Felwa vs. Salas

A representative district comes into existence by operation of the Constitution when a province is created by statute, without need of a separate reapportionment law, and the constitutional requirements regarding apportionment and contiguous, compact territory apply only to the direct creation of representative districts within a province, not to those incidental to the creation of provinces.

Petitioners were the provincial governor, elective members of the provincial board, and some appointive officials of Mountain Province prior to June 18, 1966, when Republic Act No. 4695 was approved. That statute divided Mountain Province into four provinces — Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, and Kalinga-Apayao — each defined by the traditional political subdivisions based on the tribes or ethnic groups inhabiting the region. Respondents were the officials tasked with implementing the Act: the Executive Secretary, the Auditor General, the Secretary of Finance, the Commissioner of Civil Service, the Provincial Governor of Benguet, and the Assistant Executive Secretary. The case implicated the constitutional provisions on equal protection, the one-title-one-subject rule, and legislative apportionment under the 1935 Constitution.

Petitioners were the provincial governor, elective members of the provincial board, and certain appointive officials of the old Mountain Province. On June 18, 1966, Republic Act No. 4695 was approved, dividing Mountain Province into four new provinces: Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, and Kalinga-Apayao. The Act delineated the territory of each province by grouping municipalities according to the traditional political subdivisions based on the tribes or ethnic groups inhabiting the region. It designated provincial capitals — La Trinidad for Benguet, Bontoc for Mountain Province, Lagawe for Ifugao, and Tabuk for Kalinga-Apayao — and provided for the assignment of incumbent elective and appointive officers to the new provinces.

Under Section 8, the present elective provincial officers of the old Mountain Province were to be assigned to the corresponding new province to which they belonged as members of a particular tribe or ethnic group, continuing to receive their existing salaries until readjustment. Where the position of provincial governor in a newly created province became vacant and the incumbent vice governor was assigned to that province, the vice governor would automatically succeed as governor. All other elective officers necessary to fill vacancies were to be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Section 9 similarly allowed appointive officers and employees to choose which new province to serve in within thirty days of the Act's approval. Section 10 provided that incumbent Members of the House of Representatives would continue to serve their existing districts until their terms expired, after which each new province would have one Member, with Baguio City forming part of the representative district of Benguet.

Petitioner Lamen, the governor of the old Mountain Province, was retained as governor of the new Mountain Province, which, due to its reduced territory and revenues, fell to sixth-class status. Respondent Molintas, formerly vice-governor of the old Mountain Province and subordinate to Lamen, became governor of Benguet, a second-class province, by operation of the succession rule in Section 8. Petitioner Felwa, the senior member of the provincial board of the old Mountain Province, was retained in that position in the new Mountain Province rather than succeeding to the vacated vice-governorship. Petitioners Ponchinlan and Lammawin, elective members of the old provincial board, were retained as board members in Ifugao and Kalinga-Apayao, respectively, rather than becoming vice-governors of those provinces.

Petitioners filed an original action for prohibition with preliminary injunction, seeking to declare Republic Act No. 4695 unconstitutional and to enjoin its enforcement. The Court did not issue the preliminary injunction.

• Equal Protection: Petitioners maintained that the Act denied them equal protection because Lamen, formerly governor of the first-class old Mountain Province, was reduced to governor of a sixth-class province, while his former subordinate Molintas became governor of the second-class province of Benguet; and because the succession rule in Section 8 was applied to Molintas but not to Felwa, Ponchinlan, and Lammawin, who were retained as board members instead of succeeding to vice-governorships under Republic Acts Nos. 180 and 2264.
• Title of the Act: Petitioners argued that the provision in Section 8 regarding automatic succession of the vice governor to the governorship was not covered by the title of the Act, "An Act Creating the Provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, and Kalinga-Apayao."
• Reapportionment: Petitioners contended that the Act created congressional districts without the reapportionment required by the Constitution.
• Contiguity and Compactness: Petitioners alleged that the new representative districts resulting from the creation of the four provinces did not consist of contiguous and compact territory.

• Equal Protection: Whether Republic Act No. 4695 denied petitioners equal protection of the laws by applying different succession rules to different classes of officers and by reducing the rank of the old Mountain Province's governor below that of his former subordinate.
• One Title, One Subject: Whether the provision in Section 8 of the Act regarding the automatic succession of the vice governor to the governorship was germane to the title of the legislation.
• Legislative Apportionment: Whether the creation of representative districts through the division of Mountain Province into four provinces required a separate reapportionment law pursuant to the Constitution.
• Contiguity and Compactness: Whether the new representative districts created by the Act comprised contiguous and compact territory as constitutionally required.

• Equal Protection: No. The classification of elective executive officers, elective board members, and appointive officers was reasonable, being based on substantial distinctions germane to the purpose of the law, and the reduction in province class was a consequence of revenue, not of the Act itself.
• One Title, One Subject: No. The provision in Section 8 regarding succession to the governorship was manifestly germane to the subject of the legislation, an Act creating provinces necessarily providing for the officers who shall run their affairs.
• Legislative Apportionment: No. Representative districts created incidentally to the creation of provinces arise by operation of the Constitution, not by statutory apportionment, and the reapportionment requirement applies only to the direct creation of representative districts within a province.
• Contiguity and Compactness: No. The contiguity and compactness requirement is qualified by the phrase "as far as practicable," the delimitation of the provinces was based on tribal and ethnic groupings, and petitioners' allegation was controverted by respondents and not sufficiently proven.

• Equal Protection: The equal protection clause applies only to persons or things identically situated and does not bar reasonable classification. A classification is reasonable where it is based on substantial distinctions germane to the law's purpose, applies to present and future substantially identical conditions, and applies equally to all members of the same class. The offices of provincial governor and vice-governor are substantially different from those of plain members of the provincial board and appointive officers: the former are essentially executive, while board members perform functions partaking of a legislative character, as provincial boards exercise delegated legislative powers. Different succession rules for these different classes of officers are therefore permissible. The reduction in class of the new Mountain Province was not effected by the Act but was a consequence of the limited revenues of its reduced territory. The territorial division followed traditional political subdivisions based on tribes or ethnic groups, and Lamen, as a resident of Sagada in the new Mountain Province, could not be assigned as governor of any of the other three provinces without violating established policies on public corporations.

• One Title, One Subject: An Act creating provinces must be expected to provide for the officers who shall run the affairs thereof. The provision in Section 8 regarding the automatic succession of the vice governor to the governorship in a newly created province is manifestly germane to the subject matter set forth in the title, "An Act Creating the Provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, and Kalinga-Apayao."

• Legislative Apportionment: Under the constitutional provision at issue, a representative district may come into existence in two ways: (a) indirectly, through the creation of a province, since each province is entitled to at least one Member; or (b) by direct creation of several representative districts within a province. The requirements concerning apportionment and territory apply only to the second method. When a province is created by statute, the corresponding representative district comes into existence neither by authority of that statute nor by apportionment, but by operation of the Constitution itself, without a reapportionment. There is no constitutional limitation as to the time or conditions under which a province may be created, except if the consequence would exceed the maximum of 120 representative districts, which was not the case here. Provinces have historically been created or subdivided with consequent additional representative districts without complying with the apportionment requirements.

• Contiguity and Compactness: Petitioners' allegation that the new representative districts did not comprise contiguous and compact territory was controverted by respondents and not sufficiently proven. Moreover, the constitutional command that each representative district comprise contiguous and compact territory is not absolute but qualified by the phrase "as far as practicable." In this case, the delimitation of the provinces was based on the tribes or ethnic groups inhabiting the region, which furnished a practical basis for the territorial division.

• Equal Protection — Reasonable Classification — The equal protection clause applies only to persons or things identically situated and does not bar reasonable classification. A classification is reasonable where: (1) it is based upon substantial distinctions which make real differences; (2) these are germane to the purpose of the law; (3) the classification applies, not only to present conditions, but also to future conditions which are substantially identical to those of the present; and (4) the classification applies equally to all those who belong to the same class. The Court applied this test to uphold the different succession rules for elective executive officers versus elective board members versus appointive officers, finding substantial distinctions between these classes.

• Incidental Creation of Representative Districts — A representative district may come into existence in two ways: (a) indirectly, through the creation of a province, since each province is entitled to at least one Member in the House of Representatives; or (b) by direct creation of several representative districts within a province. The constitutional requirements concerning apportionment and contiguous, compact territory apply only to the second method. When a province is created by statute, the corresponding representative district arises by operation of the Constitution, not by statutory apportionment.

• "The equal protection clause applies only to persons or things identically situated and does not bar a reasonable classification of the subjects of legislation, and that a classification is reasonable where: (1) it is based upon substantial distinctions which make real differences; (2) these are germane to the purpose of the law; (3) the classification applies, not only to present conditions, but also, to future conditions which are substantially identical to those of the present; and (4) the classification applies equally to all those who belong to the same class." — This passage sets forth the four-part test for reasonable classification under the equal protection clause, the controlling doctrinal formulation applied in the decision.

• "When a province is created by statute, the corresponding representative district comes into existence neither by authority of that statute — which cannot provide otherwise — nor by apportionment, but by operation of the Constitution, without a reapportionment." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the reapportionment issue, distinguishing between representative districts created directly within a province and those arising incidentally from the creation of a province.

• "The constitutional command to the effect that 'each representative district shall comprise . . . contiguous and compact territory' is, not absolute, but, qualified by the phrase 'as far as practicable.'" — This passage defines the qualified nature of the contiguity and compactness requirement, explaining why ethnic- and tribal-based provincial boundaries satisfy the constitutional standard.

• Aleja vs. GSIS, G.R. No. L-18529 (February 26, 1965) — Cited for the four-part test of reasonable classification under the equal protection clause.
• People vs. Solon, G.R. No. L-14864 (November 23, 1960) — Cited for the same equal protection classification test.
• People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 — Cited in support of the reasonable classification standard under equal protection.
• People vs. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12 — Cited in support of the reasonable classification standard under equal protection.
• Laurel vs. Misa, 42 Off. Gaz. 2847 — Cited in support of the reasonable classification standard under equal protection.
• Barbier vs. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27 — Cited for the proposition that reduction in class of a province is not material to the issue of equal protection.

• Section 8, Republic Act No. 4695 — Provided for the assignment of incumbent elective provincial officers to the new provinces based on tribal or ethnic affiliation, and the automatic succession of the vice governor to the governorship where the position became vacant. Upheld as germane to the Act's title.
• Constitutional provision on the House of Representatives (1935 Constitution) — Provided that the House shall be composed of not more than 120 Members apportioned among provinces according to inhabitants, each province having at least one Member, with Congress making an apportionment within three years after every enumeration, and representative districts comprising, as far as practicable, contiguous and compact territory. Interpreted as applying apportionment and contiguity requirements only to the direct creation of representative districts within a province, not to those incidental to the creation of provinces.
• Section 4, Republic Act No. 2264 — Prescribed the order of succession for provincial officers. Petitioners invoked it to argue that Felwa should have succeeded to the vice-governorship of the new Mountain Province; the Court found it inapplicable given the substantial distinctions between classes of officers.
• Section 21(6), Republic Act No. 180 — Also prescribed succession rules for provincial officers, invoked by petitioners on the same ground and rejected for the same reason.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Castro, JJ., concurred. Barrera, J., was on leave.