[ G. R. No. L-5150. November 08, 1951 ] 90 Phil. 370
[ G. R. No. L-5150. November 08, 1951 ]
JOSE PRO. TEVES, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
PARAS, C.J.:
Upon request of the City Attorney of Dumaguete City, the Commission on Elections rendered, on August 24, 1951, an opinion holding that the qualified voters of said city cannot vote for the provincial governor and members of the provincial board of Negros Oriental. In the present special civil action for mandamus, a group of qualified and registered voters of Dumaguete City, petitioners, allege that the Commission on Elections, respondent, in pursuance of its opinion, has refused and will continue to refuse to provide necessary paraphernalia for the residents of said city to vote in the election to be held on November 13, 1951, for the provincial governor and members of the provincial board of Negros Oriental, and accordingly pray that the Comission on Elections be ordered to provide said paraphernalia.
Petitioners’ contention is that, as the charter of Dumaguete City is silent as to the right of its qualified voters to participate in the election of provincial officials of Negros Oriental, and as said voters are residents of the province, they are clearly entitled to vote for said provincial officials.
The charters of other recently formed cities are articulate on the matter. Thus, in the cases of Bacolod, Cabanatuan, Legaspi, Naga, and Ormoc, their charters expressly prohibit the residents therein from voting for provincial officials of the provinces to which said cities formerly belonged. Upon the other hand, the charters of Cagayan de Oro, Butuan, Cavite, Iloilo, Calbayog, Lipa, San Pablo, and Dagupan contain provisions extending to their residents the privilege to take part in the election of the provincial officials of the provinces in which said cities were previously included.
The question that presents itself has reference to the effect of the omission in the charter of Dumaguete City of an express provision on the right of its residents to vote for provincial officials of Negros Oriental, in the light of the legislative practice that, when desired, the right is either recognized or withdrawn expressly. We are inclined to overrule petitioners’ position.
The creation of Dumaguete City has made it a political entity separate from and independent of the province of Negros Oriental. The purpose of an election is to enable the electorate to choose the men that will run their government, whether national, provincial, municipal or city. If so, no useful end will be served by allowing—in the absence of express legislative preference—the voters of a city to participate in the election of the officials of the province which has ceased to have any governmental jurisdiction and authority over said city.
To confirm our view that the City of Dumaguete has been segregated from the province of Oriental Negros for purposes of provincial elections, we should point to the penultimate section of the charter providing that “until otherwise provided by law, the City of Dumaguete shall continue as part of the first representative district of the Province of Oriental Negros.” This is an express exception to the general effect of separation—an exception that serves to reiterate or even establish the rule. In other words, the Congress meant that the inhabitants of the city may not vote for provincial officials, but may vote for their representative in Congress.
On September 2, 1947, the Commission on Elections already held that, as the charter of the City of Davao is silent on the point, its electors cannot vote for any provincial official of the province of Davao. Since the charter of Dumaguete City was approved in 1948, it is logical to suppose that the Congress, familiar with said ruling, was merely confirming or giving it effect by omitting an express provision in said charter.
Having come to the conclusion that the voters of Dumaguete City have no right to take part in the election of the provincial officials of Negros Oriental, we have to rule that the respondent Commission on Elections has no corresponding duty which may be enforced by mandamus
The petition is therefore dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
Pablo, Bengzon, Reyes, Jugo, and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.