Montejo vs.

COMELEC
242 SCRA 415
March 16, 1995
Facts:
Petitioner Cerilo Roy Montejo, representative of the first district of Leyte, pleads for the annulment of
Section 1 of Resolution no. 2736, redistricting certain municipalities in Leyte, on the ground that it
violates the principle of equality of representation.
The province of Leyte with the cities of Tacloban and Ormoc is composed of 5 districts. The 3rd
district is composed of: Almeria, Biliran, Cabucgayan, Caibiran, Calubian, Culaba, Kawayan, Leyte,
Maripipi, Naval, San Isidro, Tabango and Villaba.
Biliran, located in the 3rd district of Leyte, was made its subprovince by virtue of Republic Act No.
2141 Section 1 enacted on 1959. Said section spelled out the municipalities comprising the
subprovince: Almeria, Biliran, Cabucgayan, Caibiran, Culaba, Kawayan, Maripipi and Naval and all
the territories comprised therein.
On 1992, the Local Government Code took effect and the subprovince of Biliran became a regular
province. (The conversion of Biliran into a regular province was approved by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite.) As a consequence of the conversion, eight municipalities of the 3rd district
composed the new province of Biliran. A further consequence was to reduce the 3rd district to five
municipalities (underlined above) with a total population of 146,067 as per the 1990 census.
To remedy the resulting inequality in the distribution of inhabitants, voters and municipalities in the
province of Leyte, respondent COMELEC held consultation meetings with the incumbent
representatives of the province and other interested parties and on December 29, 1994, it promulgated
the assailed resolution where, among others, it transferred the municipality of Capoocan of the 2nd
district and the municipality of Palompon of the 4th district to the 3rd district of Leyte.
Issue:
Whether the unprecedented exercise by the COMELEC of the legislative power of redistricting and
reapportionment is valid or not.
Held:
Section 1 of Resolution no. 2736 is annulled and set aside.
The deliberations of the members of the Constitutional Commission shows that COMELEC was denied
the major power of legislative apportionment as it itself exercised the power. Regarding the first
elections after the enactment of the 1987 constitution, it is the Commission who did the
reapportionment of the legislative districts and for the subsequent elections, the power was given to the
Congress.
Also, respondent COMELEC relied on the ordinance appended to the 1987 constitution as the source of
its power of redistricting which is traditionally regarded as part of the power to make laws. Said
ordinance states that:

Section 2: The Commission on Elections is hereby empowered to make minor adjustments to the
reapportionment herein made.
Section 3 : Any province that may hereafter be createdThe number of Members apportioned to the
province out of which such new province was created or where the city, whose population has so
increases, is geographically located shall be correspondingly adjusted by the Commission on Elections
but such adjustment shall not be made within one hundred and twenty days before the election.
Minor adjustments does not involve change in the allocations per district. Examples include error in the
correct name of a particular municipality or when a municipality in between which is still in the
territory of one assigned district is forgotten. And consistent with the limits of its power to make minor
adjustments, section 3 of the Ordinance did not also give the respondent COMELEC any authority to
transfer municipalities from one legislative district to another district. The power granted by section 3
to the respondent is to adjust the number of members (not municipalities.)
Mastura case
FACTS: Meanwhile, the new Municipal Board of Canvassers convened and recanvassed the
votes. During the proceedings Mastura objected to the inclusion of fifty (50) out of the fiftyseven (57) election returns on the ground that the COMELEC copy of the election returns was
not reflective of the true results unless compared with the copy of the original Municipal Board
of Canvassers. But the new Municipal Board of Canvassers believed otherwise
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC can annul the illegal canvass and order the Board of
Canvassers to reconvene and proclaim the winners on the basis of the genuine returns or, if it
should refuse, replace the members of the board or proclaim the winners itself.
HELD: Yes.