Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. COMELEC G.R. No.

147589, June 26, 2001

Facts: Petitioner challenged a resolution issued by the COMELEC. Petitioner seeks the disqualification of certain major
political parties in the 2001 party-list elections arguing that the party-list system was intended to benefit the
marginalized and underrepresented and not the mainstream political parties, the non-marginalized or overrepresented.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list elections
(2) Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organizations

Held: Under the Constitution and RA 7941, major political parties cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections
merely on the ground that they are political parties. But while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA
7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of
enabling Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be elected to the House of
Representatives. In other words, while they are not disqualified merely on the ground that they are political parties, they
must show, however, that they represent the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented.

Tobias v. Abalos

G.R.No. L-114785                          08 December 1994

PONENTE: BIDIN, J.

FACTS:

Prior to Republic Act No., 7675 also known as “An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly
Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong”, Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only one legislative
district.  A plebiscite was held for the people of Mandaluyong whether or not they approved of the said conversion.   The
plebiscite was only 14.41% of the said conversion.  Nevertheless, 18,621 voted “yes” whereas “7, 911” voted “no”.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the ratification of RA7675 was unconstitutional citing Article VI, Sections 5(1), 4 and 26(1)

HELD/RULING:

For the purposes of discussion, let’s breakdown all of the claimed violations to the 1987 Constitution.

Section 26(1). Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title
thereof.

The creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct from the subject of
its conversion.  Moreover, a liberal construction of the “one-title-one-subject” rule has been liberally adopted by the court
as to not impede legislation (Lidasan v. Comelec).

Sec. 5(1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party list system of registered national,
regional and sectoral parties or organizations.

The Constitution clearly provides that the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members,
unless otherwise provided by law.  The emphasis on the latter clause indicates that the number of the House of
Representatives may be increased, if mandated via a legislative enactment.  Therefore, the increase in congressional
representation is not unconstitutional.

Sec. 5(4). Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of
legislative districts based on the standard provided in this section.

The argument on the violation of the above provision is absurd since it was the Congress itself which drafted, deliberated
upon and enacted the assailed law.

The petition is thereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 118702                       16 March 1995

Ponente: Puno, J.

FACTS:

Petitioner Cirilo Montejo, representing the First District of Leyte, pleads the annulment of Section 1 of Resolution No.
2736 of the COMELEC, redistricting certain municipalities in Leyte as it is said to violate the principle of equity of
representation.  Petitioner now seeks to transfer the municipality of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District of
the province.

For an overview of the distribution in the province, see the below table for the population distribution, census 1990 and
1994:

Census 1990 Census 1994

First District 303, 349 178, 688

Second District 272, 167 156, 462

Third District 214, 499 125, 763

Fourth District 269, 347 155, 995

Fifth District 309, 148 181, 242

ISSUES:

Whether COMELEC has the jurisdiction to promulgate Resolution No. 2736

HELD/RULING:

The basic powers of COMELEC are spelled out in Section 2(c), Article IX of the Constitution, which states:

Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections is hereby empowered to make minor adjustments of the reapportionment herein
made.

The meaning of minor adjustments is found in the debates of the Commission wherein it was stated that the transfer of
one municipality in a district to another district is not a minor adjustment; rather it is a substantive one.  Minor
adjustments does not allow the change in allocations per district.

It is then held that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it promulgated
Section 1 of its Resolution No. 2736.  Section 1 is then annulled and set aside.  The petition praying for the transfer of the
municipality of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District of the province of Leyte is denied.

Mariano v. COMELEC

Facts:

Juanito Mariano, Jr., Ligaya S. Bautista, Teresita Tibay, Camilo Santos, Frankie Cruz, Ricardo Pascual, Teresita Abang, Valentina Pitalvero,
Rufino Caldoza, Florante Alba, and Perfecto Alba. Of the petitioners, only Mariano, Jr., is a resident of Makati, petitioned for prohibition
and declaratory relief. Suing as taxpayers, they assail as unconstitutional sections 2, 51, and 52 of R.A. No. 7854 on the following grounds:

1. Section 2 of R.A. No. 7854 did not properly identify the land area or territorial jurisdiction of Makati by metes and
bounds, with technical descriptions, in violation of Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, in relation to Sections 7
and 450 of the Local Government Code;

2. Section 51 of R.A. No. 7854 attempts to alter or restart the "three consecutive term" limit for local elective
officials, in violation of Section 8, Article X and Section 7, Article VI of the Constitution.

3. Section 52 of R.A. No. 7854 is unconstitutional for:

(b) the increase in legislative district was not expressed in the title of the bill; and

(c) 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.

Sec 52. Legislative Districts. — Upon its conversion into a highly-urbanized city, Makati shall thereafter have at least two (2)
legislative districts that shall initially correspond to the two (2) existing districts created under Section 3(a) of Republic Act.
No. 7166 as implemented by the Commission on Elections to commence at the next national elections to be held after the
effectivity of this Act. Henceforth, barangays Magallanes, Dasmariñ as and Forbes shall be with the first district, in lieu of
Barangay Guadalupe-Viejo which shall form part of the second district. (emphasis supplied)

Issue: WON judicial review is indispensible to substantiate the constitutionality of the sections 2, 51 and 52 of the R.A. No. 7854 :An Act
Converting the Municipality of Makati Into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati”

Held: NO

Rationale:

At the time of the consideration of R.A. No. 7854, the territorial dispute between the municipalities of Makati and Taguig over Fort
Bonifacio was under court litigation. Out of a becoming sense of respect to co-equal department of government, legislators felt that the
dispute should be left to the courts to decide. They did not want to foreclose the dispute by making a legislative finding of fact which
could decide the issue. This would have ensued if they defined the land area of the proposed city by its exact metes and bounds, with
technical descriptions. 3 We take judicial notice of the fact that Congress has also refrained from using the metes and bounds description
of land areas of other local government units with unsettled boundary disputes. 4

Going now to Sections 7 and 450 of the Local Government Code, it is beyond cavil that the requirement stated therein, viz.: "the territorial
jurisdiction of newly created or converted cities should be described by meted and bounds, with technical descriptions" — was made in
order to provide a means by which the area of said cities may be reasonably ascertained. In other words, the requirement on metes and
bounds was meant merely as tool in the establishment of local government units. It is not an end in itself. Ergo, so long as the territorial
jurisdiction of a city may be reasonably ascertained, i.e., by referring to common boundaries with neighboring municipalities, as in this
case, then, it may be concluded that the legislative intent behind the law has been sufficiently served.

The requirements before a litigant can challenge the constitutionality of a law are well delineated. They are: 1) there must be an actual
case or controversy; (2) the question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party; (3) the constitutional question must be
raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the decision on the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of
the case itself. 5

Petitioners have far from complied with these requirements. The petition is premised on the occurrence of many contingent events, i.e.,
that Mayor Binay will run again in this coming mayoralty elections; that he would be re-elected in said elections; and that he would seek
re-election for the same position in the 1998 elections. Considering that these contingencies may or may not happen, petitioners merely
pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig (except
Mariano) are not also the proper parties to raise this abstract issue. Worse, they hoist this futuristic issue in a petition for declaratory
relief over which this Court has no jurisdiction.

to hold that reapportionment can only be made through a general apportionment law, with a review of all the legislative districts allotted
to each local government unit nationwide, would create an inequitable situation where a new city or province created by Congress will
be denied legislative representation for an indeterminate period of time. 10 The intolerable situations will deprive the people of a new
city or province a particle of their sovereignty. 11 Sovereignty cannot admit of any kind of subtraction. It is indivisible. It must be forever
whole or it is not sovereignty.

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. 14

Constitution does not command that the title of a law should exactly mirror, fully index, or completely catalogue all its details. Hence, we
ruled that "it should be sufficient compliance if the title expresses the general subject and all the provisions are germane to such general
subject.