A Reconnaissance of Philippine Cities (Part III: The Requirement of Plebiscite in the Conversion of a City)

Legazpi City by Tods Armena

Legazpi, a scenic city over the edge of Luzon Island facing Pacific Ocean towards its east with the pulchritudinous Mayon Volcano on its background, is a component city of the province of Albay.

I have been living in this city for most of my life so I am well-acquainted with its problems, issues, and most of all, potentials. The complexity of its current problems and issues, and its potentials for further growth and development require increase in sources of funds.

As mentioned in the previous article, entitled “The Different City Varieties,” independent cities have greater sources of funds and discretion in its ordinances. These greater sources of funds will match Legazpi’s growing needs.

The city has most probably breached the 200,000 population mark needed for its HUC conversion. In 2015, it was only short of a little more than 3,000. It has an annual total income running hundreds of millions for years already, way beyond the 50 million peso income qualification for an HUC.

Having complied with two of the requirements, it only needs its residents to approve of the conversion. The residents will, of course, manifest their opinions in a plebiscite. A plebiscite is a special form of election where members of an electorate decide on an important public question. Plebiscite is expressly required by the Local Government Code before a city may officially become an HUC. (Section 453)

Meanwhile, the conversion into an ICC does not require population and income levels nor a plebiscite – at least, not explicitly provided for under any subsisting law for the moment.

Can Legazpi be converted into an ICC without a plebiscite? This question will be revealed in this article. As one reads along, this is actually a case study on the requirement of plebiscite, with Legazpi as its example. The selection of Legazpi as an example is impeccable – it is a component city with growing needs that may require conversion either as an HUC or as an ICC.

However, a spigot exists: plebiscite. Nonetheless, it is required so that residents would have a say in its conversion. As one case mentions, plebiscite is a manifestation of democracy where people directly decide the course of their locality’s future. This article is an exploration of that requirement.

Conversion into an HUC requires a plebiscite

There is no question that an HUC conversion requires plebiscite. Section 453 of the Local Government Code is categorical about this, explicitly stating that this is required:

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.

Scope of plebiscite in an HUC conversion (Umali v. Comelec, decided April 22, 2014)

In the aforementioned provision, the plebiscite’s scope is likewise clear: “qualified voters therein,” which appears to refer to the voters of the city seeking HUC conversion.

However, in the attempted conversion of Cabanatuan City in Nueva Ecija into an HUC, Governor Umali raised questions that forever changed the conduct of plebiscites in HUC conversions.

Apparently, Gov. Umali was against the conversion, citing that he will lose hundreds of thousands of constituents – those living in Cabanatuan City. To recall, residents of HUCs are not allowed to vote for provincial candidates. (LGC, Sec. 452, par. c)

 

Gov. Umali is not without a legal provision to support his prayers. In fact, he was armed with no less than the Constitution. He asseverates that Sec. 10, Art. X of the Constitution should be the basis for determining the qualified voters who will participate in the plebiscite to resolve the issue. Sec. 10, Art. X reads:

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.

The Supreme Court was careful enough not to invalidate Section 453 of the Local Government Code. Nonetheless, it held:

Pursuant to established jurisprudence, the phrase "by the qualified voters therein" in Sec. 453 should be construed in a manner that will avoid conflict with the Constitution. If one takes the plain meaning of the phrase in relation to the declaration by the President that a city is an HUC, then, Sec. 453 of the LGC will clash with the explicit provision under Sec. 10, Art. X that the voters in the "political units directly affected" shall participate in the plebiscite. Such construction should be avoided in view of the supremacy of the Constitution. Thus, the Court treats the phrase "by the qualified voters therein" in Sec. 453 to mean the qualified voters not only in the city proposed to be converted to an HUC but also the voters of the political units directly affected by such conversion in order to harmonize Sec. 453 with Sec. 10, Art. X of the Constitution.

The Court finds that respondents are mistaken in construing Sec. 453 in a vacuum. Their interpretation of Sec. 453 of the LGC runs afoul of Sec. 10, Art. X of the Constitution which explicitly requires that all residents in the "political units directly affected" should be made to vote.

xxx xxx xxx

In view of these changes in the economic and political rights of the province of Nueva Ecija and its residents, the entire province certainly stands to be directly affected by the conversion of Cabanatuan City into an HUC.

How is the Entire Province Directly Affected by Cabanatuan’s HUC Conversion?

This may seem absurd. After all, only the residents of Cabanatuan City will lose their rights to vote for provincial candidates so why should all residents of the entire province of Nueva Ecija interfere in the conduct of plebiscite?

In the earlier case of Miranda v. Aguirre (promulgated, September 16, 1999), the court was likewise compelled to interpret the same constitutional provision.

The Miranda case involves Republic Act 8528 which seeks to convert Santiago City in Isabela from an independent component city into a component city.

Petitioner Miranda was the mayor of Santiago City at that time. He assailed the constitutionality of RA 8528 alleging as ground the lack of provision in R.A. No. 8528 submitting the law for ratification by the people of Santiago City in a proper plebiscite, as required by Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution.

To recall, the disputed constitutional provision reads:

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.

The respondents in the case contended that conversion is not among those mentioned in the Constitution where a plebiscite is required. However, the Supreme Court ruled in this wise:

A close analysis of the said constitutional provision will reveal that the creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units involve a common denominator - - - material change in the political and economic rights of the local government units directly affected as well as the people therein.

With the conversion affecting the political and economic rights of Santiago City, it was held by the Supreme Court that a plebiscite must be conducted in the city’s conversion from an ICC to a component city.

The political and economic rights refer to the attributes of the city as incidents of its political level and relationship with its mother province – whether it remains component of the province or has emerged independent therefrom.

In the previous article, these refer to (1) voting privileges, (2) administrative supervision, (3) sharing of revenues, (4) effectivity of the province’s ordinances within the city, and (5) computation of internal revenue allotment, among others.

A city’s independence will affect all these attributes, which the Court saw to be substantial enough to require the approval of residents in a plebiscite. Yet, the scope of the plebiscite, as ruled in the Miranda case covers only the residents of the city being converted.

In the Umali case, however, the scope was enlarged to include the entire province. The ponencia, Justice Velasco reasoned out that the entire province will be directly affected as regards its political and economic rights.

The city’s conversion from its component status to an HUC will bring about the following effects on the entire province:

1. (1) The province will lose the city’s residents as its constituents – political right
   
   
   (2) The province will lose the power of administrative supervision over the city – political right
   
   
   (3) The province’s ordinances will lose effects over the territory of the city – political right
   
   
   (4) Since the city’s residents will no longer vote for provincial candidates, the city’s population will no longer be included in the province’s total population for the purpose of computing the province’s internal revenue allotment – economic right
   
   
   (5) The city will no longer share its revenues with the province – economic right
   
   

These rights, according to Justice Velasco, will directly affect the entire province, which therefore necessitates the participation of the residents of the entire province in the plebiscite. 

Additional Ruling in the Umali Case

Justice Velasco added an innovative yet completely logical ruling to the disputes involved. Going back to Article X Section 10 of the Constitution where plebiscite is required but conversion was not mentioned, the Court ruled that conversion of a city from independent to component or component to independent necessarily amounts to substantial alteration of boundaries, which is one of those instances mentioned in Article X Section 10 of the Constitution. The Court holds:

XXX while conversion to an HUC is not explicitly provided in Sec. 10, Art. X of the Constitution we nevertheless observe that the conversion of a component city into an HUC is substantial alteration of boundaries.

As the phrase implies, "substantial alteration of boundaries" involves and necessarily entails a change in the geographical configuration of a local government unit or units. However, the phrase "boundaries" should not be limited to the mere physical one, referring to the metes and bounds of the LGU, but also to its political boundaries. It also connotes a modification of the demarcation lines between political subdivisions, where the LGU’s exercise of corporate power ends and that of the other begins. And as a qualifier, the alteration must be "substantial" for it to be within the ambit of the constitutional provision.

Conversion from Component City into an ICC requires a plebiscite

In the Miranda case, the Court ruled that a plebiscite is required in all types of conversions, whether upward or downward in character, so long as they result in a material change in the local government unit directly affected, especially a change in the political and economic rights of its people.

Therefore, conversion from a component city into an ICC requires a plebiscite since it will result in a material change in the political and economic rights of the local government units directly affected and the people.

Scope of Plebiscite – entire province too

Following the logic laid down in the Umali case, the scope of the plebiscite in this type of conversion would necessarily cover the entire province since it will directly affect the entire province’s political and economic rights.

It should be noted that the differences between an ICC and an HUC, except for a few exceptions, do not involve political and economic rights.

Conclusion

Legazpi’s conversion into either an ICC or an HUC requires plebiscite covering the entire province of Albay as its emergence into an independent city will affect the political and economic rights of the entire province and amounts to substantial alterations of the political boundaries of Albay.

The revenues of the province of Albay will markedly decrease not only as to internal revenue allotments but also as to local sources. The provincial candidates will stand to lose hundreds of thousands of constituents. The province's ordinances will cease to have any effect within the city's borders.  And lastly, the province will no longer have the power of administrative supervision over the city.