G.R. No. 234228 , February 25, 2025
JUSTO Q. SINAG, ET AL., PETITIONERS, vs. THE HONORABLE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN NG BATANGAS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

In 1997, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas enacted Ordinance No. 05, s. 1997 (First Ordinance) abolishing Barangay San Rafael and merging it with Barangay Dacanlao, and ordered the COMELEC to conduct a plebiscite. The plebiscite was held on February 28, 1998, with a majority approving the abolition. However, prior to the plebiscite, residents of Barangay San Rafael filed a case (Civil Case No. 3442) assailing the First Ordinance’s validity. In G.R. No. 132603 , the Supreme Court ruled that the execution of the plebiscite results was deferred pending the outcome of Civil Case No. 3442. The RTC later upheld the First Ordinance’s validity, but this was appealed to the CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 88994). During the pendency of this appeal, on August 6, 2009, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan enacted Ordinance No. 002, s. 2009 (Assailed Ordinance), repealing the First Ordinance. The CA subsequently dismissed CA-G.R. CV No. 88994 as moot due to the Assailed Ordinance’s enactment. Petitioners, residents and officials of Barangay Dacanlao, filed a case seeking to nullify the Assailed Ordinance. The RTC dismissed the case, a decision affirmed by the CA, leading to the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Assailed Ordinance (Ordinance No. 002, s. 2009), which repealed the ordinance abolishing Barangay San Rafael, is void for failing to comply with the constitutional and statutory requirements for the creation of a barangay.

RULING

The dissenting opinion argues that the Assailed Ordinance is VALID. It posits that the Assailed Ordinance did not need to comply with the Local Government Code’s requirements for creating a local government unit because it did not create a barangay. Barangay San Rafael never ceased to exist as a legal entity because its abolition was never fully implemented. The concurrence of a valid law (the First Ordinance) and a favorable plebiscite result is required to abolish an LGU. Here, while a plebiscite was held, the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 132603 deferred the execution of its results pending the final resolution of the case challenging the First Ordinance. Since that case was still on appeal when the Assailed Ordinance was enacted, the condition for implementing the plebiscite results was not met. Therefore, Barangay San Rafael was never abolished. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan, possessing delegated legislative power, validly exercised its prerogative to repeal its own enactment (the First Ordinance) before its full implementation. The Assailed Ordinance is a mere repeal, not a creation, and is thus valid. The dissent votes to dismiss the petition and affirm the CA’s decision.