EN BANC
[G.R. No. 103328. October 19, 1992.]
HON. ROY A. PADILLA, JR., In his capacity as Governor of the Province of Camarines Norte, petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
Jose J. Lapak for petitioner.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; DELETION OF PHRASE "UNIT OR" IN SEC. 10, ART. X,
1987 CONSTITUTION, DOES NOT AFFECT RULING IN TAN V . COMELEC, 142 SCRA 727; REASONS. Petitioner's
contention that our ruling in Tan v. COMELEC has been superseded with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution,
thus reinstating our earlier ruling in Paredes v. COMELEC is untenable. Petitioner opines that since Tan v. 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was based on Section 3 of Article XI of the 1973 Constitution our ruling in said case is no longer applicable under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, especially since the latter provision deleted the words "unit or."
We do not agree. The deletion of the phrase "unit or" in Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution from its
precursor, Section 3 of Article XI of the 1973 Constitution has not affected our ruling in Tan v. COMELEC. 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 phrase "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.
R E S O L U T I O N
ROMERO, J p:
Pursuant to Republic Act 7155, the Commission on Elections promulgated on November 13, 1991, Resolution No.
2312 which reads.
"WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 7155 approved on September 6, 1991 creates the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa in
the Province of Camarines Norte to be composed of Barangays Tulay-Na-Lupa, Lugui, San Antonio, Mabilo I,
Napaod, Benit, Bayan-Bayan, Matanlang, Pag-Asa, Maot, and Calabasa, all in the Municipality of Labo, same
province.
WHEREAS, under Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution 1 the creation of a municipality shall be subject to
approval by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected, and pursuant to Section
134 of the Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 337) 2 said plebiscite shall be conducted by the
Commission on Elections;
WHEREAS, Section 6 of said Republic Act No. 7155 provides that the expenses in holding the plebiscite shall be
taken out of the Contingent Fund under the current fiscal year appropriations; LibLex
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as the Commission hereby resolves to promulgated (sic) the following
guidelines to govern the conduct of said plebiscite:
1. The plebiscite shall be held on December 15, 1991, 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 (Tan vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 73155, July 11, 1986).
xxx xxx xxx"
In the plebiscite held on December 15, 1991 throughout the Municipality of Labo, only 2,890 votes favored its
creation while 3,439 voters voted against the creation of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa. Consequently, 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 voters. 3
Thus, in this special civil action of certiorari, petitioner as Governor of Camarines Norte, seeks to set aside the
plebiscite conducted on December 15, 1991 throughout the Municipality of Labo and prays that a new plebiscite
be undertaken as provided by RA 7155. It is the contention of petitioner that the plebiscite was a complete failure
and that the results obtained were invalid and illegal because the plebiscite, as mandated by COMELEC Resolution
No. 2312 should have been conducted only in the political unit or units affected, i.e. the 12 barangays comprising
the new Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa namely Tulay-Na-Lupa, Lugui, San Antonio, Mabilo I, Napaod, Benit, Bayan-
Bayan, Matanlang, Pag-asa, Maot, and Calabasa. Petitioner stresses that the plebiscite should not have included
the remaining area of the mother unit of the Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte. 4
In support of his stand, petitioner argues that with the approval and ratification of the 1987 Constitution,
particularly Article X, Section 10, the ruling set forth in Tan v. COMELEC 5 relied upon by respondent COMELEC is
now pass, thus reinstating the case of Paredes v. Executive Secretary 6 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 be included in the plebiscite. 7
Accordingly, the issue in this case is whether or not respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
promulgating Resolution No. 2312 and, consequently, whether or not the plebiscite conducted in the areas
comprising the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa and the remaining areas of the mother Municipality of
Labo is valid. LibLex
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 of Tulay-Na-Lupa, is valid.
Petitioner's contention that our ruling in Tan v. COMELEC has been superseded with the ratification of the 1987
Constitution, thus reinstating our earlier ruling in Paredes v. COMELEC is untenable. Petitioner opines that since
Tan v. COMELEC was based on Section 3 of Article XI of the 1973 Constitution 8 our ruling in said case is no longer
applicable under Section 10 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution, especially since the latter provision deleted the
words "unit or."
We do not agree. The deletion of the phrase "unit or" in Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution from its
precursor, Section 3 of Article XI of the 1973 Constitution has not affected our ruling in Tan v. COMELEC as
explained by then CONCOM Commissioner, now my distinguished colleague, Associate Justice Hilario Davide,
during the debates in the 1986 Constitutional Commission, to wit:
Mr. Maambong: While we have already approved the deletion of "unit or," I would like to inform the Committee
that under the formulation in the present Local Government Code, the words used are actually "political unit or
units." However, I do not know the implication of the use of these words. Maybe there will be no substantial
difference, but I just want to inform the Committee about this.
Mr. Nolledo: Can we not adhere to the original "unit or units"? will there be no objection on the part of the
two Gentlemen from the floor?
Mr. Davide: I would object. 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, the municipality itself
must participate in the plebiscite because it is affected. It would mean a loss of a territory. 9 (Emphasis supplied)
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 phrase "political
units directly affected," is the plurality of political units which would participate in the plebiscite. 10 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. Thus, we conclude that
respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Resolution No. 2312. LLphil
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Nocon,
Bellosillo, Melo and Campos, Jr., JJ ., concur.
Padilla, J ., is on leave.
