Digest Author: Margreth Rizzini A.

Montejo

Bagabuyo vs. Commission On Elections
GR NO. 115844
Petitioner: Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo
Respondent: Solicitor General
Petition: Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a
tempororary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injuction filed to prevent
COMELEC from implementing Resolution No. 7837 on the ground that RA 9371 is
unconstitutional
Ponente: J. Brion
Date: December 8, 2008
Facts:
On October 10, 2006, Cagayan De Oros Constantino G. Jaraula filed and
sponsored House Bill No. 5859: An Act Providing for the Apportionment of the Lone
Legislative District of the City of Cagayan De Oro which eventually became RA 9371. It
increased Cagayan De Oros legislative district from one to two.
On March 13, 2007, COMELEC EN BANC promulgated Resolution 7837
implementing RA 9371.
Petitioner contends:
1.
That RA 9371 is unconstitutional because it did not explicitly provide rules,
regulations and guidelines for the conduct of a plebiscite, which is
indispensable for the division or conversion of a local government unit.
2.
That Cagayan De Oro Citys reapportionment falls under the meaning of
creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration which is
governed by Sec. 10 Article X of the Constitution
3.
That creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of
boundaries involve material change in political and economic rights of the
local government unit
4.
That voters right to elect a Congressman was arbitrarily reduce at least one
half
5.
That voters right to elect a Congressman and members of the city council of
other legislative district was arbitrarily denied
6.
That government funds were illegally disbursed without prior approval
Hence, petitioner brought this action to nullify RA 9371 and COMELEC
Resolution No. 7837.
Issues:
1.
2.
3.

Did the petitioner violate hierarchy of courts rule?

Does RA 9371 provide for legislative reapportionment?
Does RA 9371 violate equality of representation doctrine?

Ruling:
1. No. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over said matter because the present
petition is of the nature of a certiorari, prohibition, madamus and quo warranto,

which is within its direct invocation pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
Also, the petition is considered an exception to the principle of hierarchy because
it raises an important subject matter and issues of public interest. Moreover, the
petition assails the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution No. 7837 issued by
Comelec En Banc.
2.

Yes. RA 9371 is a legislative reapportionment1 because the perusal wording of

the main provisions in sec. 1 of RA9371 mentions legislative districts2 and no
division of Cagayan De Oro city as a political and corporate entity. Its territory
remains completely whole and intact. There is only the addition of another
legislative district that takes effect. Thus, RA9371, is on its face, purely and
simply reapportionment passed in accordance with the authority granted to
Congress under sec. 5(4) under Article VI of the constitution. So, sec. 10 Article
X of the Constitution is not applicable.

3. No. RA 9371 does not divide Cagayan De Oro City in political and corporate
units. It does not affect the membership in the local government unity but
increases only the number of House of Representatives, which it is entitled to.
The law clearly provides that the basis for districting shall be the number of the
inhabitants of a city or province and not the number of registered vote as held by
the court in the jurisprudence of Herrera vs. Comelec. Also, based on the judicial
notice of the NSO 2007 statistics, Cagayan de Oros 1st District has 254,644 while
the 2nd District has 299,322 total population. The population requirement is
therefore met. Despite the disparity, the Constitution does not require
mathematical exactitude or rigid equality as a standard in gauging equality of
representation. The court cannot question the division and must refer to the
lawmakers to determine the components of the two districts.
Dispositive: Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

As defined by Blacks Law Dictionary, legislative reapportionment is realignment or

change in legislative districts brought about by changes in population and madated by
the constitutional requirement of equality of representation. According to the history of
affected laws, Art VI, Sec. 5(1) and Art X, Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution, holding a
plebiscite was never a requirement for apportionment or reapportionment.
2
Pursuant to Art VI section 5, a legislative district may be in a sense a political unit since
it is a basis for the election of a Representative. However, it is not a political subdivision
through which government functions are carried out through local government units that
possess legal personality. It is not a corporate unit, unlike a province, a city, municipality
or barangay. The latter is governed under Art X, Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution which
clearly endows power to Congress and requires plebiscite.