Case Summary (G.R. No. 89318)
Key Dates
• May 1, 2009: Republic Act No. 9591 (RA 9591) lapsed into law, creating a separate legislative district for Malolos City
• May 10, 2010: Scheduled elections for which the new district would take effect
• August 1, 2007: NSO census reporting Malolos City population at 223,069
• January 25, 2010: Decision date
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 5(3): “Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand … shall have at least one representative.”
• Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution, Section 3: Entitles a city whose population “may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand” to representation in the “immediately following election.”
• Executive Order No. 135 (1993): Guidelines on NSO issuance of population certifications
The Case
Petitioners filed an original action seeking prohibition to declare RA 9591 unconstitutional for creating a lone legislative district for Malolos City despite allegedly failing to meet the 250,000-population requirement under Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the constitutional Ordinance.
Antecedents
Before May 1, 2009, Bulacan’s First Legislative District comprised Malolos City and five adjacent municipalities. House Bill No. 3693 and Senate Bill No. 1986, enacted as RA 9591, separated Malolos City into its own district based on an undated NSO Regional Director’s certification projecting a 2010 population of 254,030.
Issue
Whether Malolos City had—or lawfully could rely on—a population of at least 250,000, actual or projected, in time to justify its own legislative district for the May 10, 2010 elections.
Analysis of Population Certification
• EO 135 requires intercensal projections to be declared official by the National Statistical Coordination Board and certified by the NSO Administrator (or a designated officer), “as of middle of every year.”
• The Regional Director’s certification lacked NSCB endorsement, proper officer designation, and a mid-year reference date.
• Mathematical application of the 3.78% annual growth rate to the 2000 and 2007 censal figures yields a 2010 population below 250,000 (ranging from 248,365 to 249,333), contradicting the 254,030 projection.
• NSO publishes projections only at regional and provincial levels, not for individual cities.
Constitutional Stand
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 89318)
Nature of the Action
- Original action for prohibition filed by taxpayers, registered voters, and residents of Malolos City
- Seeks to declare Republic Act No. 9591 unconstitutional for allegedly failing to meet population requirements for a legislative district
Antecedent Facts
- Prior to May 1, 2009, Bulacan was represented by four legislative districts; Malolos City formed part of the First District with Hagonoy, Calumpit, Pulilan, Bulacan, and Paombong
- On May 1, 2009, RA 9591 lapsed into law, amending Malolos City’s charter to create its own legislative district
- House Bill No. 3162 (converted to HB 3693) and Senate Bill No. 1986 (filed in 2007) relied on an undated NSO Region III certification projecting Malolos’s 2010 population at 254,030
- Official NSO figures: 175,291 inhabitants as of May 1, 2000; 223,069 inhabitants as of August 1, 2007
Petitioners’ Contentions
- RA 9591 violates Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended thereto by creating a district for a city with fewer than 250,000 inhabitants
- Reliance on an uncertified, undated demographic projection lacking legal effect
- Denial of representational rights under prescribed constitutional standards
Respondent’s Position
- Office of the Solicitor General: Use of projected population is a legislative determination on the “wisdom of the standard” and non-justiciable
- Asserts that the NSO projection was issued by authority of the NSO Administrator and recognized under Executive Order No. 135
Issue Presented
- Whether Malolos City had, actual or projected, at least 250,