Cagas v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 209185; October 25, 2013)
CASE DIGEST: MARC DOUGLAS IV C. CAGAS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS represented by its CHAIRMAN ATTY. SIXTO BRILLANTES JR. and the PROVINCIAL ELECTION OFFICER OF DAVAO DEL SUR, represented by ATTY. MA. FEBES BARLAAN. (G.R. No. 209185; October 25, 2013).
FACTS: Cagas, while he was representative of the first legislative district of Davao del Sur, filed with Hon. Franklin Bautista, then representative of the second legislative district of the same province, House Bill No. 4451 (H.B. No. 4451), a bill creating the province of Davao Occidental. H.B. No. 4451 was signed into law as Republic Act No. 10360 (R.A. No. 10360), the Charter of the Province of Davao Occidental.
Section 46 of R.A. No. 10360 provides for the date of the holding of a plebiscite.
Sec. 46. Plebiscite. The Province of Davao Occidental shall be created, as provided for in this Charter, upon approval by the majority of the votes cast by the voters of the affected areas in a plebiscite to be conducted and supervised by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) within sixty (60) days from the date of the effectivity of this Charter.
As early as 27 November 2012, prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 10360, the COMELEC suspended the conduct of all plebiscites as a matter of policy and in view of the preparations for the 13 May 2013 National and Local Elections. During a meeting held on 31 July 2013, the COMELEC decided to hold the plebiscite for the creation of Davao Occidental simultaneously with the 28 October 2013 Barangay Elections to save on expenses.
Cagas filed a petition for prohibition, contending that the COMELEC is without authority to amend or modify section 46 of RA 10360 by mere resolution because it is only Congress who can do so thus, COMELEC's act of suspending the plebiscite is unconstitutional.
ISSUE: Was COMELEC's act unconstitutional?
HELD: The Constitution grants the COMELEC the power to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall."The COMELEC has exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly and honest elections. The text and intent of Section 2(1) of Article IX(C) is to give COMELEC "all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections."
The right of suffrage should prevail over mere scheduling mishaps in holding elections or plebiscites.
The tight time frame in the enactment, signing into law, and effectivity of R.A. No. 10360 on 5 February 2013, coupled with the subsequent conduct of the National and Local Elections on 13 May 2013 as mandated by the Constitution, rendered impossible the holding of a plebiscite for the creation of the province of Davao Occidental on or before 6 April 2013 as scheduled in R.A. No. 10360. We also take judicial notice of the COMELEC's burden in the accreditation and registration of candidates for the Party-List Elections. The logistic and financial impossibility of holding a plebiscite so close to the National and Local Elections is unforeseen and unexpected, a cause analogous to force majeure and administrative mishaps covered in Section 5 of B.P. Blg. 881. The COMELEC is justified, and did not act with grave abuse of discretion, in postponing the holding of the plebiscite for the creation of the province of Davao Occidental to 28 October 2013 to synchronize it with the Barangay Elections.
To comply with the 60-day period to conduct the plebiscite then, as insisted, petitioner would have the COMELEC hold off all of its tasks for the National and Local Elections. If COMELEC abandoned any of its tasks or did not strictly follow the timetable for the accomplishment of these tasks then it could have put in serious jeopardy the conduct of the May 2013 National and Local Elections. The COMELEC had to focus all its attention and concentrate all its manpower and other resources on its preparation for the May 2013 National and Local Elections, and to ensure that it would not be derailed, it had to defer the conduct of all plebiscites including that of R.A. No. 10360. DENIED.
FACTS: Cagas, while he was representative of the first legislative district of Davao del Sur, filed with Hon. Franklin Bautista, then representative of the second legislative district of the same province, House Bill No. 4451 (H.B. No. 4451), a bill creating the province of Davao Occidental. H.B. No. 4451 was signed into law as Republic Act No. 10360 (R.A. No. 10360), the Charter of the Province of Davao Occidental.
Section 46 of R.A. No. 10360 provides for the date of the holding of a plebiscite.
Sec. 46. Plebiscite. The Province of Davao Occidental shall be created, as provided for in this Charter, upon approval by the majority of the votes cast by the voters of the affected areas in a plebiscite to be conducted and supervised by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) within sixty (60) days from the date of the effectivity of this Charter.
As early as 27 November 2012, prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 10360, the COMELEC suspended the conduct of all plebiscites as a matter of policy and in view of the preparations for the 13 May 2013 National and Local Elections. During a meeting held on 31 July 2013, the COMELEC decided to hold the plebiscite for the creation of Davao Occidental simultaneously with the 28 October 2013 Barangay Elections to save on expenses.
Cagas filed a petition for prohibition, contending that the COMELEC is without authority to amend or modify section 46 of RA 10360 by mere resolution because it is only Congress who can do so thus, COMELEC's act of suspending the plebiscite is unconstitutional.
ISSUE: Was COMELEC's act unconstitutional?
HELD: The Constitution grants the COMELEC the power to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall."The COMELEC has exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly and honest elections. The text and intent of Section 2(1) of Article IX(C) is to give COMELEC "all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections."
The right of suffrage should prevail over mere scheduling mishaps in holding elections or plebiscites.
The tight time frame in the enactment, signing into law, and effectivity of R.A. No. 10360 on 5 February 2013, coupled with the subsequent conduct of the National and Local Elections on 13 May 2013 as mandated by the Constitution, rendered impossible the holding of a plebiscite for the creation of the province of Davao Occidental on or before 6 April 2013 as scheduled in R.A. No. 10360. We also take judicial notice of the COMELEC's burden in the accreditation and registration of candidates for the Party-List Elections. The logistic and financial impossibility of holding a plebiscite so close to the National and Local Elections is unforeseen and unexpected, a cause analogous to force majeure and administrative mishaps covered in Section 5 of B.P. Blg. 881. The COMELEC is justified, and did not act with grave abuse of discretion, in postponing the holding of the plebiscite for the creation of the province of Davao Occidental to 28 October 2013 to synchronize it with the Barangay Elections.
To comply with the 60-day period to conduct the plebiscite then, as insisted, petitioner would have the COMELEC hold off all of its tasks for the National and Local Elections. If COMELEC abandoned any of its tasks or did not strictly follow the timetable for the accomplishment of these tasks then it could have put in serious jeopardy the conduct of the May 2013 National and Local Elections. The COMELEC had to focus all its attention and concentrate all its manpower and other resources on its preparation for the May 2013 National and Local Elections, and to ensure that it would not be derailed, it had to defer the conduct of all plebiscites including that of R.A. No. 10360. DENIED.