Montejo vs. COMELEC

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is constitutionally empowered only to make "minor adjustments" to the legislative district apportionment fixed by the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution, and it commits grave abuse of discretion when it undertakes substantive redistricting by transferring municipalities from one legislative district to another, as such power is vested solely in Congress.

The conversion of the sub-province of Biliran into a regular province pursuant to the Local Government Code reduced the Third Legislative District of Leyte to five municipalities with a significantly smaller population compared to the other districts. To address this imbalance, COMELEC conducted consultations and promulgated Resolution No. 2736, which, inter alia, transferred the municipality of Capoocan from the Second District and the municipality of Palompon from the Fourth District to the Third District. The petitioner, representing the First District, challenged the resolution for failing to correct an alleged inequality between the First and Second Districts and sought the transfer of Tolosa from his district to the Second District.

• District Composition and Imbalance: The province of Leyte had five legislative districts. The conversion of Biliran into a regular province removed eight municipalities from the Third District, leaving it with only five municipalities and a population of 145,067 (1990 census), significantly less than the other districts.
• COMELEC's Redistricting: To remedy the imbalance, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2736, transferring Capoocan (from the Second District) and Palompon (from the Fourth District) to the Third District. The First and Fifth Districts were left unchanged.
• Petitioner's Challenge: Petitioner Montejo argued that the resolution violated the principle of equality of representation, as a disparity of 22,226 registered voters remained between the First and Second Districts. He proposed transferring Tolosa (with 7,700 registered voters) from the First to the Second District to reduce this gap.
• COMELEC's Justification: COMELEC defended its action by stating its adjustments involved the least disruption of territorial composition and complied with the constitutional requirement for contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory.

• Violation of Equality of Representation: Petitioner argued that COMELEC Resolution No. 2736 violated the constitutional precept that "as much as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's," citing Wesberry v. Sanders.
• Proposed Remedy: To correct the remaining inequity, petitioner maintained that the municipality of Tolosa should be transferred from the First to the Second District.

• Constitutional Authority: Respondent COMELEC argued that it acted within its powers under Section 2 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution, which empowers it to make "minor adjustments" to the reapportionment.
• Compliance with Standards: COMELEC contended that its adjustments complied with the constitutional standards that legislative districts comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory, and involved minimal disruption.
• Intervenor's Opposition: Intervenor Sergio A.F. Apostol (representing the Second District) opposed the petition, arguing COMELEC lacked jurisdiction and that the resolution was constitutional.

• Jurisdiction and Scope of Power: Whether the COMELEC has the jurisdiction and substantive power to transfer municipalities from one legislative district to another, or whether its authority is limited to "minor adjustments."
• Constitutionality of the Redistricting: Whether COMELEC Resolution No. 2736, in transferring municipalities between districts, violated the constitutional principle of equality of representation or exceeded the bounds of the "minor adjustment" power.

• Jurisdiction and Scope of Power: The COMELEC acted without jurisdiction. Its power under Section 2 of the Ordinance is limited to "minor adjustments," which the Constitutional Commission debates defined as corrections for forgotten municipalities or errors in names, not substantive transfers of municipalities between districts. The substantive power of reapportionment is vested in Congress by Section 5(4), Article VI of the Constitution.
• Constitutionality of the Redistricting: The specific transfers of Capoocan and Palompon were void as they constituted substantive redistricting, an act beyond COMELEC's delegated authority. The Court, however, could not grant the petitioner's alternative prayer to transfer Tolosa, as it cannot itself perform a reapportionment; that remedy lies with Congress.

• Separation of Powers in Apportionment: The power to create or alter legislative districts (apportionment/redistricting) is a legislative power vested in Congress. The COMELEC, as an administrative body, may only exercise such power when explicitly delegated and within the strict limits of that delegation.
• "Minor Adjustment" Power of COMELEC: The authority granted to COMELEC under Section 2 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution is narrowly construed. It permits only corrective actions, such as supplying omissions or correcting errors in the enumeration of municipalities within a district, and does not extend to the substantive transfer of territory from one district to another.

• "The meaning of the phrase 'minor adjustments' was again clarified in the debates of the Commission... 'Minor, meaning, that there should be no change in the allocations per district. However, it may happen that we have forgotten a municipality in between which is still in the territory of one assigned district, or there may be an error in the correct name of a particular municipality...'"
• "Clearly then, the Constitutional Commission denied to the COMELEC the major power of legislative apportionment as it itself exercised the power. Section 2 of the Ordinance only empowered the COMELEC 'to make minor adjustments of the reapportionment herein made.'"
• "The issue involves a problem of reapportionment of legislative districts and petitioner's remedy lies with Congress. Section 5(4), Article VI of the Constitution categorically gives Congress the power to reapportion..."

• Macias v. COMELEC, No. L-18684, September 14, 1961, 3 SCRA 1 — Cited for the principle that the validity of a legislative apportionment is a justiciable question, but the Court cannot itself make the reapportionment.

• Section 2, Ordinance Appended to the 1987 Constitution — Empowers the COMELEC "to make minor adjustments of the reapportionment herein made." The Court interpreted this provision narrowly based on Constitutional Commission debates.
• Section 5(4), Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Vests in Congress the power to make a reapportionment of legislative districts within three years following the return of every census.
• Section 462, Local Government Code of 1991 — Provided for the conversion of the sub-province of Biliran into a regular province, triggering the reapportionment issue.

Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, Justices Hilario G. Davide Jr., Florentino P. Feliciano, Florenz D. Regalado, Josue N. Bellosillo, Jose C. Vitug, Santiago M. Kapunan, Vicente V. Mendoza, and Justices Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Ricardo J. Francisco, and others as listed in the decision (Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., concur).

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the decision.