AQUINO vs. COMELEC
(248 SCRA 400) Facts:
On 20 March 1995, Agapito A. Aquino f!" hi# C!rtifcat! o$ Can"i"ac% $or th! po#ition o$ R!pr!#!ntati&! R!pr!#!ntati&! $or th! n!' S!con" !gi#ati&! i#trict o$ Ma*ati Cit%. Cit%. +n hi# hi# c!rt c!rtif ifca cat! t! o$ can" can"i" i"ac ac%, %, Aquin quino o #tat #tat!" !" that that h! 'a# 'a# a r!#i" !#i"!n !ntt o$ th! th! a$or!!ntion!" "i#trict $or 10 onth#. -ac!" 'ith a p!tition $or "i#quaifcation, h! a!n"!" th! !ntr% on hi# r!#i"!nc% in hi# c!rtifcat! o$ can"i"ac% to 1 %!ar an" 1 "a%#. /h! Coi##ion on !ction# "i#i##!" th! p!tition on Ma% an" ao'!" Aquin quino o to run run in th! th! !!c !!cti tion on o$ 8 Ma% Ma%. Aquin quino o 'on. 'on. Actin cting g on a oti otion on $or $or r!con#i"!ration o$ th! ao&! "i#i##a, th! Coi##ion on !ction at!r i##u!" an or"!r #u#p!n"ing th! procaation o$ Aquino unti th! Coi##ion r!#o&!" th! i##u i##u!. !. On 2 3un! 3un!,, th! th! Co Coi# i##i #ion on on !c !cti tion on# # $oun $oun" " Aquin quino o in! in!ig igi i! ! an" an" "i#qu "i#qua aif if!" !" $or $or th! th! !!c !!cti ti&! &! oc! oc! $or $or ac* ac* o$ con# con#ti titu tuti tion ona a qua quaif ifca cati tion on o$ r!#i"!nc!. h!th!rr 6r!#i" r!#i"!nc !nc%7 %7 in th! c!rtif c!rtifcat cat! ! o$ can"i" can"i"ac% ac% actua actua% % connot connot!# !# Issue: h!th! 6"oi 6"oici ci! !7 7 to 'ar 'arrant rant th! th! "i#q "i#qua uai ifc fcat atio ion n o$ Aq Aqui uino no $ro $ro th! th! po#i po#iti tion on in th! th! !!ctora "i#trict. Held:
/h! pac! 6'h!r! 6'h!r! a part% actua% or con#tructi&!% ha# hi# p!ran!nt ho!,7 'h!r! h!, no att!r 'h!r! h! a% ! $oun" at an% gi&!n ti!, !&!ntua% int!n"# to r!turn an" r!ain, i.!., hi# "oici!, i# that to 'hich th! Con#titution r!$!r# 'h!n it #p!a*# o$ r!#i"!nc! $or th! purpo#!# o$ !!ction a'. /h! purpo#! i# to !cu"! #trang!r# or n!'co!r# un$aiiar 'ith th! con"ition# an" n!!"# o$ th! coun counit% it% $ro $ro ta*ing ta*ing a"&ant a"&antag! ag! o$ $a&ora $a&ora! ! circ circu# u#tan tanc!# c!# !i#t !i#ting ing in that that counit% $or !!ctora gain. Aquino# c!rtifcat! o$ can"i"ac% in a pr!&iou# (1992) !!c !!cti tion on in"i in"ica cat! t!# # that that h! 'a# 'a# a r!#i" !#i"!n !ntt an" an" a r!gi# !gi#t! t!rr!" &ot! &ot!rr o$ San San 3o#! 3o#!,, Conc Conc!p !pci cion on,, /ara arac c $or $or or or! than than 52 %!ar %!ar# # prio priorr to that that !!c !!cti tion on.. Aquino quino# # conn!ction to th! S!con" i#trict o$ Ma*ati Cit% i# an a!g!" !a#! agr!!!nt o$ a con"oiniu unit in th! ar!a. /h! int!ntion not to !#tai#h a p!ran!nt ho! in Ma*ati Cit% i# !&i"!nt in hi# !a#ing a con"oiniu unit in#t!a" o$ u%ing on!. /h! #hort !ngth o$ ti! h! cai# to ! a r!#i"!nt o$ Ma*ati (an" th! $act o$ hi# #tat!" "oici! in /arac an" hi# cai# o$ oth!r r!#i"!nc!# in M!tro Mania) in"icat! that hi# #o! purpo#! in tran#$!rring hi# ph%#ica r!#i"!nc! i# not to acquir! a n!', r!#i"!nc! or "oici! ut on% to quai$% a# a can"i"at! $or R!pr!#!ntati&! o$ th! S!co S!con" n" i#t i#tri rict ct o$ Ma*a Ma*ati ti Cit% Cit%.. Aq Aqui uino no 'a# 'a# thu# thu# righ right$ t$u u% % "i#qu "i#qua aif if!" !" % th! th! Coi##ion on !ction#.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 189793
April 7, 2010
SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III a! MA"OR #ESSE ROBRE$O, Petitioners,
vs. COMMISSION ON E%ECTIONS r&pr&'&(&! )* i(' C+aira #OSE A.R. ME%O a! i(' Coi''io&r', RENE -. SARMIENTO, NICO$EMO T. ERRER, %UCENITO N. TAG%E, ARMAN$O -E%ASCO, E%IAS R. "USOP/ AN$ GREGORIO %ARRAABA%, Respondents.
DECISIN PERE, J.:
!his case co"es before this Court b# $a# of a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule %& of the Rules of Court. In this ori'inal action, petitioners Senator Beni'no Si"eon C. A(uino III and Ma#or )esse Robredo, as public officers, ta*pa#ers and citi+ens, see the nullification as unconstitutional of Republic Act No. -/%, entitled 0An Act Reapportionin' the Co"position of the 1irst 2/st3 and Second 24nd3 5e'islative Districts in the Province of Ca"arines Sur and !hereb# Creatin' a Ne$ 5e'islative District 1ro" Such Reapportion"ent.0 Petitioners conse(uentl# pra# that the responden t Co""ission on Elections be restrained fro" "ain' an# issuances and fro" tain' an# steps relative to the i"ple"entation of Republic Act No. -/%. Republic Act No. -/% ori'inated fro" 6ouse Bill No. 74%7, and $as si'ned into la$ b# President 8loria Macapa'al Arro#o on /4 ctober 499-. It too effect on :/ ctober 499-, or fifteen 2/&3 da#s follo$in' its publication in the Manila Standard, a ne$spaper of 'eneral circulation./ In substance, the said la$ created an additional le'islative district for the Province of Ca"arines Sur b# reconfi'urin' the e*istin' first and second le'islative districts of the province. Prior to Republic Act No. -/%, the Province of Ca"arines Sur $as esti"ated to have a population of /,%-:,;4/,4 distributed a"on' four 273 le'islative districts in this $ise<
District
Municipalities=Cities
/st District Del 8alle'o
5ib"anan
Ra'a#
Minalabac
5upi
Pa"plona
Sipocot
Pasacao
Cabusao
San 1ernando
Population 7/,:97
4nd District 8ain+a
Cana"an
Milaor
Ca"ali'an
Na'a
Ma'arao
Pili
Bo"bon
ca"po
Calaban'a
:rd District Cara"oan
77,;--
San'a#
:4,&7;
8architorena San )ose 8oa
!i'aon
5a'ono#
!ina"ba
Presentacion Siru"a 7th District Iri'a
Buhi
Baao
Bula
Balatan
Nabua
74-,99
Bato 1ollo$in' the enact"ent of Republic Act No. -/%, the first and second districts of Ca"arines Sur $ere reconfi'ured in order to create an additional le'islative district for the province. 6ence, the first district "unicipalities of 5ib"anan, Minalabac, Pa"plona, Pasacao, and San 1ernando $ere co"bined $ith the second district "unicipalities of Milaor and 8ain+a to for" a ne$ second le'islative district. !he follo$in' table: illustrates the reapportion"ent "ade b# Republic Act No. -/%<
District /st District
Municipalities=Cities Del 8alle'o
Population /%,:;:
Ra'a# 5upi Sipocot Cabusao 4nd District
5ib"anan
San 1ernando
Minalabac
8ain+a
Pa"plona
Milaor
4%,
Pasacao :rd District 2for"erl# 4nd District3 Na'a
Ca"ali'an
Pili
Ma'arao
ca"po
Bo"bon
Cana"an
Calaban'a
7th District 2for"erl# :rd District3 Cara"oan
San'a#
7:-,97:
:4,&7;
8architorena San )ose 8oa
!i'aon
5a'ono#
!ina"ba
Presentacion Siru"a &th District 2for"erl# 7th District3 Iri'a
Buhi
Baao
Bula
Balatan
Nabua
Bato
74-,99
Republic Act No. -/% is a $ell>"illed le'islation. !he factual recitals b# both parties of the ori'ins of the bill that beca"e the la$ sho$ that, fro" the filin' of 6ouse Bill No. 74%7 until its approval b# the Senate on a vote of thirteen 2/:3 in favor and t$o 243 a'ainst, the process pro'ressed step b# step, "ared b# public hearin's on the senti"ents and position of the local officials of Ca"arines Sur on the creation of a ne$ con'ressional district, as $ell as ar'u"entation and deb ate on the issue, no$ before us, concernin' the stand of the oppositors of the bill that a population of at least 4&9,999 is re(uired b# the Constitution for such ne$ district.7 Petitioner A(uino III $as one of t$o senators $ho voted a'ainst the approval of the Bill b# the Senate. 6is co>petitioner, Robredo, is the Ma#or of Na'a Cit#, $hich $as a part of the for"er second district fro" $hich the "unicipalities of 8ain+a and Milaor $ere taen for inclusion in the ne$ second district. No other local e*ecutive ?oined the t$o@ neither did the representatives of the for"er third and fourth districts of the province. Petitioners contend that the reapportion"ent introduced b # Republic Act No. -/%, runs afoul of the e*plicit constitutional standard that re(uires a "ini"u" population of t$o hundred fift# thousand 24&9,9993 for the creation of a le'islative district.& !he petitioners clai" that the reconfi'uration b# Republic Act No. -/% of the first and second districts of Ca"arines Sur is unconstitutional, because the proposed first district $ill end up $ith a population of less than 4&9,999 or onl# /%,:;:. Petitioners rel# on Section &2:3, Article I of the /-; Constitution as basis for the cited 4&9,999 "ini"u" population standard.% !he provision reads< Article I Section &. 2/3 * * * * 243 * * * * 2:3 Each le'islative district shall co"prise, as far as practicable, conti'uous, co"pact, and ad?acent territor#. Each cit# $ith a population of at least t$o hundred fift# thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative. 273 * * * * 2E"phasis supplied3. !he petitioners posit that the 4&9,999 fi'ure appearin' in the above>cited provision is the "ini"u" population re(uire"ent for the creation of a le'islative district. !he petitioners theori+e that, save in the case of a ne$l# created province, each le'islative district created b# Con'ress "ust be supported b# a "ini"u" population of at least 4&9,999 in order to be valid.; nder this vie$, e*istin' le'islative districts "a# be reapportioned and severed to for" ne$ districts, provided each resultin' district $ill represent a population of at least 4&9,999. n the other hand, if the reapportion"ent $ould result in the creation of a le'islative seat representin' a populace of less than 4&9,999 inhabitants, the reapportion"ent "ust be stricen do$n as invalid for non>co"pliance $ith the "ini"u" population re(uire"ent. In support of their theor#, the petitioners point to $hat the# clai" is the intent of the fra"ers of the /-; Constitution to adopt a population "ini"u" of 4& 9,999 in the creation of additional le'islative seats.!he petitioners ar'ue that $hen the Constitutional Co""ission fi*ed the ori'inal nu"ber of district seats in the 6ouse of Representatives to t$o hundred 24993, the# too into account the pro?ected national population of fift# five "illion 2&&,999,9993 for the #ear /-;%./9 Accordin' to the petitioners, && "illion people represented b# 499 district representatives translates to rou'hl# 4&9,999 people for ever# one 2/3 representative.// !hus, the 4&9,999 population re(uire"ent found in Section &2:3, Article I of the /-;
Constitution is actuall# based on the population constant used b# the Constitutional Co""ission in distributin' the initial 499 le'islative seats. !hus did the petitioners clai" that in reapportionin' le'islative districts independentl# fro" the creation of a province, Con'ress is bound to observe a 4&9,999 population threshold, in the sa"e "anner that the Constitutional Co""ission did in the ori'inal apportion"ent. erbati", the sub"ission is that< /. Republic Act -/% is unconstitutional because the ne$l# app ortioned first district of Ca"arines Sur failed to "eet the population re(uire"ent for the creation of the le'islative district as e*plicitl# provided in Article I, Section &, Para'raphs 2/3 and 2:3 of the Constitution and Section : of the rdinance appended thereto@ and 4. Republic Act -/% violates the principle of proportional representation as provided in Article I, Section & para'raphs 2/3, 2:3 and 273 of the Constitution./4 !he provision sub?ect of this case states< Article I Section &. 2/3 !he 6ouse of Representatives shall be co"posed of not "ore than t$o hundred and fift# "e"bers, unless other$ise fi*ed b # la$, $ho shall be elected fro" le'islative districts apportioned a"on' the provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance $ith the nu"ber of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a unifor" and pro'ressive ratio, and those $ho, as provided b# la$, shall be elected throu'h a part#>list s#ste" of re'istered national, re'ional and sectoral parties or or'ani+ations. 243 * * * * 2:3 Each le'islative district shall co"prise, as far as practicable, conti'uous, co"pact, and ad?acent territor#. Each cit# $ith a population of at least t$o hundred fift# thousand, o r each province, shall have at least one representative. 273 ithin three #ears follo$in' the return of ever # census, the Con'ress shall "ae a reapportion"ent of le'islative districts based on the standards provided in this section. n the other hand, the respondents, throu'h the ffice of the Solicitor 8eneral, see the dis"issal of the present petition based on procedural and substantive 'rounds. n procedural "atters, the respondents ar'ue that the petitioners are ' uilt# of t$o 243 fatal technical defects< first, petitioners co""itted an error in choosin' to assail the constitutionalit# of Republic Act No. -/% via the re"ed# of Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule %& of the Rules of Court@ and second, the petitioners have no locus standi to (uestion the constitutionalit# of Republic Act No. -/%. n substantive "atters, the respondents call attention to an appa rent distinction bet$een cities and provinces dra$n b# Section &2:3, Article I of the /-; Constitution. !he respondents concede the e*istence of a 4&9,999 population condition, but ar'ue that a plain and si"ple readin' of the (uestioned provision $ill sho$ that the sa"e has no application $ith respect to the creation of le'islative districts in provinces./: Rather, the 4&9,999 "ini"u" population is onl# a re(uire"ent for the creation of a le'islative district in a cit#. In su", the respondents den# the e*istence of a fi*ed population re(uire"ent for the reapportion"ent of districts in provinces. !herefore, Republic Act No. -/%, $hich onl# creates an additional le'islative
district $ithin the province of Ca"arines Sur, should be sustained as a perfectl# valid reapportion"ent la$. e first pass upon the threshold issues. !he respondents assert that b# choosin' to avail the"selves of the re"edies of Certiorari and Prohibition, the petitioners have co""itted a fatal procedural lapse. !he respondents cite the follo$in' reasons< /. !he instant petition is bereft of an# alle'ation that the respondents had acted $ithout or in e*cess of ?urisdiction, or $ith 'rave abuse of discretion.1avvphi1 4. !he re"ed# of Certiorari and Prohibition "ust be directed a'ainst a tribunal, board, officer or person, $hether e*ercisin' ?udicial, (uasi>?udicial, or "inisterial functions. Respondents "aintain that in i"ple"entin' Republic Act No. -/%, the# $ere not actin' as a ?udicial or (uasi>?udicial bod#, nor $ere the# en'a'in' in the perfor"ance of a "inisterial act. :. !he petitioners could have availed the"selves of another plain, speed# and ade(uate re"ed# in the ordinar# course of la$. Considerin' that the "ain thrust of the instant petition is the declaration of unconstitutionalit# of Republic Act No. -/%, the sa"e could ha ve been ventilated throu'h a petition for declarator# relief, over $hich the Supre"e Court has onl# appellate, not ori'inal ?urisdiction. !he respondents lie$ise alle'e that the petitioners had failed to sho$ that the# had sustained, or is in dan'er of sustainin' an# substantial in?ur# as a result of the i"ple"entation of Republic Act No. -/%. !he respondents, therefore, conclude that the petitioners lac the re(uired le'al standin' to (uestion the constitutionalit# of Republic Act No. -/%. !his Court has paved the $a# a$a# fro" procedural debates $hen confronted $ith issues that, b# reason of constitutional i"portance, need a direct focus o f the ar'u"ents on their content and substance. !he Supre"e Court has, on "ore than one occasion, te"pered the application of procedural rules,/7 as $ell as rela*ed the re(uire"ent of locus standi $h enever confronted $ith an i"portant issue of overreachin' si'nificance to societ#./& 6ence, in Del Mar v. Philippine A"use"ent and 8a"in' Corporation 2PA8CR3/% and )a$orsi v. PA8CR ,/ this Court sanctioned "o"entar# deviation fro" the principle of the hierarch# of courts, and too ori'inal co'ni+ance of cases raisin' issues of para"ount public i"portance. !he )a$orsi case ratiocinates< 8rantin' ar'uendo that the present action canno t be properl# treated as a petition for prohibition, the transcendental i"portance of the issues involved in this case $arrants that $e set aside the technical defects and tae pri"ar# ?urisdiction over the petition at bar. ne cannot den# that the issues raised herein have potentiall# pervasive influence o n the social and "oral $ell bein' of this nation, speciall# the #outh@ hence, their proper and ?ust deter"ination is an i"perative need. !his is in accordance $ith the $ell>entrenched principle that rules of procedure are not infle*ible tools desi'ned to hinder or dela#, but to facilitate and pro"ote the ad"inistration of ?ustice. !heir strict and ri'id application, $hich $ould result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather than pro"ote substantial ?ustice, "ust al$a#s be esche$ed. 2E"phasis supplied3 Anent the locus standi re(uire"ent, this Court has alread# unifor"l# ruled in ilosba#an v. 8uin'ona,/; !atad v. E*ecutive Secretar#,/- Chave+ v. Public Estates Authorit#49 and Ba'on' Al#ansan' Maaba#an v. a"ora,4/ ?ust to na"e a fe$, that absence of direct in?ur# on the part of the part# seein' ?udicial revie$ "a# be e*cused $hen the latter is able to craft an issue of transcendental i"portance. In 5i" v. E*ecutive
Secretar#,44 this Court held that in cases of transcendental i"portance, the cases "ust be settled pro"ptl# and definitel#, and so, the standin' re(uire"ents "a# be rela*ed. !his liberal stance has been echoed in the "ore recent decision on Chave+ v. 8on+ales.4: 8iven the $ei'ht of the issue raised in the instant petition, the fore'oin' principles "ust appl#. !he beaten path "ust be taen. e 'o directl# to the deter"ination of $hether or not a population of 4&9,999 is an indispensable constitutional re(uire"ent for the creation of a ne$ le'islative district in a province. e den# the petition. e start $ith the basics. An# la$ dul# enacted b# Con'ress carries $ith it the presu"ption of constitutionalit#.47 Before a la$ "a# be declared unconstitutional b# this Court, there "ust be a clear sho$in' that a specific provision of the funda"ental la$ has been violated or trans'ressed. hen there is neither a violation of a specific provision of the Constitution nor an# proof sho$in' that there is such a violation, the presu"ption of constitutionalit# $ill prevail and the la$ "ust be upheld. !o doubt is to sustain.4& !here is no specific provision in the Constitution that fi*es a 4&9,999 "ini"u" population that "ust co"pose a le'islative district. As alread# "entioned, the petitioners rel# on the second sentence of Section &2:3, Article I of the /-; Constitution, coupled $ith $hat the# perceive to be the intent of the fra"ers of the Constitution to adopt a "ini"u" population of 4&9,999 for each le'islative district. !he second sentence of Section &2:3, Article I of the Constitution, succinctl# provides< 0Each cit# $ith a population of at least t$o hundred fift# thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.0 !he provision dra$s a plain and clear distinction bet$een the entitle"ent of a cit# to a district on one hand, and the entitle"ent of a province to a district on the other. 1or $hile a province is entitled to at least a representative, $ith nothin' "entioned about population, a cit# "ust first "eet a population "ini"u" of 4&9,999 in order to be si"ilarl# entitled. !he use b# the sub?ect provision of a co""a to separate the phrase 0each cit# $ith a population of at least t$o hundred fift# thousand0 fro" the phrase 0o r each province0 point to no other conclusion than that the 4&9,999 "ini"u" population is onl# re(uired for a cit#, but not for a province. 4% Plainl# read, Section &2:3 of the Constitution re(uires a 4&9,999 "ini"u" population onl# for a cit# to be entitled to a representative, but not so for a province. !he 4&9,999 "ini"u" population re(uire"ent for le'islative districts in cities $as, in turn, the sub?ect of interpretation b# this Court in Mariano, )r. v. CME5EC.4 In Mariano, the issue presented $as the constitutionalit# of Republic Act No. ;&7, $hich $as the la$ that converted the Municipalit# of Maati into a 6i'hl# rbani+ed Cit#. As it happened, Republic Act No. ;&7 created an additional le'islative district for Maati, $hich at that ti"e $as a lone district. !he petitioners in that case ar'ued that the creation of an additional district $ould violate Section &2:3, Article I of the Constitution, because the resultin' districts $ould be supported b # a population of less than 4&9,999, considerin' that Maati had a total population of onl# 7&9,999. !he Supre"e Court sustained the constitutionalit# of the la$ and the validit# of the ne$l# created district, e*plainin' the operation of the Constitutional phrase 0each cit# $ith a p opulation of at least t$o hundred fift# thousand,0 to $it<
Petitioners cannot insist that the addition of another le'islative district in Maati is not in accord $ith section &2:3, Article I of the Constitution for as of the latest surve# 2/--9 census3, the population of Maati stands at onl# four hundred fift# thousand 27&9,9993. Said section provides, inter alia, that a cit# $ith a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand 24&9,9993 shall have at least one representative. Even 'rantin' that the population of Maati as of the /--9 census stood at four hundred fift# thousand 27&9,9993, its le'islative district "a# still be increased since it has "et the "ini"u" population re(uire"ent of t$o hundred fift# thousand 24&9,9993. In fact, Section : of the rdinance appended to the Constitution provides that a cit# $hose population has increased to more than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) shall be entitled to at least one congressional representative.4; 2E"phasis supplied3 !he Mariano case li"ited the application of the 4&9,999 "ini"u" population re(uire"ent for cities onl# to its initial le'islative district. In other $ords, $hile Section &2:3, Article I of the Constitution re(uires a cit# to have a "ini"u" population of 4&9,999 to be entitled to a representative, it does not have to increase its population b# another 4&9,999 to be entitled to an additional district. !here is no reason $h# the Mariano case, $hich involves the creation of an additional district $ithin a cit#, should not be applied to additional districts in provinces. Indeed, if an additional le'islative district created $ithin a cit# is not re(uired to represent a population of at least 4&9,999 in order to be valid, neither should such be needed for an additional district in a province, considerin' "oreover that a province is entitled to an initial seat b# the "ere fact of its creation and re'ardless of its population. Apropos for discussion is the provision of the 5ocal 8overn"ent Code on the creation of a province $hich, b# virtue of and upon creation, is entitled to at least a le'islative district. !hus, Section 7%/ of the 5ocal 8overn"ent Code states< Re(uisites for Creation. F 2a3 A province "a# be created if it has an avera'e annual inco"e, as certified b# the Depart"ent of 1inance, of not less than !$ent# "illion pesos 2P49,999,999.993 based on /--/ constant prices and either of the follo$in' re(uisites< 2i3 a conti'uous territor# of at least t$o thousand 24,9993 s(uare ilo"eters, as certified b# the 5ands Mana'e"ent Bureau@ or 2ii3 a population of not less than t$o hundred fift# thousand 24&9,9993 inhabitants as certified b# the National Statistics ffice. Notabl#, the re(uire"ent of population is not an indispensable re(uire"ent, but is "erel# an alternative addition to the indispensable inco"e re(uire"ent. Mariano, it $ould turn out, is but a reflection of the pertinent ideas that ran throu'h the deliberations on the $ords and "eanin' of Section & of Article I. !he $hats, $h#s, and $herefores of the population re(uire"ent of 0at least t$o hundred fift# thousand0 "a# be 'leaned fro" the records of the Constitutional Co""ission $hich, upon fra"in' the provisions of Section & of Article I, proceeded to for" an ordinance that $ould be appended to the final docu"ent. !he rdinance is captioned 0APPR!ININ8 !6E SEA!S 1 !6E 6SE 1 REPRESEN!A!IES 1 !6E CN8RESS 1 !6E P6I5IPPINES ! !6E DI11EREN! 5E8IS5A!IE DIS!RIC!S IN PRINCES AND CI!IES AND !6E ME!RP5I!AN MANI5A AREA.0 Such records $ould sho$ that the 4&9,999 population bench"ar $as used for the /-;% nation$ide apportion"ent of le'islative districts a"on' provinces, cities and Metropolitan Manila. Si"pl# put, the population fi'ure $as used to deter"ine ho$ "an# districts a province, cit#, or Metropolitan Manila should have. Si"pl# discernible too is the fact that, for the purpose, population had to be the deter"inant. Even then, the re(uire"ent of 4&9,999 inhabitants $as not taen as an absolute "ini"u" for one le'islative district. And, closer to the point herein at issue, in the deter"ination of the
precise district $ithin the province to $hich, throu'h the use of the population bench"ar, so "an# districts have been apportioned, population as a factor $as not the sole, thou'h it $as a"on', several deter"inants. 1ro" its ?ournal, 4- $e can see that the Constitutional Co""ission ori'inall# divided the entire countr# into t$o hundred 24993 districts, $hich corresponded to the ori'inal nu"ber of district representatives. !he 499 seats $ere distributed b# the Constitutional Co""ission in this "anner< first, one 2/3 seat each $as 'iven to the sevent#>three 2:3 provinces and the ten 2/93 cities $ith a population of at least 4&9,999@:9 second, the re"ainin' seats $ere then redistributed a"on' the provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Area 0in accordance $ith the nu"ber of their inhabitants on the basis of a unifor" and pro'ressive ratio.0:/ Co""issioner Davide, $ho later beca"e a Me"ber and then Chief )ustice of the Court, e*plained this in his sponsorship re"ar :4 for the rdinance to be appended to the /-; Constitution< Co""issioner Davide< !he ordinance fi*es at 499 the nu "ber of le'islative seats $hich are, in turn, apportioned a"on' provinces and cities $ith a population of at least 4&9, 999 and the Metropolitan Area in accordance $ith the nu"ber of their respective inhabitants on the basis of a unifor" and pro'ressive ratio. !he population is based on the /-;% pro?ection, $ith the /-;9 official enu"eration as the point of reconin'. !his pro?ection indicates that our population is "ore or less &% "illion. !ain' into account the "andate that each cit# $ith at least 4&9, 999 inhabitants and each province shall have at least one representative, $e first allotted one seat for each of the : provinces, and each one for all cities $ith a population of at least 4&9, 999, $hich are the Cities of Manila, Gue+on, Pasa#, Caloocan, Cebu, Iloilo, Bacolod, Ca'a#an de ro, Davao and a"boan'a. !hereafter, $e then proceedHed to increase $henever appropriate the nu"ber of seats for the provinces and cities in accordance $ith the nu"ber of their inhabitants on the basis of a unifor" and pro'ressive ratio. 2E"phasis supplied3. !hus $as the nu"ber of seats co"puted for each province and cit#. Differentiated fro" this, the deter"ination of the districts $ithin the province had to co nsider 0all protests and co"plaints for"all# received0 $hich, the records sho$, dealt $ith deter"inants other than population as alread# "entioned. Pala$an is a case in point. )ournal No. /9 of the Constitutional Co""ission narrates< IN!ERPE55A!IN 1 MR. N55ED< Mr. Nolledo in(uired on the reason for includin' Puerto Princesa in the northern to$ns $hen it $as "ore affinit# $ith the southern to$n of Aborlan, Batarasa, BrooeJs Point, Narra, Gue+on and Marcos. 6e stated that the 1irst District has a 'reater area than the Second District. 6e then (ueried $hether population $as the onl# factor considered b# the Co""ittee in redistrictin'. Repl#in' thereto, Mr. Davide e*plained that the Co""ittee too into account the standards set in Section & of the Article on the 5e'islative Depart"ent, na"el#< /3 the le'islative seats should be appo rtioned a"on' the provinces and cities and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordanc e $ith their inhabitants on the basis of a unifor" and pro'ressive ratio@ and 43 the le'islative district "ust be co"pact, ad?acent and conti'uous. Mr. Nolledo pointed out that the last factor $as not "et $hen Puerto Princesa $as included $ith the northern to$ns. 6e then in(uired $hat is the distance bet$een Puerto Princesa fro" San icente. **** !hereupon, Mr. Nolledo stated that Puerto Princesa has a population of &,7;9 and based on the apportion"ent, its inclusion $ith the northern to$ns $ould result in a co"bined population of 4%&,999 as a'ainst onl# /;%,999 for the south. 6e added that Cu#o and Coron are ver# i"portant to$ns in the
northern part of Pala$an and, in fact, Cu#o $as the capital of Pala$an before its transfer to Puerto Princesa. 6e also pointed out that there are "ore potential candidates in the north and therefore if Puerto Princesa Cit# and the to$ns of Cu#o and Coron are lu"ped to'ether, there $ould be less candidates in the south, "ost of $hose inhabitants are not interested in politics. 6e then su''ested that Puerto Princesa be included in the south or the Second District. Mr. Davide stated that the proposal $ould be considered durin' the period of a"end"ents. 6e re(uested that the CME5EC staff stud# said proposal.:: 0PRPSED AMENDMEN! 1 MR. N55ED n the districtin' of Pala$an, Mr. Nolledo pointed out that it $as e*plained in the interpellations that District I has a total population of 4%&,:&; includin' the Cit# of Puerto Princesa, $hile the Second District has a total population of /;%,::. 6e proposed, ho$ever, that Puerto Princesa be included in the Second District in order to satisf# the conti'uit# re(uire"ent in the Co nstitution considerin' that said Cit# is nearer the southern to$ns co"prisin' the Second District. In repl# to Mr. MonsodJs (uer#, Mr. Nolledo e*plained that $ith the proposed transfer of Puerto Princesa Cit# to the Second District, the 1irst District $ould onl# have a total population of /-9,999 $hile the Second District $ould have 4%4,4/:, and there $ould be no substantial chan'es. Mr. Davide accepted Mr. NolledoJs proposal to insert Puerto Princesa Cit# before the Municipalit# of Aborlan. !here bein' no ob?ection on the part of the Me"bers the sa"e $as approved b# the Bod#. APPRA5 1 !6E APPR!INMEN! AND DIS!RIC!IN8 1 PA5AAN !here bein' no other a"end"ent, on "otion of Mr. Davide, there bein' no ob?ection, the apportion"ent and districtin' for the province of Pala$an $as approved b# the Bod#.:7 !he districtin' of Pala$an disre'arded the 4&9,999 population fi'ure. It $as decided b# the i"portance of the to$ns and the cit# that eventuall# co"posed the districts. Ben'uet and Ba'uio are another reference point. !he )ournal further narrates< At this ?uncture, Mr. Davide infor"ed the Bod# that Mr. Re'alado "ade a reservation $ith the Co""ittee for the possible reopenin' of the approval of Re'ion I $ith respect to Ben'uet and Ba'uio Cit#. REMARS 1 MR. RE8A5AD Mr. Re'alado stated that in the for"ulation of the Co""ittee, Ba'uio Cit# and !uba are placed in one district. 6e stated that he $as to#in' $ith the idea that, perhaps as a special consideration for Ba'u io because it is the su""er capital of the Philippines, !uba could be divorced fro" Ba'uio Cit# so that it could, b# itself, have its o$n constituenc# and !uba could be transferred to the Second District to'ether $ith Ito'on. Mr. Davide, ho$ever, pointed out that the population of Ba'uio Cit# is onl# /7/ ,/7-. Mr. Re'alado ad"itted that the re'ular population of Ba'uio "a# be lo$er durin' certain ti"es of the #ear, but the transient population $ould increase the population substantiall# and, therefore, for purposes of business and professional transactions, it is be#ond (uestion that population>$ise, Ba'uio $ould "ore than (ualif#, not to spea of the official business "atters, transactions and offices that are also there.
Mr. Davide adverted to Director de 5i"aJs state"ent that unless !uba and Ba'uio Cit# are united, !uba $ill be isolated fro" the rest of Ben'uet as the place can onl# be reached b# passin' throu'h Ba'uio Cit#. 6e stated that the Co""ittee $ould sub"it the "atter to the Bod#. pon in(uir# of the Chair $hether he is insistin' on his a"end"ent, Mr. Re'alado stated that the Bod# should have a sa# on the "atter and that the considerations he had 'iven are not on the de"o'raphic aspects but on the fact that Ba'uio Cit# is the su""er capital, the venue and situs of "an# 'overn"ent offices and functions. n "otion of Mr. Davide, there bein' no ob?ection, the Bod# approved the reconsideration of the earlier approval of the apportion"ent and districtin' of Re'ion I, particularl# Ben'uet. !hereafter, on "otion of Mr. Davide, there bein' no ob?ection, the a"end"ent of Mr. Re'alado $as put to a vote. ith /7 Me"bers votin' in favor and none a'ainst, the a"end"ent $as approved b# the Bod#. Mr. Davide infor"ed that in vie$ of the approval of the a"end"ent, Ben'uet $ith Ba'uio Cit# $ill have t$o seats. !he 1irst District shall co"prise of the "unicipalities of Mana#an, Bu'uias, Baun, aba#an, ibun'an, Bood, Ato, apan'an, !ubla#, 5a !rinidad, Sablan, Ito'on and !uba. !he Second District shall co"prise of Ba'uio Cit# alone. !here bein' no ob?ection, the Bod# approved the apportion"ent and districtin' of Re'ion I.:& Guite e"phaticall#, population $as e*plicitl# re"oved as a factor. It "a# be additionall# "entioned that the province of Cavite $as divided into districts based on the distribution of its three cities, $ith each district havin' a cit#< one d istrict 0supposed to be a fishin' area@ another a ve'etable and fruit area@ and the third, a rice 'ro$in' area,0 because such consideration 0fosters co""on interests in line $ith the standard of co"pactness.0:% In the districtin' of Ma'uindanao, a"on' the "atters discussed $ere 0political stabilit# and co""on interest a"on' the peop le in the area0 and the possibilit# of 0chaos and disunit#0 considerin' the 0accepted re'ional, political, traditional and sectoral leaders.0: 1or 5a'una, it $as "entioned that "unicipalities in the hi'hland should not be 'rouped $ith the to$ns in the lo$land. 1or Cebu, Co""issioner Maa"bon' proposed that the# should 0balance the area and population.0:; Consistent $ith Mariano and $ith the fra"er deliberations on district apportion"ent, $e stated in Ba'abu#o v. CME5EC:- that< * * * ndeniabl#, these fi'ures sho$ a disparit# in the population si+es of the districts. !he Constitution, ho$ever, does not re(uire "athe"atical e*actitude or ri'id e(ualit# as a standard in 'au'in' e(ualit# of representation. * * *. !o ensure (ualit# representation throu'h co""onalit# of interests and ease of access b# the representative to the constituents, all that the Constitution re(uires is that ever# le'islative district should co"prise, as far as practicable, conti'uous, co"pact and ad?acent territor#. 2E"phasis supplied3. !his 499; pronounce"ent is fresh reasonin' a'a inst the unco"pro"isin' stand of petitioner that an additional provincial le'islative district, $hich does not have at least a 4&9,999 population is not allo$ed b# the Constitution. !he fore'oin' readin' and revie$ lead to a clear lesson. Neither in the te*t nor in the essence of Section &, Article I of the Constitution can, the petition find support. And the for"ulation of the rdinance in the i"ple"entation of the provision, na #, even the rdinance itself, refutes the contention that a population of 4&9,999 is a constitutional sine (ua non for
the for"ation of an additional le'islative district in a province, $hose population 'ro$th has increased be#ond the /-;% nu"bers. !ranslated in the ter"s of the present case< /. !he Province of Ca"arines Sur, $ith an esti"ated population of /,% -:,;4/ in 499 is K based on the for"ula and constant nu"ber of 4&9,999 used b # the Constitutional Co""ission in nationall# apportionin' le'islative districts a"on' provinces and cities K entitled to t$o 243 districts in addition to the four 273 that it $as 'iven in the /-;% apportion"ent. Si'nificantl#, petitioner A(uino concedes this point.79 In other $ords, Section & of Article I as clearl# $ritten allo$s and does not prohibit an additional district for the Province of Ca"arines Sur, such as that provided for in Republic Act No. -;%@ 4. Based on the pith and pitch of the e*chan'es on the rdinance on the protests and co"plaints a'ainst strict confor"it# $ith the population standard, and "ore i"portantl# based on the final districtin' in the rdinance on considerations other than population, the reapportion"ent or the reco"position of the first and second le'islative districts in the Province of Ca"arines Sur that resulted in the creation of a ne$ le'islative district is valid even if the population of the ne$ district is /%,:;: and not 4&9,999 as insisted upon b# the petitioners. :. !he factors "entioned durin' the deliberations on 6ouse Bill No. 74%7, $ere< 2a3 the dialects spoen in the 'rouped "unicipalities@ 2b3 the si+e of the ori'inal 'roupin's co"pared to that of the re'rouped "unicipalities@ 2c3 the natural division separatin' the "unicipalit# sub?ect of the d iscussion fro" the reconfi'ured District ne@ and 2d3 the balancin' of the areas of the three districts resultin' fro" the redistrictin' of Districts ne and !$o.7/ Each of such factors and in relation to the others considered to'ether, $ith the increased population of the erst$hile Districts ne and !$o, point to the utter absence of abuse of discretion, "uch less 'rave abuse of discretion,74 that $ould $arrant the invalidation of Republic Act No. -/%. !o be clear about our ?ud'"ent, $e do not sa # that in the reapportion"ent of the first and second le'islative districts of Ca"arines Sur, the nu"ber of inhabitants in the resultin' additional district should not be considered. ur rulin' is that population is not the onl# factor but is ?ust one of several other factors in the co"position of the additional district. Such settle"ent is in accord $ith both the te*t of the Constitution and the spirit of the letter, so ver# clearl# 'iven for" in the Constitutional debates on the e*act issue presented b# this petition.1avvphi1 /EREORE, the petition is hereb# $ISMISSE$ . Republic Act No. -/% entitled 0An Act
Reapportionin' the Co"position of the 1irst 2/st3 and Second 24nd3 5e'islative Districts in the Province of Ca"arines Sur and !hereb# Creatin' a Ne$ 5e'islative District 1ro" Such Reapportion"ent0 is a -A%I$ %A.
S RDERED. #OSE PORTUGA% PERE
Associate )ustice
