On Dec 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Puerto Princesa enacted an ordinance Summary: A plebiscite for a newly created

newly created municipality was conducted and the voters

banning the shipment of all live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princesa City from January 1, rejected its creation. The governor questioned the result and challenged the inclusion of the
voters of the mother municipality in the plebiscite.
1993 to January 1, 1998. Subsequently the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Provincial Government
of Palawan enacted a resolution prohibiting the catching , gathering, possessing, buying, Rule of Law: No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged,
selling, and shipment of a several species of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms for abolished or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria
5 years, in and coming from Palawan waters. established in the local government code and subject to the approval by the majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected—Section 10, Article X, 1987
Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, praying that the court Constitution.
declare the said ordinances and resolutions as unconstitutional on the ground that the said
ordinances deprived them of the due process of law, their livelihood, and unduly restricted Facts: Republic Act No. 7155 created the new municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa in the Province
them from the practice of their trade, in violation of Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and of Camarines Norte and pursuant to this law, the COMELEC (D) conducted a plebiscite for its
approval. In its resolution for the conduct of the plebiscite, the COMELEC (D) included all the
7 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution. voters of the Municipality of Labo—the parent unit of the new municipality.
ISSUE:
The result of the plebiscite showed that the majority rejected the creation of the new
Are the challenged ordinances unconstitutional? Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa. The governor, Hon. Roy Padilla, Jr. (P), petitioned the court to
set aside the result arguing that the phrase "political units directly affected" in Section
HELD: 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution does not include the parent political unit—the
Municipality of Labo.
No. The Supreme Court found the petitioners contentions baseless and held that the
challenged ordinances did not suffer from any infirmity, both under the Constitution and Issues: Is the result of the plebiscite valid?
applicable laws. There is absolutely no showing that any of the petitioners qualifies as a
Ruling: Yes. When the law states that the plebiscite shall be conducted "in the political units
subsistence or marginal fisherman. Besides, Section 2 of Article XII aims primarily not to
directly affected," it means that residents of the political entity who would be economically
bestow any right to subsistence fishermen, but to lay stress on the duty of the State to protect dislocated by the separation thereof have a right to vote in said plebiscite. What is contemplated
the nation’s marine wealth. The so-called “preferential right” of subsistence or marginal by the phrase "political units directly affected," is the plurality of political units which would
fishermen to the use of marine resources is not at all absolute. participate in the plebiscite. Logically, those to be included in such political areas are the
inhabitants of the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa as well as those living in the the
In accordance with the Regalian Doctrine, marine resources belong to the state and pursuant parent Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte.
to the first paragraph of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, their “exploration,
development and utilization...shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.

In addition, one of the devolved powers of the LCG on devolution is the enforcement of fishery
laws in municipal waters including the conservation of mangroves. This necessarily includes
the enactment of ordinances to effectively carry out such fishery laws within the municipal
waters. In light of the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the LGC and
the powers granted therein to LGUs which unquestionably involve the exercise of police
power, the validity of the questioned ordinances cannot be doubted.

PADILLA VS COMELEC