Case Digest (G.R. No. L-56022)
Facts:
Gemiliano C. Lopez, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 56022 and 56124, May 31, 1985, the Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, C.J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners in these consolidated matters were Gemiliano C. Lopez, Jr. (and, in G.R. No. 56124, Reynaldo B. Aralar) who filed, respectively, a mandamus petition and a constitutional challenge directed at the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC).
The controversy arose from Presidential Decree No. 824 (issued November 7, 1975), which created the juridical entity called Metropolitan Manila (comprising the cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan and thirteen adjoining municipalities) and established the Metropolitan Manila Commission as its governing body. The Decree recited a referendum held February 27, 1975 authorizing the President “to restructure” the local governments in the Greater Manila area “under such terms and conditions as the President may decide.” Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of P.D. No. 824 on the ground that its creation and restructuring of local government units contravened Article XI, Section 3 of the (1973) Constitution, which then required creation/division/merger/abolition or substantial alteration of local units to follow criteria in the Local Government Code and be subject to approval by a majority vote in a plebiscite in the unit(s) affected. The Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 337) was only enacted in 1983.
In addition, in G.R. No. 56022 petitioner Lopez sought mandamus to compel COMELEC to hold elections for the Sangguniang Panglungsod and Sangguniang Bayan in the cities and towns of Metropolitan Manila, asserting that the composition and selection scheme under P.D. No. 824 left Metro Manila residents without equivalent electoral representation. Respondent COMELEC and the MMC defended P.D. No. 824, arguing (inter alia) that the February 1975 referendum satisfied constitutional requirements and that the President validly exercised lawmaking authority during the martial-law transitory period; they also invoked the Decree’s provisions for representative participation in local councils.
The petitions were bro...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Presidential Decree No. 824 violate Article XI, Section 3 of the (1973) Constitution because it restructured local government units without the criteria of a Local Government Code and without a proper plebiscite of the units affected?
- Was the President empowered to issue P.D. No. 824 in 1975 during the martial-law/transitory period?
- Does the absence of elections for Sangguniang Bayan/Sangguniang Panglungsod in Metropolitan Manila as arranged under P.D. No. 824 violate equal protection and warrant mandamus against COMELEC?
- Is Section 13 of P.D. No. 824—placing the MMC and its officials under the “direct supervision and control of the President” and permitting the President to revoke, amend or modify MMC acts—unconstituti...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)