GR 247610; (March, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 247610, March 10, 2020
CYNTHIA S. DEL ROSARIO, FEDERICO N. VIRGO, JR., RENATO V. BALADAD, BEATRIZ A. DIOSO, CORAZON MANALON DAVILA, LORETA N. ALSA, HIYA I. HASSAN, AND JOHN VINCENT C. COLILI, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF PALAWAN, AND THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF PALAWAN, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) No. 11259, entitled “Charter of the Provinces of Palawan del Norte, Palawan Oriental, and Palawan del Sur,” which divides the province of Palawan into three provinces. The law provides for a plebiscite for its approval. Section 54 of the law specifically states: “The residents of the City of Puerto Princesa, as a highly urbanized city, shall not be qualified to vote in the plebiscite and for candidates for provincial elective positions.” Petitioners Cynthia S. Del Rosario, Federico N. Virgo, Jr., Renato V. Baladad, Beatriz A. Dioso, and Corazon Manalon Davila are residents of Puerto Princesa City. Petitioners Loreta N. Alsa, Hiya I. Hassan, and John Vincent C. Colili are residents of municipalities within Palawan. They filed the petition as taxpayers and registered voters, seeking to declare RA No. 11259 unconstitutional and to prohibit the conduct of the plebiscite without the participation of Puerto Princesa City voters.
ISSUE
The main issues resolved by the Court are: (1) Whether the passage of RA No. 11259 violated the public’s right to participate through public hearings and consultations; and (2) Whether the disqualification of voters of Puerto Princesa City from voting in the plebiscite for the division of Palawan is contrary to Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
1. On the issue of standing, the Court held that petitioners who are residents of Puerto Princesa City lack standing as they are residents of an entity separate and autonomous from the province of Palawan since its conversion into a Highly Urbanized City (HUC). However, petitioners who are residents and registered voters of the province of Palawan have standing as they are directly affected by the division of their home province.
2. On the issue of prematurity, the Court held it was premature to rule on the constitutionality of the law in toto as most provisions would only take effect after a favorable plebiscite. The Court confined its ruling to the issues of public consultation and the participation of Puerto Princesa City voters.
3. On the issue of lack of public consultation, the Court found the petitioners’ allegations unpersuasive. The records showed the proposed division was made in consultation with the people of Palawan through their elected representatives, including municipal mayors, municipal councilors, and members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
4. On the main issue of whether Puerto Princesa City voters can participate in the plebiscite, the Court ruled they cannot. Applying the principle in Umali v. COMELEC, the Court held that when a city becomes a Highly Urbanized City (HUC), it becomes independent from the province. The residents of an HUC cease to be residents of the province. Since the division of a province under Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution requires approval by a majority of votes cast in the affected units, and Puerto Princesa City is no longer part of the province of Palawan, its voters are not part of the “political units directly affected” by the division. Therefore, Section 54 of RA No. 11259, disqualifying them from voting in the plebiscite, is constitutional.