G.R. No. 176970, December 8, 2008
Rogelio Bagabuyo
vs COMELEC
Facts:
RA 9371 was approved dividing Cagayan de Oro into
two legislative districts. Later, COMELEC promulgated Resolution 7837
implementing RA 9371.
Bagabuyo then filed a petition against COMELEC and
other officers asking for nulliffication of RA 9371 and Res. 7837 saying that
RA 9371 failed to conduct a plebiscite which is indispensable for the division
or conversion of a local governement unit. The court did not grant the TRO or
writ of prelim. injunction, so the May elections proceeded with CDO divided
into two legislative districts.
COMELEC, thru OSG argued that: 1) the petitioner did
not respect the hierarchy of courts, as the Regional Trial Court (RTC) is
vested with concurrent jurisdiction over cases assailing the constitutionality
of a statute; 2) R.A. No. 9371 merely increased the representation of Cagayan
de Oro City in the House of Representatives and Sangguniang Panglungsod
pursuant to Section 5, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution; 3) the criteria
established under Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution only apply when
there is a creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of
boundaries of a province, city, municipality, or barangay; in this case, no
such creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of boundaries of a
local government unit took place; and 4) R.A. No. 9371 did not bring about any
change in Cagayan de Oros territory, population and income classification;
hence, no plebiscite is required.
1) Did the
petitioner violate the hierarchy of courts rule; if so, should the instant petition
be dismissed on this ground?
2) Does
R.A. No. 9371 merely provide for the legislative reapportionment of Cagayan de
Oro City, or does it involve the division and conversion of a local government
unit?
3) Does
R.A. No. 9371 violate the equality of representation doctrine?
Ruling:
Except for issue on the hierarchy of courts rule, we
find the petition totally without merit.
The present petition is of this nature; its subject
matter and the nature of the issues raised among them, whether legislative
reapportionment involves a division of Cagayan de Oro City as a local
government unit are reasons enough for considering it an exception to the
principle of hierarchy of courts. Additionally, the petition assails as well a
resolution of the COMELEC en banc issued to implement the legislative
apportionment that R.A. No. 9371 decrees. As an action against a COMELEC en
banc resolution, the case falls under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court that in
turn requires a review by this Court via a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. For
these reasons, we do not see the principle of hierarchy of courts to be a
stumbling block in our consideration of the present case.
Plebiscite
Legislative apportionment is defined by Blacks Law
Dictionary as the determination of the number of representatives which a State,
county or other subdivision may send to a legislative body. It is the
allocation of seats in a legislative body in proportion to the population; the
drawing of voting district lines so as to equalize population and voting power
among the districts. Reapportionment, on the other hand, is the realignment or
change in legislative districts brought about by changes in population and
mandated by the constitutional requirement of equality of representation.
Article VI (entitled Legislative Department) of the
1987 Constitution lays down the rules on legislative apportionment under its
Section 5 which provides:
Sec. 5(1). (1) The House of Representatives shall be
composed of not more than two hundred fifty members unless otherwise fixed by
law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the
number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through
a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations.
x x x
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far
as practicable, continuous, 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.
Separately from the legislative districts that legal
apportionment or reapportionment speaks of, are the local government units
(historically and generically referred to as municipal corporations) that the
Constitution itself classified into provinces, cities, municipalities and
barangays. In its strict and proper sense, a municipality has been defined as a
body politic and corporate constituted by the incorporation of the inhabitants
of a city or town for the purpose of local government thereof. The creation,
division, merger, abolition or alteration of boundary of local government
units, i.e., of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays, are covered
by the Article on Local Government (Article X). Section 10 of this Article
provides:
No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be
created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered,
except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code
and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the
political unit directly affected.
Under both Article VI, Section 5, and Article X,
Section 10 of the Constitution, the authority to act has been vested in the
Legislature. The Legislature undertakes the apportionment and reapportionment
of legislative districts, and likewise acts on local government units by
setting the standards for their creation, division, merger, abolition and
alteration of boundaries and by actually creating, dividing, merging,
abolishing local government units and altering their boundaries through
legislation. Other than this, not much commonality exists between the two
provisions since they are inherently different although they interface and
relate with one another.
A pronounced distinction between Article VI, Section
5 and, Article X, Section 10 is on the requirement of a plebiscite. The
Constitution and the Local Government Code expressly require a plebiscite to
carry out any creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of boundary
of a local
government unit.
Holding of a plebiscite was never a requirement in
legislative apportionment or reapportionment. After it became constitutionally
entrenched, a plebiscite was also always identified with the creation,
division, merger, abolition and alteration of boundaries of local government
units, never with the concept of legislative apportionment.
R.A. No. 9371 is, on its face, purely and simply a
reapportionment legislation passed in accordance with the authority granted to
Congress under Article VI, Section 5(4) of the Constitution. Its core provision
Section 1 provides:
SECTION 1. Legislative Districts. The lone
legislative district of the City of Cagayan de Oro is hereby apportioned to
commence in the next national elections after the effectivity of this Act.
Henceforth, barangays Bonbon, Bayabas, Kauswagan, Carmen, Patag, Bulua, Iponan,
Baikingon, San Simon, Pagatpat, Canitoan, Balulang, Lumbia, Pagalungan,
Tagpangi, Taglimao, Tuburan, Pigsag-an, Tumpagon, Bayanga, Mambuaya,
Dansulihon, Tignapoloan and Bisigan shall comprise the first district while
barangays Macabalan, Puntod, Consolacion, Camaman-an, Nazareth, Macansandig,
Indahag, Lapasan, Gusa, Cugman, FS Catanico, Tablon, Agusan, Puerto, Bugo and
Balubal and all urban barangays from Barangay 1 to Barangay 40 shall comprise
the second district.
Under these wordings, no division of Cagayan de Oro
City as a political and corporate entity takes place or is mandated. Cagayan de
Oro City politically remains a single unit and its administration is not
divided along territorial lines. Its territory remains completely whole and
intact; there is only the addition of another legislative district and the
delineation of the city into two districts for purposes of representation in
the House of Representatives. Thus, Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution
does not come into play and no plebiscite is necessary to validly apportion
Cagayan de Oro City into two districts.
