Navarro v. Ermita, GR 180050, 12 April 2011.

Carpio dissenting opinion: par 3, population composition.

FACTS: The President of the Republic approved into law Republic Act (R.A. !o. "3## (An Act
Creating the Province of $inagat %slands. The plebiscite conducted b& C'()*)C for ratification of the
creation &ielded +",",3 affirmative votes and +3,#-. negative votes.
Petitioners Rodolfo /. !avarro, 0ictor 1. 2ernal and Rene '. (edina, former political leaders of
3urigao del !orte, after the dismissal of their first petition, filed a second certiorari and prohibition
alleging among others that, when the law was passed, $inagat had a land area of 4-..5. s6uare
7ilometers onl& and a population of onl& 5-+,"#5, failing to compl& with 3ection 5-, Article 8 of the
Constitution and of 3ection ,+5 of the */C.
ISSUE: 9hether the creation of $inagat as a new province failed to compl& with the Constitutional
re6uirement and of 3ection ,+5 of the */C.
HELD: DISSENTING !ININ. ". Carpio. % file this separate dissenting opinion because the
ma:orit&;s ruling toda&, legitimi<ing the creation of a province in blatant violation of the Constitution and
the *ocal /overnment Code, opens the floodgates to the proliferation of p&gm& provinces and legislative
districts, mangling sacred and fundamental principles governing our democratic wa& of life and
e=acerbating the scourge of local d&nastic politics.
%t is mandator& that a province must have a population of at least .#-,---. The 5"4> Constitution
mandates that ?#a$% provi&$#',( )%all %av# at l#a)t o&# r#pr#)#&tativ#.? %n Sema v. Commission on
Elections, we categoricall& ruled that ?t%# po*#r to $r#at# a provi&$# or $it+ i&%#r#&tl+ i&volv#) t%#
po*#r to $r#at# a l#,i)lativ# -i)tri$t.? Thus, when Congress creates a province it necessaril& creates at
the same time a legislative district. The province must compl& with the minimum population of .#-,---
because the Constitution mandates that .#-,--- shall be the minimum population for the creation of
legislative districts.
(oreover, to treat land area as an alternative to the minimum population re6uirement (based on
the con:unctive ?either? in 3ection ,+5 destro&s the supremac& of the Constitution, ma7ing the statutor&
te=t prevail over the clear constitutional language. I& )%ort, i& t%# $r#atio& o. a provi&$# &#it%#r
Co&,r#)) &or t%# E/#$0tiv# $a& r#pla$# t%# mi&im0m pop0latio& r#10ir#m#&t *it% a la&- ar#a
r#10ir#m#&t 2#$a0)# t%# $r#atio& o. a provi&$# &#$#))aril+ $r#at#) at t%# )am# tim# a l#,i)lativ#
-i)tri$t, *%i$% 0&-#r t%# Co&)tit0tio& m0)t %av# a mi&im0m pop0latio& o. 250,000.