Tobias vs. Abalos GR 114783 December 8, 1994

 

Tobias vs. Abalos

GR 114783 December 8, 1994

 

When one of the municipalities of a congressional district is converted into a city large enough to entitle it to one legislative district, the incidental effect is the splitting of district into two. The incidental arising of a new district in this manner need not be preceded by a census.

 

Art VI, Sec 5. Constitution did not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by ordinary legislation. – Art VI, Sec 5 (1). 250k is the minimum required population of a city to have more than one legislative district. – Art VI, Sec 5 (3).

 

FACTS:

Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only one legislative district. RA 7675 was enacted which in effect converted the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized City and divided the legislative district of Mandaluyong and San Juan into 2 separate districts. Petitioners as taxpayers and residents of Mandaluyong assail the constitutionality of the RA contending it is contrary to Secs 5(1), 5(4), 26(1) and 26(2) of Art VI of the Constitution.

 

ISSUES:

(1) Is RA 7675 contrary to Art VI, Sec 5(1) of the Constitution?

No. To the argument that the RA resulted in an increase in the composition of the House of Reps beyond that provided in Art VI, Sec 5(1) is thus contrary to the same, the court found no merit. The Constitution clearly provides that the present composition of the House of Reps may be increased, if Congress itself so mandates through legislative enactment.

 

(2) Is it contrary to Sec 5(4) of the same?

No. To the argument that the RA in effect preempts the right of Congress to reapportion legislative districts pursuant to Art VI, Sec 5(4), it was held bordering on the absurd. It was the Congress itself which drafted, deliberated upon and enacted the assailed law. Congress cannot possibly preempt itself on a right which pertains to itself.

 

(3) Is it contrary to Sec 26(1)?

No. To the argument that the division of Mandaluyong and San Juan into 2 separate districts was not sufficiently embraced in the title contrary to Art VI, Sec 26(1), the Court held in the negative. 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 xxx. Thus, the title necessarily includes the creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong. A liberal construction of the one title-one subject rule has been invariably adopted so as not to cripple legislation. It should be given practical rather than technical construction; it sufficiently complies with the rule if the title expresses the general subject and all the provisions are germane to that general subject.

 

(4) Is it contrary to Sec 26(2)?

No. To the argument that there is no mention in the RA of any census to show that Mandaluyong and San Juan had each attained the minimum requirement of 250k inhabitants provided in Sec 5(3), Art VI of the Constitution to justify their separation, the Court held that the reason does not suffice. The Act enjoys the presumption of having passed through the regular congressional processes, including due consideration by the members of Congress of the minimum requirements of the establishment of separate legislative districts. At any rate, It is not required that all laws emanating from the legislature must contain all relevant data considered by Congress in the enactment of said laws.