Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    A6. Tan VS COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    April Valencia
    This case concerned the enactment of a law creating the new province of Negros del Norte. The COMELEC scheduled a plebiscite for voters in the new province, but not for all voters in the parent province of Negros Occidental. The Supreme Court held that the plebiscite was unconstitutional because it did not include voters in both affected units - the new province and the parent province whose boundaries would be altered. As the plebiscite did not comply with the constitutional requirement to obtain approval from all affected units, the law creating the new province and the resulting proclamation were declared null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    A6. Tan VS COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    April Valencia
    17 views1 page
    This case concerned the enactment of a law creating the new province of Negros del Norte. The COMELEC scheduled a plebiscite for voters in the new province, but not for all voters in the parent province of Negros Occidental. The Supreme Court held that the plebiscite was unconstitutional because it did not include voters in both affected units - the new province and the parent province whose boundaries would be altered. As the plebiscite did not comply with the constitutional requirement to obtain approval from all affected units, the law creating the new province and the resulting proclamation were declared null and void.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case concerned the enactment of a law creating the new province of Negros del Norte. The COMELEC scheduled a plebiscite for voters in the new province, but not for all voters in the parent province of Negros Occidental. The Supreme Court held that the plebiscite was unconstitutional because it did not include voters in both affected units - the new province and the parent province whose boundaries would be altered. As the plebiscite did not comply with the constitutional requirement to obtain approval from all affected units, the law creating the new province and the resulting proclamation were declared null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    17 views1 page

    A6. Tan VS COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    April Valencia
    This case concerned the enactment of a law creating the new province of Negros del Norte. The COMELEC scheduled a plebiscite for voters in the new province, but not for all voters in the parent province of Negros Occidental. The Supreme Court held that the plebiscite was unconstitutional because it did not include voters in both affected units - the new province and the parent province whose boundaries would be altered. As the plebiscite did not comply with the constitutional requirement to obtain approval from all affected units, the law creating the new province and the resulting proclamation were declared null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    A6.

    Tan VS COMELEC

    FACTS:

    This petition was prompted by the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 885, An Act Creating a New
    Province in the Island of Negros to be known as the Province of Negros del Norte, effective Dec. 3, 1985.

    As required by the law COMELEC scheduled a plebiscite for January 3, 1986. Petitioners opposed, filing
    a case for Prohibition and contending that the B.P. 885 is unconstitutional because:

    (1) The voters of the parent province of Negros Occidental, other than those living within the territory of
    the new province of Negros del Norte, were not included in the plebiscite

    ISSUE:

    WON the plebiscite was legal and complied with the constitutional requisites under Article XI, Sec. 3 of
    the Consititution, which states that --

    "Sec. 3. No province, city, municipality or barrio 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 the approval by a majority of the votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected."

    HELD:

    SC held that whenever a province is created, divided or merged and there is substantial alteration of the
    boundaries, "the approval of a majority of votes in the plebiscite in the unit or units affected" must first be
    obtained.

    Two political units would be affected. The first would be the parent province of Negros Occidental
    because its boundaries would be substantially altered. The other affected entity would be composed of
    those in the area subtracted from the mother province to constitute the proposed province of Negros del
    Norte."

    When the Constitution speaks of "the unit or units affected" it means all of the people of the municipality if
    the municipality is to be divided such as in the case at bar or of the people of two or more municipalities if
    there be a merger. I see no ambiguity in the Constitutional provision.

    The Supreme Court pronounced that the plebscite held on January 3, 1986 has no legal effect for being a
    patent nullity.

    Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 is unconstitutional.

    The proclamation of the new province of Negros del Norte is null and void.

    The appointment of the officials is also null and void.

    You might also like