G.R. No. 55628 . March 2, 1984.
GOVERNOR ZOSIMO J. PAREDES and MAYOR MARIO W. CHILAGAN, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MAYOYAO, IFUGAO, Respondents.

FACTS

This is a declaratory relief proceeding treated as a special civil action for prohibition. The case arose from a proclamation by the President directing a plebiscite in eight specified barangays within the Municipality of Mayoyao, Ifugao, to determine if they should constitute a new Municipality of Aguinaldo, pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 86. The Commission on Elections was tasked to supervise this plebiscite. Petitioners, the incumbent Governor of Ifugao and Mayor of Mayoyao, challenged the constitutionality of BP 86. They argued it violated Article XI, Section 3 of the 1973 Constitution, which required plebiscite approval by “the unit or units affected” for the creation of a municipality. Petitioners contended that all voters of the entire Municipality of Mayoyao, not just those in the eight barangays, constituted the “unit affected” and must therefore participate in the plebiscite.

ISSUE

Who constitutes the “unit or units affected” under Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution , whose approval via plebiscite is required for the creation of a new municipality from barangays of an existing one? Specifically, should the plebiscite include only the voters of the barangays to be separated, or all voters of the parent municipality?

RULING

The Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Fernando, dismissed the petition and sustained the respondents’ position. The Court ruled that the “units affected” were exclusively the barangays proposed to be separated to form the new municipality. The legal logic is anchored on constitutional construction and the principle of local autonomy. While the constitutional phrase carried an element of ambiguity, the Court adopted the interpretation that avoids a finding of unconstitutionality, in line with the presumption of statutory validity. More decisively, the ruling is grounded on the fundamental state policy to guarantee and promote the autonomy of local government units, especially barangays, as self-reliant communities. The creation of a new municipality imposes new responsibilities and burdens specifically on the inhabitants of the constituent barangays; thus, it is their will alone that must be ascertained. To include voters from the remaining barangays of the parent municipality could allow a numerically superior group, possibly for selfish reasons, to frustrate the desired autonomy of the separating barangays, thereby contravening the constitutional preference for local self-determination. The Court found this interpretation consistent with the intent to foster grassroots development and autonomy.