CAWALING vs.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 146319, October 26, 2001

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On August 16, 2000, former President Joseph E. Estrada signed into law R.A. No. 8806,
an "Act Creating the City of Sorsogon By Merging The Municipalities Of Bacon And Sorsogon
In The Province Of Sorsogon, And Appropriating Funds Therefor."

Pursuant to Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, the Commission on Elections

(COMELEC) conducted a plebiscite on December 16, 2000 in the Municipalities of Bacon and
Sorsogon and submitted the matter for ratification. Consequently, the Plebiscite City Board of
Canvassers (PCBC) proclaimed the creation of the City of Sorsogon as having been ratified and
approved by the majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Invoking his right as a resident and taxpayer of the former Municipality of Sorsogon,
Benjamin E. Cawaling, Jr. filed on January 2, 2001 the present petition for certiorari seeking the
annulment of the plebiscite alleging that the plebiscite was conducted beyond the required 120-
day period from the approval of R.A. 8806, in violation of Section 54 thereof and that
Respondent COMELEC failed to observe the legal requirement of twenty (20) day extensive
information campaign in the Municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon before conducting the
plebiscite.

Two days after filing the said action, or on January 4, 2001, petitioner instituted another
petition for prohibition seeking to enjoin the further implementation of R.A. No. 8806 for being
unconstitutional, contending that the creation of Sorsogon City by merging two municipalities
violates Section 450(a) of the Local Government Code of 1991 (in relation to Section 10, Article
X of the Constitution) which requires that only "a municipality or a cluster of barangays may be
converted into a component city and that R.A. No. 8806 contains two (2) subjects, namely, the
(a) creation of the City of Sorsogon and the (b) abolition of the Municipalities of Bacon and
Sorsogon, thereby violating the "one subject-one bill" rule prescribed by Section 26(1), Article
VI of the Constitution.

Consolidated into this case are the two (2) separate petitions challenging the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8806 which created the City of Sorsogon and the validity
of the plebiscite conducted pursuant thereto.

ISSUES

I. Whether or not the plebiscite conducted by the COMELEC for the ratification of the
creation of Sorsogon City is valid?
II. Whether or not the COMELEC failed to conduct an extensive information campaign on
the proposed Sorsogon cityhood 20 days prior to the scheduled plebiscite as required by
Article 11 (b.4.ii), Rule II of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Code?
RULING

I. Yes. The plebiscite conducted by the COMELEC for the ratification of the creation of
Sorsogon City is valid.

Section 54 of R.A. No. 8806 which provides that the City of Sorsogon shall acquire
corporate existence upon the ratification of its creation by a majority of the votes cast by the
qualified voters in a plebiscite to be conducted in the present municipalities of Bacon
and Sorsogon within one hundred twenty (120) days from its approval.

However, Section 65 of the Act states that it shall take effect upon its publication in at
least two (2) newspapers of general and local circulation.

The law was first published in the August 25, 2000 issue of TODAY a newspaper of
general circulation. Then on September 01, 2000, it was published in a newspaper of local
circulation in the Province of Sorsogon. Thus, the publication of the law was completed on
September 1, 2000.

In addition, the last sentence of Section 10 of the Code provides that plebiscite shall be
conducted by the Commission on Elections within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date
of the effectivity of the law or ordinance affecting such action, unless said law or ordinance fixes
another date. Quite plainly, the last sentence of Section 10 mandates that the plebiscite shall be
conducted within 120 days from the date of the effectivity of the law, not from its approval.
While the same provision allows a law or ordinance to fix "another date" for conducting a
plebiscite, still such date must be reckoned from the date of the effectivity of the law.

Consequently, the word "approval" in Section 54 of R.A. No. 8806, which should be read
together with Section 65 (effectivity of the Act) thereof, could only mean "effectivity" as used
and contemplated in Section 10 of the Code. This construction is in accord with the fundamental
rule that all provisions of the laws relating to the same subject should be read together and
reconciled to avoid inconsistency or repugnancy to established jurisprudence.

II. No. The COMELEC did not fail to conduct an extensive information campaign on the
proposed Sorsogon cityhood 20 days prior to the scheduled plebiscite as required by
Article 11 (b.4.ii), Rule II of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Code.

No proof whatsoever was presented by petitioner to substantiate his allegation.

Consequently, the Court sustains the presumption that the COMELEC regularly performed or
complied with its duty under the law in conducting the plebiscite.