Robes vs. Commission on Elections

A lone legislative district given by law the right to elect its own representative in the House of Representatives is also entitled to its own representation in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, with two seats, where the province has more than five legislative districts under Section 41(b) of Republic Act No. 7160, as amended by Republic Act No. 8553; the COMELEC cannot, through its implementing rules, exclude such district from the statutory allocation. Mandamus lies to compel the COMELEC to amend an implementing resolution that contravenes the statute it implements because the COMELEC's quasi-legislative power cannot expand, extend, or modify the law.

Florida P. Robes is a resident, taxpayer, registered voter, and the incumbent representative of the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. The City of San Jose Del Monte was converted into a component city of Bulacan by Republic Act No. 8797 in 2000 and later given its own representative district by Republic Act No. 9230 in 2003, making it a lone legislative district. In 2021, Republic Act No. 11546 reapportioned the Province of Bulacan into six legislative districts and delegated to the COMELEC the power to issue implementing rules. The dispute concerns the COMELEC's allocation of Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats under Section 41(b) of Republic Act No. 7160, as amended by Republic Act No. 8553.

In 2000, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8797, the "Charter of the City of San Jose Del Monte," converting the Municipality of San Jose Del Monte into a component city of the Province of Bulacan. Section 58 of the Charter provided that the City of San Jose Del Monte would continue to be part of the Fourth Congressional District of Bulacan Province unless otherwise provided by law. Three years later, Republic Act No. 9230 amended Section 58, giving the City of San Jose Del Monte the right to elect its own representative district, to commence in the next national election after the effectivity of the amendatory law. The City thus became a lone legislative district.

In 2021, Congress passed Republic Act No. 11546, reapportioning the Province of Bulacan into six legislative districts to take effect in the 2022 national and local elections. Section 1 enumerated the six districts: First (Calumpit, Hagonoy, Paombong, Pulilan, Bulakan, and City of Malolos); Second (Baliuag, Bustos, and Plaridel); Third (San Ildefonso, San Miguel, San Rafael, and Doña Remedios Trinidad); Fourth (Obando, Marilao, and City of Meycauayan); Fifth (Guiguinto, Balagtas, Pandi, and Bocaue); and Sixth (Sta. Maria, Norzagaray, and Angat). Section 3 of the law delegated to the COMELEC the power to issue rules and regulations to implement the Act. Pursuant thereto, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 10707. Section 6 of the Resolution stated that, pursuant to Section 41(b) of Republic Act No. 7160, as amended by Republic Act No. 8553, each of the six legislative districts in the Province of Bulacan would have two members in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, and that qualified voters of the City of San Jose Del Monte would continue to vote for members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in the Fourth Legislative District of Bulacan.

Thereafter, petitioner Florida P. Robes, a resident, taxpayer, registered voter, and the incumbent representative of the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte, wrote the COMELEC requesting clarification or amendment of Section 6. She posited that because Republic Act No. 11546 increased the number of legislative districts in the Province of Bulacan to seven, including the lone district of San Jose Del Monte, all legislative districts should be allocated two members in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, including the lone district, in accordance with Section 41(b) of Republic Act No. 7160, as amended by Republic Act No. 8553. In a reply letter dated September 2, 2021, signed by Executive Director Bartolome J. Sinocruz, Jr., the COMELEC denied the request. It ruled that the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte was ineligible for separate representation in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan because Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9230 only provided the City with its own representative district and did not reapportion the entire Province of Bulacan; because even in Republic Act No. 11546 the lone legislative district was eliminated and not mentioned, thereby depriving it of the opportunity to be allocated its own seats; and because there was no provision in Republic Act No. 9230 expressly giving the City separate representation in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed an Urgent Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, asking the Court to direct the COMELEC to amend Section 6 of Resolution No. 10707 and to allocate two seats in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in favor of the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte. In its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General, as counsel for the COMELEC, refuted that a petition for mandamus was the proper remedy to assail the Resolution issued by the COMELEC in the exercise of its quasi-legislative function. Even assuming that mandamus was the correct remedy, the OSG averred that the Urgent Petition failed to establish the requisites of mandamus. In her Reply, petitioner reiterated her arguments in her Urgent Petition.

• Allocation of Two Seats: Petitioner posited that since Republic Act No. 11546 increased the number of legislative districts in the Province of Bulacan to seven, including the lone district of San Jose Del Monte, all legislative districts should be allocated two members in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, including the lone district, under Section 41(b) of Republic Act No. 7160, as amended by Republic Act No. 8553.
• Amendment of COMELEC Resolution: Petitioner sought to compel the COMELEC to amend Section 6 of Resolution No. 10707 and to allocate two seats in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in favor of the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte.

• No Separate Representation: The COMELEC denied the request, ruling that Republic Act No. 9230 merely constituted San Jose Del Monte as a lone legislative district without reapportioning the entire Province of Bulacan; that Republic Act No. 11546 did not mention the lone district; and that no provision in Republic Act No. 9230 expressly granted the City separate representation in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
• Mandamus Improper: The Office of the Solicitor General, as counsel for COMELEC, refuted that mandamus is the proper remedy to assail a Resolution issued by the COMELEC in the exercise of its quasi-legislative function.
• Requisites Not Established: The Office of the Solicitor General averred that, even assuming mandamus was the correct remedy, the Urgent Petition failed to establish the requisites of mandamus.

• Propriety of Mandamus: Whether a petition for mandamus is the proper remedy to assail the COMELEC's refusal to amend Section 6 of Resolution No. 10707.
• Entitlement to Sangguniang Panlalawigan Representation: Whether the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte is entitled to its own representatives in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Bulacan.

• Propriety of Mandamus: Yes. Mandamus lies because the COMELEC's quasi-legislative implementation of Republic Act No. 11546 was ministerial; it had no authority to modify the law, and its refusal to amend Section 6 was unlawful neglect of a duty specifically enjoined by law.
• Entitlement to Sangguniang Panlalawigan Representation: Yes. Under Section 41(b) of Republic Act No. 7160, as amended by Republic Act No. 8553, a province with more than five legislative districts must allocate two Sangguniang Panlalawigan members to each district; the lone district of San Jose Del Monte is a legislative district and cannot be clustered with the Fourth District.

• Propriety of Mandamus: Section 3, Rule 65 allows mandamus when a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office. For the first scenario, the requisites are: (a) the plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded; (b) it is the duty of the defendant to perform the act because it is mandated by law; (c) the defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty; (d) the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and (e) there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioner, as a resident, taxpayer, registered voter, and incumbent representative of the lone district, had a clear legal right to demand the election of two members to represent the lone district in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Congress delegated to COMELEC the power to issue rules and regulations to implement Republic Act No. 11546, an exercise of quasi-legislative power. In exercising subordinate legislation, COMELEC cannot extend the law or expand its coverage; its implementing rules must accord with the law and must not override, supplant, or modify it. Citing Lokin, Jr. vs. COMELEC, the Court emphasized that the COMELEC has neither the authority nor the license to expand, extend, or add anything to the law it seeks to implement. When COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 10707 to implement Republic Act No. 11546, it had no power to change or modify the law and could not steer away from its mandates. In this sense, the quasi-legislative power of the COMELEC is ministerial. Mandamus is thus available to compel the performance of purely ministerial acts; it is not available to control discretionary duties. Because the COMELEC's refusal to amend Section 6 was contrary to the statute it was bound to implement, mandamus was proper.
• Entitlement to Sangguniang Panlalawigan Representation: The COMELEC's position that Republic Act No. 11546 reapportioned Bulacan into merely six legislative districts, each entitled to two Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats, was tenuous. Republic Act No. 9230 had already accorded the City of San Jose Del Monte its own representative district, making it a lone legislative district. Republic Act No. 11546, which effectively reapportioned the entire Province of Bulacan, left out the lone district and listed only six districts. This incongruity required recourse to the cardinal rule of statutory construction that where a statute is susceptible of several interpretations or is ambiguous, the history of the statute is the best means of ascertaining legislative intent. The legislative history of Republic Act No. 11546 showed that Congress intended to reapportion Bulacan into seven legislative districts, including the lone district of San Jose Del Monte. The explanatory note of House Bill No. 5866, the precursor of Republic Act No. 11546, proposed reapportionment from four to seven districts and acknowledged that San Jose Del Monte had become a lone district in 2003. Section 1 of House Bill No. 5866 enumerated seven districts, including the "Lone District of City of San Jose del Monte." When House Bill No. 5866 was referred to the House Committee on Local Government, the Committee recommended approval of House Bill No. 6867 in substitution, which excluded the lone district from the six legislative districts and was later retained in Republic Act No. 11546. However, during the committee hearing, the Chairperson expressly stated that the Seventh Legislative District was the Lone District of San Jose del Monte, and the deliberations showed that Congress never intended to leave the lone district out. The lawmakers were consistent in including the lone district in the list of Bulacan's legislative districts. Thus, the original intent embodied in House Bill No. 5866 should be given weight; the intent of the statute is the law itself, as held in Torres vs. Limjap. Section 41(b) of Republic Act No. 7160, as amended by Republic Act No. 8553, provides that regular members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, and sangguniang bayan shall be elected by district, and that in provinces having more than five legislative districts, each district shall have two sangguniang panlalawigan members. A legislative district is the basis for the election of a member of the House of Representatives and members of the local legislative body; "representative district" may pertain to either or both. The COMELEC therefore veered away from Section 41(b) when it recognized the lone district's representation in the House of Representatives but denied its consequential entitlement to representation in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Upholding the COMELEC's stance would create an unfounded distinction between the manner of electing a House member and a Sangguniang Panlalawigan member and would deny the lone district its status as a full-fledged legislative district for purposes of two Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats. Section 41(b) does not distinguish between the two, and where the law does not distinguish, neither should the Court. Because San Jose Del Monte is a lone legislative district, its qualified voters have the right to elect their own representatives in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan as much as they have the right to be represented in the House of Representatives; it cannot remain clustered with the municipalities or cities in the Fourth Legislative District for purposes of electing board members.

• Ministerial nature of COMELEC's quasi-legislative implementation — When the COMELEC issues rules and regulations to implement an election law, it exercises subordinate legislation and cannot expand, extend, or add anything to the law; its implementing rules must accord with, and must not override, supplant, or modify, the statute. In this case, because Section 6 of Resolution No. 10707 excluded the lone legislative district from the two-seat allocation mandated by Section 41(b) of Republic Act No. 7160, as amended, the COMELEC acted beyond its authority. Its quasi-legislative power was, in this sense, ministerial, and mandamus could compel it to amend the resolution to conform to the law.
• Legislative history as an aid in statutory construction — Where a statute is susceptible of several interpretations or its language is ambiguous, the history of the statute is a proper means of ascertaining the will and intention of the legislature. The Court may take judicial notice of the statute's origin and history. Applied to Republic Act No. 11546, the legislative history—especially House Bill No. 5866 and the committee deliberations—showed that Congress intended to include the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte as the seventh legislative district despite the omission in the enacted text.
• Intent of the statute is the law itself — A valid statute must be given effect according to the purpose and intent of the lawmaker; the intent is the vital part and essence of the law, and courts will not follow the letter of a statute when it leads away from the true intent and purpose of the legislature. The Court applied this principle to construe Republic Act No. 11546 in light of its legislative history and to hold that the lone district could not be excluded from Sangguniang Panlalawigan representation.
• District-based election and two seats per legislative district — Under Section 41(b) of Republic Act No. 7160, as amended by Republic Act No. 8553, regular members of the sangguniang panlalawigan are elected by district, and in provinces with more than five legislative districts, each district shall have two sangguniang panlalawigan members. A legislative district is the basis for electing both a member of the House of Representatives and members of the local legislative body; "representative district" may refer to either or both. The Court applied this to hold that the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte is entitled to two Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats.
• Mandamus to compel ministerial acts — Mandamus lies when a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office. For the first scenario, the requisites are: (a) a clear legal right in the plaintiff; (b) a duty mandated by law on the defendant; (c) unlawful neglect of that duty; (d) a ministerial, not discretionary, act; and (e) no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The Court found all requisites present because the COMELEC's duty to conform its implementing resolution to Republic Act No. 11546 and Section 41(b) was ministerial.
• Where the law does not distinguish, neither should the Court — A court should not introduce a distinction that the law itself does not make. Section 41(b) of Republic Act No. 7160 does not distinguish between the manner of electing a member of the House of Representatives and a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan; thus, the lone district's recognition for the House should carry over to the provincial board.

• "A lone legislative district given by law the right to elect its own representative in the House of Representatives shall also be entitled to its own representation in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in accordance with Section 41(b) of Republic Act (RA) No. 7160." — This opening statement states the core ratio decidendi: a lone legislative district's separate representation in the House carries with it entitlement to separate Sangguniang Panlalawigan representation under the Local Government Code.
• "The COMELEC, despite its role as the implementing arm of the Government in the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, has neither the authority nor the license to expand, extend, or add anything to the law it seeks to implement thereby. The IRRs the COMELEC issues for that purpose should always accord with the law to be implemented, and should not override, supplant, or modify the law." — Quoted from Lokin, Jr. vs. COMELEC, this passage defines the limits of the COMELEC's quasi-legislative power and explains why Section 6 of Resolution No. 10707 could not exclude the lone district.
• "If a statute is valid, it is to have effect according to the purpose and intent of the lawmaker. The intent is the vital part, the essence of the law, and the primary rule of construction is to ascertain and give effect to that intent." — Quoted from Torres vs. Limjap, this passage supplies the statutory-construction principle used to resolve the omission of the lone district from the enacted text of Republic Act No. 11546.
• "Where the law does not distinguish, neither should this Court." — This passage rejects the COMELEC's distinction between election of a House member and election of a Sangguniang Panlalawigan member, since Section 41(b) of Republic Act No. 7160 does not make that distinction.

• Lokin, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 635 Phil. 372 (2010) — Quoted for the rule that the COMELEC has neither the authority nor the license to expand, extend, or add anything to the law it seeks to implement, and that its implementing rules and regulations must accord with the law and must not override, supplant, or modify it. This was central to holding that Section 6 of Resolution No. 10707 could not exclude the lone district.
• Torres vs. Limjap, 56 Phil. 141 (1931) — Cited for the principle that the intent of the legislature is the law itself and that a valid statute must be given effect according to the purpose and intent of the lawmaker. The Court used this to construe Republic Act No. 11546 in light of its legislative history.
• Del Rosario vs. Shaikh, G.R. No. 206249, December 10, 2019, 927 SCRA 431 — Cited for the requisites of mandamus under the first scenario and for the definition of ministerial functions as those performed in a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner, and without regard to the officer's own judgment on the propriety of the act.
• Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940) — Cited for the principle that the legislature cannot delegate its power to make the law, but it can make a law delegating power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes or intends to make its own action depend.
• Bagabuyo vs. COMELEC, 593 Phil. 678 (2009) — Cited for the rule that a legislative district is the basis for the election of a member of the House of Representatives and members of the local legislative body.
• Gov. Javier vs. COMELEC, 777 Phil. 700 (2016) — Cited for the principle that where the law does not distinguish, neither should the Court, applied to Section 41(b) of Republic Act No. 7160.
• Kabataan Party-List Rep. Palatino vs. Commission on Elections, 623 Phil. 159 (2009) — Cited for the primordial importance of the people's right of suffrage and the preservation of the sanctity of that right.

• Section 41(b), Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), as amended by Republic Act No. 8553 — Provides that regular members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, and sangguniang bayan shall be elected by district; first and second-class provinces have ten regular members, third and fourth-class provinces eight, and fifth and sixth-class provinces six; and in provinces having more than five legislative districts, each district shall have two sangguniang panlalawigan members. The Court applied this to require two seats for the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte.
• Section 58, Republic Act No. 8797, as amended by Republic Act No. 9230 — Originally provided that the City of San Jose Del Monte would continue to be part of the Fourth Congressional District of Bulacan unless otherwise provided by law; the amendment gave the City its own representative district to commence in the next national election after effectivity. This established San Jose Del Monte as a lone legislative district.
• Section 1, Republic Act No. 11546 — Reapportioned the Province of Bulacan into six legislative districts effective in the 2022 national and local elections and enumerated their composition. The Court construed this provision together with the law's legislative history to hold that the lone district of San Jose Del Monte was not excluded from the legislative districts for purposes of Sangguniang Panlalawigan representation.
• Section 3, Republic Act No. 11546 — Delegated to the COMELEC the power to issue the necessary rules and regulations to implement the Act. The Court characterized this as an exercise of quasi-legislative power that could not expand, extend, or modify the law.
• Section 3, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Provides for the petition for mandamus when a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office. The Court applied this to allow the petition.
• Section 1, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution — Declares that the Philippines is a democratic and republican State and that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. The Court invoked this in recognizing the primordial importance of the right of suffrage.

Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, Marquez, and Singh, JJ., concurred. Separate concurring opinions were filed by Leonen, Acting C.J., and Caguioa, J., but their contents are not included in the source text. Gesmundo, C.J., and Hernando, J., were on official leave; Inting and Kho, Jr., JJ., took no part; J. Lopez, J., was on leave.