TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that residents of highly urbanized cities (HUCs) are not entitled to vote in plebiscites for the division of provinces to which they previously belonged. The decision stemmed from a petition challenging the exclusion of Puerto Princesa City voters from the plebiscite for the division of Palawan into three provinces. The Court emphasized that upon becoming an HUC, Puerto Princesa became politically and fiscally independent from Palawan, thus its residents are no longer directly affected by the province’s division. This clarifies the voting rights in local government reorganizations, affirming that HUC voters are excluded from decisions impacting the original province.

Palawan’s Partition: Do City Voters Get a Say in Dividing the Mother Province?

This case revolves around the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) No. 11259, which sought to divide the province of Palawan into three separate provinces: Palawan del Norte, Palawan Oriental, and Palawan del Sur. The law stipulated that a plebiscite, or public vote, would be conducted among the affected areas to approve the division. However, Section 54 of the law specifically excluded residents of Puerto Princesa City, a highly urbanized city (HUC), from participating in the plebiscite. This exclusion prompted a legal challenge questioning whether the voters of Puerto Princesa, once a component city of Palawan, should have a say in the division of the province, even after their city gained HUC status.

The petitioners, residents of Puerto Princesa and other Palawan municipalities, argued that RA No. 11259 violated their right to participate in public affairs and that the exclusion of Puerto Princesa voters was unconstitutional. They cited Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution, which requires that the division of a province be approved by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected. Petitioners also claimed that the law altered the sharing of natural resource proceeds, violating Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition. The Court first addressed the issue of standing, determining that while some petitioners lacked the requisite personal stake, others, as residents and registered voters of Palawan, were directly affected by the statute. The Court also addressed whether the petition was premature, clarifying that while a full constitutional review was not yet warranted, the questions of public consultation and Puerto Princesa’s voting rights were ripe for consideration.

Regarding the alleged lack of public consultation, the Court found that the legislature had consulted with the people of Palawan through their elected representatives, including municipal mayors, councilors, and members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The Court emphasized that the Constitution does not require prior public consultation as a prerequisite for the validity of a statute, and that the ultimate mode of public consultation was the plebiscite itself. This point highlights the principle of republicanism, where elected representatives voice public concerns.

The central issue was whether Puerto Princesa was a “political unit directly affected” by the division of Palawan. The Court considered several factors, including territorial alteration, political effects, and economic effects. Applying the principle of HUC independence, the Court noted that upon becoming a highly urbanized city, Puerto Princesa gained political and fiscal autonomy from Palawan. This autonomy is enshrined in Article X, Section 12 of the Constitution, which states that HUCs “shall be independent of the province.”

SEC. 452. Highly Urbanized Cities. – (c) Qualified voters of highly urbanized cities shall remain excluded from voting for elective provincial officials.

This independence manifests in several ways, including the exclusion of HUC voters from provincial elections, direct Presidential supervision over HUCs, and other distinctions provided in the Local Government Code (LGC). Because Puerto Princesa residents cannot vote for provincial officials, the Court determined that they were not directly affected by the province’s division. The Court stated that, “Puerto Princesa has become a distinct political entity independent and autonomous from the province of Palawan…[and] were properly excluded from the coverage of the plebiscite.”

The Court addressed the petitioners’ concerns about economic effects, emphasizing that the economic factors to be considered are the sharing of internal revenue allotments, budgetary allocations, and taxing powers. The Court found that as an HUC, Puerto Princesa has the power to impose its own taxes, is entitled to its own IRA, and has its own share in natural resources. Therefore, the Court held that Puerto Princesa had become fiscally autonomous from the province, reinforcing the decision to exclude its voters from the plebiscite. The Court dismissed concerns about broader economic impacts as policy matters outside its purview.

FAQs

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Del Rosario v. COMELEC reaffirms the political and fiscal independence of highly urbanized cities from their respective provinces, particularly regarding plebiscites for provincial division. The Court prioritized adherence to constitutional and statutory provisions outlining the autonomous status of HUCs, ensuring a clear framework for future local government reorganizations.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Cynthia S. Del Rosario, et al. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 247610, March 10, 2020