Tag: Population Requirement

Island Provinces and the Constitution: Dinagat Islands’ Creation Challenged

The Supreme Court declared Republic Act No. 9355, which created the Province of Dinagat Islands, unconstitutional because it failed to meet the minimum land area and population requirements set by the Local Government Code. This decision underscores the importance of adhering strictly to the criteria established by law when creating new local government units, ensuring they are viable and sustainable.

Island Status vs. Constitutional Mandate: Did Dinagat Islands Meet the Test?

The case of Rodolfo G. Navarro, et al. vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, et al. revolves around the creation of the Province of Dinagat Islands and whether it complied with the requisites outlined in the Local Government Code (LGC) for the creation of a new province. Petitioners argued that Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9355, which established Dinagat Islands, did not meet the necessary land area and population requirements. The respondents, including the Executive Secretary and the Governor of Dinagat Islands, contended that the province complied with all requirements, particularly noting that the land area requirement should not apply to provinces composed of islands.

At the heart of the controversy is Section 461 of the Local Government Code, which stipulates the requisites for creating a province. It states that a province must have a minimum average annual income and either a contiguous territory of at least 2,000 square kilometers or a population of at least 250,000 inhabitants. The law also states:

SEC. 461. Requisites for Creation. — (a) A province may be created if it has an average annual income, as certified by the Department of Finance, of not less than Twenty million pesos (P20,000,000.00) based on 1991 constant prices and either of the following requisites:

(i) a contiguous territory of at least two thousand (2,000) square kilometers, as certified by the Lands Management Bureau; or

(ii) a population of not less than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) inhabitants as certified by the National Statistics Office:

Provided, That, the creation thereof shall not reduce the land area, population, and income of the original unit or units at the time of said creation to less than the minimum requirements prescribed herein.

(b) The territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two (2) or more islands or is separated by a chartered city or cities which do not contribute to the income of the province.

(c) The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund, exclusive of special funds, trust funds, transfers, and non-recurring income.

Dinagat Islands has a land area of approximately 802.12 square kilometers, far short of the 2,000 square kilometer requirement. Its population, according to the 2000 Census, was only 106,951, also significantly below the required 250,000. Respondents argued that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the LGC provide an exemption for provinces composed of islands regarding the land area requirement. However, the Supreme Court struck down this provision of the IRR, emphasizing the principle that:

[I]n case of discrepancy between the basic law and the rules and regulations implementing the said law, the basic law prevails, because the rules and regulations cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law.

The Court found that the IRR provision contradicted the explicit requirements of the Local Government Code. The respondents contended that if a province is composed of two or more islands, it should be exempt from both the contiguity and the 2,000-square-kilometer land area requirements. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the exemption from contiguity does not automatically imply an exemption from the land area requirement. The court also noted that the Local Government Code requires verifiable indicators of viability and projected capacity to provide services, including sufficient land area to provide basic services to the populace. This implies that even island provinces must have a sufficient land area to meet the needs of their inhabitants.

The Supreme Court emphasized that:

Nowhere in paragraph (b) is it expressly stated or may it be implied that when a province is composed of two or more islands, or when the territory of a province is separated by a chartered city or cities, such province need not comply with the land area requirement of at least 2,000 square kilometers or the requirement in paragraph (a) (i) of Section 461 of the Local Government Code.

The Court rejected the argument that the presumption of validity of R.A. No. 9355 should be upheld, explaining that the Constitution mandates compliance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code for the creation of provinces. The Court stressed that the power to create local government units is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution and the LGC.

The Court also dismissed the applicability of the operative fact doctrine, which could have recognized the effects of the law prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality. It distinguished this case from League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, where the operative fact doctrine was applied to uphold the creation of several cities. Here, the Court found a clear and utter failure to comply with the population and territorial requirements.

In essence, the Court reaffirmed its duty to ensure that all branches of government act within the limits of the Constitution, stating that:

To abandon this duty only because the Province of Dinagat Islands has began its existence is to consent to the passage of a law that is violative of the provisions of the Constitution and the Local Government Code, rendering the law and the province created null and void. The Court cannot tolerate such nullity to be in existence. Where the acts of other branches of the government go beyond the limit imposed by the Constitution, it is the sacred duty of the judiciary to nullify the same.

The Court’s decision underscores the necessity of strict adherence to the criteria set forth in the Local Government Code for the creation of local government units. It reinforces the principle that while the legislature has the power to create provinces, this power is not unlimited and must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and the LGC. The case also clarifies that the island status of a province does not automatically exempt it from the land area requirement.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the creation of the Province of Dinagat Islands complied with the land area and population requirements set forth in the Local Government Code (LGC).
Why did the Supreme Court declare R.A. No. 9355 unconstitutional?	The Supreme Court declared R.A. No. 9355 unconstitutional because the Province of Dinagat Islands did not meet either the minimum land area or the minimum population requirements stipulated in Section 461 of the LGC.
What is the land area requirement for creating a province under the LGC?	Under Section 461 of the LGC, a province must have a contiguous territory of at least 2,000 square kilometers, as certified by the Lands Management Bureau.
What is the population requirement for creating a province under the LGC?	A province must have a population of not less than 250,000 inhabitants, as certified by the National Statistics Office.
Did the Province of Dinagat Islands meet the income requirement?	Yes, the Province of Dinagat Islands met the income requirement, which was not the primary issue in this case.
What did the respondents argue regarding the land area requirement?	The respondents argued that the land area requirement should not apply to the Province of Dinagat Islands because it is composed of multiple islands.
What did the Court say about the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)?	The Court declared a portion of the IRR null and void, finding that it contradicted the Local Government Code by exempting island provinces from the land area requirement.
What is the operative fact doctrine, and why didn’t it apply here?	The operative fact doctrine recognizes the effects of a law prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality, but the Court found that the utter failure to comply with legal requirements made its application inappropriate in this case.
Does this ruling affect other island provinces?	This ruling clarifies that all provinces, including those composed of islands, must generally comply with the land area and population requirements of the Local Government Code, subject to any specific exemptions explicitly provided in the law itself.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Navarro v. Ermita reinforces the importance of adhering to the specific requirements outlined in the Local Government Code for the creation of new provinces, even in the case of island territories. This ruling ensures that local government units are established on a sound legal and constitutional basis, promoting effective governance and sustainable development.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Rodolfo G. Navarro, Victor F. Bernal, And Rene O. Medina, Petitioners, Vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Representing The President Of The Philippines; Senate Of The Philippines, Represented By The Senate President; House Of Representatives, Represented By The House Speaker; Governor Robert Ace S. Barbers, Representing The Mother Province Of Surigao Del Norte; Governor Geraldine Ecleo Villaroman, Representing The New Province Of Dinagat Islands, Respondents., G.R. No. 180050, May 12, 2010

May 12, 2010

Equality in Representation: Population Requirements for Legislative Districts in the Philippines

In Aquino III v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed whether Republic Act No. 9716, which created a new legislative district in Camarines Sur, violated the Constitution. The Court ruled that a minimum population of 250,000 is not an absolute requirement for creating a legislative district within a province. This decision means that the redrawing of district lines can proceed even if a new district has fewer than 250,000 residents, as long as other factors are considered. This ruling has significant implications for how legislative districts are formed, potentially affecting the balance of power and representation across the country.

Camarines Sur’s Reconfiguration: Must Every Vote Carry Equal Weight?

The case of Senator Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III and Mayor Jesse Robredo v. Commission on Elections, docketed as G.R. No. 189793, arose from a challenge to the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9716 (RA 9716). This law reapportioned the legislative districts in the Province of Camarines Sur. Petitioners argued that RA 9716 violated the constitutional requirement that each legislative district should have a minimum population of 250,000. They sought to prevent the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from implementing the law, asserting that the newly configured first district would have a population of only 176,383, falling short of the constitutional minimum. The core legal question was whether the 250,000 population requirement applied to the creation of legislative districts within provinces, or only to the initial establishment of a city as a legislative district.

The petitioners, relying on Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, contended that the 250,000 population figure was a minimum requirement for creating a legislative district. They argued that this standard was based on the intent of the framers of the Constitution, who used a population constant of approximately 250,000 people per representative when initially apportioning the 200 legislative seats. Thus, according to the petitioners, any reapportionment resulting in a district with a population below this threshold would be unconstitutional. This argument hinged on the idea that all legislative districts should represent roughly the same number of people to ensure equal representation.

In response, the respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that the 250,000 population requirement applied only to cities, not to provinces. They pointed to the wording of Section 5(3), Article VI, which states, “Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.” According to the respondents, the comma separating the phrases indicated that the population requirement applied exclusively to cities. Therefore, RA 9716, which created an additional legislative district within the province of Camarines Sur, was a valid reapportionment law. This interpretation emphasized a literal reading of the constitutional text, distinguishing between the requirements for cities and provinces.

The Supreme Court, in denying the petition, addressed both procedural and substantive issues. On the procedural front, the Court acknowledged the technical defects raised by the respondents but invoked the principle that procedural rules may be relaxed when an issue of transcendental importance is at stake. Citing precedents such as Del Mar v. PAGCOR and Jaworski v. PAGCOR, the Court emphasized its power to take original cognizance of cases raising issues of paramount public importance. Similarly, the Court relaxed the requirement of locus standi, noting that absence of direct injury may be excused when the issue is of overreaching significance, as in Kilosbayan v. Guingona and Tatad v. Executive Secretary. This demonstrated the Court’s willingness to set aside procedural barriers to address significant constitutional questions.

Turning to the substantive issue, the Court held that there is no specific provision in the Constitution that fixes a 250,000 minimum population for a legislative district within a province. The Court interpreted Section 5(3), Article VI as drawing a clear distinction between cities and provinces. While a city must have a population of at least 250,000 to be entitled to a representative, a province is entitled to at least one representative regardless of population size. The use of a comma in the provision indicated that the 250,000 minimum population applied only to cities. This interpretation underscored the importance of textual analysis in constitutional law, giving weight to the specific wording and structure of the provision.

The Court further supported its interpretation by referring to Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC, which involved the creation of an additional legislative district in Makati City. In that case, the Court held that the 250,000 minimum population requirement applied only to a city’s initial legislative district, not to subsequent additional districts. The Court reasoned that if an additional district in a city did not need to represent a population of at least 250,000, neither should an additional district in a province. Moreover, the Court noted that the Local Government Code allows for the creation of provinces with a population of not less than 250,000, but this requirement is merely an alternative, not an indispensable one. This comparative analysis reinforced the Court’s view that population is not the sole determinant in creating legislative districts within provinces.

Additionally, the Court delved into the records of the Constitutional Commission, finding that the 250,000 population benchmark was used for the 1986 nationwide apportionment of legislative districts among provinces, cities, and Metropolitan Manila. This figure was used to determine how many districts a province, city, or Metropolitan Manila should have, but it was not taken as an absolute minimum for one legislative district. The Court also highlighted instances where the Constitutional Commission considered factors other than population in determining district boundaries, such as contiguity, common interests, and political stability. This historical context provided further support for the Court’s conclusion that population is not the only factor to consider in reapportioning legislative districts.

The Court emphasized that any law enacted by Congress carries a presumption of constitutionality. Before a law may be declared unconstitutional, there must be a clear showing that a specific provision of the fundamental law has been violated. The Court concluded that Republic Act No. 9716 did not violate any specific provision of the Constitution. Therefore, the presumption of constitutionality prevailed, and the law was upheld. This ruling reinforced the principle of judicial restraint, underscoring the Court’s reluctance to strike down laws passed by the legislature unless there is a clear constitutional violation.

Bagabuyo v. COMELEC further supported the Court’s decision, stating that the Constitution does not require mathematical exactitude or rigid equality in representation. All that the Constitution requires is that every legislative district should comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. To reiterate, this underscored that the constitutional standards of proportional representation and uniformity are not absolute, but rather are tempered by considerations of practicality and other relevant factors.

In dissenting opinions, justices argued that the majority’s decision undermined the principle of equal representation and violated the constitutional standards for creating legislative districts. However, the Court stood by its ruling, emphasizing that population is not the only factor to consider in reapportioning legislative districts within provinces. The Court acknowledged that population should be considered but emphasized that it is just one of several factors in the composition of an additional district. This ruling aligned with both the text of the Constitution and the spirit of the debates surrounding its drafting. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Republic Act No. 9716, affirming that a minimum population of 250,000 is not an indispensable constitutional requirement for creating a new legislative district in a province.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Republic Act No. 9716, which created a new legislative district in Camarines Sur with a population below 250,000, violated the constitutional requirement for a minimum population in legislative districts.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court decided that a minimum population of 250,000 is not an absolute requirement for creating a legislative district within a province, upholding the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9716.
What part of the Constitution was in question?	Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which states that “Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative,” was the primary constitutional provision in question.
Did the Court say that population doesn’t matter at all?	No, the Court did not say that population doesn’t matter. It clarified that while population is a factor, it is not the only factor, and the 250,000 minimum does not strictly apply to provinces.
What are some other factors that can be considered in redistricting?	Other factors that can be considered include contiguity, common interests, accessibility for the representative, and the intent of the framers during the Constitutional Commission.
What does "locus standi" mean, and why was it relevant here?	"Locus standi" refers to the right to bring a case before the court. The court relaxed this requirement given the transcendental importance of the constitutional issues raised in the petition.
What is the significance of the "Mariano v. COMELEC" case?	Mariano v. COMELEC was cited to support the view that the 250,000 minimum population requirement applies only to the initial legislative district of a city, not to subsequent districts.
What was the dissenting opinion’s main point?	The dissenting justices argued that the decision undermined the principle of equal representation and violated the constitutional standards requiring proportional representation and a minimum population for legislative districts.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Aquino III v. COMELEC clarifies that while population is an important factor, it is not the sole determinant in creating legislative districts within a province. This ruling allows for flexibility in redistricting, taking into account other relevant factors such as contiguity and common interests. This flexibility will allow lawmakers to better serve the citizens by creating districts that best fit their needs. This balance seeks to ensure that all districts are created with the best interest of the citizens in mind.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

April 7, 2010

Legislative Districts: Population Disparity and the Right to Equal Representation

The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9716, which reapportioned the legislative districts in Camarines Sur, despite arguments that one district’s population fell below the 250,000 minimum. The Court held that this population threshold applies strictly to cities, not provinces, and that reapportionment considers factors beyond mere population numbers. This decision highlights a complex balance between proportional representation and practical considerations in legislative districting, impacting the equality of voting power across different regions.

Camarines Sur Divided: Does Every Vote Weigh the Same?

This case, Senator Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III v. Commission on Elections, arose from a challenge to Republic Act No. 9716 (RA 9716), a law that redrew the legislative district map of Camarines Sur. Petitioners, Senator Aquino III and Mayor Robredo, argued that the law violated the constitutional requirement for a minimum population of 250,000 in each legislative district. Their contention stemmed from the fact that after the reapportionment, the newly created first district had a population of only 176,383, significantly below the alleged constitutional threshold. The central legal question was whether the 250,000 population requirement in Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution applies to provinces in the same way it applies to cities.

The petitioners anchored their argument on Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which states:

Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, 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.

They claimed this provision mandates a minimum population of 250,000 for any legislative district, regardless of whether it’s in a city or a province. They further argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to maintain this population minimum to ensure proportional representation across all districts. The petitioners underscored their belief that the Constitution was designed to ensure roughly equal representation for every 250,000 citizens in each district.

In contrast, the respondents, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that the 250,000 population requirement applies exclusively to cities. They contended that the language of Section 5(3), Article VI clearly distinguishes between cities and provinces, imposing the population requirement only on the former. According to the respondents, the creation of legislative districts within provinces is governed by different considerations and does not necessarily require adherence to the 250,000 minimum. They asserted that RA 9716 was a valid reapportionment law, given that it only created an additional legislative district within Camarines Sur.

The Supreme Court sided with the respondents, upholding the constitutionality of RA 9716. The Court emphasized the presumption of constitutionality afforded to laws passed by Congress. It stated that a law may only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear showing that it violates a specific provision of the fundamental law. The Court found no such violation in RA 9716, as it interpreted Section 5(3), Article VI to mean that the 250,000 population requirement applies only to cities seeking to have at least one representative.

The Court reasoned that the use of a comma in the provision separates the phrase “each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand” from the phrase “or each province.” This separation, according to the Court, indicates that the population requirement is not applicable to provinces. Building on this principle, the Court drew on the case of Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC, which involved the creation of an additional legislative district in Makati City. In Mariano, the Court limited the application of the 250,000 minimum population requirement for cities to its initial legislative district, emphasizing that subsequent additional districts need not each represent 250,000 residents.

The Supreme Court underscored the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, noting that the 250,000 population benchmark was initially used for the nationwide apportionment of legislative districts among provinces, cities, and Metropolitan Manila. The Court indicated, however, that this benchmark was not an absolute minimum, and other factors were also considered in determining the precise district within a province. This approach contrasts with the petitioners’ argument that the 250,000 figure should be strictly enforced in all instances.

The decision also discussed factors considered during the deliberations on House Bill No. 4264, which eventually became RA 9716. These factors included dialects spoken in the grouped municipalities, the size of the original groupings compared to the regrouped municipalities, natural divisions separating municipalities, and the balancing of areas among the resulting districts. The Court concluded that these factors, considered together, demonstrated the absence of grave abuse of discretion that would warrant the invalidation of RA 9716. The Court made it clear that, in the reapportionment of legislative districts, population is not the only factor to be considered but is one of several elements in the composition of the district.

Justice Carpio dissented, arguing that the majority opinion undermines the principle of equal representation. He emphasized that legislators represent people, not provinces or cities, and that population is the essential measure of representation in the House. Justice Carpio contended that RA 9716 violates the constitutional standards of proportional representation and uniformity by creating a legislative district with a population significantly below the 250,000 minimum.

Justice Carpio Morales concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing with the majority’s procedural discussion but disagreeing with the substantive conclusion. Justice Carpio Morales emphasized that Sections 5(1) and 5(3) of Article VI must be read together, with Section 5(3) disregarding the 250,000 population requirement only for existing provinces with populations below that number or newly created provinces meeting other requirements. This approach contrasts with the majority’s view that the population requirement simply does not apply to provinces.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the constitutional requirement of a 250,000 minimum population for legislative districts applies to provinces or only to cities. The petitioners argued it applied to both, while the respondents argued it applied only to cities.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court ruled that the 250,000 population requirement applies only to cities, not to provinces. Therefore, Republic Act No. 9716, which reapportioned legislative districts in Camarines Sur, was constitutional despite one district having fewer than 250,000 residents.
What is Republic Act No. 9716?	Republic Act No. 9716 is a law that reapportioned the composition of the first and second legislative districts in the province of Camarines Sur. The law created a new legislative district from this reapportionment.
What was the basis of the petitioners’ argument?	The petitioners argued that Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution requires a minimum population of 250,000 for each legislative district, regardless of whether it’s in a city or a province. They believed the Constitution was designed to ensure equal representation for every 250,000 citizens in each district.
What factors did the Court consider besides population?	The Court considered factors such as the dialects spoken in the municipalities, the size of the original and regrouped municipalities, natural divisions separating municipalities, and the need to balance areas among the districts. These factors were considered in determining the composition of legislative districts.
How did the dissenting justices view the decision?	Justice Carpio dissented, arguing that the decision undermines the principle of equal representation by allowing districts with significantly different populations. Justice Carpio Morales partially dissented, arguing that the population requirement should apply to both cities and provinces.
What is the significance of the Mariano v. COMELEC case?	The Mariano v. COMELEC case was cited by the Court to support its argument that the 250,000 minimum population requirement for cities applies only to the initial legislative district. This meant that subsequent additional districts did not each need to represent 250,000 residents.
What are the practical implications of this ruling?	This ruling allows for greater flexibility in creating legislative districts in provinces, potentially leading to districts with smaller populations compared to those in cities. This could impact the equality of voting power across different regions.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Senator Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III v. Commission on Elections clarifies that the 250,000 population requirement for legislative districts applies specifically to cities, allowing for a more nuanced approach to reapportionment in provinces. While aiming for proportional representation, the decision acknowledges other legitimate considerations. This ruling influences the composition of legislative districts and the distribution of voting power across the Philippines.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

April 7, 2010

Ensuring Fair Representation: The Constitutionality of Legislative District Creation Based on Population

In Aldaba v. Commission on Elections, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9591 (RA 9591), which created a legislative district for Malolos City. The Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it failed to meet the population requirements set by Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that cities must have at least 250,000 constituents to be entitled to representation in Congress. This decision reinforces the importance of accurate population data and adherence to constitutional standards in legislative district apportionment, ensuring equitable representation for all citizens.

When Population Counts: Examining the Creation of Legislative Districts

This case revolves around the enactment of RA 9591, which established a separate legislative district for Malolos City. Petitioners Victorino B. Aldaba, Carlo Jolette S. Fajardo, Julio G. Morada, and Minerva Aldaba Morada questioned the law’s constitutionality, arguing that Malolos City did not meet the required population threshold of 250,000 residents. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC), however, contended that the population indicators used by Congress were reliable and that the matter was non-justiciable. This legal battle highlights the critical role of accurate population data in ensuring fair and proportional representation in the legislative branch.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected COMELEC’s argument that the reliability of population data used by Congress is non-justiciable. The Court emphasized its power and duty to review laws creating legislative districts, especially when those laws are challenged for non-compliance with specific constitutional limitations. According to the Court:

To deny the Court the exercise of its judicial review power over RA 9591 is to contend that this Court has no power “to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government,” a duty mandated under Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution.

This underscores the judiciary’s role as a check on the legislative branch, ensuring adherence to constitutional mandates. The Court asserted that it cannot simply rubber-stamp laws creating legislative districts without scrutinizing the underlying data supporting their creation. To do so would render the constitutional limitation on population meaningless.

The Court then scrutinized the population indicators relied upon by Congress, particularly the Certification of Alberto N. Miranda (Miranda) from the National Statistics Office (NSO). It found Miranda’s certification unreliable because it did not comply with the requirements of Executive Order No. 135 (EO 135). This EO mandates that population certifications for intercensal years must be based on demographic projections and estimates declared official by the National Statistical and Coordination Board (NSCB), be as of the middle of every year, and be issued by the NSO Administrator or a designated certifying officer.

The Court noted several deficiencies in Miranda’s certification. It was not based on NSCB-approved demographic projections, was not projected as of the middle of 2010, and Miranda was not the NSO Administrator’s designated certifying officer. Moreover, even using Miranda’s growth rate assumption, Malolos City’s population as of August 1, 2010, would still fall below the 250,000 threshold. The Court also dismissed other population indicators presented by COMELEC, such as the 2007 Census of Population – PMS 3 – Progress Enumeration Report, the Certification of the City of Malolos’ Water District, and the Certification of the Liga ng Barangay, as unreliable.

EO 135 excludes certifications from public utilities gathered incidentally and requires local government units conducting their own census during off-census years to seek approval from the NSCB and operate under the technical supervision of the NSO. The Court highlighted the danger of relying on non-NSO authorized certifications, emphasizing the need for stringent standards to ensure the reliability of population data. The Court emphasized that compliance with the population requirement in the creation and conversion of local government units shall be proved exclusively by an NSO certification, as mandated by Section 7 of RA No. 7160.

Unquestionably, representation in Congress is no less important than the creation of local government units in enhancing our democratic institutions, thus both processes should be subject to the same stringent standards.

Aside from population concerns, the Court also found that RA 9591 violated the requirement in Section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution that each legislative district shall “comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory.” The creation of a legislative district for Malolos City isolated the town of Bulacan from the rest of the First Legislative District. The Court suggested that a more appropriate solution would have been to include the municipality of Bulacan in Malolos City’s legislative district to maintain geographic contiguity and compactness.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied COMELEC’s motion for reconsideration, reaffirming its decision that RA 9591 was unconstitutional. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to constitutional requirements for creating legislative districts and ensuring that population data used for such purposes are reliable and authoritative. The Court’s decision serves as a reminder to Congress to exercise caution and diligence when enacting laws that affect the composition of the legislative branch.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Republic Act No. 9591, which created a legislative district for Malolos City, complied with the constitutional requirement that cities must have at least 250,000 residents to be entitled to representation in Congress.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court ruled that RA 9591 was unconstitutional because Malolos City did not meet the population requirement of 250,000 residents, as mandated by Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
What is Executive Order No. 135 and why is it important?	Executive Order No. 135 sets the standards for population certifications used for official purposes. It is important because it ensures the reliability and authoritativeness of population data used in government decisions, including the creation of legislative districts.
Why was the NSO certification deemed unreliable?	The NSO certification was deemed unreliable because it did not comply with the requirements of EO 135, such as being based on NSCB-approved demographic projections and being issued by the NSO Administrator or a designated certifying officer.
What does the Constitution say about the contiguity of legislative districts?	Section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution requires that each legislative district shall “comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory.”
How did RA 9591 violate the contiguity requirement?	RA 9591 violated the contiguity requirement by creating a legislative district for Malolos City that isolated the town of Bulacan from the rest of the First Legislative District.
What is the significance of the population requirement for legislative districts?	The population requirement ensures that each legislative district represents a fair and equitable number of constituents, promoting proportional representation in the legislative branch.
What agencies are authorized to conduct population census?	Only the National Statistics Office (NSO) is authorized to conduct population census and local government units with prior approval from the NSCB and under the technical supervision of NSO.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Aldaba v. COMELEC serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of adhering to constitutional standards in the creation of legislative districts. By invalidating RA 9591, the Court upheld the principle of equitable representation and reinforced the need for accurate and reliable population data in legislative decision-making. This case underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional mandates and ensuring fairness in the political process.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

March 15, 2010

Upholding Local Government Code: Creation of Province Based on Land Area and Population Requirements

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of the Philippines struck down Republic Act No. 9355, which created the Province of Dinagat Islands, for failing to meet the land area or population requirements stipulated in the Local Government Code. The Court emphasized that the Constitution mandates strict adherence to the criteria established in the Code for the creation of local government units. This ruling reinforces the importance of complying with statutory requirements to ensure the validity and constitutionality of creating new provinces, cities, municipalities, or barangays.

Dinagat Islands: Can an Island Province Sidestep Land Area Requirements?

The case of Navarro v. Ermita arose from a challenge to the constitutionality of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9355, which created the Province of Dinagat Islands. Petitioners, taxpayers and residents of Surigao del Norte, argued that the new province did not meet the requisites for creation under Section 461 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC). The legal battle centered on whether Dinagat Islands, primarily composed of several islands, could be exempted from the land area requirement typically imposed on the creation of a new province.

Section 461 of the Local Government Code outlines the requisites for the creation of a province. It specifies that a province may be created if it possesses an average annual income of at least P20 million, as certified by the Department of Finance, and either a contiguous territory of at least 2,000 square kilometers, as certified by the Lands Management Bureau, or a population of not less than 250,000 inhabitants, as certified by the National Statistics Office (NSO). Significantly, the Code also states that the territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two or more islands or is separated by a chartered city or cities which do not contribute to the income of the province.

SEC. 461. Requisites for Creation. — (a) A province may be created if it has an average annual income, as certified by the Department of Finance, of not less than Twenty million pesos (P20,000,000.00) based on 1991 constant prices and either of the following requisites:

(i) a contiguous territory of at least two thousand (2,000) square kilometers, as certified by the Lands Management Bureau; or

(ii) a population of not less than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) inhabitants as certified by the National Statistics Office:

Provided, That, the creation thereof shall not reduce the land area, population, and income of the original unit or units at the time of said creation to less than the minimum requirements prescribed herein.

(b) The territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two (2) or more islands or is separated by a chartered city or cities which do not contribute to the income of the province.

Dinagat Islands, as a proposed province, had a land area of only 802.12 square kilometers, well below the 2,000 square kilometer threshold. Furthermore, based on the 2000 Census, the population was only 106,951, far short of the 250,000 inhabitants required. While the province claimed an average annual income exceeding the P20 million requirement, the crucial question was whether the island nature of the territory could exempt it from the land area requirement altogether.

The respondents relied on paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, which stated that “[t]he land area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands.” The Supreme Court, however, invalidated this provision, holding that it contradicted the express provisions of the Local Government Code. The Court emphasized that implementing rules cannot expand or modify the law they are intended to implement.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, referenced the case of Tan v. Commission on Elections (COMELEC), where it was clarified that the term “territory” refers to the land mass and excludes the waters over which the political unit exercises control. The Court stated that the use of the word territory in the specific provision of the Local Government Code, particularly in the sentence stating that the “territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two or more islands,” clearly indicates that territory as used therein only refers to the mass of land area and excludes the waters over which the political unit exercises control.

The use of the word territory in this particular provision of the Local Government Code and in the very last sentence thereof, clearly, reflects that territory as therein used, has reference only to the mass of land area and excludes the waters over which the political unit exercises control.

The Court emphasized that if the legislators had intended that the term “territory” embrace not only land area but also territorial waters, there would have been no need to use the word contiguous. This is because contiguous, when employed as an adjective, is only used when it describes physical contact, or a touching of sides of two solid masses of matter. Therefore, the Court concluded that the word territory in the first paragraph of Section 197, which is the counterpart provision in the former Local Government Code, is meant to be synonymous with “land area” only.

The Court found that R.A. No. 9355 failed to comply with either the territorial or the population requirement. While the law stated that the Province of Dinagat Islands contained an approximate land area of 802.12 square kilometers, this fell far short of the 2,000 square kilometer requirement. Moreover, based on the 2000 Census, the population was only 106,951. The Court also noted that a special census conducted by the Provincial Government of Surigao del Norte, which yielded a population count of 371,000, was not certified by the NSO as required by the Local Government Code.

The Supreme Court also addressed the argument that the lack of certification by the NSO was cured by the presence of NSO officials during the deliberations on the house bill creating the Province of Dinagat Islands. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the NSO representative, Statistician II Ma. Solita C. Vergara, stated that based on their computation, the population requirement of 250,000 inhabitants would be attained by the Province of Dinagat Islands by the year 2065. This computation was based on the growth rate of the population, excluding migration.

Finally, the petitioners alleged that R.A. No. 9355 was ratified by a doubtful mandate in a plebiscite held on December 2, 2005, where the “yes” votes were 69,9343, while the “no” votes were 63,502. They contended that the 100% turnout of voters in the precincts of San Jose, Basilisa, Dinagat, Cagdianao and Libjo was contrary to human experience, and that the results were statistically improbable. The Court stated that allegations of fraud and irregularities in the conduct of a plebiscite are factual in nature, and cannot be the subject of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which is a remedy designed only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court declared R.A. No. 9355 unconstitutional for its failure to comply with the criteria for the creation of a province prescribed in Sec. 461 of the Local Government Code. The proclamation of the Province of Dinagat Islands and the election of the officials thereof were declared null and void.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the creation of the Province of Dinagat Islands complied with the requirements of the Local Government Code, specifically regarding land area and population.
What did the Local Government Code require for the creation of a province?	The Local Government Code requires a certain income level and either a minimum land area or a minimum population, as certified by the relevant government agencies.
Why did the Supreme Court declare R.A. No. 9355 unconstitutional?	The Court declared R.A. No. 9355 unconstitutional because Dinagat Islands failed to meet either the minimum land area or the minimum population requirement prescribed by the Local Government Code.
Did the island nature of Dinagat Islands provide an exemption from the land area requirement?	The Court ruled that the island nature of Dinagat Islands did not provide an exemption from the land area requirement. The implementing rules stating otherwise were declared null and void.
*What is the significance of the Tan v. COMELEC* case in this ruling?**	The Tan v. COMELEC case clarified that the term “territory” in the context of creating local government units refers to land area and excludes territorial waters.
What happens to the officials elected in Dinagat Islands after this ruling?	The election of officials in the Province of Dinagat Islands was declared null and void, effectively removing them from their positions.
What was the effect on the municipalities that comprised Dinagat Islands?	The municipalities that comprised the Province of Dinagat Islands reverted to their former status before the enactment of R.A. No. 9355.
What is gerrymandering and was it an issue in this case?	Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to favor a particular political party or candidate. The Court found the claim of gerrymandering to be unsubstantiated.
What are implementing rules and regulations (IRR)?	Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) are guidelines issued by government agencies to provide the details necessary to carry out the provisions of a law. They cannot go beyond the scope of the law itself.

This Supreme Court decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with the requirements of the Local Government Code in the creation of local government units. It serves as a reminder that any deviation from these requirements, even if seemingly minor, can render the creation of a province or other local government unit unconstitutional. This ruling has significant implications for future attempts to create new provinces and other local government units in the Philippines.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

February 10, 2010

Legislative Districts: Population Thresholds and the Limits of Projection

The Supreme Court declared Republic Act No. 9591 (RA 9591) unconstitutional, preventing the creation of a separate legislative district for the city of Malolos, Bulacan. The Court held that the city did not meet the constitutional requirement of having a population of at least 250,000, invalidating the law intended to give Malolos its own representative in Congress. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to strict constitutional population requirements when establishing legislative districts, safeguarding equitable representation and preventing potential gerrymandering.

Malolos’ Missed Milestone: Can Population Projections Justify a New District?

This case revolves around the constitutionality of RA 9591, which sought to create a separate legislative district for the city of Malolos. Petitioners argued that the law violated Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which requires a city to have a population of at least 250,000 to merit its own legislative district. The central legal question was whether Congress could rely on projected population figures, rather than actual census data, to justify the creation of this new district. The resolution hinged on the interpretation of constitutional requirements and the validity of using demographic projections in legislative apportionment.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the population data presented to justify RA 9591. House Bill No. 3693, which served as a basis for the law, cited a certification from Regional Director Alberto N. Miranda of the National Statistics Office (NSO). This certification projected that the population of Malolos would reach 254,030 by the year 2010. However, the Court found this certification to be legally deficient. According to the Court, Regional Director Miranda lacked the authority to issue such a certification based on demographic projections.

Building on this, the Court cited Executive Order No. 135, which outlines specific guidelines for issuing certifications of population sizes. This Executive Order mandates that demographic projections must be declared official by the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB). Additionally, certifications based on these projections must be issued by the NSO Administrator or a designated certifying officer. The certification in question failed to meet these requirements, as it was not based on NSCB-approved projections and was issued by a regional director without proper designation.

Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the methodology used in the population projection. The certification indicated a population growth rate of 3.78% per year between 1995 and 2000. However, using this growth rate, the Court calculated that the population of Malolos would only reach 241,550 in 2010, falling short of the required 250,000. The 2007 Census also placed the population of Malolos at 223,069, further undermining the projection’s validity. Even compounding the growth rate annually, the Court determined that the population would only reach 249,333 by August 1, 2010.

Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution provides: “Any province that may be created, or any city whose population may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one Member…”

The Supreme Court emphasized that a city must attain the 250,000 population threshold before it can be entitled to a legislative district. Moreover, this entitlement only arises in the “immediately following election” after reaching that population. The Court found no evidence that Malolos had attained or would attain the required population before the May 10, 2010 elections. Thus, the city was not qualified to have its own legislative district under the Constitution.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that Congress’s choice of means to comply with the population requirement was non-justiciable. However, the Court rejected this argument, asserting its authority to review whether other branches of government have complied with constitutional standards. The Court emphasized its checking function to determine if there has been a grave abuse of discretion. Citing Macias v. Commission on Elections, the Court reiterated that district apportionment laws are subject to judicial review.

The dissenting opinion argued that Congress did not gravely abuse its discretion in relying on the projected population of Malolos City. It contended that nothing in the Constitution prohibits the use of estimates or population projections. Furthermore, the dissent maintained that the Court should not interfere with the wisdom of the legislature in adopting standards for compliance with population requirements. However, the majority opinion found that the NSO Regional Director’s certification was deficient and that the projection itself was flawed.

Moreover, the dissenting justices said that Executive Order 135 should not apply because R.A. 9591 concerns the establishment of a new legislative district, which is not considered a local government unit. However, The Supreme Court emphasized the need to adhere to official and credible sources when making population projections. Allowing unreliable projections could undermine the principle of equal representation, which is fundamental to legislative apportionment. Therefore, the Supreme Court granted the petition and declared RA 9591 unconstitutional.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the city of Malolos met the constitutional population requirement of at least 250,000 to be granted its own legislative district. The Court had to determine whether a projected population could be used to satisfy this requirement.
Why did the Supreme Court declare RA 9591 unconstitutional?	The Court found that Malolos did not have the required population of 250,000, even based on projections. The population projection used to justify the law was deemed unreliable and did not comply with established guidelines.
What is Executive Order No. 135, and why was it relevant to the case?	Executive Order No. 135 provides guidelines for issuing certifications of population sizes. It was relevant because it specifies that population projections must be declared official by the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB) and issued by the NSO Administrator or a designated officer, which was not the case here.
Can Congress rely on population projections when creating legislative districts?	While the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit using projections, the Court emphasized the need for reliable and official data. Unsubstantiated projections or those not compliant with established guidelines cannot be used to justify creating new districts.
What is the “immediately following election” rule?	This rule, found in the Ordinance appended to the Constitution, states that a city only becomes entitled to a legislative district in the election immediately following the time it reaches a population of 250,000. Malolos was not projected to reach that threshold before the 2010 elections.
What was the dissenting opinion’s argument?	The dissenting opinion argued that Congress did not abuse its discretion in relying on the population projection. It also argued that Executive Order No. 135 should not apply because R.A. 9591 concerns the establishment of a new legislative district, which is not considered a local government unit.
*What is the significance of the Macias v. Commission on Elections* case?**	Macias v. Commission on Elections was cited to support the Court’s authority to review district apportionment laws. It establishes that such laws are subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with constitutional standards.
What is gerrymandering, and how does this case relate to it?	Gerrymandering refers to creating legislative districts to favor a particular candidate or party. The population requirements are meant to prevent this by ensuring fair and equal representation, and the court referenced this concern in its decision.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Aldaba v. Commission on Elections reinforces the importance of adhering to constitutional population requirements when creating legislative districts. The case serves as a reminder that legislative apportionment must be based on reliable data and official projections to ensure fair and equal representation. The ruling also clarifies the limitations on using projected population figures and the necessity of complying with established guidelines for such projections.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

January 25, 2010