Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 410 views

    Miranda Vs Aguirre GR No 133064

    Uploaded by

    VM MIG
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners had standing to challenge the constitutionality of RA 8528, which downgraded Santiago City from an independent component city to a component city of Isabela province without requiring a plebiscite. 2. The Court held that RA 8528 was unconstitutional because it substantially altered the boundaries and status of Santiago City without obtaining approval from the voters in a plebiscite, as required by the Constitution and Local Government Code. 3. The writ of prohibition was issued to prevent the implementation of RA 8528.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Miranda Vs Aguirre GR No 133064

    Uploaded by

    VM MIG
    410 views2 pages
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners had standing to challenge the constitutionality of RA 8528, which downgraded Santiago City from an independent component city to a component city of Isabela province without requiring a plebiscite. 2. The Court held that RA 8528 was unconstitutional because it substantially altered the boundaries and status of Santiago City without obtaining approval from the voters in a plebiscite, as required by the Constitution and Local Government Code. 3. The writ of prohibition was issued to prevent the implementation of RA 8528.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Miranda vs Aguirre Gr No 133064

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners had standing to challenge the constitutionality of RA 8528, which downgraded Santiago City from an independent component city to a component city of Isabela province without requiring a plebiscite. 2. The Court held that RA 8528 was unconstitutional because it substantially altered the boundaries and status of Santiago City without obtaining approval from the voters in a plebiscite, as required by the Constitution and Local Government Code. 3. The writ of prohibition was issued to prevent the implementation of RA 8528.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    410 views2 pages

    Miranda Vs Aguirre GR No 133064

    Uploaded by

    VM MIG
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners had standing to challenge the constitutionality of RA 8528, which downgraded Santiago City from an independent component city to a component city of Isabela province without requiring a plebiscite. 2. The Court held that RA 8528 was unconstitutional because it substantially altered the boundaries and status of Santiago City without obtaining approval from the voters in a plebiscite, as required by the Constitution and Local Government Code. 3. The writ of prohibition was issued to prevent the implementation of RA 8528.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Miranda vs. Aguirre, GR No.

    133064, Sept 16, 1999


    PUNO, J.
    FACTS:

     5 May 1994, R.A. No. 7720, which converted the municipality of Santiago, Isabela into
    an independent component of city was signed into law.
     4 July 1994, the people of Santiago ratified R.A. No. 7720 in a plebiscite.
     14 Feb 1998, R.A. No. 8528 was enacted, amending R.A. No. 7720. It changed the
    status of Santiago from an independent component city into a component city.
     Petitioners assail the constitutionality of R.A. No. 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. Petitioner Miranda was the mayor of Santiago at the time of
    the filing of the petition at bar. Petitioner Afiado is the President of the Liga ng mga
    Barangay ng Santiago City. Petitioners Dirige, Cabuyadao and Babaran are residents of
    Santiago City.
     In their Comment, respondent provincial officials of Isabela defended the constitutionality
    of R.A. No. 8528. They assailed the standing of petitioners to file the petition at bar.
    They also contend that the petition raises a political question over which this Court lacks
    jurisdiction.
     Another Comment was filed by the Solicitor General for the respondent public officials.
    The Solicitor General also contends that petitioners are not real parties in interest. More
    importantly, it is contended that R.A. No. 8528 merely reclassified Santiago City from an
    independent component city to a component city. It allegedly 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.
     A third Comment, submitted by intervenor Giorgidi B. Aggabao, a member of the
    provincial board of Isabela, contended that both the Constitution and the Local
    Government Code of 1991 do not require a plebiscite "to approve a law that merely
    allowed qualified voters of a city to vote in provincial elections. He also urged that
    petitioners lacked locus standi.
     Petitioners filed a Reply to meet the arguments of the respondents and the intervenor.
    They defended their standing, stressing the changes that would visit the city of Santiago
    as a result of its reclassification.
    ISSUES:
    1. W/N the Petition raises a political or justiciable issue.
    2. W/N the petitioners have standing in court to file the Petition to declare RA 8528
    unconstitutional.
    3. W/N RA 8528 is unconstitutional
    HELD:
    1. The petition raises a justiciable issue – In Casibang v. Aquino, we defined a justiciable
    issue as follows: A purely justiciable issue implies a given right, legally demandable and
    enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and
    sanctioned by law, for said breach of right.
    2. Yes: the petitioners have rights, duties and powers which will be affected by the
    downgrading of the City of Santiago from an independent component city to a
    component city of the Province of Isabela.
    3. Yes: substantial rights of the officials and residents/taxpayers will be affected by the
    downgrading of the municipality of Santiago, and no provision for plebiscite was
    provided as required by the Constitution (1987: Sec. 10, Art. X) and the Local
    Government Code (Sec.10, Chapt. 2 of R.A. No. 7160).
    (Sec. 10, Art. X same as Sec.10, Chapt. 2 of R.A. No.7160) 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.

    RULING:
    IN VIEW WHEREOF, the 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.

    *NOTE: Read Dissenting Opinions

    You might also like