SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

^{DISSENTING OPINION}

BUENA, J.:

With all due respect to my esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno, whose well-written ponencia expresses his opinion with clarity, I regret that I am unable to agree that Republic Act No. 8528 should be declared as unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides that

Section 10, Article X. 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.

Section 10 Chapter 2 of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) provides:

Section 10, Chapter 2. Plebiscite Requirement. No creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units shall take effect unless approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose in the political unit or units directly affected. Said plebiscite shall be conducted by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) within one hundred twenty (120) from the date of effectivity of the law or ordinance effecting such action, unless said law or ordinance fixes another date.

In short, conversion does not appear in the 1987 Constitution nor in the Section 10, Chapter 2 of the Local Government Code. Surprisingly, Rule II, Article 6, paragraph (f) (1) of the Implementing Rules of the Local Government Code included conversion in the enumeration of the modes of changing the status of local government units, thus:

(f) Plebiscite. (1) No creation, conversion, division, merger, abolition , or substantial alteration of boundaries of LGUs shall take effect unless approved by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite called for the purpose in the LGU or LGUs affected. The plebiscite shall be conducted by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) within one hundred twenty (120) days from the effectivity of the law or ordinance prescribing such action, unless said law or ordinance fixes another date.

xxx xxx xxx. (emphasis supplied)

Other than that, the Local Government Code uses the term conversion only in the following instances: (1) Section 7, which provides that [a]s a general rule, the creation of a local government unit or its conversion from one level to another shall be based on verifiable indicators of viability and projected capacity to provide services, to wit: xxx xxx; (2) Section 450, which provides for the requisites for the conversion of a municipality or a cluster of barangays into a component city; and (3) Section 462, which involves the conversion of existing sub-provinces into regular provinces.

Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. defines¹ conversion as the elevation of an LGU from one level to another, like converting a municipality to a city or a component city to a highly urbanized one or the raising of the classification of one municipality, city or province from a fourth class category to third, second or first. It is my humble opinion therefore that the requirement of a plebiscite does not apply to the case at bar which does not involve the upgrading or elevation of Santiago City but a downgrading thereof.

2. I am not convinced that a mere Rule and Regulation intended to implement the Local Government Code can expand the terms and provisions clearly expressed in the basic law to be implemented. As aptly contended by the Solicitor General in his Comment on the petition viz:

It is settled jurisprudence that the power of administrative agencies to promulgate rules and regulation must be in strict compliance with the legislative enactment. Thus, in Tayug Rural Bank vs. Central Bank of the Philippines (146 SCRA 129-30), this Honorable Court ruled that in the case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation to implement said law, the basic law prevails as said rule or regulation can not go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law. Neither can such rules and regulation extend or expand the letter and spirit of the law they seek to implement. (Iglesia ni Kristo vs. Court of Appeal, 259 SCRA 529)²

As a matter of fact, Mr.Justice Puno, in his ponencia in the above cited case of Iglesia ni Kristo, opined that (T)his rule is void for it runs smack against the hoary doctrine that administrative rules and regulations cannot expand the letter and spirit of the law they seek to enforce.³

3. The proceedings in the Senate show that the Committee on Local Government, to which H.B. No. 8729 was referred, reported back to the senate with the recommendation that it be approved with the following amendment:

SECTION 3. Section 49 of Republic Act No. 7720 is hereby amended by deleting the entire section and in its stead substitute the following:

SEC. 49. PLEBISCITE. THE CONVERSION OF THE CITY OF SANTIAGO INTO A COMPONENT CITY OF THE PROVINCE OF ISABELA SHALL TAKE EFFECT UPON THE RATIFICATION OF THIS ACT BY A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE OF SAID CITY IN A PLEBISCITE WHICH SHALL BE HELD FOR THE PURPOSE WITHIN (60) DAYS FROM THE APPROVAL OF THIS ACT. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS SHALL CONDUCT AND SUPERVISE SUCH PLEBISCITE.

However, after the deliberation in the Senate, the Committee on Local Government decided to withdraw the foregoing proposed amendment. Hence, on February 6, 1998, the Republic Act No. 8528, the constitutionality of which is challenged by the petitioners, was approved.

Be that as it may, this Court properly require a plebiscite for the validity of said law when Congress itself, which had been given the opportunity to include such a requirement, decided against it? Are we not supplanting our judgment over that of Congress, or co-equal branch of government entrusted by the Constitution to enact laws? I respectfully submit that we may not do so without disturbing the balance of power as apportioned and delineated by the Constitution.

4. I Likewise submit that we must consider the ramifications of declaration of unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. 8528 on Republic Act No. 6726 (1989) and Republic Act No. 6843 (1990), respectively allowing the voters of the City of Oroquieta (Misamis Oriental) and San Carlos City (Pangasinan) to vote and be voted for any of the respective provincial offices, in effect downgrading them from independent component cities to component cities. The resulting confusion on the political structures of the local government units involved would surely be disastrous to the order and stability of these cities.

5. Finally, in the situation where the supposed breach of the constitution is doubtful, equivocal and, at best, based on argumentative implications, I believe that, as we have ruled in a plethora of cases⁴, every law has in its favor, the presumption of constitutionality and in case of doubt, the Court must exert every effort to prevent the invalidation of the law and the nullification of the will of the legislature that enacted it and the executive that approved it.

I therefore vote to dismiss the petition.

Endnotes:

---

¹ In the Local Government Code of 1991, The Key to National Development, 1993 ed., p. 34.

² Rollo, p. 110.

³ Iglesia ni Kristo vs. Court of Appeal, 259 SCRA 529, pp. 547-548

⁴ Tan vs. People, 290 SCRA 117 (1998); Tano vs. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 (1997); Padilla vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 402 (1997); Alvarez vs. Guingona, Jr., 252 SCRA 695 (1996); Drilon vs. Lim, 235 SCRA 135 (1994); Garcia vs. Comelec 227 SCRA 100 (1993)