025 Tan V Comelec
025 Tan V Comelec
025 Tan V Comelec
COMELEC
Prompted by the enactment of BP 885, petitioners filed with the SC a case for
Prohibition to stop the COMELEC from conducting the plebiscite pursuant to
and in the implementation of the said law, which was scheduled on Jan. 3,
1986.
Petitioners contention:
o BP 885 is unconstitutional and it is not in complete accord
with the Local Government Code as in Article XI, Section 3 of
our Constitution
Due to the constraints brought about by the Christmas holidays during which
the Court was in recess and unable to timely consider the petition, the
petitioners on Jan. 4, 19886, filed a supplemental pleading averring that the
plebiscite sought to be restrained was held on Jan. 3, as scheduled, but there
are still issues raised affecting the legality, constitutionality and validity of
such exercise which should be resolved by the SC, such as the plebiscite was
confined only to the inhabitants of the territory of Negros del Norte.
Because of the exclusions of the voters from the rest of the province of
the Negros Occidental, petitioners changed their petitions prayer to
the end that COMELEC hold in abeyance the issuance of any official
proclamation of the results of the plebiscite.
It can be plainly seen that there be first obtained the approval of a majority of
votes in the plebiscite in the unit or units affected whenever a province is
created, divided or merged and there is substantial alteration of the
boundaries.
Plain and simple logic will demonstrate than that two political
units would be affected:
(It should be noted the unexplained changes made when Parliamentary Bill No.
3644 was enacted into BP 885):
Parliamentary Bill No. 3644 provided, plebiscite shall be
conducted in the areas affected, which was changed into
plebiscite shall be conducted in the proposed new province which are
the areas affected, in BP 885.
The Court further said that it is now time to set aside the equivocations and
the indecisive pronouncements in the adverted case of Paredes vs. the
Honorable Executive Secretary. It should not be taken as doctrinal or
evidently
is
plurality
of
areas
to