Case Digest (G.R. No. 125524) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Cawaling v. Commission on Elections and Escudero (420 Phil. 524, October 26, 2001), petitioner Benjamin E. Cawaling, Jr., a resident and taxpayer of the former Municipality of Sorsogon, challenged Republic Act No. 8806, approved by President Estrada on August 16, 2000, which merged the Municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon to create the City of Sorsogon. Pursuant to Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and Section 54 of the law, the COMELEC conducted a plebiscite on December 16, 2000, and the Plebiscite City Board of Canvassers proclaimed ratification on December 17. On January 2, 2001, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 146319) seeking annulment of the plebiscite on grounds that it was held beyond the 120-day period from approval and without the required 20-day extensive information campaign. Two days later, he sought prohibition (G.R. No. 146342) to enjoin further implementation of R.A. 8806, alleging that merging two municipalities violated Secti Case Digest (G.R. No. 125524) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Passage and implementation of Republic Act No. 8806
- On August 16, 2000, former President Joseph E. Estrada signed 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; the Plebiscite City Board of Canvassers proclaimed ratification on December 17, 2000.
- Petitions filed by Benjamin E. Cawaling, Jr.
- G.R. No. 146319 (filed January 2, 2001): Petition for certiorari seeking annulment of the plebiscite for (a) being conducted beyond the 120-day period prescribed in Section 54 of R.A. No. 8806, and (b) failure to observe the 20-day extensive information campaign requirement.
- G.R. No. 146342 (filed January 4, 2001): Petition for prohibition to enjoin further implementation of R.A. No. 8806 as unconstitutional on grounds that (a) merging two municipalities violates Section 450(a) of the Local Government Code (LGC) in relation to Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, and (b) the Act contains two subjects in breach of the “one subject–one bill” rule of Section 26(1), Article VI, and later consolidated with G.R. No. 146319.
- Administrative operation of Sorsogon City
- During the pendency of the consolidated petitions, the newly created City of Sorsogon held its first elections on May 14, 2001.
- Since then, the City Government has regularly exercised its corporate and political powers under R.A. No. 8806.
Issues:
- Constitutionality of R.A. No. 8806 (G.R. No. 146342)
- Does creation of Sorsogon City by merging two municipalities violate Section 450(a) of the LGC and Section 10, Article X of the Constitution?
- Does R.A. No. 8806 contravene the one subject–one bill requirement under Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution?
- Validity of the plebiscite (G.R. No. 146319)
- Was the December 16, 2000 plebiscite conducted beyond the 120-day period from approval of R.A. No. 8806 in violation of Section 54?
- Did the COMELEC fail to conduct the mandatory 20-day extensive information campaign prior to the plebiscite as required by its implementing rules?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)