7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

1/27

G.R. No. 73155 July 11, 1986PATRICIO TAN, FELIX FERRER, JUAN M. HAGA, !ERGIO HILAO, "IRGILIO

GA!TON, CONCHITA MINA#A, TERE!ITA E!TACIO, E!IERIO EFERIA, ROMEOGAM$OA, AL$ERTO LAC!ON, FE HOFILENA, EMIL# JI!ON, NIE"E! LOPE% AN

CECILIA MAG!A#!A#, petitioners,vs.

THE COMMI!!ION ON ELECTION! &'( THE PRO"INCIAL TREA!URER OF NEGRO!

OCCIENTAL,respondents.

FACTS:

- Petitioners herein,

o residents of the Province of Negros Occidental,

o Prompted by the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 885-An Act

Creating a Ne Province in the !sland of Negros to be "non asthe Province of Negros del Norte

o filed ith this Co#rt a case for Prohibition

o for the p#rpose of stopping respondents Commission on

$lections from cond#cting the plebiscite- %aid la provides&

%$C'!ON (. 'he Cities of %ilay, Cadi), and %an Carlos and them#nicipalities of Calatrava, 'aboso, $scalante, %agay, *anapla,+ictorias, $.. *agalona and %alvador Benedicto, all in the northernportion of the !sland of Negros, are hereby separated from theprovince to be "non as the Province of Negros del Norte.%$C. . 'he bo#ndaries of the ne province shall be the so#thernlimits of the City of %ilay, the *#nicipality of %alvador Benedicto andthe City of %an Carlos on the so#th and the territorial limits of thenorthern portion to the !sland of Negros on the est, north and east,comprising a territory of /,0(1.15 s2#are "ilometers more or less.%$C. 3. 'he seat of government of the ne province shall be the Cityof Cadi).%$C. /. A plebiscite shall be cond#cted in the proposed ne province

hich are the areas affected ithin a period of one h#ndred andtenty days from the approval of this Act. After the ratification of thecreation of the Province of Negros del Norte by a ma4ority of the votescast in s#ch plebiscite, the President of the Philippines shall appointthe first officials of the province.%$C. 5. 'he Commission on $lections shall cond#ct and s#pervisethe plebiscite herein provided, the epenses for hich shall becharged to local f#nds.%$C. 6. 'his Act shall ta"eeffect #pon its approval.7ollo, pp. 3-/Petitioners contend that Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 is #nconstit#tionaland it is not in complete accord ith the 9ocal :overnment Code as inArticle ;!, %ection 3 of o#r Constit#tion, it is epressly mandated that

'he final nail that p#ts to rest hatever pretension there is to the legality of the province ofNegros del Norte is the significant fact that this created province does not even satisfy the

area re2#irement prescribed in %ection (1= of the 9ocal :overnment Code, as earlierdisc#ssed.

!t is of co#rse claimed by the respondents in their Comment to the ehibits s#bmitted by thepetitioners 7$hs. C and @, ollo, pp. (1 and 1(, that the ne province has a territory of/,0(1.15 s2#are "ilometers, more or less. 'his assertion is made to negate the proofss#bmitted, disclosing that the land area of the ne province cannot be more than 3,500s2#are "ilometers beca#se its land area o#ld, at most, be only abo#t ,856 s2#are"ilometers, ta"ing into acco#nt government statistics relative to the total area of the citiesand m#nicipalities constit#ting Negros del Norte. espondents insist that hen %ection (1=of the 9ocal :overnment Code spea"s of the territory of the province to be created andre2#ires that s#ch territory be at least 3,500 s2#are "ilometers, hat is contemplated is notonly the land area b#t also the land and ater over hich the said province has 4#risdictionand control. !t is even the s#bmission of the respondents that in this regard the marginal sea

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

6/27

ithin the three mile limit sho#ld be considered in determining the etent of the territory ofthe ne province. %#ch an interpretation is strained, incorrect, and fallacio#s.

'he last sentence of the first paragraph of %ection (1= is most revealing. As so statedtherein the 4territory need not be contiuous if it com(rises t5o or more islands.4 'he #se ofthe ord territoryin this partic#lar provision of the 9ocal :overnment Code and in the verylast sentence thereof, clearly reflects that 4territory4as therein #sed, has reference only to

the mass of land area and ecl#des the aters over hich the political #nit eercisescontrol.

%aid sentence states that the territory need not be contig#o#s. Contig#o#s means 7a inphysical contact 7b to#ching along all or most of one side 7c near, tet, or ad4acent7ebsters Ne orld @ictionary, (1= $d., p. 30=. Contig#o#s, hen employed as anad4ective, as in the above sentence, is only #sed hen it describes physical contact, or ato#ching of sides of to solid masses of matter. 'he meaning of partic#lar terms in a stat#temay be ascertained by reference to ords associated ith or related to them in the stat#te7Animal esc#e 9eag#e vs. Assessors, (38 A.9.. p. ((0. 'herefore, in the contet of thesentence above, hat need not be contig#o#s is the territory the physical mass of landarea. 'here o#ld arise no need for the legislators to #se the ord contig#o#s if they hadintended that the term territory embrace not only land area b#t also territorial aters. !t canbe safely concl#ded that the ord territory in the first paragraph of %ection (1= is meant tobe synonymo#s ith land area only. 'he ords and phrases #sed in a stat#te sho#ld begiven the meaning intended by the legislat#re 78 C.?.%., p. 636. 'he sense in hich the

ords are #sed f#rnished the r#le of constr#ction 7!n re inton 9#mber Co., 63 p. d., p.66/.

'he distinction beteen territory and land area hich respondents ma"e is an artificial orstrained constr#ction of the disp#ted provision hereby the ords of the stat#te are arrestedfrom their plain and obvio#s meaning and made to bear an entirely different meaning to4#stify an abs#rd or #n4#st res#lt. 'he plain meaning in the lang#age in a stat#te is thesafest g#ide to follo in constr#ing the stat#te. A constr#ction based on a forced or artificialmeaning of its ords and o#t of harmony of the stat#tory scheme is not to be favored7Delvering vs. D#tchings, 85 9. $d., p. 101.

!t o#ld be rather prepostero#s to maintain that a province ith a small land area b#t hichhas a long, narro, etended coast line, 7s#ch as 9a Gnion province can be said to have alarger territory than a land-loc"ed province 7s#ch as !f#gao or Beng#et hose land areamanifestly eceeds the province first mentioned.

Allegations have been made that the enactment of the 2#estioned state as marred bydirty tric"s, in the introd#ction and passing of Parliamentary Bill No. 36// in secret hastep#rs#ant to sinister designs to achieve p#re and simple gerrymandering that recenthappenings more than amply demonstrate that far from g#aranteeing its a#tonomy it7Negros del Norte has become the fiefdom of a local strongman 7ollo, p. /3 emphasiss#pplied.

!t is not for this Co#rt to affirm or re4ect s#ch matters not only beca#se the merits of thiscase can be resolved itho#t need of ascertaining the real motives and isdom in thema"ing of the 2#estioned la. No proper challenge on those gro#nds can also be made bypetitioners in this proceeding. Neither may this Co#rt vent#re to g#ess the motives orisdom in the eercise of legislative poers. ep#diation of improper or #nise actionsta"en by tools of a political machinery rests #ltimately, as recent events have shon, on theelectorate and the poer of a vigilant people.

Petitioners herein deserve and sho#ld receive the gratit#de of the people of the Province ofNegros Occidental and even by o#r Nation. Commendable is the patriotism displayed bythem in daring to instit#te this case in order to preserve the contin#ed eistence of theirhistoric province. 'hey ere inspired #ndo#btedly by their faithf#l commitment to o#rConstit#tion hich they ish to be respected and obeyed. @espite the setbac"s and thehardships hich petitioners aver confronted them, they valiantly and #nfalteringly p#rs#ed aorthy ca#se. A happy destiny for o#r Nation is ass#red as long as among o#r people there

o#ld be eemplary citi)ens s#ch as the petitioners herein.

D$$>O$, Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 is hereby declared #nconstit#tional. 'heproclamation of the ne province of Negros del Norte, as ell as the appointment of theofficials thereof are also declared n#ll and void.%O O@$$@.

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

7/27

G.R. No. L)5918* J&'u&+y 9, 1987

CLEMENTINO TORRAL$A &'( RE!OLUTION L. RUGA#, petitioners,vs.

THE MUNICIPALIT# OF !I$AGAT, PRO"INCE OF AGU!AN EL !UR &'( IT!MUNICIPAL OFFICER!,respondents.

>AC'%&

- Batas Pambansa Blg. 56,

o enacted on ( >ebr#ary (180

o creating the *#nicipality of %ibagat, Province of Ag#san del %#r

o Challenged in the instant Petition, as violative of %ection 3,

Article ;! of the (1=3 Constit#tiono 'he pertinent provisions of BP 56 read&

o %ec. (. 'he barangays of !lihan, %inai, %ibagat, $l io, Afga,

'abontabon, Pere), *agsaysay, %anta Cr#), %anta *aria, %an!sidro, +illangit, @el osario, Anaha#an *ahayahay, and %an+icente, all in the *#nicipality of Bay#gan, Province of Ag#sandel %#r, are hereby separated from said m#nicipality to form andconstit#te an independent *#nicipality of %ibagat itho#taffecting in any manner the legal eistence of the mother*#nicipality of Bay#gan.

o %ec. . 'he bo#ndaries of the ne *#nicipality of %ibagat ill

be& Beginning at the point of intersection of the Cabadbaran-OldBay#gan and %#rigao del %#r bo#ndaries thence in a so#thernlydirection folloing the Old Bay#gan and Cabadbaran, OldBay#gan and B#t#an City, Old Bay#gan and 9as Nievesbo#ndaries, #ntil it reaches the point of intersection of Old

Bay#gan, $speran)a and the *#nicipality of 9as Nieves ...o %ec. 3. 'he seat of government of the nely created m#nicipality

shall be in Barangay %ibagat.o %ec. /. $cept as herein provided, all provisions of las, no or

hereafter applicable to reg#lar m#nicipalities shall be applicableto the ne *#nicipality of %ibagat.

o %ec. 5. After ratification by the ma4ority of the votes cast in a

plebiscite to be cond#cted in the area or areas affected ithin aperiod of ninety 710 days after the approval of this Act, thePresident 7Prime *inister shall appoint the *ayor and otherOfficials of the ne *#nicipality of %ibagat.

- Petitioners are residents and tapayers of B#t#an City, ith petitioner,Clementino 'orralba, being a member of the %angg#niang Pangl#nsod ofthe same City.

- espondent m#nicipal officers are the local p#blic officials of the ne*#nicipality.

- %ection 3, Article ;! of the (1=3 Constit#tion,o said to have been infringed, is reprod#ced here#nder&

o %ec. 3. No province, city, m#nicipality, or barrio may be created,

divided, merged, abolished, or its bo#ndary s#bstantially altered,ecept in accordance ith the criteria established in the 9ocal

:overnment Code, and s#b4ect to the approval by a ma4ority ofthe votes cast in a plebiscite in the #nit or #nits affected.

- 'he thr#st of petitioners arg#ment

- #nder the afore2#oted provision, the 9ocal :overnment Code m#st first beenacted to determine the criteria for the creation, division, merger, abolition,or s#bstantial alteration of the bo#ndary of any province, city, m#nicipality,or barrio

- since no 9ocal :overnment Code had as yet been enacted as of the dateBP 56 as passed, that stat#te co#ld not have possibly complied ith anycriteria hen respondent *#nicipality as created, hence, it is n#ll andvoid.

ISSUE:

RULING:

!t is a fact that the 9ocal :overnment Code came into being only on (0 >ebr#ary (183 sothat hen BP 56 as enacted, the code as not yet in eistence. 'he evidence li"eisediscloses that a plebiscite had been cond#cted among the people of the #nitI#nits affectedby the creation of the ne *#nicipality, ho epressed approval thereof and that officials ofthe nely created *#nicipality had been appointed and had ass#med their respectivepositions as s#ch.

e find no trace of invalidity of BP 56. 'he absence of the 9ocal :overnment Code at thetime of its enactment did not c#rtail nor as it intended to cripple legislative competence tocreate m#nicipal corporations. %ection 3, Article ;! of the (1=3 Constit#tion does notproscribe nor prohibit the modification of territorial and political s#bdivisions before theenactment of the 9ocal :overnment Code. !t contains no re2#irement that the 9ocal:overnment Code is a condition sinequa nonfor the creation of a m#nicipality, in m#ch thesame ay that the creation of a ne m#nicipality does not precl#de the enactment of a

9ocal :overnment Code. hat the Constit#tional provision means is that once said Code isenacted, the creation, modification or dissol#tion of local government #nits sho#ld conformith the criteria th#s laid don. !n the interregn#m before the enactment of s#ch Code, thelegislative poer remains plenary ecept that the creation of the ne local government #nitsho#ld be approved by the people concerned in a plebiscite called for the p#rpose.

'he creation of the ne *#nicipality of %ibagat conformed to said re2#isite. A plebiscite ascond#cted and the people of the #nitI#nits affected endorsed and approved the creation ofthe ne local government #nit 7parag. 5, Petition p. =, *emorand#m.l5(hl6it7 !n fact, thecond#ct of said plebiscite is not 2#estioned herein. 'he officials of the ne *#nicipality haveeffectively ta"en their oaths of office and are performing their f#nctions. A de8ureentity hasth#s been created.

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

8/27

!t is a long-recogni)ed principle that the poer to create a m#nicipal corporation isessentially legislative in nat#re. !n the absence of any constit#tional limitations a legislativebody may Create any corporation it deems essential for the more efficient administration ofgovernment 7! *cJ#illin, *#nicipal Corporations, 3rd ed., 501. 'he creation of the ne*#nicipality of %ibagat as a valid eercise of legislative poer then vested by the (1=3Constit#tion in the !nterim Batasang Pambansa.

e are not #nmindf#l of the case of )an vs. C91EEC 7(/ %CA == K(186L, stri"ingdon as #nconstit#tional BP Blg. 885 creating a ne province in the !sland of Negros"non as the Province of Negros del Norte, and declaring the plebiscite held in connectionthereith as illegal 'here are significant differences, hoever, in the to cases amonghich may be mentioned the folloing. in the )an case, the 9ocal :overnment Codealready eisted at the time that the challenged stat#te as enacted on 3 @ecember (185not so in the case at bar. %econdly, BP Blg. 885 in the )ancase confined the plebiscite tothe proposed ne province to the ecl#sion of the voters in the remaining areas, incontravention of the Constit#tional mandate and of the 9ocal :overnment Code that theplebiscite sho#ld be held in the #nit or #nits affected. !n contrast, BP 56 specificallyprovides for a plebiscite in the area or areas affected. !n fact, as previo#sly stated, no2#estion is raised herein as to the legality of the plebiscite cond#cted. 'hirdly, in the )ancase, even the re2#isite area for the creation of a ne province as not complied ith in BPBlg. 885. No s#ch iss#e in the creation of the ne m#nicipality has been raised here. Andlastly, indecent haste attended the enactment of BP Blg. 885 and the holding of theplebiscite thereafter in the )ancase on the other hand, BP 56 creating the *#nicipality of

%ibagat, as enacted in the normal co#rse of legislation, and the plebiscite as held ithinthe period specified in that la.

D$$>O$, the Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.%O O@$$@.

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

9/27

$AI !ANRA !EMA - COMELEC

FACTS:

- 'he Ordinance appended to the (18= Constit#tion apportioned to

legislative districts for the Province of *ag#indanao.

- 'he first legislative district consists of Cotabato City and eight

m#nicipalities.

- *ag#indanao forms part of the A#tonomo#s egion in *#slim *indanao

7A**, created #nder its Organic Act, ep#blic Act No. 6=3/ 7A 6=3/,

as amended by ep#blic Act No. 105/ 7A 105/.- Altho#gh #nder the Ordinance, Cotabato City forms part of *ag#indanaos

first legislative district, it is not part of the A** b#t of egion ;!!, having

voted against its incl#sion in the A** in the plebiscite held in November

(181.

- the A**s legislat#re, the A** egional Assemblyo eercising its poer to create provinces #nder %ection (1, Article

+! of A 105/o enacted *#slim *indanao A#tonomy Act No. 0( 7**A Act 0(

creating the Province of %hariff Eab#ns#an composed of the

eight m#nicipalities in the first district of *ag#indanao.**A Act

0( provides&- **A Act 0( provides&

o %ection (. 'he *#nicipalities of Barira, B#ldon, @at#

Odin %ins#at, Eab#ntalan, *atanog, Parang, %#ltan

E#darat, %#ltan *ast#ra, and Gpi are hereby

separated from the Province of*ag#indanao and

constit#ted into a distinct and independent province,

hich is hereby created, to be "non as the Province

of %hariff Eab#ns#an.o

o %ec. 5.'he corporate eistence of this province shall

commence #pon the appointment by the egional

:overnor or election of the governor and ma4ority of

the reg#lar members of the %angg#niang

Panlalaigan.o 'he inc#mbent elective provincial officials of the

Province of *ag#indanao shall contin#e to serve their

#nepired terms in the province that they ill choose

or here they are residents&Provided, that here an

elective position in both provinces becomes vacant as

a conse2#ence of the creation of the Province of

%hariff Eab#ns#an, all inc#mbent elective provincial

officials shall have preference for appointment to a

higher elective vacant position and for the time being

be appointed by the egional :overnor, and shall

hold office #ntil their s#ccessors shall have been

elected and 2#alified in the net local elections

Provided, f#rther, that they shall contin#e to receive

the salaries they are receiving at the time of the

approval of this Act #ntil the ne read4#stment of

salaries in accordance ith la. Provided,

f#rthermore, that there shall be no dimin#tion in the

n#mber of the members of the %angg#niang

Panlalaigan of the mother province.o $cept as may be provided by national la, the

eisting legislative district, hich incl#des Cotabato as

a part thereof, shall remain.

- 9ater, three ne m#nicipalitiesK6Lere carved o#t of the original nine

m#nicipalities constit#ting %hariff Eab#ns#an, bringing its total n#mber of

m#nicipalities to ((.- 'h#s, hat as left of *ag#indanao ere the m#nicipalities constit#ting its

second legislative district. Cotabato City, altho#gh part of *ag#indanaos

first legislative district, is not part of the Province of *ag#indanao.- 'he voters of *ag#indanao ratified %hariff Eab#ns#ans creation in a

plebiscite held on 1 October 006.

- the %angg#niang Panl#ngsod of Cotabato City passed esol#tion No. 3111o re2#esting the CO*$9$C to clarify the stat#s of Cotabato City in

vie of the conversion of the >irst @istrict of *ag#indanao into a

reg#lar province #nder **A Act 0(.

- the CO*$9$C iss#ed esol#tion No. 0=-0/0=

o maintaining the stat#s 2#o ith Cotabato City as part of %hariff

Eab#ns#an in the >irst 9egislative @istrict of *ag#indanao

- Doever, in preparation for the (/ *ay 00= elections, the CO*$9$C

prom#lgated on 1 *arch 00= esol#tion No. =8/5o *ag#indanaos first legislative district is composed only of

Cotabato City beca#se of the enactment of **A Act 0(.K8L

- the CO*$9$C iss#ed esol#tion No. =10

o s#b4ect of these petitions

o amending esol#tion No. 0=-0/0= by renaming the legislative

district in 2#estion as%hariff Eab#ns#an Province ith Cotabato

City 7formerly >irst @istrict of *ag#indanao ith Cotabato City.K1L

- !n :.. No. (==51=

o %ema, ho as a candidate in the (/ *ay 00= elections for

epresentative of %hariff Eab#ns#an ith Cotabato City, prayed

for the n#llification of CO*$9$C esol#tion No. =10 and the

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

10/27

ecl#sion from canvassing of the votes cast in Cotabato City for

that office.

o %ema contended that %hariff Eab#ns#an is entitled to one

representative in Congress #nder %ection 5 73, Article +! of the

Constit#tionK(0Land %ection 3 of the Ordinance appended to the

Constit#tion.

o 'h#s, %ema asserted that the CO*$9$C acted itho#t or inecess of its 4#risdiction in iss#ing esol#tion No. =10 hich

maintained the stat#s 2#o in *ag#indanaos first legislative

district despite the CO*$9$Cs earlier directive in esol#tion No.

=8/5 designating Cotabato City as the lone component of

*ag#indanaos reapportioned first legislative districto %ema f#rther claimed that in iss#ing esol#tion No. =10, the

CO*$9$C #s#rped Congress poer to create or reapportion

legislative districts.

- the CO*$9$C, thro#gh the Office of the %olicitor :eneral 7O%:o chose not to reach the merits of the case and merely contended

thato 7( %ema rongly availed of the rit of certiorari to n#llify

CO*$9$C esol#tion No. =10 beca#se the CO*$9$C iss#ed

the same in the eercise of its administrative, not 2#asi-4#dicial,poer and

o 7 %emas prayer for the rit of prohibition in :.. No. (==51=

became moot ith the proclamation of respondent @idagen P.

@ilangalen 7respondent @ilangalen on ( ?#ne 00= as

representative of the legislative district of %hariff Eab#ns#an

Province ith Cotabato City.

- respondent @ilangalen co#ntered that

o %ema is estopped from 2#estioning CO*$9$C esol#tion No.

=10 beca#se in her certificate of candidacy filed on 1 *arch

00=, %ema indicated that she as see"ing election as

representative of %hariff Eab#ns#an incl#ding Cotabato City

o espondent @ilangalen added that CO*$9$C esol#tion No.

=10 is constit#tional beca#se it did not apportion a legislative

district for %hariff Eab#ns#an or reapportion the legislative

districts in *ag#indanao b#t merely renamed *ag#indanaos first

legislative district.o espondent @ilangalen f#rther claimed that the CO*$9$C

co#ld not reapportion *ag#indanaos first legislative district to

ma"e Cotabato City its sole component #nit as the poer to

reapportion legislative districts lies ecl#sively ith Congress,

not to mention that Cotabato City does not meet the minim#m

pop#lation re2#irement #nder %ection 5 73, Article +! of the

Constit#tion for the creation of a legislative district ithin a city.K(3L

- %ema filed a Consolidated eply

o controverting the matters raised in respondents Comments and

reiterating her claim that the CO*$9$C acted ultra vires iniss#ing esol#tion No. =10.

- the Co#rt re2#ired the parties in :.. No. (==51= to comment on the iss#e

of hether a province created by the A** egional Assembly #nder

%ection (1, Article +! of A 105/ is entitled to one representative in the

Do#se of epresentatives itho#t need of a national la creating alegislative district for s#ch ne province.- 'he parties s#bmitted their compliance as follos&

o 7( %ema ansered the iss#e in the affirmative on the folloing

gro#nds& 7a the Co#rt in :el5a v. SalasK(/L stated that hen a

province is created by stat#te, the corresponding representative

district comes into eistence neither by a#thority of that stat#te

hich cannot provide otherise nor by apportionment, b#t by

operation of the Constit#tion, itho#t a reapportionment 7b

%ection /6 of ep#blic Act No. =(60 7A =(60 affirms the

apportionment of a legislative district incident to the creation of a

province and 7c %ection 5 73, Article +! of the Constit#tion and

%ection 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constit#tion

mandate the apportionment of a legislative district in nely

created provinces.

o 7 'he CO*$9$C, again represented by the O%:, apparently

abandoned its earlier stance on the propriety of iss#ing

esol#tion Nos. 0=-0/0= and =10 and 4oined ca#ses ith

%ema, contending that %ection 5 73, Article +! of the

Constit#tion is self-eec#ting. 'h#s, every ne province created

by the A** egional Assembly is i(so factoentitled to one

representative in the Do#se of epresentatives even in the

absence of a national la and

o 73 espondent @ilangalen ansered the iss#e in the negative

on the folloing gro#nds& 7a the province contemplated in

%ection 5 73, Article +! of the Constit#tion is one that is created

by an act of Congress ta"ing into acco#nt the provisions in A

=(60 on the creation of provinces 7b %ection 3, Article !+ of A105/ ithheld from the A** egional Assembly the poer to

enact meas#res relating to national elections, hich

encompasses the apportionment of legislative districts for

members of the Do#se of epresentatives 7c recogni)ing a

legislative district in every province the A** egional

Assembly creates ill lead to the disproportionate representation

of the A** in the Do#se of epresentatives as the egional

Assembly can create provinces itho#t regard to the

re2#irements in %ection /6( of A =(60 and 7d Cotabato City,

hich has a pop#lation of less than 50,000, is not entitled to a

representative in the Do#se of epresentatives.

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

11/27

- the Co#rt heard the parties in :.. No. (==51= in oral arg#ments on the

folloing iss#es&o 7( hether %ection (1, Article +! of A 105/, delegating to the

A** egional Assembly the poer to create provinces, is

constit#tional ando 7 if in the affirmative, hether a province created #nder %ection

(1, Article +! of A 105/ is entitled to one representative in theDo#se of epresentatives itho#t need of a national la

creating a legislative district for s#ch ne province.K(5L

- the parties in :.. No. (==51= filed their respective *emoranda on the

iss#es raised in the oral arg#ments.o On the 2#estion of the constit#tionality of %ection (1, Article +! of

A 105/, the parties in :.. No. (==51= adopted the folloing

positions&o 7( %ema contended that %ection (1, Article +! of A 105/ is

constit#tional 7a as a valid delegation by Congress to the A**

of the poer to create provinces #nder %ection 0 71, Article ;

of the Constit#tion granting to the a#tonomo#s regions, thro#gh

their organic acts, legislative poers over other matters as may

be a#thori)ed by la for the promotion of the general elfare of

the people of the region and 7b as an amendment to %ection 6of A =(60.K(=L Doever, %ema concedes that, if ta"en literally,

the grant in %ection (1, Article +! of A 105/ to the A**

egional Assembly of the poer to prescribe standards loer

than those mandated in A =(60 in the creation of provinces

contravenes %ection (0, Article ; of the Constit#tion.K(8L 'h#s,

%ema proposed that %ection (1 sho#ld be constr#ed as

prohibiting the egional Assembly from prescribing standards

that do not comply ith the minim#m criteria #nder A =(60.K(1L

o 7 espondent @ilangalen contended that %ection (1, Article +!

of A 105/ is #nconstit#tional on the folloing gro#nds& 7a the

poer to create provinces as not among those granted to the

a#tonomo#s regions #nder %ection 0, Article ; of the

Constit#tion and 7b the grant #nder %ection (1, Article +! of A

105/ to the A** egional Assembly of the poer to prescribe

standards loer than those mandated in %ection /6( of A =(60

on the creation of provinces contravenes %ection (0, Article ; of

the Constit#tion and the $2#al Protection Cla#se and

o 73 'he CO*$9$C, thro#gh the O%:, 4oined ca#ses ith

respondent @ilangalen 7th#s effectively abandoning the position

the CO*$9$C adopted in its Compliance ith the esol#tion of

/ %eptember 00= and contended that %ection (1, Article +! of

A 105/ is #nconstit#tional beca#se 7a it contravenes %ection

(0 and %ection 6,K0LArticle ; of the Constit#tion and 7b the

poer to create provinces as ithheld from the a#tonomo#s

regions #nder %ection 0, Article ; of the Constit#tion.

- 'he pendency of the petition in :.. No. (=868 as disclosed d#ring theoral arg#ments on = November 00=.

- 'h#s, in the esol#tion of (1 >ebr#ary 008, the Co#rt ordered :.. No.

(=868 consolidated ith :.. No. (==51=.- 'he petition in :.. No. (=868 echoed %emas contention that the

CO*$9$C acted ultra viresin iss#ing esol#tion No. =10 depriving the

voters of Cotabato City of a representative in the Do#se of epresentatives.- !n its Comment to the petition in :.. No. (=868, the CO*$9$C, thro#gh

the O%:, maintained the validity of CO*$9$C esol#tion No. =10 as a

temporary meas#re pending the enactment by Congress of the appropriate

la.

ISSUE:

!. !n :.. No. (==51=&

7A Preliminarily

7( hether the rits of Certiorari, Prohibition, and *andam#s are proper to testthe constit#tionality of CO*$9$C esol#tion No. =10 and

7 hether the proclamation of respondent @ilangalen as representative of

%hariff Eab#ns#an Province ith Cotabato City mooted the petition in :.. No. (==51=.

7B On the merits

7( hether %ection (1, Article +! of A 105/, delegating to the A** egional

Assembly the poer to create provinces, cities, m#nicipalities and barangays, is

constit#tional and

7 if in the affirmative, hether a province created by the A** egional

Assembly #nder **A Act 0( p#rs#ant to %ection (1, Article +! of A 105/ is entitled to

one representative in the Do#se of epresentatives itho#t need of a national la creating

a legislative district for s#ch province.

!!. !n :. No. (==51= and :. No. (=868, hether CO*$9$C esol#tion No.

=10 is valid for maintaining the stat#s 2#o in the first legislative district of *ag#indanao 7as

%hariff Eab#ns#an Province ith Cotabato City Kformerly >irst @istrict of *ag#indanao ith

Cotabato CityL, despite the creation of the Province of %hariff Eab#ns#an o#t of s#ch

district 7ecl#ding Cotabato City.

RULING:

'he petitions have no merit. e r#le that 7( %ection (1, Article +! of A 105/ is

#nconstit#tional insofar as it grants to the A** egional Assembly the poer to create

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

12/27

provinces and cities 7 **A Act 0( creating the Province of %hariff Eab#ns#an is void

and 73 CO*$9$C esol#tion No. =10 is valid.

On the Preliminary Matters

The Writ of Prohibition is Appropriate

to Test the Constitutionality of

Election Laws, Rules and Reulations

'he p#rpose of the rit of Certiorari is to correct grave ab#se of discretion by any

trib#nal, board, or officer eercising 4#dicial or 2#asi-4#dicial f#nctions.K(LOn the other hand,

the rit of *andam#s ill iss#e to compel a trib#nal, corporation, board, officer, or person to

perform an act hich the la specifically en4oins as a d#ty.KL'r#e, the CO*$9$C did not

iss#e esol#tion No. =10 in the eercise of its 4#dicial or 2#asi-4#dicial f#nctions. K3LNor is

there a la hich specifically en4oins the CO*$9$C to ecl#de from canvassing the votes

cast in Cotabato City for representative of %hariff Eab#ns#an Province ith Cotabato City.

'hese, hoever, do not 4#stify the o#tright dismissal of the petition in :.. No. (==51=

beca#se %ema also prayed for the iss#ance of the rit of Prohibition and e have long

recogni)ed this rit as proper for testing the constit#tionality of election las, r#les, and

reg#lations.K/L

Respondent !ilanalens Proclamation

!oes "ot Moot the Petition

'here is also no merit in the claim that respondent @ilangalens proclamation as inner in

the (/ *ay 00= elections for representative of %hariff Eab#ns#an Province ithCotabato

City mooted this petition. 'his case does not concern respondent @ilangalens election.

ather, it involves an in2#iry into the validity of CO*$9$C esol#tion No. =10, as ell as

the constit#tionality of **A Act 0( and %ection (1, Article +! of A 105/. Admittedly, the

o#tcome of this petition, one ay or another, determines hether the votes cast in Cotabato

City for representative of the district of %hariff Eab#ns#an Province ith Cotabato City ill

be incl#ded in the canvassing of ballots. Doever, this incidental conse2#ence is no reason

for #s not to proceed ith the resol#tion of the novel iss#es raised here. 'he Co#rts r#ling in

these petitions affects not only the recently concl#ded elections b#t also all the other

s#cceeding elections for the office in 2#estion, as ell as the poer of the A** egional

Assembly to create in the f#t#re additional provinces.

On the Main #ssues

Whether the ARMM Reional Assembly

Can Create the Pro$ince of %hariff &abunsuan

'he creation of local government #nits is governed by %ection (0, Article ; of the

Constit#tion, hich provides&

%ec. (0. No province, city, m#nicipality, or barangay may

be created, divided, merged, abolished or its bo#ndary s#bstantially

altered ecept in accordance ith the criteria established in the local

government code and s#b4ect to approval by a ma4ority of the votescast in a plebiscite in the political #nits directly affected.

'h#s, the creation of any of the fo#r local government #nits province, city, m#nicipality or

barangay m#st comply ith three conditions. >irst, the creation of a local government #nit

m#st follo the criteria fied in the 9ocal :overnment Code. %econd, s#ch creation m#st not

conflict ith any provision of the Constit#tion. 'hird, there m#st be a plebiscite in the

political #nits affected.

'here is neither an epress prohibition nor an epress grant of a#thority in the Constit#tion

for Congress to delegate to regional or local legislative bodies the poer to create local

government #nits. Doever, #nder its plenary legislative poers, Congress can delegate to

local legislative bodies the poer to create local government #nits, s#b4ect to reasonablestandards and provided no conflict arises ith any provision of the Constit#tion. !n fact,

Congress has delegated to provincial boards, and city and m#nicipal co#ncils, the poer to

create barangays ithin their 4#risdiction,K5L s#b4ect to compliance ith the criteria

established in the 9ocal :overnment Code, and the plebiscite re2#irement in %ection (0,

Article ; of the Constit#tion. Doever, #nder the 9ocal :overnment Code, only an Act

of Congress can create provinces, cities or m#nicipalities.K6L

Gnder %ection (1, Article +! of A 105/, Congress delegated to the A** egional

Assembly the poer to create provinces, cities, m#nicipalities and barangays ithin the

A**. Congress made the delegation #nder its plenary legislative poers beca#se the

poer to create local government #nits is not one of the epress legislative poers granted

by the Constit#tion to regional legislative bodies. K=L!n the present case, the 2#estion arises

hether the delegation to the A** egional Assembly of the poer to create provinces,

cities, m#nicipalities and barangays conflicts ith any provision of the Constit#tion.

'here is no provision in the Constit#tion that conflicts ith the delegation to regional

legislative bodies of the poer to create m#nicipalities and barangays, provided %ection (0,

Article ; of the Constit#tion is folloed. Doever, the creation of provinces and cities is

another matter. %ection 5 73, Article +! of the Constit#tion provides, $ach city ith a

pop#lation of at least to h#ndred fifty tho#sand, or each province, shall have at least one

representative in the Do#se of epresentatives. %imilarly, %ection 3 of the Ordinance

appended to the Constit#tion provides, Any province that may hereafter be created, or any

city hose pop#lation may hereafter increase to more than to h#ndred fifty tho#sand shall

be entitled in the immediately folloing election to at least one *ember .

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

13/27

Clearly, a province cannot be created itho#t a legislative district beca#se it ill

violate %ection 5 73, Article +! of the Constit#tion as ell as %ection 3 of the Ordinance

appended to the Constit#tion. >or the same reason, a city ith a pop#lation of 50,000 or

more cannot also be created itho#t a legislative district. 'h#s, the poer to create a

province, or a city ith a pop#lation of 50,000 or more, re2#ires also the poer to create a

legislative district. $ven the creation of a city ith a pop#lation of less than 50,000 involvesthe poer to create a legislative district beca#se once the citys pop#lation reaches 50,000,

the city a#tomatically becomes entitled to one representative #nder %ection 5 73, Article +!

of the Constit#tion and %ection 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constit#tion. T/u, 0/

2o+ 0o 4+&0 & 2+o-'4 o+ 40y '/+'0ly '-ol- 0/ 2o+ 0o 4+&0 & ll&0-

(0+40.

>or Congress to delegate validly the poer to create a province or city, it m#st

also validly delegate at the same time the poer to create a legislative district. 'he

threshold iss#e then is, can Congress validly delegate to the A** egional Assembly the

poer to create legislative districts for the Do#se of epresentativesM 'he anser is in the

negative.

Leislati$e !istricts are Created or ReapportionedOnly by an Act of Conress

Gnder the present Constit#tion, as ell as in past K8LConstit#tions, the poer to

increase the alloable membership in the Do#se of epresentatives, and to reapportion

legislative districts, is vested ecl#sively in Congress. %ection 5, Article +! of the

Constit#tion provides&

%$C'!ON 5. 7( 'he Do#se of epresentatives shall be

composed o 'o0 o+ 0/&' 0o /u'(+( &'( 0y +,

u'l o0/+ :( y l&, ho shall be elected from legislative

districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the *etropolitan

*anila area in accordance ith the n#mber of their respective

inhabitants, and on the basis of a #niform and progressive ratio, and

those ho, as provided by la, shall be elected thro#gh a party-list

system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or

organi)ations.

73 $ach legislative district shall comprise, as far as

practicable, contig#o#s, compact, and ad4acent territory. $ach city ith

a pop#lation of at least to h#ndred fifty tho#sand, or each province,

shall have at least one representative.

7/ ithin three years folloing the ret#rn of every cens#s,

0/ Co'+ /&ll &; & +&22o+0o''0 o ll&0-

(0+40based on the standards provided in this section. 7$mphasis

s#pplied

%ection 5 7(, Article +! of the Constit#tion vests in Congress the poer to

increase, thro#gh a la, the alloable membership in the Do#se of epresentatives.

%ection 5 7/ empoers Congress to reapportion legislative districts. 'he poer to

reapportion legislative districts necessarily incl#des the poer to create legislative districts

o#t of eisting ones. Congress eercises these poers thro#gh a la that Congress itself

enacts, and not thro#gh a la that regional or local legislative bodies enact. 'he alloable

membership of the Do#se of epresentatives can be increased, and ne legislative districts

of Congress can be created, only thro#gh a national la passed by Congress. !n1onte8o v.

C91EEC,K1Le held that the poer of redistricting is traditionally regarded as part of

the poer 7of Congress to ma"e las, and th#s is vested ecl#sively in Congress.

'his tet#al commitment to Congress of the ecl#sive poer to create or

reapportion legislative districts is logical. Congress is a national legislat#re and any increasein its alloable membership or in its inc#mbent membership thro#gh the creation of

legislative districts m#st be embodied in a national la. Only Congress can enact s#ch a

la. !t o#ld be anomalo#s for regional or local legislative bodies to create or reapportion

legislative districts for a national legislat#re li"e Congress. An inferior legislative body,

created by a s#perior legislative body, cannot change the membership of the s#perior

legislative body.

'he creation of the A**, and the grant of legislative poers to its egional

Assembly #nder its organic act, did not divest Congress of its ecl#sive a#thority to create

legislative districts. 'his is clear from the Constit#tion and the A** Organic Act, as

amended. 'h#s, %ection 0, Article ; of the Constit#tion provides&

%$C'!ON 0. ithin its territorial 4#risdiction and s#b4ect tothe provisions of this Constit#tion and national las, the organic act of

a#tonomo#s regions shall provide for legislative poers over&

7( Administrative organi)ation

7 Creation of so#rces of reven#es

73 Ancestral domain and nat#ral reso#rces

7/ Personal, family, and property relations

75 egional #rban and r#ral planning development

76 $conomic, social, and to#rism development

7= $d#cational policies

78 Preservation and development of the c#lt#ral heritage

and

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

14/27

71 %#ch other matters as may be a#thori)ed by la for the

promotion of the general elfare of the people of the region.

No0/' ' !40o' *, A+04l X o 0/ Co'00u0o' &u0/o+3?, !40o' 5 o A+04l "I o 0/ Co'00u0o'. 'he n#mber of

*embers apportioned to the province o#t of hich s#ch ne province

as created or here the city, hose pop#lation has so increased, is

geographically located shall be correspondingly ad4#sted by the

Commission on $lections b#t s#ch ad4#stment shall not be made

ithin one h#ndred and tenty days before the election. 7$mphasis

s#pplied

serve as bases for the concl#sion that the Province of %hariff Eab#ns#an, created on 1

October 006, is a#tomatically entitled to one member in the Do#se of epresentatives in

the (/ *ay 00= elections. As f#rther s#pport for her stance, petitioner invo"es the

statement in :el5a that hen a province is created by stat#te, the corresponding

representative district comes into eistence neither by a#thority of that stat#te hich cannot

provide otherise nor by apportionment, b#t by operation of the Constit#tion, itho#t a

reapportionment.

'he contention has no merit.

:irst. 'he iss#e in :el5a, among others, as hether ep#blic Act No. /615 7A /615,

creating the provinces of Beng#et, *o#ntain Province, !f#gao, and Ealinga-Apayao and

providing for congressional representation in the old and ne provinces, as

#nconstit#tional for creatiKngL congressional districts itho#t the apportionment provided in

the Constit#tion. 'he Co#rt ansered in the negative, th#s&

'he Constit#tion ordains&

'he Do#se of epresentatives shall be

composed of not more than one h#ndred and

tenty *embers ho shall be apportioned

among the several provinces as nearly as may

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

15/27

be according to the n#mber of their respective

inhabitants, b#t each province shall have at least

one *ember. 'he Congress shall by la ma"e

an apportionment ithin three years after the

ret#rn of every en#meration, and not otherise.

Gntil s#ch apportionment shall have been made,

the Do#se of epresentatives shall have the

same n#mber of *embers as that fied by la

for the National Assembly, ho shall be elected

by the 2#alified electors from the present

Assembly districts. $ach representative district

shall comprise as far as practicable, contig#o#s

and compact territory.

Pu+u&'0 0o 0/ !40o', & +2+'0&0- (0+40 &y 4o '0o

:0'4= >&? '(+40ly, 0/+ou/ 0/ 4+&0o' o & 2+o-'4 o+

&4/ 2+o-'4 /&ll /&- &0 l&0 o' + ' 0/ Hou o

R2+'0&0- o+ >? y (+40 4+&0o' o -+&l

+2+'0&0- (0+40 0/' & 2+o-'4. 'he re2#irements

concerning the apportionment of representative districts and the

territory thereof refer only to the second method of creation of

representative districts, and do not apply to those incidental to the

creation of provinces, #nder the first method. 'his is ded#cible, notonly from the general tenor of the provision above 2#oted, b#t, also,

from the fact that the apportionment therein all#ded to refers to that

hich is made by an Act of Congress. I'((, /' & 2+o-'4

4+&0( y 0&0u0, 0/ 4o++2o'(' +2+'0&0- (0+40,

4o '0o :0'4 '0/+ y &u0/o+0y o 0/&0 0&0u0 /4/

4&''o0 2+o-( o0/+ 'o+ y &22o+0o''0, u0 y o2+&0o'

o 0/ Co'00u0o', 0/ou0 & +&22o+0o''0.

'here is no constit#tional limitation as to the time hen, territory of, or

other conditions #nder hich a province may be created, ecept,

perhaps, if the conse2#ence thereof ere to eceed the maim#m of

(0 representative districts prescribed in the Constit#tion, hich is not

the effect of the legislation #nder consideration. As a matter of fact,

provinces have been created or s#bdivided into other provinces, ith

the conse2#ent creation of additional representative districts, itho#tcomplying ith the aforementioned re2#irements.K3L 7$mphasis

s#pplied

'h#s, the Co#rt s#stained the constit#tionality of A /615 beca#se 7( it validly created

legislative districts indirectly 0/+ou/ & 24&l l& '&40( y Co'+ 4+&0' &

2+o-'4 and 7 the creation of the legislative districts ill not res#lt in breaching the

maim#m n#mber of legislative districtsprovided #nder the (135 Constit#tion. :el5a does

not apply to the present case beca#se in :el5athe ne provinces ere created by a

'&0o'&l l& '&40( y Co'+ 0l. Dere, the ne province as created merely by

a+o'&l l& '&40( y 0/ ARMM Ro'&l Aly.

hat :el5a teaches is that the creation of a legislative district by Congress does

not emanate alone from Congress poer to reapportion legislative districts, b#t also from

Congress poer to create provinces hich cannot be created itho#t a legislative district.

'h#s, hen a province is created, a legislative district is created y o2+&0o' o 0/

Co'00u0o' 4&u 0/ Co'00u0o' 2+o-( 0/&0 &4/ 2+o-'4 /&ll /&- &0 l&0

o' +2+'0&0- in the Do#se of epresentatives. 'his does not detract from theconstit#tional principle that the poer to create legislative districts belongs ecl#sively to

Congress. !t merely prevents any other legislative body, ecept Congress, from creating

provinces beca#se for a legislative body to create a province s#ch legislative body m#st

have the poer to create legislative districts. !n short, only an act of Congress can trigger

the creation of a legislative district by operation of the Constit#tion. 'h#s, only Congress has

the poer to create, or trigger the creation of, a legislative district.

*oreover, if as %ema claims **A Act 0( apportioned a legislative district to

%hariff Eab#ns#an #pon its creation, this ill leave Cotabato City as the lone component of

the first legislative district of *ag#indanao. Doever, Cotabato City cannot constit#te a

legislative district by itself beca#se as of the cens#s ta"en in 000, it had a pop#lation of

only (63,8/1. 'o constit#te Cotabato City alone as the s#rviving first legislative district of

*ag#indanao ill violate %ection 5 73, Article +! of the Constit#tion hich re2#ires that

K$Lach city ith a pop#lation of at least to h#ndred fifty tho#sand , shall have at leastone representative.

Second. %emas theory also #ndermines the composition and independence of

the Do#se of epresentatives. Gnder %ection (1, K33LArticle +! of A 105/, the A**

egional Assembly can create provinces and cities ithin the A** 0/ o+ 0/ou0

regard to the criteria fied in %ection /6( of A =(60, namely& minim#m ann#al income of

P0,000,000, and minim#m contig#o#s territory of ,000 s2#are "ilometers or minim#m

pop#lation of 50,000.K3/L'he folloing scenarios th#s become distinct possibilities&

7( An inferior legislative body li"e the A** egional

Assembly can create (00 or more provinces and th#s increase the

membership of a s#perior legislative body, the Do#se of

epresentatives, beyond the maim#m limit of 50 fied in theConstit#tion 7#nless a national la provides otherise

7 'he proportional representation in the Do#se of

epresentatives based on one representative for at least every

50,000 residents ill be negated beca#se the A** egional

Assembly need not comply ith the re2#irement in %ection /6(7a7ii

of A =(60 that every province created m#st have a pop#lation of at

least 50,000 and

73 epresentatives from the A** provinces can become

the ma4ority in the Do#se of epresentatives thro#gh the A**

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

16/27

egional Assemblys contin#o#s creation of provinces or cities ithin

the A**.

'he folloing echange d#ring the oral arg#ments of the petition in :.. No.

(==51= highlights the abs#rdity of %emas position that the A** egional Assembly can

create provinces&

?#stice Carpio&

%o, yo# mean to say KaL 9ocal :overnment can create

legislative districtKsL and pac" Congress ith their on

representatives KML

Atty. +istan !!&K35L

Fes, Fo#r Donor, beca#se the Constit#tion allos that.

?#stice Carpio&

%o, KtheL egional Assembly of KtheL A** can create and

create provinces and, therefore, they can have

thirty-five 735 ne representatives in the Do#se of

epresentatives itho#t Congress agreeing to it, is that

hat yo# are sayingM 'hat can be done, #nder yo#r

theoryKML

Atty. +istan !!&

Fes, Fo#r Donor, #nder the correct fact#al circ#mstances.

?#stice Carpio&

Gnder yo#r theory, the A** legislat#re can create thirty-

five 735 ne provinces, there may be KonlyL one

h#ndred tho#sand 7(00,000 Kpop#lationL, , and theyill each have one representative to Congress itho#t

any national la, is that hat yo# are sayingM

Atty. +istan !!&

itho#t la passed by Congress, yes, Fo#r Donor, that is

hat e are saying.

?#stice Carpio&

!o, 0/y 4&' &lo 4+&0 o' 0/ou&'( >1***? '

2+o-'4, '@( o' 0/ou&'( >1***? +2+'0&0-

0o 0/ Hou o R2+'0&0- 0/ou0 & '&0o'&l

l&@, 0/&0 l&lly 2ol, 4o++40D

Atty. +istan !!&

#, #ou+ Ho'o+.K36L7$mphasis s#pplied

Neither the framers of the (18= Constit#tion in adopting the provisions in Article

; on regional a#tonomy,K3=Lnor Congress in enacting A 105/, envisioned or intended these

disastro#s conse2#ences that certainly o#ld rec" the tri-branch system of government

#nder o#r Constit#tion. Clearly, the poer to create or reapportion legislative districts cannot

be delegated by Congress b#t m#st be eercised by Congress itself. $ven the A**

egional Assembly recogni)es this.

'he Constit#tion empoered Congress to create or reapportion legislative districts, not the

regional assemblies. %ection 3 of the Ordinance to the Constit#tion hich states, KALny

province that may hereafter be created shall be entitled in the immediately folloing

election to at least one *ember, refers to a province created by Congress itself thro#gh a

national la. 'he reason is that the creation of a province increases the act#al membership

of the Do#se of epresentatives, an increase that only Congress can decide.!ncidentally, in

the present (/thCongress, there are (1 K38Ldistrict representatives o#t of the maim#m 50

seats in the Do#se of epresentatives. %ince party-list members shall constit#te 0 percent

of total membership of the Do#se, there sho#ld at least be 50 party-list seats available in

every election in case 50 party-list candidates are proclaimed inners. 'his leaves only 00

seats for district representatives, m#ch less than the (1 inc#mbent district representatives.

'h#s, there is a need no for Congress to increase by la the alloable membership of the

Do#se, even before Congress can create ne provinces.

!t is aiomatic that organic acts of a#tonomo#s regions cannot prevail over the Constit#tion.

%ection 0, Article ; of the Constit#tion epressly provides that the legislative poers ofregional assemblies are limited @0/' 0 0++0o+&l Bu+(40o' &'( uB40 0o 0/

2+o-o' o 0/ Co'00u0o' &'( '&0o'&l l&, . 'he Preamble of the A**

Organic Act 7A 105/ itself states that the A** :overnment is established ithin the

frameor" of the Constit#tion. 'his follos %ection (5, Article ; of the Constit#tion hich

mandates that the A** /&ll 4+&0( 0/' 0/ +&o+; o 0/

Co'00u0o' &'( 0/ '&0o'&l o-+'0y & ll & 0++0o+&l '0+0y o 0/

R2ul4 o 0/ P/l22'.

'he present case involves the creation of a local government #nit that

necessarily involves also the creation of a legislative district. 'he Co#rt ill not pass #pon

the constit#tionality of the creation of m#nicipalities and barangays that does not comply

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

17/27

ith the criteria established in %ection /6( of A =(60, as mandated in %ection (0, Article ;

of the Constit#tion, beca#se the creation of s#ch m#nicipalities and barangays does not

involve the creation of legislative districts. e leave the resol#tion of this iss#e to an

appropriate case.

!n s#mmary, e r#le that %ection (1, Article +! of A 105/, insofar as it grants to the A**

egional Assembly the poer to create provinces and cities, is void for being contrary to%ection 5 of Article +! and %ection 0 of Article ; of the Constit#tion, as ell as %ection 3 of

the Ordinance appended to the Constit#tion. Only Congress can create provinces and cities

beca#se the creation of provinces and cities necessarily incl#des the creation of legislative

districts, a poer only Congress can eercise #nder %ection 5, Article +! of the Constit#tion

and %ection 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constit#tion. 'he A** egional

Assembly cannot create a province itho#t a legislative district beca#se the Constit#tion

mandates that every province shall have a legislative district. *oreover, the A** egional

Assembly cannot enact a la creating a national office li"e the office of a district

representative of Congress beca#se the legislative poers of the A** egional Assembly

operate only ithin its territorial 4#risdiction as provided in %ection 0, Article ; of the

Constit#tion. 'h#s, e r#le that **A Act 0(, enacted by the A** egional Assembly

and creating the Province of %hariff Eab#ns#an, is void.

Resolution "o' ()*+ Complies with the Constitution

Conse2#ently, e hold that CO*$9$C esol#tion No. =10, preserving the

geographic and legislative district of the >irst @istrict of *ag#indanao ith Cotabato City, is

valid as it merely complies ith %ection 5 of Article +! and %ection 0 of Article ; of the

Constit#tion, as ell as %ection ( of the Ordinance appended to the Constit#tion.

HEREFORE, e declare %ection (1, Article +! of ep#blic Act No. 105/

UNCON!TITUTIONAL insofar as it grants to the egional Assembly of the A#tonomo#s

egion in *#slim *indanao the poer to create provinces and cities. 'h#s, e declare

"OI *#slim *indanao A#tonomy Act No. 0( creating the Province of %hariff

Eab#ns#an.Conse2#ently, e r#le that CO*$9$C esol#tion No. =10 is "ALI.

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

18/27

G.R. No. 176951 4+ 1, **9

LEAGUE OF CITIE! OF THE PHILIPPINE! >LCP? vs.

COMMI!!ION ON ELECTION!

G.R. No. 17799 4+ 1, **9

LEAGUE OF CITIE! OF THE PHILIPPINE! >LCP vs.

COMMI!!ION ON ELECTION!

G.R. No. 178*56 4+ 1, **9

LEAGUE OF CITIE! OF THE PHILIPPINE! >LCP vs.PRO"INCE OF AGU!AN EL NORTE

FACTS:

- 'he consolidated petitions for prohibition commenced by the 9eag#e of

Cities of the Philippines 79CP, City of !loilo, City of Calbayog, and ?erry P.

'reaso assail the constit#tionality of the siteen 7(6 las,1 each

converting the m#nicipality covered thereby into a city 7cityhood

las, hereinafter and see" to en4oin the Commission on

$lections 7CO*$9$C from cond#cting plebiscites p#rs#ant to

s#b4ect las.

- the Co#rt en banc, by a 6-5 vote, granted the petitions and n#llified the

siteen 7(6 cityhood las for being violative of the Constit#tion, specifically

its %ection (0, Article ; and the e2#al protection cla#se.- respondent local government #nits 79:Gs moved for reconsideration,

o raising, as one of the iss#es, the validity of the fact#al premises

not contained in the pleadings of the parties, let alone

established, hich became the bases of the @ecision s#b4ect of

reconsideration.((- By esol#tion of *arch 3(, 001, a divided Co#rt denied the motion for

reconsideration.- A second motion for reconsideration folloed in hich respondent 9:Gs

prayed as follos&o D$$>O$, respondents respectf#lly pray that the Donorable

Co#rt reconsider its esol#tion dated *arch 3(, 001, in so far

as it denies for lac" of merit respondents *otion for

econsideration dated @ecember 1, 008 and in lie# thereof,

considering that ne and meritorio#s arg#ments are raised by

respondents *otion for econsideration dated @ecember 1,

008 to grant afore-mentioned *otion for econsideration

dated @ecember 1, 008 and dismiss the Petitions >or

Prohibition in the instant case.-

Per Rolu0o' dated A2+l 8, **9, the Co#rt, voting 6-6, disposed of themotion as follos&o By a vote of 6-6, the *otion for econsideration of the

esol#tion of 3( *arch 001 is @$N!$@ for lac" of merit. 'he

motion is denied since there is no ma4ority that voted to overt#rn

the esol#tion of 3( *arch 001.

- 'he %econd *otion for econsideration of the @ecision of (8 November

008 is @$N!$@ for being a prohibited pleading, and the *otion for 9eave

to Admit Attached Petition in !ntervention filed by co#nsel for 9#divina

'. *as, et al. are also @$N!$@.

- No f#rther pleadings shall be entertained. 9et entry of 4#dgment be made in

d#e co#rse.- On M&y 1, **9, respondent 9:Gs filed a 1otion to 3mend the

Resolution of 3(ril !", !00& by ;eclarin Second 1otion for

Reconsideration of the ;ecision ;ated ?ovember 2", !00"= Remain

@nresolved and to Conduct :urther Proceedins )hereon.

- the Co#rt declared the *ay (/, 001 motion adverted to as ep#nged in

light of the entry of 4#dgment made on *ay (, 001.

- ?#stice 9eonardo-@e Castro, hoever, ta"ing common ca#se ith ?#stice

- Bersamin to grant the motion for reconsideration of the April 8, 001

esol#tion and to recall the entry of 4#dgment, stated the observation, and

ith reason, that the entry as effected before the Co#rt co#ld act on the

aforesaid motion hich as filed ithin the (5-day period co#nted from

receipt of the April 8, 001 esol#tion.

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

19/27

- >orthith, respondent 9:Gs filed a 1otion for Reconsideration of the

Resolution of une !, !00& to hich some of the petitioners and petitioners-

in-intervention filed their respective comments.- 'he Co#rt ill no r#le on this incident. B#t first, e set and #nderscore

some basic premises&o 7( 'he initial motion to reconsider the November (8, 008

@ecision, as ?#stice 9eonardo-@e Castro noted, indeed raisedne and s#bstantial iss#es, incl#sive of the matter of the

correctness of the fact#al premises #pon hich the said decision

as predicated. 'he 6-6 vote on the motion for reconsideration

per the esol#tion of *arch 3(, 001, hich denied the motion

on the sole gro#nd that the basic iss#es have already been

passed #pon reflected a divided Co#rt on the iss#e of hether

or not the #nderlying @ecision of November (8, 008 had indeed

passed #pon the basic iss#es raised in the motion for

reconsideration of the said decisiono 7 'he aforesaid *ay (/, 001 *otion to Amend esol#tion of

April 8, 001 as precipitated by the tie vote hich served as

basis for the iss#ance of said resol#tion. 'his *ay (/, 001

motionhich mainly arg#ed that a tie vote is inade2#ate to

declare a la #nconstit#tional remains #nresolved ando 73 P#rs#ant to %ec. /7, Art. +!!! of the Constit#tion, all cases

involving the constit#tionality of a la shall be heard by the Co#rt

en banc and decided ith the conc#rrence of a ma4ority of the

*embers ho act#ally too" part in the deliberations on the

iss#es in the case and voted thereon.

ISSUE:

hether or not the re2#ired vote set forth in the aforesaid %ec. /7, Art. +!!! is limited only to

the initial vote on the petition or also to the s#bse2#ent voting on the motion for

reconsideration here the Co#rt is called #pon and act#ally votes on the constit#tionality of

a la or li"e iss#ances.

Or, as applied to this case, o#ld a min#te resol#tion dismissing, on a tie vote, a motion for

reconsideration on the sole stated gro#ndthat the basic iss#es have already been

passed s#ffice to h#rdle the voting re2#irement re2#ired for a declaration of the

#nconstit#tionality of the cityhood las in 2#estionM

RULING:

I

'he 6-6 vote on the motion to reconsider the esol#tion of *arch 3(, 001, hich denied

the initial motion on the sole gro#nd that the basic iss#es had already been passed #pon

betrayed an evenly divided Co#rt on the iss#e of hether or not the #nderlying @ecision of

November (8, 008 had indeed passed #pon the iss#es raised in the motion for

reconsideration of the said decision. B#t at the end of the day, the single iss#e that matters

and the vote that really co#nts really t#rn on the constit#tionality of the cityhood las. And

be it remembered that the inconcl#sive 6-6 tie vote reflected in the April 8, 001 esol#tion

as the last vote on the iss#e of hether or not the cityhood las infringe the Constit#tion.

Accordingly, the motions of the respondent 9:Gs, in light of the 6-6 vote, sho#ld be

deliberated ane #ntil the re2#ired conc#rrence on the iss#e of the validity or invalidity of

the las in 2#estion is, on the merits, sec#red.

!t o#ght to be clear that a deadloc"ed vote does not reflect the ma4ority of the *embers

contemplated in %ec. / 7 of Art. +!!! of the Constit#tion, hich re2#ires that&

All cases involving the constit#tionality of a treaty, international or eec#tive agreement, or

la shall be heard by the %#preme Co#rt en banc, shall be decided ith the

4o'4u++'4 o & &Bo+0yof the *embers ho act#ally too" part in the deliberations on

the iss#es in the case and voted thereon. 7$mphasis added.

ebster defines ma4ority as a n#mber greater than half of a total.(3!n plain lang#age,

this means 50Q pl#s one. !n ambino v. Commission on Elections, ?#stice, no Chief

?#stice, P#no, in a separate opinion, epressed the vie that a deadloc"ed vote of si 76 is

not a ma4ority and a non-ma4ority cannot rite a r#le ith precedential val#e.(/

As may be noted, the afore2#oted %ec. / of Art. +!!!, as co#ched, eacts a ma4ority vote in

the determination of a case involving the constit#tionality of a stat#te, itho#t disting#ishing

hether s#ch determination is made on the main petition or thereafter on a motion for

reconsideration. 'his is as it sho#ld be, for, to borro from the late ?#stice icardo ?.

>rancisco& K$Lven ass#ming that the constit#tional re2#irement on the

conc#rrence of the Rma4ority as initially reached in the ponencia, the same is

inconcl#sive as it as still open for revie by ay of a motion for reconsideration.(5

'o be s#re, the Co#rt has ta"en stoc" of the r#le on a tie-vote sit#ation, i.e., %ec. =, #le 56

and the complementary A.*. No. 11-(-01- %C, respectively, providing that&

%$C. =. Procedure if o(inion is equally divided. here the co#rt en banc is e2#ally divided

in opinion, or the necessary ma4ority cannot be had, the case shall again be deliberated on,and if after s#ch deliberation no decision is reached, the original action commenced in the

co#rt shall be dismissed in appealed cases, the 4#dgment or order appealed from shall

stand affirmed and on all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.

A.M. No. 99)1)*9)!C A motion for reconsideration of a decision or resol#tion of the

Co#rt En Aancor of a @ivision may be granted #pon a vote of a ma4ority of the En Aancor

of a @ivision, as the case may be, ho act#ally too" part in the deliberation of the motion.

!f the voting res#lts in a tie, the motion for reconsideration is deemed denied.

B#t since the instant cases fall #nder %ec. / 7, Art. +!!! of the Constit#tion, the afore2#oted

provisions o#ght to be applied in con4#nction ith the prescription of the Constit#tion that

the cases shall be decided ith the conc#rrence of a ma4ority of the *embers ho act#ally

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

20/27

too" part in the deliberations on the iss#es in the instant cases and voted thereon. 'o

repeat, the last vote on the iss#e of the constit#tionality of the cityhood bills is that reflected

in the April 8, 001 esol#tiona 6-6 deadloc".

On the post#late then that first, the finality of the November (8, 008 @ecision has yet to set

in, the iss#ance of the precipitate(6 entry of 4#dgment notithstanding, and second, the

deadloc"ed vote on the second motion for reconsideration did not definitely settle the

constit#tionality of the cityhood las, the Co#rt is inclined to ta"e another hard loo" at the

#nderlying decision. itho#t belaboring in their smallest details the arg#ments for and

against the proced#ral dimension of this disposition, it bears to stress that the Co#rt has the

poer to s#spend its on r#les hen the ends of 4#stice o#ld be served thereby. (=!n the

performance of their d#ties, co#rts sho#ld not be shac"led by stringent r#les hich o#ld

res#lt in manifest in4#stice. #les of proced#re are only tools crafted to facilitate the

attainment of 4#stice. 'heir strict and rigid application m#st be escheed, if they res#lt in

technicalities that tend to fr#strate rather than promote s#bstantial 4#stice. %#bstantial rights

m#st not be pre4#diced by a rigid and technical application of the r#les in the altar of

epediency. hen a case is impressed ith p#blic interest, a relaation of the application of

the r#les is in order.(8'ime and again, this Co#rt has s#spended its on r#les or ecepted a

partic#lar case from their operation henever the higher interests of 4#stice so re2#ire.(1

hile perhaps not on all fo#rs ith the case, beca#se it involved a p#rely b#siness

transaction, hat the Co#rt said in Chuidian v. Sandianbayan0is most apropos&

'o reiterate hat the Co#rt has said in Ginete vs. Court of 3((ealsand other cases, the

r#les of proced#re sho#ld be vieed as mere instr#ments designed to facilitate the

attainment of 4#stice. 'hey are not to be applied ith severity and rigidity hen s#ch

application o#ld clearly defeat the very rationale for their conception and eistence. $ven

the #les of Co#rt reflects this principle. 'he poer to s#spend or even disregard r#les,

incl#sive of the one-motion r#le, can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that

hich this Co#rt has already declared to be final. 'he pec#liarities of this case impel #s to

do so no.

'he Co#rt, by a vote of 6-/, grants the respondent 9:Gs motion for reconsideration of the

esol#tion of ?#ne , 001, as ell as their *ay (/, 001 motion to consider the second

motion for reconsideration of the November (8, 008 @ecision #nresolved, and also grants

said second motion for reconsideration.

IITHI! $RING! U! TO THE !U$!TANTI"E A!PECT OF THE CA!E.

T/ U'(2u0( F&40u&l A'04('0 ' $+

- @#ring the ((th Congress,(o fifty-seven 75= cityhood bills ere filed before the Do#se of

epresentatives.o Of the fifty-seven 75=, thirty-three 733 event#ally became las.

'he tenty-fo#r 7/ other bills ere not acted #pon.- 9ater developments sa the introd#ction in the %enate of %enate Bill 7%.

Bill No. (5=3

o to amend %ec. /50 of ep#blic Act No. 7A =(60, otherise

"non as the 9ocal :overnment Code 79:C of (11(.- 'he proposed amendment so#ght to increase the income re2#irement to

2#alify for conversion into a city from PhP 0 million average ann#al income

to PhP (00 million locally generated income.- !n *arch 00(, %. Bill No. (5= as signed into la as A 1001 to ta"e

effect on ?#ne 30, 00(.

- As th#s amended by A 1001, %ec. /50 of the 9:C of (11( no providesthat

o KaL m#nicipality may be converted into a component city if

it has a KcertifiedL locally generated average ann#al income

of at least KPhP (00 millionL for the last to 7 consec#tive years

based on 000 constant prices.- After the effectivity of A 1001, the 9oer Do#se of the (th Congress

adopted in ?#ly 00( Do#se 7D. ?oint esol#tion No. 1 /hich, as its title

indicated,o so#ght to eempt from the income re2#irement prescribed in A

1001 the / m#nicipalities hose conversions into cities ere

not acted #pon d#ring the previo#s Congress. 'he (th

Congress ended itho#t the %enate approving D. ?oint

esol#tion No. 1.- 'hen came the (3th Congress 7?#ly 00/ to ?#ne 00=, hich sa the

Do#se of epresentatives re-adopting D. ?oint esol#tion No. 1 as D.

?oint esol#tion No. ( and forarding it to the %enate for approval.- 'he %enate, hoever, again failed to approve the 4oint resol#tion.- @#ring the %enate session held on November 6, 006, %enator A2#ilino

Pimentel, ?r.o asserted that passing D. esol#tion No. ( o#ld, in net effect,

allo a holesale eemption from the income re2#irement

imposed #nder A 1001 on the m#nicipalities.- >or this reason, he s#ggested the filing by the Do#se of epresentatives of

individ#al bills to pave the ay for the m#nicipalities to become cities and

then forarding them to the %enate for proper action.5

- Deeding the advice, siteen 7(6 m#nicipalities filed, thro#gh their

respective sponsors, individ#al cityhood bills. Common to all (6 meas#res

as a provision eempting the m#nicipality covered from the PhP (00

million income re2#irement.- As of ?#ne =, 00=, both Do#ses of Congress had approved the individ#al

cityhood bills, all of hich event#ally lapsed into la on vario#s dates. $ach

cityhood la directs the CO*$9$C, ithin thirty 730 days from its approval,

to hold a plebiscite to determine hether the voters approve of the

conversion.- As earlier stated, the instant petitions

o see" to declare the cityhood las #nconstit#tional for violation of

%ec. (0, Art. ; of the Constit#tion, as ell as for violation of the

e2#al-protection cla#se.o 'he holesale conversion of m#nicipalities into cities, the

petitioners bemoan, ill red#ce the share of eisting cities in the

!nternal even#e Allotment 7!A, since more cities ill parta"e

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

21/27

of the internal reven#e set aside for all cities #nder %ec. 85 of

the 9:C of (11(.6

- Petitioners-in-intervention, 9PC members themselves, o#ld later see"

leave and be alloed to intervene.- Aside from their basic plea to stri"e don as #nconstit#tional the cityhood

las in 2#estion, petitioners and petitioners-in-interventiono collectively pray that an order iss#e en4oining the CO*$9$C

from cond#cting plebiscites in the affected areas.o An alternative prayer o#ld #rge the Co#rt to restrain the poll

body from proclaiming the plebiscite res#lts.- On ?#ly /, 00=, the Co#rt en bancresolved to consolidate the petitions

and the petitions-in-intervention. On *arch ((, 008, it heard the parties in

oral arg#ments.

T/ Iu

!n the main, the iss#es to hich all others m#st yield pivot on hether or not the cityhood

las violate 7( %ec. (0. Art. ; of the Constit#tion and 7 the e2#al protection cla#se.

!n the November (8, 008 @ecision granting the petitions, ?#stice Antonio '. Carpio, for the

Co#rt, resolved the tin posers in the affirmative and accordingly declared the cityhood las

#nconstit#tional, deviating as they do from the #niform and non-discriminatory income

criterion prescribed by the 9:C of (11(. !n so doing, the ponencia veritably agreed ith the

petitioners that the Constit#tion, in clear and #nambig#o#s lang#age, re2#ires that all thecriteria for the creation of a city shall be embodied and ritten in the 9:C, and not in any

other la.

T/ Rul'

After a circ#mspect reflection, the Co#rt is disposed to reconsider.

Petitioners threshold post#re, characteri)ed by a strained interpretation of the Constit#tion,

if accorded cogency, o#ld veritably c#rtail and cripple Congress valid eercise of its

a#thority to create political s#bdivisions.

By constit#tional design=and as a matter of long-established principle, the poer to create

political s#bdivisions or 9:Gs is essentially legislative in character.8B#t even itho#t any

constit#tional grant, Congress can, by la, create, divide, merge, or altogether abolish or

alter the bo#ndaries of a province, city, or m#nicipality. e said as m#ch in the fairly recent

case, Sema v. C

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

22/27

s#bstantial alteration of bo#ndaries s#b4ect to approval by a ma4ority of the votes cast in a

plebiscite in the political #nits directly affected.33 7$mphasis added.

!t remains to be observed at this 4#nct#re that hen the (18= Constit#tion spea"s of the

9:C, the reference cannot be to any specific stat#te or codification of las, let alone the

9:C of (11(.3/Be it noted that at the time of the adoption of the (18= Constit#tion, Batas

Pambansa Blg. 7BP 33=, the then 9:C, as still in effect. Accordingly, had the framers of

the (18= Constit#tion intended to isolate the embodiment of the criteria only in the 9:C,

then they o#ld have act#ally referred to BP 33=. Also, they o#ld then not have provided

for the enactment by Congress of a ne 9:C, as they did in Art. ;, %ec. 3 35 of the

Constit#tion.

Consistent ith its plenary legislative poer on the matter, Congress can, via either a

consolidated set of las or a m#ch simpler, single-s#b4ect enactment, impose the said

verifiable criteria of viability. 'hese criteria need not be embodied in the local government

code, albeit this code is the ideal repository to ens#re, as m#ch as possible, the element of

#niformity. Congress can even, after ma"ing a codification, enact an amendatory la,

adding to the eisting layers of indicators earlier codified, 4#st as efficacio#sly as it may

red#ce the same. !n this case, the amendatory A 1001 #pped the already codified income

re2#irement from PhP 0 million to PhP (00 million. At the end of the day, the passage of

amendatory las is no different from the enactment of las, i.e., the cityhood las

specifically eempting a partic#lar political s#bdivision from the criteria earlier mentioned.Congress, in enacting the eempting laIs, effectively decreased the already codified

indicators.

Petitioners theory that Congress m#st provide the criteria solely in the 9:C and not in any

other la stri"es the Co#rt as illogical. >or if e p#rs#e their contention to its logical

concl#sion, then A 1001 embodying the ne and increased income criterion o#ld, in a

ay, also s#ffer the vice of #nconstit#tionality. !t is startling, hoever, that petitioners do not

2#estion the constit#tionality of A 1001, as they in fact #se said la as an arg#ment for the

alleged #nconstit#tionality of the cityhood las.

As it ere, Congress, thro#gh the medi#m of the cityhood las, validly decreased the

income criterion vis-S-vis the respondent 9:Gs, b#t itho#t necessarily being #nreasonably

discriminatory, as shall be disc#ssed shortly, by reverting to the PhP 0 million threshold

hat it earlier raised to PhP (00 million. 'he legislative intent not to s#b4ect respondent9:Gs to the more stringent re2#irements of A 1001 finds epression in the folloing

#niform provision of the cityhood las&

$emption from ep#blic Act No. 1001. 'he City of shall be eempted from the

income re2#irement prescribed #nder ep#blic Act No. 1001.

!n any event, petitioners constit#tional ob4ection o#ld still be #ntenable even if e ere to

ass#me p#rely e hypothesi the correctness of their #nderlying thesis, vi)& that the

conversion of a m#nicipality to a city shall be in accordance ith, among other things, the

income criterion set forth in the 9:C of (11(, and in no other otherise, the conversion is

invalid. e shall eplain.

9oo"ing at the circ#mstances behind the enactment of the las s#b4ect of contention, the

Co#rt finds that the 9:C-amending A 1001, no less, intended the 9:Gs covered by the

cityhood las to be eempt from the PhP (00 million income criterion. !n other ords, the

cityhood las, hich merely carried o#t the intent of A 1001, adhered, in the final analysis,

to the criteria established in the 9ocal :overnment Code, p#rs#ant to %ec. (0, Art. ; of the

(18= Constit#tion. e shall no proceed to disc#ss this eemption angle. 36

Among the criteria established in the 9:C p#rs#ant to %ec.(0, Art. ; of the (18=

Constit#tion are those detailed in %ec. /50 of the 9:C of (11( #nder the heading

Requisites for Creation. 'he section sets the minim#m income 2#alifying bar before a

m#nicipality or a cl#ster of barangays may be considered for cityhood. Originally, %ec. (6/

of BP 33= imposed an average reg#lar ann#al income of at least ten million pesos for the

last three consec#tive years as a minim#m income standard for a m#nicipal-to-city

conversion. 'he 9:C that BP 33= established as s#perseded by the 9:C of (11( hose

then %ec. /50 provided that KaL m#nicipality or cl#ster of baranaysmay be converted into

a component city if it has an average ann#al income, of at least tenty million pesos

7P0,000,000.00 for at least to 7 consec#tive years based on (11( constant prices

. A 1001 in t#rn amended said %ec. /50 by f#rther increasing the income re2#irement to

PhP (00 million, th#s&

%ection /50. e2#isites for Creation. 7a A m#nicipality or a cl#ster of baranaysmay be

converted into a component city if it has a locally generated average ann#al income, ascertified by the @epartment of >inance, of at least O' Hu'(+( Mllo' Po

>P1**,***,***.**? o+ 0/ l&0 0o >? 4o'4u0- y&+ based on 000 constant prices,

and if it has either of the folloing re2#isites&

7c 'he average ann#al income shall incl#de the income accr#ing to the general f#nd,

ecl#sive of special f#nds, transfers, and non-rec#rring income. 7$mphasis s#pplied.

'he legislative intent is not at all times acc#rately reflected in the manner in hich the

res#lting la is co#ched. 'h#s, applying a verba legis 3=or strictly literal interpretation of a

stat#te may render it meaningless and lead to inconvenience, an abs#rd sit#ation or

in4#stice.38'o obviate this aberration, and bearing in mind the principle that the intent or the

spirit of the la is the la itself,31resort sho#ld be to the r#le that the spirit of the la

controls its letter./0

!t is in this respect that the history of the passage of A 1001 and the logical inferences

derivable therefrom ass#me relevancy in discovering legislative intent./(

'he rationale behind the enactment of A 1001 to amend %ec. /50 of the 9:C of (11( can

reasonably be ded#ced from %enator Pimentels sponsorship speech on %. Bill No. (5=. Of

partic#lar significance is his statement regarding the basis for the proposed increase from

PhP 0 million to PhP (00 million in the income re2#irement for m#nicipalities anting to be

converted into cities, vi)&

!'&0o+ P'0l. *r. President, ! o#ld have anted this bill to be incl#ded in the hole

set of proposed amendments that e have introd#ced to precisely amend the K9:CL.

Doever, it is a fact that there is a mad r#sh of m#nicipalities anting to be converted into

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

23/27

cities. hereas in (11(, hen the K9:CL as approved, there ere only 60 cities, today the

n#mber has increased to 85 cities, ith /( more m#nicipalities applying for conversion .

A0 0/ +&0 &+ o', I & &22+/'- 0/&0 o+ lo' 0/ '&0o' ll &

'&0o' o &ll 40 &'( 'o u'42&l0 .

!t is for that reason, *r. President, that e are proposing among other things, that the

financial re2#irement, hich, #nder the K9:CL, is fied at P0 million, be raised to P(00

million to enable a m#nicipality to have the right to be converted into a city, and the P(00million sho#ld be so#rced from locally generated f#nds.

Congress to be s#re "ne, hen A 1001 as being deliberated #pon, of the pendency of

several bills on cityhood, herein the applying m#nicipalities ere 2#alified #nder the then

obtaining PhP 0 million-income threshold. 'hese incl#ded respondent 9:Gs. 'h#s, e2#ally

noteorthy is the ens#ing ecerpts from the floor echange beteen then %enate President

>ran"lin @rilon and %enator Pimentel, the latter stopping short of saying that the income

threshold of PhP (00 million #nder %. Bill No. (5= o#ld not apply to m#nicipalities that

have pending cityhood bills, th#s&

'D$ P$%!@$N'. 'he Chair o#ld li"e to as" for some clarificatory point.

'D$ P$%!@$N'. 'his is 4#st on the point of the 2'(' llin the %enate hich propose

the conversion of a n#mber of m#nicipalities into cities and /4/ u&ly u'(+ 0/2+'0 0&'(&+(.

e o#ld li"e to "no the vie of the sponsor& Ass#ming that this bill becomes a la, ill

the Chamber apply the standard as proposed in this bill to those bills hich are pending for

considerationM

%$NA'O P!*$N'$9, *r. President, it might not be fair to ma"e this bill KifL approved,

+0+o&40 to the bills that are pending in the %enate for conversion from m#nicipalities to

cities.

'D$ P$%!@$N'. ill there be an appropriate lang#age crafted to reflect that vieM Or

does it not become a policy of the Chamber, ass#ming that this bill becomes a la that

it ill apply to those bills hich are already approved by the Do#se #nder the old version of

the K9:CL and are no pending in the %enateM 'he Chair does not "no if e can craft alang#age hich ill limit the application to those hich are not yet in the %enate. Or is that a

policy that the Chamber ill adoptM

%$NA'O P!*$N'$9. *r. President, personally, ! do not thin" it is necessary to p#t that

provision beca#se hat e are saying here ill form part of the interpretation of this bill.

Besides, if there is no retroactivity cla#se, ! do not thin" that the bill o#ld have any

retroactive effect.

'D$ P$%!@$N'. %o the #nderstanding is that those bills hich are already pending in the

Chamber ill not be affected.

%$NA'O P!*$N'$9. T/ ll 'o0 &40(, *r. President./ 7$mphasis and

#nderscoring s#pplied.

hat the foregoing Pimental-@rilon echange elo2#ently indicates are the folloing

complementary legislative intentions& 7( the then pending cityhood bills o#ld be o#tside

the pale of the minim#m income re2#irement of PhP (00 million that %. Bill No. (51

proposes and 7 A 1001 o#ld not have any retroactive effect insofar as the cityhood

bills are concerned.

:iven the foregoing perspective, it is not amiss to state that the basis for the incl#sion of the

eemption cla#se of the cityhood las is the clear-c#t intent of Congress of not according

retroactive effect to A 1001. Not only do the congressional records bear the legislative

intent of eempting the cityhood las from the income re2#irement of PhP (00 million.

Congress has no made its intention to eempt epress in the challenged cityhood las.

9egislative intent is part and parcel of the la, the controlling factor in interpreting a stat#te.

!n constr#ing a stat#te, the proper co#rse is to start o#t and follo the tr#e intent of the

9egislat#re and to adopt the sense that best harmoni)es ith the contet and promotes in

the f#llest manner the policy and ob4ects of the legislat#re. /3!n fact, any interpretation that

r#ns co#nter to the legislative intent is #nacceptable and invalid.//)orres v. im8a(co#ld not

have been more precise&

'he intent of a %tat#te is the 9a. !f a stat#te is valid, it is to have effect according to thep#rpose and intent of the lama"er. T/ '0'0 0/ '4 o 0/ l& &'( 0/

2+&+y +ul o 4o'0+u40o' 0o &4+0&' &'( - 40 0o 0/&0 '0'0. 'he intention

of the legislat#re in enacting a la is the la itself, and m#st be enforced hen ascertained,

&l0/ou/ 0 &y 'o0 4o'0'0 0/ 0/ 0+40 l00+ o 0/ 0&0u0 . Co#rts ill not

follo the letter of a stat#te hen it leads aay from the tr#e intent and p#rpose of the

legislat#re and to concl#sions inconsistent ith the general p#rpose of the act. I'0'0 0/

2+0 /4/ - l 0o & ll&0- '&40'0. !n constr#ing stat#tes the proper co#rse

is to start o#t and follo the tr#e intent of the legislat#re ./57$mphasis s#pplied.

As emphasi)ed at the o#tset, behind every la lies the pres#mption of constit#tionality./6

Conse2#ently, to him ho o#ld assert the #nconstit#tionality of a stat#te belongs the

b#rden of proving otherise. 9as ill only be declared invalid if a conflict ith the

Constit#tion is beyond reasonable do#bt./=Gnfort#nately for petitioners and petitioners-in-

intervention, they failed to discharge their heavy b#rden.

!t is contended that the deliberations on the cityhood bills and the covering 4oint resol#tion

ere #nderta"en in the ((th andIor the (th Congress. Accordingly, so the arg#ment goes,

s#ch deliberations, more partic#larly those on the #napproved resol#tion eempting from A

1001 certain m#nicipalities, are itho#t significance and o#ld not 2#alify as etrinsic aids

in constr#ing the cityhood las that ere passed d#ring the (3th Congress, Congress not

being a contin#ing body.

'he arg#ment is specio#s and glosses over the reality that the cityhood billshich ere

already being deliberated #pon even perhaps before the conception of A 1001ere

again being considered d#ring the (3th Congress after being tossed aro#nd in the to

previo#s Congresses. And specific reference to the cityhood bills as also made d#ring the

7/23/2019 July 23, 2015 Cases

24/27

deliberations on A 1001. At the end of the day, it