Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur

8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur

1/34

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON

C. AQUINO III and MAYOR JESSE

ROBREDO,

Petitioner,

-versus-

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

represented by its Chairman JOSE A.RMELO and its Commissioners, RENE

V. SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T.

FERRER, LUCENITO N. TAGLE,

ARMANDO VELASCO, ELIAS R.YUSOPH AND GREGORIO

LARRAZABAL;

Respondents.x-------------------------------------------------x

G.R. No. ________________________

For:Petition to Declare Republic Act No.9716 as Unconstitutional, Certiorari

and Prohibition With Prayer for theIssuance Of a Temporary RestrainingOrder and/or Writ of PreliminaryInjunction.

PETITION

Petitioners, SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III and

MAYOR JESSE ROBREDO, by counsel, respectfully state.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

While it may not be possible to draw congressional districts withmathematical precision, that is no excuse for ignoring our Constitutions

plain objective of making equal representation for equal numbers of peoplethe fundamental goal for the House of Representatives. That is the highstandard of justice and common sense which the Founders set for us.


2/34

At the outset, it should be noted that petitioner Aquino is not against

additional representation in the House of Representatives. In fact, he is an

advocate of representation. He believes that people should not only be

adequately represented in national policy making, but their voices should also be

heard equally in the august halls of Congress through their chosen

representatives. However, representation should be based on a uniform and

progressive ratio as provided for in our Constitution and that one mans vote

should be equal to that of the other. Petitioner is also aware that mathematical

precision is impossible in apportioning and reapportioning legislative districts,

but the standards set forth in our Constitution, i.e., population and contiguity,

should be observed, at all times, in the creation of new congressional districts.

Hence, petitioner respectfully calls upon this Honorable Supreme Court

to exercise its bounden duty to interpret the Constitution and to settle the issues

and controversies arising from redistricting legislations. At the end of the day,

petitioners ask that this Honorable Supreme Court uphold the rule of law by

declaring Republic Act No. 9716 as void in its entirety for being

unconstitutional.

NATURE OF THE PETITION

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules

of Court seeking to declare Republic Act No. 9716 entitled An Act

Reapportioning the Composition of the First and Second Legislative Districts in the

Province of Camarines Sur and thereby Creating A New Legislative District from Such

Reapportionment (R.A. 9716) unconstitutional for failing to meet the


3/34

preliminary and/or prohibitory injunction to enjoin the Commission on Elections

(COMELEC) from implementing the said law.

The enactment of R.A. 9716 done beyond the framework of the

Constitution clearly shows that the same was accomplished with grave abuse of

discretion and in excess of authority. It is patently unconstitutional, manifestly

illegal and contrary to the fundamental law of the land. In view of the

paramount public interest involved, adequate and speedy recourse may be had

only through this Honorable Court and petitioners have no appeal or any other

plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

THE PARTIES

1.

Petitioner BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III (Senator

Aquino), is a Filipino citizen, of legal age, a Senator of the Republic of the

Philippines and also the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Local

Government, and with address at No. 25 Times Street, West Triangle, Quezon

City. He files this petition as a legislator, taxpayer and citizen of the Republic of

the Philippines, on matters of transcendental importance thereto in accordance with

the decisions of this Honorable Court.

2. Petitioner JESSE M. ROBREDO (Mayor Robredo), is a Filipinocitizen, of legal age, and is the incumbent Mayor of Naga City, which is part of

the current Second District of Camarines Sur, and with address at Bulusan Street,

Dayangdang, Naga City. He likewise files this petition as a taxpayer and citizen,

on matters of transcendental importance.


4/34

3. Respondent COMELEC, represented by its Chairman Jose A.R.Melo and its Commissioners, namely, Rene V. Sarmiento, Nicodemo T. Ferrer,

Lucenito N. Tagle, Armado C. Velasco, Elias R. Yusoph and Gregorio Larrazabal,

is a Constitutional Body with office at Intramuros, Manila, where it may be

served with summons and other processes by this Honorable Court.

STANDING OF PETITIONERS TO SUE

4. Petitioners have personal and substantial interest in this case andthey will sustain direct injury as a result of the implementation of R.A. 9716. In

the case of Francisco, Jr., et al. v. House of Representatives, et al.,2 this Honorable

Court has ruled:

In the case of a taxpayer, he is allowed to sue where there is aclaim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that publicmoney is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there iswastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid orunconstitutional law. Before he can invoke the power of judicialreview, however, he must specifically prove that he has sufficientinterest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised bytaxation and that he would sustain a direct injury as a result of the

enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. It is not sufficientthat he has merely a general interest common to all members of thepublic. xxx

5. As taxpayers, petitioners standing is grounded on the fact thatRepublic Act No. 9716 entails the disbursement of government funds. Given that

Republic Act No. 9716 is patently unconstitutional, the expenditure of

government funds to implement its terms is in violation of law and is an ultra


5/34

vires act.3 Previously, this Honorable Court had given due course to a taxpayers

suit to question an intended disbursement of public funds, stating that

petitioners therein have locus standi upon their assertion that their material

interest in said case was to see to it that public funds are properly and lawfully

used.4 Consistent with the foregoing jurisprudence, petitioners herein object to

the implementation of R.A. 9716 for being a wasteful disbursement of public

funds thereby exposing petitioners, as taxpayers, to financial and pecuniary

prejudice.

6. In any case, the Supreme Court has declared in Spouses Renato andLourdes Constantino vs. Hon. Jose Cuisia, et al,that:

The recent trend on locus standi has veered towards a liberaltreatment in taxpayer's suits. In Tatad v. Garcia Jr., this Court

reiterated that the prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are toallow taxpayers to question contracts entered into by the nationalgovernment or government owned and controlled corporationsallegedly in contravention of law. A taxpayer is allowed to suewhere there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, orthat public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, orthat there is wastage of public funds through the enforcement of aninvalid or unconstitutional law.5

7. In view of the apparent disregard for the rule of law in the instantcase, petitioners have made it incumbent upon themselves as citizens and

taxpayers and elective official of the Republic of the Philippines to call this

Honorable Courts attention to the manifest violations of the fundamental law of

the land. Accordingly, petitioners are vested with locus standi to institute the

present petition.


6/34

STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. On 04 June 2008, Representative Luis R. Villafuerte filed House BillNo. 4264 or An Act Reapportioning the Composition of the First (1 st) and Second

(2nd) Legislative Districts in the Province of Camarines Sur and Thereby Creating

a New Legislative District from Such Reapportionment (hereinafter referred to as

House Bill 4264). The bill was referred to the Committee on Rules on the same

day and the Committee on Local Government submitted Committee Report No.

00624. The House of Representatives approved it on Second Reading. A copy of

the certified true copy of House Bill No. 4264 as filed in the House of

Representative is hereto attached as Annex A.

9. On 11 June 2008, the House of Representatives approved House Bill4264 on Third Reading.

10. On 11 June 2008, House Bill 4264, as approved by the House ofRepresentatives, was transmitted to the Senate of the Philippines for its

consideration.

11. On 17 June 2008, the Senate of the Philippines received thetransmitted copy of House Bill 4624.

12. On 04 August 2008, House Bill 4624 was read on First Reading inthe Senate and was referred to the Committees on Local Government and

Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws.


7/34

on Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws, as secondary

committee, conducted joint committee public hearings on House Bill 4624. The

said public hearings were attended by members of both committees, two

representatives from the Province of Camarines Sur, namely, Representatives

Luis R. Villafuerte and Diosdado Macapagal Arroyo, and Governor Luis

Raymund Villafuerte. A number of local government officials, mostly Mayors,

led by Mayor Fernando Simbulan of the Muncipality of Nabua and the League of

Mayors President of the Province of Camarines Sur were also in attendance.

13.01. During the public hearings both Sen. Arroyo and Cong.

Villafuerte presented the argument that the Constitution did not provide

for any minimum population requirement for the creation of

congressional districts within a province. They espoused the view that, in

contrast to cities where the Constitution requires that it must have at least

250,000 inhabitants for it to be entitled to one (1) legislative district, there

is no such requirement for provinces and this justifies why there are

provinces such as Batanes, Camiguin, Siquijor, etc., that has less than

250,000 inhabitants yet have their own legislative district. In the case of

cities, Sen. Arroyo and Cong. Villafuerte asserted that the case of Mariano

vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 118577, 7 March 1995, further qualified the

requirement of population for the creation of additional legislative

districts. They aver that in this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is

immaterial whether the additional legislative district within a city has

250,000 inhabitants for its creation, for as long as the city has met the

minimum population requirement. Stated otherwise, the 250,000


8/34

legislative districts within a province, Cong. Villafuerte offered as

example the case of the creation of an additional legislative district for the

Province of Zamboanga, Sibugay where one of its legislative districts has

less than 250,000 at the time of its creation.6

13.02. Gov. Villafuerte principally argued that the envisioned

proposed first district for the province falls short of the requisite

minimum population requirement for the creation of an additional

legislative district. He stressed that exclusive reliance on the Mariano vs

Comelec case is inappropriate, as there is nothing in the said decision that

would suggest that the creation of additional legislative district for a

province is exempted from the population requirement.7

14. At the end of the hearings, five (5) members and one (1) abstentionfrom both committees approved the passage of the measure in the committee

level.

15. On 17 August 2009 the Committee on Local Government and theCommittee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Laws returned and

submitted a committee report, reporting the passage of House Bill 4264 in the

committee level and recommended the consideration of the contents of the

committee report. A certified true copy of Committee Report No. 550 is hereto

attached as Annex B.


9/34

16. On 18 August 2009, Committee Report no. 550 was calendared forordinary business and designated Sen. Francis Escudero as sponsor of the

measure.

17. On 19 August 2009, Committee Report No. 550 was assigned forspecial consideration by special order and the Chairman of the Committee on

Local Government, herein petitioner, assigned Sen. Joker P. Arroyo to sponsor

the measure. On the same day, Sen. Arroyo delivered his sponsorship speech for

House Bill No. 4264 under Committee Report No. 550.

18. On 16 and 22 September 2009, petitioner Sen. Aquino interpellated

the sponsor Senator Arroyo on the merits and validity of the proposed measure.

19. On 23 September 2009, the period of interpellation was closed and

since there were no committee and individual amendments, the period of

amendments was likewise closed. On this same date, House Bill No. 4264 was

approved on Second Reading by the Senate in plenary sessions.

20. On 28 September 2009, the Senate approved House Bill No. 4264

with a vote of thirteen in favor and two against the bill (13-2).8

21. On 07 October 2009, enrolled copies of House Bill No. 4264, were

received by the Office of the Senate Secretary for the signature compliance of

Senate Secretary Reyes and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile. On the same

8 In favor: 13 EDGARDO J. ANGARA JOKER P. ARROYO ALAN PETER


10/34

date, the enrolled copies of House Bill No, 4264 were sent back to the House of

Representatives duly signed by Senate Secretary Reyes and Senate President

Enrile.

22. On 12 October 2009, House Bill 4264 was approved and signed into

law by the President of the Philippines, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on

October 12, 2009, and became Republic Act No. 9716 or an Act Reapportioning

the Composition of the First and Second Legislative Districts in the Province of

Camarines Sur and thereby Creating a New Legislative District from such

Reapportionment. A certified true copy of Republic Act No. 9716 is hereto

attached as Annex C.

23. On 15 October 2009, Republic Act No. 9716 was published in Page

A3 of the Manila Standard Today. A photocopy of page A3 of Manila Standard

Today issued on 15 October 2009 is hereto attached as Annex D.

GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION

I

REPUBLIC ACT 9716 IS UNCONSTITUTIONALBECAUSE THE NEWLY APPORTIONED FIRSTDISTRICT OF CAMARINES SUR FAILED TOMEET THE POPULATION REQUIREMENT FORTHE CREATION OF THE LEGISLATIVEDISTRICT AS EXPLICITLY PROVIDED INARTICLE VI, SECTION 5 PARAGRAPHS (1) AND(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 3 OFTHE ORDINANCE APPENDED THERETO.

II

REPUBLIC ACT 9716 VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLEOF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AS


11/34

DISCUSSION

I

REPUBLIC ACT 9716 IS UNCONSTITUTIONALBECAUSE THE NEWLY APPORTIONED FIRSTDISTRICT OF CAMARINES SUR FAILED TOMEET THE POPULATION REQUIREMENT FOR ACREATION OF A LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT ASEXPLICITLY PROVIDED IN ARTICLE VI,SECTION 5 PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (3) OF THECONSTITUTION AND SECTION 3 OF THEORDINANCE APPENDED THERETO.

24. Republic Act 9716 seeks to reapportion the first and second

legislative districts of Camarines Sur. Before the reapportionment, the first

district is composed of the towns of Del Gallego, Ragay, Lupi, Sipocot, Cabusao,

Libmanan, Minalabac, Pamplona, Pasacao, San Fernando with a population of

417,304 as per the 2007 Census of Population. The second legislative district is

composed of the towns of Gainza, Milaor, Pili, Ocampo, Camaligan, Canaman,

Magarao, Bombon, Calabanga and the City of Naga with a combined population

of 474,899 as the 2007 Census of Population.

25. With the reapportionment of the two districts , the first district

would have a population of 176,383, way below the population requirement

under the Constitution, while the second district would have a population of

276,777 as certified by the National Statistics Office. A copy of the population

certification for the province of Camarines Sur by the National Statistics Office is

hereto attached as Annex E.

The population as of August 1, 2007 of the first and second legislative


12/34

Del Gallego 21,272 Libmanan 92,839Ragay 52,630 Minalabac 43, 957Lupi 27,630 Pamplona 31,895Sipocot 57,861 Pasacao 41,533Cabusao 17,599 San Fernando 30,697

Gainza 9,404Milaor 26,452

26. After the reapportionment, the City of Naga, and the municipalities

of Pili, Ocampo, Camaligan, Canaman, Magarao, Bombon and Calabanga will

form part of the third district of Camarines Sur.9

27. Apportionment is defined as the process by which legislative

seats are distributed among units entitled to representation and

reapportionment is defined as the realignment or change in legislative districts

brought about by changes in population and mandated by the constitutional

requirement of equality of representation.10

(emphasis supplied)

28. The Constitution provides for the composition and membership of

the House of Representatives and the standards for the apportionment and

reapportionment of legislative districts in Article VI, Section 5:

Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed ofnot more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwisefixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districtsapportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan

Manila area in accordance with the number of their respectiveinhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio,and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through aparty-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoralparties or organizations.

(2) xxx

(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable,contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a


13/34

(4) Within three years following the return of every census, theCongress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districtsbased on the standards provided in this section. (emphasis supplied)

29. A simple application of the plain language of the above-quoted

constitutional provision and its underlying principle would have avoided this

legal inconvenience. A simple reading and basic understanding of the above-

quoted constitutional provision and its underlying principle would have settled

the issue of whether the creation of additional legislative districts within

provinces are guided by the same standards set forth therein.

30. The population requirement in Article VI Section 5(3) of two

hundred fifty thousand (250,000) applies to both cities and provinces, except for

newly created provinces, which by express provision of the Constitution are

automatically entitled to one (1) representation in the House of Representatives

regardless of its population at the time of its creation. An additional legislative

district may be created out of lone congressional districts, whether it is within a

province or a city, provided its population has grown to at least 500,000.

Necessarily therefore, all congressional districts shall have a minimum of 250,000

inhabitants for its creation. If a redistricting bill fails to meet the minimum

constitutional requirement we see no justification to merit its approval by

Congress.

31. The debates in the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that it

was the intent of the framers to divide provinces and cities into 200 districts on

the basis of a population then of 55 million. Under the present Constitution,


14/34

every 250,000 inhabitants, except for newly created provinces, as provided in Sec.

3 of the Ordinance appended in the Constitution, which provides:

Any province that may hereafter be created, or any city whosepopulation may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fiftythousand shall be entitled in the immediately following electionto at least one member or such number of Members as it may beentitled to on the basis of the number its inhabitants andaccording to the standards set forth in paragraph (3), Section 5 ofArticle VI of the Constitution. The number of Membersapportioned to the province out of which such new province wascreated or where the city, whose population has so increased, isgeographically located shall be correspondingly adjusted by theCommission on Elections but such adjustment shall not be madewithin one hundred and twenty days before the election. (emphasissupplied)

Clearly, it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution to allot or ascribe

one representative for every 250,000 inhabitants. Father Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.

noted that on the basis of the population of 55 million, the result achieved was

roughly one representative for every 250,000. In his annotation of the 1987

Constitution, he elucidated that:

Section 5(1) fixes the membership of the House of Representativesat two hundred and fifty. The initial total membership was arrivedat taking into consideration a national population of 55 million.However, the total membership of the House may be raised from

time to time by statute because Section 1 says that the total is 250unless otherwise fixed by law. This can be done throughreapportionment resulting in the creation of new districts orthrough the creation of new provinces, since each province isentitled to at least one district, or through the creation of citiesmeriting one legislative district under Section 5(3).Reapportionment of legislative districts, according to Section 5(4),must be done in order to ensure that proportional representation ispreserved.11

32. While it is true that under Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to

the Constitution, an increase in the number of inhabitants of a city or a province


15/34

legislative district, this does not sanction the act of dispensing with the

requirements set forth in Article VI Section 5 of the Constitution.

33. As thus worded, entitlement to an additional number of district

representative shall be made 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.

34. The aforestated provision evinces the intent of the Constitutional

Commission that the legislative districts are 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.

35. For a city or a province to qualify for an increase in its district

representative, it is imperative that the increase in its population must be such as

to satisfy the population requirement of 250,000 and the configuration of the

territory of the new district must be compact, contiguous and adjacent.

The determination of the number of members in the House of Representatives is

based on the projected population at the time when the Constitution was drafted.

The creation of legislative districts that may thereafter be created should be

based on the increase of population. This assertion is borne out of the Record of

the Constitutional Commission.

Mr. Padilla: Does the Commissioner not believe that a Housecomposed of say, 250 although it says not more- is a very vagueAssembly, a House composed of so many Members?

Mr. Davide: Mr. Presidin Officer, we had taken that u . That issue


16/34

again the possibility of a reduction of the maximum or an increasebeyond the 250 if the population would grow so much.

Mr. Padilla: Assuming that the population may grow, provided thedistrict is contiguous and to avoid gerrymandering, a particular

district maybe composed not only of a determinate territory butalso the population of inhabitants therein, the registered voterstherein, maybe increased. What I mean is, if before one districtwould have 150,000 or 200,000, it is simple to make the numbercomposing one district, say 250,000 or 300,000 so that that seats inthe House of Representatives may not be so numerous that it maybe difficult sometimes to have a more orderly procedure or, in theabsence of several Members, to even constitute a quorum. What Iam driving at is, If under the Congress before martial law, theHouse of Representatives, where our Commissioner Laurel used to

be Speaker, only consisted of a little more than 100 seats, does theCommissioner not believe that 250 assuming that this is themaximum is still very big.

Mr. Davide: Mr. Presiding Officer, taking into account thepopulation- as projected in 1986, the population of the country willbe 56 million, and the constant used by the COMELEC in allocatingthe number of seats to 199 is a population of 400,000 already so anyfurther reduction may mean that there will be more and morepeople represented by less and less. It might not be conducive to a

legislative body which is supposed to be representative.12

(emphasissupplied)

36. In his final sponsorship speech for the Legislative Department,

Commissioner Davide emphasized that reapportionment of legislative districts is

to be determined by population.

Commissioner Davide: The ordinance fixes at 200 the number oflegislative seats which are, in turn, apportioned among theprovinces and cities with a population of at least 250,000 and theMetropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of theirrespective inhabitants on the basis of a uniform and progressiveratio. The population is based on the 1986 projection, with the 1980official enumeration as the point of reckoning. This projectionindicates that our population is more or less 56 million. Taking intoaccount the mandate that each city with at least 250,000 inhabitants

and each province shall have at least one representative, we firstallotted one seat for each of the 73 provinces, and each one for allcities with a population of at least 250,000, which are the Cities ofManila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan, Cebu, Iloilo, Bacolod, Cagayan


17/34

inhabitants on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio.13(emphasis supplied)

37. This may likewise be gleaned from the concept of progressive ratio

and proportional representation expounded by the Commissioners of the

Constitutional Commission.

Mr. Natividad: Since the Floor Leader is already signaling me, mylast question is: What is the concept of progressive ratio for therecord? What is the Gentlemans concept of uniform andprogressive ratio? How do we redistrict the entire Philippines onthe basis of uniform and progressive ratio?

Mr. Davide: That would be covered by Section 5 of the Article onthe Legislative Department which says:

The House of Representatives shall be composed ofnot more than two hundred and fifty members whoshall be elected from legislative districts apportionedamong the provinces and cities in accordance with thenumber of their respective inhabitants, and on thebasis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those

who, as provided by law, shall be elected from thesectors and party list.

Mr. Davide: x x x On that particular basis, we have studied thepossibility of only having 198 regular Members for the first Houseof Representatives. So, the basis for that is one representative forevery 300,000 depending on the compactness, contiguity andadjacence of territories consisting of municipalities and cities withless than 200,000 inhabitants within a given province.14 (emphasissupplied)

38. In fact, in the discussions of Constitutional Commission of 1986

on how to divide and apportion legislative districts based on the number of

inhabitants, the case of Palawan was set as an example. Commissioner Nolledo

raised the question on the district to which the City of Puerto Princesa will

belong.

MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I notice thatPuerto Princesa is nearer to Aborlan than Puerto Princesa is nearer


18/34

Puerto Princesa with the northern towns, we will be arriving at atotal of 265,000 as against only 186,000 in the South. I am reallyconcerned about this for practical purposes. I would like to tell thebody that Cuyo and Coron are very important towns of thenorthern part of Palawan. In fact, Cuyo used to be the capital of

Palawan before Puerto Princesa was made the capital of ourProvince. And as far as prospective candidates are concerned, if wewill include Puerto Princesa City- pardon me, with due respect tothose residing in the south I can find more candidates in the northwho are known in Palawan and who are interested in running forCongress in the south. There are many who are in Cuyo and Coron,so they will be fighting each other there and there will be lesscandidates, perhaps, in the south. I think we should consider alsothe importance of Cuyo and Coron on the upper side. There will beno important area in the south except, perhaps, Quezon, but there

are many Palawenos in Quezon. Of course, I have no objection ifany poor man decides to run for Congress, but I doubt if there isanyone interested in that area to run for Congress.

MR. DAVIDE. On the basis of the committee proposal, if weremove Puerto Princesa form the First District and transfer it to theSecond District, the entire population of the Second District will be251,000 more or less, and the First District, without Puerto Princesawill only be 190,000.

MR. NOLLEDO. I do not believe so.

MR. DAVIDE. I understand that Puerto Princesa is practically thegateway to the other municipalities indicated as belonging to theFirst District.

MR. NOLLEDO. I think the computation is seemingly erroneousbecause I made my own computation. If we include PuertoPrincesa in the upper side in the First District, what will happen?How many will remain?

MR. DAVIDE. It would have a total of 265,358.

MR. NOLLEDO. No, I think something like 262,213 because under86,000 will be the population in the south. We add 75,480, and wewill have only 262,000. But if we add Puerto Princesa to the upperside, we will have 265,000.

MR. DAVIDE. So the Commissioners proposal is that PuertoPrincesa be in the Second District with Aborlan, Balaba, Batarasa,Brookes Point, Narra, Quezon and Marcos.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, because Puerto Princesa has greater affinitywith the southern towns than with northern towns. I can say thatwithout fear of valid contradiction.


19/34

MR. DAVIDE. At the proper time, we may be able to consider theCommissioners proposal, I mean during the period ofamendments.15

39. It is thus clear from the foregoing citation that Sen. Arroyos and

Cong. Villafuertes position that there is no population standard in

reapportionment of legislative districts within a province is erroneous. The

Constitution clearly provides a fixed standard that would guide lawmakers in

ascertaining whether a particular redistricting bill should be favorably acted

upon or disapproved. As the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission

reveal, that standard is the population, and it is this population standard by

which the principle of proportional representation is concretized. If we remove

this standard, what then would be the criteria in redistricting cities and

municipalities in order for them to be equally represented in the House of

Representatives? Petitioners shudder at the thought where this constitutional

requirement of population in redistricting provinces is disregardedas it wouldset a precedent where Congress can simply create a legislative district at its

discretion. Certainly, it would be absurd to think that the framers of the

Constitution would have intended to allow Congress to create legislative

districts arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously. For if that were the case, then

the only criterion left would be territorial contiguity, which is not even

mandatory since the phrase as far as practicable provided in Section 5 (3),

Article VI of the Constitution, is not really determinant of representation, but a

prohibition on gerrymandering.

40. As petitioner Aquino emphasized during the committee hearings

and plenary debates, the phrase legislative districts apportioned among the


20/34

number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and

progressive ratio found in Article VI Section 5 (1) of the Constitution mandates

equality of requirements in the creation of legislative districts for provinces and

cities.16

41. Sen. Arroyo and Cong. Villafuerte justified their position that no

standards exist for provinces by wrongly invoking the pronouncement of this

Honorable Court in the case of Mariano vs Comelec (supra). First, the said case

involves the creation of an additional legislative district in a city and second,

while the Supreme Court said in that case that as of the 1990 census, the

population of the City of Makati stood at only 450,000, it impliedly recognized

the certificate issued by Administrator Tomas Africa of the National Census and

Statistics Office that the population of Makati as of 1994, when the Makati

redistricting bill was passed by Congress, stood at 508,174.17 Hence, the said case

cannot be a good basis for claiming that no population requirement exists as to

legislative districts in a province. Neither can it be a good guide to pattern

creation of legislative districts with a deficient population for at the time of its

creation, its 508,174 population is in compliance with the population requirement

under Article VI Section 5 (1) and (3) of the Constitution.

42. As stated at the outset, petitioner Aquino is not entirely opposed to

the creation of a new legislative district for the Province of Camarines Sur. He

recognizes that with the present population of the entire province of 1,693,821,

Camarines Sur may be entitled to another legislative district.


21/34


22/34

45. Clearly, if we juxtapose House Bill No. 4264 and Republic Act No.

9716, the proposed amendment of petitioner Aquino to House Bill No. 4264 is

constitutionally sound, because the proposal would make all legislative districts

compliant with the population requirement under the Constitution. There is no

doubt that with the proposal of petitioner Aquino, the creation of the 1st

legislative district would be in accordance with the constitutional requirement of

contiguity, adjacentness and compactness in terms of territory. A copy of the

administrative map showing the proposed boundaries of the different legislative

districts in the Province of Camarines Sur submitted by the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources to the Committee on Local Government is

hereto attached as Annex F.

46. As previously stated Sen. Arroyo rejected the proposed

amendment of petitioner Aquino. Sen Arroyo justified his rejection of the

amendments proposed by petitioner Aquino upon the following grounds: (1)

Some congressmen do not want their districts be affected by House Bill No. 4264;

(2) A waterway separates the town of Libmanan from the towns comprising the

proposed 1st district; (3) Linguistic differences prevent the inclusion of Libmanan

to the proposed 1st district; and (4) redistricting bill is a business that purely

pertains to the House of Representatives and the Senate will be intruding into an

exclusive lower house domain if it attempts to reconfigure a redistricting bill.

The full exchanges between Sen. Aquino and Sen. Arroyo on this matter are

quoted below:

Sen. Aquino. Mr. President, we have to respond to the last statement.


23/34

think we have established that we do not agree on our interpretation of theConstitution.

With his permission, Mr. President, since I am against of his time, maywe move on to the next point so as not to be accused of delaying the

passage of the bill any further?

May we ask: Why was Libmanan not considered to be a portion ofthe proposed first district? Because having done the same, insteadof having the 170,000-figure, we would have a 269,222 population

figure.

Sen. Arroyo. All right. Look at that map.

Sen. Aquino. May we just move to another rostrum, Mr. President. We

cannot view the details from this particular rostrum, with the indulgenceof our distinguished colleague.

Sen. Arroyo. As I have said, the brown portion in that map ofCamarines SurI do not know what district it is but it isisrepresented by Congressman Fuentebella. He does not want thisdistrict touched. There is nothing we can do about it, since he does notwant it to be touched.

The red portion is represented by Congressman Alfelor. He does not

want his district to be touched. The green portion is represented byCongressman Villafuerte. He does not also want it touched. Even ifthey have a pregnant populace or inhabitants, he does not want it touched.

Now, the first district of Camarines Sur is so big that it consists of 40% ofthe province, area-wise. Libmanan is the biggest municipality in the entireor present first district. It stuck in the middle. We cannot move that nomatter whatbecause that is the biggest. Anyway, we move it left, wemove it right, it would change the configuration. Those are the practicaldifficulties in trying to figure out how. That is the situation. As we see,there is a water extension of the gulf. We cannot connect them becausethey are separated by water. So it is no longer contiguous because it isseparated by water and there is nothing we can do about it. That is what Iwas saying about mathematical formula. We cannot have mathematical

formula when a natural boundary like water cannot make themunicipalities contiguous. That is the picture. It is all there.

The violet is the tagalog-speaking province. The green is the Bicol-speaking province so that is the only way to divide it. So much has beendone in the Lower House in trying to figure it out. But as long as the threeCongressman do not agree, then there is nothing we can do about it. That

is the power. For those of us who have served in the House ofRepresentative, what the Congressman says in his district is king. He isthe king there, there is nothing we can do about it. We respect that.


24/34

on the map previously shown and that can be done. That can bereconfigured if we were just using geography and the test of territoriality.

Now, in sequel to that, the proposed second district of Magarao, Panaman (sic) and Camaligan can be placed in the proposed

second district and it will have a population of 258,000. The body ofwater alluded to by our distinguished colleague, it seems in our map thatthe municipalities mentioned are all on the same side of the waterway. Wedo not see where the issue of contiguousness comes in to play. The

proposed third district, with these changes, would still be having apopulation of 364,187.

The only point we are trying to raise is that if it just a question ofterritory and population, there seems to be other ways of havingconfigured these districts to enable Camarines Sur to have its

entire complement of six districts. If the answer is, that thecongressman there who are now representing Camarines Surcannot agree on the other modes of configuring their district, thenthat is another. But will our distinguished colleague agree thatthere is no constitutional prohibition for us to reconfigure thesedistricts on a different formula.

Sen. Arroyo. Mr. President, this is where the Senate must differ to theHouse of Representatives. Redistricting is a local bill and it cannotemanate from the Senate. It will emanate only from the House of

Representatives. This has been debated in the House of Representativesover and over and no one could agree. So, in its wisdom, the House ofRepresentatives agreed to what has been presented here.If we agree nowit to reconfigure it, the Senate now will be intruding into what is

purely a House of Representatives business. This is redistricting.Quite frankly, what business does the Senate have in trying toreconfigure out the provinces when we do not represent any

particular district? Only congressmen who are familiar with their owndistricts can discuss this.

Let me ask, for instance. How many districts does Tarlac have. Aboutfour.

Sen. Aquino. There are three districts, Mr. President.

Sen. Arroyo. Three districts. Imagine if we tell the congressmen there,Configure it this way, configure it that way. No self-respectingcongressman will ever, ever accept dictation from the Senate. That is howit is. This is one thing where the congressmen will never yield to theSenate. We touch their districts, they will never agree no matter how

powerful the Senate is. When it comes to their district congressmen

are kings. We cannot touch them. We cannot ask them to do it.

We can imagine if the Senate will now start to tinker with everyredistricting bill here. Historically, I do not think we have ever tampered


25/34

We can just imagine if we ask the Majority Leader to redistrict Bukidnon.We will tell them what to do, do this, do that. It will be very difficult.

Sen. Aquino. Mr. President, does that mean that the previous position ofour distinguished colleague with regard to cityhood is also of the same

vein or a different vein?

Sen. Arroyo. Mr. President, we are talking of provinces here. That is thewhole problem.

Sen. Aquino. So it is a different vein?

Sen. Arroyo. Yes. When we talk about cities, it is different. When we talkabout province, it is different. We interrelate the two which cannot bedone.

Sen. Aquino. It is the position therefore, Mr. President, of thedistinguished colleague, that as far as redistricting bills, especially when

provinces are concerned , is it his position that the Senate be a mererubber stamp of any activity or actuation or bills passed by the

House of Representatives given that we should be respecting theirinterests, paraphrasing what the gentleman said.

Sen. Arroyo. Of course not, there is no absolutism here. But the thing isthat, if we reconfigure this, what happens? This will be left, this bill will

stranded. I mean, I do not want to fall victim into having agreeing to havethis restudied and then say to the House of Representatives so that thiscannot catch up with the deadline. A delay in this bill spells death for thisbill.

Sen. Aquino. Which is precisely my point, Mr. President, when Congressor the House of Representatives sent us this bill they are interested in theconfiguring their areas. They have more of a closer time limit to pass thesame and that represents the impetus to not have a deadlock on the saidbills and, perhaps, the onus on making sure that there is equality in termsof privileges really falls on the Senate. 18

47. Petitioners cannot but be perplexed at the flimsy justifications

proffered by Sen. Arroyo. First, in congressional reapportionment or

redistricting, the acquiescence of the congressman affected matters not when the

same is weighed against the parameters set by the fundamental law of the land.

It is not a question of whether or not the congressman would agree to the

creation of a new legislative district. It is a question of whether or not it would


26/34

entitle it a new legislative district. Simply put, congressional reapportionment

is an issue of the people represented not of the representative. If petitioners are

to follow Sen. Arroyos argument, then it would mean giving congressmen

unbridled power to reapportion their districts to suit their political interests. In

effect, it is tantamount to legitimizing gerrymandering which the Constitution

strongly prohibits.

48. Second, petitioners do not agree that redistricting is a purely local

concern that must be resolved by the House of Representatives alone. While it

may be a bill of local application, it does not however mean that the Senate

should be reduced to a mere rubber stamp of the House of Representatives. To

do so would be to abdicate its role in ensuring the effective operation of the

system of checks and balances that is essential in a bicameral structure of the

legislature.

49. Considering that the population of the first district in the newly

reapportioned province of Camarines Sur as provided in Republic Act 9716 is

only 176,383 or way below the 250,000-population requirement as provided in

Section 5 (3) of Article VI of the Constitution, the law should be struck down for

beingunconstitutional, and the implementation of said law by the respondents

should be restrained and/or enjoined.

II

REPUBLIC ACT 9716 VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLEOF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION ASPROVIDED IN ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS (1), (3)AND (4) OF THE CONSTITUTION.


27/34

December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court explained the history of legislative

redistricting in our country:

InMacias v. COMELEC, we first jurisprudentially acknowledgedthe American roots of our apportionment provision, noting its rootsfrom the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and fromthe constitutions of some American states. The Philippine OrganicAct of 1902 created the Philippine Assembly, the body that acted asthe lower house of the bicameral legislature under the Americans,with the Philippine Commission acting as the upper house. Whilethe members of the Philippine Commission were appointed by theU.S. President with the conformity of the U.S. Senate, the membersof the Philippine Assembly were elected by representative districtspreviously delineated under the Philippine Organic Act of 1902pursuant to the mandate to apportion the seats of the PhilippineAssembly among the provinces as nearly as practicable accordingto population. Thus, legislative apportionment first started in ourcountry.

The Jones Law or the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 maintainedthe apportionment provision, dividing the country into 12 senatedistricts and 90 representative districts electing one delegate each tothe House of Representatives. Section 16 of the Act specifically

vested the Philippine Legislature with the authority to redistrict thePhilippine Islands.

Under the 1935 Constitution, Article VI, Section 5 retained theconcept of legislative apportionment together with district as thebasic unit of apportionment; the concern was equality ofrepresentation . . . as an essential feature of republicaninstitutions as expressed in the leading case of Macias v.COMELEC. (emphasis supplied)

51. Hence, it is not surprising that the framers of the 1987 Constitution

based their discussion on the division of the legislative districts on the number

of inhabitants of the country at that time, since this is the system that is already

familiar with the people.

52. To understand more the principle of equality of representation,

petitioners are guided by the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court


28/34

Fifth Congressional District challenged the 1931 Georgia apportionment statute

because it debased their right to vote due to the failure of the legislature to

realign the States congressional districts more nearly to equalize the population

of each. The US Supreme Court held that the assailed apportionment law grossly

discriminates against voters in the Fifth Congressional District and pontificated

in this wise:

We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command ofArt. I, Section 2 that Representative be chosen by the People of theseveral states means that as nearly as practicable, one mans vote ina congressional election is to be worth as much as anothers. Thisrule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives arechosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespreadpractice in the first 50 years of our Nations history. It would beextraordinary to suggest that, in such statewide elections, the votesof inhabitants of some parts of a State, for example, Georgias thinlypopulated Ninth District, could be weighted at two or three timesthe value of the votes of people living in more populous parts ofthe State, for example, the Fifth District around Atlanta. Cf. Gray v.

Sanders, 372 U.S. 368. We do not believe that the Framers of theConstitution intended to permit the same vote-dilutingdiscrimination to be accomplished through the device of districtscontaining widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a voteis worth more in one district than in another would not only runcounter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, itwould cast aside the principle of a House of Representativeselected by the People, a principle tenaciously fought for andestablished at the Constitutional Convention. The history of theConstitution, particularly that part of it relating to the adoption

of Art. I, Section 2, reveals that those who framed theConstitution meant that, no matter what the mechanics of anelection, whether statewide or by districts, it was populationwhich was to be the basis of the House of Representatives.19(emphasis supplied)

53. Equality of representation simply means that the number of

representatives in the Lower House is determined by the number of people that

each representative may at least represent based on a uniform and progressive

ratio as provided for under our Constitution. The framers of the Constitution


29/34

have at least one representative. Provinces, however, when they decide to have

another representative, must have at least 500,000 and in reapportioning such

province, each district must have at least 250,000. The idea behind proportional

representation is that one mans vote should be equal to that of the other. Since

the members of the House of Representatives are elected by the people to

represent them in national law making, the voice of one representative in the

legislature is supposed to represent the rights of individuals in the national

sphere of policy making, his voice must be at least equal or nearly equal to that

of the other representative.

54. In the case at bar, the people of the first district of Camarines Sur

with only 176,383 inhabitants have an equal voice tothose of the people of the

third district with a population of 439,043, tothose of the fourth district with a

population of 372,548, and to those of the fifth district with a population of

429,07020 in the House of Representatives. Petitioners do not ascribe to the idea

that each district should have an equal number of inhabitants, because it is

impossible to apportion legislative districts with mathematical exactitude.

55. Petitioners, however, believe that each district, except for newly

created provinces, should have at least 250,000 since it is the benchmark which

the framers of the Constitution set when they apportioned the entire country into

legislative districts and that it is their intention that in reapportioning a district

whether in a city or a province, the number of people in that particular district

should be at least 250,000, just to emphasize that such number of people is the

only objective scale of representation.


30/34

by the rules set forth in the Constitution and grounded upon the intent and spirit

of republicanism which is exemplified by the phrase We, the sovereign Filipino

people . . . in the preamble of the Constitution. This Supreme Court enunciated

this view in Macias vs. COMELEC21, thus - xxx equality of representation in

the legislature being such an essential feature of republican institutions, and

affecting so many lives, the judiciary may not with a clear conscience stand by

to give free hand to the discretion of the political departments of the

Government. Cases are numerous wherein courts intervened upon proof of

violation of the constitutional principle of equality of representation. (emphasis

supplied)

57. Considering that the reapportionment of the province of Camarines

Sur as provided in Republic Act 9716 violates the doctrine of proportional

representation, said law should be struck down for being unconstitutional and

the implementation thereof by the respondents should be restrained and/or

enjoined.

ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE

PRAYER FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARYINJUNCTIONAND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

58. Petitioners replead and incorporate herein all the allegations in the

preceding paragraphs by way of reference.

59. Petitioners are entitled to the relief demanded which consists in

restraining the respondent COMELEC and anyone acting in its authority, stead,

or behalf, from issuin a resolution im lementin Re ublic Act No. 9716 for


31/34

60. The implementation of Republic Act No. 9716 will work injustice

not only to the petitioners but, likewise, to every taxpayer as the implementation

of said law would entail the disbursement of government funds.

61. The enactment of R.A. 9716 constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

62. Accordingly, in order to prevent a clear violation of the

Constitution, pending a final resolution on this petition, a temporary restraining

order and/or preliminary prohibitory injunction, prohibiting respondent

COMELEC and anyone acting in their authority, stead, or behalf, from issuing a

resolution implementing Republic Act No. 9716 must be issued.

P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, petitioners SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO

III, & MAYOR JESSE M. ROBREDO respectfully pray that this Honorable

Court after due proceedings, render judgment declaring Republic Act No. 9716,

in its entirety VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Petitioners further respectfully pray that:

1. Upon the filing of this petition, a writ of preliminary injunctionand/or temporary restraining order be issued enjoining respondent COMELEC

and anyone acting in its authority, stead, or behalf, from issuing a resolution or

doing any act implementing Republic Act No. 9716; and

2. After notice and hearing, to issue a resolution making the writ ofpreliminary injunction prohibiting and enjoining the COMELEC and anyone


32/34

Other reliefs just and equitable in the foregoing premises are, likewise,

prayed for.

Pasig City for the City of Manila, 27 October 2009.

MARCOS OCHOA SERAPIO & TAN LAW FIRMCounsel for the Petitioners30th Floor, Tycoon Centre

Pearl Drive, Ortigas Center,Pasig City 1605

Tel. No. (02) 634-6678

(02) 638-2030 to 32Fax no. (02) 638-4255

(02) 638-9151Email: [email protected]

By:

ATTY. PETER M. MANZANO

Roll. No. 38608IBP No. 772497; 01/09/09; Ilocos Sur

PTR No. 1573629; 01/09/09; Makati CityMCLE Compliance No. I-0014491MCLE Compliance No. II-0002923

ATTY. JOSE AMOR M. AMORADO

Roll No. 33887IBP Lifetime Member No. 00054

PTR NO. 1221354/01/05/09; Batangas CityMCLE Compliance No. II-0010247

Copy Furnished:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village,Makati Cit


33/34

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, _____________________, an employee of MARCOS OCHOA SERAPIO& TAN Law Firm with office address at 30th Floor, Tycoon Centre, Pearl Drive,Ortigas Center, Pasig City, after being sworn, depose and say:

That on __ October 2009, I personally served copies of the PETITION dated 27October 2009, in the case entitled SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO

III & MAYOR JESSE M. ROBREDO vs. COMELEC, et.al., in accordance withSections 3, 5, 7, 11, 12 and 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, on thefollowing:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village,Makati City

________________Affiant


34/34

Doc. No.: ____;Page No.: ____;Book No.: ____;Series of 2009.

Documents

Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur