Case Digest (G.R. No. 203974)
Facts:
Aurelio M. Umali v. Commission on Elections, Julius Cesar V. Vergara, and the City Government of Cabanatuan; J.V. Bautista v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 203974 and 204371, April 22, 2014, Supreme Court En Banc, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.On July 11, 2011, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cabanatuan City passed a resolution requesting the President to declare Cabanatuan a Highly Urbanized City (HUC). The President issued Presidential Proclamation No. 418 (2012) proclaiming conversion subject to ratification in a plebiscite “by the qualified voters therein,” invoking Section 453 of the Local Government Code (LGC).
Acting on the proclamation, COMELEC issued Minute Resolution No. 12-0797 (Sept. 11, 2012) declaring that “only those registered residents of Cabanatuan City should participate” in the plebiscite. Governor Aurelio M. Umali filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration arguing that Section 453 must be read with Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, so that the plebiscite must include the qualified voters of political units directly affected — namely the entire Province of Nueva Ecija.
The City Mayor, Julius Cesar V. Vergara, opposed, contending conversions do not invoke Section 10, Art. X and that Section 453 plainly limits the plebiscite to city voters. After a hearing, the COMELEC En Banc (E.M. No. 12-045 (PLEB)) denied Governor Umali’s motion and, by Minute Resolution No. 12-0925 (Oct. 16, 2012), scheduled the plebiscite limited to Cabanatuan voters (vote 5–2; Chair Brillantes and Commissioner Velasco dissented).
A parallel case (a petition by Dr. Rodolfo Punzalan) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Palayan City, sought a TRO enjoining COMELEC from implementing Minute Resolution No. 12-0797; the RTC granted a TRO (Oct. 19, 2012). COMELEC suspended preparations (Minute Resolution No. 12-0989) and later rescheduled the plebiscite; petitioner J.V. Bautista filed a separate Petition for Mandamus (G.R. No. 204371) to compel COMELEC to hold the plebiscite. After the 2013 elections and subsequent scheduling activity, this Court issued a ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Commission on Elections commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing Minute Resolutions No. 12-0797 and No. 12-0925 by limiting the plebiscite to the registered voters of Cabanatuan City?
- If so, are the “qualified voters therein” under Section 453, LGC, limited to the city’s registered voters, or does Section 10, Article X of the Constitution require that the plebiscite be participated in by the qualified voters of the political unit(s) directly affected (...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)