Facts:
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Republic
Act No. 7675, otherwise known as "An Act Converting the Municipality of
Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong .” Prior to the
enactment of the assailed statute, the municipalities of Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only
one legislative district. The petitioners contend on the following:
(1) Article VIII, Section 49 of R.A. No. 7675
contravenes from the "one subject-one bill"
rule provided in the Constitution by involving 2 subjects in the bill namely (1)
the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city; and (2) the
division of the congressional district of San Juan/Mandaluyong into two
separate districts.
(2) The division of San Juan and Mandaluyong
into separate congressional districts under Section 49 of the assailed law has
resulted in an increase in the composition of the House of Representatives
beyond that provided in Article VI, Sec. 5(1) of the Constitution.
(3) The said division
was not made pursuant to any census showing that the subject municipalities
have attained the minimum population requirements.
(4) That Section 49 has
the effect of preempting the right of Congress to reapportion legislative
districts pursuant to Sec. 5(4) of the Constitution stating that “within
three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standard provided in this
section
Issue:
WON the RA No. 7675 is unconstitutional.
Ruling:
The court ruled that RA No. 7675 followed the
mandate of the "one city-one
representative" proviso in the Constitution stating that each city
with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province,
shall have at least one representative" (Article VI, Section 5(3),
Constitution). Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the creation of a separate
congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct
from the subject of its conversion into a highly urbanized city but is a
natural and logical consequence of its conversion into a highly urbanized city.
As to the contention
that the assailed law violates the present limit on the number of representatives
as set forth in the Constitution, a reading of the applicable provision,
Article VI, Section 5(1), as aforequoted, shows that the present limit of 250
members is not absolute with the phrase "unless otherwise provided by
law."
As to the contention
that Section 49 of R.A. No. 7675 in effect preempts the right of Congress to
reapportion legislative districts, it was the Congress itself which drafted,
deliberated upon and enacted the assailed law, including Section 49 thereof.
Congress cannot possibly preempt itself on a right which pertains to itself.
Hence, the court
dismissed the petition due to lack of merit.
No comments:
Post a Comment