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. L-17527)

Key Individuals and Context

  • Petitioners: Patricio Tan, Felix Ferrer, Juan M. Hagad, Sergio Hilado, Virgilio Gaston, Conchita Minaya, Teresita Estacio, Desiderio Deferia, Romeo Gamboa, Alberto Lacson, Fe Hofilena, Emily Jison, Nieves Lopez, Cecilia Magsaysay (residents of Negros Occidental).
  • Respondents: Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the Provincial Treasurer of Negros Occidental.
  • Geographic focus: Province of Negros Occidental and the territory proposed as the Province of Negros del Norte (comprising Cities of Silay, Cadiz, San Carlos and municipalities including Calatrava, Toboso, Escalante, Sagay, Manapla, Victorias, E.R. Magalona and Don Salvador Benedicto).

Petitioner, Respondent, Key Dates

  • Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 approved and purported to take effect on December 3, 1985.
  • Petition for prohibition filed December 23, 1985.
  • Plebiscite held January 3, 1986 (petitioners sought to enjoin this plebiscite but were in Court recess).
  • Supplemental petition filed January 4, 1986 asking, inter alia, that COMELEC desist from proclaiming results and that another plebiscite including all affected voters be ordered.

Applicable Law and Precedent

  • Constitutional provision applied: 1973 Constitution, Article XI, Section 3: no province, city, municipality or barrio may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered except in accordance with the criteria in the local government code and subject to approval by majority vote in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected.
  • Statutory reference: Section 197 of the Local Government Code (P.D. 337) — requisites for creation of a province (minimum territory 3,500 sq. km., population 500,000, and average annual income certified).
  • Prior decisions considered: Governor Zosimo Paredes v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 55628, March 2, 1984) and Emilio C. Lopez, Jr. v. Commission on Elections (L-56012, May 31, 1985).

Statutory Scheme Challenged (Batas Pambansa Blg. 885)

  • Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 created Negros del Norte, designated its component cities and municipalities, set Cadiz as seat of government, required a plebiscite “in the proposed new province which are the areas affected” within 120 days, and assigned COMELEC to conduct the plebiscite with expenses charged to local funds.
  • Petitioners alleged unconstitutionality because the statute limited the plebiscite to the areas constituting the proposed new province and excluded voters in the remaining portion of Negros Occidental. Petitioners also contested compliance with the Local Government Code requisites (notably territory).

Procedural Posture and Respondents’ Arguments

  • COMELEC and the Provincial Treasurer filed comments defending B.P. Blg. 885 as presumptively valid, asserting compliance with P.D. 337 requisites and arguing that the plebiscite’s limited electorate was permissible under prior case law (Paredes). They further contended the matter was moot after the plebiscite and proclamation.
  • Petitioners amended reliefs to seek a prohibition preventing proclamation, a mandamus ordering a new plebiscite including all qualified voters of Negros Occidental, a declaration that the January 3, 1986 plebiscite was legally null, and a prohibition against release of funds. The Court noted the Provincial Treasurer had not disbursed funds.

Factual Determinations on Territory and Area Evidence

  • Parliamentary Bill No. 3644 (initial draft) stated the affected area at 285,656 hectares (2,856.56 sq. km.); enacted B.P. Blg. 885 recited a territorial figure of 4,019.95 sq. km. (more or less).
  • Petitioners submitted certified land-area figures from the National Census and Statistics Office and the Provincial Treasurer’s certification showing component localities’ land areas which, when aggregated and adjusted (including one-fourth of Murcia’s area added to Don Salvador Benedicto), yielded approximately 2,765.4–2,856.56 sq. km. Respondents did not controvert petitioners’ area computations.

Core Constitutional Issue: Meaning of “unit or units affected”

  • Article XI, Section 3 requires approval by majority vote in a plebiscite “in the unit or units affected.” The Court concluded that creation of a new province by excision necessarily substantially alters the boundaries of the parent province and therefore affects two distinct political units: (1) the parent province (Negros Occidental) and (2) the territory proposed to form the new province (Negros del Norte).
  • The Court held that both units are “affected” and must participate in the plebiscite. Limiting voting to the seceding area alone contravenes the constitutional command because the parent province’s boundaries, territory, economy and electorate are materially affected by the division. Legislative limitation of the plebiscite electorate by B.P. Blg. 885 therefore conflicted with the Constitution.

Precedent Revisited and Abandoned

  • The Court reviewed earlier authority (Paredes) that had allowed plebiscites to be confined to the seceding barangay(s) in the municipal context, noting ambiguity in the phrase “unit or units affected” and prior discretionary treatment.
  • Because the present controversy involved the creation of a new province (the largest political unit) with substantial territorial, economic and administrative consequences, the Court concluded that the earlier deference to exclusionary plebiscites in smaller-unit contexts should be abandoned. The decision expressly abandons the Paredes line insofar as it sanctioned exclusion of voters of an existing political unit from plebiscites determining division of that unit.

Legislative Drafting Change and Its Inadequacy

  • The Court observed that the draft Parliamentary Bill had used plural language (“areas affected”), which is consistent with inclusion of more than one participating unit, while the enacted statute’s phrasing “in the proposed new province which are the areas affected” improperly narrowed the electorate to the seceding territory. The Court regarded that narrowing as unjustified legislative alteration that cannot override the constitutional requirement.

Mootness, Fait Accompli, and Judicial Duty

  • Respondents’ argument that the case was moot because the plebiscite had been held and the new province proclaimed was rejected. The Court refused to accept “fait accompli” as a basis to decline judicial review, emphasizing the judiciary’s duty to correct constitutional violations and to deter future enactments that would seek to create irreversible facts on the ground to evade judicial scrutiny. The Court thus entertained the petition despite the plebiscite and proclamation having already occurred.

Interpretation of Section 197 (Territory vs. Land Area)

  • Respondents urged that Section 197’s territorial minimum (3,500 sq. km.) should include territorial waters (e.g., three-mile marginal sea). The Court rejected this contention and held that in context Section 197’s use of “territory” clearly refers to land area. The statute’s clause that “the territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two or more islands” demonstrates the legislative reference to masses of land. The Court reasoned that including water would produce absurd results and contravene the o

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms