Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Aldaba vs. COMELEC (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Leslie Joy Pantorgo
    55 views2 pages
    This case concerns the constitutionality of a law that created a separate legislative district for the city of Malolos in the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional because the population of Malolos was only 223,069, below the 250,000 threshold required by the constitution for a city to have its own legislative district. Population projections cited in support of the law were found to be unreliable and not based on official sources, as any projection would still have the population below 250,000 by the next election. A city must reach the 250,000 threshold before being entitled to its own district in the immediately following election.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case concerns the constitutionality of a law that created a separate legislative district for the city of Malolos in the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional because the population of Malolos was only 223,069, below the 250,000 threshold required by the constitution for a city to have its own legislative district. Population projections cited in support of the law were found to be unreliable and not based on official sources, as any projection would still have the population below 250,000 by the next election. A city must reach the 250,000 threshold before being entitled to its own district in the immediately following election.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    55 views2 pages

    Aldaba vs. COMELEC (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Leslie Joy Pantorgo
    This case concerns the constitutionality of a law that created a separate legislative district for the city of Malolos in the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional because the population of Malolos was only 223,069, below the 250,000 threshold required by the constitution for a city to have its own legislative district. Population projections cited in support of the law were found to be unreliable and not based on official sources, as any projection would still have the population below 250,000 by the next election. A city must reach the 250,000 threshold before being entitled to its own district in the immediately following election.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE DIGEST

    G.R No. 188078               January 25, 2010


    VICTORINO B. ALDABA, CARLO JOLETTE S. FAJARDO, JULIO G. MORADA, and MINERVA ALDABA MORADA
    vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
    CARPIO, J.:

    FACTS:
     Bulacan was represented in Congress through four legislative districts.
     The First Legislative District comprised of the city of Malolos and the municipalities of Hagonoy, Calumpit, Pulilan,
    Bulacan, and Paombong.
     RA 9591 lapsed into law, amending Malolos’ City Charter, by creating a separate legislative district for the city.
     At the time the legislative bills for RA 9591 were filed in Congress in 2007, the population of Malolos City was
    223,069.
     Petitioners, taxpayers, registered voters and residents of Malolos City, filed this petition contending that RA 9591 is
    unconstitutional for failing to meet the minimum population threshold of 250,000 for a city to merit representation in
    Congress as provided under Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance
    appended to the 1987 Constitution.

    ISSUE:
    RULING:

    RA 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.

    The 1987 Constitution requires that for a city to have a legislative district, the city must have "a population of at
    least two hundred fifty thousand." 

    The only issue here is whether the City of Malolos has a population of at least 250,000, whether actual or projected, for
    the purpose of creating a legislative district for the City of Malolos in time for the 10 May 2010 elections. If not, then RA
    9591 creating a legislative district in the City of Malolos is unconstitutional.

    House Bill No. 3693 cites the undated Certification of Regional Director Alberto N. Miranda of Region III of the National
    Statistics Office (NSO) as authority that the population of the City of Malolos "will be 254,030 by the year 2010." The
    Certification states that the population of "Malolos, Bulacan as of May 1, 2000 is 175,291." The Certification further states
    that it was "issued upon the request of Mayor Danilo A. Domingo of the City of Malolos in connection with the proposed
    creation of Malolos City as a lone congressional district of the Province of Bulacan."

     The Certification of Regional Director Miranda, which is based on demographic projections, is without legal effect
    because Regional Director Miranda has no basis and no authority to issue the Certification.
     The Certification is also void on its face because based on its own growth rate assumption, the population of
    Malolos will be less than 250,000 in the year 2010.
     In addition, intercensal demographic projections cannot be made for the entire year. In any event, a city whose
    population has increased to 250,000 is entitled to have a legislative district only in the "immediately following
    election" after the attainment of the 250,000 population.
     First, Certifications on demographic projections can be issued only if such projections are declared official by the
    National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB). Second, certifications based on demographic projections can be
    issued only by the NSO Administrator or his designated certifying officer. Third, intercensal population projections
    must be as of the middle of every year.
     The Certification of Regional Director Miranda does not state that the demographic projections he certified have
    been declared official by the NSCB. The records of this case do not also show that the Certification of Regional
    Director Miranda is based on demographic projections declared official by the NSCB. The Certification, which
    states that the population of Malolos "will be 254,030 by the year 2010," violates the requirement that intercensal
    demographic projections shall be "as of the middle of every year." In addition, there is no showing that Regional
    Director Miranda has been designated by the NSO Administrator as a certifying officer for demographic
    projections in Region III. In the absence of such official designation, only the certification of the NSO Administrator
    can be given credence by this Court.
     The Certification states that "the total population of Malolos, Bulacan as of May 1, 2000 is 175,291." The
    Certification also states that the population growth rate of Malolos is 3.78% per year between 1995 and 2000.

    Page 1 of 2
    Based on a growth rate of 3.78% per year, the population of Malolos of 175,291 in 2000 will grow to only 241,550
    in 2010.
     Also, the 2007 Census places the population of Malolos at 223,069 as of 1 August 2007.  Based on a growth rate
    of 3.78%, the population of Malolos will grow to only 248,365 as of 1 August 2010. Even if the growth rate is
    compounded yearly, the population of Malolos of 223,069 as of 1 August 2007 will grow to only 249,333 as of 1
    August 2010.

    Any population projection forming the basis for the creation of a legislative district must be based on an official and
    credible source. That is why the OSG cited Executive Order No. 135, otherwise the population projection would be
    unreliable or speculative.

    Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution provides:


    Any province that may be created, or any city whose population may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty
    thousand shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one Member or such number of members as it
    may be entitled to on the basis of the number of its inhabitants and according to the standards set forth in paragraph (3),

    Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution. xxx. A city that has attained a population of 250,000 is entitled to a legislative
    district only in the "immediately following election."

    In short, a city must first attain the 250,000 population, and thereafter, in the immediately following election, such
    city shall have a district representative.
     There is no showing in the present case that the City of Malolos has attained or will attain a population of 250,000,
    whether actual or projected, before the 10 May 2010 elections.

     Clearly, there is no official record that the population of the City of Malolos will be at least 250,000, actual or
    projected, prior to the 10 May 2010 elections, the immediately following election after the supposed attainment of
    such population. Thus, the City of Malolos is not qualified to have a legislative district of its own under Section
    5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution.

    Compliance with constitutional standards on the creation of legislative districts is important because the "aim of
    legislative apportionment is ‘to equalize population and voting power among districts.

    WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We DECLARE Republic Act No. 9591 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

    Page 2 of 2

    You might also like