Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-18684 September 14, 1961
LAMBERTO MACIAS, LORENO TE!ES, "AUSTO
#UGENIO, ROGACIANO MERCA#O $%& MARIANO
PER#ICES, petitioners,
vs.
T'E COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS $%& !ICENTE GELLA
(% )(* C$p$+(t, $* N$t(o%$- Tre$*.rer,respondents.
Crispin D. Baizas for petitioners.
Barrios, Garcia and Apostol for respondent Commission on
Elections.
Ofce of the Solicitor General for respondent Vicente Gella.
BENGON, C.J.:
Statement of the case. Petitioners request that
respondent ofcials be prevented fro ipleentin!
Republic Act "#$# that apportions representative districts in
this countr%. &t is unconstitutional and void, the% alle!e,
because' (a) it *as passed b% the +ouse of Representatives
*ithout printed ,nal copies of the bill havin! been furnished
the Mebers at least three calendar da%s prior to its
passa!e- (b) it *as approved ore than three %ears after
the return of the last census of our population- and (c) it
apportioned districts *ithout re!ard to the nuber of
inhabitants of the several provinces.
Adittin! soe alle!ations but den%in! others, the
respondents aver the% *ere erel% copl%in! *ith their
duties under the statute, *hich the% presue and alle!e to
be constitutional. .he respondent National .reasurer further
avers that petitioners have no personalit% to brin! this
action- that a dul% certi,ed cop% of the la* creates the
presuption of its havin! been passed in accordance *ith
the requireents of the Constitution (distribution of printed
bills included)- that the /irector of the Census subitted an
ofcial report on the population of the Philippines in
Noveber, 012#, *hich report becae the basis of the bill-
and that the Act coplies *ith the principle of proportional
representation prescribed b% the Constitution..
After hearin! the parties and considerin! their eoranda,
this Court reached the conclusion that the statute be
declared invalid, and, a*are of the need of propt action,
issued its brief resolution of Au!ust 3", partl% in the
follo*in! lan!ua!e'
4hereas such Republic Act "#$# clearl% violates the
said constitutional provision in several *a%s nael%,
(a) it !ave Cebu seven ebers, *hile Ri5al *ith a
bi!!er nuber of inhabitants !ot four onl%- (b) it
!ave Manila four ebers, *hile Cotabato *ith a
bi!!er population !ot three onl%- . . .-
4hereas such violation of the Constitutional andate
renders the la* void-
.herefore, *ithout pre6udice to the *ritin! of a ore
e7tended opinion passin! additionall% on other issues
raised in the case, the Court resolved, *ithout an%
dissent, forth*ith to issue the in6unction pra%ed for
b% the petitioners. No bond is needed.
4hat *ith the reservation announced in the resolution, and
*hat *ith the otion for reconsideration, this is no* *ritten
full% to e7plain the preises on *hich our conclusion rested.
0
Personality of the petitioners. Petitioners are four
ebers of the +ouse of Representatives fro Ne!ros
8riental, Misais 8riental, and Bulacan, and the provincial
!overnor of Ne!ros 8riental. .he% brin! this action in behalf
of theselves and of other residents of their provinces. .he%
alle!e, and this Court ,nds, that their provinces had been
discriinated a!ainst b% Republic Act "#$#, because the%
*ere !iven less representative districts than the nuber of
their inhabitants required or 6usti,ed' Misais 8riental
havin! "9:,9"1 inhabitants, *as !iven one district onl%,
*hereas Cavite *ith ":1,1#3 inhabitants, *as !iven t*o
districts- Ne!ros 8riental and Bulacan *ith ;19,:9" and
;;:,210 respectivel%, *ere allotted 3 representative districts
each, *hereas Alba% *ith ;0;,120 *as assi!ned " districts.
.he authorities hold that <citi5ens *ho are deprived of as full
and e=ective an elective franchise as the% are entitled to
under the Constitution b% an apportionent act, have a
sufcient interest to proceed in a court to test the statute.
(09 A. >ur. 011.)
.herefore, petitioners as voters and as con!ressen and
!overnor of the a!!rieved provinces have personalit% to
sue.
&n ?ti!lit5 vs. ?chardien (@%) $# ?.4. (3d) "0;, the ri!ht of a
citi5en to question the validit% of a redistrictin! statute *as
upheld. .he sae ri!ht *as reco!ni5ed in >ones vs. Areean
(8Bla.) 0$2 P. (3d) ;2$, the court sa%in! that each citi5en
has the ri!ht to have the ?tate apportioned in accordance
*ith the Constitution and to be !overned b% a Ce!islative
fairl% representin! the *hole bod% of electorate and elected
as required b% the Constitution.
Cole!rove vs. Dreen, "39 .E.?. ;$1, on *hich respondents
rel%, appear to be inconclusive' three a!ainst three. .he
seventh 6ustice concurred in the result even supposin! the
contrar% *as 6usticiable.<
he printed!form, three!day re"#irement. .he
Constitution provides that <no bill shall be passed b% either
+ouse unless it shall have been printed and copies thereof
in its ,nal for furnished its Mebers at least three
calendar da%s prior to its passa!e, e7cept *hen the
President shall have certi,ed to the necessit% of its
iediate enactent.<
Petitioners presented certi,cates of the ?ecretar% of the
+ouse of Representatives to sho* that no printed cop% had
been distributed three da%s before passa!e of the bill (on
Ma% 0#, 0120) and that no certi,cate of ur!enc% b% the
President had been received in the +ouse.
.he respondents clai in their defense that a statute a%
not be nulli,ed upon evidence of failure to print, because <it
is conclusivel% presued that the details of le!islative
procedure leadin! to the enrollent that are prescribed b%
the Constitution have been coplied *ith b% the
Ce!islature.< .he% further clai that the certi,cates of the
?ecretar% of the +ouse are inadissible, in vie* of the
conclusive (enrolledFbill) presuption, *hich in several
instances have been applied b% the courts. &n further
support of their contention, ?ec. "0"(3) of Act 01# i!ht be
cited.
0
8n the other hand, it a% be said for the petitioners, that
such printed bill requireent had a fundaental purpose to
serve
3
and *as inserted in the Constitution not as a ere
procedural step- and that the enrolledFbill theor%, if adopted,
*ould preclude the courts fro enforcin! such requireent
in proper cases.
4e do not dee it necessar% to aBe a de,nite
pronounceent on the question, because the controvers%
a% be decided upon the issue of districtsFinFproportionFtoF
inhabitants.$a%ph&l.n't
3
Pop#lation Cens#s. Accordin! to the Constitution, <the
Con!ress shall b% la*, aBe an apportionent (of Mebers
of the +ouse) *ithin three %ears after the return of ever%
enueration, and not other*ise.< &t is aditted that the bill,
*hich later becae Republic Act "#$#, *as based upon a
report subitted to the President b% the /irector of the
Census on Noveber 3", 012#. &t reads'
& have the honor to subit here*ith a preliinar%
count of the population of the Philippines as a result
of the population enueration *hich has 6ust been
copleted. .his is a report on the total nuber of
inhabitants in this countr% and does not include the
population characteristics. &t is the result of a hand
tall% and a% be sub6ect to revision *hen all the
population schedules shall have been processed
echanicall%.
.he Census of Population is the ,rst of a series of
four censuses *hich include housin!, a!riculture and
econoics in addition to population. .hese four
censuses to!ether constitute *hat is Bno*n as the
Census of 012#. CiBe population, the housin! and
a!ricultural censuses are under!oin! processin!,
*hile the econoic census is no* under preparation.
Entil the ,nal report is ade, these ,!ures should be
considered as ofcial for all purposes.
Petitioners aintain that the apportionent could not
le!all% rest on this report since it is erel% <preliinar%< and
<a% be sub6ect to revision.< 8n the other hand,
respondents point out that the above letter sa%s the report
should be considered <ofcial for all purposes.< .he% also
point out that the ascertainent of *hat constitutes a return
of an enueration is a atter for Con!ress action. .his
issue does not clearl% favor petitioners, because there are
authorities sustainin! the vie* that althou!h not ,nal, and
still sub6ect to correction, a census enueration a% be
considered ofcial, in the sense that Dovernental action
a% be based thereon even in atters of apportionent of
le!islative districts (Cahill vs. Ceopold GConn.H 0#9 Atl. 3d
909). (?ee also Elliott vs. ?tate, 0 Pac. 3d ":#- Ervin vs.
?tate, $$ ?.4. 3d "9#- +erndon vs. E7cise Board, 31; Pac.
33"- +olcob vs. ?piBes, 3"3 ?.4. 910.)
Apportionment of (em)ers. .he Constitution directs that
the one hundred t*ent% Mebers of the +ouse of
Representatives <shall be apportioned aon! the several
provinces as nearl% as a% be accordin! to the eber of
their respective inhabitants.< &n our resolution on Au!ust 3",
*e held that this provision *as violated b% Republic Act
"#$# because (a) it !ave Cebu seven ebers, *hile Ri5al
*ith a bi!!er nuber of inhabitants !ot four onl%- (b) it !ave
Manila four ebers, *hile Cotabato *ith a bi!!er
population !ot three onl%- (c) Pan!asinan *ith less
inhabitants than both Manila and Cotabato !ot ore than
both, ,ve ebers havin! been assi!ned to it- (d) ?aar
(*ith 9:0,9;:) *as allotted four ebers *hile /avao *ith
1#",33$ !ot three onl%- (e) Bulacan *ith ;;:,210 !ot t*o
onl%, *hile Alba% *ith less inhabitants (;0;,210) !ot three,
and (f) Misais 8riental *ith "9:,9"1 *as !iven one
eber onl%, *hile Cavite *ith less inhabitants (":1,1#$)
!ot t*o. .hese *ere not the onl% instances of unequal
apportionent. 4e see that Mountain Province has "
*hereas &sabela, Ca!una and Ca!a%an *ith ore
inhabitants have 3 each. And then, Capi5, Ca Enion and
&locos Norte !ot 3 each, *hereas ?ulu that has ore
inhabitants !ot 0 onl%. And Ce%te *ith 12:,"3" inhabitants
!ot $ onl%, *hereas &loilo *ith less inhabitants (122,0$;)
*as !iven ;.
?uch disproportion of representation has been held
sufcient to avoid apportionent la*s enacted in ?tates
havin! Constitutional provisions siilar to ours. Aor
instance, in Massachusetts, the Constitution required
division <into representative district . . . equall%, as nearl% as
a% be, accordin! to the relative nuber of le!al voters in
"
the several districts.< .he ?upree >udicial Court of that
state found this provision violated b% an allotent that !ave
" representatives to :,1$2 voters and onl% 3 representatives
to 9,209 voters, and further !ave t*o representatives to
$,9;$ voters and one representative to ;,;19 voters. >ustice
Ru!! said'
&t is not an appro7iation to equalit% to allot three
representatives to :,1$2 voters, and onl% t*o
representatives to 9,209 voters, and to allot t*o
representatives to $,9;$ voters, and one
representative to ;,;12 voters. . . .
4henever this Bind of inequalit% of apportionent
has been before the courts, it has been held to be
contrar% to the Constitution. &t has been said to be
<arbitrar% and capricious and a!ainst the vital
principle of equalit%.< +ou!hton Count% v. BlacBer, 13
Mich. 2"9, 2$:, 2;"- 02 CRA $"3, ;3 N.4.
1;0- Diddin!s vs. BlacBen, 1" Mich. 0, 0", 02 CRA
$#3, ;3 N.4. 1$$- BarBer v. ?tate, 0"" &nd. 0:9, 01:,
09 CRA ;2:, "3 NE 9"2, "" NE 001- /enne% v. ?tate,
0$$ &nd. ;#", ;";, "0 CRA :32, $3 N. E. 131.
8ther cases alon! the sae line upholdin! the sae vie*
are these'
0. ?ti!lit5 v. ?chardien, s#pra, *herein t*elve
districts entitled to but si7 *ere !iven t*elve
representatives, and t*elve districts !iven t*elve
onl% *ere actuall% entitled to t*ent%Ft*o.
3. >ones v. Areean, s#pra, *herein districts entitled
to onl% " senators *ere !iven :, and districts entitled
to 0; *ere assi!ned seven onl%.
&t is ar!ued in the otion to reconsider, that since Republic
Act "#$# iproves e7istin! conditions, this Court could
perhaps, in the e7ercise of 6udicial statesanship, consider
the question involved as purel% political and therefore nonF
6usticiable. .he over*helin! *ei!ht of authorit% is that
district apportionent la*s are sub6ect to revie* b% the
courts.
.he constitutionalit% of a le!islative apportionent
act is a 6udicial question, and not one *hich the court
cannot consider on the !round that it is a political
question. (ParBer v. ?tate e7 rel. Po*ell, 09 C.R.A.
;2:, 0"" &nd. 0:9, "3 N.E. 9"2- ?tate e7 rel. Morris v.
4ri!htson, 33 C.R.A. ;$9, ;2 N.>.C. 032, 39 Atl. ;2-
+arison v. Ballot Cors. $3 C.R.A. ;10, $; 4. Ia.
0:1, "0 ?. E. "1$)
&t is *ell settled that the passa!e of apportionent
acts is not so e7clusivel% *ithin the political po*er of
the le!islature as to preclude a court fro inquirin!
into their constitutionalit% *hen the question is
properl% brou!ht before it. (&ndianaFParBer v. Po*ell
(0993) 0"" &nd. 0:9, 09 C.R.A. ;2:, "3 N. E. 9"2, ""
N. E. 001- /enne% v. ?tate (0912) 0$$ &nd. ;#"- "0
C.R.A. :32, $3 N. E. 131- Marion Count% v. >e*ett
(010;) 09$ &nd. 2", 00# N. E. ;;".) (@entucB%F
Ra!land v. Anderson (01#:) 03; @% 0$0, 039 A. ?t.
Rep. 3$3, 0## ?. 4. 92;.) (MassachusettsFAtt%. Den.
v. ?u=olB Count% Apportionent Cors., etc.)
&t a% be added in this connection, that the ere ipact of
the suit upon the political situation does not render it
political instead of 6udicial. (Cab v. Cunnin!ha, 0: C.R.A.
0$;, 9" 4is. 1#.) .
.he alle!ed circustance that this statute iproves the
present setFup constitutes no e7cuse for approvin! a
trans!ression of constitutional liitations, because the end
does not 6ustif% the eans. Aurtherore, there is no reason
to doubt that, a*are of the e7istin! inequalit% of
representation, and ipelled b% its sense of dut%, Con!ress
$
*ill opportunel% approve reedial le!islation in accord *ith
the precepts of the Constitution.
Needless to sa%, equalit% of representation
"
in the
Ce!islature bein! such an essential feature of republican
institutions, and a=ectin! so an% lives, the 6udiciar% a%
not *ith a clear conscience stand b% to !ive free hand to the
discretion of the political departents of the Dovernent.
Cases are nuerous *herein courts intervened upon proof
of violation of the constitutional principle of equalit% of
representation.
An in6unction to prevent the secretar% of state fro
issuin! notices of election under an unconstitutional
apportionent act !err%Fanderin! the state is not a
usurpation of authorit% b% the court, on the !round
that the question is a political one, but the
constitutionalit% of the act is purel% a 6udicial
question. (?tate e7 rel. Adas Count% v.
Cunnin!ha, 0; C.R.A. ;20, 90 4is. $$#, ;0 N.4.
:3$.)
.he fact that the action a% have a political e=ect,
and in that sense e=ect a political ob6ect, does not
aBe the questions involved in a suit to declare the
unconstitutionalit% of an apportionent act political
instead of 6udicial. (?tate e7 rel. Cab v.
Cunnin!ha, 0: C.R.A. 0$;, 9" 4is. 1#, ;" N.4. $9.)
An unconstitutional apportionent la* a% be
declared void b% the courts, not*ithstandin! the fact
that such statute is an e7ercise of political po*er.
(/enne% vs. ?tate e7 rel. Basler, "0 C.R.A. :32, 0$$
&nd. ;#", $3 N.E. 131.)
.he constitutionalit% of a statute forin! a dele!ate
district or apportionin! dele!ates for the house of
dele!ates is a 6udicial question for the courts,
althou!h the statute is an e7ercise of political po*er.
(+arison v. Ballot Cors. $3 C.R.A. ;10, $; 4. Ia.
0:1, "0 ?. E. "1$.) G" C.R.A. /i!est, p. 3:":.)
Concl#sion. Aor all the fore!oin!, *e hereb% reiterate our
resolution declarin! that Republic Act "#$# infrin!ed the
provisions of the Constitution and is therefore void.
Padilla, *a)rador, Concepcion, +eyes, ,.B.*., Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, De *eon and -ati.idad, ,,., conc#r.
Ba#tista An/elo, ,., is on lea.e.
MAC&A? I? C8MECEC, di!ested
Posted b% Pius Morados on Noveber 1, 3#00
DR. CF0929$ (?ept. 0$, 0120) 0Constit#tional *a% 1
Apportionment, Proportional +epresentation2
AAC.?' Petitioners assailed the constitutionalit% of a la*
(Republic Act "#$#) that apportions representative districts
in this countr% on the !round that it is unconstitutional and
void because it apportioned districts *ithout re!ard to the
nuber of inhabitants of the several provinces. Respondents
aver the% *ere erel% copl%in! *ith their duties under the
statute, *hich the% presue and alle!e to be constitutional.
&??EE' 4hether or not an apportionent la* that is
disproportion in representation is unconstitutional.
+EC/' Jes, a la* !ivin! provinces *ith less nuber of
inhabitants ore representative districts than those *ith
bi!!er population is invalid because it violates the principle
of proportional representation prescribed b% the
Constitution. ?uch la* is Karbitrar% and capricious and
a!ainst the vital principle of equalit%.L

;
LAMBERTO MACIAS, LORENO TE!ES, "AUSTO
#UGENIO, ROGACIANO MERCA#O $%& MARIANO
PER#ICES, pet(t(o%er*, /*. T'E COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS $%& !ICENTE GELLA (% )(* C$p$+(t, $*
N$t(o%$- Tre$*.rer, re*po%&e%t*.
"ACTS0
Petitioners request that respondent ofcials be presented
fro ipleentin! Republic Act "#$# that apportions
representative districts. .he% alle!ed that said RA
unconstitutional and void because' (a) it *as passed b% the
+ouse of Representatives *ithout printed ,nal copies of the
bill havin! been furnished the Mebers at least three
calendar da%s prior to its passa!e- (b) it *as approved ore
than three %ears after the return of the last census of our
population- and (c) it apportioned districts *ithout re!ard to
the nuber of inhabitants of the several provinces.
.he respondents aver the% *ere erel% copl%in! *ith
their duties under the statute, *hich the% presue and
alle!e to be constitutional. Respondent National .reasurer
further avers that petitioners have no personalit% to brin!
this action- that a dul% certi,ed cop% of the la* creates the
presuption of its havin! been passed in accordance *ith
the requireents of the Constitution (distribution of printed
bills included)- that the /irector of the Census subitted an
ofcial report on the population of the Philippines in
Noveber 012#, *hich report becae the basis of the bill-
and that the Act coplies *ith the principle of proportional
representation prescribed b% the Constitution.
ISSUES0
48N RA "#$# violates the principle of proportional
representative stipulated in the Constitution.
#ECISION0
Republic Act No. "#$# that !ave provinces *ith less nuber
of inhabitants ore representative districts than those *ith
bi!!er population is declared invalid because it violates the
principle of proportional representation prescribed b% the
Constitution.
RATIO0
.he Constitution directs that the one hundred t*ent%
Mebers of the +ouse of Representatives <shall be
apportioned aon! the several provinces as nearl% as a%
be accordin! to the nuber of their respective inhabitants.<
After hearin! the parties and considerin! their eoranda,
.he Court issued a resolution, statin! that RA "#$# violates
the Constitution in several *a%s nael%' (a) it !ave Cebu
seven ebers, *hile Ri5al *ith a bi!!er nuber of
inhabitants !ot four onl%- (b) it !ave Manila four ebers,
*hile Cotabato *ith a bi!!er population !ot three onl%- . . .L
<.he constitutionalit% of a statute forin! a dele!ate district
or apportionin! dele!ates for the house of dele!ates is a
6udicial question for the courts, althou!h the statute is an
e7ercise of political po*er.<
2