CASE 1

MIRANDA VS AGUIRRE
G.R. No. 133064 September 16 1999 Digested by: Mendy
PUNO, J.:

This is a petition for a writ of prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction assailing the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8528 converting the City of Santiago, Isabela from an
independent component city to a component city.

FACTS:
 May 5, 1994, RA No. 7720 which converted the municipality of Santiago, Isabela into an independent
component city was signed into law.
 July 4,1994, RA No. 7720 was approved by the people of Santiago in a plebiscite.
 February 14,1998, RA No. 8528 was enacted by the Congress and it amended RA No. 7720 that
practically downgraded the City of Santiago from an independent component city to a component city.
 Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA No. 8528 for the lack of provision to submit the law for
the ratification by the people of Santiago in a proper plebiscite.
 Petitioner Jose Miranda was the mayor of Santiago at the time of the filing of petition at bar. Petitioner
Manuel Afiado is the President of the Liga ng mga Barangay ng Santiago City. While Petitioners Dirige,
Cabuyadao, and Babaran were residents of Santiago City.
 Respondent provincial officials of Isabela defended the constitutionality of RA No. 8528 saying that the
said act merely reclassified the City of Santiago from an independent component city into a
component city. It allegedly did not involve any “creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial
alteration of boundaries of local government units,” therefore, a plebiscite of the people of Santiago is
unnecessary.
 An intervenor, member of provincial board also urged the petitioners lacked of locus standi and
argued that the Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991 do not require a plebiscite to
approve a law.
 Petitioners filed a reply to meet the arguments of the respondents and the intervenor. They defended
their standing since, under ancient rule the constitutionality of a law can only be challenged by one
who will sustain a direct injury as a result of its enforcement. Therefore the lacked of locus standi
cannot succeed. They also stressed the changes that would affect the city as a result of
reclassification.

ISSUEs: Whether or not, RA 8528 is unconstitutional.

RULING:
 Yes. RA No. 8528 is declared unconstitutional. When an amendment of the law involves creation,
merger, division, abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units, a
plebiscite in the political units directly affected is mandatory. Petitioners are directly affected in the
implementation of RA No. 8528. Miranda was the mayor of Santiago City, Afiado was the President of
the Sangguniang Liga, together with 3 other petitioners were all residents and voters in the City of
Santiago. It is their right to be heard in the conversion of their city through a plebiscite to be
conducted by the COMELEC. Thus, denial of their right in RA No. 8528 gives them proper standing to
strike down the law as unconstitutional.

Sec. 1 of Art. VIII of the Constitution states that: the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instru-mentality of the Government.