Case Summary (G.R. No. 176970)
Distinction Between Apportionment and Local Government Division
Legislative apportionment (Art. VI, Sec. 5) concerns the allocation of representation based on population, aiming to equalize voting power without altering corporate existence or boundaries of local government units (LGUs). In contrast, the creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of LGUs (Art. X, Sec. 10) requires compliance with Local Government Code criteria (income, population, land area) and approval via plebiscite. Apportionment alone does not trigger plebiscite requirements.
Constitutional Provisions on Apportionment and Plebiscite Requirement
• Article VI, Sec. 5: Authorizes Congress to apportion not more than 250 House members among provinces, cities, and Metro Manila areas based on inhabitants, uniform ratio, and compact territory; mandates reapportionment within three years of each census.
• Article X, Sec. 10: Requires that any creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial boundary alteration of LGUs conform to Local Government Code standards and be ratified by a majority vote in a plebiscite of affected constituents.
Historical Development of Apportionment and Plebiscite Requirement
Legislative apportionment traces to the Philippine Organic Act (1902) and the Jones Law (1916), consistently focused on equal representation without plebiscites under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions. Plebiscite requirements for LGU changes emerged gradually in statutes (e.g., R.A. No. 2264, Caloocan Charter) and became constitutional in 1973, but have always applied exclusively to LGU corporate modifications, not to district reapportionment.
Application to R.A. No. 9371 and COMELEC Resolution No. 7837
Section 1 of R.A. No. 9371 simply reapportioned the lone congressional district of Cagayan de Oro into two districts to commence with the 2007 elections. No statutory language divided the city’s corporate entity or altered its territorial boundaries. COMELEC Resolution No. 7837 implemented this reapportionment and, pursuant to R.A. No. 6636, provided for eight city councilors per district. Neither law effected a corporate division of the city or invoked plebiscite requirements.
Equality of Representation Doctrine
The petitioner argued that voter registration disparities (93,719 vs. 127,071) and urban–rural imbalances violated equal‐representation principles. The Constitution, however, measures apportionment by total inhabitan
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 176970)
Facts
- On October 10, 2006, House Bill No. 5859 was filed to apportion Cagayan de Oro’s lone legislative district into two.
- This measure became Republic Act No. 9371, increasing the city’s representation from one to two congressional districts.
- Under Section 1 of RA 9371, specific barangays were grouped into a First District and a Second District for both congressional and Sanggunian Panglungsod elections.
- On March 13, 2007, the COMELEC en banc promulgated Resolution No. 7837 to implement RA 9371 for the May 2007 elections.
Procedural History
- March 27, 2007: Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus (Rule 65) against COMELEC, praying also for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction.
- April 10, 2008: The petition was amended to add the Executive Secretary, DBM Secretary, COA Chairman, Cagayan de Oro Mayor, Sangguniang Panglungsod members, and Board of Canvassers as respondents.
- The Court denied the provisional remedies, and the May 14, 2007 elections proceeded under RA 9371 and COMELEC Res. 7837.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- COMELEC cannot implement RA 9371 without first providing rules for and holding a plebiscite, as required by Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution for any division or conversion of a local government unit.
- The reapportionment involves the division of Cagayan de Oro City as a corporate entity, thus mandating a plebiscite.
- The unequal voter distribution between the two districts violates the equality of representation doctrine.
- Voters’ sovereign right to elect a single citywide congressman and city council was arbitrarily diminished.
- Government funds were disbursed without prior approval from the city’s electorate.
Respondent’s Contentions
- The petition should have been filed first with the Regional Trial Court due to concurrent jurisdiction; direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction violates the hierarchy of courts.
- RA 9371 merely reapportio