Professional Documents
Culture Documents
302093559
302093559
Brion, J.:
SUMMARY: Cagayan de Oro City used to have a single legislative district. In 2006 a law was
passed to divide it into two legislative districts. Bagabuyo opposed the move before the SC,
claiming that the split must be approved by a plebiscite and that the split violates the
constitutional standard of equal representation. The implementing agency, COMELEC
countered that the petition should have been filed with the RTC; and that a plebiscite is not
needed. SC junked Bagabuyo’s petition, holding that the law was a legislative apportionment
measure, which does not require a plebiscite. Legislative apportionment is not division of an
LGU. It is simply a delineation of an area whose inhabitants will have one representative in the
lawmaking body. It does not involve the creation, alteration, or abolition of an LGU, which is a
special corporate body under the Constitution and the law. The special and corporate nature of
LGUs is the precise reason why its creation, alteration, or abolition has to be approved by
plebiscite. This rationale does not apply to legislative districts.
DOCTRINE
Apportionment of legislative district is a different concept from division of LGUs. The two
are governed by different Constitutional provisions.
Definition of apportionment and reapportionment [please see ratio#2, 1st bullet]
The Constitution and the LGC expressly require a plebiscite to carry out any creation,
division, merger, abolition or alteration of boundary of a local government unit.
In contrast, no plebiscite requirement exists under the
apportionment or reapportionment provision.
A legislative district can be considered a political unit but it is not a political subdivision. It
is a political unit but not a corporate unit, being a device for purposes of representation.
It is a mere delineation of areas occupied by the group of people who are to choose a
common representative to the lawmaking body. It cannot act for and in behalf of its
constituents (unlike LGUs).
LGUs are territorial and political subdivisions of the State. An LGU is a political unit and
a corporate unit, created by the Constitution and the legislature and vested with legal
personality distinct and separate from the State. LGUs are defined by the Constitution as
entities which may be created, divided, abolished, or merged by law in accordance with
Constitutional and legislative standards.
NATURE: Original action in the Supreme Court. Petition for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus.
FACTS
Oct. 10, 2006 – Then Rep. Constantino Jaraula of the Lone District of Cagayan de Oro
City filed and sponsored House Bill 5859, providing for the apportionment of the Lone
Legislative District of Cagayan de Oro.
HB 5859 was passed into law as Republic Act 9371.
RA 9371 split the Lone District of Cagayan de Oro into two districts, the First District
covering the rural areas of the city, and the Second District covering the urban areas.
o The law further provided that the voters of the city would be classified as
belonging to either the 1st or the 2nd district, depending on their place of
residence.
o The constituents of each district would elect a Representative and 8 members of
the Sangguniang Panglungsod.
Mar. 13, 2007 – COMELEC promulgated en banc Resolution No. 7837 implementing RA
9371.
Mar. 27, 2007 – Rogelio BAGABUYO filed the present petition against the COMELEC,
on the ground that RA 9371 cannot be implemented without the conduct of a plebiscite,
which he says is indispensable for the division or conversion of a LGU.
o He asked that the COMELEC be stopped from implementing RA 9371 and
Resolution No. 7837 and for Cagayan de Oro to be reverted to a single district.
Apr. 10, 2008 – Bagabuyo amended his petition to implead the Executive Secretary, the
Budget and Management Secretary, the Chair of the Commission on Audit, the Mayor
and Members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cagayan de Oro, and the Cagayan
de Oro Board of Canvassers.
May 14, 2007 – The National and Local Elections pushed through in accordance with RA
9371 and Resolution No. 7837, the SC not having issued a TRO.
ISSUES (HELD)
1) W/N Bagabuyo violated the hierarchy of courts doctrine when he filed the petition directly with
the SC (NO)
2) Does RA 9371 involve the division or conversion of a LGU, or does it only provide for
legislative reapportionment? (LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT)
3) W/N RA 9371 violates the equality of representation doctrine (NO)
RATIO
1) CASE AT BAR IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS DOCTRINE
The hierarchy of courts doctrine serves to declog court dockets and focus the SC’s time
on matters within its exclusive jurisdiction.
Therefore, when SC has concurrent jurisdiction with a lower court over a proceeding,
recourse must first be made to the lower court; unless there are “special and important”
reasons for the direct invocation of the SC’s jurisdiction, clearly and especially set out in
the petition.
Among these special and important circumstances include petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus against lawmakers when the validity of their enactments is
assailed.
o CASE AT BAR: Bagabuyo’s petition assails a legislative enactment. The nature
of the issues raised also suffices as reason for considering it an exception to the
rule.
o Additionally, the petition also assails a resolution of the COMELEC en banc,
which requires a Rule 65 petition before the SC per ROC 64.