- CASE DIGEST -
SUBJECT: LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION
Juanito Mariano v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 118577
March 7, 1995
Re: Specific requirements in creating Highly Urbanized City
FACTS: Petitioners assailed
the constitutionality of RA 7854 which sought to convert the Municipality of
Makati to a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati.
Petitioners contend that the special law did not properly identify, in metes
and bounds with technical descriptions, the territorial jurisdiction of Makati;
that it attempted to alter or restart the "three consecutive term"
limit for local elective officials; that it increased the legislative district
of Makati only by special law; that the increase in legislative district was
not expressed in the title of the bill; and that the addition of another
legislative district in Makati is not in accord with the population
requirement, thus violative of the constitution and the LGC.
ISSUES:
1. WON RA 7854 properly
identify the land area or territorial jurisdiction of Makati by metes and
bounds, with technical descriptions.
Yes. The said delineation did
not change even by an inch the land area previously covered by Makati as a
municipality. Section 2 did not add, subtract, divide, or multiply the established
land area of Makati. In language that cannot be any clearer, section 2 of RA
7854 stated that, the city's land area "shall comprise the present
territory of the municipality." The court should take judicial notice of
the fact that Congress has also refrained from using the metes and bounds
description of land areas of other local government units with unsettled
boundary dispute.
2. WON it is unconstitutional
for it increased the legislative district of Makati only by special law (the
Charter in violation of the constitutional provision requiring a general
reapportionment law to be passed by Congress within three (3) years following
the return of every census.
No. The Constitution clearly provides that
Congress shall be composed of not more than two hundred fifty (250) members,
"unless otherwise fixed by law". As thus worded, the Constitution did
not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law, other
than a general reapportionment of the law. In Tobias vs Abalos, Court ruled
that reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special
law, such as in the charter of a new city.
This is its exactly what was
done by Congress in enacting R.A. No. 7854 and providing for an increase in
Makati's legislative district. Moreover, to hold that reapportionment can only
be made through a general apportionment law, with a review of all the
legislative districts allotted to each local government unit nationwide, would
create an inequitable situation where a new city or province created by
Congress will be denied legislative representation for an indeterminate period
of time.
3. WON addition of another
legislative district in Makati is not in accord with the population
requirement?
No. Art VI, Sec 5(3) provides that a city whose population has increased to more than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) shall be entitled to at least one congressional representative. Even granting that the population of Makati as of the 1990 census stood at four hundred fifty thousand (450,000), its legislative district may still be increased since it has met the minimum population requirement of two hundred fifty thousand (250,000).
No comments:
Post a Comment