Title
Ceniza vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. L-52304
Decision Date
Jan 28, 1980
Voters in Cebu and Mandaue challenged the exclusion of highly urbanized cities from provincial elections under Batas Blg. 51, alleging unconstitutional classification and violation of suffrage rights. The Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling the income-based classification valid and the exclusion justified due to cities' independence from provincial governance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 215370)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

– December 22, 1979: Enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 51.
– January 30, 1980: Scheduled local elections.
– January 28, 1980: Supreme Court decision.
Governing law is the 1973 Constitution (Arts. II, XI) and Batas Blg. 51, Sec. 3 (classification of cities by income), plus RA 5519, Sec. 96.

Material Facts

Batas Blg. 51 classifies cities with annual income ≥ ₱40 million as “highly urbanized,” whose registered voters cannot vote for provincial officials, while component cities may if their charters permit. Cebu City (₱51.6 million) is thus “highly urbanized” despite its charter allowing provincial voting. Mandaue City, with income below the threshold, is a component city whose charter expressly bars its voters from provincial elections.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether classifying cities by income and barring “highly urbanized” city voters from provincial elections violates equal protection or suffrage rights.
  2. Whether RA 5519’s charter provision is invalid for lack of plebiscitary ratification.
  3. Whether Batas Blg. 51 or RA 5519 was enacted for impermissible political motives.

Petitioners’ Contentions

– Income-based classification lacks substantial distinctions germane to suffrage regulation and denies equal protection.
– Mandaue City’s charter is void for not being ratified in a plebiscite, in violation of constitutional requirements.
– The measures were motivated by gerrymandering to disenfranchise opposition votes in Cebu Province.

Constitutional and Precedent Analysis

Under the 1973 Constitution the State guarantees local autonomy (Arts. II, XI). Art. XI, Sec. 4(1) places highly urbanized cities outside provincial supervision; independence from provincial authority logically forecloses participation in provincial elections. In Teves v. Comelec (90 Phil. 370), the Court held that a city separated from its province may not vote for provincial officials absent express charter provision. Income is a substantial distinction: it reflects a city’s capacity for self-government and justifies autonomy.

Equal Protection and Suffrage Considerations

Allowing some component-city voters but not others rests on legislative discretion over local units and charters; silence in a charter implies exclusion. No undue burden akin to invalidated poll taxes has been imposed, and the Constitution confers no inherent right for city voters to vote for provincial officials. Disparate treatment among cities does not deny equal protection so long as categories rest on rational, germane distinctions.

Plebiscite Requirement and Prospective Effect

The 1

...continue reading

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