Padilla Jr.

vs Comelec RULING
October 19, 1992 | Romero, J. | Article 10 Section 10 Petition is dismissed.

PETITIONER: Roy Padilla Jr.

RESPONDENTS: Comelec

SUMMARY
Republic Act No. 7155 created the new municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa in the
Province of Camarines Norte and pursuant to this law, the COMELEC (D)
conducted a plebiscite for its approval. In its resolution for the conduct of the
plebiscite, the COMELEC (D) included all the voters of the Municipality of
Labothe parent unit of the new municipality.
The result of the plebiscite showed that the majority rejected the creation of the
new Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa. The governor, Hon. Roy Padilla, Jr. (P),
petitioned the court to set aside the result arguing that the phrase "political units
directly affected" in Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution does not
include the parent political unitthe Municipality of Labo.
DOCTRINE:
No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged,
abolished or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the
criteria established in the local government code and subject to the approval by
the majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected

FACTS:
ISSUE:
1. WoN the plebecite is valid?
2. WoN the COMELEC committed grave abuse in promulgating RN 2312 and
that the plebiscite is valid
RATIO:
1. Yes, 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 thereof have a right to
vote in said plebiscite. 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 proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa as well as those
living in the the parent Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte.
2. No, 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superseded with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, thus reinstating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1973 Constitution our ruling in said case is no longer applicable under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."