Digest Author: Margreth Rizzini A.

Montejo
Miranda vs. Aguirre
G.R. No. 133064

Petitioner: Jose C. Miranda (Mayor of Santiago), Alfredo S. Dirige (President of the Liga ng Baranggay
ng Santiago), Manuel H. Afiado, et. al.
Respondent: Hon. Alexander Aguirre, et. al.
Petition: writ of prohibition and mandamus with prayer for preliminary
Ponente: J. Puno
Date: September 16, 1999
Facts:

On May 5, 1994, Republic Act No. 7720 was signed into law. In effect, the municipality
of Santiago, Isabela was converted into an independent component city. On July 4, 1994, the
people of Santiago ratified R.A. No. 7720 in a plebiscite.
On February 14, 1998, Republic Act No. 8528 was enacted to amend R.A. No. 7720. It
changed the status of Santiago from an independent component city to a component city.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the said act on the ground that there was a
lacking provision in R.A. No. 8528 submitting the law for ratification by the people of Santiago
City in a proper plebiscite. However, the respondents maintain that said act was constitutional.
Further, they contend the standing of petitioners and the petition raises a political question over
which this Court lacks jurisdiction.
In his reply, Solicitor General contends that R.A. No. 8528 merely reclassified Santiago
City from an independent component city to a component city. It did not involve any "creation,
division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units,"
hence, a plebiscite of the people of Santiago is unnecessary.
Issues:

1. Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi?

2. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the said petition?
3. Whether or not Republic Act No. 8528 is unconstitutional?
Ruling:

1. Yes
The court applied the direct injury test. In the case-at-bar, it is clear that the change of
status of the city of Santiago from independent component city to a mere component city
will affect petitioner Mirandas powers as mayor. Hence, the injury that he would sustain
from the enforcement of R.A. No. 8528 is direct and immediate and not a mere

generalized grievance shared with the people of Santiago City. Similarly, the other
petitioners are residents and voters in the city of Santiago. They have the right to be heard
in the conversion of their city through a plebiscite to be conducted by the COMELEC.
The denial of this right in R.A. No. 8528 gives them proper standing to strike the law as
unconstitutional.
2. Yes.
Pursuant to Section 1 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the court has the duty to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
the government." Clearly, there exists a justiciable issue because petitioners in light of
Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution have a right to approve or disapprove R.A.
No. 8528 in a plebiscite before it can be enforced. Further, it is within the jurisdiction of
the court to assess whether a law passed by Congress comply with the Constitutional
requirements.
3. Yes.
Upon the enactment of R.A. No. 7720, it upgraded the status of Santiago City from a
municipality to an independent component city. Consequently, it required the approval of
its people through a plebiscite called for the purpose. In the same way, upon the
enactment of R.A. No. 8528, it downgraded the status of their city. So, there is a more
compelling reason to require a plebiscite in accordance to Section 10, Article X of the
1987 Constitution. 1 Which is further reiterated in Section 10, Chapter 2 of the Local
Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) and Rule II, Article 6, paragraph (f) (1) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code.2 It is clear that the
said enactments have substantially alter the status of Santiago City which in effect
resulted in a material change in the local government unit that eventually created a
change in the political and economic rights of its people. Only the Congress has the
power over such matter. Hence, R.A. No. 8528 is unconstitutional on the ground that it
failed to comply with the requisite of holding an actual plebiscite.
Dispositive: Petition is granted. Republic Act No. 8528 is declared unconstitutional and the writ
of prohibition is hereby issued commanding the respondents to desist from implementing said
law.
1 No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, or 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.
2 No creation, conversion, division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries

of LGUS shall take effect unless approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called
for the purpose in the LGU or LGUs affected. The plebiscite shall be conducted by the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) within one hundred twenty (120) days from the effectivity
of the law or ordinance prescribing such action, unless said law or ordinance fixes another
date.