Title
Tan vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 73155
Decision Date
Jul 11, 1986
Creation of Negros del Norte via Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 declared unconstitutional; plebiscite limited to proposed areas invalid, entire Negros Occidental required to vote.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 203114)

Petitioners

A group of voters from various cities and municipalities in Negros Occidental who seek to invalidate Batas Pambansa Blg. 885, restrain the COMELEC from proclaiming the plebiscite results, and require a new plebiscite including all affected voters.

Respondents

COMELEC, tasked by law with conducting the plebiscite, and the Provincial Treasurer, responsible for disbursing local funds for plebiscite expenses.

Key Dates

• Approval of Batas Pambansa Blg. 885: December 3, 1985
• Scheduled plebiscite (actually held): January 3, 1986
• Original petition filed: December 23, 1985
• Supplemental petition filed: January 4, 1986
• Decision date: July 11, 1986

Applicable Law

• 1973 Philippine Constitution, Article XI, Section 3 (“No province…may be created…except in accordance with…the votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected.”)
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 (creating the Province of Negros del Norte)
• Presidential Decree No. 337 (Local Government Code), Section 197 (requisites for creation of a province)

Procedural History

  1. Petitioners filed for a writ of prohibition and injunction to stop the COMELEC from holding the plebiscite as scheduled.
  2. After the plebiscite was nonetheless held, petitioners sought to prevent proclamation of its results and to compel a new plebiscite including all voters of Negros Occidental.
  3. The COMELEC and Provincial Treasurer filed comments asserting the law’s validity, arguing compliance with constitutional criteria, and contending the case was moot.
  4. The Supreme Court submitted the case for decision without dismissing it as moot.

Facts

• B.P. Blg. 885 detaches the Cities of Silay, Cadiz, San Carlos and eight municipalities from Negros Occidental to form Negros del Norte.
• The law provided for a plebiscite within 120 days but scheduled it in less than 30 days and confined voting to residents of the proposed new province.
• Petitioners allege that the mother province’s voters were excluded in violation of the constitutional mandate.
• The Commission conducted the plebiscite on January 3, 1986; a majority favored creation; proclamation and appointments followed.

Issues

  1. Whether the plebiscite limited to the territory of the proposed province violated Article XI, Section 3 of the 1973 Constitution by excluding voters of the remaining province.
  2. Whether B.P. Blg. 885 satisfied the land-area, population, and income requisites of Section 197, PD 337.
  3. Whether the petition has become moot and academic following the plebiscite and proclamation.

Petitioners’ Arguments

• Article XI, Section 3 requires a plebiscite in all “unit or units affected,” meaning both the territory to be detached and the remainder of the mother province.
• Section 197, PD 337 mandates a minimum territory of 3,500 km² and other requisites, which the new province did not meet (actual area ≈2,765 km²).
• Exclusion of three-quarters of Negros Occidental voters is unconstitutional.

Respondents’ Arguments

• B.P. Blg. 885 is entitled to a presumption of validity and complies with PD 337 by declaring its territory to be over 4,000 km² “more or less.”
• The phrase “unit or units affected” refers only to the areas composing the new province; voters of the rest of the parent province are not affected.
• The case is moot because the plebiscite was held and the province proclaimed and its officials appointed (fait accompli).

Court’s Analysis

• Mootness Rejected: The Court must determine the law’s constitutionality and correct any unconstitutional acts, despite subsequent proclamations.
• Constitutional Mandate: Article XI, Section 3 applies to any “province…created, divided…or boundary substantially altered,” affecting both the parent


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.