Professional Documents
Culture Documents
138 Aquino III V Comelec
138 Aquino III V Comelec
SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III and MAYOR JESSE ROBREDO vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS represented by its Chairman JOSE A.R. MELO and its
Commissioners, RENE V. SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T. FERRER, LUCENITO N.
TAGLE, ARMANDO VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH AND GREGORIO LARRAZABAL
FACTS
Petitioners Senator Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III and Mayor Jesse Robredo, as public
officers, taxpayers and citizens, seek the nullification as unconstitutional of Republic Act
No. 9716, entitled An Act Reapportioning the Composition of the First (1st) and Second
(2nd) Legislative Districts in the Province of Camarines Sur and Thereby Creating a New
Legislative District From Such Reapportionment. Petitioners consequently pray that the
respondent Commission on Elections be restrained from making any issuances and from
taking any steps relative to the implementation of RA 9716. The said law created an
additional legislative district for the Province of Camarines Sur by reconfiguring the
existing first and second legislative districts of the province.
RA 9716 is a well-milled legislation. The factual recitals by both parties of the origins of
the bill that became the law show that, from the filing of House Bill No. 4264 until its
approval by the Senate on a vote of (13) in favor and (2) against, the process progressed
step by step, marked by public hearings on the sentiments and position of the local
officials of Camarines Sur on the creation of a new congressional district, as well as
argumentation and debate on the issue, now before us, concerning the stand of the
oppositors of the bill that a population of at least 250,000 is required by the Constitution
for such new district.
Petitioner Aquino III was one of two senators who voted against the approval of the Bill
by the Senate. His co-petitioner, Robredo, is the Mayor of Naga City, which was a part of
the former second district from which the municipalities of Gainza and Milaor were taken
for inclusion in the new second district. No other local executive joined the two; neither
did the representatives of the former 3rd and 4th districts of the province.
Petitioners’ contention:
Petitioners rely on Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which reads:
Article VI
Section 5. (1) x x x x
(2) x x x x
The petitioners posit that the 250,000 figure appearing in the above-cited provision is the
minimum population requirement for the creation of a legislative district. The petitioners
theorize that, save in the case of a newly created province, each legislative district
created by Congress must be supported by a minimum population of at least 250,000 in
order to be valid. Under this view, existing legislative districts may be reapportioned and
severed to form new districts, provided each resulting district will represent a population
of at least 250,000. On the other hand, if the reapportionment would result in the creation
of a legislative seat representing a populace of less than 250,000 inhabitants, the
reapportionment must be stricken down as invalid for non-compliance with the minimum
population requirement.
ISSUE
Whether or not Republic Act 9716 is unconstitutional because the newly apportioned first
district of Camarines Sur failed to meet the population requirement for the creation of the
legislative district as explicitly provided in Article VI, Section 5, Paragraphs (1) and (3) of
the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended thereto
RULING – NO. There is no specific provision in the Constitution that fixes a 250,000
minimum population that must compose a legislative district.
Any law duly enacted by Congress carries with it the presumption of constitutionality.
Before a law may be declared unconstitutional by this Court, there must be a clear
showing that a specific provision of the fundamental law has been violated or
transgressed. When there is neither a violation of a specific provision of the Constitution
nor any proof showing that there is such a violation, the presumption of constitutionality
will prevail and the law must be upheld. To doubt is to sustain.
As already mentioned, the petitioners rely on the second sentence of Section 5(3), Article
VI of the 1987 Constitution, coupled with what they perceive to be the intent of the framers
of the Constitution to adopt a minimum population of 250,000 for each legislative district.
The provision draws a plain and clear distinction between the entitlement of a city to a
district on one hand, and the entitlement of a province to a district on the other. For while
a province is entitled to at least a representative, with nothing mentioned about
population, a city must first meet a population minimum of 250,000 in order to be similarly
entitled.
The use by the subject provision of a comma to separate the phrase each city with a
population of at least two hundred fifty thousand from the phrase or each province point
to no other conclusion than that the 250,000 minimum population is only required for a
city, but not for a province.
Plainly read, Section 5(3) of the Constitution requires a 250,000 minimum population
only for a city to be entitled to a representative, but not so for a province.
The 250,000 minimum population requirement for legislative districts in cities was, in turn,
the subject of interpretation by this Court in Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC.
In Mariano, the issue presented was the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7854, which
was the law that converted the Municipality of Makati into a Highly Urbanized City. As it
happened, Republic Act No. 7854 created an additional legislative district for Makati,
which at that time was a lone district. The petitioners in that case argued that the creation
of an additional district would violate Section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution, because
the resulting districts would be supported by a population of less than 250,000,
considering that Makati had a total population of only 450,000. The Supreme Court
sustained the constitutionality of the law and the validity of the newly created district,
explaining the operation of the Constitutional phrase each city with a population of at least
two hundred fifty thousand, to wit:
The Mariano case limited the application of the 250,000 minimum population
requirement for cities only to its initial legislative district. In other words, while Section
5(3), Article VI of the Constitution requires a city to have a minimum population of 250,000
to be entitled to a representative, it does not have to increase its population by another
250,000 to be entitled to an additional district.
There is no reason why the Mariano case, which involves the creation of
an additional district within a city, should not be applied to additional districts in
provinces. Indeed, if an additional legislative district created within a city is not required
to represent a population of at least 250,000 in order to be valid, neither should such be
needed for an additional district in a province, considering moreover that a province is
entitled to an initial seat by the mere fact of its creation and regardless of its population.
Apropos for discussion is the provision of the Local Government Code on the creation of
a province which, by virtue of and upon creation, is entitled to at least a legislative
district. Thus, Section 461 of the Local Government Code states:
Mariano, it would turn out, is but a reflection of the pertinent ideas that ran through the
deliberations on the words and meaning of Section 5 of Article VI.
The whats, whys, and wherefores of the population requirement of at least two hundred
fifty thousand may be gleaned from the records of the Constitutional Commission which,
upon framing the provisions of Section 5 of Article VI, proceeded to form an ordinance
that would be appended to the final document. The Ordinance is captioned
APPORTIONING THE SEATS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS
IN PROVINCES AND CITIES AND THE METROPOLITAN MANILA AREA. Such records
would show that the 250,000 population benchmark was used for the 1986
nationwide apportionment of legislative districts among provinces, cities and
Metropolitan Manila. Simply put, the population figure was used to determine how
many districts a province, city, or Metropolitan Manila should have. Simply discernible too
is the fact that, for the purpose, population had to be the determinant. Even then, the
requirement of 250,000 inhabitants was not taken as an absolute minimum for one
legislative district. And, closer to the point herein at issue, in the determination of the
precise district within the province to which, through the use of the population benchmark,
so many districts have been apportioned, population as a factor was not the sole, though
it was among, several determinants.
Neither in the text nor in the essence of Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution can, the
petition find support. And the formulation of the Ordinance in the implementation of the
provision, nay, even the Ordinance itself, refutes the contention that a population of
250,000 is a constitutional sine qua non for the formation of an additional legislative
district in a province, whose population growth has increased beyond the 1986 numbers.
2. Based on the pith and pitch of the exchanges on the Ordinance on the protests
and complaints against strict conformity with the population standard, and more
importantly based on the final districting in the Ordinance on considerations other
than population, the reapportionment or the recomposition of the first and second
legislative districts in the Province of Camarines Sur that resulted in the creation
of a new legislative district is valid even if the population of the new district is
176,383 and not 250,000 as insisted upon by the petitioners.
3. The factors mentioned during the deliberations on House Bill No. 4264, were:
Each of such factors and in relation to the others considered together, with the increased
population of the erstwhile Districts One and Two, point to the utter absence of abuse of
discretion, much less grave abuse of discretion, that would warrant the invalidation of
Republic Act No. 9716.
To be clear about our judgment, we do not say that in the reapportionment of the first and
second legislative districts of Camarines Sur, the number of inhabitants in the resulting
additional district should not be considered. Our ruling is that population is not the only
factor but is just one of several other factors in the composition of the additional
district. Such settlement is in accord with both the text of the Constitution and the spirit of
the letter, so very clearly given form in the Constitutional debates on the exact issue
presented by this petition.