Case Summary (G.R. No. 189793)
Petition and Relief Sought
Senator Aquino and Mayor Robredo challenged RA 9716 via petition for certiorari and prohibition, praying that the Commission on Elections be enjoined from implementing the law. They asserted the First District’s 176,383 population falls below the 250,000 minimum mandated by Article VI, Section 5(3) of the Constitution.
Constitutional Provision on District Creation
Article VI, Section 5(1)–(4) establishes that House members are elected from legislative districts “in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio,” and that “each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.” It further requires reapportionment within three years after every census.
Petitioners’ Interpretation of the Minimum Population Rule
They argued the 250,000-person figure in Section 5(3) is a general minimum for any additional legislative district, whether in a city or province. They cited the constitutional framers’ use of a population constant—200 seats for an estimated 55 million people—as evidence Congress must observe the same 250,000 threshold whenever it reapportions districts.
Respondents’ Procedural and Substantive Defenses
Procedurally, Comelec contended certiorari and prohibition were the wrong remedies and petitioners lacked standing. Substantively, they admitted a 250,000 rule applies to cities but argued it does not constrain provincial district apportionment, since Section 5(3) distinguishes between “each city with a population…” and “or each province.”
Court’s Approach to Procedural Objections
Citing prior decisions on issues of “transcendental importance,” the Supreme Court relaxed technical rules on remedy and standing to address the constitutional question directly, given the public significance of legislative districting.
Presumption of Constitutionality and Textual Analysis
The Court reiterated that statutes carry a presumption of constitutionality. A plain reading of Section 5(3) shows the 250,000-population requirement applies exclusively to cities: the comma in “Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative” separates the city-population condition from the provincial entitlement.
Application of Mariano v. COMELEC and Apportionment Ordinance
In Mariano, the Court upheld an additional Makati city district despite its total census count just over 450,000, interpreting the Constitution to require only an initial 250,000 threshold per city. The Constitutional Commission’s 1986 apportionment ordinance likewise used 250,000 as the city/province entitlement benchmark but applied flexible factors—contiguity, compactness, local sentiments—in drawing internal district lines.
Consideration of Framers’ Deliberations
Debates on Palawan, Benguet-Baguio, Cavite, Maguindanao, Laguna, and Cebu demonstrated that population, while a key factor, was not an absolute restraint on district composition. Territorial contiguity, compactness, common interests, and natural boundaries were equally weighty considerations.
Validation of Camarines Sur Reapportionment
Applying those precedents, the Court found RA 9716’s reconfiguration of the First and Second Districts valid. The new Second District’s population of 276,777 and the other districts’ sizes fell within constitutional latitude; population was only one among several factors—dialect, geography, territorial continuity, and balance of area—in legislative redistricting.
Majority Disposition
The pe
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 189793)
Facts of the Case
- Republic Act No. 9716, enacted 12 October 2009 and effective 31 October 2009, reapportioned Camarines Sur’s 1st and 2nd legislative districts to create a new (5th) district.
- Before RA 9716, Camarines Sur had four districts with a total population of 1,693,821 (2007 census):
• 1st District – 417,304
• 2nd District – 474,899
• 3rd District – 372,548
• 4th District – 429,070 - After reapportionment, the province’s five districts had populations of:
• 1st District – 176,383
• 2nd District – 276,777
• 3rd District – 439,043
• 4th District – 372,548
• 5th District – 429,070 - Petitioners Aquino III (senator) and Robredo (Mayor of Naga City) challenged RA 9716 as unconstitutional, alleging the new districts must each have at least 250,000 inhabitants under Article VI, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution.
Procedural History
- Petition filed directly with the Supreme Court via Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65, seeking nullification of RA 9716 and restraining COMELEC from implementing it.
- Respondent COMELEC moved to dismiss on grounds of procedural defects (wrong remedy, lack of locus standi) and substantive merit (no 250,000 requirement for provinces).
- The Court, sitting en banc, addressed threshold procedural issues but proceeded to resolve the constitutional question on the merits.
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions
- 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 5:
• (1) House composed of members elected from legislative districts “in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio.”
• (3) “Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.”
• (4) “Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.” - Ordinance appended to the Constitution (Article VI): Minimum population of 250,000 considered in the 1986 initial apportionment.
- Local Government Code, Section 461: Creation of a province requires income and, alternatively, population of 250,000 or territory of 2,000 sq. km.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- RA 9716 violates the explicit constitutional minimum of 250,000 inhabitants per legislative district (Art. VI, Sec. 5(3)).
- Reapportionment is invalid because the new 1st District has only 176,383 people.
- The framers intended to adopt a 250,000‐per‐district standard based on the original 200‐seat apportionment and the projected national population.
- Congress must ensure each new or reconfigured district meets the 250,000 threshold, absent which reapportionment is unconstitutional.
Respondents’ Contentions
- Petitioners chose the wrong remedy; certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper vehicle to challenge a statute’s constitutionality.
- Petitioners lack locus standi, having presented no direct injury from RA 9716.
- Article VI, Section 5(3) draws a distinction: the 250,000‐population requirement applies only to cities, not provinces.
- A province is entitled to at least one representative “regardless of population”; RA 9716 is thus valid.
Issue
- Whether the 250,000‐inhabitant minimum requirement in Article VI, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution applies to the creation or reconfiguration of legislative districts in a province.
Majority Analysis and Ruling
- The Court may relax procedural rules in cases of “transcendental importance” and dispense with strict locus standi.
- All statutes carry a presumption of constitutionality; invalidation requires clear violation of a specific constitutional provision.
- The plain text of Section 5(3) separates “each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand” from “or each province,” indicating the 250,000 minimum applies only to cities.
- Mariano v. COMELEC (312 Phil. 259 [1995]) confirmed that an additional city district need not have another 250,000 population once the city meets the initial threshold.
- Records of the Constitutional Commission show that population was one among several factors (contiguity, compactness, common interests) in the initial apportionment; strict adherence to a 250,000 minimum for new provincial districts was not mandated.
- RA 9716’s reconfiguration considered dialect areas, land‐mass balance, natural boundaries, and contiguity; no grave abuse of discretion occurred.
- The petition is dismissed; RA 9716 is declared a valid law.
Dissenting Opinion (Carpio, J.)
- The majority undermines “one person, one vote” by allowing provinces to create districts with fewer than 250,000 people, while cities are bound by the higher standard.
- Article VI mandates uniform proportional representation “among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area,” with each district apportioned “in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants” and on a “uniform and progressive ratio.”
- The 250,000 minimum is a default requirement for every legislative district; districts below that threshold violate both proportional representation and uniformity.
- RA 9716’s newly created 1st District (176,383) exhibits a –47.9% deviation from the ideal district population, while other districts range up to +29.6% deviation—grossly disparate.
- The decision creates two classes of districts—overvalued and undervalued votes—contrary to equal protection and the republican ideal.
- Mariano and Bagabuyo do not permit provincial districts under 250,000; they reaffirm the minimum requirement.
- Grant petition to declare RA 9716 unconstitutional and uphold the 250,000‐inhabitant standard for all districts.
Facts of the Case
- Republic Act No. 9716, enacted 12 October 2009 and effective 31 October 2009, reapportioned the 1st and 2nd legislative districts of Camarines Sur to create a new (5th) district.
- Based on the 2007 Census, the province had 1,693,821 inhabitants distributed as follows before RA 9716:
• 1st District – 417,304
• 2nd District – 474,899
• 3rd District – 372,548
• 4th District – 429,070 - After reapportionment, the five districts had populations of:
• 1st District – 176,383
• 2nd District – 276,777
• 3rd District (formerly 2nd) – 439,043
• 4th District (formerly 3rd) – 372,548
• 5th District (formerly 4th) – 429,070 - Petitioners Aquino III and Robredo, as public officers, taxpayers, and citizens, sought certiorari and prohibition to nullify RA 9716, on grounds it violated the constitutional minimum of 250,000 inhabitants per legislative district.
Procedural History
- Petition filed directly with the Supreme Court under Rule 65, challenging the constitutionality of RA 9716 and seeking injunctive relief against COMELEC’s implementation.
- Respondents moved to dismiss, alleging procedural defects (wrong remedy, lack of locus standi) and substantive merit (no 250,000‐population rule for provinces).
- En banc Supreme Court addressed procedural objections but proceeded to resolve the core constitutional question.
Constitutional Provisions
- 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 5:
• (1) House members elected from legislative districts “in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio.”
• (3) “Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent