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.