inc. . Philip Ella C. Juico, as

Secretar# of Agrarian +eform, -.R. No. D!D,/ (. . . . should be allo&ed to attend tohis duties and responsibilities &ithout the distraction of other /overn*ental duties or

e*ploy*ent. e should be precluded fro* dissipatin/ his efforts, attention and

ener/y a*on/ too *any positions of responsibility, &hich *ay result in

hapha@ardness and inefficiency . . . .(

Particularly as re/ards the first para/raph of Sec. $, ("t#he basic idea really is to

prevent a situation &here a local elective official &ill &or' for his appoint*ent in an

e0ecutive position in /overn*ent, and thus ne/lect his constituents . . . .(7

9n the case before us, the sub1ectproiso directs the President to appoint an elective

official, i.e., the Mayor of lon/apo City, to other /overn*ent posts "as Chair*an of

the Board and Chief E0ecutive fficer of SBMA#. Since this is precisely &hat the

constitutional proscription see's to prevent, it needs no stretchin/ of the i*a/ination

to conclude that theproiso contravenes Sec. $, first par., Art. 9:7B, of the

Constitution. ere, the fact that the e0pertise of an elective official *ay be *ost

beneficial to the hi/her interest of the body politic is of no *o*ent.

9t is ar/ued that Sec. + of the ocal -overn*ent Code "-C# per*its the

appoint*ent of a local elective official to another post if so allo&ed by la& or by the

pri*ary functions of his office. But, the contention is fallacious. Section + of the-C is not deter*inative of the constitutionality of Sec. !, par. "d#, of R.A. $%%$, for

no le/islative act can prevail over the funda*ental la& of the land. Moreover, since

the constitutionality of Sec. + of -C is not the issue here nor is that section sou/ht

to be declared unconstitutional, &e need not rule on its validity. Neither can &e invo'e

a practice other&ise unconstitutional as authority for its validity.

9n any case, the vie& that an elective official *ay be appointed to another post if

allo&ed by la& or by the pri*ary functions of his office, i/nores the clear7cut

difference in the &ordin/ of the t&o "%# para/raphs of Sec. $, Art.

9:7B, of the Constitution. Fhile the second para/raph authori@es holdin/ of *ultipleoffices by an appointieofficial &hen allo&ed by la& or by the pri*ary functions of his

position, the first para/raph appears to be *ore strin/ent by not providin/ any

e0ception to the rule a/ainst appoint*ent or desi/nation of an electie official to the

/overn*ent post, e0cept as are particularly reco/ni@ed in the Constitution itself, e./.,

the President as head of the econo*ic and plannin/ a/ency;9 the =ice7President,&ho *ay be appointed Me*ber of the Cabinet; 10 and, a *e*ber of Con/ress &ho*ay be desi/nated ex officio *e*ber of the udicial and Bar Council. 11

The distinction bet&een the first and second para/raphs of Sec. $, Art. 9:7B, &as not

accidental &hen dra&n, and not &ithout reason. 9t &as purposely sou/ht by the

drafters of the Constitution as sho&n in their deliberation, thus 2

MR. MNS). 9n other &ords, &hat then Co**issioner is sayin/,

Mr. Presidin/ fficer, is that the prohibition is *ore strict &ith

respect to elective officials, because in the case of appointive

officials, there *ay be a la& that &ill allo& the* to hold other

positions.

MR. 56. Ges, 9 su//est &e *a'e that difference, because in the

case of appointive officials, there &ill be certain situations &here

the la& should allo& the* to hold so*e other positions. 12

The distinction bein/ clear, the e0e*ption allo&ed to appointive officials in the second

para/raph cannot be e0tended to elective officials &ho are /overned by the first

para/raph.

9t is further ar/ued that the SBMA posts are *erely ex officio to the position of Mayor

of lon/apo City, hence, an e0cepted circu*stance, citin/ Ciil (i%erties )nion .

Executie Secretar#, 13 &here &e stated that the prohibition a/ainst the holdin/ ofany other office or e*ploy*ent by the President, =ice7President, Me*bers of the

Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants durin/ their tenure, asproided in Sec. !,

Art. =99, of the Constitution, does not co*prehend additional duties and

functions re2uired %# the primar# functions of the officials concerned, !ho are to

perform them in an ex officio capacit# as proided %# la!, !ithout receiing an#

additional compensation therefor

.

This ar/u*ent is apparently based on a &ron/ pre*ise. Con/ress did not

conte*plate *a'in/ the sub1ect SBMA posts as ex officio or auto*atically attached to

the ffice of the Mayor of lon/apo City &ithout need of appoint*ent. The phrase

(shall be appointed( un8uestionably sho&s the intent to *a'e the SBMA posts

appointive and not *erely ad1unct to the post of Mayor of lon/apo City. ad it been

the le/islative intent to *a'e the sub1ect positions ex officio, Con/ress &ould have, at

least, avoided the &ord (appointed( and, instead, (ex officio( &ould have been

used. 14

Even in the Senate deliberations, the Senators &ere fully a&are that

sub1ectproiso *ay contravene Sec. $, first par., Art. 9:7B, but they neverthelesspassed the bill and decided to have the controversy resolved by the courts. 9ndeed,


3/114

the Senators &ould not have been concerned &ith the effects of Sec. $, first par., had

they considered the SBMA posts as ex officio.

Co/ni@ant of the co*plication that *ay arise fro* the &ay the sub1ectproiso &as

stated, Senator Rene Sa/uisa/ re*ar'ed that (if the Conference Co**ittee 1ust said

(the Mayor shall be the Chair*an( then that should foreclose the issue. 9t is a

le/islative choice.( 1 The Senator too' a vie& that the constitutional proscriptiona/ainst appoint*ent of elective officials *ay have been sidestepped if Con/ress

attached the SBMA posts to the Mayor of lon/apo City instead of directin/ the

President to appoint hi* to the post. Fithout passin/ upon this vie& of Senator

Sa/uisa/, it suffices to state that Con/ress intended the posts to be appointive, thus

nibblin/ in the bud the ar/u*ent that they are ex officio.

The analo/y &ith the position of Chair*an of the Metro Manila Authority *ade by

respondents cannot be applied to uphold the constitutionality of the

challen/edproiso since it is not put in issue in the present case. 9n the sa*e vein,

the ar/u*ent that if no elective official *ay be appointed or desi/nated to another

post then Sec. D, Art. 9:7B, of the Constitution allo&in/ hi* to receive double

co*pensation 1/ &ould be useless, is non se2uitur since Sec. D does not affect theconstitutionality of the sub1ectproiso. 9n any case, the =ice7President for e0a*ple,

an elective official &ho *ay be appointed to a cabinet post under Sec. !, Art. =99, *ay

receive the co*pensation attached to the cabinet position if specifically authori@ed byla&.

Petitioners also assail the le/islative encroach*ent on the appointin/ authority of the

President. Section !, par. "d#, itself vests in the President the po&er to appoint the

Chair*an of the Board and the Chief E0ecutive fficer of SBMA, althou/h he really

has no choice under the la& but to appoint the Mayor of lon/apo City.

As *ay be defined, an (appoint*ent( is (>t?he desi/nation of a person, by the person

or persons havin/ authority therefor, to dischar/e the duties of so*e office or

trust,( 17 or (>t?he selection or desi/nation of a person, by the person or personshavin/ authority therefor, to fill an office or public function and dischar/e the duties of

the sa*e. 1 9n his treatise, Philippine Political(a!, 19 Senior Associate ustice 9sa/ani A. Cru@ defines appoint*ent as (theselection, by the authority vested &ith the po&er, of an individual &ho is to e0ercise

the functions of a /iven office.(

Considerin/ that appoint*ent calls for a selection, the appointin/ po&er necessarily

e0ercises a discretion. Accordin/ to Foodbury, ., 20 (the choice of a person to fill anoffice constitutes the essence of his appoint*ent,( 21 and Mr. ustice Malcol* addsthat an (>a?ppoint*ent to office is intrinsically an e0ecutive act involvin/ the e0ercise

of discretion.( 22 9n Pamantasan ng (ungsod ng Ma#nila . Intermediate AppellateCourt 23 &e held3

The po&er to appoint is, in essence, discretionary. The appointin/po&er has the ri/ht of choice &hich he *ay e0ercise freely

accordin/ to his 1ud/*ent, decidin/ for hi*self &ho is best 8ualified

a*on/ those &ho have the necessary 8ualifications and eli/ibilities.

9t is a prero/ative of the appointin/ po&er . . . .

9ndeed, the po&er of choice is the heart of the po&er to appoint. Appoint*ent involves

an e0ercise of discretion of &ho* to appoint; it is not a *inisterial act of issuin/

appoint*ent papers to the appointee. 9n other &ords, the choice of the appointee is a

funda*ental co*ponent of the appointin/ po&er.

ence, &hen Con/ress clothes the President &ith the po&er to appoint an officer, it

"Con/ress# cannot at the sa*e ti*e li*it the choice of the President to only one

candidate. nce the po&er of appoint*ent is conferred on the President, such

confer*ent necessarily carries the discretion of &ho* to appoint. Even on the prete0t

of prescribin/ the 8ualifications of the officer, Con/ress *ay not abuse such po&er as

to divest the appointin/ authority, directly or indirectly, of his discretion to pic' his o&n

choice. Conse8uently, &hen the 8ualifications prescribed by Con/ress can only be

*et by one individual, such enact*ent effectively eli*inates the discretion of the

appointin/ po&er to choose and constitutes an irre/ular restriction on the po&er of

appoint*ent. 24

9n the case at bar, &hile Con/ress &illed that the sub1ect posts be f illed &ith a

presidential appointee for the first year of its operations fro* the effectivity of R.A.

$%%$, theproiso nevertheless li*its the appointin/ authority to only one eli/ible, i.e.,

the incu*bent Mayor of lon/apo City. Since only one can 8ualify for the posts in

8uestion, the President is precluded fro* e0ercisin/ his discretion to choose &ho* to

appoint. Such supposed po&er of appoint*ent, sans the essential ele*ent of choice,

is no po&er at all and /oes a/ainst the very nature itself of appoint*ent.

Fhile it *ay be vie&ed that theproiso*erely sets the 8ualifications of the officer

durin/ the first year of operations of SBMA, i.e., he *ust be the Mayor of lon/apo

City, it is *anifestly an abuse of con/ressional authority to prescribe 8ualifications

&here only one, and no other, can 8ualify. Accordin/ly, &hile the confer*ent of the

appointin/ po&er on the President is a perfectly valid le/islative act,

theproiso li*itin/ his choice to one is certainly an encroach*ent on his prero/ative.

Since the ineli/ibility of an elective official for appoint*ent re*ains all throu/hout his

tenure or durin/ his incu*bency, he *ay ho&ever resi/n first fro* his elective post to

cast off the constitutionally7attached dis8ualification before he *ay be considered fit

for appoint*ent. The deliberation in the Constitutional Co**ission is enli/htenin/3

MR. )A=9)E. n Section , pa/e !, line D, 9 propose the

substitution of the &ord (ter*( &ith TEN4RE.

MR. 56. The effect of the proposed a*end*ent is to *a'e

possible for one to resi/n fro* his position.


4/114

MR. )A=9)E. Ges, &e should allo& that prero/ative.

MR. 56. Resi/n fro* his position to accept an e0ecutive position.

MR. )A=9)E. Besides, it *ay turn out in a /iven case that because

of, say, incapacity, he *ay leave the service, but if he is prohibited

fro* bein/ appointed &ithin the ter* for &hich he &as elected, &e

*ay be deprivin/ the /overn*ent of the needed e0pertise of an

individual. 2

Conse8uently, as lon/ as he is an incu*bent, an elective official re*ains ineli/ible for

appoint*ent to another public office.

Fhere, as in the case of respondent -ordon, an incu*bent elective official &as,

not&ithstandin/ his ineli/ibility, appointed to other /overn*ent posts, he does not

auto*atically forfeit his elective office nor re*ove his ineli/ibility i*posed by the

Constitution. n the contrary, since an incu*bent elective official is not eli/ible to the

appointive position, his appoint*ent or desi/nation thereto cannot be valid in vie& of

his dis8ualification or lac' of eli/ibility. This provision should not be confused &ith

Sec. !, Art. =9, of the Constitution &here ("n#o Senator or Me*ber of the ouse of

Representatives *ay hold any other office or e*ploy*ent in the -overn*ent . . .durin/ his ter* &ithout forfeitin/ his seat . . . .( The difference bet&een the t&o

provisions is si/nificant in the sense that incu*bent national le/islators lose their

elective posts only after they have been appointed to another /overn*ent office,

&hile other incu*bent elective officials *ust first resi/n their posts before they can be

appointed, thus runnin/ the ris' of losin/ the elective post as &ell as not bein/

appointed to the other post. 9t is therefore clear that ineli/ibility is not directly related

&ith forfeiture of office. (. . . . The effect is 8uite different &here it is

e0presslyproided by la& that a person holdin/ one office shall be ineli/ible to

another. Such a provision is held to incapacitate the incu*bent of an office fro*

acceptin/ or holdin/ a second office "State e0 rel. =an Ant&erp v o/an, %D! Ala.

, %D So %d %D; McFillia*s v Neal, !H -a $!!,

either /enerally or of a certain 'ind, the prohibition has been held to incapacitate the

incu*bent of the first office to hold the second so that any atte*pt to hold the second

is void "Ala. 2 State e0 rel. =an Ant&erp v. o/an, %D So %d %D, %D! Ala #.( 27

As incu*bent elective official, respondent -ordon is ineli/ible for appoint*ent to the

position of Chair*an of the Board and Chief E0ecutive of SBMA; hence, his

appoint*ent thereto pursuant to a le/islative act that contravenes the Constitution

cannot be sustained. e ho&ever re*ains Mayor of lon/apo City, and his acts as

SBMA official are not necessarily null and void; he *ay be considered a de

facto officer, (one &hose acts, thou/h not those of a la&ful officer, the la&, uponprinciples of policy and 1ustice, &ill hold valid so far as they involve the interest of the

public and third persons, &here the duties of the office &ere e0ercised . . . . under

color of a 'no&n election or appoint*ent, void because the officer !as not eligi%le, or

because there &as a &ant of po&er in the electin/ or appointin/ body, or by reason of

so*e defect or irre/ularity in its e0ercise, such ineli/ibility, &ant of po&er or defect

bein/ un'no&n to the public . . . . >or? under color of an election, or appointment, %# or

pursuant to a pu%lic unconstitutional la!, %efore the same is ad3udged to %e

such"State vs. Carroll, !D Conn., ++; Filco0 vs. S*ith, Fendell >N.G.?, %!; %

A*. )ec., %!; SheehanIs Case, %% Mass, , %! A*. Rep., !%!#.( 2

Confor*ably &ith our rulin/ in Ciil (i%erties )nion, any and allper diems, allo&ances

and other e*olu*ents &hich *ay have been received by respondent -ordon

pursuant to his appoint*ent *ay be retained by hi*.

The ille/ality of his appoint*ent to the SBMA posts bein/ no& evident, other *atters

affectin/ the le/ality of the 8uestionedproiso as &ell as the appoint*ent of said

respondent *ade pursuant thereto need no lon/er be discussed.

9n thus concludin/ as &e do, &e can only share the la*ent of Sen. Sotero aurel

&hich he e0pressed in the floor deliberations of S.B.


5/114

o&ever, allper diems, allo&ances and other e*olu*ents received by respondent

-ordon, if any, as such Chair*an and Chief E0ecutive fficer *ay be retained by

hi*, and all acts other&ise le/iti*ate done by hi* in the e0ercise of his authority as

officer de facto of SBMA are hereby 4PE).

S R)ERE).

arasa, C.J., Cru5, Feliciano, 6idin, *ri7o1A2uino, +egalado, 4aide, Jr., +omero,

ocon, Melo and 8uiason, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., is on leae.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 1177 M#( 7, 199

JUANTO MARANO, JR. e) #., petitioners,vs.

T%E COMMSSON ON ELECTONS, T%E MUNCPALT! OF MA&AT, %ON.

JEJOMAR BNA!, T%E MUNCPAL TREASURER, AND SANGGUNANG BA!ANOF MA&AT, respondents.

G.R. No. 11/27 M#( 7, 199

JO%N R. OSMEA, petitioner,vs.

T%E COMMSSON ON ELECTONS, T%E MUNCPALT! OF MA&AT, %ON.JEJOMAR BNA!, MUNCPAL TREASURER, AND SANGGUNANG BA!AN OFMA&AT, respondents.

PUNO, J.:

At bench are t&o "%# petitions assailin/ certain provisions of Republic Act No. $D as

unconstitutional. R.A. No. $D as unconstitutional. R.A. No. $D is entitled, (An Act

Convertin/ the Municipality of Ma'ati 9nto a i/hly 4rbani@ed City to be 'no&n as the

City of Ma'ati.(1

-.R. No. D$$ involves a petition for prohibition and declaratory relief. 9t &as filed

by petitioners uanito Mariano, r., i/aya S. Bautista, Teresita Tibay, Ca*ilo Santos,5ran'ie Cru@, Ricardo Pascual, Teresita Aban/, =alentina Pitalvero, Rufino Caldo@a,

5lorante Alba, and Perfecto Alba. f the petitioners, only Mariano, r., is a resident of

Ma'ati. The others are residents of 9bayo 4susan, Ta/ui/, Metro Manila. Suin/ as

ta0payers, they assail as unconstitutional sections %, , and % of R.A. No. $D on

the follo&in/ /rounds3

. Section % of R.A. No. $D did not properly identify the land area

or territorial 1urisdiction of Ma'ati by *etes and bounds, &ith

technical descriptions, in violation of Section H, Article : of the

Constitution, in relation to Sections $ and H of the ocal

-overn*ent Code;

%. Section of R.A. No. $D atte*pts to alter or restart the (three

consecutive ter*( li*it for local elective officials, in violation of

Section D, Article : and Section $, Article =9 of the Constitution.

!. Section % of R.A. No. $D is unconstitutional for3

"a# it increased the le/islative district of Ma'ati

only by special la& "the Charter in violation of the

constitutional provision re8uirin/ a /eneral

reapportion*ent la& to be passed by Con/ress

&ithin three "!# years follo&in/ the return of every

census;

"b# the increase in le/islative district &as not

e0pressed in the title of the bill; and

"c# the addition of another le/islative district in

Ma'ati is not in accord &ith Section "!#, Article

=9 of the Constitution for as of the latest survey

"++H census#, the population of Ma'ati stands at

only H,HHH.

-.R. No. D


6/114

Fe find no *erit in the petitions.

9

Section %, Article 9 of R.A. No. $D delineated the land areas of the proposed city of

Ma'ati, thus3

Sec. %. "he Cit# of Ma9ati. 2 The Municipality of Ma'ati shall be

converted into a hi/hly urbani@ed city to be 'no&n as the City ofMa'ati, hereinafter referred to as the City, !hich shall comprise the

present territor# of the Municipalit# of Ma9ati in Metropolitan Manila

Areaover &hich it has 1urisdiction bounded on the northeast by

Pasi/ River and beyond by the City of Mandaluyon/ and the

Municipality of Pasi/; on the southeast by the *unicipalities of

Pateros and Ta/ui/; on the south&est by the City of Pasay and the

Municipality of Ta/ui/; and, on the north&est, by the City of Manila.

The fore/oin/ provision shall be !ithout pre3udice to the resolution

%# the appropriate agenc# or forum of existing %oundar# disputes

or cases inoling 2uestions of territorial 3urisdiction %et!een the

Cit# of Ma9ati and the ad3oining local goernment units. "E*phasissupplied#

9n -.R. No. D$$, petitioners clai* that this delineation violates sections $ and H

of the ocal -overn*ent Code &hich re8uire that the area of a local /overn*ent unit

should be *ade by *etes and bounds &ith technical descriptions.2

The i*portance of dra&in/ &ith precise stro'es the territorial boundaries of a local

unit of /overn*ent cannot be overe*phasi@ed. The boundaries *ust be clear for they

define the li*its of the territorial 1urisdiction of a local /overn*ent unit. 9t can

le/iti*ately e0ercise po&ers of /overn*ent only &ithin the li*its, its acts are ultra

ires. Needless to state, any uncertainty in the boundaries of local /overn*ent units

&ill so& costly conflicts in the e0ercise of /overn*ental po&ers &hich ulti*ately &ill

pre1udice the peopleIs &elfare. This is the evil sou/ht to avoided by the ocal

-overn*ent Code in re8uirin/ that the land area of a local /overn*ent unit *ust be

spelled out in *etes and bounds, &ith technical descriptions.

-iven the facts of the cases at bench, &e cannot perceive ho& this evil can be

brou/ht about by the description *ade in section % of R.A. No. $D, Petitioners have

not de*onstrated that the delineation of the land area of the proposed City of Ma'ati

&ill cause confusion as to its boundaries. Fe note that said delineation did not

chan/e even by an inch the land area previously covered by Ma'ati as a *unicipality.

Section % did not add, subtract, divide, or *ultiply the established land area of Ma'ati.

9n lan/ua/e that cannot be any clearer, section % stated that, the cityIs land area

(shall co*prise thepresentterritory of the *unicipality.(

The deliberations of Con/ress &ill reveal that there is a le/iti*ate reason &hy the

land area of the proposed City of Ma'ati &as not defined by *etes and bounds, &ith

technical descriptions. At the ti*e of the consideration of R.A. No. $D, the territorial

dispute bet&een the *unicipalities of Ma'ati and Ta/ui/ over 5ort Bonifacio &as

under court liti/ation. ut of a beco*in/ sense of respect to co7e8ual depart*ent of

/overn*ent, le/islators felt that the dispute should be left to the courts to decide.

They did not &ant to foreclose the dispute by *a'in/ a le/islative findin/ of fact &hich

could decide the issue. This &ould have ensued if they defined the land area of the

proposed city by its e0act *etes and bounds, &ith technical descriptions.3 Fe ta'e

1udicial notice of the fact that Con/ress has also refrained fro* usin/ the *etes andbounds description of land areas of other local /overn*ent units &ith unsettled

boundary disputes.4

Fe hold that the e0istence of a boundary dispute does notper sepresent an

insur*ountable difficulty &hich &ill prevent Con/ress fro* definin/ &ith reasonable

certitude the territorial 1urisdiction of a local /overn*ent unit. 9n the cases at bench,

Con/ress *aintained the e0istin/ boundaries of the proposed City of Ma'ati but as an

act of fairness, *ade the* sub1ect to the ulti*ate resolution by the courts.

Considerin/ these peculiar circu*stances, &e are not prepared to hold that section %

of R.A. No. $D is unconstitutional. Fe sustain the sub*ission of the Solicitor

-eneral in this re/ard, i5.3

-oin/ no& to Sections $ and H of the ocal -overn*ent Code, it

is beyond cavil that the re8uire*ent stated therein, i5.3 (the

territorial 1urisdiction of ne&ly created or converted cities should be

described by *eted and bounds, &ith technical descriptions( 2

&as *ade in order to provide a *eans by &hich the area of said

cities *ay be reasonably ascertained. 9n other &ords, the

re8uire*ent on *etes and bounds &as *eant *erely as tool in the

establish*ent of local /overn*ent units. 9t is not an end in

itself. Ergo, so lon/ as the territorial 1urisdiction of a city *ay be

reasonably ascertained, i.e., by referrin/ to co**on boundaries

&ith nei/hborin/ *unicipalities, as in this case, then, it *ay be

concluded that the le/islative intent behind the la& has been

sufficiently served.

Certainly, Con/ress did not intends that la&s creatin/ ne& cities

*ust contain therein detailed technical descriptions si*ilar to those

appearin/ in Torrens titles, as petitioners see* to i*ply. To re8uire

such description in the la& as a condition sine 2ua non for its

validity &ould be to defeat the very purpose &hich the ocal

-overn*ent Code to see's to serve. The *anifest intent of the

Code is to e*po&er local /overn*ent units and to /ive the* their

ri/htful due. 9t see's to *a'e local /overn*ents *ore responsive to

the needs of their constituents &hile at the sa*e ti*e servin/ as a

vital co/ in national develop*ent. To invalidate R.A. No. $D on

the *ere /round that no cadastral type of description &as used inthe la& &ould serve the letter but defeat the spirit of the Code. 9t


7/114

then beco*es a case of the *aster servin/ the slave, instead of the

other &ay around. This could not be the intend*ent of the la&.

Too &ell settled is the rule that la&s *ust be enforced &hen

ascertained, althou/h it *ay not be consistent &ith the strict letter

of the statute. Courts &ill not follo& the letter of the statute &hen to

do so &ould depart fro* the true intent of the le/islature or &ould

other&ise yield conclusions inconsistent &ith the /eneral purpose

of the act. "Torres v. i*1ap, < Phil., ; TaJada v. Cuenco, H!

Phil. H; idal/o v. idal/o, !! SCRA H#. e/islation is an

active instru*ent of /overn*ent, &hich, for purposes of

interpretation, *eans that la&s have ends to achieve, and statutes

should be so construed as not to defeat but to carry out such ends

and purposes "Bocolbo v. Estanislao, $% SCRA %H#. The sa*e

rule *ust indubitably apply to the case at bar.

99

Petitioners in -.R. No. D$$ also assail the constitutionality of section , Article :

of R.A. No. $D. Section states3

Sec. . $fficials of the Cit# of Ma9ati. 2 The represent elective

officials of the Municipality of Ma'ati shall continue as the officials

of the City of Ma'ati and shall e0ercise their po&ers and functions

until such ti*e that a ne& election is held and the duly elected

officials shall have already 8ualified and assu*e their

offices3 Proided, "he ne! cit# !ill ac2uire a ne! corporate

existence. The appointive officials and e*ployees of the City shall

li'e&ise continues e0ercisin/ their functions and duties and they

shall be auto*atically absorbed by the city /overn*ent of the City

of Ma'ati.

They contend that this section collides &ith section D, Article : and section $, Article

=9 of the Constitution &hich provide3

Sec. D. The ter* of office of elective local officials, e0cept baran/ay

officials, &hich shall be deter*ined by la&, shall be three years

and no such official shall sere for more than three consecutie

terms. =oluntary renunciation of the office for any len/th of ti*e

shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his

service for the full ter* for &hich he &as elected.

000 000 000

Sec. $. The Me*bers of the ouse of Representatives shall be

elected for a ter* of three years &hich shall be/in, unless

other&ise provided by la&, at noon on the thirtieth day of une ne0t

follo&in/ their election.

No Me*ber of the ouse of Representatives shall serve for *ore

than three consecutive ter*s. =oluntary renunciation of the office

for any len/th of ti*e shall not be considered as an interruption in

the continuity of his service for the full ter* for &hich he &as

elected.

Petitioners stress that under these provisions, electie local officials, including

Mem%ers of the :ouse of +epresentatie, hae a term of three"##ears and are

prohi%ited from sering for more than three"#consecutie terms. They ar/ue that by

providin/ that the ne& city shall ac8uire a ne! corporate existence, section of R.A.

No. $D restarts the ter* of the present *unicipal elective officials of Ma'ati and

disre/ards the ter*s previously served by the*. 9n particular, petitioners point that

section favors the incu*bent Ma'ati Mayor, respondent e1o*ar Binay, &ho has

already served for t&o "%# consecutive ter*s. They further ar/ue that should Mayor

Binay decide to run and eventually &in as cit# ma#or in the co*in/ elections, he can

still run for the sa*e position in ++D and see' another three7year consecutive ter*

since his previous three7year consecutive ter* asmunicipal ma#or &ould not be

counted. Thus, petitioners conclude that said section has been conveniently

crafted to suit the political a*bitions of respondent Mayor Binay.

Fe cannot entertain this challen/e to the constitutionality of section . The

re8uire*ents before a liti/ant can challen/e the constitutionality of a la& are &ell

delineated. They are3 # there *ust be an actual case or controversy; "%# the 8uestion

of constitutionality *ust be raised by the proper party; "!# the constitutional 8uestion

*ust be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and "# the decision on the

constitutional 8uestion *ust be necessary to the deter*ination of the case itself.

Petitioners have far fro* co*plied &ith these re8uire*ents. The petition is pre*ised

on the occurrence of *any contin/ent events, i.e., that Mayor Binay &ill run a/ain in

this co*in/ *ayoralty elections; that he &ould be re7elected in said elections; and

that he &ould see' re7election for the sa*e position in the ++D elections.Considerin/ that these contin/encies *ay or *ay not happen, petitioners *erely

pose a hypothetical issue &hich has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy.

Petitioners &ho are residents of Ta/ui/ "e0cept Mariano# are not also the proper

parties to raise this abstract issue. Forse, they hoist this futuristic issue in a petition

for declaratory relief over &hich this Court has no 1urisdiction.

999

5inally, petitioners in the t&o "%# cases at bench assail the constitutionality of section

%, Article : of R.A. No. $D. Section % of the Charter provides3

Sec. %. (egislatie 4istricts. 2 4pon its conversion into a hi/hly7urbani@ed city, Ma'ati shall thereafter have at least t!o ;


8/114

legislatie districtsthat shall initially correspond to the t&o "%#

e0istin/ districts created under Section !"a# of Republic Act. No.

$


9/114


SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 1129 A* 1, 199

BEN5ENDO O. MAR6UE", JR., petitioner,vs.

COMMSSON ON ELECTONS #n$ EDUARDO T. RODRGUE", respondents.

5TUG, J.:

The Court is called upon, in this petition for certiorari, to resolve the conflictin/ clai*sof the parties on the *eanin/ of the ter* (fu/itive fro* 1ustice as that phrase is so

used under the provisions of Section H"e# of the ocal -overn*ent Code "Republic

Act No. $


10/114

Evidently, the *atter elevated to this Court &as a pre7procla*ation

controversy. Since the private respondent had already been

proclai*ed as the duly elected -overnor of the Province of

Kue@on, the petition belo& for dis8ualification has ceased to be a

pre7procla*ation controversy. 9n Casimiro s. Commission on

Elections, -.R. Nos. DElections, -.R. Nos. D


11/114

TE CA9RMAN. Ges.

MS. )CTR. etIs *ove to. . .

TE CA9RMAN. Fait, &ait, &ait. Can &e 1ust

a/ree on the &ordin/, this is very i*portant.

Manny, can you co*e up

MR. REGES. etIs use the &ord conviction byfinal 1ud/*ent.

TE CA9RMAN. 5u/itive *eans so*ebody &ho

is convicted by final 1ud/*ent. 'ay,. 5u/itive

*eans so*ebody &ho is convicted by final

1ud/*ent. 9nsert that on ine ! after the se*i7

colon. 9s that approved No ob1ection, approved

"TSN, versi/ht Co**ittee, H$ May ++#.

000 000 000

TE CA9RMAN. Andy, saan ba na*an iton/a*end*ent on pa/e % Sino ba an/ /u*a&a

nito 'ay, on pa/e %, lines ! and , (fu/itive

fro* 1ustice(. Fhat (fu/itive( Sino ba an/

/u*a&a nito, ha

MR. SANCE6. Ges, 9 thin', &ell, last ti*e, Mr.

Chair*an, &e a/ree to clarify the &ord (fu/itive(.

TE CA9RMAN. (5u/itive fro* 1ustice *eans a

person( ba ito, ha

MR. SANCE6. Means a person...

TE CA9RMAN. a

N. REGES. A person &ho has been convicted.

TE CA9RMAN; Ges, fu/itive fro* 1ustice,

oo. Fugitie from 3ustice shall mean or means

one !ho has %een conicted %# final 3udgment. 9t

*eans one &ho has been convicted by final

1ud/*ent.

N. )E PE)R. Lulan/ pa rin an/ ibi/ sabihin

niyan.

TE CA9RMAN. Ano Si/e, tin/nan natin.

N. )E PE)R. Lun/ nasa loob n/ presuhan,

fu/itive pa rin siya

TE CA9RMAN. , ta*a na yan, fu/itive fro*1ustice. :e has %een conicted %# final 3udgment,

*eanin/ that if he is si*ply in 1ail and because

he put up, post bail, but the case is still bein/

revie&ed, that is not yet conviction by final

1ud/*ent. 3

The versi/ht Co**ittee evidently entertained serious apprehensions on the

possible constitutional infir*ity of Section H"e# of Republic Act No. $


12/114

e0tent that it confines the ter* (fu/itive fro* 1ustice( to refer only to a person "the

fu/itive# (&ho has been convicted by final 1ud/*ent.( is an inordinate and undue

circu*scription of the la&.

4nfortunately, the CMEEC did not *a'e any definite findin/ on &hether or not, in

fact, private respondent is a (fu/itive fro* 1ustice( as such ter* *ust be interpreted

and applied in the li/ht of the CourtIs opinion. The o*ission is understandable since

the CMEEC dis*issed outri/htly the petition for 2uo !arrantoon the basis instead

of Rule $! of the Rules and Re/ulations pro*ul/ated by the versi/ht Co**ittee.

The Court itself, not bein/ a trier of facts, is thus constrained to re*and the case tothe CMEEC for a deter*ination of this unresolved factual *atter.

FERE5RE, the 8uestioned resolutions of the Co**ission on Elections are

RE=ERSE) and SET AS9)E, and the case is hereby REMAN)E) to the

Co**ission &hich is )9RECTE) to proceed and resolve the case &ith dispatch

confor*ably &ith the fore/oin/ opinion. No special pronounce*ent on costs.

S R)ERE).

Feliciano, Padilla, Melo, 8uiason, Puno, @apunan and Francisco, JJ., concur.


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 1241/ Se)e8e 2/, 199/

SUBC BA! METROPOLTAN AUT%ORT!, petitioner,vs.

COMMSSON ON ELECTONS, ENR6UE T. GARCA #n$ CATALNO A.CALMBAS, respondents.

PANGANBAN, J.:

The +D$ Constitution is uni8ue in *any &ays. 5or one thin/, it

institutionali@ed people po&er in la&7*a'in/. earnin/ fro* the bitter lesson

of co*pletely surrendin/ to Con/ress the sole authority to *a'e, a*end or

repeal la&s, the present Constitution concurrently vested such prero/atives

in the electorate by e0pressly reco/ni@in/ their residual and soverei/n

authority to ordain le/islation directly throu/h the concepts and processes of

initiative and of referendu*.

9n this )ecision, this Court distin/uishes referendu* fro* initiative and

discusses the practical and le/al i*plications of such differences. 9t also sets

do&n so*e /uidelines in the conduct and i*ple*entation of these t&o novel

and vital features of popular de*ocracy, as &ell as settles so*e relevant

8uestions on 1urisdiction 2 all &ith the purpose of nurturin/, protectin/ and

pro*otin/ the peopleIs e0ercise of direct de*ocracy.

9n this action for certiorariand prohibition, petitioner see's to nullify the

respondent Co**ission on ElectionsI Rulin/ dated April $, ++< and

Resolution No. %DD pro*ul/ated on une %$, ++


13/114

n March !, ++%, Con/ress enacted Republic Act No. $%%$ "The Bases

Conversion and )evelop*ent Act of ++%#, &hich a*on/ others, provided

for the creation of the Subic Econo*ic 6one, thus3

Sec. %. Subic Special Econo*ic 6one. 2 Su%3ect to the

concurrence %# resolution of the Sangguniang Panlugnsod of the

Cit# of $longapo and the Sangguniang 6a#an of the Municipalities

of Su%ic. Morong and :ermosa, there is hereby created a Special

Econo*ic and 5ree7port 6one consistin/ of the City of lon/apo

and the Municipality of Subic, Province of 6a*bales, the landsoccupied by the Subic Naval Base and its conti/uous e0tensions as

e*braced, covered and defined by the +$ Military Bases

A/ree*ent bet&een the Philippines and the 4nited States of

A*erica as a*ended, and &ithin the territorial 1urisdiction of the

Municipalities of Moron/ and er*osa, Province of Bataan,

hereinafter referred to as the Subic Special Econo*ic 6one &hose

*etes and bounds shall be delineated in a procla*ation to be

issued by the President of the Philippines. Fithin thirty "!H# days

after the approval of this Act, each local /overn*ent unit shall

sub*it its resolution of concurrence to 1oin the Subic Special

Econo*ic 6one to the ffice of the President. Thereafter, the

President of the Philippines shall issue a procla*ation definin/ the*etes and bounds of the @one as provided herein.( "E*phasis

supplied#

RA $%%$ li'e&ise created petitioner to i*ple*ent the declared national

policy of convertin/ the Subic *ilitary reservation into alternative productive

uses.2Petitioner &as or/ani@ed &ith an authori@ed capital stoc' of P%Hbillion &hich &as fully subscribed and fully paid up by the Republic of the

Philippines &ith, a*on/ other assets, ("a#ll lands e*braced, covered and

defined in Section % hereof, as &ell as per*anent i*prove*ents and

fi0tures upon proper inventory not other&ise alienated, conveyed, or

transferred to another /overn*ent a/ency(.3

n Nove*ber %, ++%, the A*erican navy turned over the Subic *ilitary

reservation to the Philippines /overn*ent. 9**ediately, petitioner

co**enced the i*ple*entation of its tas', particularly the preservation of

the sea7ports, airport, buildin/s, houses and other installations left by the

A*erican navy.

9n April ++!, the Sangguniang 6a#anof Moron/, Bataan

passed Pam%a#ang @apas#ahan 6ilang B?, Ser#e B//, e0pressin/ therein

its absolute concurrence, as re8uired by said Sec. % of RA $%%$, to 1oin the

Subic Special Econo*ic 6one. n Septe*ber , ++!, the Sangguniang

6a#anof Moron/ sub*ittedPam%a#ang @apas#ahan 6ilang B?, Ser#e

B//to the ffice of the President.

n May %, ++!, respondents -arcia, Cali*bas and their co*panions filed

a petition &ith the San//unian/ Bayan of Moron/ to annul Pam%a#ang

@apas#ahan 6lg. B?, Ser#e B//. The petition prayed for the follo&in/3

9. Ba&iin, nulipi'ahin at pa&alan/7bisa and Pa*bayan/

Lapasyahan/ Bl/. H, Serye ++! n/ San//unian/ Bayan para sa

pa/7anib n/ Moron/ sa SSE56 na &alan/ 'undisyon.

99. Palitan ito n/ isan/ Pa*bayan/ 'apasyahan na aanib la*an/

an/ Moron/ sa SSE56 'un/ an/ */a su*usunod na 'ondisyones

ay ipa/'a'aloob, ipatutupad at isasa/a&a para sa 'apa'anan at

interest n/ Moron/ at Bataan3

"A# 9bali' sa Bataan an/ (=ir/in 5orests( 2 isan/

bundo' na hindi na/a/ala& at punon/7puno n/

*alala'in/ punon/7'ahoy at ibaIt7iban/ hala*an.

"B# 9hi&alay an/ -rande 9sland sa SSE56 at

ibali' ito sa Bataan.

"L# 9sa*a an/ */a lupain n/ Bataan nana'apaloob sa SBMA sa pa/'u'uenta n/

salapin/ ipina/'aloob n/ pa*ahalaan/ national o

(9nternal Revenue Allot*ent( "9RA# sa Moron/,

er*osa at sa ala&i/an.

")# Paya/an/ *a/tata/ rin n/ sarilin/ (special

econo*ic @ones( and ba&at bayan n/ Moron/,

er*osa at )inalupihan.

"E# 9base sa la'i n/ 'anya7'anyan/ lupa an/

pa*a*aha/i n/ 'i'itain n/ SBMA.

"-# 9base rin an/ alo'asyon n/ pa/bibi/ay n/

trabaho sa la'i n/ nasabin/ */a lupa.

"# Pabayaan/ bu'as an/ pinto n/ SBMA na

nasa Moron/ n/ % na oras at bu'od dito sa

*a/bu'as pa n/ pinto sa han//anan na*an n/

Moron/ at er*osa upan/ *a/'aroon n/

pa/'a'ataon/ u*unlad rin an/ */a nasabin/

bayan, pati na rin n/ iba pan/ bayan n/ Bataan.

"9# Tapusin an/ pa/'o'on'reto n/ */a daan/

Moron/7Tala7rani at Moron/7Tasi/7)inalupihanpara sa 'abutihan n/ */a ta/a7Bataan at tuloy


14/114

*a'atulon/ sa pan/an/ala/a n/ */a

'abundu'an.

"# Ma/'a'aroon n/ sapat na representasyon sa

pa*unuan n/ SBMA an/ Moron/, er*osa at

Bataan.

The Sangguniang 6a#ann/ Moron/ acted upon the petition of respondents

-arcia, Cali*bas, et al. by pro*ul/atin/ Pam%a#ang @apas#ahan 6lg. B-,

Ser#e B//, re8uestin/ Con/ress of the Philippines so a*end certain

provisions of RA $%%$, particularly those concernin/ the *atters cited in

ite*s "A#, "B#, "L#, "E#, and "-# of private respondentIs petition.

The Sangguniang 6a#anof Moron/ also infor*ed respondents that ite*s

")# and "# had already been referred to and favorably acted upon by the

/overn*ent a/encies concerned, such as the Bases Conversion

)evelop*ent Authority and the ffice of the President.

Not satisfied, and &ithin !H days fro* sub*ission of their petition, herein

respondents resorted to their po&er initiative under the ocal -overn*ent

Code of ++,4Sec. %% para/raph "b# of &hich provides as follo&s3

Sec. %%. Procedure in ocal 9nitiative. 2

000 000 000

"b# 9f no favorable action thereon is ta'en by the san//unian

concerned, the proponents, throu/h their duly authori@ed and

re/istered representatives, *ay invo'e their po&er of initiative,

/ivin/ notice thereof to the san//unian/ concerned.

000 000 000

n uly


15/114

&ith le/al counsel, respondent Cali*bas discovered that the de*ands in the

petition for a local initiativereferendu* &ere not le/ally feasible.( 7

The Solicitor -eneral, as counsel for public respondent, identified t&o

issues, as follo&s3

. Fhether or not the Co*elec can be en1oined fro*

schedulin/conductin/ the local initiative proposin/ to annul

Pa*bayan/ Lapasyahan Bl/. H, Serye ++! of the San//unian/

Bayan of Moron/, Bataan.

%. Fhether or not the Co*elec co**itted /rave abuse of discretion

in denyin/ the re8uest of petitioner SBMA to stop the local initiative.

n uly %!, ++


16/114

stance as they contend that under the ocal -overn*ent Code of

++ only an ordinance can be the sub1ect of initiative. They rely on

Section %H, Chapter %, Title :9, Boo' 9 of the ocal -overn*ent

Code of ++ &hich provides3 (ocal 9nitiative

)efined. 2 ocal initiative is the le/al process &hereby the

re/istered voters of a local /overn*ent until *ay directly propose,

enact, or a*end any ordinance.(

Fe re1ect respondentsI narro& and literal readin/ of the above

provision for it &ill collide &ith the Constitution and &ill subvert theintent of the la&*a'ers in enactin/ the provisions of the ocal

-overn*ent of ++ on initiative and referendu*.

The Constitution clearly includes not only ordinance but resolutions

as appropriate sub1ects of a local initiative. Section !% of Article =9

provides in lu*inous lan/ua/e3 (The Con/ress shall, as early as

possible, provide for a syste* of initiative and referendu*, and the

e0ceptions therefro*, &hereby the people can directly propose and

enact la&s or approve or re1ect any act or la& or part thereof

passed by the Con/ress, or local le/islative body . . . (. An act

includes a resolution. Blac' defines an act as (an e0pression of &ill

or purpose . . . it *ay denote so*ethin/ done . . . as a le/islature,includin/ not *erely physical acts, but also decrees, edicts, la&s,

1ud/*ents, resolves, a&ards, and deter*inations . . .(. 9t is basic

that a la& should be construed in har*ony &ith and not in violation

of the Constitution. 9n line &ith this postulate, &e held in 9n Re

-uarina that (if there is doubt or uncertainty as to the *eanin/ of

the le/islative, if the &ords or provisions are obscure, or if the

enact*ent is fairly susceptible of t&o or *ore constructions, that

interpretation &ill be adopted &hich &ill avoid the effect of

unconstitutionality, even thou/h it *ay be necessary, for this

purpose, to disre/ard the *ore usual or apparent i*port of the

lan/ua/e used.(

Moreover, &e revie&ed our rolloin said -.R. No. %!H and &e found that

the sole issue presented by the pleadin/s &as the 8uestion of (&hether or

not a San//unian/ Bayan Resolution can be the sub1ect of a valid initiative

or referendu*(.10

9n the present case, petitioner is not contestin/ the propriety of a *unicipal

resolution as the for* by &hich these t&o ne& constitutional prero/atives of

the people *ay be validly e0ercised. Fhat is at issue here is &hether

Pa*bayan/ Lapasyahan Bl/. H, Serye ++!, as !orded, is sufficient in

for* and substancefor su%mission to the people for their approal; in fine,

&hether the Co*elec acted properly and 1uridically in pro*ul/atin/ and

i*ple*entin/ Resolution No. %DD.

Second Issue3 Sufficienc# of Comelec +esolution o.


17/114

"b# (9ndirect initiative( is e0ercise of initiative by the people throu/h

a proposition sent to Con/ress or the local le/islative body for

action.

"c# (Referendu*( is the po&er of the electorate to approve or re1ect

a le/islation throu/h an election called for the purpose. 9t *ay be of

t&o classes, na*ely3

c.. Referendu* on statutes

&hich refers to a petition to

approve or re1ect an act or la&,

or part thereof, passed by

Con/ress; and

c.% Referendu* on local la&

&hich refers to a petition to

approve or re1ect a la&,

resolution or ordinance

enacted by re/ional

asse*blies and local le/islative

bodies.

Alon/ these statutory definitions, ustice 9sa/ani A. Cru@13defines initiativeas the (po&er of the people to propose bills and la&s, and to enact or re1ect

the* at the polls independent of the le/islative asse*bly.( n the other

hand, he e0plains that referendu* (is the ri/ht reserved to the people to

adopt or re1ect any act or *easure &hich has been passed by a le/islative

body and &hich in *ost cases &ould &ithout action on the part of electors

beco*e a la&.( The fore/oin/ definitions, &hich are based on Blac'Is14andother leadin/ A*erican authorities, are echoed in the ocal -overn*ent

Code "RA $


18/114

electorate,(1/althou/h (t&o or *ore propositions *ay be sub*itted in aninitiative(.17

9t should be noted that under Sec. ! "c# of RA


19/114

the Municipal Council of Moron/ to enact *ay be ruled upon by the Co*elec

upon re*and and after hearin/ the parties thereon.

Fhile on the sub1ect of capacity of the local la&*a'in/ body, it &ould be

fruitful for the parties and the Co*elec to plead and ad1udicate, respectively,

the 8uestion of &hether -rande 9sland and the (vir/in forest( *entioned in

the proposed initiative belon/ to the national /overn*ent and thus cannot be

se/re/ated fro* the 6one and (returned to Bataan( by the si*ple e0pedient

of passin/ a *unicipal resolution. Fe note that Sec. ! "e# of R.A. $%%$

spea's of the full subscription andpa#ment of the P%H billion authori@edcapital stoc' of the Subic Authority by the Republic, &ith, aside fro* cash

and other assets, the (. . . lands e*braced, covered and defined in Section

% hereof, . . .( &hich includes said island and forests. The o&nership of said

lands is 8uestion of fact that *ay be ta'en up in the proper foru* 2 the

Co**ission on Elections.

Another 8uestion &hich the parties *ay &ish to sub*it to the Co*elec upon

re*and of the initiative is &hether the proposal, assu*in/ it is &ithin the

capacity of the Municipal Council to enact, *ay be divided into several parts

for purposes of votin/. 9te* (9( is a proposal to recall, nullify and render

&ithout effect "%a!iin, nulipi9ahin at pa!alang%isa# Municipal Resolution No.

H, Series of ++!. n the other hand, 9te* (99( proposes to chan/e orreplace "palitan# said resolution &ith another *unicipal resolution of

concurrenceproided certain conditions enu*erated thereunder &ould be

/ranted, obeyed and i*ple*ented "ipa/'a'aloob, ipatutupad at isasa/a&a#

for the benefit and interest of Moron/ and Bataan. A voter *ay favor 9te* 9

2 i.e., he *ay &ant a total dis*e*ber*ent of Moron/ fro* the Authority 2

but *ay not a/ree &ith an# of the conditions set forth in 9te* 99. Should the

proposal then be divided and be voted upon separately and independently

All told, &e shall not pass upon the third issue of ultra ireson the /round of

pre*aturity.

Epilogue

9n su*, &e hold that "i# our decision in the earlier *arcia case is not a bar to

the present controversy as the issue raised and decided therein is different

fro* the 8uestions involved here; "iii# the respondent Co**ission should be

/iven an opportunity to revie& and correct its errors in pro*ul/atin/ its

Resolution No. %DD and in preparin/ 2 if necessary 2 for the plebiscite;

and "iii# that the said Co**ission has ad*inistrative and initiatory 8uasi7

1udicial 1urisdiction to pass upon the 8uestion of &hether the proposal is

sufficient in for* and lan/ua/e and &hether such proposal or part or parts

thereof are clearly and patently outside the po&ers of the *unicipal council

of Moron/ to enact, and therefore violative of la&.

9n decidin/ this case, the Court reali@es that initiative and referendu*, as

concepts and processes, are ne& in our country. Fe are re*andin/ the

*atter to the Co*elec so that proper corrective *easures, as above

discussed, *ay be underta'en, &ith a vie& to helpin/ fulfill our peopleIs

aspirations for the actuali@ation of effective direct soverei/nty. 9ndeed &e

reco/ni@e that ("p#rovisions for initiative and referendu* are liberally

construed to effectuate their purposes, to facilitate and not to ha*per the

e0ercise by the voters of the ri/hts /ranted thereby.(249n his authoritativetreatise on the Constitution, 5r. oa8uin -. Bernas, S. . treasures these

(instru*ents &hich can be used should the le/islature sho& itself indifferentto the needs of the people.(29*pelled by a sense or ur/ency, Con/ressenacted Republic Act No.


20/114

59RST )9=9S9N

G.R. No. 12720 Ju- 20, 199

MUNCPALT! OF PARAA6UE, petitioner,

vs.

5.M. REALT! CORPORATON, respondent.

PANGANBAN, J.:

A local /overn*ent unit "-4#, li'e the Municipality of ParaJa8ue, cannot authori@e

an e0propriation of private property throu/h a *ere resolution of its la&*a'in/ body.

The ocal -overn*ent Code e0pressly and clearly re8uires an ordinance or a local

la& for the purpose. A resolution that *erely e0presses the senti*ent or opinion of

the Municipal Council &ill not suffice. n the other hand, the principle of res

3udicatadoes not bar subse8uent proceedin/s for the e0propriation of the sa*e

property &hen all the le/al re8uire*ents for its valid e0ercise are co*plied &ith.

Statement of the Case

These principles are applied by this Court in resolvin/ this petition for revie&

on certiorariof the uly %%, ++< )ecision 1of the Court of Appeals 2in CA -R C=No. DHD, &hich affir*ed in toto3the Re/ional Trial CourtIs Au/ust +, ++Resolution. 4The trial court dis*issed the e0propriation suit as follo&s3

The ri/ht of the plaintiff to e0ercise the po&er of e*inent do*ain isnot disputed. o&ever, such ri/ht *ay be e0ercised only pursuant

to an rdinance "Sec. +, R.A No. $


21/114

5ebruary , ++ &as in accord &ith Section + of RA $sic? in the e0ercise of the po&er of e*inent

do*ain by the plaintiff7appellant.

%. Fhether or not the co*plaint in this case

states no cause of action.

!. Fhether or not the strict adherence to the

literal observance to the rule of procedure

resulted in technicality standin/ in the &ay of

substantial 1ustice.

. Fhether or not the principle of res 3udicatais

applicable to the present case. 1

As previously *entioned, the Court of Appeals affir*ed in totothe trial courtIs

)ecision. Respondent Court, in its assailed Resolution pro*ul/ated on anuary D,

++$, 19denied petitionerIs Motion for Reconsideration for lac' of *erit.

ence, this appeal. 20

"he Issues

Before this Court, petitioner posits t&o issues, i5.3

. A resolution duly approved by the *unicipal council has the

sa*e force and effect of an ordinance and &ill not deprive an

e0propriation case of a valid cause of action.

%. The principle of res 3udicataas a /round for dis*issal of case is

not applicable &hen public interest is pri*arily involved. 21

"he Courts +uling

The petition is not *eritorious.

First Issue3

+esolution 4ifferent from an $rdinance

Petitioner contends that a resolution approved by the *unicipal council for the

purpose of initiatin/ an e0propriation case (substantially co*plies &ith the

re8uire*ents of the la&( 22because the ter*s (ordinance( and (resolution( aresynony*ous for (the purpose of besto&in/ authority >on? the local /overn*ent unitthrou/h its chief e0ecutive to initiate the e0propriation proceedin/s in court in the

e0ercise of the po&er of e*inent do*ain.( 23Petitioner see's to bolster thiscontention by citingArticle !


22/114

. An ordinance is enacted by the local le/islative council

authori@in/ the local chief e0ecutive, in behalf of the -4, to

e0ercise the po&er of e*inent do*ain or pursue e0propriation

proceedin/s over a particular private property.

%. The po&er of e*inent do*ain is e0ercised for public use,

purpose or &elfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.

!. There is pay*ent of 1ust co*pensation, as re8uired under

Section +, Article 999 of the Constitution, and other pertinent la&s.

. A valid and definite offer has been previously *ade to the o&ner

of the property sou/ht to be e0propriated, but said offer &as not

accepted. 27

9n the case at bar, the local chief e0ecutive sou/ht to e0ercise the po&er of e*inent

do*ain pursuant to a resolution of the *unicipal council. Thus, there &as no

co*pliance &ith the first re8uisite that the *ayor be authori@ed throu/h an ordinance.

Petitioner cites Camarines Sur s. Court of Appeals2to sho& that a resolution *aysuffice to support the e0ercise of e*inent do*ain by an -4. 29This case, ho&ever,is not in point because the applicable la& at that ti*e &as BP !!$, 30the previousocal -overn*ent Code, &hich had provided that a *ere resolution &ould enable an

-4 to e0ercise e*inent do*ain. 9n contrast, RA $


23/114

. . . in a *otion to dis*iss based on the /round that the co*plaint

fails to state a cause of action, the 8uestion sub*itted before the

court for deter*ination is the sufficiency of the alle/ations in the

co*plaint itself. Fhether those alle/ations are true or not is beside

the point, for their truth is hypothetically ad*itted by the *otion.

The issue rather is3 ad*ittin/ the* to be true, *ay the court render

a valid 1ud/*ent in accordance &ith the prayer of the co*plaint 42

The fact that there is no cause of action is evident fro* the face of the Co*plaint for

e0propriation &hich &as based on a *ere resolution. The absence of an ordinanceauthori@in/ the sa*e is e8uivalent to lac' of cause of action. Conse8uently, the Court

of Appeals co**itted no reversible error in affir*in/ the trial courtIs )ecision &hich

dis*issed the e0propriation suit.

Second Issue3

Eminent 4omain ot 6arred %# +es Judicata

As correctly found by the Court of Appeals 43and the trial court, 44 all the re8uisitesfor the application of res 3udicataare present in this case. There is a previous final

1ud/*ent on the *erits in a prior e0propriation case involvin/ identical interests,

sub1ect *atter and cause of action, &hich has been rendered by a court havin/

1urisdiction over it.

Be that as it *ay, the Court holds that the principle of res 3udicata, &hich finds

application in /enerally all cases and proceedin/s, 4 cannot bar the rightof the Stateor its a/ent to e0propriate private property. The very nature of e*inent do*ain, as an

inherent po&er of the State, dictates that the rightto e0ercise the po&er be absolute

and unfettered even by a prior 1ud/*ent or res 3udicata. The scope of e*inent

do*ain is plenary and, li'e police po&er, can (reach every for* of property &hich the

State *i/ht need for public use.( 4/(All separate interests of individuals in propertyare held of the /overn*ent under this tacit a/ree*ent or i*plied reservation.

Not&ithstandin/ the /rant to individuals, the e*inent do*ain, the hi/hest and *ost

e0act idea of property, re*ains in the /overn*ent, or in the a//re/ate body of thepeople in their soverei/n capacity; and they have the ri/ht to resu*e the possession

of the property &henever the public interest re8uires it.( 47 Thus, the State or itsauthori@ed a/ent cannot be forever barred fro* e0ercisin/ said rightby reason alone

of previous non7co*pliance &ith any le/al re8uire*ent.

Fhile the principle of res 3udicatadoes not deni/rate the ri/ht of the State to e0ercise

e*inent do*ain, it does apply to specific issues decided in a previous case. 5or

e0a*ple, a final 1ud/*ent dis*issin/ an e0propriation suit on the /round that there

&as no prior offer precludes another suit raisin/ the sa*e issue; it cannot, ho&ever,

bar the State or its a/ent fro* thereafter co*plyin/ &ith this re8uire*ent, as

prescribed by la&, and subse8uently e0ercisin/ its po&er of e*inent do*ain over the

sa*e property. 4By the sa*e to'en, our rulin/ that petitioner cannot e0ercise itsdele/ated po&er of e*inent do*ain throu/h a *ere resolution &ill not bar it fro*

reinstitutin/ si*ilar proceedin/s, once the said le/al re8uire*ent and, for that

*atter, allothers are properly co*plied &ith. Parenthetically and by parity of

reasonin/, the sa*e is also true of the principle of (la& of the case.( 9n +epu%lic s.

4e @necht, 49the Court ruled that the po&er of the State or its a/ent to e0ercisee*inent do*ain is not di*inished by the *ere fact that a prior final 1ud/*ent over the

property to be e0propriated has beco*e the la& of the case as to the parties. The

State or its authori@ed a/ent *ay still subse8uently e0ercise its ri/ht to e0propriate

the sa*e property, once all le/al re8uire*ents are co*plied &ith. To rule other&ise

&ill not only i*properly di*inish the po&er of e*inent do*ain, but also clearly defeat

social 1ustice.

FERE5RE, the petition is hereby )EN9E) &ithout pre1udice to petitionerIs proper

e0ercise of its po&er of e*inent do*ain over sub1ect property. Costs a/ainst

petitioner.

S R)ERE).

4aide, Jr., 6ellosillo, Vitug and 8uisum%ing, JJ., concur.


24/114


SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 93/4 M#- /, 1992

FRANCSCO U. DACANA!, petitioner,vs.MA!OR MACARO ASSTO, JR., CT! ENGR. LUCANO SARNE, JR. ooo:#n C*)-, Me)o M#n*#, MLA PASTRANA AND;OR RODOLFO TEOFE,STALL%OLDERS AND REPRESENTNG CO


25/114

approal of the Metropolitan Manila Commissionand consistent

&ith the /uidelines hereby prescribed.

5urther, it is soprovidedin the /uidelines under the said rdinance

No. % of the MMC that 2

Sec.


26/114

"he occupation and use of priate indiiduals of

side!al9s andother pu%lic places deoted for

pu%lic use constitute %oth pu%lic and priate

nuisances and nuisance per se, and this applies

to even case involvin/ the use or lease of public

places under per*its and licenses issued by

co*petent authority, upon the theory that such

holders could not ta'e advanta/e of their

unla&ful per*its and license and clai* that the

land in 8uestion is a part of a public street or apublic place devoted to public use, hence,

beyond the co**erce of *an. "Padilla, Civil

Code Annotated, =ol. 99, p. +,


27/114

As the stallholders continued to occupy eroes del I+< Street, throu/h the tolerance

of the public respondents, and in clear violation of the decision it Civil Case No. C7

%+%, )acanay filed the present petition for mandamuson une +, ++H, prayin/

that the public respondents be ordered to enforce the final decision in Civil Case No.

C7%+% &hich upheld the city *ayorIs authority to order the de*olition of *ar'et

stalls on =. -o@on, -on@ales and eroes del I+< Streets and to enforce P.). No. $$%

and other pertinent la&s.

n Au/ust


28/114


SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L


29/114

said cover &as replaced the ne0t day "E0hibit #; that the ffice of the City

En/ineer never received any report to the effect that the catchbasin in

8uestion &as not covered bet&een anuary % and %+, +


30/114

supervision( by the City of Manila, under Republic Act H+. 9n fact Section D"0#

thereof provides3

Sec. D. (egislatie po!ers. 2 The Municipal Board shall have the follo&in/

le/islative po&ers3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

"0# Sub1ect to the provisions of e0istin/ la& to provide for the la#ing out,

construction and improement, and to regulate the useof streets, avenues,

alleys, side&al's, &harves, piers, par's, ce*eteries, and other public

places; to proide for lighting, cleanin/, and sprin'lin/ of streets and public

places; . . .to proide for the inspection of,fi0 the license fees for and

re/ulate the openin/s in the sa*e for the layin/ of /as, &ater, se&er and

other pipes, the buildin/ and repair of tunnels, se&ers, and drains, and all

structures in and under the sa*e and the erectin/ of poles and the strin/in/

of &ires therein; toproide for and regulate cross1!or9s, cur%s, and gutters

therein,. . .toregulate traffic and sales upon the streetsand other public

places; to provide for the a%atement of nuisances in the sa*e and punish

the authors or o&ners thereof; to provide for the construction and

*aintenance, and re/ulate the use, of brid/es, viaducts and culverts; to

prohibit and re/ulate ball playin/, 'ite7flyin/, hoop rollin/, and othera*use*ents &hich *ay anno# persons using the streets and pu%lic places,

or fri/hten horses or other ani*als; to regulate the speed of horses and

other ani*als, *otor and other vehicles, cars, and loco*otives &ithin the

li*its of the city; to regulate the lights used on all vehicles, cars, and

loco*otives; . . . to provide for and chan/e the location, /rade, and crossin/

of railroads, and co*pel any such railroad to raise or lo&er its trac's to

confor* to such provisions or chan/es; and to re8uire railroad co*panies to

fence their property, or any part thereof, toproide suita%le protection

against in3ur# to persons or propert#, and to construct and repair ditches,

drains, se!ers, and culerts alon/ and under their trac's, so that the natural

draina/e of the streets and ad1acent property shall not be obstructed.

This authority has been neither &ithdra&n nor restricted by Republic Act No. +$ and

E0ecutive rder No. !, dated May %, +, upon &hich the City relies. Said Act

/overns the disposition or appropriation of the hi/h&ay funds and the /ivin/ of aid to

provinces, chartered cities and *unicipalities in the construction of roads and streets

&ithin their respective boundaries, and E0ecutive rder No. ! *erely i*ple*ents

the provisions of said Republic Act No. +$, concernin/ the disposition and

appropriation of the hi/h&ay funds. Moreover, it provides that (the

construction, maintenance and i*prove*ent of national pri*ary, national secondary

and national aid provincial and city roads shall be acco*plished by the i/h&ay

)istrict En/ineers and i/h&ay Cit# En/ineers under the supervision of the

Co**issioner of Public i/h&ays and shall be financed fro* such appropriations as

*ay be authori@ed by the Republic of the Philippines in annual or special

appropriation Acts.(

Then, a/ain, the deter*ination of &hether or not P. Bur/os Avenue is under the

control or supervision of the City of Manila and &hether the latter is /uilty of

ne/li/ence, in connection &ith the *aintenance of said road, &hich &ere decided by

the Court of Appeals in the affir*ative, is one of fact, and the findin/s of said Court

thereon are not sub1ect to our revie&.

FERE5RE, the decision appealed fro* should be as it is hereby affir*ed, &ith

costs a/ainst the City of Manila. 9t is so ordered.BH!phB.7t

+e#es, J.6.(., 4i5on, Ma9alintal, 6eng5on, J.P., Kaldiar, Sanche5, Castro, Angelesand Fernando, JJ., concur.


31/114


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 203974 A* 22, 2014

AURELO M. UMAL,Petitioner,vs.COMMSSON ON ELECTONS, JULUS CESAR 5. 5ERGARA, #n$ T%E CT!GO5ERNMENT OF CABANATUAN,Respondents.

0 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0

G.R. No. 204371

J.5. BAUTSTA,Petitioner,vs.COMMSSON ON ELECTONS,Respondent.

) E C 9 S 9 N

5ELASCO, JR., J.:

Before the Court is the consolidated case for Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition&ith prayer for in1unctive relief, doc'et as -.R. No. %H!+$, assailin/ MinuteResolution No. %7H$+$and Minute Resolution No. %7H+%%dated Septe*ber ,%H% and ctober


32/114

The CMEEC based this resolution on Sec. ! of the ocal -overn*ent Code of++ "-C#, citin/ conversion cases involvin/ Puerto Princesa City in Pala&an,Tacloban City in Southern eyte, and apu7apu City in Cebu, &here only theresidents of the city proposed to be converted &ere allo&ed to vote in thecorrespondin/ plebiscite.

9n due ti*e, petitioner Aurelio M. 4*ali, -overnor of Nueva Eci1a, filed a =erifiedMotion for Reconsideration, *aintainin/ that the proposed conversion in 8uestion &illnecessarily and directly affect the *other province of Nueva Eci1a. is *ain ar/u*entis that Section ! of the -C should be interpreted in con1unction &ith Sec. H, Art.: of the Constitution. e ar/ues that &hile the conversion in 8uestion does notinvolve the creation of a ne& or the dissolution of an e0istin/ city, the spirit of theConstitutional provision calls for the people of the local /overn*ent unit "-4#directly affected to vote in a plebiscite &henever there is a *aterial chan/e in theirri/hts and responsibilities. The phrase (8ualified voters therein( used in Sec. ! ofthe -C should then be interpreted to refer to the 8ualified voters of the units directlyaffected by the conversion and not 1ust those in the co*ponent city proposed to beup/raded. Petitioner 4*ali 1ustified his position by enu*eratin/ the various adverseeffects of the Cabanatuan Citys conversion and ho& it &ill cause *aterial chan/e notonly in the political and econo*ic ri/hts of the city and its residents but also of theprovince as a &hole.

To the =erified Motion for Reconsideration, private respondent ulius Cesar =er/ara,city *ayor of Cabanatuan, interposed an opposition on the /round that Sec. H, Art. :does not apply to conversions, &hich is the *eat of the *atter. e li'e&ise ar/uesthat a specific provision of the -C, Sec. !, as couched, allo&s only the 8ualifiedvoters of Cabanatuan City to vote in the plebiscite. astly, private respondent pointedout that &hen Santia/o City &as converted in ++ fro* a *unicipality to anindependent co*ponent city pursuant to Republic Act No. "RA# $$%H, the plebisciteheld &as li*ited to the re/istered voters of the then *unicipality of Santia/o.

5ollo&in/ a hearin/ conducted on ctober , %H%,!the CMEEC En Banc onctober


33/114

postpone*ents, citin/ incidents of violence that ensued in the locality durin/ theplebiscite period.

After the conclusion of the %H! elections, public respondent issued Resolution No.!! schedulin/ the plebiscite to anuary %, %H. o&ever, a TR &as issued bythis Court on anuary , %H in -.R. No. %H!+$ to suspend the conduct of theplebiscite for Cabanatuan Citys conversion. -iven the intert&inin/ factual *ilieu ofthe t&o petitions before the Court, both cases &ere consolidated on March D, %H.

The 9ssue

The bone of contention in the present controversy boils do&n to &hether the 8ualifiedre/istered voters of the entire province of Nueva Eci1a or only those in CabanatuanCity can participate in the plebiscite called for the conversion of Cabanatuan City fro*a co*ponent city into an 4C.

Resolvin/ the Petition for Certiorari either &ay &ill necessarily render the Petition forManda*us *oot and acade*ic for ulti*ately, the public respondent &ill be ordered tohold the plebiscite. The only variation &ill be as re/ards its participants.

The Courts Rulin/

The Petition for Certiorari is *eritorious.

Sec. ! of the -C should be interpreted in accordance &ith Sec. H, Art. : of theConstitution

Petitioner 4*ali asseverates that Sec. H, Art. : of the Constitution should be thebasis for deter*inin/ the 8ualified voters &ho &ill participate in the plebiscite toresolve the issue. Sec. H, Art. : reads3

Section H, Article :. No province, city, *unicipality, or baran/ay *ay be created,divided, *er/ed, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, e0cept inaccordance &ith the criteria established in the local /overn*ent code and sub1ect toapproval by a *a1ority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directlyaffected. "e*phasis supplied#

Petitioner 4*ali elucidates that the phrase (political units directly affected(necessarily enco*passes not only Cabanatuan City but the entire province of NuevaEci1a. ence, all the re/istered voters in the province are 8ualified to cast their votesin resolvin/ the proposed conversion of Cabanatuan City.

n the other hand, respondents invo'e Sec. ! of the -C to support their clai*that only the City of Cabanatuan should be allo&ed to ta'e part in the votin/. Sec.! states3

Section !. )uty to )eclare i/hly 4rbani@ed Status. 9t shall be the duty of thePresident to declare a city as hi/hly urbani@ed &ithin thirty "!H# days after it shall have*et the *ini*u* re8uire*ents prescribed in the i**ediately precedin/ Section,upon proper application therefor and ratification in a plebiscite by the 8ualified voterstherein. "e*phasis supplied#

Respondents ta'e the phrase (re/istered voters therein( in Sec. ! as referrin/ onlyto the re/istered voters in the city bein/ converted, e0cludin/ in the process thevoters in the re*ainin/ to&ns and cities of Nueva Eci1a.

Before proceedin/ to unravel the see*in/ conflict bet&een the t&o provisions, it isbut proper that &e ascertain first the relationship bet&een Sec. H, Art. : of theConstitution and Sec. ! of the -C.

5irst of all, &e have to restate the /eneral principle that le/islative po&er cannot bedele/ated. Nonetheless, the /eneral rule barrin/ dele/ation is sub1ect to certaine0ceptions allo&ed in the Constitution, na*ely3

"# )ele/ation by Con/ress to the President of the po&er to fi0 (tariff rates,i*port and e0port 8uotas, tonna/e and &harfa/e dues, and other duties ori*posts &ithin the fra*e&or' of the national develop*ent pro/ra* of the-overn*ent( under Section %D"%# of Article =9 of the Constitution; and

"%# )ele/ation of e*er/ency po&ers by Con/ress to the President (toe0ercise po&ers necessary and proper to carry out a declared nationalpolicy( in ti*es of &ar and other national e*er/ency under Section %!"%# ofArticle =9 of the Constitution.

The po&er to create, divide, *er/e, abolish or substantially alter boundaries ofprovinces, cities, *unicipalities or baran/ays, &hich is pertinent in the case at bar, isessentially le/islative in nature.The fra*ers of the Constitution have, ho&ever,allo&ed for the dele/ation of such po&er in Sec. H, Art. : of the Constitution as lon/as "# the criteria prescribed in the -C is *et and "%# the creation, division, *er/er,abolition or the substantial alteration of the boundaries is sub1ect to the approval by a*a1ority vote in a plebiscite.

True enou/h, Con/ress dele/ated such po&er to the San//unian/ Panlala&i/an orSan//unian/ Panlun/sod to create baran/ays pursuant to Sec. < of the -C, &hichprovides3

Section


34/114

The /uidelines for the e0ercise of this authority have sufficiently been outlined by thevarious -C provisions detailin/ the re8uire*ents for the creation of baran/ays


35/114

also connotes a *odification of the de*arcation lines bet&een political subdivisions,&here the -4s e0ercise of corporate po&er ends and that of the other be/ins. Andas a 8ualifier, the alteration *ust be (substantial( for it to be &ithin the a*bit of theconstitutional provision.

Pertinent is Art. %"c# of the -Cs 9*ple*entin/ Rules and Re/ulations, &hich reads3

Art. %. Conversion of a Co*ponent City into a i/hly 4rbani@ed City.

0 0 0 0

"c# Effect of Conversion The conversion of a co*ponent city into a hi/hly7urbani@edcity shall *a'e it independent of the province &here it is /eo/raphically located."e*phasis added#

=erily, the up&ard conversion of a co*ponent city, in this case Cabanatuan City, intoan 4C &ill co*e at a steep price. 9t can be /leaned fro* the above7cited rule thatthe province &ill inevitably suffer a correspondin/ decrease in territory brou/ht aboutby Cabanatuan Citys /ain of independence. Fith the citys ne&found autono*y, it &illbe free fro* the oversi/ht po&ers of the province, &hich, in effect, reduces theterritorial 1urisdiction of the latter. Fhat once for*ed part of Nueva Eci1a &ill no lon/erbe sub1ect to supervision by the province. 9n *ore concrete ter*s, Nueva Eci1astands to lose %D%.$ s8. '*. of its territorial 1urisdiction &ith Cabanatuan Citysseverance fro* its *other province. This is e8uivalent to carvin/ out al*ost O ofNueva Eci1as ,$.! s8. '*. area. This sufficiently satisfies the re8uire*ent that thealteration be (substantial.(

Needless to stress, the alteration of boundaries &ould necessarily follo& CabanatuanCitys conversion in the sa*e &ay that creations, divisions, *er/ers, and abolitions/enerally cannot ta'e place &ithout entailin/ the alteration. The enu*erated acts,after all, are not *utually e0clusive, and *ore often than not, a co*bination of theseacts attends the reconfi/uration of -4s.

9n li/ht of the fore/oin/ dis8uisitions, the Court rules that conversion to an 4C is

substantial alternation of boundaries /overned by Sec. H, Art. : and resultantly, saidprovision applies, /overns and prevails over Sec. ! of the -C.

Moreover, the rules of statutory construction dictate that a particular provision shouldbe interpreted &ith the other relevant provisions in the la& The Court finds that it isactually Sec. H of the -C &hich is undeniably the applicable provision on theconduct of plebiscites. The title of the provision itself, (Plebiscite Re8uire*ent(,*a'es this obvious. 9t re8uires a *a1ority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called forthe purpose in the political unit or units directly affected. n the other hand, Sec. !of the -C, entitled ()uty to )eclare i/hly 4rbani@ed Status(, is only on the duty todeclare a city as hi/hly urbani@ed. 9t *andates the ffice of the President to *a'e thedeclaration after the city has *et the re8uire*ents under Sec. %, and upon properapplication and ratification in a plebiscite. The conduct of a plebiscite is then a

re8uire*ent before a declaration can be *ade. Thus, the Court finds that Sec. H ofthe -C prevails over Sec. ! of the -C on the plebiscite re8uire*ent.

Fe no& ta'e the bull by the horns and resolve the issue &hether Sec. ! of the -Ctrenches on Sec. H, Art. : of the Constitution.

ornboo' doctrine is that neither the le/islative, the e0ecutive, nor the 1udiciary hasthe po&er to act beyond the Constitutions *andate. The Constitution is supre*e; anye0ercise of po&er beyond &hat is circu*scribed by the Constitution is ultra vires anda nullity. As elucidated by for*er Chief ustice Enri8ue 5ernando in 5ernande@ v.Cuerva3

Fhere the assailed le/islative or e0ecutive act is found by the 1udiciary to be contraryto the Constitution, it is null and void. As the ne& Civil Code puts it3 (Fhen the courtsdeclare a la& to be inconsistent &ith the Constitution, the for*er shall be void and thelatter shall /overn.( Ad*inistrative or e0ecutive acts, orders and re/ulations shall bevalid only &hen they are not contrary to the la&s or the Constitution. The aboveprovision of the civil Code reflects the orthodo0 vie& that an unconstitutional act,&hether le/islative or e0ecutive, is not a la&, confers no ri/hts, i*poses no duties,and affords no protection. 0 0 0

Applyin/ this orthodo0 vie&, a la& should be construed in har*ony &ith and not inviolation of the Constitution.9n a lon/ line of cases, the cardinal principle ofconstruction established is that a statute should be interpreted to assure its bein/ inconsonance &ith, rather than repu/nant to, any constitutional co**and or

prescription.


36/114

involvin/ a conversion into an 4C is a novel issue, and this is the first ti*e that theCourt is as'ed to resolve the 8uestion. As such, the past plebiscites in theafore*entioned cities have no *ateriality or relevance to the instant petition. Suffice itto say that conversion of said cities prior to this 1udicial declaration &ill not be affectedor pre1udiced in any *anner follo&in/ the operative fact doctrinethat the actuale0istence of a statute prior to such a deter*ination is an operative fact and *ay haveconse8uences &hich cannot al&ays be erased by a ne& 1udicial declaration.UD

The entire province of Nueva Eci1a &ill be directlyaffected by Cabanatuan Citys conversion

After the Court has resolved the see*in/ irreconcilability of Sec. H, Art. : of theConstitution and Sec. ! of the -C, it is no& ti*e to elucidate the *eanin/ of thephrase (political units directly affected( under Sec. H, Art. :.

a. (Political units directly affected( defined

9n identifyin/ the -4 or -4s that should be allo&ed to ta'e part in the plebiscite,&hat should pri*arily be deter*ined is &hether or not the unit or units that desire toparticipate &ill be (directly affected( by the chan/e. To interpret the phrase, Tan v.CMEEC+and Padilla v. CMEEC%Hare &orth revisitin/.

Fe have ruled in Tan, involvin/ the division of Ne/ros ccidental for the creation ofthe ne& province of Ne/ros del Norte, that the -4s &hose boundaries are to bealtered and &hose econo*y &ould be affected are entitled to participate in theplebiscite. As held3

9t can be plainly seen that the aforecited constitutional provision *a'es it i*perativethat there be first obtained (the approval of a *a1ority of votes in the plebiscite in theunit or units affected( &henever a province is created, divided or *er/ed and there issubstantial alteration of the boundaries. 9t is thus inescapable to conclude that theboundaries of the e0istin/ province of Ne/ros ccidental &ould necessarily besubstantially altered by the division of its e0istin/ boundaries in order that there canbe created the proposed ne& province of Ne/ros del Norte. Plain and si*ple lo/ic &illde*onstrate than that t&o political units &ould be affected.

The first &ould be the parent province of Ne/ros cciden

pubcorp last batch

Documents