PADILLA v. COMELEC, 214 SCRA 735 (Digested Case)

PADILLA v. COMELEC

Re: Limitations and requisites/Established criteria for LGU creation

FACTS: Pursuant to RA 7155 and Resolution No. 2312 enacted by the respondent, the respondent conducted a plebiscite in both the proposed municipality and the mother municipality. In the plebiscite, the creation of the proposed municipality was declared rejected. Petitioner herein contends that the plebiscite is invalid because the Constitution requires that the plebiscite should only be conducted in the areas comprising the proposed municipality. He claimed further that the ruling in Tan v. COMELEC has been abandoned by the Court, readopting the ruling in Paredes v. COMELEC, and that this is justified  by the deletion of the phrase "unit or" in Sec. 10, Art. X of the 1987 Constitution from its precursor.

ISSUE:

(1) WON respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Resolution No. 2312.

(2) WON the plebsicite conducted in the areas comprising the proposed municipality and the remaining areas of the mother municipality is valid.

(3) WON the court readopted the ruling in Paredes v. COMELEC.

HELD:

(1) No. We rule that respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse in promulgating Resolution No. 2312 and that the plebiscite, which rejected the creation of the proposed Municipality, is valid.

(2) Yes. 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. Evidently, what is contemplated by the phase "political units directly affected," is the plurality of political units which would participate in the plebiscite. Logically, those to be included in such political areas are the inhabitants of the 12 barangays of the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa as well as those living in the parent Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte.

(3) No. Petitioner's contention that our ruling in Tan vs. COMELEC has been superseded with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, thus reinstating our earlier ruling in Paredes vs. COMELEC is untenable. Petitioner opines that since Tan vs. COMELEC was based on Section 3 of Article XI of the 1973 Constitution our ruling in said case is no longer applicable under Section 10 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution, 8 especially since the latter provision deleted the words "unit or". The deletion of the phrase "unit or" in the 1987 Constitution from its precursor, Section 3 of Article XI of the 1973 Constitution not affected the ruling in Tan vs. COMELEC.