COURSE/SUBJECT: POLITICAL LAW (Case Digests)

CASE G: LEGISLATURE
G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010
AQUINO III, petitioners vs. COMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent
PONENTE:PEREZ, J.
FACTS:
The said case was filed by the petitioners by way of a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It was addressed to nullify and
declared as unconstitutional, R.A. 9716 entitled “An Act Reapportioning the
Composition of the First (1st) and Second Legislative Districts (2nd) in the province
of Camarines Sur and Thereby Creating a New Legislative District from such
Reapportionment.”
nothing was mentioned about a population. While in cities, a minimum population of
250,000must first be satisfied. In 2007, CamSur had a population of 1,693,821
making the province entitled to two additional districts from the present of four.
Based on the formulation of Ordinance, other than population, the results of the
apportionment were valid. And lastly, other factors were mentioned during the
deliberations of House Bill No. 4264.
With regards to the dissenting opinions, it was stated by Justice Carpio that R.A.
9716 was unconstitutional for being utterly repugnant to the clear and precise
standards prescribed in Section 5, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution.
On the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Carpio-Morlaes expressed
dissent and concurred with the ponencia’s discussion on the preocedural issue.

Said Act originated from House Bill No. 4264, and it was enacted by President
Macapagal-Arroyo. Effectuating the act, it has divided the existing four districts, and
apportioned districts shall form additional district where the new first district shall be
composed of 176,383 population count.

Petitioners contend that the reapportionment runs afoul of the explicit constitutional
standard with a minimum population of 250,000 for the creation of a legislative
district under Section 5 (3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. It was emphasized
as well by the petitioners that if population is less than that provided by the
Constitution, it must be stricken-down for non-compliance with the minimum
population requirement, unless otherwise fixed by law.

Respondents have argued that the petitioners are guilty of two fatal technical effects:
first, error in choosing to assail R.A. 9716 via the Remedy of Certiorari and
Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. And second, petitioners have no
locus standi to question the constitutionality of R.A. 9716.

ISSUE:Whether or not Republic Act No. 9716 is unconstitutional and therefore null
and void, or whether or not a population of 250,000 is an indispensable constitutional
requirement for the creation of a new legislative district in a province.

RULING:

It was ruled that the said Act is constitutional. The plain and clear distinction
between a city and a province was explained under the second sentence of Section 5
(3) of the Constitution. It states that a province is entitled into a representative, with

PAGE NO. 1 DIGESTED BY: EDRIC M. CRUZ [1B – UST FCL]

 COURSE/SUBJECT: POLITICAL LAW (Case Digests)

G.R. No. 188078, January 25, 2010 1. The certification on demographic projection can be issued only if such are
declared official by the Nat’l Statistics Coordination Board. In this case, it was
ALDABA, petitioner vs. Commission on Elections, respondent not stated whether the document have been declared official by the NSCB.

PONENTE:Carpio, J.
FACTS:
This case is an original action for Prohibition to declare unconstitutional, R.A. 9591
which creates a legislative district for the City of Malolos, Bulacan. Allegedly, the
R.A. violates the minimum population requirement for the creation of a legislative
district in a city.Before the May 1, 2009, the province of Bulacan was represented in
Congress through 4 legislative districts. Before the passage of the Act through House
Bill 3162 (later converted to House Bill 3693) and Senate Bill 1986, Malolos City
had a population of 223, 069 in 2007.
House Bill 3693 cites the undated Certification, as requested to be issued to Mayor
Domingo (then Mayor of Malolos), by Region III Director Miranda of NSO that the
population of Malolos will be as projected, 254,030 by the year 2010.
Petitioners contended that R.A. 9591 is unconstitutional for failing to meet the
minimum population threshold of 250,000 for a city to merit representative in
Congress.
ISSUE: Whether or not R.A. 9591, “Án act creating a legislative district for the City
of Malolos, Bulacan” is unconstitutional as petitioned. And whether the City of
Malolos has at least 250,000 actual or projected.
2. The certification can be issued only by the NSO Administrator or his designated
certifying officer, in which case, the Regional Director of Central Luzon NSO is
unauthorized.
3. The intercensasl population projection must be as of the middle of the year,
which in this case, the Certification issued by Director Miranda was undated.
It was also computed that the correct figures using the growth rate, even if
compounded, the Malolos population of 223,069 as of August 1, 2007 will grow to
only 249,333 as of August 1, 2010.
It was emphasized that the 1935 Constitution, that this Court ruled that the aim of
legislative reappointment is to equalize the population and voting power among
districts.
On Justice Abad’s Dissenting Opinion, he stated relatively the same justifications as
to the unconstitutionality of the said R.A. relatively the same with Justice Carpio’s
explanations.
He also mentioned that the R.A 9591 is not concerned with the creation or
conversion of ta local government unit but only with the establishment of a new
legislative district. The same is not governed by the requirements of the E.O. 135.

RULING:

It was declared by the Supreme Court that the R.A. 9591 is unconstitutional for
being violative of Section 5 (3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of
the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution on the grounds that, as required by
the 1987 Constitution, a city must have at least 250,000 population. In relation with
this, Regional Director Miranda issued a Certification which is based on the
demographic projections, was declared without legal effect because the Regional
Director has no basis and no authority to issue the Certification based on the
following statements supported by Section 6 of E.O. 135 as signed by President Fidel
V. Ramos, which provides:

PAGE NO. 2 DIGESTED BY: EDRIC M. CRUZ [1B – UST FCL]