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. 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 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 ponencias discussion on the preocedural issue.

PAGE NO. 1

DIGESTED BY: EDRIC M. CRUZ [1B UST FCL]

COURSE/SUBJECT: POLITICAL LAW (Case Digests)

G.R. No. 188078, January 25, 2010 ALDABA, petitioner vs. Commission on Elections, respondent 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, n 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. 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: 3. 2. 1. The certification on demographic projection can be issued only if such are declared official by the Natl Statistics Coordination Board. In this case, it was not stated whether the document have been declared official by the NSCB. 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. 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 Abads Dissenting Opinion, he stated relatively the same justifications as to the unconstitutionality of the said R.A. relatively the same with Justice Carpios 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.

PAGE NO. 2

DIGESTED BY: EDRIC M. CRUZ [1B UST FCL]