G.R. No.

189793, April 7, 2010

Senator Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III and Mayor Jesse Robredo
vs COMELEC

Constitutional : Before a law may be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,

there must be a clear showing that a specific provision of the fundamental law has been
violated or transgressed.

There is no specific provision in the Constitution that fixes a 250,000 minimum

population that must compose a legislative district.

View: That the Constitution provides for 4 elements in the apportionment of legislative
districts as far a population is concerned.
1. Proportional Representation-which is the universal standard in direct
representation in legislatures.
2. Minimum population of 250,000 per legislative district, which was not present in
our previous Constitutions.
3. Progressive ratio, which means that the number of legislative districts shall
increase as the number of the population increases in accordance with the rule
on proportional representation.
4. Fourth is the rule on uniformity, which requires that the three rules shall apply
uniformly in all apportionments, which requires that the first three rules shall
apply uniformly in all apportionments in provinces, cities and the Metropolitan
Manila area.

Article 6-Legislative Department

Section 5 (3) Each

Facts:

RA 9716 was signed into law by PGMA on October 2009. This law created an additional
legislative district for the Province of Camarines Sur by reconfiguring the existing 1st
and 2nd districts of CamSur.

Aquino and Robredo contend that the reapportionment runs foul of the constitutional
standard that requires minimum population of 250k for a creation of legislative district
(the new 1st and 2nd district in RA 9716 has population less than 250k).

Respondents, represented by Office of Solicitor General seek to dismiss the petition

based on: On procedural matters,
Issues:

The respondents argue that the petitioners are guilty of two (2) fatal technical defects:
first, petitioners committed an error in choosing to assail the constitutionality of Republic
Act No. 9716 via the remedy of Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court; and second, the petitioners have no locus standi to question the constitutionality
of Republic Act No. 9716.

On substantive matters, the respondents call attention to an apparent distinction

between cities and provinces drawn by Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
The respondents concede the existence of a 250,000 population condition, but argue
that a plain and simple reading of the questioned provision will show that the same has
no application with respect to the creation of legislative districts in provinces.13 Rather,
the 250,000 minimum population is only a requirement for the creation of a legislative
district in a city.

Ruling:

1. Granting arguendo that the present action cannot be properly treated as a petition for
prohibition, the transcendental importance of the issues involved in this case warrants
that we set aside the technical defects and take primary jurisdiction over the petition at
bar. One cannot deny that the issues raised herein have potentially pervasive influence
on the social and moral well being of this nation, specially the youth; hence, their proper
and just determination is an imperative need. This is in accordance with the well-
entrenched principle that rules of procedure are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or
delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid
application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather than
promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed.

2. Absence of direct injury on the part of the party seeking judicial review may be
excused when the latter is able to craft an issue of transcendental importance. In Lim v.
Executive Secretary,22 this Court held that in cases of transcendental importance, the
cases must be settled promptly and definitely, and so, the standing requirements may
be relaxed.

3. We start with the basics. Any law duly enacted by Congress carries with it the
presumption of constitutionality.24 Before a law may be declared unconstitutional by
this Court, there must be a clear showing that a specific provision of the fundamental
law has been violated or transgressed. When there is neither a violation of a specific
provision of the Constitution nor any proof showing that there is such a violation, the
presumption of constitutionality will prevail and the law must be upheld.
There is no specific provision in the Constitution that fixes a 250,000 minimum
population that must compose a legislative district. The second sentence of Section
5(3), Article VI of the Constitution, succinctly provides: "Each city with a population of at
least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one
representative." The use by the subject provision of a comma to separate the phrase
"each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand" from the phrase "or
each province" point to no other conclusion than that the 250,000 minimum population
is only required for a city, but not for a province.
Facts:

Petitioners contend that the reapportionment introduced by Republic Act No. 9716, runs
afoul of the explicit constitutional requirement under Article VI Sec. 5 par. (1) and (3)
and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended thereto which requires a minimum population
of two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) for the creation of a legislative district.5 The
petitioners claim that the reconfiguration by Republic Act No. 9716 of the first and
second districts of Camarines Sur is unconstitutional, because the proposed first district
will end up with a population of less than 250,000 or only 176,383.

Issue:

Whether or not RA 9716 is constitutional

Ruling: Yes

Held:

Plainly read, Section 5(3) of the Constitution requires a 250,000 minimum population
only for a city to be entitled to a representative, but not so for a province. The
requirement of population is not an indispensable requirement, but is merely an
alternative addition to the indispensable income requirement. To be clear about our
judgment, we do not say that in the reapportionment of the first and second legislative
districts of Camarines Sur, the number of inhabitants in the resulting additional district
should not be considered. Our ruling is that population is not the only factor but is just
one of several other factors in the composition of the additional district. Such settlement
is in accord with both the text of the Constitution and the spirit of the letter, so very
clearly given form in the Constitutional debates on the exact issue presented by this
petition. Hence petition is dismissed