Padilla vs.

COMELEC Facts: Republic Act 7155 sought to create the municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa from the existing municipality of Labo, in the province of Camarines Norte. A plebiscite was held by the COMELEC in the existing municipality, where a majority of the residents voted against the formation of Tulay-Na-Lupa. Petitioner, in his capacity as governor of Camarines Norte, seeks to assail the validity of the plebiscite, contending that the plebiscite should not have been held in the entirety of the municipality of Labo, but only in the 12 barangays that would have been affected by the partition. Issue: WON the plebiscite held is valid. Held/Ratio: YES. Primarily, the reason cited by the petitioner (that the 1987 Constitution did not include the words "unit or" in Sec. 10 of Article X), as well as his reliance on the said fact having affected the ruling in Tan vs. COMELEC negatively, is wrong. It stands to reason that the entire municipality of Labo would have been affected by the cession of territory to the proposed new municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa, so all of the residents of Labo, not just those in the 12 barangays, can vote in the plebiscite. Miranda v. Aguirre Facts: In 1994, RA 7720 converting the municipality of Santiago to an independent component city was signed into law and thereafter ratified in a plebiscite. Four years later, RA 8528 which amended RA 7720 was enacted, changing the status of Santiago from an independent component city to a component city. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 8528 because it does not provide for submitting the law for ratification by the people of Santiago City in a proper plebiscite. Issue:

1) WON petitioners have standing. 2) WON the petition involves a political question. 3) WON a plebiscite is necessary to change an independent component city into a chartered city. Held/Ratio: 1) YES. Residents and voters have standing over cases involving their city or something they can vote on. 2) NO. The question of whether the petitioners have the right to a plebiscite is a legal, not political, question. The issue here is not the wisdom of the legislation, but whether said legislation satisfies the law. Such a question is capable of cognition by the Court. 3) YES. Fundamentally, rights of residents of local government units to be reapportioned or redistributed will be in the balance. As such, requiring that those residents have the opportunity to provide or deny their approval to such a reapportionment is just and proper. Besides, the rule covers all conversions, whether upwards or downwards in character. There is no reason why a plebiscite should not be held with regard to the question of the downgrading of Santiago City from an ICC to a CC, especially considering the substantial effect that it would have on the residents of said city. The independence of the city would be lessened, and that in itself is a substantial effect.

Tobias vs. Abalos Facts: Republic Act 7675, the Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be Known as the City of Mandaluyong, was passed. Rep. Zamora, of the erstwhile Mandaluyong/San Juan district (they shared a representative), was the proponent of the bill. In a 14.41% voter turnout plebiscite, 18 thousand plus voted "yes" to cityhood, as opposed to only 7 thousand plus who voted "no". Accordingly, the municipality of Mandaluyong became a city. Petitioners assail the bill on several grounds. First, they say that Section 49, Article VIII of the said bill provides for separate legislative districts for Mandaluyong and San Juan, violating the "one subject-one bill" rule in the Constitution.

The second and third attacks are: that the bill violates the mandate of the Constitution with regard to the number of representatives in the House; and that the bill circumvents the right of Congress to fix the same. The fourth and fifth issue are: that the residents of San Juan should have been allowed to vote in the plebiscite, considering they are from the same legislative district; and that the bill has resulted in gerrymandering, or the creation of districts in order to favor a candidate/party. Issues: 1) WON the bill violated the "one subject-one bill" rule. 2) WON the bill invalidly increased the number of representatives in Congress, and did so in a manner circumventing the authority of the legislative to do the same. 3) WON the residents of San Juan should have voted in the plebiscite. 4) WON the bill will result in gerrymandering. Held/Ratio: 1) NO. Separate legislative representation is but a logical consequence of the conversion of a municipality into a city. The Constitution itself provides that a city of at least 250,000 people should have its own representative; such a fact is availing in this case. Further, jurisprudence mandates a liberal construction of the "one subject-one bill" rule so as not to impede legislation. 2) NO. There are actually three contentions of the petitioners here, all invalid. First, regarding the contention that there was no showing of a valid census to show that the city would indeed have 250,000 or more residents, the Court held that the law enjoys the presumption of having passed through normal legislative processes; the facts sought by the petitioners are presumed to have been presented there. Anent the second contention, which is that the limit of 250 members of the House of Representatives mandated by the Constitution would be breached by this legislation, it suffices to say that the petitioners did not consider the proviso in the Constitution, "unless otherwise provided by law". This bill is a law, it has been otherwise provided, and therefore the increase in representatives is valid. Third, with regard to petitioners' contention that the bill circumvented the legislative's authority to increase the number of seats in Congress, the Court held that it is quite impossible for the legislature to preempt itself on a right pertaining to itself.

3) NO. The plebiscite pertained to the cityhood of Mandaluyong, not its legislative district. The people of San Juan had no stake in the same. 4) NO. Rep. Zamora, the proponent of the bill, actually represented the joint Mandaluyong/San Juan district. He would have lost constituents as a result of the successful implementation of his bill, so it cannot be said that he benefited from the same.