Cawaling, Jr. v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Benjamin E. Cawaling, Jr. challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8806, which created the City of Sorsogon by merging the Municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon. The Act was signed into law on August 16, 2000. A plebiscite was conducted on December 16, 2000, and the creation of Sorsogon City was proclaimed ratified. Procedural History: Petitioner filed two petitions: (1) G.R. No. 146319 for certiorari, seeking to annul the plebiscite on the grounds that it was conducted beyond the 120-day period from the Act's approval and that the COMELEC failed to conduct a 20-day information campaign. (2) G.R. No. 146342 for prohibition, seeking to enjoin the implementation of R.A. No. 8806 for being unconstitutional, arguing that merging two municipalities violates Section 450(a) of the Local Government Code and that the Act violates the "one subject-one bill" rule. The Petition: Petitioner invoked his rights as a resident and taxpayer to question the validity of R.A. No. 8806 and the plebiscite conducted pursuant thereto.
Issue(s)
Whether the creation of Sorsogon City by merging two municipalities violates Section 450(a) of the Local Government Code and Section 10, Article X of the Constitution. Whether R.A. No. 8806 violates the "one subject-one bill" rule under Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution. Whether the plebiscite conducted on December 16, 2000, was valid, considering it was allegedly conducted beyond the 120-day period from the approval of R.A. No. 8806. Whether the COMELEC failed to observe the legal requirement of a twenty (20) day extensive information campaign prior to the plebiscite.
Ruling
The petitions are DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8806 and the merger of municipalities: The Court held that the creation of a city by merging existing local government units is permissible under Section 10, Article X of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Local Government Code. Section 450(a) of the Code, which states that "a municipality or a cluster of barangays may be converted into a component city," does not limit the modes of city creation to conversion alone but rather describes one of the modes. The merger of Municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon to create Sorsogon City, therefore, does not violate the law, provided it complies with the criteria for city creation as prescribed by the Code regarding income, population, and land area. The Court also noted that arguments regarding the wisdom or expediency of the merger are beyond the scope of judicial review. On the "one subject-one bill" rule: The Court found no violation of the "one subject-one bill" rule. The title of R.A. No. 8806, "An Act Creating the City of Sorsogon by Merging the Municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon in the Province of Sorsogon, and Appropriating Funds Therefor," sufficiently covers the creation of the city. The abolition or cessation of the corporate existence of the Municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon was deemed a logical, natural, and inevitable consequence of the merger, and thus not a separate subject. The rule requires that the title be comprehensive enough to inform interested parties of the proposed law's nature, scope, and consequences, which was satisfied in this case. On the validity of the plebiscite and the 120-day period: The Court ruled that the plebiscite was conducted within the prescribed period. Section 54 of R.A. No. 8806 states the plebiscite should be within 120 days from the "approval" of the Act. However, Section 10 of the Local Government Code mandates that such plebiscite be conducted within 120 days from the "date of the effectivity" of the law, unless another date is fixed. The Act became effective upon its publication on September 1, 2000. Therefore, the 120-day period should be reckoned from September 1, 2000, making the December 16, 2000 plebiscite timely. The Court reconciled the term "approval" in Section 54 with "effectivity" in Section 10, citing Tañada v. Tuvera which emphasizes that laws take effect upon publication unless otherwise provided, and that "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date of effectivity, not the requirement of publication itself. On the alleged failure to conduct an information campaign: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's allegation that the COMELEC failed to conduct a 20-day information campaign. No proof was presented by the petitioner to substantiate this claim. Therefore, the Court sustained the presumption that the COMELEC regularly performed its duty under the law in conducting the plebiscite.
Main Doctrine
The creation of a city by merging existing municipalities is permissible under the Local Government Code, provided it complies with the prescribed criteria. The "one subject-one bill" rule is satisfied if the abolition of the merged municipalities is a necessary consequence of the city's creation. A plebiscite for cityhood must be conducted within 120 days from the effectivity of the law, not its approval, unless another date is fixed by the law. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the COMELEC applies absent proof of non-compliance with mandatory information campaigns.