PADILLA vs. COMELECGR No. 103328October 19, 1992

FACTS

A law (R.A. 7155) was passed by Congress for the creation of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa in the Province of Camarines Norte. The new municipality shall be composed of the following barangays: Tulay-Na-Lupa, Lugui, San Antonio, Mabilo I, Napaod, Benit, Bayan-Bayan, Matanlang, Pag-Asa, Maot, and Calabasa (all of these barangays belong in the MUNICIPALITY OF LABO, Camarines Norte)

Pursuant to this law and Art. X, Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution, COMELEC issued Resolution 2312 providing the guidelines for the conduct of a plebiscite for the creation of the said municipality.

According to this COMELEC Resolution: the plebiscite shall be held in the areas or units affected, namely the barangays comprising the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa AND THE REMAINING AREAS OF THE Mother MUNICIPALITY OF LABO.

Therefore, a plebiscite was conducted on Dec. 15, 1991 throughout the Municipality of Labor. However ONLY 2,890 VOTED IN FAVOR OF ITS CREATION while 3,439 voted against the creation of the new municipality. Therefore, the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers declared the REJECTION and DISAPPROVAL of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa by a MAJORITY OF VOTES.

Petitioner (Governor of Camarines Norte) seeks to set aside the plebiscite conducted and prayed that a new plebiscite be undertaken.

Arguments of Petitioner: Plebiscite was a complete FAILURE and the RESULTS were INVALID because the plebiscite SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED ONLY IN THE POLITICAL UNITS AFFECTED (i.e. 12 barangays comprising the new municipality). It SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE REMAINING AREAS of the mother unit Municipality of Labo

With the approval of the 1987 Constitution, the ruling in TAN vs. COMELEC (relied upon COMELEC) is inapplicable since TAN was based on Sec. 3 Article IX of the 1973 Constitution thus it is no longer applicable under Sec. 10, Art. X of the 1987 Constitution especially since the 1987 Constitution DELETED the words UNIT OR Comment by Karla: Pls. refer to Kristians case TAN vs COMELEC for the ruling

What is applicable is the ruling in PAREDES vs. EXEC. SECRETARY: where a local unit is to be segregated from a parent unity, only the voters of the unit to be segregated should be included in the plebiscite.

RULING

Is the plebiscite conducted in the barangay areas comprising the proposed municipality AND the remaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo valid?

YES, the plebiscite conducted in the areas comprising the new Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa and the remaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo is VALID.

Did the deletion of the phrase unit or in Sec. 10, Art. X of the 1987 Constitution affected the ruling in TAN vs COMELEC?

NO. As can be gleaned during the debates in the 1986 Constitution Commission, the deletion of the words unit or was intended because in the plebiscite to be conducted, IT MUST INVOLVE ALL UNITS AFFECTED. If it the creation of a barangay plebiscite because it is affected, IT WOULD MEAN A LOSS OF TERRITORY.

So what is meant by the law 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 the said plebiscite.

What is contemplated by the phrase political units directly affected is the PLURALITY OF POLITICAL UNITS WHICH WOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE PLEBISCITE.

Therefore, those to be included in such political areas are the inhabitants of the 12 barangays of the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa + those living in the parent municipality of Labo.