G.R. No. L-18684 - Macias vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18684)

Factual Background

Petitioners sought injunctive relief to prevent respondents from implementing Republic Act 3040, alleging three constitutional defects: failure to furnish printed final copies of the bill to Members of the House at least three calendar days prior to its passage; enactment more than three years after the return of the last census; and apportionment of districts without regard to the number of inhabitants of the several provinces. Respondents denied some allegations, contended they acted under duty imposed by the statute, and asserted a presumption of constitutionality. The National Treasurer further pleaded lack of personality on the part of petitioners and relied on the enrolled-bill presumption and on the Director of Census report of November 23, 1960, as the basis for the apportionment. The Court issued an August 23, 1961 resolution finding constitutional violations and granting the injunction without bond, reserving fuller explanation for formal opinion.

Personality of the Petitioners

The Court found that petitioners had standing to sue. The petitioners were Members of the House and the provincial governor who alleged and demonstrated that their provinces suffered discriminatory apportionment under Republic Act 3040. Specific disparities alleged included Misamis Oriental with 387,839 inhabitants being given one district while Cavite with 379,902 inhabitants received two; Negros Oriental and Bulacan with 598,783 and 557,691 inhabitants respectively being allotted two districts each while Albay with 515,961 inhabitants received three. The Court relied on authority that citizens deprived of as full and effective an elective franchise as entitled under the Constitution possess sufficient interest to challenge apportionment statutes and cited decisions such as Stiglitz vs. Schardien and Jones vs. Freeman as supportive precedent, noting that Colegrove vs. Green was inconclusive on the question.

The Printed-Bill Requirement

The Constitution’s three-calendar-day printing and distribution requirement was central to petitioners’ challenge. Petitioners introduced certificates of the Secretary of the House showing that no printed copies had been furnished three days prior to the bill’s passage on May 10, 1961, and that no presidential certificate of urgency had been received. Respondents invoked the enrolled-bill presumption that legislative procedural details were conclusively complied with, and cited statutory provision Act 190, sec. 313(2), as supporting exclusion of contrary proof. The Court declined to resolve that procedural question definitively, observing that the case could be disposed on the substantial issue of proportional apportionment.

Population Census Evidence

The Court considered the Director of the Census letter of November 23, 1960, which described the population count as a “preliminary count” subject to revision yet stated that “until the final report is made, these figures should be considered as official for all purposes.” Petitioners argued the apportionment could not rest on a preliminary report; respondents relied on the report’s official language and asserted that determination of what constituted a return of an enumeration was for Congress. The Court noted authorities from other jurisdictions that, although a census report may be preliminary and subject to correction, it could be regarded as official for governmental action such as apportionment, citing cases including Cahill vs. Leopold and other state decisions.

Apportionment Discrepancies and Comparative Analysis

The Court examined the allocation produced by Republic Act 3040 and found multiple instances where the statutory distribution diverged materially from the constitutional directive of apportioning “as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants.” Among the specific discrepancies identified in the Court’s August 23 resolution were: (a) Cebu assigned seven Members while Rizal, with a larger population, received four; (b) Manila assigned four Members while Cotabato, with a larger population, received three; (c) Pangasinan received five Members although it had fewer inhabitants than Manila and Cotabato; (d) Samar with 871,857 inhabitants was allotted four Members while Davao with 903,224 received three; (e) Bulacan with 557,691 inhabitants received two Members while Albay with 515,961 received three; and (f) Misamis Oriental with 387,839 inhabitants received one Member while Cavite with 379,904 received two. The Court further noted additional anomalies, including Mountain Province receiving three Members while Isabela, Laguna and Cagayan, each with larger populations, received two, and Sulu receiving one Member despite having more inhabitants than provinces allotted two. The Court compared these disparities to authority from other jurisdictions where similar inequalities were held to render apportionment acts unconstitutional, citing decisions such as Houghton County vs. Blacker, Giddings vs. Blacker, Barker vs. State, and Denney vs. State, and quoted the characterization of such inequalities as “arbitrary and capricious and against the vital principle of equality.”

Justiciability and Judicial Review

Respondents urged deference on the ground that apportionment is a political question and that Republic Act 3040 constituted an improvement over existing conditions. The Court rejected the political-question defense and affirmed the judicial po

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-18684)

Parties and Posture

Petitioners were four members of the House of Representatives from Negros Oriental, Misamis Oriental, and Bulacan, and the provincial governor of Negros Oriental.
Respondents included the Commission on Elections and other officials charged with implementing Republic Act 3040, together with the National Treasurer.
Petitioners filed a suit seeking injunction to prevent respondents from implementing Republic Act 3040 that apportioned representative districts.
The Court issued an interim resolution on August 23 granting the injunction and reserved the right to issue a fuller opinion addressing all issues.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioners alleged that Republic Act 3040 was passed without furnishing Members with printed final copies at least three calendar days prior to passage.
Petitioners alleged that the Act was approved more than three years after the return of the last census enumeration.
Petitioners alleged that the Act apportioned districts without regard to the number of inhabitants of the several provinces and thereby discriminated against their provinces.
Petitioners asserted specific disparities such as Misamis Oriental with 387,839 inhabitants being allotted one district while Cavite with 379,902 inhabitants received two districts.

Issues Presented

Whether petitioners had legal personality to challenge the constitutionality of Republic Act 3040.
Whether the three-calendar-day printed-copy requirement was complied with before the bill's passage.
Whether the apportionment was made within three years after the return of the census enumeration.
Whether the apportionment complied with the constitutional mandate to allocate representatives among provinces "as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants."

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioners contended that the statute was unconstitutional because of noncompliance with the printed-bill rule, delay beyond the three-year census-apportionment period, and gross disproportionality in districting.
Respondents contended that the statute was constitutional and that officials were merely performing their statutory duties under the law.
The National Treasurer contended that petitioners lacked standing and that a duly certified copy of the law carried a conclusive presumption of regular legislative procedure, including distribution of printed bills.
Respondents further relied on the Director of the Census report of November 23, 1960 as the basis for the apportionment.

Evidence and Records

Petitioners presented certificates of the Secretary of the House of Representatives indicating that no printed copy of the bill was distributed three days before its passage and that no presidential certificate of urgency had been received.
The administrative record included a letter from the Director of the Census dated November 23, 1960 describing the count as a "preliminary count" and stating that the figures "should be considered as official for all purposes."
The record reflected numerical population data and the district allotments that produced several apparent disparities between population and representation.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

The challenged statute