Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28089)
Facts:
Bara Lidasan v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-28089, October 25, 1967, the Supreme Court En Banc, Sanchez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Bara Lidasan (a resident, taxpayer and qualified voter of a barrio in the municipality of Parang, Cotabato) sought certiorari and prohibition to prevent respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec) from implementing Republic Act No. 4790 for electoral purposes. RA 4790, signed on June 18, 1966, was titled “An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur” and in its body listed twenty-one named barrios as constituting the new municipality; however, twelve of those barrios were later discovered to be located in municipalities (Buldon and Parang) in the adjacent Province of Cotabato rather than in Lanao del Sur.
Prompted by the approaching 1967 local elections, Comelec issued a resolution on August 15, 1967 defining the territorial composition of Dianaton to include the Cotabato barrios listed in the statute for purposes of precincts, voter registration and other election purposes. The Office of the President, via the Assistant Executive Secretary, on September 7, 1967 recommended suspension of the operation of the law “until clarified by correcting legislation,” but Comelec, by resolution dated September 20, 1967, resolved to implement RA 4790 unless and until declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Petitioner then filed an original action in the Supreme Court—seeking nullification of RA 4790 for alleged violation of the constitutional requirement that “no bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill” (Art. VI, Sec. 21(1) of the Constitution in force at the time)—and prohibition against Comelec’s implementation of its resolutions. The Court, on review, declared RA 479...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Republic Act No. 4790 violate the constitutional requirement that a bill embrace only one subject and that the subject be expressed in its title (Art. VI, Sec. 21(1))?
- If part of the statute is unconstitutional (the portion affecting barrios in Cotabato), is the remainder severable so that the creation of Dianaton from only the barrios actually in Lanao del Sur can stand?
- Does petitioner have legal standing (a substantial interest) to challenge the constitutionality of R...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)