Aldaba, et al., vs. Comelec;
G.R. No. 188078, March 15, 2010
Motion for Reconsideration
En Banc (CARPIO, J.)
Facts:
RA 9591 lapsed into law, amending Malolos’ City Charter, by creating a separate legislative district for the city. At the time the legislative bills for RA 9591 were filed in Congress in 2007, namely, House Bill No. 3162 (later converted to House Bill No. 3693) and Senate Bill No. 1986, the population of Malolos City was 223,069. The population of Malolos City on 1 May 2009 is a contested fact but there is no dispute that House Bill No. 3693 relied on an undated certification issued by a Regional Director of the National Statistics Office (NSO) that "the projected population of the Municipality of Malolos will be 254,030 by the year 2010 using the population growth rate of 3.78 between 1995 to 2000."
Petitioners, taxpayers, registered voters and residents of Malolos City, filed this petition contending that RA 9591 is unconstitutional for failing to meet the minimum population threshold of 250,000 for a city to merit representation in Congress as provided under Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution.
The ruling of the Supreme Court which held that RA 9591 unconstitutional for being violative of Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution. The 1987 Constitution requires that for a city to have a legislative district, the city must have "a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand." The only issue here is whether the City of Malolos has a population of at least 250,000, whether actual or projected, for the purpose of creating a legislative district for the City of Malolos in time for the 10 May 2010 elections. If not, then RA 9591 creating a legislative district in the City of Malolos is unconstitutional.
House Bill No. 3693 cites the undated Certification of Regional Director Alberto N. Miranda of Region III of the National Statistics Office (NSO) as authority that the population of the City of Malolos "will be 254,030 by the year 2010." The Certification states that the population of "Malolos, Bulacan as of May 1, 2000 is 175,291." The Certification further states that it was "issued upon the request of Mayor Danilo A. Domingo of the City of Malolos in connection with the proposed creation of Malolos City as a lone congressional district of the Province of Bulacan."
The Certification of Regional Director Miranda, which is based on demographic projections, is without legal effect because Regional Director Miranda has no basis and no authority to issue the Certification. The Certification is also void on its face because based on its own growth rate assumption, the population of Malolos will be less than 250,000 in the year 2010. In addition, intercensal demographic projections cannot be made for the entire year. In any event, a city whose population has increased to 250,000 is entitled to have a legislative district only in the "immediately following election"7 after the attainment of the 250,000 population.
First, certifications on demographic projections can be issued only if such projections are declared official by the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB). Second, certifications based on demographic projections can be issued only by the NSO Administrator or his designated certifying officer. Third, intercensal population projections must be as of the middle of every year.
On motion for reconsideration the COMELEC grounds its motion on the singular reason, already considered and rejected in the Decision, that Congress’ reliance on the Certification of Alberto N. Miranda (Miranda), Region III Director, National Statistics Office (NSO), projecting Malolos City’s population in 2010, is non-justiciable. The COMELEC also calls attention to the other sources of Malolos City’s population indicators as of 2007 (2007 Census of Population – PMS 3 – Progress Enumeration Report) and as of 2008 (Certification of the City of Malolos’ Water District, dated 31 July 2008, and Certification of the Liga ng Barangay, dated 22 August 20084) which Congress allegedly used in enacting Republic Act No. 9591 (RA 9591). The COMELEC extends its non-justiciability argument to these materials.
Issue:
Whether or not the Supreme Court would grant the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Comelec.
Held:
No; it will not do for the COMELEC to insist that the reliability and authoritativeness of the population indicators Congress used in enacting RA 9591 are non-justiciable. If laws creating legislative districts are unquestionably within the ambit of this Court’s judicial review power, then there is more reason to hold justiciable subsidiary questions impacting on their constitutionality, such as their compliance with a specific constitutional limitation under Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution that only cities with at least 250,000 constituents are entitled to representation in Congress. To fulfill this obligation, the Court, of necessity, must inquire into the authoritativeness and reliability of the population indicators Congress used to comply with the constitutional limitation. Thus, nearly five decades ago, we already rejected claims of non-justiciability of an apportionment law alleged to violate the constitutional requirement of proportional representation.
The constitutionality of a legislative apportionment act is a judicial question, and not one which the court cannot consider on the ground that it is a political question.
It is well settled that the passage of apportionment acts is not so exclusively within the political power of the legislature as to preclude a court from inquiring into their constitutionality when the question is properly brought before it. It may be added in this connection, that the mere impact of the suit upon the political situation does not render it political instead of judicial.
The alleged circumstance that this statute improves the present set-up constitutes no excuse for approving a transgression of constitutional limitations, because the end does not justify the means. Furthermore, there is no reason to doubt that, aware of the existing inequality of representation, and impelled by its sense of duty, Congress will opportunely approve remedial legislation in accord with the precepts of the Constitution.
Under Executive Order No. 135 (EO 135), the population indicators Congress used to measure Malolos City’s compliance with the constitutional limitation are unreliable and non-authoritative. On Miranda’s Certification, (that the "projected population of the [City] of Malolos will be 254,030 by the year 2010 using the population growth rate of 3.78[%] between 1995 and 2000"), this fell short of EO 135’s requirements that (a) for intercensal years, the certification should be based on a set of demographic projections and estimates declared official by the National Statistical and Coordination Board (NSCB); (b) certifications on intercensal population estimates will be as of the middle of every year; and (c) certifications based on projections or estimates must be issued by the NSO Administrator or his designated certifying officer. Further, using Miranda’s own growth rate assumption of 3.78%, Malolos City’s population as of 1 August 2010 will only be 249,333, below the constitutional threshold of 250,000 (using as base Malolos City’s population as of 1 August 2007 which is 223,069). That Miranda issued his Certification "by authority of the NSO administrator" does not make the document reliable as it neither makes Miranda the NSO Administrator’s designated certifying officer nor cures the Certification of its fatal defects for failing to use demographic projections and estimates declared official by the NSCB or make the projection as of the middle of 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment