Title
Cawaling, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 146319
Decision Date
Oct 26, 2001
Creation of Sorsogon City via R.A. No. 8806 upheld; plebiscite valid, merger constitutional, petitions dismissed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 146319)

Petition for Certiorari: Plebiscite Timeliness and Campaign

In G.R. No. 146319, petitioner alleged that the COMELEC:

  1. Conducted the plebiscite one day beyond the 120-day period prescribed by Section 54 of RA 8806; and
  2. Failed to undertake the mandatory 20-day extensive information campaign prior to the plebiscite as required by implementing rules of the Local Government Code.

Petition for Prohibition: Alleged Unconstitutionality of RA 8806

In G.R. No. 146342, petitioner challenged RA 8806 on two grounds:

  1. The merger of two municipalities exceeded the mode of city creation under Section 450(a) of the Local Government Code, which refers only to the “conversion of a municipality or a cluster of barangays”; and
  2. The law embraced two subjects—city creation and municipal abolition—thereby violating the “one subject–one bill” rule in Article VI, Section 26(1) of the Constitution.

Presumption of Constitutionality

The Court reaffirmed that every statute enjoys a presumption of constitutionality, rooted in separation of powers. A law will not be declared unconstitutional unless its invalidity is shown beyond reasonable doubt.

Mode of City Creation Under the Constitution and Local Government Code

Section 10, Article X of the Constitution permits creation, merger, or abolition of local government units in accordance with Code criteria. Section 8 of the Local Government Code expressly recognizes merger as a mode of creating a new local government unit, subject to compliance with demographic, territorial, and income requirements. The Court held that the merger of two municipalities to form Sorsogon City was consistent with both the Constitution and the Local Government Code.

Legislative Wisdom and Judicial Restraint

The petitioner’s argument that Sorsogon Municipality alone qualified for cityhood went to legislative wisdom, which the judiciary cannot question. Courts may invalidate legislation only on clear constitutional grounds, not on expediency.

One Subject–One Bill Rule

The Court observed that the abolition of the two municipalities was an inherent consequence of the merger and not a separate legislative subject. The title of RA 8806 sufficiently informed the public of its general object—creating Sorsogon City by merging municipalities—and thus complied with the constitutional requirement.

Validity of the Plebiscite Period

Although Section 54 of RA 8806 referred to “approval” of the Act, Section 65 fixed its effectivity upon publication. Under Section 10 of t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.