8/28/2015 G.R. No.

176970

EN BANC


ROGELIOZ.BAGABUYO, G.R.No.176970
Petitioner,
Present:

PUNO,C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
*YNARESSANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CORONA,
-versus CARPIOMORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICONAZARIO,
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
REYES,
LEONARDODECASTRO,and
BRION,JJ.

COMMISSIONONELECTIONS, Promulgated:
Respondent.
December8,2008

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

BRION,J.:


[1]
Beforeusisthepetitionforcertiorari,prohibition,andmandamus, withaprayer
fortheissuanceofatemporaryrestrainingorderandawritofpreliminaryinjunction,filed

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 1/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

byRogelioBagabuyo(petitioner) to prevent the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)

[2]
fromimplementingResolutionNo.7837onthegroundthatRepublicActNo.9371 the
lawthatResolutionNo.7837implementsisunconstitutional.

BACKGROUNDFACTS
OnOctober10,2006,CagayandeOrosthenCongressmanConstantinoG.Jaraula
filedandsponsoredHouseBillNo.5859:AnActProvidingfortheApportionmentofthe
[3]
LoneLegislativeDistrictoftheCityofCagayanDeOro. Thislaweventuallybecame
[4]
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9371. It increased Cagayan de Oros legislative district from
onetotwo.FortheelectionofMay2007,CagayandeOrosvoterswouldbeclassifiedas
belongingtoeitherthefirstortheseconddistrict,dependingontheirplaceofresidence.
TheconstituentsofeachdistrictwouldelecttheirownrepresentativetoCongressaswell
aseightmembersoftheSangguniangPanglungsod.
Section1ofR.A.No.9371apportionedtheCitysbarangaysasfollows:
LegislativeDistrictsThelonelegislativedistrictoftheCityofCagayanDeOroishereby
apportioned to commence in the next national elections after the effectivity of this Act.
Henceforth, barangays Bonbon, Bayabas, Kauswagan, Carmen, Patag, Bulua, Iponan,
Baikingon, San Simon, Pagatpat, Canitoan, Balulang, Lumbia, Pagalungan, Tagpangi,
Taglimao, Tuburan, Pigsagan, Tumpagon, Bayanga, Mambuaya, Dansulihon,
Tignapoloan and Bisigan shall comprise the first district while barangays Macabalan,
Puntod, Consolacion, Camamanan, Nazareth, Macasandig, Indahag, Lapasan, Gusa,
Cugman, FS Catanico, Tablon, Agusan, Puerto, Bugo, and Balubal and all urban
[5]
barangaysfromBarangay1toBarangay40shallcomprisetheseconddistrict.


[6]
On March 13, 2007, the COMELEC en Banc promulgated Resolution No. 7837
implementingR.A.No.9371.
Petitioner Rogelio Bagabuyo filed the present petition against the COMELEC on
[7]
March27,2007. On10April2008,thepetitioneramendedthepetitiontoincludethe
following as respondents: Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita the Secretary of the
DepartmentofBudgetandManagementtheChairmanoftheCommissiononAuditthe
MayorandthemembersoftheSangguniangPanglungsodofCagayandeOroCityandits
[8]
BoardofCanvassers.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 2/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

InaskingforthenullificationofR.A.No.9371andResolutionNo.7837onconstitutional
grounds, the petitioner argued that the COMELEC cannot implement R.A. No. 9371
withoutprovidingfortherules,regulationsandguidelinesfortheconductofaplebiscite
which is indispensable for the division or conversion of a local government unit. He
prayed for the issuance of an order directing the respondents to cease and desist from
implementingR.A.No.9371andCOMELECResolutionNo.7837,andtorevertinstead
to COMELEC Resolution No. 7801 which provided for a single legislative district for
CagayandeOro.
SincetheCourtdidnotgrantthepetitionersprayerforatemporaryrestrainingorder
or writ of preliminary injunction, the May 14 National and Local Elections proceeded
accordingtoR.A.No.9371andResolutionNo.7837.
The respondents Comment on the petition, filed through the Office of the Solicitor
General, argued that: 1) the petitioner did not respect the hierarchy of courts, as the
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC)isvestedwithconcurrentjurisdictionovercasesassailingthe
constitutionality of a statute 2) R.A. No. 9371 merely increased the representation of
Cagayan de Oro City in the House of Representatives and Sangguniang Panglungsod
pursuanttoSection5,ArticleVIofthe1987Constitution3)thecriteriaestablishedunder
Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution only apply when there is a creation,
division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of a province, city,
municipality, or barangay in this case, no such creation, division, merger, abolition or
alterationofboundariesofalocalgovernmentunittookplaceand4)R.A.No.9371did
not bring about any change in Cagayan de Oros territory, population and income
classificationhence,noplebisciteisrequired.
The petitioner argued in his reply that: 1) pursuant to the Courts ruling in Del Mar v.
[9]
PAGCOR, theCourtmaytakecognizanceofthispetitionifcompellingreasons,orthe
nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant the immediate exercise of its
jurisdiction2)CagayandeOroCitysreapportionmentunderR.A.No.9371fallswithin
themeaningofcreation,division,merger,abolitionorsubstantialalterationofboundaries
ofcitiesunderSection10,ArticleXoftheConstitution3)thecreation,division,merger,
abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units involve a
commondenominatorthematerialchangeinthepoliticalandeconomicrightsofthelocal
governmentunitsdirectlyaffected,aswellasofthepeopletherein4)avoterssovereign
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 3/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

powertodecideonwhoshouldbeelectedastheentirecitysCongressmanwasarbitrarily
reducedbyatleastonehalfbecausethequestionedlawandresolutiononlyallowedhimto
vote and be voted for in the district designated by the COMELEC 5) a voter was also
arbitrarilydeniedhisrighttoelecttheCongressmanandthemembersofthecitycouncil
fortheotherlegislativedistrict,and6)governmentfundswereillegallydisbursedwithout
[10]
priorapprovalbythesovereignelectorateofCagayanDeOroCity.

THEISSUES

The core issues, based on the petition and the parties memoranda, can be limited to the
followingcontentiouspoints:

1) Did the petitioner violate the hierarchy of courts rule if so, should the instant
petitionbedismissedonthisground?

2)DoesR.A.No.9371merelyprovideforthelegislativereapportionmentofCagayan
deOroCity,ordoesitinvolvethedivisionandconversionofalocalgovernment
unit?

3)DoesR.A.No.9371violatetheequalityofrepresentationdoctrine?

OURRULING

Except for the issue of the hierarchy of courts rule, we find the petition totally
withoutmerit.

Thehierarchyofcourtsprinciple.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari,
[11]
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. It was pursuant to this
originaljurisdictionthatthepetitionerfiledthepresentpetition.

[12] [13]
WhilethisjurisdictionissharedwiththeCourtofAppeals andtheRTCs, a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 4/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

direct invocation of the Supreme Courts jurisdiction is allowed only when there are
special and important reasons therefor, clearly and especially set out in the petition.
Reasons of practicality, dictated by an increasingly overcrowded docket and the need to
prioritizeinfavorofmatterswithinourexclusivejurisdiction,justifytheexistenceofthis
rule otherwise known as the principle of hierarchy of courts. More generally stated, the
principle requires that recourse must first be made to the lowerranked court exercising
[14]
concurrentjurisdictionwithahighercourt.

Among the cases we have considered sufficiently special and important to be
exceptions to the rule, are petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and quo
warrantoagainstournationslawmakerswhenthevalidityoftheirenactmentsisassailed.
[15]
The present petition is of this nature its subject matter and the nature of the issues
raisedamongthem,whetherlegislativereapportionmentinvolvesadivisionofCagayande
OroCityasalocalgovernmentunitarereasonsenoughforconsideringitanexceptionto
theprincipleofhierarchyofcourts.Additionally,thepetitionassailsaswellaresolutionof
theCOMELECenbancissuedtoimplementthelegislativeapportionmentthatR.A.No.
9371decrees.AsanactionagainstaCOMELECenbancresolution,thecasefallsunder
Rule64oftheRulesofCourtthatinturnrequiresareviewbythisCourtviaaRule65
[16]
petitionforcertiorari. Forthesereasons,wedonotseetheprincipleofhierarchyof
courtstobeastumblingblockinourconsiderationofthepresentcase.

ThePlebisciteRequirement.


ThepetitionerinsiststhatR.A.No.9371convertsanddividestheCityofCagayandeOro
as a local government unit, and does not merely provide for the Citys legislative
apportionment. This argument essentially proceeds from a misunderstanding of the
constitutional concepts of apportionment of legislative districts and division of local
governmentunits.

LegislativeapportionmentisdefinedbyBlacksLawDictionaryasthe determination of
the number of representatives which a State, county or other subdivision may send to a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 5/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

[17]
legislativebody. Itistheallocationofseatsinalegislativebodyinproportiontothe
population the drawing of voting district lines so as to equalize population and voting
[18]
poweramongthedistricts. Reapportionment, on the other hand, is the realignment
orchangeinlegislativedistrictsbroughtaboutbychangesinpopulationandmandatedby
[19]
theconstitutionalrequirementofequalityofrepresentation.

ArticleVI(entitledLegislativeDepartment)ofthe1987Constitutionlaysdownthe
rulesonlegislativeapportionmentunderitsSection5whichprovides:
Sec. 5(1). (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than
two hundred fifty members unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from
legislativedistrictsapportionedamongtheprovinces,cities,andtheMetropolitanManila
areainaccordancewiththenumberoftheirrespectiveinhabitants,andonthebasisofa
uniformandprogressiveratio,andthosewho,asprovidedbylaw,shallbeelectedthrough
apartylistsystemofregisterednational,regionalandsectoralpartiesororganizations.

xxx

(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, continuous,
compact,andadjacentterritory.Eachcitywithapopulationofatleasttwohundredfifty
thousand,oreachprovince,shallhaveatleastonerepresentative.

(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall
make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this
section.

Separatelyfromthelegislativedistrictsthatlegalapportionmentorreapportionment
speaks of, are the local government units (historically and generically referred to as
municipal corporations) that the Constitution itself classified into provinces, cities,
[20]
municipalitiesandbarangays. In its strict and proper sense, a municipality has been
definedasabodypoliticandcorporateconstitutedbytheincorporationoftheinhabitants
[21]
ofacityortownforthepurposeoflocalgovernmentthereof. Thecreation,division,
merger, abolition or alteration of boundary of local government units, i.e., of provinces,
cities, municipalities, and barangays, are covered by the Article on Local Government
(ArticleX).Section10ofthisArticleprovides:


Noprovince,city,municipality,orbarangaymaybecreated,divided,merged,abolished,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 6/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

oritsboundarysubstantiallyaltered,exceptinaccordancewiththecriteriaestablishedin
the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebisciteinthepoliticalunitdirectlyaffected.


UnderbothArticleVI,Section5,andArticleX,Section10oftheConstitution,the
authority to act has been vested in the Legislature. The Legislature undertakes the
[22]
apportionmentandreapportionmentoflegislativedistricts, andlikewiseactsonlocal
governmentunitsbysettingthestandardsfortheircreation,division,merger,abolitionand
alteration of boundaries and by actually creating, dividing, merging, abolishing local
government units and altering their boundaries through legislation. Other than this, not
much commonality exists between the two provisions since they are inherently different
althoughtheyinterfaceandrelatewithoneanother.
The concern that leaps from the text of Article VI, Section 5 is political
representationandthemeanstomakealegislativedistrictsufficientlyrepresentedsothat
thepeoplecanbeeffectivelyheard.Asabovestated,theaimoflegislativeapportionment
[23]
istoequalizepopulationandvotingpoweramongdistricts. Hence,emphasisisgiven
to the number of people represented the uniform and progressive ratio to be observed
amongtherepresentativedistrictsandaccessibilityandcommonalityofinterestsinterms
ofeachdistrictbeing,asfaraspracticable,continuous,compactandadjacentterritory.In
termsofthepeoplerepresented,everycitywithatleast250,000peopleandeveryprovince
(irrespective of population) is entitled to one representative. In this sense, legislative
districts,ontheonehand,andprovincesandcities,ontheother,relateandinterfacewith
each other. To ensure continued adherence to the required standards of apportionment,
Section5(4)specificallymandatesreapportionmentassoonasthegivenstandardsaremet.

IncontrastwiththeequalrepresentationobjectiveofArticleVI,Section5,Article
X, Section 10 expressly speaks of how local government units may be created, divided,
merged,abolished,oritsboundarysubstantiallyaltered.Itsconcernisthecommencement,
the termination, and the modification of local government units corporate existence and
territorial coverage and it speaks of two specific standards that must be observed in
implementingthisconcern,namely,thecriteriaestablishedinthelocalgovernmentcode
andtheapprovalbyamajorityofthevotescastinaplebisciteinthepoliticalunitsdirectly
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 7/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

affected.UndertheLocalGovernmentCode(R.A.No.7160)passedin1991,thecriteria
ofincome,populationandlandareaarespecifiedasverifiableindicatorsofviabilityand
[24]
capacity to provide services. The division or merger of existing units must comply
with the same requirements (since a new local government unit will come into being),
providedthatadivisionshallnotreducetheincome,population,orlandareaoftheunit
[25]
affectedtolessthantheminimumrequirementprescribedintheCode.

ApronounceddistinctionbetweenArticleVI,Section5and,ArticleX,Section10
is on the requirement of a plebiscite. The Constitution and the Local Government Code
expressly require a plebiscite to carry out any creation, division, merger, abolition or
alterationofboundaryofalocal
[26]
government unit. In contrast, no plebiscite requirement exists under the
[27]
apportionment or reapportionment provision. In Tobias v. Abalos, a case that arose
from the division of the congressional district formerly covering San Juan and
Mandaluyong into separate districts, we confirmed this distinction and the fact that no
plebisciteisneededinalegislativereapportionment.Theplebisciteissuecameupbecause
onewasorderedandheldforMandaluyonginthecourseofitsconversionintoahighly
urbanized city, while none was held for San Juan. In explaining why this happened, the
Court ruled that no plebiscite was necessary for San Juan because the objective of the
plebiscitewastheconversionofMandaluyongintoahighlyurbanizedcityasrequiredby
ArticleX,Section10theLocalGovernmentCodethecreationofanewlegislativedistrict
onlyfollowedasaconsequence.Inotherwords,theapportionmentaloneandbyitselfdid
not call for a plebiscite, so that none was needed for San Juan where only a
reapportionmenttookplace.

TheneedforaplebisciteunderArticleX,Section10andthelackofrequirementforone
under Article VI, Section 5 can best be appreciated by a consideration of the historical
roots of these two provisions, the nature of the concepts they embody as heretofore
discussed,andtheirareasofapplication.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 8/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

ABitofHistory.

[28]
InMaciasv.COMELEC, wefirstjurisprudentiallyacknowledgedtheAmericanroots
ofourapportionmentprovision,notingitsrootsfromthe
[29]
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and from the constitutions of some
[30]
Americanstates.ThePhilippineOrganicActof1902createdthePhilippineAssembly,
thebodythatactedasthelowerhouseofthebicamerallegislatureundertheAmericans,
with the Philippine Commission acting as the upper house. While the members of the
PhilippineCommissionwereappointedbytheU.S.Presidentwiththeconformityofthe
U.S. Senate, the members of the Philippine Assembly were elected by representative
districts previously delineated under the Philippine Organic Act of 1902 pursuant to the
mandatetoapportiontheseatsofthePhilippineAssemblyamongtheprovincesasnearly
aspracticableaccordingtopopulation.Thus,legislativeapportionmentfirststartedinour
country.

The Jones Law or the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 maintained the
apportionment provision, dividing the country into 12 senate districts and 90
representativedistrictselectingonedelegateeachtotheHouseofRepresentatives.Section
16oftheActspecificallyvestedthePhilippineLegislaturewiththeauthoritytoredistrict
thePhilippineIslands.

Under the 1935 Constitution, Article VI, Section 5 retained the concept of
legislative apportionment together with district as the basic unit of apportionment the
concernwasequalityofrepresentation...asanessentialfeatureofrepublicaninstitutions
[31]
as expressed in the leading case of Macias v. COMELEC. The case ruled that
inequality of representation is a justiciable, not a political issue, which ruling was
[32]
reiterated in Montejo v. COMELEC. Notably, no issue regarding the holding of a
plebisciteevercameupinthesecasesandtheothersthatfollowed,asnoplebiscitewas
required.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 9/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

Article VIII, Section 2 of the 1973 Constitution retained the concept of equal
representation in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants and on the
basis of a uniform and progressive ratio with each district being, as far as practicable,
contiguous,compactandadjacentterritory.Thisformulationwasessentiallycarriedover
to the 1987 Constitution, distinguished only from the previous one by the presence of
partylistrepresentatives.InneitherConstitutionwasaplebisciterequired.

The need for a plebiscite in the creation, division, merger, or abolition of local
governmentunitswasnotconstitutionallyenshrineduntilthe1973Constitution.However,
[33]
as early as 1959, R.A. No. 2264 required, in the creation of barrios by Provincial
Boards,thatthecreationanddefinitionofboundariesbeuponpetitionofamajorityofthe
votersintheareasaffected.In1961,theCharteroftheCityofCaloocan(R.A.No.3278)
carriedthisfurtherbyrequiringthattheActshalltakeeffectafteramajorityofvotersof
theMunicipalityofCaloocanvoteinfavoroftheconversionoftheirmunicipalityintoa
cityinaplebiscite.Thiswasfollowedupto1972byotherlegislativeenactmentsrequiring
a plebiscite as a condition for the creation and conversion of local government units as
[34]
wellasthetransferofsitiosfromonelegislativeunittoanother. In1973,theplebiscite
requirementwasaccordedconstitutionalstatus.

Undertheseseparatehistoricaltracks,itcanbeseenthattheholdingofaplebiscite
wasneverarequirementinlegislativeapportionmentorreapportionment.Afteritbecame
constitutionally entrenched, a plebiscite was also always identified with the creation,
division, merger, abolition and alteration of boundaries of local government units, never
withtheconceptoflegislativeapportionment.

NatureandAreasofApplication.

The legislative district that Article VI, Section 5 speaks of may, in a sense, be
calledapoliticalunitbecauseitisthebasisfortheelectionofamemberoftheHouseof
Representativesandmembersofthelocallegislativebody.Itisnot,however,apolitical
subdivision through which functions of government are carried out. It can more

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 10/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

appropriately be described as a representative unit that may or may not encompass the
wholeofacityoraprovince,butunlikethelatter,itisnotacorporateunit.Not being a
corporate unit, a district does not act for and in behalf of the people comprising the
district it merely delineates the areas occupied by the people who will choose a
representativeintheirnationalaffairs.Unlikeaprovince,whichhasagovernoracityora
municipality,whichhasamayorandabarangay,whichhasapunongbarangay,adistrict
does not have its own chief executive. The role of the congressman that it elects is to
ensurethatthevoiceofthepeopleofthedistrictisheardinCongress,nottooverseethe
affairs of the legislative district. Not being a corporate unit also signifies that it has no
legalpersonalitythatmustbecreatedordissolvedandhasnocapacitytoact.Hence,there
isnoneedforanyplebisciteinthecreation,dissolutionoranyothersimilaractionona
legislativedistrict.

The local government units, on the other hand, are political and corporate units.
[35]
They are the territorial and political subdivisions of the state. They possess legal
personality on the authority of the Constitution and by action of the Legislature. The
Constitution defines them as entities that Congress can, by law, create, divide, abolish,
mergeorwhoseboundariescanbealteredbasedonstandardsagainestablishedbyboth
[36]
the Constitution and the Legislature. A local government units corporate existence
begins upon the election and qualification of its chief executive and a majority of the
[37]
membersofitsSanggunian.

Asapoliticalsubdivision,alocalgovernmentunitisaninstrumentalityofthestate
[38]
incarryingoutthefunctionsofgovernment. Asacorporateentitywithadistinctand
separate juridical personality from the State, it exercises special functions for the sole
benefitofitsconstituents.Itactsasanagencyofthecommunityintheadministrationof
[39]
localaffairs andthemediumsthroughwhichthepeopleactintheircorporatecapacity
[40]
onlocalconcerns. Inlightoftheseroles,theConstitutionsawitfittoexpresslysecure
theconsentofthepeopleaffectedbythecreation,division,merger,abolitionoralteration

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 11/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

ofboundariesoflocalgovernmentunitsthroughaplebiscite.

Theseconsiderationsclearlyshowthedistinctionsbetweenalegislativeapportionmentor
reapportionment and the division of a local government unit. Historically and by its
intrinsic nature, a legislative apportionment does not mean, and does not even imply, a
division of a local government unit where the apportionment takes place. Thus, the
plebiscite requirement that applies to the division of a province, city, municipality or
barangayundertheLocalGovernmentCodeshouldnotapplytoandbearequisiteforthe
validityofalegislativeapportionmentorreapportionment.



R.A.No.9371andCOMELECRes.No.7837

R.A. No. 9371 is, on its face, purely and simply a reapportionment legislation
passedinaccordancewiththeauthoritygrantedtoCongressunderArticleVI,Section5(4)
oftheConstitution.ItscoreprovisionSection1provides:

SECTION 1. Legislative Districts. The lone legislative district of the City of
CagayandeOroisherebyapportionedtocommenceinthenextnationalelectionsafterthe
effectivity of this Act. Henceforth, barangays Bonbon, Bayabas, Kauswagan, Carmen,
Patag, Bulua, Iponan, Baikingon, San Simon, Pagatpat, Canitoan, Balulang, Lumbia,
Pagalungan, Tagpangi, Taglimao, Tuburan, Pigsagan, Tumpagon, Bayanga, Mambuaya,
Dansulihon, Tignapoloan and Bisigan shall comprise the first district while barangays
Macabalan, Puntod, Consolacion, Camamanan, Nazareth, Macansandig, Indahag,
Lapasan,Gusa,Cugman,FSCatanico,Tablon,Agusan,Puerto,BugoandBalubalandall
urbanbarangaysfromBarangay1toBarangay40shallcomprisetheseconddistrict.

Under these wordings, no division of Cagayan de Oro City as a political and
corporate entity takes place or is mandated. Cagayan de Oro City politically remains a
singleunitanditsadministrationisnotdividedalongterritoriallines.Itsterritoryremains
completelywholeandintactthereisonlytheadditionofanotherlegislativedistrictand
thedelineationofthecityintotwodistrictsforpurposesofrepresentationintheHouseof
Representatives.Thus,ArticleX,Section10oftheConstitutiondoesnotcomeintoplay
andnoplebisciteisnecessarytovalidlyapportionCagayandeOroCityintotwodistricts.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 12/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

Admittedly, the legislative reapportionment carries effects beyond the creation of

another congressional district in the city by providing, as reflected in COMELEC
ResolutionNo.7837,foradditionalSangguniangPanglunsodseatstobevotedforalong
the lines of the congressional apportionment made. The effect on the Sangguniang
Panglunsod,however,isnotdirectlytraceabletoR.A.No.9371buttoanotherlawR.A.
[41]
No.6636 whoseSection3provides:

SECTION3.OtherCities.The provision of any law to the contrary notwithstanding the
CityofCebu,CityofDavao,andanyothercitywithmorethanonerepresentativedistrict
shallhaveeight(8)councilorsforeachdistrictwhoshallberesidentsthereoftobeelected
by the qualified voters therein, provided that the cities of Cagayan de Oro, Zamboanga,
Bacolod,Iloiloandothercitiescomprisingarepresentativedistrictshallhavetwelve(12)
councilors each and all other cities shall have ten (10) councilors each to be elected at
largebythequalifiedvotersofthesaidcities:Provided,Thatinnocaseshallthepresent
numberofcouncilorsaccordingtotheirchartersbereduced.

However,neitherdoesthislawhavetheeffectofdividingtheCityofCagayandeOrointo
two political and corporate units and territories. Rather than divide the city either
territoriallyorasacorporateentity,theeffectismerelytoenhancevoterrepresentationby
giving each city voter more and greater say, both in Congress and in the Sangguniang
Panglunsod.

Toillustratethiseffect,beforethereapportionment,CagayandeOrohadonlyone
congressman and 12 city council members citywide for its population of approximately
[42]
500,000. By having two legislative districts, each of them with one congressman,
CagayandeOronoweffectivelyhastwocongressmen,eachonerepresenting250,000of
thecityspopulation.Intermsofservicesforcityresidents,thiseasilymeansbetteraccess
totheircongressmansinceeachonenowservicesonly250,000constituentsasagainstthe
500,000heusedtorepresent.ThesamegoestruefortheSangguniangPanglungsod with
its ranks increased from 12 to 16 since each legislative district now has 8 councilors. In
representation terms, the fewer constituents represented translate to a greater voice for
each individual city resident in Congress and in the Sanggunian each congressman and
eachcouncilorrepresentsbothasmallerareaandfewerconstituentswhosefewernumbers
are now concentrated in each representative. The City, for its part, now has twice the
numberofcongressmenspeakingforitandvotinginthehallsofCongress.Sincethetotal
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 13/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

number of congressmen in the country has not increased to the point of doubling its
numbers,thepresenceoftwocongressman(insteadofone)fromthesamecitycannotbut
beaquantitativeandproportionalimprovementintherepresentationofCagayandeOro
CityinCongress.

Equalityofrepresentation.
The petitioner argues that the distribution of the legislative districts is unequal.
District 1 has only 93,719 registered voters while District 2 has 127,071. District 1 is
composed mostly of rural barangays while District 2 is composed mostly of urban
[43]
barangays. Thus,R.A.No.9371violatestheprincipleofequalityofrepresentation.

Aclarificationmustbemade.Thelawclearlyprovidesthatthebasisfordistrictingshall
be the number of the inhabitants of a city or a province, not the number of registered
[44]
voterstherein.WesettledthisverysamequestioninHerrerav.COMELEC whenwe
interpretedaprovisioninR.A.No.7166andCOMELECResolutionNo.2313thatapplied
to the Province of Guimaras. We categorically ruled that the basis for districting is the
numberofinhabitantsoftheProvince of Guimaras by municipality based on the official
1995 Census of Population as certified to by Tomas P. Africa, Administrator of the
NationalStatisticsOffice.

The petitioner, unfortunately, did not provide information about the actual population of
CagayandeOroCity.However,wetakejudicialnoticeoftheAugust2007censusofthe
NationalStatisticsOfficewhichshowsthatbarangayscomprisingCagayandeOrosfirst
districthaveatotalpopulationof254,644,whiletheseconddistricthas299,322residents.
[45]
Undeniably,thesefiguresshowadisparityinthepopulationsizesofthedistricts. The
Constitution, however, does not require mathematical exactitude or rigid equality as a
[46]
standardingaugingequalityofrepresentation. Infact,forcities,allitasksisthateach
citywithapopulationofatleasttwohundredfiftythousandshallhaveonerepresentative,
while ensuring representation for every province regardless of the size of its population.
Toensurequalityrepresentationthroughcommonalityofinterestsandeaseofaccessby

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 14/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

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. Thus, the Constitution leaves the local government units as they are
found and does not require their division, merger or transfer to satisfy the numerical
standarditimposes.Itsrequirementsaresatisfieddespitesomenumericaldisparityifthe
unitsarecontiguous,compactandadjacentasfaraspracticable.
ThepetitionerscontentionthatthereisaresultinginequalityinthedivisionofCagayande
Oro City into two districts because the barangays in the first district are mostly rural
barangayswhiletheseconddistrictismostlyurban,islargelyunsubstantiated.Butevenif
backedupbyproperproof,wecannotquestionthedivisiononthebasisofthedifference
inthebarangayslevelsofdevelopmentordevelopmentalfocusasthesearenotpartofthe
constitutional standards for legislative apportionment or reapportionment. What the
componentsofthetwodistrictsofCagayandeOrowouldbeisamatterforthelawmakers
to determine as a matter of policy. In the absence of any grave abuse of discretion or
violationoftheestablishedlegalparameters,thisCourtcannotintrudeintothewisdomof
[47]
thesepolicies.

WHEREFORE,weherebyDISMISSthepetitionforlackofmerit.Costs against
thepetitioner.

SO ORDERED.


ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:



REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 15/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

(Onleave)
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice



ANTONIOT.CARPIO MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice



RENATOC.CORONA CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice



ADOLFOS.AZCUNA DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice






MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice



ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice



TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 16/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthatthe
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.


REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

*Onleave.
[1]
UnderRule65oftheRulesofCourt.
[2]
AnActProvidingfortheApportionmentoftheLoneLegislativeDistrictoftheCityofCagayanDeOro.
[3]
Rollo,p.214.
[4]
Id.,p.25.
[5]
Id.,p.25.
[6]
Id.,pp.2324.
[7]
Id.,pp.322.
[8]
Id.,pp.6093
[9]
G.R.No.138298,November29,2000,346SCRA485.
[10]
Rollo,pp.123148.

[11]
CONSTITUTION,ArticleVIII,Section5(1).
[12]
Sec.9(1),B.P.Blg.129.
[13]
Sec.21(1),B.P.Blg.129.
[14]
See:Peoplev.Cuaresma,G.R.No.67787,April18,1989,172SCRA415.
[15]
Santiagov.Guingona,Jr.,G.R.No.134577,November18,1998,298SCRA756.
[16]
See:Bautistav.COMELEC,G.R.Nos.15479697,October23,2003,414SCRA299.
[17]
BlacksLawDictionary,5thEdition,p.91.
[18]
Clapp,JamesE.,DictionaryofLaw(2000),p.33.
[19]BlacksLawDictionary,
supranote17,p.1137.
[20]
CONSTITUTION,Art.X,Sec.1.
[21]
Martin,PublicCorporations,Revised1983Edition,p.5.
[22]
ArticleVI,Section5Montejov.COMELEC,312Phil.492(1995).
[23]
Supranote18.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 17/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970
[24]
Section7,LocalGovernmentCode.
[25]
CONSTITUTION,Art.X,Sec.10.
[26]
SEC. 10. Plebiscite Requirement. No creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of
boundariesoflocalgovernmentunitsshalltakeeffectunlessapprovedbyamajorityofthevotescastinaplebiscite
called for the purpose in the political unit or units directly affected. Said plebiscite shall be conducted by the
CommissiononElections(Comelec)withinonehundredtwenty(120)daysfromthedateofeffectivityofthelaw
orordinanceeffectingsuchaction,unlesssaidlaworordinancefixesanotherdate.
[27]
G.R.No.114783,December8,1994,239SCRA106.
[28]
G.R.No.L18684,September14,1961,113Phil.1(1961).
[29]
TheFourteenthAmendmentoftheU.S.Constitutionprovidesthebasisfortherequirementofanequitableapportionment
scheme.Seegenerally,Colegrovev.Green,328U.S.549,citedinMaciasv.COMELEC,supranote28.
[30]
Peoplev.Santiago,43Phil120(1922).
[31]
Supranote28.
[32]
G.R.No.118702,March16,1995.
[33]
AnActAmendingtheLawsGoverningLocalGovernmentsbyIncreasingtheirAutonomyandReorganizingProvincial
Governments.
[34]
A plebiscite was a conditio sine qua non in the creation of municipal corporations including, but not limited to, the
following:1)theCityofAngeles,R.A.37002)theMunicipalityofPioDuranintheProvinceofAlbay,R.A.38173)the
Provinces of Northern Samar, Eastern Samar and Western Samar, R.A. 4221 4) the Provinces of Agusan del Norte and
AgusandelSur,R.A.4979.ThepriorapprovalofamajorityofthequalifiedvotersofcertainsitiosoftheMunicipalityof
AnilaowasalsorequiredbeforethetransferofthesamesitiostotheMunicipalityofBanateunderR.A.4614tookeffect.

[35]
MetropolitanManilaDevelopmentAuthorityv.BelAirVillageAssociation,Inc.,G.R.No.135962,March27,2000,328
SCRA836.
[36]
CONSTITUTION,ArticleX,Secs.3and10AquilinoPimentel,Jr.,TheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991:TheKeyto
NationalDevelopment,p.5.
[37]
Sec.14,LocalGovernmentCode.
[38]
Lidasanv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.L28089October25,1967,21SCRA496.
[39]
Ibid.
[40]
Section15oftheLocalGovernmentCodeprovides:PoliticalandCorporateNatureofLocalGovernmentUnits.Every
local government unit created or recognized under this Code is a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be
exercisedbyitinconformitywithlaw.Assuch,itshallexercisepowersasapoliticalsubdivisionofthenationalgovernment
andasacorporateentityrepresentingtheinhabitantsofitsterritory.
[41]
EnactedintolawonNovember6,1987.
[42]
AsprovidedbyCOMELECRes.No.7801thatCOMELECRes.No.7837superseded.

[43]
Rollo,p.71.
[44]
G.R.No.131499,November17,1999,318SCRA337.
[45]
Total Population by Province, City, Municipality and Barangay: as of August 1, 2007
<http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2007/region%2010.pdf>,lastaccessedNovember5,2008.
[46]
Harlan, dissenting opinion in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186 citing Allied Stores of Ohio v. Bowers,358 U.S. 522 and
McGowanv.Maryland,366U.S.420,inwhichtheSupremeCourtruledthattheEqualProtectionClausedoesnotdemand
oflegislationfinickyorexactconformitytoabstractcorrelationxxx.TheConstitutionissatisfiedifalegislaturerespondsto
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 18/19
8/28/2015 G.R. No. 176970
the practical living facts with which it deals. Through what precise points in a field of many competing pressures a
legislaturemightmostsuitablyhavedrawnitslinesisnotaquestionforjudicialreexamination.Itisenoughtosatisfythe
Constitutionthatindrawingthemtheprincipleofreasonhasnotbeendisregarded.Andwhatdegreeofuniformityreason
demandsofastatuteis,ofcourse,afunctionofthecomplexityoftheneedswhichthestatuteseekstoaccommodate.
[47]
Tobiasv.Abalos,G.R.No.L114783,December8,1994,239SCRA106.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/176970.htm 19/19