6/22/2016 G.R. No.

L-59180

TodayisWednesday,June22,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L59180January29,1987

CLEMENTINOTORRALBAandRESOLUTIONL.RUGAY,petitioners,
vs.
THEMUNICIPALITYOFSIBAGAT,PROVINCEOFAGUSANDELSURandITSMUNICIPALOFFICERS,
respondents.

MELENCIOHERRERA,J.:

ChallengedintheinstantPetition,asviolativeofSection3,ArticleXIofthe1973Constitution,isBatasPambansa
Blg.56,enactedon1February1980,creatingtheMunicipalityofSibagat,ProvinceofAgusandelSur.Thepertinent
provisionsofBP56read:

Sec. 1. The barangays of Ilihan, Sinai, Sibagat, El Rio, Afga, Tabontabon, Perez, Magsaysay, Santa Cruz, Santa
Maria,SanIsidro,Villangit,DelRosario,AnahauanMahayahay,andSanVicente,allintheMunicipalityofBayugan,
Province of Agusan del Sur, are hereby separated from said municipality to form and constitute an independent
MunicipalityofSibagatwithoutaffectinginanymannerthelegalexistenceofthemotherMunicipalityofBayugan.

Sec. 2. The boundaries of the new Municipality of Sibagat will be: Beginning at the point of intersection of the
CabadbaranOld Bayugan and Surigao del Sur boundaries thence in a southernly direction following the Old
BayuganandCabadbaran,OldBayuganandButuanCity,OldBayuganandLasNievesboundaries,untilitreaches
thepointofintersectionofOldBayugan,EsperanzaandtheMunicipalityofLasNieves...

Sec.3.TheseatofgovernmentofthenewlycreatedmunicipalityshallbeinBarangaySibagat.

Sec.4.Exceptashereinprovided,allprovisionsoflaws,noworhereafterapplicabletoregularmunicipalitiesshall
beapplicabletothenewMunicipalityofSibagat.

Sec.5.Afterratificationbythemajorityofthevotescastinaplebiscitetobeconductedintheareaorareasaffected
within a period of ninety (90) days after the approval of this Act, the President (Prime Minister) shall appoint the
MayorandotherOfficialsofthenewMunicipalityofSibagat.

PetitionersareresidentsandtaxpayersofButuanCity,withpetitioner,ClementinoTorralba,beingamemberofthe
SangguniangPanglunsodofthesameCity.Respondentmunicipalofficersarethelocalpublicofficialsofthenew
Municipality.

Section3,ArticleXIofthe1973Constitution,saidtohavebeeninfringed,isreproducedhereunder:

Sec. 3. No province, city, municipality, or barrio may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary
substantiallyaltered,exceptinaccordancewiththecriteriaestablishedintheLocalGovernmentCode,andsubject
totheapprovalbyamajorityofthevotescastinaplebisciteintheunitorunitsaffected.

Thethrustofpetitioners'argumentisthatundertheaforequotedprovision,theLocalGovernmentCodemustfirstbe
enactedtodeterminethecriteriaforthecreation,division,merger,abolition,orsubstantialalterationoftheboundary
ofanyprovince,city,municipality,orbarrioandthatsincenoLocalGovernmentCodehadasyetbeenenactedas
of the date BP 56 was passed, that statute could not have possibly complied with any criteria when respondent
Municipalitywascreated,hence,itisnullandvoid.

It is a fact that the Local Government Code came into being only on 10 February 1983 so that when BP 56 was
enacted,thecodewasnotyetinexistence.Theevidencelikewisedisclosesthataplebiscitehadbeenconducted
amongthepeopleoftheunit/unitsaffectedbythecreationofthenewMunicipality,whoexpressedapprovalthereof
andthatofficialsofthenewlycreatedMunicipalityhadbeenappointedandhadassumedtheirrespectivepositions
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jan1987/gr_l_59180_1987.html 1/3
6/22/2016 G.R. No. L-59180
assuch.

WefindnotraceofinvalidityofBP56.TheabsenceoftheLocalGovernmentCodeatthetimeofitsenactmentdid
notcurtailnorwasitintendedtocripplelegislativecompetencetocreatemunicipalcorporations.Section3,Article
XI of the 1973 Constitution does not proscribe nor prohibit the modification of territorial and political subdivisions
beforetheenactmentoftheLocalGovernmentCode.ItcontainsnorequirementthattheLocalGovernmentCodeis
a condition sine qua non for the creation of a municipality, in much the same way that the creation of a new
municipality does not preclude the enactment of a Local Government Code. What the Constitutional provision
meansisthatoncesaidCodeisenacted,thecreation,modificationordissolutionoflocalgovernmentunitsshould
conform with the criteria thus laid down. In the interregnum before the enactment of such Code, the legislative
powerremainsplenaryexceptthatthecreationofthenewlocalgovernmentunitshouldbeapprovedbythepeople
concernedinaplebiscitecalledforthepurpose.

The creation of the new Municipality of Sibagat conformed to said requisite. A plebiscite was conducted and the
people of the unit/units affected endorsed and approved the creation of the new local government unit (parag. 5,
Petitionp.7,Memorandum). Infact,theconductofsaidplebisciteisnotquestionedherein.Theofficialsofthenew
lwphl@it

Municipalityhaveeffectivelytakentheiroathsofofficeandareperformingtheirfunctions.Adejureentityhasthus
beencreated.

Itisalongrecognizedprinciplethatthepowertocreateamunicipalcorporationisessentiallylegislativeinnature.In
theabsenceofanyconstitutionallimitationsalegislativebodymayCreateanycorporationitdeemsessentialforthe
moreefficientadministrationofgovernment(IMcQuillin,MunicipalCorporations,3rded.,509).Thecreationofthe
new Municipality of Sibagat was a valid exercise of legislative power then vested by the 1973 Constitution in the
InterimBatasangPambansa.

WearenotunmindfulofthecaseofTanvs.COMELEC(142SCRA727[1986]),strikingdownasunconstitutional
BP Blg. 885 creating a new province in the Island of Negros known as the Province of Negros del Norte, and
declaringtheplebisciteheldinconnectiontherewithasillegalTherearesignificantdifferences,however,inthetwo
casesamongwhichmaybementionedthefollowing.intheTancase,theLocalGovernmentCodealreadyexisted
atthetimethatthechallengedstatutewasenactedon3December1985notsointhecaseatbar.Secondly,BP
Blg.885intheTancaseconfinedtheplebiscitetothe"proposednewprovince"totheexclusionofthevotersinthe
remaining areas, in contravention of the Constitutional mandate and of the Local Government Code that the
plebisciteshouldbeheld"intheunitorunitsaffected."Incontrast,BP56specificallyprovidesforaplebiscite"inthe
areaorareasaffected."Infact,aspreviouslystated,noquestionisraisedhereinastothelegalityoftheplebiscite
conducted.Thirdly,intheTancase,eventherequisiteareaforthecreationofanewprovincewasnotcompliedwith
in BP Blg. 885. No such issue in the creation of the new municipality has been raised here. And lastly, "indecent
haste"attendedtheenactmentofBPBlg.885andtheholdingoftheplebiscitethereafterintheTancaseonthe
other hand, BP 56 creating the Municipality of Sibagat, was enacted in the normal course of legislation, and the
plebiscitewasheldwithintheperiodspecifiedinthatlaw.

WHEREFORE,thePetitionisherebydismissed.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

Teehankee,C.J.,Yap,Fernan,Narvasa,Alampay,Gutierrez,Jr.,Paras,Feliciano,Gancayco,PadillaandBidin,JJ.,
concur.

SeparateOpinions

CRUZ,J.,concurring:

Iconcurontheassumptionthattherequiredplebiscite,althoughnotquestionedhere,neverthelesscompliedwith
ArticleXI,Section3,ofthe1973Constitution,andwasdulyheld"intheunitorunitsaffected,"i.e.notonlyinthe
proposedmunicipalitybutalsointhemothermunicipality,inlinewithTanv.CommissiononElections(142SCRA
727),reversingParedesv.ExecutiveSecretary(128SCRA6)andLopezv.MetroManilaCommission(136SCRA
633) insofar as these cases held that the plebiscite could be confined only to the political unit proposed to be
created.

SeparateOpinions

CRUZ,J.,concurring:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jan1987/gr_l_59180_1987.html 2/3
6/22/2016 G.R. No. L-59180
Iconcurontheassumptionthattherequiredplebiscite,althoughnotquestionedhere,neverthelesscompliedwith
ArticleXI,Section3,ofthe1973Constitution,andwasdulyheld"intheunitorunitsaffected,"i.e.notonlyinthe
proposedmunicipalitybutalsointhemothermunicipality,inlinewithTanv.CommissiononElections(142SCRA
727),reversingParedesv.ExecutiveSecretary(128SCRA6)andLopezv.MetroManilaCommission(136SCRA
633)insofarasthesecasesheldthattheplebiscitecouldbeconfinedonlytothepoliticalunitproposedtobe
created.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jan1987/gr_l_59180_1987.html 3/3