Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Cawaling vs. COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Elyn Apiado
    1) A plebiscite was conducted on December 16, 2000 to ratify the creation of Sorsogon City by merging the municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon. 2) Benjamin Cawaling filed a petition to annul the plebiscite, alleging it was conducted beyond the 120-day period required by law and without the proper information campaign. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the plebiscite was valid because the 120-day period began on the date the law became effective, not the date it was approved, and that there was no evidence the COMELEC failed to conduct the required information campaign.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cawaling vs. COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Elyn Apiado
    52 views2 pages
    1) A plebiscite was conducted on December 16, 2000 to ratify the creation of Sorsogon City by merging the municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon. 2) Benjamin Cawaling filed a petition to annul the plebiscite, alleging it was conducted beyond the 120-day period required by law and without the proper information campaign. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the plebiscite was valid because the 120-day period began on the date the law became effective, not the date it was approved, and that there was no evidence the COMELEC failed to conduct the required information campaign.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    7. Cawaling vs. COMELEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A plebiscite was conducted on December 16, 2000 to ratify the creation of Sorsogon City by merging the municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon. 2) Benjamin Cawaling filed a petition to annul the plebiscite, alleging it was conducted beyond the 120-day period required by law and without the proper information campaign. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the plebiscite was valid because the 120-day period began on the date the law became effective, not the date it was approved, and that there was no evidence the COMELEC failed to conduct the required information campaign.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    52 views2 pages

    Cawaling vs. COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Elyn Apiado
    1) A plebiscite was conducted on December 16, 2000 to ratify the creation of Sorsogon City by merging the municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon. 2) Benjamin Cawaling filed a petition to annul the plebiscite, alleging it was conducted beyond the 120-day period required by law and without the proper information campaign. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the plebiscite was valid because the 120-day period began on the date the law became effective, not the date it was approved, and that there was no evidence the COMELEC failed to conduct the required information campaign.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    CAWALING vs.

    COMELEC
    G.R. No. 146319, October 26, 2001
    Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.:

    STATEMENT OF FACTS:

    On August 16, 2000, former President Joseph E. Estrada signed into law 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."

    Pursuant to Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, the Commission on Elections


    (COMELEC) conducted a plebiscite on December 16, 2000 in the Municipalities of Bacon and
    Sorsogon and submitted the matter for ratifcation. Consequently, the Plebiscite City Board of
    Canvassers (PCBC) proclaimed the creation of the City of Sorsogon as having been ratifed and
    approved by the majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite.

    STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

    Invoking his right as a resident and taxpayer of the former Municipality of Sorsogon,
    Benjamin E. Cawaling, Jr. fled on January 2, 2001 the present petition for certiorari seeking the
    annulment of the plebiscite alleging that the plebiscite was conducted beyond the required 120-
    day period from the approval of R.A. 8806, in violation of Section 54 thereof and that
    Respondent COMELEC failed to observe the legal requirement of twenty (20) day extensive
    information campaign in the Municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon before conducting the
    plebiscite.

    Two days after fling the said action, or on January 4, 2001, petitioner instituted another
    petition for prohibition seeking to enjoin the further implementation of R.A. No. 8806 for being
    unconstitutional, contending that the creation of Sorsogon City by merging two municipalities
    violates Section 450(a) of the Local Government Code of 1991 (in relation to Section 10, Article
    X of the Constitution) which requires that only "a municipality or a cluster of barangays may be
    converted into a component city and that R.A. No. 8806 contains two (2) subjects, namely, the (a)
    creation of the City of Sorsogon and the (b) abolition of the Municipalities of Bacon and
    Sorsogon, thereby violating the "one subject-one bill" rule prescribed by Section 26(1), Article VI
    of the Constitution.

    Consolidated into this case are the two (2) separate petitions challenging the
    constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8806 which created the City of Sorsogon and the validity of
    the plebiscite conducted pursuant thereto.

    ISSUES:

    I. Whether or not the plebiscite conducted by the COMELEC for the ratifcation of the
    creation of Sorsogon City is valid?
    II. Whether or not the COMELEC failed to conduct an extensive information campaign on
    the proposed Sorsogon cityhood 20 days prior to the scheduled plebiscite as required by
    Article 11 (b.4.ii), Rule II of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Code?

    APIADO, ELYN D.
    RULING:

    I.
    Yes. The plebiscite conducted by the COMELEC for the ratifcation of the creation of
    Sorsogon City is valid.
    Section 54 of R.A. No. 8806 which provides that the City of Sorsogon shall acquire
    corporate existence upon the ratifcation of its creation by a majority of the votes cast by the
    qualifed voters in a plebiscite to be conducted in the present municipalities of Bacon and
    Sorsogon within one hundred twenty (120) days from its approval.
    However, Section 65 of the Act states that it shall take efect upon its publication in at
    least two (2) newspapers of general and local circulation. The law was frst published in the
    August 25, 2000 issue of TODAY a newspaper of general circulation. Then on September 01,
    2000, it was published in a newspaper of local circulation in the Province of Sorsogon. Thus, the
    publication of the law was completed on September 1, 2000.
    In addition, the last sentence of Section 10 of the Code provides that plebiscite shall be
    conducted by the Commission on Elections within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date
    of the efectivity of the law or ordinance afecting such action, unless said law or ordinance fxes
    another date. Quite plainly, the last sentence of Section 10 mandates that the plebiscite shall be
    conducted within 120 days from the date of the efectivity of the law, not from its approval.
    While the same provision allows a law or ordinance to fx "another date" for conducting a
    plebiscite, still such date must be reckoned from the date of the efectivity of the law.
    Consequently, the word "approval" in Section 54 of R.A. No. 8806, which should be read
    together with Section 65 (efectivity of the Act) thereof, could only mean "efectivity" as used and
    contemplated in Section 10 of the Code. This construction is in accord with the fundamental rule
    that all provisions of the laws relating to the same subject should be read together and reconciled
    to avoid inconsistency or repugnancy to established jurisprudence.
    II.
    No. The COMELEC did not fail to conduct an extensive information campaign on the
    proposed Sorsogon cityhood 20 days prior to the scheduled plebiscite as required by Article 11
    (b.4.ii), Rule II of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Code. No proof whatsoever was
    presented by petitioner to substantiate his allegation. Consequently, the Court sustains the
    presumption that the COMELEC regularly performed or complied with its duty under the law in
    conducting the plebiscite.

    PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINES:

    No creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries of local


    government units shall take efect unless approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
    called for the purpose in the political unit or units directly afected. Such plebiscite shall be
    conducted by the Commission on Elections within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date
    of the efectivity of the law or ordinance afecting such action, unless said law or ordinance fxes
    another date.

    APIADO, ELYN D.

    You might also like