Consti 1

MARIANO V. COMELEC Facts of the case Two petitions are filed assailing certain provisions of RA 7854, An Act Converting The Municipality of M a k a t i I n t o a H i g h l y U r b a n i z e d C i t y t o b e k n o w n a s t h e C i t y o f M a k a t i , a s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . Section 52 of RA 7854 is said to be unconstitutional for it increased the legislative district of Makati onlyby special law in violation of Art. VI, Sec. 5(4) requiring a general reapportionment law to be passed by Congresswithin 3 years following the return of every census. Also, the addition of another legislative district in Makati isnot in accord with Sec. 5(3), Art. VI of the Constitution for as of the 1990 census, the population of Makati stands at only 4500. Issue: Whether or not the addition of another legislative district in M akati is unconstitutional Held: Reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special law, such as in the charter of anew city. The Constitution clearly provides that Congress shall be composed of not more than 250 members,unless otherwise fixed by law. As thus worded, the Constitution did not preclude Congress from increasing itsmembership by passing a law, other than a general reapportionment law. This is exactly what was done by Congress in enacting RA 7854 and providing for an increase in Makatis legislative district. Moreover, to holdthat reapportionment can only be made through a general apportionment law, with a review of all the legislativedistricts allotted to each local government unit nationwide, would create an inequitable situation where a newcity or province created by Congress will be denied legislative representation for an indeterminate period of time. The intolerable situations will deprive the people of a new city or province a particle of their sovereignty.Petitioner cannot insist that the addition of another legislative district in Makati is not in accord with Sec.5(3), Art. VI of the Constitution for as of the 1990 census, the population of Makati stands at only 450,000. Saidsection provides that a city with a population of at least 250,000 shall have at least one representative. Evengranting that the population of Makati as of the 1990 census stood at 450,000, its legislative district may still beincreased since it has met the minimum population requirement of 250,000

fernandez v. Comelec and Rodriguez June 30, 2008; NachuraElection Law; Appelate jurisdiction of ComelecFacts: July 15, 2002 SK elections of Barangay Pandan del Sur, Pandan, Catanduanes, resp.Rodriguez won as SK chairman over pet. Fernandez. Fernandez filed a protest in theMCTC of Pandan. On January 12, 2004, MCTC declared Fernandez as the winner andordered her proclamation. Rodriguez appealed to Comelec, which, on Dec. 4, 2006reversed the MCTC decision. Motion for recon was denied, so Fernandez went to SCarguing that that the Comelec has no appellate jurisdiction over contests involvingSK officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Issue: WON Comelec has jurisdiction. Held: YES. The Constitution [Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(2)] vests in the COMELEC appellate jurisdictionover all contests involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited Omnibus Election Code and paragraph 2, Section 2, Article IX-C of the