House of Representatives: District Representatives Bagabuyo v COMELEC: GR 176970, 12/8/2008 SUMMARY: Petition for certiorari against the apportion

of CDO to two new districts. Argument is that apportion needs plebiscite (does not) and it violates equality of representation due to unequal number of voters (invalid). FACTS: 10/10/2006: CDO's Cong. Constantino Jaraula filed and sponsored bill to Apportion CDO. Eventually became a law, RA 9371, increased CDO's representatives from 1 to 2. Petitioner Bagabuyo filed petition against COMELEC asking nullification of aforementioned law. Bagabuyo argument: COMELEC cannot implement RA 9371 without providing rules, regulations, and guidelines for the conduct of a plebiscite which is indespensible for division/conversion of LGU. Court dismissed, hence this Certiorari. ISSUE: Whether RA 9371 divides the LGU which would require plebiscite and does it violate the equality of representation doctrine RULING: Petition dismissed. RA 9371 stands, neither arguments valid HELD: APPORTIONMENT is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as as the determination of the number of representatives which a State, county or other subdivision may send 17 to a legislative body. It is the allocation of seats in a legislative body in proportion to the population; the drawing of voting district lines so as to equalize population and voting power among the 18 districts. Reapportionment, on the other hand, is the realignment or change in legislative districts brought about by changes in population and mandated by the constitutional requirement of equality of representation. Thus, apportion is not division and does not require plebiscites. It is simply equalizes population and voting power among districts. EQUALITY OF REPRESENTATION - Petitioner argues that the districts created are unequal based on the # of registered voters. However, the law clearly provides that the basis of district representation is the # of inhabitants in the city not the # of registered voters.