G.R. No. 188078 - Aldaba vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188078)

Antecedents and Legislative History

Before RA 9591 lapsed into law on 1 May 2009, Bulacan had four legislative districts; the First District included Malolos City and several municipalities. Legislative bills filed in 2007 (House Bill No. 3162 → 3693; Senate Bill No. 1986) sought a lone district for Malolos. At filing time in 2007 Malolos’ population was 223,069. House Bill No. 3693 relied on an undated NSO regional certification projecting Malolos’ population would be 254,030 by 2010.

Petitioners’ Claim

Petitioners alleged RA 9591 is unconstitutional because Malolos did not meet the constitutional minimum population threshold of 250,000 for a city to warrant its own congressional representation. They contended the NSO-based projection relied upon by Congress was legally insufficient and that RA 9591 therefore violated the Constitution.

OSG / Respondent’s Position

The Office of the Solicitor General argued that Congress’ reliance on projected population figures was a legislative determination not subject to judicial inquiry as a political question; the choice of standards for compliance is within legislative wisdom and non-justiciable. The OSG nevertheless invoked Executive Order No. 135 to contend that NSO projections may be recognized where properly issued.

Constitutional Standard and Legal Framework

Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution grants each city with a population of at least 250,000 at least one representative; Section 3 of the Ordinance adds that a city whose population thereafter increases to more than 250,000 is entitled to a member in the immediately following election. Thus the controlling constitutional prerequisites are (1) attainment of the 250,000 population threshold and (2) entitlement to representation only in the immediately following election after attainment.

NSO Certification Relied Upon by Congress

House Bill No. 3693 cited an undated certification by NSO Regional Director Alberto N. Miranda stating Malolos’ population was 175,291 as of 1 May 2000 and that using a 3.78% growth rate (1995–2000), the projected population would be 254,030 by 2010. The certification was issued upon request of the Malolos mayor and characterized the projection as based on a “conventional method” and not accounting for other demographic factors.

Court’s Assessment of the NSO Certification’s Legal Effect

The Court concluded the Regional Director’s certification was without legal effect because it failed to satisfy the procedural and substantive requirements governing demographic projections. Specifically: (1) Executive Order No. 135 requires that intercensal projections be declared official by the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) before certification; (2) certifications based on projections must be issued by the NSO Administrator or his designated certifying officer, not a regional director absent express designation; and (3) intercensal projections certified by the NSO must be “as of the middle of every year,” whereas the certification relied on “by the year 2010” and did not specify a mid-year reference.

Executive Order No. 135 Requirements and Application

Executive Order No. 135 provides guidelines: census-year certifications are based on actual counts; intercensal estimates must be based on demographic projections declared official by the NSCB and certified by the NSO Administrator or his designated officer; intercensal estimates are to be as of mid-year; certification based on projections may specify a range; the smallest geographic area for projections is city or municipality. The Court found the Regional Director’s certification did not indicate NSCB declaration, did not come from the NSO Administrator or a designated officer, and violated the mid-year requirement.

Population Calculations and Inconsistencies with the Certification

The Court examined the arithmetic basis of the Regional Director’s projection and found inconsistency: starting from 175,291 in 2000 and using the cited growth rate of 3.78% per year yields a 2010 population less than 250,000 (the Court calculated 241,550 from that 2000 base under the method used in the certification). The 2007 Census recorded Malolos’ population at 223,069 (as of 1 August 2007); applying a 3.78% growth rate to that figure would produce populations in 2010 below 250,000 (the Court showed figures of 248,365 or, if compounded differently, 249,333), contradicting the certification’s claim of 254,030. The NSO also does not publish projections for individual municipalities or cities, only for regions and provinces.

Timing and the “Immediately Following Election” Requirement

Even if a city’s population reaches 250,000 by projection, Section 3 of the Ordinance grants a district in the “immediately following election” after attainment. The Court found no official record that Malolos had attained, or would attain before the 10 May 2010 elections, a population of at least 250,000 either in actual census counts or in properly certified projections. Thus Malolos did not meet the constitutional temporal requirement to be entitled to its own district in the 2010 election.

Justiciability and the Court’s Role in Reviewing Reapportionment

The Court rejected the OSG’s contention that Congress’ choice of means for compliance is non-justiciable. Determinations whether the other branches complied with constitutional standards are within the judiciary’s checking function, and apportionment laws have traditionally been reviewable by courts where grave abuse of discretion, lack or excess of jurisdiction, or constitutional noncompliance is alleged.

Holding and Disposition

The Court granted the petition and declared Republic Act No. 9591 unconstitutional for violating Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution. The majority concluded that the NSO regional certification lacked legal effect and that no valid showing existed that Malolos had the required 250,000 population in time for the 2010 elections.

Dissent — Overview

Justice Abad dissented. He framed the case as one involving Congress’ reliance on an NSO population projection and argued that the Court should defer to Congress absent grave abuse of discretion. He disputed the majority’s legal and arithmetic conclusions and presented alternative reasoning supporting the constitutionality of RA 9591.

Dissent — Applicability of Executive Order No. 135

The dissent contended EO No. 135 did not apply to RA 9591 because EO 135 was issued to guide certifications related to creation, conversion, and classification of local government units under specified Local Government Code provisions, whereas RA 9591 concerns legislative reapportionment (a different subject). Therefore, the procedural limits EO 135 imposes on demographic certifications were, in the dissent’s vi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 188078)

Case Caption, Citation and Nature of Action

G.R. No. 188078, January 25, 2010; reported at 624 Phil. 805; En Banc decision authored by Justice Carpio.
Original action for Prohibition seeking to declare Republic Act No. 9591 (RA 9591) unconstitutional.
Primary relief sought: a declaration that RA 9591, which created a legislative district for the City of Malolos, Bulacan, is invalid for failing to meet constitutional population requirements for the creation of a legislative district.

The Case — Core Issue

Central legal question: whether the City of Malolos had, or could validly be deemed to have, a population of at least 250,000 (actual or projected) in time for entitlement to its own legislative district for the May 10, 2010 elections.
If Malolos did not meet the 250,000 threshold (actual or validly projected) prior to the immediately following election, then RA 9591 would be unconstitutional under Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution.

Antecedent Facts and Legislative Action

Prior to May 1, 2009, Bulacan province had four legislative districts; the First District included the City of Malolos and the municipalities of Hagonoy, Calumpit, Pulilan, Bulacan, and Paombong.
On May 1, 2009, RA 9591 lapsed into law, amending Malolos’ City Charter (R.A. No. 8754, Section 57) by creating a separate legislative district for the City of Malolos.
House Bill No. 3162 (later House Bill No. 3693) and Senate Bill No. 1986 were the measures filed in Congress, with the bills citing an undated certification from the Regional Director of the NSO projecting Malolos’ population at 254,030 by 2010.

Population Figures and Documentary Materials in the Record

2000 census population of Malolos, as stated in the NSO Region III Certification: 175,291 as of May 1, 2000.
2007 NSO Census figure in the record (Annex "F" of Petition): 223,069 as of August 1, 2007.
The disputed NSO Region III Certification (undated, issued by Regional Director Alberto N. Miranda) stated a projected Malolos population of 254,030 by the year 2010 using a 3.78% growth rate (1995–2000), and noted the computation was based on a conventional method not accounting for other demographic factors.
The Certification was issued upon request of the Mayor of Malolos and was presented as the basis for Congress’ reapportionment measure.

Petitioners’ Contentions

Petitioners are taxpayers, registered voters and residents of Malolos City who challenged RA 9591 as unconstitutional.
They argued RA 9591 failed to satisfy the constitutional minimum population threshold of 250,000 required for a city to merit its own congressional representation under Section 5(3), Article VI and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution.
Petitioners asserted that a city must have actually attained the 250,000-population threshold (or validly and officially projected to have done so) before being entitled to a separate legislative district in the immediately following election.

Respondent’s Position and Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) Argument

The Commission on Elections was the respondent; the OSG filed the Comment for the respondent.
The OSG contended that Congress’ use of projected population was non-justiciable because it involved the legislature’s choice of standards and judgments as to compliance with constitutional requirements — a matter of legislative wisdom.
The OSG invoked Executive Order No. 135 (Guidelines on the Issuance of Certification of Population Sizes) to argue that the NSO projection relied upon is recognized authority when issued by the NSO Administrator or his designated certifying officer, and that population projections may specify ranges.

Governing Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Cited

Section 5(3), Article VI, 1987 Constitution: each city with a population of at least 250,000 shall have at least one representative; districts should, as far as practicable, be contiguous, compact and adjacent territory.
Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution: any city whose population increases to more than 250,000 shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one Member, according to the standards of Section 5(3), Article VI.
Executive Order No. 135 (November 6, 1993): provides guidelines on issuance of certifications of population sizes — including that intercensal population estimates must be as of the middle of every year, that projections declared official by the NSCB be the basis for intercensal estimates, and that certifications based on projections be issued by the NSO Administrator or designated certifying officer.

Court’s Holding / Disposition

The Court granted the petition and declared Republic Act No. 9591 unconstitutional for violating Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution.
Final disposition: RA 9591 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL; the petition was GRANTED. The decision was concurred in by Justices Puno, Carpio Morales, Brion, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., and Perez. Chief Justice Puno and several other justices concurred; a dissent was filed by Justice Abad with several justices joining Justice Velasco’s dissent; Justice Mendoza was on leave.

Majority Opinion — Key Reasoning Points

The constitutional requirement is clear: a city must have a population of at least 250,000 to have its own legislative district; entitlement is in the "immediately following election" after attainment of such population.
The dispositive issue was whether Malolos had reached or would validly be deemed to reach the 250,000-population threshold before the May 10, 2010 elections.
The NSO Region III Certification relied upon by Congress (and incorporated into the House bill) was void of legal effect for multiple reasons:
- The Certification was based on demographic projections but did not state that such projections had been declared official by the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB).
- Executive Order No. 135 requires intercensal estimates to be based on projections declared official by the NSCB and certifiable only by the NSO Administrator or his designated certifying officer; the Regional Director
...continue reading