Scribd
Upload
116 views2 pages

Cawaling vs. COMELEC: RA 8806 Validity

1. Petitioner Cawaling challenged the creation of the City of Sorsogon through the merging of the municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon, claiming RA 8806 was unconstitutional and the plebiscite conducted was null and void. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that RA 8806 was constitutional as the merger of municipalities to create a city is allowed by the constitution. The court also cannot invalidate laws based on perceptions of wisdom or practicality. 3. The plebiscite was also ruled valid as the period for conducting it should be counted from completion of publication, not approval, to ensure proper dissemination of the law as required.

Uploaded by

Milcah Lisondra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
116 views2 pages

Cawaling vs. COMELEC: RA 8806 Validity

1. Petitioner Cawaling challenged the creation of the City of Sorsogon through the merging of the municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon, claiming RA 8806 was unconstitutional and the plebiscite conducted was null and void. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that RA 8806 was constitutional as the merger of municipalities to create a city is allowed by the constitution. The court also cannot invalidate laws based on perceptions of wisdom or practicality. 3. The plebiscite was also ruled valid as the period for conducting it should be counted from completion of publication, not approval, to ensure proper dissemination of the law as required.

Uploaded by

Milcah Lisondra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

11. Cawaling vs.

COMELEC

Facts:
President Estrada signed into law RA 8806, an “Act Creating The City Of Sorsogon
By Merging The Municipalities Of Bacon And Sorsogon In The Province Of
Sorsogon, And Appropriating Funds Therefor.” A plebiscite was conducted in the
component municipalities by the COMELEC on December 16, 2000 and on
December 17, 2000, the Plebiscite City Board of Canvassers proclaimed the creation
of the City of Sorsogon as having been ratified and approved by the majority of the
votes cast in the plebiscite.

However, petitioner Cawaling assailed the plebiscite as a nullity for it was conducted
beyond the required 120-day period from the approval and he also assailed the
unconstitutionality of RA 8806 because the merging of two municipalities was in
violation of Section 450 of the Local Government Code acknowledging only “a
municipality or a cluster of barangays to be converted into a component city” and that
there is no compelling reason to create Sorsogon City. He also assailed that RA 8806
has two subjects, which is violative of the “one subject-one bill” rule of the
Constitution.

Issues:
1. WON RA 8806 is unconstitutional
2. WON the plebiscite was null and void

Ruling:
1. No, RA 8806 is constitutional. Petitioner's constricted reading of Section 450(a) of
the Code is erroneous. The phrase "A municipality or a cluster of barangays may be
converted into a component city" is not a criterion but simply one of the modes by
which a city may be created. Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, quoted earlier
and which petitioner cited in support of his posture, allows the merger of local
government units to create a province city, municipality or barangay in accordance
with the criteria established by the Code.

As for the contention that there is no compelling reason to merge the two
municipalities to create a city, the court ruled that "the judiciary does not pass upon
questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation." In the exercise of judicial
power, we are allowed only "to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable," and "may not annul an act of the political
departments simply because we feel it is unwise or impractical."

There is also no violation of the one subject-one bill rule because there is only one
subject embraced in the title of the law, that is, the creation of the City of Sorsogon.

2. No, the plebiscite is valid. The court agreed with the COMELEC when it pegged
the period not from the date of the approval of the law but from the date of completion
of the publication period. The court cited the Ruling in TANADA v ANGARA re.
importance of publication for laws to take effect. The SC said that to give Section 54 a
literal and strict interpretation would in effect make the Act effective even before its
publication, which scenario is precisely abhorred in Tañada.

You might also like