Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18684)
Statement of the claim and procedural posture
Petitioners sought injunctive relief to prevent respondent officials from implementing Republic Act No. 3040. They asserted the Act was unconstitutional on three grounds: (a) passage of the bill without furnishing Members printed final copies at least three calendar days prior to its passage; (b) approval more than three years after the return of the last census enumeration; and (c) apportionment of districts without regard to relative provincial populations. Respondents admitted some allegations, denied others, and principally relied on presumptions of regularity and constitutionality in legislative enactment and on assertions that the Act was based on an official census report and complied with proportionality principles.
Early disposition and reservation for fuller opinion
This Court initially issued a brief resolution (announced August 23) finding Republic Act No. 3040 to violate the Constitution in several respects, enumerating concrete examples of disproportionate apportionment, declaring the law void, and granting the injunction requested by petitioners without the posting of bond. The resolution expressly reserved fuller explanation, and the present opinion provides the detailed legal reasoning supporting the earlier resolution.
Standing (personality) of petitioners
The Court found that petitioners possess requisite standing. As voters and as elected officials representing provinces alleged to have been discriminated against by the apportionment, they have a sufficient personal and public interest to challenge an apportionment law that denies them the full and effective elective franchise guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court cited authorities recognizing the right of citizens and officeholders to contest redistricting statutes that impair constitutional rights of representation.
Printed-bill, three-calendar-day requirement
The Constitution prescribes that no bill shall be passed by either House unless it has been printed and copies thereof in its final form furnished Members at least three calendar days prior to passage, except where the President certifies the bill’s immediate necessity. Petitioners produced certificates by the House Secretary indicating no printed copies were distributed three days prior to passage and that no presidential certificate of urgency had been received. Respondents invoked the enrolled-bill presumption — that a duly certified copy of an enacted statute conclusively proves regularity of legislative procedure — and cited precedents and statutory provisions supporting that presumption. The Court recognized the constitutional purpose behind the printed-bill requirement (to prevent fraud, trickery, deceit, and subterfuge) and acknowledged the conflict between enforcing that requirement and the enrolled-bill presumption. However, the Court declined to resolve that question in this opinion because it found the case dispositive on the apportionment proportionality issue.
Census return and whether the enumeration’s report constituted a “return”
The Constitution requires Congress to make apportionment within three years after the return of every enumeration. The Act was based on a report from the Director of the Census dated November 23, 1960, which described the figures as a preliminary count produced by hand-tally and subject to revision when mechanical processing was complete, but the report also instructed that, until final report was made, these figures should be considered official for all purposes. Petitioners argued the report was merely preliminary and therefore could not trigger the three-year apportionment period; respondents argued the report was official and sufficient. The Court observed that authorities exist supporting the view that an enumeration, though subject to revision, may nevertheless be deemed official for governmental action including apportionment. The Court did not find this issue decisively favorable to petitioners and treated the return-of-enumeration question as not controlling the disposition, since the apportionment failed the constitutionally required proportionality test.
Constitutional standard for apportionment
The Constitution directs that the one hundred twenty Members of the House be apportioned among the provinces "as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants." The Court stressed that equality of representation is a foundational principle of representative government and that apportionment statutes must approximate equality of representation according to population as closely as practicable.
Specific disproportions found in the apportionment
The Court identified numerous concrete instances in which Republic Act No. 3040 produced clear disproportions between representation and population. Representative examples include: (1) Cebu allotted seven members while Rizal, with a larger population, received only four; (2) Manila allotted four members while Cotabato, with a larger population, received three; (3) Pangasinan received more members despite having fewer inhabitants than Manila and Cotabato; (4) Samar (871,857) received four members, while Davao (903,224) received only three; (5) Bulacan (557,691) received two members while Albay (515,961) received three; (6) Misamis Oriental (387,839) received one member while Cavite (379,902) received two. Additional mismatches included Mountain Province receiving three
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-18684)
Statement of the Case
- Petitioners sought injunctive relief to prevent respondent officials from implementing Republic Act No. 3040, the statute apportioning representative districts in the Philippines.
- Petitioners alleged the Act was unconstitutional and void for three principal reasons:
- (a) It was passed by the House of Representatives without printed final copies of the bill having been furnished the Members at least three calendar days prior to its passage.
- (b) It was approved more than three years after the return of the last census of population.
- (c) It apportioned districts without regard to the number of inhabitants of the several provinces, producing disproportionate representation.
- Respondents admitted some facts and denied other allegations, asserting they were performing duties under a presumably constitutional statute.
- The National Treasurer contended petitioners lacked personality to sue, invoked the enrolled-bill presumption that a duly certified copy of the law establishes proper legislative procedure (including distribution of printed bills), asserted the Director of the Census had submitted an official report in November 1960 which served as the basis of the bill, and maintained the Act complied with the constitutional principle of proportional representation.
- This Court, after hearing and considering memoranda, initially issued a brief resolution on August 23 finding the statute violated the Constitution in several ways and issued an injunction without bond; the instant opinion explains fully the premises of that conclusion in light of a reservation and motions for reconsideration.
Parties and Petitioners' Standing (Personality)
- Petitioners are four members of the House of Representatives representing Negros Oriental, Misamis Oriental, and Bulacan, together with the provincial governor of Negros Oriental.
- They sued on their own behalf and on behalf of other residents of their provinces, alleging discriminatory apportionment.
- The Court found the provinces named were discriminated against by RA 3040 in that they received fewer representative districts than their populations would justify under constitutional standards.
- Specific examples given in the petition included: Misamis Oriental (387,839 inhabitants) given one district while Cavite (379,902 inhabitants) was given two; Negros Oriental (598,783) and Bulacan (557,691) allotted two districts each while Albay (515,961) received three.
- The Court invoked authorities holding that citizens deprived of a full and effective elective franchise by an apportionment act have sufficient interest to bring suit (citing 18 Am. Jur. 199) and cited prior decisions (e.g., Stiglitz v. Schardien; Jones v. Freeman) recognizing a citizen’s right to challenge redistricting statutes.
- The Court distinguished Colegrove v. Green as inconclusive for respondents’ purposes, noting a split decision there.
Relief Sought and Principal Constitutional Contentions
- Petitioners asked the Court to prevent implementation of RA 3040 and to declare it unconstitutional and void.
- The three constitutional contentions advanced by petitioners were:
- Failure to comply with the constitutional printed-bill, three-calendar-day requirement prior to passage.
- Passage of the apportionment more than three years after the return of the last enumeration, contrary to the constitutional mandate requiring apportionment “within three years after the return of every enumeration, and not otherwise.”
- Apportionment not made “as nearly as may be according to the number of [the provinces’] respective inhabitants,” resulting in notable disproportions.
Respondents’ Defenses and Assertions
- Respondents asserted they were simply executing statutory duties under a law presumed constitutional.
- The National Treasurer particularly argued:
- Petitioners lacked the requisite personality to maintain the action.
- The enrolled-bill presumption applies; a duly certified statute conclusively proves it was passed in accordance with constitutional requirements, including distribution of printed bills.
- Section 313(2) of Act No. 190 (as cited) supports the conclusive proof doctrine when a copy exists signed by presiding officers and secretaries.
- The Director of the Census submitted an official report on population on November 23, 1960, which became the basis of the bill; that report’s statement that its figures “should be considered as official for all purposes” was emphasized by respondents.
- The Act adhered to the constitutional principle of proportional representation.
Preliminary Resolution and Injunctive Relief
- By a unanimous brief resolution of August 23, the Court stated RA 3040 clearly violated the constitutional apportionment requirement in several enumerated ways and declared the law void.
- The resolution named specific mismatches (e.g., Cebu given seven members while Rizal with a larger population got four; Manila four members while Cotabato with larger population got three) and concluded the violations rendered the law void.
- The Court ordered the injunction prayed for by petitioners to issue forthwith and required no bond.
- Reservation in the resolution and motions for reconsideration prompted the issuance of a full written opinion explaining the Court’s premises.
The Printed-Form, Three-Day Requirement
- Constitutional provision cited: “no bill shall be passed by either House unless it s