Petitioner,
- versus -
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
and DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - x
PERFECTO
F. MARQUEZ, G.R.
No. 178628
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO
MORALES,
-
versus -
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
REYES,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and
BRION, JJ.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Promulgated:
Respondent. July 16, 2008
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
These consolidated petitions[1] seek
to annul Resolution No. 7902, dated 10 May 2007, of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) treating Cotabato City as part of the legislative district of the
Province of Shariff Kabunsuan.[2]
The Ordinance appended to the 1987
Constitution apportioned two legislative districts for the
On
Section 1. The Municipalities of Barira, Buldon,
Datu Odin Sinsuat, Kabuntalan, Matanog, Parang, Sultan Kudarat, Sultan Mastura,
and Upi are hereby separated from the
x x x x
Sec. 5. The corporate existence of this province shall commence upon the appointment by the Regional Governor or election of the governor and majority of the regular members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
The incumbent elective provincial officials of the Province of Maguindanao shall continue to serve their unexpired terms in the province that they will choose or where they are residents: Provided, that where an elective position in both provinces becomes vacant as a consequence of the creation of the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan, all incumbent elective provincial officials shall have preference for appointment to a higher elective vacant position and for the time being be appointed by the Regional Governor, and shall hold office until their successors shall have been elected and qualified in the next local elections; Provided, further, that they shall continue to receive the salaries they are receiving at the time of the approval of this Act until the new readjustment of salaries in accordance with law. Provided, furthermore, that there shall be no diminution in the number of the members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the mother province.
Except
as may be provided by national law, the existing legislative district, which
includes Cotabato as a part thereof, shall remain.
Later,
three new municipalities[6] were
carved out of the original nine municipalities constituting Shariff Kabunsuan,
bringing its total number of municipalities to 11. Thus, what was left of
Maguindanao were the municipalities constituting its second legislative
district.
The voters of Maguindanao ratified Shariff Kabunsuan’s creation in a
plebiscite held on
On 6 February 2007, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cotabato City passed Resolution
No. 3999 requesting the COMELEC to “clarify the status of Cotabato City in view
of the conversion of the First District of Maguindanao into a regular province”
under MMA Act 201.
In answer to
Considering
the foregoing, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby resolves, to adopt the
recommendation of the Law Department that pending the enactment of the
appropriate law by Congress, to maintain the status quo with
However, in preparation for the
On
In G.R. No. 177597, Sema, who was a
candidate in the
In its Comment, the COMELEC, through
the Office of the Solicitor General (
In his Comment, respondent Dilangalen
countered that Sema is estopped from questioning COMELEC Resolution No. 7902
because in her certificate of candidacy filed on
Sema filed a Consolidated Reply
controverting the matters raised in respondents’ Comments and reiterating her
claim that the COMELEC acted ultra vires in issuing Resolution No. 7902.
In the Resolution of 4 September 2007, the Court required the parties in
G.R. No. 177597 to comment on the issue of whether a province created by the
ARMM Regional Assembly under Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054 is entitled to
one representative in the House of Representatives without need of a national
law creating a legislative district for such new province. The parties
submitted their compliance as follows:
(1) Sema answered the issue in the affirmative on the following grounds:
(a) the Court in Felwa v. Salas[14]
stated that “when a province is created by statute, the corresponding
representative district comes into existence neither by authority of that
statute — which cannot provide otherwise — nor by apportionment, but by
operation of the Constitution, without a reapportionment”; (b) Section 462 of
Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160) “affirms” the apportionment of a legislative
district incident to the creation of a province; and (c) Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution
and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution mandate the apportionment of a legislative district in
newly created provinces.
(2) The COMELEC, again represented by the
(3) Respondent Dilangalen answered the issue in the negative on the
following grounds: (a) the “province” contemplated in Section 5 (3), Article VI
of the Constitution is one that is created by an act of Congress taking into
account the provisions in RA 7160 on the creation of provinces; (b) Section 3,
Article IV of RA 9054 withheld from the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to
enact measures relating to national elections, which encompasses the
apportionment of legislative districts for members of the House of
Representatives; (c) recognizing a legislative district in every province the
ARMM Regional Assembly creates will lead to the disproportionate representation
of the ARMM in the House of Representatives as the Regional Assembly can create provinces
without regard to the requirements in Section 461 of RA 7160; and (d) Cotabato
City, which has a population of less than 250,000, is not entitled to a
representative in the House of Representatives.
On
In compliance with the Resolution dated
(1) Sema contended that Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054 is constitutional
(a) as a valid delegation by Congress to the ARMM of the power to create
provinces under Section 20 (9), Article X of the Constitution granting to the
autonomous regions, through their organic acts, legislative powers over “other
matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of
the people of the region” and (b) as an amendment to Section 6 of RA 7160.[17]
However, Sema concedes that, if taken literally, the grant in Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054 to the ARMM Regional
Assembly of the power to “prescribe standards lower than those mandated” in RA
7160 in the creation of provinces contravenes Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution.[18] Thus,
Sema proposed that Section 19 “should be construed as prohibiting the Regional
Assembly from prescribing standards x x x that do not comply with the minimum
criteria” under RA 7160.[19]
(2) Respondent Dilangalen contended that
Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054
is unconstitutional on the following grounds: (a) the power to create provinces
was not among those granted to the autonomous regions under Section 20, Article
X of the Constitution and (b) the grant under Section 19, Article VI of RA
9054 to the ARMM Regional Assembly of
the power to prescribe standards lower than those mandated in Section 461 of RA
7160 on the creation of provinces contravenes Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause; and
(3) The COMELEC, through the
On the question of whether a province created under Section 19, Article
VI of RA 9054 is entitled to one representative in the House of Representatives
without need of a national law creating a legislative district for such new
province, Sema and respondent Dilangalen reiterated in their Memoranda the
positions they adopted in their Compliance with the Resolution of 4 September
2007. The COM
The pendency of the petition in G.R. No. 178628 was disclosed during the oral arguments
on
The Issues
The petitions raise the
following issues:
(A) Preliminarily –
(1) whether the writs of Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus are proper
to test the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution No. 7902; and
(2) whether the proclamation of respondent Dilangalen as representative
of
(B) On the merits –
(1) whether Section 19, Article VI
of RA 9054, delegating to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create
provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays, is constitutional; and
(2) if in the affirmative, whether a province created by the ARMM
Regional Assembly under MMA Act 201 pursuant to Section 19, Article VI of RA
9054 is entitled to one representative in the House of Representatives without
need of a national law creating a legislative district for such province.
II. In G.R No. 177597 and G.R
No. 178628, whether COM
The Ruling of the
Court
The petitions have no merit. We rule that (1) Section 19, Article VI of RA
9054 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power
to create provinces and cities; (2) MMA Act 201 creating the
On the Preliminary Matters
The Writ of Prohibition is Appropriate
to Test the Constitutionality of
Election Laws, Rules and Regulations
The
purpose of the writ of Certiorari is to correct grave abuse of discretion by
“any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions.”[21] On the other hand, the writ of Mandamus will issue to
compel a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person to perform an act
“which the law specifically enjoins as a duty.”[22] True, the COMELEC did not issue Resolution No. 7902
in the exercise of its judicial or quasi-judicial functions.[23] Nor is there a law which specifically enjoins the
COMELEC to exclude from canvassing the votes cast in
Respondent Dilangalen’s Proclamation
Does Not Moot the Petition
There is also no merit in the claim that respondent
Dilangalen’s proclamation as winner in the
On the Main
Issues
Whether
the ARMM Regional Assembly
Can
Create the
The creation of local government units
is governed by Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, which provides:
Sec. 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary substantially altered except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
Thus,
the creation of any of the four local government units – province, city,
municipality or barangay – must comply with three conditions. First, the
creation of a local government unit must follow the criteria fixed in the Local
Government Code. Second, such creation
must not conflict with any provision of the Constitution. Third, there must be a plebiscite in the
political units affected.
There is neither an express
prohibition nor an express grant of authority in the Constitution for Congress
to delegate to regional or local legislative bodies the power to create local
government units. However, under its plenary legislative powers, Congress can
delegate to local legislative bodies the power to create local government
units, subject to reasonable standards and provided no conflict arises with any
provision of the Constitution. In fact,
Congress has delegated to provincial boards, and city and municipal councils,
the power to create barangays within their jurisdiction,[25]
subject to compliance with the criteria established in the Local Government
Code, and the plebiscite requirement in Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution. However, under the Local
Government Code, “only x x x an Act of Congress” can create provinces, cities
or municipalities.[26]
Under Section 19, Article VI of RA
9054, Congress delegated to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create
provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays within the ARMM. Congress made the delegation under its
plenary legislative powers because the power to create local government units
is not one of the express legislative powers granted by the Constitution to
regional legislative bodies.[27] In
the present case, the question arises whether the delegation to the ARMM
Regional Assembly of the power to create provinces, cities, municipalities and
barangays conflicts with any provision of the Constitution.
There is no provision in the Constitution
that conflicts with the delegation to regional legislative bodies of the power
to create municipalities and barangays, provided Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution is followed. However, the
creation of provinces and cities is another matter. Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution
provides, “Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand,
or each province, shall have at least one representative” in the House of
Representatives. Similarly, Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the
Constitution provides, “Any province that may hereafter be created, or any city
whose population may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand
shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one Member
x x x.”
Clearly,
a province cannot be created without a legislative district because it will
violate Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution as well as Section 3 of
the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. For the same reason, a city with a
population of 250,000 or more cannot also be created without a legislative
district. Thus, the power to create a province, or a city with a population of
250,000 or more, requires also the power to create a legislative district. Even
the creation of a city with a population of less than 250,000 involves the
power to create a legislative district because once the city’s population
reaches 250,000, the city automatically becomes entitled to one representative
under Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of the
Ordinance appended to the Constitution. Thus,
the power to create a province or city inherently involves the power to create
a legislative district.
For
Congress to delegate validly the power to create a province or city, it must
also validly delegate at the same time the power to create a legislative
district. The threshold issue then is,
can Congress validly delegate to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create
legislative districts for the House of Representatives? The answer is in the negative.
Legislative Districts are Created or
Reapportioned
Only by an Act of Congress
Under the present Constitution, as well as in past[28] Constitutions, the power to increase the allowable membership in the House of Representatives, and to reapportion legislative districts, is vested exclusively in Congress. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides:
SECTION 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.
x x x x
(3) Each
legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous,
compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two
hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one
representative.
(4) Within
three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative
districts based on the standards provided in this section. (Emphasis
supplied)
Section 5 (1), Article VI of the Constitution vests in Congress the power to increase, through a law, the allowable membership in the House of Representatives. Section 5 (4) empowers Congress to reapportion legislative districts. The power to reapportion legislative districts necessarily includes the power to create legislative districts out of existing ones. Congress exercises these powers through a law that Congress itself enacts, and not through a law that regional or local legislative bodies enact. The allowable membership of the House of Representatives can be increased, and new legislative districts of Congress can be created, only through a national law passed by Congress. In Montejo v. COMELEC,[29] we held that the “power of redistricting x x x is traditionally regarded as part of the power (of Congress) to make laws,” and thus is vested exclusively in Congress.
This textual commitment to Congress of the exclusive power to create or reapportion legislative districts is logical. Congress is a national legislature and any increase in its allowable membership or in its incumbent membership through the creation of legislative districts must be embodied in a national law. Only Congress can enact such a law. It would be anomalous for regional or local legislative bodies to create or reapportion legislative districts for a national legislature like Congress. An inferior legislative body, created by a superior legislative body, cannot change the membership of the superior legislative body.
The creation of the ARMM, and the grant of legislative powers to its Regional Assembly under its organic act, did not divest Congress of its exclusive authority to create legislative districts. This is clear from the Constitution and the ARMM Organic Act, as amended. Thus, Section 20, Article X of the Constitution provides:
SECTION
20. Within its territorial jurisdiction
and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national laws, the
organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over:
(1) Administrative organization;
(2) Creation of sources of revenues;
(3) Ancestral domain and natural resources;
(4) Personal, family, and property
relations;
(5) Regional urban and rural planning
development;
(6) Economic, social, and tourism
development;
(7) Educational policies;
(8) Preservation and development of the
cultural heritage; and
(9) Such other matters as may be authorized
by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region.
Nothing in Section 20, Article X of the Constitution authorizes autonomous regions, expressly or impliedly, to create or reapportion legislative districts for Congress.
On the other hand, Section 3, Article IV of RA 9054 amending the ARMM Organic Act, provides, “The Regional Assembly may exercise legislative power x x x except on the following matters: x x x (k) National elections. x x x.” Since the ARMM Regional Assembly has no legislative power to enact laws relating to national elections, it cannot create a legislative district whose representative is elected in national elections. Whenever Congress enacts a law creating a legislative district, the first representative is always elected in the “next national elections” from the effectivity of the law.[30]
Indeed, the office of a legislative district representative to Congress is a national office, and its occupant, a Member of the House of Representatives, is a national official.[31] It would be incongruous for a regional legislative body like the ARMM Regional Assembly to create a national office when its legislative powers extend only to its regional territory. The office of a district representative is maintained by national funds and the salary of its occupant is paid out of national funds. It is a self-evident inherent limitation on the legislative powers of every local or regional legislative body that it can only create local or regional offices, respectively, and it can never create a national office.
To
allow the ARMM Regional Assembly to create a national office is to allow its
legislative powers to operate outside the ARMM’s territorial jurisdiction. This
violates Section 20, Article X of the Constitution which expressly limits the
coverage of the Regional Assembly’s legislative powers “[w]ithin its territorial
jurisdiction x x x.”
The ARMM Regional Assembly itself, in creating Shariff Kabunsuan, recognized the exclusive nature of Congress’ power to create or reapportion legislative districts by abstaining from creating a legislative district for Shariff Kabunsuan. Section 5 of MMA Act 201 provides that:
Except as may be provided by national law, the existing
legislative district, which includes Cotabato City as a part thereof, shall remain. (Emphasis supplied)
However,
a province cannot legally be created without a legislative district because the
Constitution mandates that “each province shall have at least one
representative.” Thus, the creation of
the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan without a legislative district is
unconstitutional.
Sema, petitioner in G.R. No. 177597, contends that Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution, which provides:
Each
legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact,
and adjacent territory. Each city with a
population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.
(Emphasis supplied)
and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution, which states:
Any province
that may hereafter be created, or any city
whose population may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand
shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one
Member or such number of Members as it may be entitled to on the basis of the
number of its inhabitants and according to the standards set forth in paragraph
(3), Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution. The number of Members apportioned to the
province out of which such new province was created or where the city, whose
population has so increased, is geographically located shall be correspondingly
adjusted by the Commission on Elections but such adjustment shall not be made
within one hundred and twenty days before the election. (Emphasis supplied)
serve as bases for the conclusion that the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan, created on 29 October 2006, is automatically entitled to one member in the House of Representatives in the 14 May 2007 elections. As further support for her stance, petitioner invokes the statement in Felwa that “when a province is created by statute, the corresponding representative district comes into existence neither by authority of that statute — which cannot provide otherwise — nor by apportionment, but by operation of the Constitution, without a reapportionment.”
The contention has no merit.
First. The issue in Felwa, among others, was whether Republic Act No. 4695 (RA 4695), creating the provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, and Kalinga-Apayao and providing for congressional representation in the old and new provinces, was unconstitutional for “creati[ng] congressional districts without the apportionment provided in the Constitution.” The Court answered in the negative, thus:
The Constitution
ordains:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than one hundred and twenty Members who shall be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants, but each province shall have at least one Member. The Congress shall by law make an apportionment within three years after the return of every enumeration, and not otherwise. Until such apportionment shall have been made, the House of Representatives shall have the same number of Members as that fixed by law for the National Assembly, who shall be elected by the qualified electors from the present Assembly districts. Each representative district shall comprise as far as practicable, contiguous and compact territory.”
Pursuant to this Section, a representative district may come into existence: (a) indirectly, through the creation of a province — for “each province shall have at least one member” in the House of Representatives; or (b) by direct creation of several representative districts within a province. The requirements concerning the apportionment of representative districts and the territory thereof refer only to the second method of creation of representative districts, and do not apply to those incidental to the creation of provinces, under the first method. This is deducible, not only from the general tenor of the provision above quoted, but, also, from the fact that the apportionment therein alluded to refers to that which is made by an Act of Congress. Indeed, when a province is created by statute, the corresponding representative district, comes into existence neither by authority of that statute — which cannot provide otherwise — nor by apportionment, but by operation of the Constitution, without a reapportionment.
There is no constitutional limitation as to the time
when, territory of, or other conditions under which a province may be created,
except, perhaps, if the consequence thereof were to exceed the maximum of 120
representative districts prescribed in the Constitution, which is not the
effect of the legislation under consideration. As a matter of fact, provinces
have been created or subdivided into other provinces, with the consequent
creation of additional representative districts, without complying with the
aforementioned requirements.[32] (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the Court sustained the constitutionality of RA 4695 because (1) it validly created legislative districts “indirectly” through a special law enacted by Congress creating a province and (2) the creation of the legislative districts will not result in breaching the maximum number of legislative districts provided under the 1935 Constitution. Felwa does not apply to the present case because in Felwa the new provinces were created by a national law enacted by Congress itself. Here, the new province was created merely by a regional law enacted by the ARMM Regional Assembly.
What Felwa teaches is that the creation of a legislative district by Congress does not emanate alone from Congress’ power to reapportion legislative districts, but also from Congress’ power to create provinces which cannot be created without a legislative district. Thus, when a province is created, a legislative district is created by operation of the Constitution because the Constitution provides that “each province shall have at least one representative” in the House of Representatives. This does not detract from the constitutional principle that the power to create legislative districts belongs exclusively to Congress. It merely prevents any other legislative body, except Congress, from creating provinces because for a legislative body to create a province such legislative body must have the power to create legislative districts. In short, only an act of Congress can trigger the creation of a legislative district by operation of the Constitution. Thus, only Congress has the power to create, or trigger the creation of, a legislative district.
Moreover, if as Sema claims MMA Act 201 apportioned a legislative district to Shariff Kabunsuan upon its creation, this will leave Cotabato City as the lone component of the first legislative district of Maguindanao. However, Cotabato City cannot constitute a legislative district by itself because as of the census taken in 2000, it had a population of only 163,849. To constitute Cotabato City alone as the surviving first legislative district of Maguindanao will violate Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution which requires that “[E]ach city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand x x x, shall have at least one representative.”
Second. Sema’s theory also undermines
the composition and independence of the House of Representatives. Under Section
19,[33] Article VI of RA 9054, the ARMM Regional Assembly can
create provinces and cities within the ARMM with or without regard to the criteria fixed in Section 461 of RA
7160, namely: minimum annual income of P20,000,000,
and minimum contiguous territory of 2,000 square kilometers or minimum
population of 250,000.[34] The following
scenarios thus become distinct possibilities:
(1)
An inferior legislative body like the ARMM Regional Assembly can create 100 or
more provinces and thus increase the membership of a superior legislative body,
the House of Representatives, beyond
the maximum limit of 250 fixed in the Constitution (unless a national law
provides otherwise);
(2)
The proportional representation in the House of Representatives based on one representative
for at least every 250,000 residents will be negated because the ARMM Regional
Assembly need not comply with the requirement in Section 461(a)(ii) of RA 7160
that every province created must have a population of at least 250,000; and
(3) Representatives
from the ARMM provinces can become the majority in the House of Representatives
through the ARMM Regional Assembly’s continuous creation of provinces or cities
within the ARMM.
The following exchange during the oral arguments of the petition in G.R. No. 177597 highlights the absurdity of Sema’s position that the ARMM Regional Assembly can create provinces:
Justice Carpio:
So, you mean to say [a]
Local Government can create legislative district[s] and pack Congress with
their own representatives [?]
Atty. Vistan II:[35]
Yes, Your Honor, because the
Constitution allows that.
Justice Carpio:
So, [the] Regional
Assembly of [the] ARMM can create and create x x x provinces x x x
and, therefore, they can have thirty-five (35) new representatives in
the House of Representatives without Congress agreeing to it, is that what you are
saying? That can be done, under your theory[?]
Atty. Vistan II:
Yes, Your Honor, under
the correct factual circumstances.
Justice Carpio:
Under your theory, the
ARMM legislature can create thirty-five (35) new provinces, there may be x x x
[only] one hundred thousand (100,000) [population], x x x, and they will each
have one representative x x x to Congress without any national law, is that
what you are saying?
Atty. Vistan II:
Without law passed by
Congress, yes, Your Honor, that is what we are saying.
x x x x
Justice Carpio:
So, they can also create one thousand (1000) new
provinces, sen[d] one thousand (1000) representatives to the House of
Representatives without a national law[,] that is legally possible, correct?
Atty. Vistan II:
Yes,
Your Honor.[36] (Emphasis supplied)
Neither the framers of the 1987 Constitution in adopting the provisions in Article X on regional autonomy,[37] nor Congress in enacting RA 9054, envisioned or intended these disastrous consequences that certainly would wreck the tri-branch system of government under our Constitution. Clearly, the power to create or reapportion legislative districts cannot be delegated by Congress but must be exercised by Congress itself. Even the ARMM Regional Assembly recognizes this.
The Constitution empowered Congress to create or
reapportion legislative districts, not the regional assemblies. Section 3 of the Ordinance to the
Constitution which states, “[A]ny province that may hereafter be created x x x
shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one
Member,” refers
to a province created by Congress itself through a national law. The reason is
that the creation of a province increases the actual membership of the House of
Representatives, an increase that only Congress can decide. Incidentally, in the present 14th
Congress, there are 219[38] district
representatives out of the maximum 250 seats in the House of
Representatives. Since party-list
members shall constitute 20 percent of total membership of the House, there
should at least be 50 party-list seats available in every election in case 50
party-list candidates are proclaimed winners. This leaves only 200 seats for
district representatives, much less than the 219 incumbent district representatives. Thus, there is a need now for Congress to
increase by law the allowable membership of the House, even before Congress can
create new provinces.
It
is axiomatic that organic acts of autonomous regions cannot prevail over the
Constitution. Section 20, Article X of
the Constitution expressly provides that the legislative powers of regional
assemblies are limited “[w]ithin its territorial jurisdiction and subject to
the provisions of the Constitution and national laws, x x x.” The Preamble of the ARMM Organic Act (RA
9054) itself states that the ARMM Government is established “within the
framework of the Constitution.” This
follows Section 15, Article X of the Constitution which mandates that the ARMM
“shall be created x x x within the framework of this Constitution
and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the
Republic of the Philippines.”
The present case
involves the creation of a local government unit that necessarily involves also
the creation of a legislative district.
The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of the creation of
municipalities and barangays that does not comply with the criteria established
in Section 461 of RA 7160, as mandated in Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution, because the creation of such municipalities and barangays does
not involve the creation of legislative districts. We leave the resolution of this issue to an
appropriate case.
In summary, we rule that Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, insofar as it grants to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces and cities, is void for being contrary to Section 5 of Article VI and Section 20 of Article X of the Constitution, as well as Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. Only Congress can create provinces and cities because the creation of provinces and cities necessarily includes the creation of legislative districts, a power only Congress can exercise under Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. The ARMM Regional Assembly cannot create a province without a legislative district because the Constitution mandates that every province shall have a legislative district. Moreover, the ARMM Regional Assembly cannot enact a law creating a national office like the office of a district representative of Congress because the legislative powers of the ARMM Regional Assembly operate only within its territorial jurisdiction as provided in Section 20, Article X of the Constitution. Thus, we rule that MMA Act 201, enacted by the ARMM Regional Assembly and creating the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan, is void.
Resolution No. 7902
Complies with the Constitution
Consequently, we hold that COMELEC Resolution No. 7902, preserving the geographic and legislative district of the First District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City, is valid as it merely complies with Section 5 of Article VI and Section 20 of Article X of the Constitution, as well as Section 1 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, we declare Section 19, Article VI of Republic Act No. 9054 UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it grants to the Regional Assembly of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao the power to create provinces and cities. Thus, we declare VOID Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 creating the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan. Consequently, we rule that COMELEC Resolution No. 7902 is VALID.
Let a copy of this ruling be served on the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISU Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C.
CORONA Associate Justice |
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZC Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
RUBEN T. REYES Associate
Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] In G.R. No. 177597, for the writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus; in G.R. No. 178628, for “declaratory relief” and for the writs of prohibition and mandamus.
[2] The
petitioner in G.R. No. 177597, Bai Sandra S. A. Sema (Sema), further seeks to
compel the COM
[3] Barira, Buldon, Datu Odin Sinsuat, Kabuntalan, Matanog, Parang, Sultan Kudarat, and Upi. The second legislative district is composed of 19 municipalities (Talitay, Talayan, Guindulungan, Datu Saudi Ampatuan, Datu Piang, Shariff Aguak, Datu Unsay, Mamasapano, South Upi, Ampatuan, Datu Abdullah Sangki, Buluan, Datu Paglas, Gen, S.K. Pendatun, Sultan Sa Barongis, Rajah Buayan, Pagalungan, Pagagawan and Paglat).
[4] The enactment of the organic acts for the autonomous regions of the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao is mandated under Sections 18 and 19, Article X of the 1987 Constitution.
[5] The provision reads:
SECTION 19. Creation, Division or Abolition of
Provinces, Cities, Municipalities or Barangay. — The Regional Assembly may
create, divide, merge, abolish, or substantially alter boundaries of provinces,
cities, municipalities, or barangay in accordance with the criteria laid down
by Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, subject to the
approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units
directly affected. The Regional Assembly may prescribe standards lower than
those mandated by Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, in
the creation, division, merger, abolition, or alteration of the boundaries of
provinces, cities, municipalities, or barangay. Provinces, cities,
municipalities, or barangay created, divided, merged, or whose boundaries are
altered without observing the standards prescribed by Republic Act No. 7160,
the Local Government Code of 1991, shall not be entitled to any share of the
taxes that are allotted to the local governments units under the provisions of
the Code.
The financial
requirements of the provinces, cities, municipalities, or barangay so created,
divided, or merged shall be provided by the Regional Assembly out of the
general funds of the Regional Government.
The holding of
a plebiscite to determine the will of the majority of the voters of the areas
affected by the creation, division, merger, or whose boundaries are being
altered as required by Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of
1991, shall, however, be observed.
The Regional Assembly may also change the names of local government units, public places and institutions, and declare regional holidays. (Emphasis supplied)
Before the enactment of RA 9054, the power to create provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays was vested in Congress (for provinces, cities and municipalities) and in the sangguniang panlalawigan and sangguniang panlungsod (for barangays). (See Sections 384, 448, and 460 of Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991.)
[6] Sultan Mastura (created from Sultan Kudarat), Northern Kabuntulan (created from Kabuntulan) and Datu Blah Sinsuat (created from Upi).
[7] The Memorandum reads in pertinent parts:
The
record shows the former province of Maguindanao was divided into two new
provinces (Shariff Kabunsuan and Maguindanao), in view of Muslim Mindanao
Autonomy Act (MMAA) No. 201, which authority was conferred to under Section 17,
Article VI of Republic Act No. 9054 giving the ARMM, thru its Regional
Legislative Assembly, the power to legislate laws including the enactment of
the Local Government Code of ARMM.
The
newly created province of Shariff Kabunsuan comprises the municipalities of
Barira, Buldon, Datu Odin Sinsuat, Kabuntalan, Matanog, Parang, Sultan Kudarat,
Sultan Mastura, Upi and Datu Blah, including Cotabato City [which] belongs to
the first district of Maguindanao province.
It
must be emphasized that Cotabato City is not included as part of ARMM although
geographically located within the first district of the former Maguindanao
province. Cotabato City is not voting
for provincial officials. This is the
reason why Cotabato City was not specifically mentioned as part of the newly
created province of Shariff Kabunsuan.
Geographically
speaking since [sic] Cotabato City is located within the newly created province
of Shariff Kabunsuan having been bounded by municipalities of Sultan Kudarat,
Datu Odin Sinsuat and Kabuntalan as its nearest neighbors. Following the rule in establishing legislative
district, it shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and
adjacent territory.
However,
legally speaking, it may arise question of legality [sic] if Cotabato City will
be appended as part of the newly created Shariff Kabunsuan province. Under our Constitution [it is] only Congress
that shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the
standards provided for under Section 5(1) of Article VI.
x
x x x
In order to avoid controversy on the matter, pending the enactment of appropriate law by Congress, it would be prudent and logically feasible to maintain status quo with Cotabato City as part of Shariff Kabunsuan in the first district of Maguindanao.
[8] Resolution No. 7845 pertinently provides:
WHEREAS,
the Province of Maguindanao consists of two legislative districts, with
Cotabato City as part of the first legislative district.
WHEREAS,
Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 provided for the creation of the new
Province of Shariff Kabunsuan comprising the municipalities of Barira, Buldon,
Datu Odin Sinsuat, Kabuntalan, Matanog, Parang, Sultan Kudarat, Sultan Mastura
and Upi, all of the first legislative district of the mother Province of
Maguindanao, except Cotabato City which is not part of the Autonomous Region in
Muslim Mindanao; while the remaining municipalities of Talisay, Talayan,
Guindulungan, Datu Saudi Ampatuan, Datu Piang, Shariff Aguak, Datu Unsay,
Mamasapano, South Upi, Ampatuan, Datu Abdullah Sangki, Buluan, Datu Paglas,
Gen. S. K. Pendatun, Sultan Sa Barongis, Rajah Buayan, Pagalungan, Pagagawan,
and Paglat, all of the second legislative district of the mother Province of
Maguindanao, shall remain with said province;
WHEREAS,
the last paragraph of Section 5 of Muslim Mindanao Autonomy (MMA) Act No. 201
provides that “(e)xcept as may be provided by national law, the existing
legislative district, which includes Cotabato City as a part thereof, shall
remain.”;
WHEREAS, by reason of said provision of MMA Act No. 201, the first legislative district of the Province of Maguindanao is now made up of Cotabato City only, and its second legislative district, the municipalities of Talisay, Talayan, Guindulungan, Datu Saudi Ampatuan, Datu Piang, Shariff Aguak, Datu Unsay, Mamasapano, South Upi, Ampatuan, Datu Abdullah Sangki, Buluan, Datu Paglas, Gen. S. K. Pendatun, Sultan Sa Barongis, Rajah Buayan, Pagalungan, Pagagawan, and Paglat[.] (Emphasis supplied)
In the earlier Resolution No. 7801, dated 11 January 2007, the COMELEC allocated one legislative seat each for the provinces of Maguindanao and Shariff Kabunsuan for the 14 May 2007 elections.
[9] Resolution No. 7902 reads in full:
This
pertains to the amendment of Minute
Resolution No. 07-0407 dated March 6,
2007, entitled, “IN THE MATTER OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ATTY. WYNNE B. ASDALA,
ACTING DIRECTOR III, LAW DEPARTMENT,
RELATIVE TO THE STUDY/RECOMMENDATION OF SAID DEPART
“Considering
the foregoing, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to adopt the
recommendation of the Law Department that pending the enactment of the
appropriate law by Congress, to maintain status quo with Cotabato City as part
of Shariff Kabunsuan in the First District of Maguindanao.”
The
Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to amend the pertinent portion of
Minute Resolution No. 07-0407 to now read, as follows[:]
[“]Considering
the foregoing, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, that the
district shall be known as Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato City
(formerly First District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City).”
Let the Executive Director advise the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cotabato City accordingly. (Emphasis in the original)
[10] “Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.”
[11] “Any province that may hereafter be created, or any city whose population may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one Member or such number of Members as it may be entitled to on the basis of the number of its inhabitants and according to the standards set forth in paragraph (3), Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution. The number of Members apportioned to the province out of which such new province was created or where the city, whose population has so increased, is geographically located shall be correspondingly adjusted by the Commission on Elections but such adjustment shall not be made within one hundred and twenty days before the election.”
[12] Consistent with her claim that Cotabato City is not part of Shariff Kabunsuan’s legislative district, petitioner filed with the COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of respondent Dilangalen as candidate for representative of that province (docketed as SPA No. A07-0).
[13] Respondent Dilangalen asserts, and petitioner does not dispute, that as of 2000, Cotabato City had a population of 163,849, falling short of the minimum population requirement in Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution which provides: “Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.” (Emphasis supplied)
[14] 124 Phil. 1226 (1966).
[15] As provided in the Resolution of 16 October 2007.
[16] The Court also required Sema to submit with her Memorandum the certifications from the Department of Finance, the Lands Management Bureau, the National Statistics Office, and the Department of Interior and Local Government that at the time of the creation of Shariff Kabunsuan on 28 August 2006 it met the requisites for the creation of a province under Section 461 of RA 7160.
[17] “SEC. 6. Authority to Create Local Government Units. - A local government unit may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundaries substantially altered either by law enacted by Congress in the case of a province, city or municipality, or any other political subdivision, or by ordinance passed by the sangguniang panlalawigan or sangguniang panlungsod concerned in the case of a barangay located within its territorial jurisdiction, subject to such limitations and requirements prescribed in this Code.”
[18] “SECTION
10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided,
merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance
with the criteria established in the Local Government Code and subject to
approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units
directly affected.”
[19] Rollo, p. 229.
[20] “SECTION 6. Local government units shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them.”
[21] Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[22] Section 3, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[23] See, however, Macabago v. Commission on Elections (440 Phil. 683 [2002]) where the Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 will lie to question the constitutionality of an election regulation if the COMELEC has acted capriciously or whimsically, with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
[24] Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC, 409 Phil. 571 (2001); Mutuc v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-32717, 26 November 1970, 36 SCRA 228.
[25] Sections 385 and 386, RA 7160.
[26] Sections 441, 449 and 460, RA 7160.
[27] Section 20, Article X, Constitution.
[28] See Section 2, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution and Section 5, Article VI of the 1935 Constitution.
[29] 312 Phil. 492, 501 (1995).
[30] Section
48 of Republic Act No. 8507 (Charter of Parañaque City) provides:
Section 48. Legislative
District. — As a highly-urbanized city, the City of Parañaque shall have its
own legislative district with the first representative to be elected in the next national election after the
passage of this Act. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 50 of Republic Act No.
7839 (Charter of City of Pasig) provides:
Section 50.
Legislative District. — As highly urbanized, the City of Pasig shall
have its own legislative district with the first representative to be elected in the next national elections after
the passage of this Act. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 58 of Republic Act No. RA 9230 provides:
Section 58. Representative District. — The City of San Jose del Monte shall have its own representative district to commence in the next national election after the effectivity of this Act. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 7 of Republic Act No.
9355 provides:
Section 7. Legislative District. — The Province of Dinagat Islands shall constitute one, separate legislative district to commence in the next national election after the effectivity of this Act. (Emphasis supplied)
[31] In
his Concurring Opinion in Paras v. Commission on Elections (332 Phil.
56, 66 [1996]), then Associate
Justice (later Chief Justice) Hilario G. Davide, Jr. stated:
The
term “regular local election” must be confined to the regular election of
elective local officials, as distinguished from the regular election of
national officials. The elective national officials are the President,
Vice-President, Senators and Congressmen. The elective local officials are
Provincial Governors, Vice-Governors of provinces, Mayors and Vice-Mayors of
cities and municipalities, Members of the Sanggunians of provinces, cities and
municipalities, punong barangays and members of the sangguniang barangays, and
the elective regional officials of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao.
These are the only local elective officials deemed recognized by Section 2(2)
of Article IX-C of the Constitution, which provides:
SEC. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
x x x x
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied)
[32] Supra note 13 at 1235-1236.
[33] See
note 3.
[34] Section
461 provides: “Requisites for Creation.
— (a) A province may be created if it has an average annual income, as
certified by the Department of Finance, of not less than Twenty million pesos (P20,000,000.00)
based on 1991 constant prices and either of the following requisites:
(i)
a contiguous territory of at least two thousand (2,000) square kilometers, as certified by the Lands
Management Bureau; or
(ii)
a population of not less than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) inhabitants
as certified by the National Statistics Office: Provided, That, the creation
thereof shall not reduce the land area, population, and income of the original
unit or units at the time of said creation to less than the minimum
requirements prescribed herein.
(b) The territory need not be
contiguous if it
comprise two (2) or more islands or is
separated by a chartered city or cities
which do not contribute to the income of the province.
(c)
The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general
fund, exclusive of special funds,
trust funds, transfers and non-recurring income.”
[35] Atty. Edgardo Carlos B. Vistan II, counsel for petitioner in G.R. No. 177597.
[36]
[37] Unlike the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions, the 1987 Constitution mandates, in Section 15, Article X, the creation of autonomous regions in the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao to foster political autonomy. See Cordillera Broad Coalition v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 79956, 29 January 1990, 181 SCRA 495.
[38] Website of House of Representatives as of 12 May 2008.