G.R. No. 132603 -

Ruling

accordingly instructed the COMELEC to conduct the required plebiscite as provided under Sections 9 and 10 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991. [4] On the other hand, Resolution No. 345 [5] affirmed the effectivity of Ordinance No. 05, thereby overriding the veto [6] exercised by the governor of Batangas. [7] Ordinance No. 05 was vetoed by the governor of Batangas for being ultra vires , particularly, as it was not shown that the essential requirements under Section 9, in relation to Section 7, of Republic Act No. 7160, referring to the attestations or certifications of the Department of Finance (DOF), National Statistics Office (NSO) and the Land Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), were obtained. Pursuant to the foregoing ordinance and resolution, on February 10, 1998, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2987, providing for the rules and regulations governing the conduct of the required plebiscite scheduled on February 28, 1998, to decide the issue of the abolition of barangay San Rafael and its merger with barangay Dacanlao, Calaca, Batangas. [8] Simultaneous with the filing of the action before the trial court, petitioners also filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to enjoin respondents from enforcing Ordinance No. 05, Resolution No. 345, and COMELEC Resolution No. 2987. In an Order dated February 25, 1998, the trial court denied the ex parte motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction for lack of jurisdiction. According to the trial court, the temporary restraining order/injunction sought by petitioners is directed only to COMELEC Resolution No. 2987. The trial court ruled that any petition or action questioning an act, resolution or decision of the COMELEC must be brought before the Supreme Court. [9] On February 27, 1998, petitioners filed the instant petition with prayer for a temporary restraining order, without filing a motion for reconsideration of the trial courts Order dated February 25, 1998, claiming the urgency or immediate necessity to enjoin the conduct of the plebiscite scheduled on February 28, 1998. [10] In a Resolution dated March 10, 1998, the Court directed the parties to maintain the status quo prevailing at the time of the filing of the petition. [11] On August 28, 1998, the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion in lieu of Comment, declaring that he concurs with petitioners cause and recommending that the instant petition be given due course. [12] Consequently, the Court further resolved on September 29, 1998 to require the COMELEC and the Sangguniang Panglalawigan of Batangas to submit their own Comment on the petition. In a Resolution dated June 15, 1999, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition and require the parties to submit their respective memoranda. [13] In their Memorandum filed on October 26, 1999, petitioners submitte