0

Higit Pa

Susunod na Blog

Bumuo ng Blog

Mag-sign in

Scribbles of a Lunatic
Mind
I'M A SCHIZOPHRENIC! I'M HAPPY! I'M PROUD TO BE ONE!
HOME

Home

POSTS RSS

Political Law

COMMENTS RSS

enter your keywords here...

EDIT

Aquino III vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010

Aquino III vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7,

2010
Post under case digests, Political Law at Tuesday, January 31, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

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.
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.

Share

FOLLOW BY EMAIL

Email address... Submit

Subscribe in a reader

CATEGORIES
bar exam questionnaire (8)
case digests (612)
Civil Law (123)
Commercial Law (89)
Criminal Law (102)

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.

labor law (95)

Legal Ethics (89)
MCQ (28)
personal (6)
Political Law (163)

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.
Held: 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 nothing was

Followers (9)

promo/discounts/freebies (56)
Psychiatry (5)
Remedial Law (112)
Taxation (85)
villarama doctrines (103)

There was an error in this

gadget

Follow this blog

mentioned about a population. While in cities, a minimum population

of 250,000 must 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.

0 COMMENTS: ON "AQUINO III VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 189793, APRIL 7, 2010"

POST A COMMENT

Enter your comment...

Comment as:

Publish

Google Account

Preview

Newer Post
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Home

Older Post

Live Traffic Feed

A visitor from Quezon City

viewed "Scribbles of a
Lunatic Mind: Aquino III
vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
189793,
A
visitorApril
from 7,
Quezon
2010"City
46
secs ago"Scribbles of a
viewed
Lunatic Mind: Aquino III
vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
189793,
A
visitorApril
from 7,
Imus,
2010"
Cavite
1
min ago"Scribbles of a
viewed
Lunatic Mind: Reyes vs.
CA, G.R. 118233,
December
A
visitor from
10, 1999"
Quezon
3 mins
City
ago
viewed
"Scribbles of a
Lunatic Mind: Lung Center
of the Philippines vs.
Quezon City [GR No.
A
visitorJune
from29,
Philippines
144104
2004]" 5
viewed
"Scribbles
of a
mins ago
Lunatic Mind: Abakada
Guro Party List, et al vs
Exec.
A
visitor
Sec.from
Ermita"
Ugong
7 mins
Norte,
ago
Quezon
City viewed
"Scribbles of a Lunatic
Mind: Gaston vs. Republic
Planters
A
visitorBank"
from Philippines
12 mins ago
viewed "Scribbles of a
Lunatic Mind: People vs.
Dela
Cruz"
15 Quezon
mins agoCity
A visitor
from
viewed "Scribbles of a
Lunatic Mind: Baviera v.
Paglinawan, et al., G.R. No.
168380,
A
visitorFebruary
from Makati,
8, 2007"
15 mins ago
Mindoro
Occidental viewed
"Scribbles of a Lunatic
Mind: Edao v. Asdala,
December
A
visitor from
6, 2010"
Pasig,16 mins
ago
Pampanga
viewed
"Scribbles of a Lunatic
Mind: Esquivel vs.
Real-time view Menu

374,067

RECOMMENDED READS
bethere2day
blog-links-exchange
BLOG-PH.com
Maruism
NURSINGnle
Philippine
Databank
Scire Licet
The Digester
Uberdigests

ARCHIVE
Archive

Case

Digests

Scribbles of a Luna
Mind
I'M A SCHIZOPHRENIC! I'M HAPPY! I'M PROUD TO BE ONE!
HOME

Home

POSTS RSS

Political Law

Aquino III vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April

Aquino III vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.

2010
Post under case digests, Political Law

Facts: The said case was filed by the pe

Petition for Certiorari and
Court. It was addressed to nullify and declar
R.A. 9716 entitled An
First (1st) and Second Legislative Districts (2
Camarines Sur and Thereby Creating a New L
such Reapportionment.

Said Act originated from House Bill No. 4264,

President Macapagal-Arroyo. Effectuating the
existing four districts, and apportioned district
district where the new first district shall be
population count.

Petitioners contend that the reapportionme

explicit constitutional standard with a mi
250,000 for the creation of a legislative distri
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
petitioners that if population is less than
Constitution, it must be stricken-down for no
minimum population

Respondents have argued that the petitioners

technical effects: first, error in choosing to as
Remedy of Certiorari and
Court. And second, petitioners have no locus
constitutionality of R.A. 9716.

DISCLAIMER

POPULAR POSTS

All contents provided on this blog are for

informational/educational
purposes
only.
Coffeeafficionado makes no representation as to the
accuracy or completeness of any information on this site
or found by following any link on this site. The owner will
not also be liable for any errors or omissions on the
information provided nor for the availability of this
information.

BANAT vs. COMELEC , GR 17927 [ April 21, 2009 ]

Facts: Barangay Association for National Advancement
and Transparency (BANAT) filed before the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) a petitio...
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs.
PBM, 51 SCRA 189

FOLLOWERS

Join this site

with Google Friend Connect

Members (15)

Philippine Blooming Employees Organization

(PBMEO) decided to stage a mass demonstration
Facts:

in front of Malacaang to express their gri...

Abakada Guro Party List, et al vs Exec. Sec. Ermita
Coffeeafficionado claims no
credit for any Facts: On May 24, 2005, the President signed into law
image/video/ads featured on this blog. They are all
copyrighted to its site owners. If you own rights to any of Republic Act 9337 or the VAT Reform Act. Before
the images/videos featured on this blog, and do not wish the law took effect on July 1, 2005,...
them to appear on this site, contact Coffeeafficionado thru Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil 726
email and they will be immediately removed.
Facts: Pursuant to the power delegated to it by the
Legislature, the Director of Public Works promulgated
rules and regulations pertainin...
Garcia vs. Mata
Facts: Garcia was a reserve officer on active duty who

Already a member? Sign in

was reversed to inactive status. He filed an action for

mandamus to compel the DND ...
Copyright 2009. Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind - WPBoxedTech Theme Design by Technology Tricks for Health Coupons.
Bloggerized by Free Blogger Template - Sponsored by Graphic ZONe and Technology Info