G.R. No. L-5150 November 8, 1951
JOSE PRO. TEVES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

FACTS

Upon request of the City Attorney of Dumaguete City, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) rendered an opinion on August 24, 1951, holding that the qualified voters of Dumaguete City cannot vote for the provincial governor and members of the provincial board of Negros Oriental. In this special action for mandamus, a group of qualified and registered voters of Dumaguete City, petitioners, allege that the COMELEC, in pursuance of its opinion, has refused to provide the necessary paraphernalia for the residents of said city to vote in the election to be held on November 13, 1951, for the provincial governor and the members of the provincial board of Negros Oriental. They pray that the COMELEC be ordered to provide said paraphernalia. Petitioners contend that since the charter of Dumaguete City (Republic Act No. 327, approved July 15, 1948) is silent as to the right of its qualified voters to participate in the election of provincial officials of Negros Oriental, and as said voters are residents of this province, they are entitled to vote for said provincial officials.

ISSUE

Whether the qualified voters of Dumaguete City have the right to vote for the provincial governor and members of the provincial board of Negros Oriental.

RULING

The Supreme Court, en banc, dismissed the petition. The Court ruled that the creation of Dumaguete City made it a political entity separate from and independent of the province of Negros Oriental. The Court noted that the charters of other cities either expressly prohibit (e.g., Bacolod, Cabanatuan, Legaspi, Naga, Ormoc) or expressly grant (e.g., Cagayan de Oro, Butuan, Cavite, Iloilo, Calbayog, Lipa, San Pablo, Dagupan) the right of city residents to vote for provincial officials. The silence in the Dumaguete City charter, in light of this legislative practice, was interpreted as an omission intended to deny such right. The Court emphasized that no useful end would be served by allowing city voters to participate in electing provincial officials when the province has ceased to have governmental jurisdiction over the city. The Court pointed to Section 89 of the charter, which provides that “until otherwise provided by law, the City of Dumaguete shall continue as part of the first representative district of the Province of Oriental Negros,” as an express exception that reiterates the general rule of separation for other purposes, meaning Congress intended that city inhabitants may vote for their congressional representative but not for provincial officials. The Court also noted that on September 2, 1947, the COMELEC had held that electors of Davao City (whose charter was also silent) could not vote for provincial officials, and it was logical to suppose Congress was familiar with this ruling when it enacted the Dumaguete City charter in 1948. Consequently, the COMELEC had no duty to provide the election paraphernalia, and mandamus would not lie.
DISSENTING OPINIONS:
Justice Feria (with Justice Tuason concurring) dissented, arguing that: (1) The COMELEC has no jurisdiction to decide the right to vote, as it is a judicial question involving the constitutional right of suffrage, not merely an administrative question; (2) The silence of the charter should be construed as preserving the status quo, allowing residents to continue voting for provincial officials, especially since Section 89 states the city continues as part of the first representative district of Negros Oriental, implying it remains part of the province for purposes beyond congressional representation; (3) The city is not completely separate from the province, as provincial governmental functions (e.g., roads, bridges, water supply, courts, schools) still benefit city inhabitants; (4) The COMELEC’s 1947 ruling on Davao City does not constitute a binding precedent, and Congress did not follow it in later charters like Naga, Legaspi, and Cabanatuan, which expressly denied the right. Justice Padilla, in a separate dissent, concurred with Justice Feria and added that the absence of an express prohibition in the Dumaguete charter gives rise to the presumption that Congress intended to preserve the status quo of the electors’ voting rights.