LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 1

Division, Merger, Abolition, Conversion of LGUs – Plebiscite Requirement

PADILLA v. COMELEC
October 19, 1992 | J. Romero

Petitioner(s): Hon. Roy A. Padilla, Jr., in his capacity as Governor of the Province of Camarines
Norte
Respondent(s): Commission on Elections

Doctrine: 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.

CASE SUMMARY
Trigger Word(s): Bakit buong Labo pinaboto sa plebiscite? SC: Tama lang 'yun, apektado sila
FACTS: A plebiscite for the creation of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa composed of some barangays
from the Municipality of Labo, Camarines Sur. The plebiscite was conducted not only in the barangays
that were proposed to compose the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa, but also the remaining areas of the
mother Municipality of Labo, pursuant to the COMELEC Resolution. Majority of the voters voted against
the creation of the new municipality. Petitioner Padilla challenged the validity of the results, asserting that
the plebiscite should have been held only in the barangays that would comprise the new municipality, not
in the other remaining areas of Labo. Padilla supported his position by stating that with the ratification of
the 1987 Constitution, the ruling in Tan v. COMELEC is now passé, and the riling in the case of Paredes
v. Executive Secretary which held that where a local unit is to be segregated from a parent unit, only the
voters of the unit to be segrated should be included in the plebiscite should be reinstated. Notably, Sec.
10, Art. X, 1987 Constitution considers votes in the plebiscite conducted in the "political units directly
affected", while its predecessor, Sec. 3, Art. XI, 1973 Constitution considers votes in the "unit or units
affected".

ISSUE #1: W/N the results of the plebiscite conducted is invalid – NO

HELD: The deletion of "unit or" in Sec. 10, Art. X of the 1987 Constitution from its precursor has not
affected the Court's ruling in Tan v. COMELEC as explained by then CONCOM Commissioner, Justice
Hilario Davide. 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. Both the inhabitants of the
barangays that would comprise the new municipality and the inhabitants of the remaining areas of Labo
should be allowed to vote in the plebiscite. The inhabitants of the remaining areas of Labo are also
affected because a portion of their municipality would be separated should the new municipality be
created.

FACTS
● Pursuant to RA 71551, the COMELEC promulgated on November 13, 1991 Resolution No. 2312
which provided guidelines that would govern the conduct of the plebiscite for the creation of the
Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa, Camarines Norte, composed of barangays 2 from Labo, Camarines
Norte.
○ According to the Resolution, the plebiscite shall be held on December 15, 1991. The
plebiscite shall be held in the areas or units affected (that is, in the brangays that
would comprise the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa) AND the remaining areas
of the mother Municipality of Labo. The municipality shall be created after approval by
a majority of the votes cast.
● The plebiscite was accordingly held throughout the Municipality of Labo and majority of the voters
voted against the creation of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa (2890 in favor, 3,439 against).
1
Creates the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa
2
Barangays Tulay-Na-Lupa, Lugui, San Antonio, Mabilo I, Napaod, Benit, Bayan-Bayan, Matanlang, Pag-Asa, Maot, and Calabasa

Orjalo | A2022
March 25, 2021
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 2
Division, Merger, Abolition, Conversion of LGUs – Plebiscite Requirement

The Plebiscite Board of Canvassers declared disapproval of the creation of the independent
Municipality.
● In this special civil action of certiorari, petitioner Padilla as Governor of Camarines Norte seeks to
set aside the plebiscite conducted and prays that a new plebiscite be undertaken.
○ According to Padilla, the results were invalid because the plebiscite should have been
conducted only in the political unit or units affected, that is, the barangays comprising the
new Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa, and should not have included the remaining areas of
the mother Municipality of Labo.
○ With the approval and ratification of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Article X, Section
10, the ruling in Tan v. COMELEC relied upon by COMELEC is now passé, thus
reinstating the case of Paredes v. Executive Secretary which held that where a local unit
is to be segregated from a parent unit, only the voters of the unit to be segrated should
be included in the plebiscite.

ISSUES + HELD
ISSUE #1: W/N the results of the plebiscite conducted is invalid – NO.
 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."

Art. XI, 1973 Constitution Art. X, 1987 Constitution

SEC. 3. No province, city, municipality, or
barrio 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 a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite in the unit or units
affected.
SEC. 10. 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 approval by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite in the political units
directly affected.

 The Court disagrees. The deletion of "unit or" in Sec. 10, Art. X of the 1987 Constitution from its
precursor has not affected the Court's ruling in Tan v. COMELEC as explained by then
CONCOM Commissioner, Justice Hilario Davide.
o During the debates in the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Justice Davide explained: "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."
 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.
o 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.
RULING: Petition dismissed. 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.

Orjalo | A2022
March 25, 2021