8.

City of Pasig vs COMELEC 314 SCRA 179 Brian

Nature of the Case:

Two petitions (Pasig and Cainta) which both question the propriety of the suspension
of plebiscite proceedings pending the resolution of the issue of boundary disputes
between the Municipality of Cainta and the City of Pasig.
Material Facts:

G.R. No. 125646 involves the proposed Barangay Karangalan while G.R. No. 128663
involves the proposed Barangay Napico. The City of Pasig claims these areas as part
of its jurisdiction/territory while the Municipality of Cainta claims that these
proposed barangays encroached upon areas within its own jurisdiction/territory.

On April 22, 1996, residents of Karangalan Village petitioned that they be segregated from
its mother Barangays Manggahan and Dela Paz, City of Pasig, and to be converted and separated
into a distinct barangay to be known as Barangay Karangalan, the City Council of Pasig passed
and approved an Ordinance creating Barangay Karangalan in Pasig City. Plebiscite on the
creation of said barangay was thereafter set.
Meanwhile, on September 9, 1996, the City of Pasig similarly issued an Ordinance creating
Barangay Napico in Pasig City and a Plebiscite was also set.
Immediately upon learning of such Ordinances, the Municipality of Cainta moved to
suspend or cancel the respective plebiscites scheduled, and filed Petitions with the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) on June 19, 1996 (UND No. 96-016) and March 12, 1997 (UND No.
97-002), respectively. In both Petitions, the Municipality of Cainta called the attention of the
COMELEC to a pending case before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal for settlement
of boundary dispute.
According to the Municipality of Cainta, the proposed barangays involve areas included in
the boundary dispute subject of said pending case; hence, the scheduled plebiscites should be
suspended or cancelled until after the said case shall have been finally decided by the court.
COMELEC accepted the position of the Municipality of Cainta and ordered the plebiscite on
the creation of Barangay Karangalan to be held in abeyance until after the court has settled with
finality the boundary dispute involving the two municipalities.
Issue/s: W/N the plebiscites scheduled for the creation of Barangays Karangalan and

Napico should be suspended or cancelled in view of the pending boundary dispute

between the two local governments.
Ruling:
1. The Petition of the City of Pasig in G.R. No. 125646 is DISMISSED for lack of merit;

2. The Petition of the Municipality of Cainta in G.R. No. 128663 is GRANTED.

Plebiscite held on March 15, 1997 to ratify the creation of Barangay Napico in the City of Pasig
is declared null and void.
Plebiscite on the same is ordered held in abeyance until after the courts settle with finality the
boundary dispute between the City of Pasig and the Municipality of Cainta, in Civil Case
No. 94-300.

Ratio:
A requisite for the creation of a barangay is for its territorial jurisdiction to be
properly identified by metes and bounds or by more or less permanent natural
boundaries. Precisely because territorial jurisdiction is an issue raised in the pending
civil case, until and unless such issue is resolved with finality, to define the
territorial jurisdiction of the proposed barangays would only be an exercise in
futility. Not only that, we would be paving the way for potentially ultra vires acts of
such barangays.
In the case at bar, while the City of Pasig vigorously claims that the areas covered
by the proposed Barangays Karangalan and Napico are within its territory, it can not
deny that portions of the same area are included in the boundary dispute case
pending before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo.
The Court we agrees with the position of the COMELEC that Civil Case No. 94-3006
involving the boundary dispute between the Municipality of Cainta and the City of
Pasig presents a prejudicial question which must first be decided before plebiscites
for the creation of the proposed barangays may be held.
16. Negros Oriental Electric Coop vs. Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete, 421 SCRA (wala
nkabutang ang isa ka number)
Nature of Action: Petition for certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining
Order
Material Facts:
In 1985, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete sought to conduct an investigation in connection
with pending legislation related to the operations of public utilities. Invited in the hearing were, Paterio
Torres and Arturo Umbac, the heads of Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NORECO II).
NORECO II is alleged to have installed inefficient power lines in the said city. Torres and Umbac refused
to appear before the Sangguniang Panglungsod and they alleged that the power to investigate, and to
order the improvement of, alleged inefficient power lines to conform to standards is lodged exclusively
with the National Electrification Administration (NEA); and neither the Charter of the City of Dumaguete
nor the [old] Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 337) grants the Sangguniang Panglungsod
such power. The Sangguniang Panglungsod averred that inherent in the legislative functions performed
by the respondent Sangguniang Panglungsod is the power to conduct investigations in aid of legislation
and with it, the power to punish for contempt in inquiries on matters within its jurisdiction.

Petitioners contend that the respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete is bereft of the power to
compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, nor the power to order the arrest of witnesses who fail
to obey its subpoena. It is further argued that assuming the power to compel the attendance and
testimony of witnesses to be lodged in said body, it cannot be exercised in the investigation of matters
affecting the terms and conditions of the franchise granted to NORECO II which are beyond the
jurisdiction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
Respondents, for their part, claim that inherent in the legislative functions performed by the respondent
Sangguniang Panlungsod is the power to conduct investigations in aid of legislation and with it, the power
to punish for contempt in inquiries on matters within its jurisdiction. It is also the position of the
respondents that the contempt power, if not expressly granted, is necessarily implied from the powers
granted the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Furthermore, the respondents assert that an inquiry into the
installation or use of inefficient power lines and its effect on the power consumption cost on the part of
Dumaguete residents is well-within the jurisdiction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and its committees.
Issue/s: W/N the assailed investigative hearing of the Sangguniang Panglungsod is beyond the
jurisdiction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. And if it is, W/N the Sanggunian Panglungsod has the power
to issue Subpoena and order Contempt.
Ruling: Petition is GRANTED.
Its evident that the inquiry would touch upon the efficiency of the electric service of NORECO II and,
necessarily, its compliance with the franchise. Such inquiry is beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent
Sangguniang Panlungsod and the respondent committee.
The subpoena requiring the attendance and testimony of the petitioners at an investigation by the
respondent Ad-Hoc Committee, and the Order issued directing herein petitioners to show cause why they
should not be punished for legislative contempt for their disobedience of said subpoena, is declared null
and void for being ultra vires. The respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod and the respondent Ad-Hoc
Committee are without power to punish non- members for contempt. The Temporary Restraining Order
issued by this Court enjoining said respondents, their agents and representatives, and the police and
other peace officers from enforcing the aforesaid Order of the respondent committee is made permanent.
Ratio:
There is no express provision either in the 1973 Constitution or in the Local Government Code (BP 337)
granting local legislative bodies the power to subpoena witnesses and the power to punish non-members
for contempt. Absent a constitutional or legal provision for the exercise of these powers, the only possible
justification for the issuance of a subpoena and for the punishment of non-members for contumacious
behavior would be for said power to be deemed implied in the statutory grant of delegated legislative
power. But, the contempt power and the subpoena power partake of a judicial nature. They cannot be
implied in the grant of legislative power. Neither can they exist as mere incidents of the performance of
legislative functions. To allow local legislative bodies or administrative agencies to exercise these powers
without express statutory basis would run afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.
There being no provision in the Local Government Code explicitly granting local legislative bodies, the
power to issue compulsory process and the power to punish for contempt, the Sanggunianag Panlungsod
of Dumaguete is devoid of power to punish the petitioners Torres and Umbac for contempt. The Ad Hoc
Committee of said legislative body has even less basis to claim that it can exercise these powers. Even
assuming that the Sangguniang Panlunsod and the Ad-Hoc Committee had the power to issue the
subpoena and the order complained of, such issuances would still be void for being ultra vires. The
contempt power (and the subpoena power) if actually possessed, may only be exercised where the
subject matter of the investigation is within the jurisdiction of the legislative body.
24. Mun. Of Talisay vs Ramirez 183 SCRA 528

32. Bayan vs Ermita, GR No. 169838, April 25, 2006

40. Estanislao vs Costales 196 SCRA 853

48. Coquilla vs COMELEC, GR No. 151914, July 31, 2002