Aquino Robredo Petition Camarines Sur 4c2x5w

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III and MAYOR JESSE ROBREDO, Petitioner,

G.R. No. ________________________ For: Petition to Declare Republic Act No. 9716 as Unconstitutional, Certiorari and Prohibition With Prayer for the Issuance Of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

-versus-

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS represented by its Chairman JOSE A.R MELO and its Commissioners, RENE V. SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T. FERRER, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH AND GREGORIO LARRAZABAL; Respondents. x-------------------------------------------------x

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 with mathematical precision, that is no excuse for ignoring our Constitution’s plain objective of making equal representation for equal numbers of people the fundamental goal for the House of Representatives. That is the high standard of justice and common sense which the Founders set for us.”

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 man’s 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

preliminary and/or prohibitory injunction to en 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 Filipino

citizen, 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.

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 and

they 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 a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. Before he can invoke the power of judicial review, however, he must specifically prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he would sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. It is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all of the public. xxx” 5.

As taxpayers, petitioners’ standing is grounded on the fact that

Republic 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 is in violation of law and is an ultra

vires act.3 Previously, this Honorable Court had given due course to a taxpayer’s 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 and

Lourdes Constantino vs. Hon. Jose Cuisia, et al, that:

“The recent trend on locus standi has veered towards a liberal treatment in taxpayer's suits. In Tatad v. Garcia Jr., this Court reiterated that the ‘prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allow taxpayers to question contracts entered into by the national government or government owned and controlled corporations allegedly in contravention of law.’ A taxpayer is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.”5

7.

In view of the apparent disregard for the rule of law in the instant

case, petitioners have made it incumbent upon themselves as citizens and taxpayers and elective official of the Republic of the Philippines to call this Honorable Court’s attention to the manifest violations of the fundamental law of the land. Accordingly, petitioners are vested with locus standi to institute the present petition.

STATEMENT OF FACTS 8.

On 04 June 2008, Representative Luis R. Villafuerte filed House Bill

No. 4264 or An Act Reapportioning the Composition of the First (1st) 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 Bill

4264 on Third Reading.

10.

On 11 June 2008, House Bill 4264, as approved by the House of

Representatives, was transmitted to the Senate of the Philippines for its consideration.

11.

On 17 June 2008, the Senate of the Philippines received the

transmitted copy of House Bill 4624.

12.

On 04 August 2008, House Bill 4624 was read on First Reading in

the Senate and was referred to the Committees on Local Government and Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws.

on Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws, as secondary committee, conducted t committee public hearings on House Bill 4624. The said public hearings were attended by 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

population requirement applies onl to the initial seat and the succeeding

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) and one (1) abstention

from both committees approved the age of the measure in the committee level.

15.

On 17 August 2009 the Committee on Local Government and the

Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Laws returned and submitted a committee report, reporting the age 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”.

16.

On 18 August 2009, Committee Report no. 550 was calendared for

ordinary business and designated Sen. Francis Escudero as sponsor of the measure.

17.

On 19 August 2009, Committee Report No. 550 was assigned for

special 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

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 UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE NEWLY APPORTIONED FIRST DISTRICT OF CAMARINES SUR FAILED TO MEET THE POPULATION REQUIREMENT FOR THE CREATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT AS EXPLICITLY PROVIDED IN ARTICLE VI, SECTION 5 PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 3 OF THE ORDINANCE APPENDED THERETO. II REPUBLIC ACT 9716 VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AS

DISCUSSION I REPUBLIC ACT 9716 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE NEWLY APPORTIONED FIRST DISTRICT OF CAMARINES SUR FAILED TO MEET THE POPULATION REQUIREMENT FOR A CREATION OF A LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT AS EXPLICITLY PROVIDED IN ARTICLE VI, SECTION 5 PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 3 OF THE ORDINANCE 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

Del Gallego Ragay Lupi Sipocot Cabusao

26.

21,272 52,630 27,630 57,861 17,599

Libmanan Minalabac Pamplona Pasacao San Fernando Gainza Milaor

92,839 43, 957 31,895 41,533 30,697 9,404 26,452

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. seats

are

Apportionment is defined as “the process by which legislative 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 hip 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 of not more than two hundred and fifty , unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of ed national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. (2) xxx (3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand or each

(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section. (emphasis supplied) 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 abovequoted 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, therefore

the

principle

of

proportional

representation

mandates

that

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 whose population may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one member or such number of as it may be entitled to on the basis of the number its inhabitants and according to the standards set forth in paragraph (3), Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution. The number of apportioned to the province out of which such new province was created or where the city, whose population has so increased, is geographically located shall be correspondingly adjusted by the Commission on Elections but such adjustment shall not be made within one hundred and twenty days before the election. (emphasis supplied) 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 hip of the House of Representatives at two hundred and fifty. The initial total hip was arrived at taking into consideration a national population of 55 million. However, the total hip of the House may be raised from time to time by statute because Section 1 says that the total is 250 “unless otherwise fixed by law”. This can be done through reapportionment resulting in the creation of new districts or through the creation of new provinces, since each province is entitled to at least one district, or through the creation of cities meriting 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 is preserved.”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

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 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 House composed of say, 250 although it says not more- is a very vague Assembly, a House composed of so many ? Mr. Davide: Mr. Presiding Officer, we had taken that up. That issue

again the possibility of a reduction of the maximum or an increase beyond the 250 if the population would grow so much. Mr. Padilla: Assuming that the population may grow, provided the district is contiguous and to avoid gerrymandering, a particular district maybe composed not only of a determinate territory but also the population of inhabitants therein, the ed voters therein, maybe increased. What I mean is, if before one district would have 150,000 or 200,000, it is simple to make the number composing one district, say 250,000 or 300,000 so that that seats in the House of Representatives may not be so numerous that it may be difficult sometimes to have a more orderly procedure or, in the absence of several , to even constitute a quorum. What I am driving at is, If under the Congress before martial law, the House of Representatives, where our Commissioner Laurel used to be Speaker, only consisted of a little more than 100 seats, does the Commissioner not believe that 250 – assuming that this is the maximum is still very big. Mr. Davide: Mr. Presiding Officer, taking into the population- as projected in 1986, the population of the country will be 56 million, and the constant used by the COMELEC in allocating the number of seats to 199 is a population of 400,000 already so any further reduction may mean that there will be more and more people represented by less and less. It might not be conducive to a legislative body which is supposed to be representative.12 (emphasis supplied) 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 of legislative seats which are, in turn, apportioned among the provinces and cities with a population of at least 250,000 and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio. The population is based on the 1986 projection, with the 1980 official enumeration as the point of reckoning. This projection indicates that our population is more or less 56 million. Taking into the mandate that each city with at least 250,000 inhabitants and each province shall have at least one representative, we first allotted one seat for each of the 73 provinces, and each one for all cities with a population of at least 250,000, which are the Cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan, Cebu, Iloilo, Bacolod, Cagayan de Oro Da ao and Zamboanga Thereafter we then proceed to

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, my last question is: What is the concept of progressive ratio for the record? What is the Gentleman’s concept of uniform and progressive ratio? How do we redistrict the entire Philippines on the basis of uniform and progressive ratio? Mr. Davide: That would be covered by Section 5 of the Article on the Legislative Department which says: The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces and cities in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected from the sectors and party list. Mr. Davide: x x x On that particular basis, we have studied the possibility of only having 198 regular for the first House of Representatives. So, the basis for that is one representative for every 300,000 depending on the compactness, contiguity and adjacence of territories consisting of municipalities and cities with less than 200,000 inhabitants within a given province.14 (emphasis supplied) 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 that Puerto Princesa is nearer to Aborlan than Puerto Princesa is nearer to San Vicente Besides based on population Puerto Princesa has a

Puerto Princesa with the northern towns, we will be arriving at a total of 265,000 as against only 186,000 in the South. I am really concerned about this for practical purposes. I would like to tell the body that Cuyo and Coron are very important towns of the northern part of Palawan. In fact, Cuyo used to be the capital of Palawan before Puerto Princesa was made the capital of our Province. And as far as prospective candidates are concerned, if we will include Puerto Princesa City- pardon me, with due respect to those residing in the south – I can find more candidates in the north who are known in Palawan and who are interested in running for Congress in the south. There are many who are in Cuyo and Coron, so they will be fighting each other there and there will be less candidates, perhaps, in the south. I think we should consider also the importance of Cuyo and Coron on the upper side. There will be no important area in the south except, perhaps, Quezon, but there are many Palawenos in Quezon. Of course, I have no objection if any poor man decides to run for Congress, but I doubt if there is anyone interested in that area to run for Congress. MR. DAVIDE. On the basis of the committee proposal, if we remove Puerto Princesa form the First District and transfer it to the Second District, the entire population of the Second District will be 251,000 more or less, and the First District, without Puerto Princesa will only be 190,000. MR. NOLLEDO. I do not believe so. MR. DAVIDE. I understand that Puerto Princesa is practically the gateway to the other municipalities indicated as belonging to the First District. MR. NOLLEDO. I think the computation is seemingly erroneous because I made my own computation. If we include Puerto Princesa 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 under 86,000 will be the population in the south. We add 75,480, and we will have only 262,000. But if we add Puerto Princesa to the upper side, we will have 265,000. MR. DAVIDE. So the Commissioner’s proposal is that Puerto Princesa be in the Second District with Aborlan, Balaba, Batarasa, Brooke’s Point, Narra, Quezon and Marcos. MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, because Puerto Princesa has greater affinity with the southern towns than with northern towns. I can say that without fear of valid contradiction.

MR. DAVIDE. At the proper time, we may be able to consider the Commissioner’s proposal, I mean during the period of amendments.15 39.

It is thus clear from the foregoing citation that Sen. Arroyo’s and

Cong. Villafuerte’s 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 disregarded as it would set 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

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 Tomas Africa of the National Census and Statistics Office that the population of Makati as of 1994, when the Makati redistricting bill was ed 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.

43.

What petitioner Aquino is opposed to is the creation of a new

legislative district that blatantly transgresses the requirements set forth in the Constitution. The records of the plenary debate in the Senate will show that to save House Bill No 4264 from any taint of irregularity and unconstitutionality, petitioner Aquino proposed a workable solution that would have all the resultant legislative districts compliant with the population requirement. Petitioner Aquino proposed that the town of Libmanan, which under House Bill No. 4264 is placed in the proposed 2nd district be transferred to the proposed 1st district and the towns of Canaman, Camaligan and Magarao, all placed in the proposed 3rd district, transferred to the proposed 2nd district. With his proposed amendment the resultant configuration of the legislative districts in the Province of Camarines Sur would be:

a.

First District

-

269,222

b.

Second District

-

258,794

c.

Third District

-

364,187

d.

Fourth District

-

372, 548

e.

Fifth District

-

429,070

44.

Unfortunately, the sponsor of the measure, Sen. Joker Arroyo, with

grave abuse of discretion and authority, rejected outright the said proposed amendment, and the Senate approved the House Bill No. 4264 without amendments, which later became Republic Act No. 9716. The configuration of R.A. No. 9716 would leave the configuration of the legislative districts as follows:

a.

First District

-

176,383

b.

Second District

-

276,777

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 of territory. A copy of the istrative 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. The others that have been recommended together with the Camarines Sur

think we have established that we do not agree on our interpretation of the Constitution. With his permission, Mr. President, since I am against of his time, may we move on to the next point so as not to be accused of delaying the age of the bill any further? May we ask: Why was Libmanan not considered to be a portion of the proposed first district? Because having done the same, instead of 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 indulgence of our distinguished colleague. Sen. Arroyo. As I have said, the brown portion in that map of Camarines Sur—I do not know what district it is but it is—is represented by Congressman Fuentebella. He does not want this district touched. There is nothing we can do about it, since he does not want 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 by Congressman Villafuerte. He does not also want it touched. Even if they 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% of the province, area-wise. Libmanan is the biggest municipality in the entire or present first district. It stuck in the middle. We cannot move that no matter what—because that is the biggest. Anyway, we move it left, we move it right, it would change the configuration. Those are the practical difficulties 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 because they are separated by water. So it is no longer contiguous because it is separated by water and there is nothing we can do about it. That is what I was saying about mathematical formula. We cannot have mathematical formula when a natural boundary like water cannot make the municipalities contiguous. That is the picture. It is all there. The violet is the tagalog-speaking province. The green is the Bicolspeaking province so that is the only way to divide it. So much has been done in the Lower House in trying to figure it out. But as long as the three Congressman 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 of Representative, what the Congressman says in his district is “king”. He is the king there, there is nothing we can do about it. We respect that. Libmanan is the biggest one We cannot move that anyway

on the map previously shown and that can be done. That can be reconfigured 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 of water alluded to by our distinguished colleague, it seems in our map that the municipalities mentioned are all on the same side of the waterway. We do not see where the issue of contiguousness comes in to play. The proposed third district, with these changes, would still be having a population of 364,187. The only point we are trying to raise is that if it just a question of territory and population, there seems to be other ways of having configured these districts to enable Camarines Sur to have its entire complement of six districts. If the answer is, that the congressman there who are now representing Camarines Sur cannot agree on the other modes of configuring their district, then that is another. But will our distinguished colleague agree that there is no constitutional prohibition for us to reconfigure these districts on a different formula. Sen. Arroyo. Mr. President, this is where the Senate must differ to the House of Representatives. Redistricting is a local bill and it cannot emanate from the Senate. It will emanate only from the House of Representatives. This has been debated in the House of Representatives over and over and no one could agree. So, in its wisdom, the House of Representatives agreed to what has been presented here. If we agree now it 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 to reconfigure out the provinces when we do not represent any particular district? Only congressmen who are familiar with their own districts can discuss this. Let me ask, for instance. How many districts does Tarlac have. About four. 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-respecting congressman will ever, ever accept dictation from the Senate. That is how it is. This is one thing where the congressmen will never yield to the Senate. 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 every redistricting bill here. Historically, I do not think we have ever tampered with any redistricting bill emanating form the House of Representatives I

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 of our 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 the whole problem. Sen. Aquino. So it is a different vein? Sen. Arroyo. Yes. When we talk about cities, it is different. When we talk about province, it is different. We interrelate the two which cannot be done. Sen. Aquino. It is the position therefore, Mr. President, of the distinguished colleague, that as far as redistricting bills, especially when provinces are concerned, is it his position that the Senate be a mere rubber stamp of any activity or actuation or bills ed by the House of Representatives given that we should be respecting their interests, paraphrasing what the gentleman said. Sen. Arroyo. Of course not, there is no absolutism here. But the thing is that, 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 have this restudied and then say to the House of Representatives so that this cannot catch up with the deadline. A delay in this bill spells death for this bill. Sen. Aquino. Which is precisely my point, Mr. President, when Congress or the House of Representatives sent us this bill they are interested in the configuring their areas. They have more of a closer time limit to the same and that represents the impetus to not have a deadlock on the said bills and, perhaps, the onus on making sure that there is equality in of 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 translate to better representation for the people living in the said locality

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. Arroyo’s 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 being unconstitutional, and the implementation of said law by the respondents should be restrained and/or ened.

II REPUBLIC ACT 9716 VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS (1), (3) AND (4) OF THE CONSTITUTION.

December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court explained the history of legislative redistricting in our country:

“In Macias v. COMELEC, we first jurisprudentially acknowledged the American roots of our apportionment provision, noting its roots from the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and from the constitutions of some American states. The Philippine Organic Act of 1902 created the Philippine Assembly, the body that acted as the lower house of the bicameral legislature under the Americans, with the Philippine Commission acting as the upper house. While the of the Philippine Commission were appointed by the U.S. President with the conformity of the U.S. Senate, the of the Philippine Assembly were elected by representative districts previously delineated under the Philippine Organic Act of 1902 pursuant to the mandate to apportion the seats of the Philippine Assembly among the provinces as nearly as practicable according to population. Thus, legislative apportionment first started in our country. The Jones Law or the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 maintained the apportionment provision, dividing the country into 12 senate districts and 90 representative districts electing one delegate each to the House of Representatives. Section 16 of the Act specifically vested the Philippine Legislature with the authority to redistrict the Philippine Islands. Under the 1935 Constitution, Article VI, Section 5 retained the concept of legislative apportionment together with “district” as the basic unit of apportionment; the concern was “equality of representation . . . as an essential feature of republican institutions” 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

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 State’s 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 of Art. I, Section 2 that Representative be chosen “by the People of the several states means that as nearly as practicable, one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s. This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation’s history. It would be extraordinary to suggest that, in such statewide elections, the votes of inhabitants of some parts of a State, for example, Georgia’s thinly populated Ninth District, could be weighted at two or three times the value of the votes of people living in more populous parts of the State, for example, the Fifth District around Atlanta. Cf. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368. We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected “by the People”, a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the Constitution, particularly that part of it relating to the adoption of Art. I, Section 2, reveals that those who framed the Constitution meant that, no matter what the mechanics of an election, whether statewide or by districts, it was population which 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 decided that at least 250 000 people can be represented b

one person in the

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 man’s vote should be equal to that of the other. Since the 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 to those of the people of the third district with a population of 439,043, to those 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.

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 ened.

ALLEGATIONS IN OF THE PRAYER FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONAND 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 issuing a resolution implementing Republic Act No. 9716 for

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.

PRAYER

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 injunction

and/or temporary restraining order be issued ening 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 of

preliminary injunction prohibiting and ening the COMELEC and anyone

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 FIRM Counsel for the Petitioners 30th Floor, Tycoon Centre Pearl Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1605 Tel. No. (02) 634-6678 (02) 638-2030 to 32 Fax no. (02) 638-4255 (02) 638-9151 Email: [email protected]

By:

ATTY. PETER M. MANZANO Roll. No. 38608 IBP No. 772497; 01/09/09; Ilocos Sur PTR No. 1573629; 01/09/09; Makati City MCLE Compliance No. I-0014491 MCLE Compliance No. II-0002923

ATTY. JOSE AMOR M. AMORADO Roll No. 33887 IBP Lifetime Member No. 00054 PTR NO. 1221354/01/05/09; Batangas City MCLE Compliance No. II-0010247

Copy Furnished: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village, Makati City

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 27 October 2009, in the case entitled “SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III & MAYOR JESSE M. ROBREDO vs. COMELEC, et.al.”, in accordance with Sections 3, 5, 7, 11, 12 and 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, on the following: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village, Makati City

________________ Affiant

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