Ceniza v. COMELEC

CENIZA v.
COMELEC
G.R. Number – Date
J. CONCEPCION JR.
Digest Author: Joshua Simbillo
Topic: Suffrage – Rights of voters in highly urbanized cities and of those in component cities
- Voters in highly urbanized cities are not allowed to vote for provincial official candidates of the
province their city is a part of. This is because highly urbanized cities are independent and, thus,
are not within the jurisdiction of provincial officials. On the other hand, component cities are not
independent like highly urbanized cities and are within the jurisdiction of provincial officials, thus
they have the right to vote for provincial official candidates.
Complete Title: RAMON B. CENIZA, FEDERICO C. CABILAO, JR., NELSON J. ROSAL AND
ALEJANDRO R. ALINSUG, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, COMMISSION
ON AUDIT, AND NATIONAL TREASURER, RESPONDENTS.
Petitioners: RAMON B. CENIZA, FEDERICO C. CABILAO, JR., NELSON J. ROSAL AND

ALEJANDRO R. ALINSUG
Respondents: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND NATIONAL
TREASURER
FACTS:
● Here is a petition for prohibition and mandamus with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction.
● On December 22, 1979, the Interim Batasan Pambansa enacted Batas Blg. 51 providing for local
elections on January 30, 1980.
● Until cities are reclassified into highly urbanized and component cities, in accordance with the
standards established in the Local Government Code as provided for in Article XI, Section 4(1) of
the Constitution, any city now existing with an annual regular income derived from
infrastructure and general funds of not less than forty million pesos (P40,000,000.00) at the
time of approval of this Act shall be classified as a highly urbanized city.
o All other cities shall be considered components of the provinces they are part of.
● The registered voters of a component city may be entitled to vote in the election of the officials of
the province of which that city is a component, if its charter so provides.
o However, voters registered in a highly urbanized city, as hereinabove defined, shall
not participate nor vote in the election of the officials of the province in which the
highly urbanized city is geographically located."
● To implement this Act, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC, for short) adopted Resolution
No. 1421
● Because the City of Cebu has an income of P51,603,147.64, it is classified as a highly urbanized
city and the voters thereof cannot take part in the election of the elective provincial officials of the
province of Cebu, although the Charter of Cebu City[1] allows the qualified voters of the city to
vote in the election of the provincial officials of the Province of Cebu.
● The City of Mandaue, having an annual regular income of less than P40 million, is classified as a
component city. But the registered voters of Mandaue city cannot vote for the provincial elective
officials because its Charter expressly provides that the registered voters of the city cannot
participate in the election of the provincial officials of the Province of Cebu, except to be a
candidate therefor.
ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N Cities being highly urbanized as the only basis for not allowing its electorate to vote for
provincial officials is unconstitutional and lacks substantial reason.
o Statement of the Court’s holding: We find no merit in the petition. The thrust of the
1973 Constitution is towards the fullest autonomy of local government units. In the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies, it is stated that "The State shall guarantee and
promote the autonomy of local government units, especially the barrio, to ensure their
fullest development as self-reliant communities."
▪ Corollary to independence however, is the concomitant loss of the right to
participate in provincial affairs, more particularly the selection of elective
provincial officials since these provincial officials have ceased to exercise any
governmental jurisdiction and authority over said city (highly urbanized
city).
o The classification of cities into highly urbanized cities and component cities on the basis
of their regular annual income is based upon substantial distinction. The revenue of a city
would show whether or not it is capable of existence and development as a relatively
independent social, economic, and political unit. It would also show whether the city
has sufficient economic or industrial activity as to warrant its independence from the
province where it is geographically situated. Cities with smaller income need the continued
support of the provincial government thus justifying the continued participation of the
voters in the election of provincial officials in some instances.
2. W/N The voters in Mandaue City are denied equal protection of the law since the voters in other
component cities are allowed to vote for provincial officials.
o Statement of the Court’s holding: The contention is without merit. The practice of
allowing voters in one component city to vote for provincial officials and denying the same
privilege to voters in another component city is a matter of legislative discretion which
violates neither the Constitution nor the voter's right of suffrage.
o The equal protection of the law contemplates equality in the enjoyment of similar rights
and privileges granted by law. It would have been discriminatory and a denial of the equal
protection of the law if the statute prohibited an individual or group of voters in the city
from voting for provincial officials while granting it to another individual or group of
voters in the same city.
o Neither can it be considered an infringement upon the petitioners' rights of suffrage since
the Constitution confers no right to a voter in a city to vote for the provincial officials of
the province where the city is located. Their right is limited to the right to vote for
elective city officials in local elections which the questioned statutes neither withdraw
nor restrict.
3. W/N Prohibiting the voters in a city from voting for elective provincial officials would impose a
burden on the right to vote without achieving permissible state objectives, violating the sanctity
of the ballot.
o No such burdens are imposed upon the voters of the cities of Cebu and Mandaue. They
are free to exercise their rights without any other requirement, save that of being
registered voters in the cities where they reside and the sanctity of their ballot is
maintained.
4. W/N the prohibition would subvert the principle of republicanism as it would deprive a citizen his
right of suffrage.
o Supreme Court’s Ruling: the provincial government has no governmental

supervision over highly urbanized cities because these cities are independent of the
province in the administration of their affairs.
5. W/N Charter of the City of Mandaue is unconstitutional for not having been ratified by the residents
of the city in a plebiscite.
o Supreme Court’s Ruling: This contention is untenable. The Constitutional requirement

that the creation, division, merger, abolition, or alteration of the boundary of a province,
city, municipality, or barrio should be subject to the approval by the majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite in the governmental unit or units affected[10] is a new requirement
that came into being only with the 1973 Constitution. It is prospective in character and
therefore cannot affect the creation of the City of Mandaue which came into existence on
June 21, 1969. The Constitutional requirement did not exist back then.
6. W/N political and gerrymandering motives were behind the passage of Batas Blg. 51 and Section
96 of the Charter of Mandaue City, that the Province of Cebu is politically and historically known
as an opposition bailiwick and of the total 952,716 registered voters in the province, 234,582 are
from Cebu City and 44,358 come from Mandaue City, so that 278,940 electors, or close to one-
third (1/3) of the entire province of Cebu would be barred from voting for the provincial officials
of the province of Cebu.
o Supreme Court’s Ruling: Such charge has no factual and legal basis. "Gerrymandering"
is a term employed to describe an apportionment of representative districts so contrived as
to give an unfair advantage to the party in power. The questioned statutes do not apportion
representative districts. The said representative districts remain the same. Nor has it been
shown that there is an unfair advantage in favor of the candidates of the party in power. As
the Solicitor General pointed out, it may even be that the majority of the city voters are
supporters of the administration candidates, so that the enactment of the questioned statutes
will work to their disadvantage.
FULL DISPOSITIVE TEXT:
WHEREFORE, the petition should be, as it is hereby dismissed. Costs against the petitioners.

Ceniza v. COMELEC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ceniza v. COMELEC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ceniza v. COMELEC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CENIZA v.

Digest Author: Joshua Simbillo

Petitioners: RAMON B. CENIZA, FEDERICO C. CABILAO, JR., NELSON J. ROSAL AND

o Supreme Court’s Ruling: the provincial government has no governmental

o Supreme Court’s Ruling: This contention is untenable. The Constitutional requirement

FULL DISPOSITIVE TEXT:

You might also like