G.R. No.

L-114783 December 8, 1994

ROBERT V. TOBIAS, RAMON M. GUZMAN, TERRY
GABRIEL, and ROBERTO R. TOBIAS, JR. petitioners,
BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, CITY TREASURER WILLIAM
SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD, all of the City of
Manila, respondents.

T. LIM, GREGORIO D.
vs. HON. CITY MAYOR
MARCELINO, and THE
Mandaluyong, Metro

FACTS
On February 9, 1994, President Ramos signed Republic Act No. 7675, otherwise
known as "An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly
Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong."
Petitioners now come before this Court, contending that R.A. No. 7675, specifically
Article VIII, Section 49 thereof, is unconstitutional for being violative of three specific
provisions of the Constitution which are the following 1) that it contravenes the "one
subject-one bill" rule, as enunciated in Article VI, Section 26(1) of the Constitution;
2) that the division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into separate congressional
districts under Section 49 of the assailed law has resulted in an increase in the
composition of the House of Representatives beyond that provided in Article VI, Sec.
5(1) of the Constitution; and 3) that Section 49 has the effect of preempting the
right of Congress to reapportion legislative districts pursuant to Sec. 5(4).
ISSUE
Whether R.A. 7675 is unconstitutional.
HELD
No. R.A. No. 7675 is not unconstitutional on the following rulings 1) contrary to
petitioners' assertion, the creation of a separate congressional district for
Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct from the subject of its
conversion into a highly urbanized city but is a natural and logical consequence of
its conversion into a highly urbanized city; 2) the said Act enjoys the presumption of
having passed through the regular congressional processes, including due
consideration by the members of Congress of the minimum requirements for the
establishment of separate legislative districts. At any rate, it is not required that all
laws emanating from the legislature must contain all relevant data considered by
Congress in the enactment of said laws; and 3) Article VI, Section 5(1) shows that
the present limit of 250 members is not absolute. The Constitution clearly provides
that the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250
members, "unless otherwise provided by law." The inescapable import of the latter
clause is that the present composition of Congress may be increased, if Congress
itself so mandates through a legislative enactment.

Thus, in the absence of proof that Mandaluyong and San Juan do not qualify to have
separate legislative districts, the assailed Section 49 of R.A. No. 7675 must be
allowed to stand.

G.R. No. 118577 March 7, 1995

JUANITO MARIANO, JR. et al., petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI, HON. JEJOMAR BINAY, THE
MUNICIPAL
TREASURER,
AND
SANGGUNIANG
BAYAN
OF
MAKATI, respondents.
FACTS
R.A. No. 7854 is entitled, "An Act Converting the Municipality of Makati Into a Highly
Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati."
Petitioners assail that Section 52 of R.A. No. 7854 is unconstitutional for the addition
of another legislative district in Makati is not in accord with Section 5 (3), Article VI
of the Constitution for as of the latest survey (1990 census), the population of
Makati stands at only 450,000 among other things.
ISSUE
Whether or not section 52, Article X of R.A. No. 7854 is in accord with section 5(3),
Article VI of the Constitution.
HELD
Yes. Petitioners cannot insist that the addition of another legislative district in Makati
is not in accord with section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution for as of the latest
survey (1990 census), the population of Makati stands at only four hundred fifty
thousand (450,000). Said section provides, inter alia, that a city with a population
of at least two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) shall have at least one
representative. Even granting that the population of Makati as of the 1990 census
stood at four hundred fifty thousand (450,000), its legislative district may still be
increased since it has met the minimum population requirement of two hundred fifty
thousand (250,000). In fact, section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the
Constitution provides that a city whose population has increased to more than two
hundred fifty thousand (250,000) shall be entitled to at least one congressional
representative.

G.R. No. 189793

April 7, 2010

SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III and MAYOR JESSE

ROBREDO, Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS represented by its
Chairman JOSE A.R. MELO and its Commissioners, RENE V. SARMIENTO,
NICODEMO T. FERRER, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO VELASCO, ELIAS R.
YUSOPH AND GREGORIO LARRAZABAL, Respondents.
FACTS
On 12 October 2009, Republic Act No. 9716, entitled "An Act Reapportioning the
Composition of the First (1st) and Second (2nd) Legislative Districts in the Province
of Camarines Sur and Thereby Creating a New Legislative District From Such
Reapportionment" was signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and
took effect on 31 October 2009.
Petitioners contend that the reapportionment introduced by Republic Act No. 9716,
runs afoul of the explicit constitutional standard that requires a minimum population
of two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) for the creation of a legislative district. The
petitioners claim that the reconfiguration by Republic Act No. 9716 of the first and
second districts of Camarines Sur is unconstitutional, because the proposed first
district will end up with a population of less than 250,000 or only 176,383.
Petitioners rely on Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution as basis for the
cited 250,000 minimum population standard.
ISSUE
Whether or not a population of 250,000 is an indispensable constitutional
requirement for the creation of a new legislative district in a province.
HELD
There is no specific provision in the Constitution that fixes a 250,000 minimum
population that must compose a legislative district. The second sentence of Section
5(3), Article VI of the Constitution, succinctly provides: "Each city with a population
of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one
representative." The use by the subject provision of a comma to separate the
phrase "each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand" from the
phrase "or each province" point to no other conclusion than that the 250,000
minimum population is only required for a city, but not for a province. Thus, Section
5(3) of the Constitution requires a 250,000 minimum population only for a city to be
entitled to a representative, but not so for a province.
To be clear about our judgment, the Court do not say that in the reapportionment of
the first and second legislative districts of Camarines Sur, the number of inhabitants
in the resulting additional district should not be considered. The ruling is that

population is not the only factor but is just one of several other factors in the
composition of the additional district. Such settlement is in accord with both the text
of the Constitution and the spirit of the letter, so very clearly given form in the
Constitutional debates on the exact issue presented by this petition.

G.R. No. 203766

April 2, 2013

ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President,

Igot, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

Mr.

Alan

FACTS
Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941) and COMELEC
Resolution Nos. 9366 and 9531, approximately 280 groups and organizations
registered and manifested their desire to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list
elections.
The COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections
those that did not satisfy these two criteria: (1) all national, regional, and sectoral
groups or organizations must represent the "marginalized and underrepresented"
sectors, and (2) all nominees must belong to the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector they represent.
Hence, these cases constitute 54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions
for Certiorari and Prohibition were filed by 52 party-list groups and organizations
assailing the Resolutions issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
disqualifying them from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections, either
by denial of their petitions for registration under the party-list system, or
cancellation of their registration and accreditation as party-list organizations.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the 13 May
2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their new petitions for registration
under the party-list system, or by cancellation of their existing registration and
accreditation as party-list organizations.
HELD
No. The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
following prevailing decisions of this Court in disqualifying petitioners from
participating in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections. However, since the
Court adopts in this Decision new parameters in the qualification of national,
regional, and sectoral parties under the party-list system, thereby abandoning the
rulings in the decisions applied by the COMELEC in disqualifying petitioners, the
Court remand to the COMELEC all the present petitions for the COMELEC to
determine who are qualified to register under the party-list system, and to
participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections, under the new
parameters prescribed in this Decision.

Thus, the Court remand all the present petitions to the COMELEC. In determining
who may participate in the coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent party-list
elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to the following parameters:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national
parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral
parties or organizations.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not
need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under
the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A
political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district
elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that
can separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an
independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized and
underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political constituencies." It is enough
that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their
sector. The sectors that are "marginalized and underrepresented" include labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped,
veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack "well-defined political
constituencies" include professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
"marginalized and underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of
sectoral parties or organizations that lack "well-defined political constituencies"
must belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or
organizations that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented," or that
represent those who lack "well-defined political constituencies," either must belong
to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their
respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations
must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if
some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one
nominee who remains qualified.