Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    Padilla vs. COMELEC, 214 SCRA 735 (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Mervic Al
    This case involved a dispute over the validity of a plebiscite on the proposed creation of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa in Camarines Norte. The Commission on Elections approved the creation through Resolution No. 2312, but the plebiscite voted against it, with voters in the proposed municipality and the existing Municipality of Labo both participating. The petitioner governor argued the plebiscite was invalid because only the affected barangays should have voted. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on Elections did not abuse its discretion, and that the plebiscite was valid because the law requires participation of all political units directly affected, which in this case included residents of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Padilla vs. COMELEC, 214 SCRA 735 (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Mervic Al
    81 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over the validity of a plebiscite on the proposed creation of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa in Camarines Norte. The Commission on Elections approved the creation through Resolution No. 2312, but the plebiscite voted against it, with voters in the proposed municipality and the existing Municipality of Labo both participating. The petitioner governor argued the plebiscite was invalid because only the affected barangays should have voted. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on Elections did not abuse its discretion, and that the plebiscite was valid because the law requires participation of all political units directly affected, which in this case included residents of

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over the validity of a plebiscite on the proposed creation of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa in Camarines Norte. The Commission on Elections approved the creation through Resolution No. 2312, but the plebiscite voted against it, with voters in the proposed municipality and the existing Municipality of Labo both participating. The petitioner governor argued the plebiscite was invalid because only the affected barangays should have voted. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on Elections did not abuse its discretion, and that the plebiscite was valid because the law requires participation of all political units directly affected, which in this case included residents of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    81 views2 pages

    Padilla vs. COMELEC, 214 SCRA 735 (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Mervic Al
    This case involved a dispute over the validity of a plebiscite on the proposed creation of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa in Camarines Norte. The Commission on Elections approved the creation through Resolution No. 2312, but the plebiscite voted against it, with voters in the proposed municipality and the existing Municipality of Labo both participating. The petitioner governor argued the plebiscite was invalid because only the affected barangays should have voted. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on Elections did not abuse its discretion, and that the plebiscite was valid because the law requires participation of all political units directly affected, which in this case included residents of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case Title: HON. ROY A. PADILLA, JR.

    , In his capacity as Governor of the Province of Camarines


    Norte, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

    G.R. No.: 103328

    Date: October 19, 1992

    Ponente: ROMERO, J.

    FACTS:

    Pursuant to Republic Act 7155, the Commission on Elections promulgated on November 13, 1991,
    Resolution No. 2312 which 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.

    And 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) said plebiscite
    shall be conducted by the Commission on Elections.

    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. Thereafter, the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers declared the rejection and disapproval of the
    independent Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa.

    The petitioner as Governor of Camarines Norte contends that the plebiscite is invalid as mandated
    by COMELEC Resolution No. 2312 which requires that the plebiscite should only be conducted in the
    political unit or units affected, i.e. the 12 barangays comprising the new Municipality of Tulay-Na-
    Lupa. 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/S:

    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.

    RULING:

    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 of Tulay-Na-
    Lupa, is valid.

    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. 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.

    You might also like