Upload
manuel-l-quezon-iii
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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.
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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.
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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.
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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.
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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,
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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.
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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.
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
21/34
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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.
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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.
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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.
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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.
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
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
8/14/2019 Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur
34/34
Doc. No.: ____;Page No.: ____;Book No.: ____;Series of 2009.