Title
Herrera vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 131499
Decision Date
Nov 17, 1999
Petitioners challenged COMELEC's division of Guimaras into two districts, alleging inequitable apportionment and flawed consultations. SC upheld COMELEC's resolution, finding districts compact, contiguous, and based on population, dismissing the petition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11107)

Background and Issue

The Province of Guimaras, having been reclassified from a fifth to a fourth class province due to the addition of two municipalities (San Lorenzo and Sibunag), was subject to redistricting of its Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats. Pursuant to Resolution No. 68 passed by the Guimaras Sangguniang Panlalawigan on March 25, 1996, and following consultative meetings conducted by the Provincial Election Supervisor, the division of Guimaras into two provincial districts was proposed. The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2950, dividing the province into two districts and allocating eight elective Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats accordingly. Petitioners challenged the resolution on grounds of grave abuse of discretion.

Petitioners' Contentions

  1. The districts do not constitute compact, contiguous, and adjacent territorial areas.
  2. The consultative meetings did not accurately represent the voters’ true sentiment.
  3. The apportionment into two districts is inequitable in terms of representation.
  4. There is significant disparity in the ratio of voters per Sangguniang Panlalawigan member across districts.
  5. Petitioners proposed an alternative redistricting plan that offers more equal voter-to-member ratios.

Legal Framework on Apportionment

Under Republic Act No. 6636, the number of elective Sangguniang Panlalawigan members per province depends on its classification: fourth class provinces, such as Guimaras following its reclassification, are entitled to eight members. Republic Act No. 7166 mandates that provinces with only one legislative district must be divided into two Sangguniang Panlalawigan districts in a manner:

  • As nearly as practicable according to the number of inhabitants,
  • Each district must comprise compact, contiguous, and adjacent territory,
  • Number of seats to be equitably apportioned between the districts.

COMELEC Resolution No. 2131 supplements this by requiring the use of the latest census population data (1990 Census, updated to 1995 in this case), holding consultations with concerned officials and sectors, and maintaining municipal integrity within a single district.

Basis for Apportionment: Inhabitants, Not Registered Voters

The COMELEC based the division on the population figures from the 1995 Census of Population, as certified by the National Statistics Office, rather than on the number of registered voters or taxpayers as claimed by petitioners. The Court emphasized that R.A. 7166 and COMELEC guidelines prescribe population-based apportionment, rendering petitioners' reliance on voter registration data untenable. The alleged disparity in representation ratios is therefore not valid under the law.

Adequacy and Representation in Consultative Meetings

The Provincial Election Supervisor validly conducted two consultative meetings with proper notice to and representation by all relevant stakeholders, including elected officials, barangay captains, and political party representatives. Attendance sheets and documentary exhibits attached by the COMELEC confirm sufficient and appropriate representation, negating petitioners’ claim that the meetings failed to reflect the electorate’s true sentiment.

Compactness and Contiguity of Districts

The Court held that the two districts as constituted are composed of contiguous and adjacent municipalities. Buenavista and San Lorenzo, grouped in the first district, share common borders and are geographically connected,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.