The Supreme Court ruled that all registered voters of Nueva Ecija, not just those in Cabanatuan City, must participate in the plebiscite deciding Cabanatuan City’s conversion to a Highly Urbanized City (HUC). This decision ensures that all those directly affected by significant local government changes have a voice, reinforcing the principle of democratic participation in local governance.

Cabanatuan’s Leap to HUC Status: Who Gets a Say in Redrawing the Map?

This case arose from a dispute over who should participate in the plebiscite for Cabanatuan City’s conversion from a component city to a Highly Urbanized City (HUC). The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) initially resolved that only registered residents of Cabanatuan City should vote, citing Section 453 of the Local Government Code (LGC). However, the Governor of Nueva Ecija argued that the entire province should participate, referencing Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, which requires a plebiscite in the political units directly affected by changes to local government units (LGUs).

The core legal question was whether the phrase “political units directly affected” includes the entire province of Nueva Ecija, or only Cabanatuan City. This hinges on how one interprets both the constitutional provision and the specific provision in the Local Government Code. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Governor, leading to a significant ruling on voter participation in local government conversions.

At the heart of the legal debate are two key provisions. Section 10, Article X of the Constitution states:

Section 10, Article X. – No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.

Conversely, Section 453 of the LGC stipulates:

Section 453. Duty to Declare Highly Urbanized Status. – It shall be the duty of the President to declare a city as highly urbanized within thirty (30) days after it shall have met the minimum requirements prescribed in the immediately preceding Section, upon proper application therefor and ratification in a plebiscite by the qualified voters therein.

The Supreme Court reconciled these provisions by emphasizing the supremacy of the Constitution. The Court stated, “Hornbook doctrine is that neither the legislative, the executive, nor the judiciary has the power to act beyond the Constitution’s mandate. The Constitution is supreme; any exercise of power beyond what is circumscribed by the Constitution is ultra vires and a nullity.” Given this, the Court had to determine if Section 453 was in conflict with the Constitution.

The Court underscored that while the power to create, divide, or alter boundaries of LGUs is legislative, the Constitution allows for delegation of this power under specific conditions. These conditions include meeting criteria in the LGC and securing approval via a plebiscite in the affected political units. Consequently, the President’s role under Section 453 is ministerial, triggered once a city meets the requirements for HUC status, thereby initiating the plebiscite process.

A key point of contention was whether converting a city to an HUC constitutes a “substantial alteration of boundaries” under Section 10, Article X of the Constitution. The Court ruled affirmatively, explaining that “substantial alteration of boundaries” extends beyond physical boundaries to include political boundaries. The conversion of Cabanatuan City into an HUC would result in the province losing territorial jurisdiction and oversight powers over the city. “Verily, the upward conversion of a component city, in this case Cabanatuan City, into an HUC will come at a steep price. It can be gleaned from the above-cited rule that the province will inevitably suffer a corresponding decrease in territory brought about by Cabanatuan City’s gain of independence.”

Building on this, the Court addressed the interpretation of “political units directly affected.” Drawing from previous cases like Tan v. COMELEC, it emphasized that the impact on economic and political rights is crucial in determining which LGUs are directly affected. The Court found that Nueva Ecija would experience a reduction in its Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and taxing jurisdiction due to Cabanatuan City’s independence. It also stated, “Clear as crystal is that the province of Nueva Ecija will suffer a substantial reduction of its share in IRA once Cabanatuan City attains autonomy. In view of the economic impact of Cabanatuan City’s conversion, petitioner Umali’s contention, that its effect on the province is not only direct but also adverse, deserves merit.”

The province would also lose administrative supervision over the city. With the city’s newfound autonomy, it will be free from the oversight powers of the province, which, in effect, reduces the territorial jurisdiction of the latter. What once formed part of Nueva Ecija will no longer be subject to supervision by the province. The registered voters of the city will no longer be entitled to vote for and be voted upon as provincial officials.

The Court addressed concerns that requiring the entire province to participate would set a dangerous precedent, leading to the failure of cities to convert. It stated, “It is unfathomable how the province can be deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right of suffrage in a matter that is potentially deleterious to its economic viability and could diminish the rights of its constituents.”

Therefore, the Supreme Court declared that COMELEC’s resolutions limiting the plebiscite to Cabanatuan City residents were null and void, mandating that all qualified voters of Nueva Ecija participate in the plebiscite.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether all registered voters of Nueva Ecija, or only those in Cabanatuan City, should participate in the plebiscite for Cabanatuan City’s conversion to a Highly Urbanized City (HUC). This involved interpreting the constitutional and statutory requirements for plebiscites related to local government unit changes.
What is a Highly Urbanized City (HUC)?	A Highly Urbanized City (HUC) is a city with a minimum population of 200,000 inhabitants and an annual income of at least Fifty Million Pesos, making it independent of the province where it is geographically located.
What does the Constitution say about LGUs’ boundaries?	Section 10, Article X of the Constitution requires that any creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units must be approved by a majority of votes in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
Why did the Governor of Nueva Ecija challenge the COMELEC resolution?	The Governor challenged the COMELEC resolution because he believed that the conversion of Cabanatuan City would directly and adversely affect the entire province of Nueva Ecija, thus entitling all registered voters of the province to participate in the plebiscite.
What did the COMELEC initially decide?	The COMELEC initially decided that only registered residents of Cabanatuan City should participate in the plebiscite, based on its interpretation of Section 453 of the Local Government Code.
How did the Supreme Court interpret “political units directly affected”?	The Supreme Court interpreted “political units directly affected” to include any LGU that would experience a material change in its economic or political rights as a result of the proposed change. In this case, it included the entire province of Nueva Ecija.
What were the economic impacts on Nueva Ecija if Cabanatuan became an HUC?	The economic impacts on Nueva Ecija included a reduction in the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) share, as well as a loss of shares in provincial taxes imposed within Cabanatuan City.
What were the political impacts on Nueva Ecija if Cabanatuan became an HUC?	The political impacts included the loss of administrative supervision over Cabanatuan City, as well as the inability of Cabanatuan City residents to vote for provincial officials.
What was the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court ruled that the entire province of Nueva Ecija should participate in the plebiscite, declaring the COMELEC resolutions limiting participation to Cabanatuan City residents as null and void.

This ruling underscores the importance of inclusive participation in decisions that affect local governance and resource allocation. By ensuring that all those directly impacted have a voice, the decision reinforces democratic principles and aims to prevent unintended consequences from local government restructuring.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.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: Aurelio M. Umali vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203974, April 22, 2014