G.R. No. 133064 , September 16, 1999
JOSE C. MIRANDA, ALFREDO S. DIRIGE, MANUEL H. AFIADO, MARIANO V. BABARAN and ANDRES R. CABUYADAO, petitioners, vs. HON. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, in his capacity as Executive Secretary; HON. EPIMACO VELASCO, in his capacity as Secretary of Local Government, HON. SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, in his capacity as Secretary of Budget, THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON. BENJAMIN G. DY, in his capacity as Governor of Isabela, THE HONORABLE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF ISABELA, ATTY. BALTAZAR PICIO, in his capacity as Provincial Administrator, and MR. ANTONIO CHUA, in his capacity as Provincial Treasurer, respondents, GIORGIDI B. AGGABAO, intervenor.

FACTS

This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8528 , which converted the City of Santiago from an independent component city into a component city of the Province of Isabela. The petitioners argue that such conversion requires approval in a plebiscite. The dissenting opinion of Justice Buena disagrees with the ponencia’s conclusion that R.A. No. 8528 is unconstitutional.

ISSUE

Whether Republic Act No. 8528 , which downgraded the City of Santiago from an independent component city to a component city of Isabela, is unconstitutional for its failure to require a plebiscite for its effectivity.

RULING

Justice Buena, in his dissenting opinion, voted to dismiss the petition and uphold the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8528 for the following reasons:
1. The 1987 Constitution (Sec. 10, Art. X) and the Local Government Code (Sec. 10, Chap. 2 of R.A. No. 7160 ) explicitly require a plebiscite only for the “creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries” of a local government unit. The term “conversion” is not included in these lists. While the Implementing Rules of the Local Government Code added “conversion,” an administrative rule cannot expand the terms of the basic law it seeks to implement. Furthermore, based on Senator Pimentel’s definition, “conversion” refers to the elevation or upgrading of an LGU (e.g., municipality to city), not a downgrading as in this case.
2. It is settled jurisprudence that administrative rules and regulations must be in strict compliance with the legislative enactment and cannot go beyond or expand the letter and spirit of the basic law.
3. The legislative history of R.A. No. 8528 shows that the Senate Committee on Local Government initially proposed an amendment requiring a plebiscite but later decided to withdraw it. The Court should not supplant its judgment over that of Congress, a co-equal branch, by requiring a plebiscite when Congress itself deliberately chose not to include such a requirement.
4. Declaring R.A. No. 8528 unconstitutional would have disastrous ramifications on the political stability of other cities similarly situated, such as Oroquieta City and San Carlos City, which were downgraded by earlier laws ( R.A. No. 6726 and R.A. No. 6843 ) without a plebiscite requirement.
5. In case of doubt regarding a supposed constitutional breach, the presumption of constitutionality must prevail. Every effort should be made to prevent the invalidation of a law representing the will of the legislature and the executive.