AI-generated
# AK469049
Sen. Aquino III, et al. vs. COMELEC, et al.

Petitioners Senator Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III and Mayor Jesse Robredo challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9716, which reapportioned the first and second legislative districts of Camarines Sur and created a new legislative district. They argued that the newly created first district, with a population of only 176,383, violated the alleged constitutional requirement of a minimum 250,000 population per legislative district. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9716. The Court ruled that the 250,000 minimum population requirement explicitly mentioned in Article VI, Section 5(3) of the Constitution applies only to the creation of a legislative district for a city, not for a province, and that population is not the sole factor in reapportioning provincial legislative districts.

Primary Holding

The 250,000 minimum population requirement for the creation of a legislative district, as stated in Article VI, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution ("Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative."), applies specifically to cities to be entitled to an initial representative, and does not apply as an indispensable minimum population for the creation or reapportionment of legislative districts within a province.

Background

The 250,000 minimum population requirement for the creation of a legislative district, as stated in Article VI, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution ("Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative."), applies specifically to cities to be entitled to an initial representative, and does not apply as an indispensable minimum population for the creation or reapportionment of legislative districts within a province.

History

  1. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed directly with the Supreme Court as an original action.

Facts

  • Republic Act No. 9716, originating from House Bill No. 4264, was signed into law on October 12, 2009, and took effect on October 31, 2009.
  • The law reapportioned the first and second legislative districts of Camarines Sur, creating a new legislative district.
  • Prior to R.A. 9716, Camarines Sur had four legislative districts with a total population of 1,693,821. The first district had 417,304 inhabitants and the second district had 474,899 inhabitants.
  • After R.A. 9716, the first district municipalities of Libmanan, Minalabac, Pamplona, Pasacao, and San Fernando were combined with the second district municipalities of Milaor and Gainza to form a new second legislative district.
  • The reapportionment resulted in the new (reconfigured) first district having a population of 176,383. The new second district had 276,777, and the former second district (now third) had 439,043.
  • Petitioner Aquino III was one of two senators who voted against the bill's approval. Petitioner Robredo was the Mayor of Naga City, part of the former second district from which municipalities were taken for the new second district.

Arguments of the Petitioners

  • R.A. No. 9716 is unconstitutional because the newly apportioned first district of Camarines Sur, with a population of only 176,383, failed to meet the minimum population requirement of 250,000 for the creation of a legislative district, allegedly mandated by Article VI, Section 5, Paragraphs (1) and (3) of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended thereto.
  • The 250,000 figure in Article VI, Section 5(3) is the minimum population requirement for any legislative district, not just for cities or initial provincial districts.
  • The framers of the Constitution intended a population minimum of 250,000 for additional legislative seats, based on the ratio used by the Constitutional Commission for the initial 200 legislative seats.
  • R.A. No. 9716 violates the principle of proportional representation as provided in Article VI, Section 5, paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of the Constitution.

Arguments of the Respondents

  • Petitioners committed fatal technical defects by assailing the law via Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65, as respondents (COMELEC) were not acting in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial capacity, and petitioners lacked locus standi.
  • Article VI, Section 5(3) of the Constitution distinguishes between cities and provinces regarding the 250,000 population requirement; it applies only to cities for their entitlement to a representative, not to provinces for the creation or reapportionment of districts.
  • There is no fixed population requirement for the reapportionment of districts in provinces; thus, R.A. No. 9716 is a valid reapportionment law.

Issues

  • Whether the 250,000 minimum population is an indispensable constitutional requirement for the creation of a new legislative district in a province through reapportionment.
  • Whether Republic Act No. 9716 is unconstitutional for creating a legislative district in Camarines Sur with a population of less than 250,000.

Ruling

  • The petition is DISMISSED. Republic Act No. 9716 is declared a VALID LAW.
  • The Court held that Article VI, Section 5(3) of the Constitution ("Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.") draws a plain and clear distinction: a city must meet a 250,000 population minimum to be entitled to a representative, while a province is entitled to at least one representative without a specified population minimum for that initial entitlement.
  • The comma separating "each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand" from "or each province" indicates that the 250,000 minimum population is only required for a city, not for a province, to have its initial representative.
  • Citing Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC, the Court noted that even for cities, the 250,000 minimum applied to its initial legislative district, not necessarily for increasing its districts if it already met the initial requirement. This logic extends to provinces; if an additional district in a city doesn't need 250,000, neither should an additional district in a province.
  • The records of the Constitutional Commission show that the 250,000 benchmark was used for the 1986 nationwide apportionment to determine how many districts a province or city should have, but it was not an absolute minimum for each district within a province, especially when other factors like contiguity, compactness, common interests, and political stability were considered.
  • Population is not the sole factor for reapportionment; other factors like dialects, size of original groupings, natural divisions, and balancing of areas are also considered by Congress.
  • The Court brushed aside procedural issues (propriety of remedy, locus standi) by invoking the transcendental importance of the constitutional questions raised.

Doctrines

  • Presumption of Constitutionality — Every law duly enacted by Congress carries with it the presumption of constitutionality. To be declared unconstitutional, there must be a clear showing that a specific provision of the fundamental law has been violated. The Court applied this by stating that petitioners failed to clearly show such a violation, thus the law must be upheld.
  • Locus Standi (Legal Standing) — The requirement that a party must have suffered or be in danger of suffering a direct injury as a result of the act being challenged. The Court relaxed this requirement, citing precedents where, in cases of transcendental importance, the absence of direct injury may be excused.
  • Hierarchy of Courts — The principle that direct resort to the Supreme Court is generally disallowed unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availing of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari. The Court allowed direct resort due to the paramount public importance of the issues.
  • Transcendental Importance — A doctrine allowing the Court to set aside technical defects and take primary jurisdiction over cases involving issues of overreaching significance to society, warranting prompt and definitive settlement. This was invoked to bypass procedural objections regarding the remedy and locus standi.
  • Statutory Construction (Plain Meaning Rule / Use of Punctuation) — When the language of the law is clear and unequivocal, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says. The Court interpreted Article VI, Section 5(3) based on its plain language and the use of a comma, concluding the 250,000 population requirement applies only to cities for their initial representative.
  • Proportional Representation — The principle that legislative districts should be apportioned according to the number of their respective inhabitants on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio. The Court found that the Constitution does not require mathematical exactitude or rigid equality in gauging equality of representation, and other factors beyond population are considered in reapportionment.
  • Separation of Powers (Judicial Restraint in Political Questions) — While not explicitly named as a doctrine, the Court's deference to Congress's judgment in reapportionment, absent grave abuse of discretion, reflects this principle. The Court noted factors considered by Congress in enacting R.A. 9716 and found no such abuse.

Key Excerpts

  • "Granting arguendo that the present action cannot be properly treated as a petition for prohibition, the transcendental importance of the issues involved in this case warrants that we set aside the technical defects and take primary jurisdiction over the petition at bar. One cannot deny that the issues raised herein have potentially pervasive influence on the social and moral well being of this nation, specially the youth; hence, their proper and just determination is an imperative need. This is in accordance with the well-entrenched principle that rules of procedure are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed." (Quoting Jaworski v. PAGCOR)
  • "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 Constitution, however, does not require mathematical exactitude or rigid equality as a standard in gauging equality of representation. x x x. To ensure quality representation through commonality of interests and ease of access by the representative to the constituents, all that the Constitution requires is that every legislative district should comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory." (Quoting Bagabuyo v. COMELEC)
  • "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."

Precedents Cited

  • Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC — Referenced to support the interpretation that the 250,000 minimum population requirement for cities applies to its initial legislative district, and that a city does not have to increase its population by another 250,000 to be entitled to an additional district. The Court extended this reasoning by analogy to provinces.
  • Del Mar v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) — Cited as an instance where the Supreme Court took original cognizance of cases raising issues of paramount public importance, sanctioning a deviation from the hierarchy of courts.
  • Jaworski v. PAGCOR — Cited for the principle that transcendental importance of issues can warrant setting aside technical defects and taking primary jurisdiction, and that procedural rules should not frustrate substantial justice.
  • Kilosbayan v. Guingona, Tatad v. Executive Secretary, Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, Lim v. Executive Secretary — Cited as cases where the requirement of locus standi was relaxed due to the transcendental importance of the issues raised.
  • Bagabuyo v. COMELEC — Cited for the principle that the Constitution does not require mathematical exactitude in population sizes for legislative districts and that commonality of interests and territorial characteristics are also important.
  • The Philippine Judges Association v. Prado — Cited for the principle that when there is neither a violation of a specific constitutional provision nor proof of such, the presumption of constitutionality prevails and the law must be upheld; to doubt is to sustain.

Provisions

  • Article VI, Section 5(1) of the 1987 Constitution — States that the House of Representatives shall be composed of members elected from legislative districts apportioned among provinces, cities, and Metropolitan Manila in accordance with their respective inhabitants and on a uniform and progressive ratio. Referenced to show the basis for apportionment.
  • Article VI, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution — "Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative." This is the central provision interpreted by the Court regarding the 250,000 population requirement.
  • Article VI, Section 5(4) of the 1987 Constitution — Mandates Congress to make reapportionment of legislative districts within three years following every census, based on standards in Section 5. Referenced by petitioners.
  • Ordinance Appended to the 1987 Constitution, Section 3 — Provides that a city whose population has increased to more than 250,000 shall be entitled to at least one congressional representative. Referenced in relation to Mariano v. COMELEC and the initial apportionment.
  • Local Government Code, Section 461 — Regarding requisites for the creation of a province, which includes an alternative population requirement of not less than 250,000. The Court noted this to show population is not an indispensable requirement if the income requisite is met for province creation.

Notable Concurring Opinions

  • Carpio Morales, J. — Concurred with the ponencia's discussion on the procedural issue, agreeing that petitioners, suing as taxpayers and citizens, have the requisite locus standi because R.A. 9716 mandates the creation of another legislative district which indubitably involves the expenditure of public funds. (However, Justice Carpio Morales dissented on the substantive issue).

Notable Dissenting Opinions

  • Carpio, J. — Argued that R.A. 9716 is unconstitutional as it violates clear constitutional standards for creating legislative districts: proportional representation, a minimum population of 250,000 per district (applicable uniformly to provinces, cities, and Metro Manila), progressive ratio, and uniformity. He contended that legislators represent people, not political units, and that population is the essential measure. Disregarding the 250,000 minimum for provinces while maintaining it for cities is logically flawed and corrosive to democratic principles of "one person, one vote" and equality in voting power. The proposed first district's population of 176,383 is significantly below this minimum and creates gross malapportionment.
  • Carpio Morales, J. — (Dissenting on the substantive issue) Argued that a population of 250,000 is an indispensable constitutional requirement for creating a new legislative district in a province, reading Article VI, Sections 5(1) and 5(3) together. She stated the ponencia misinterpreted Mariano v. Comelec and Bagabuyo v. Comelec, as those cases involved districts that met the 250,000 minimum. She emphasized that the Constitutional Commission intended the 250,000 benchmark for both cities and provinces in initial apportionment and this "uniform and progressive ratio" should continue. The resulting population distribution under R.A. 9716 violates this ratio and partakes of gerrymandering.