MARIANO,JR.

vCOMMISSIONONELECTIONS(1995)
Petitioners:
1stpetition:JuanitoMariano,Jr.,et.al(namelyLigayaS.Bautista,TeresitaTibay,Camilo
Santos,FrankieCruz,RicardoPascual,TeresitaAbang,ValentinaPitalvero,RufinoCaldoza,
FloranteAlba,andPerfectoAlba)
2ndpetition:JohnR.Osmea
Respondents:(forbothpetitions)TheCommissiononElections,TheMunicipalityofMakati,
Hon.JejomarBinay,TheMunicipalTreasurer,andSangguniangBayanofMakati
(PrematurityConstitutionalityofRepublicActNo.7854)
SUMMARY:PetitionersclaimthatRANo.7854isunconstitutionalbecausesomeofits
provisionsviolatedpartsoftheConstitution.Thecourtdoesnotfindmeritinthepetitions,and
thus,theyaredismissed.
FACTS:
x
x

RANo.7854:AnActConvertingtheMunicipalityofMakatiIntoaHighlyUrbanizedCity
tobeknownastheCityofMakati
1stpetition(GRNo.18577)
o Petitionforprohibitionanddeclaratoryrelief
o Ofthepetitioners,onlyMariano,JrisaresidentofMakatitherestareresidents
ofIbayoUsusan,Taguigtheyareallsuingastaxpayers
o TheyassailasunconstitutionalSections2,51,and52ofRA7854as
unconstitutional
nd
2 petition(GRNo.118627)
o Suingassenator,taxpayer,andconcernedcitizen
o AssailsSec.52ofRANo.7853onthesamegroundsraisedinthefirstpetition

ISSUE/S:
x

WoNSec.2ofRA7854isunconstitutional
o NO.
o SEC.2.TheCityofMakati.TheMunicipalityofMakatishallbeconvertedinto
ahighlyurbanizedcitytobeknownastheCityofMakati,hereinafterreferredto
astheCity,whichshallcomprisethepresentterritoryoftheMunicipalityof
MakatiinMetropolitanManila
Theforegoingprovisionshallbewithoutprejudicetotheresolutionbythe
appropriateagencyorforumofexistingboundarydisputesorcasesinvolving
questionspfterritorialjurisdictionbetweentheCityofMakatiandtheadjoining
localgovernmentunits.(ItalicssuppliedbytheCourt)
o PetitionersclaimthatthesaidsectionviolatesSec.10,Art.XoftheConstitution
inrelationtoSec.7and450oftheLocalGovernmentCodewhichrequirethat

theareaofalocalgovernmentunitshouldbemadebymetesandbounds,with
technicaldescriptions
o TheCourtheldthat
Thepetitionershavenotdemonstratedthatthedelineationoftheland
areaoftheproposedCityofMakatiwillcauseconfusionastoits
boundariessincethedelineationdidnotchangethelandareapreviously
coveredbyMakatiasamunicipality
ThedeliberationsofCongressrevealthatthereasonwhythelandareaof
theproposedCityofMakatiwasnotdefinedbymetesandboundswith
technicaldescriptionsisbecauseofatherewasanongoingdispute
betweenthemunicipalitiesofMakatiandTaguigoverFortBonifacio
undercourtlitigation,andthelegislatorsfeltthatthedisputeshouldbeleft
tothecourtstodecide
AccordingtothesubmissionoftheSolicitorGeneral:ToinvalidateRA
No.7854onthemeregroundthatnocadastraltypeofdescriptionwas
usedinthelawwouldservetheletterbuteatthespiritofthe[Local
Government]CodeCourtswillnotfollowtheletterofthestatutewhen
todosowoulddepartfromthetrueintentofthelegislatureorwould
otherwiseyieldconclusionsinconsistentwiththegeneralpurposeofthe
act
WoNSec.51ofRA7854isunconstitutional(alsoreferstotheissueofPrematurity)
o NO
o SEC.51.OfficialsoftheCityofMakati.Thepresentelectiveofficialsofthe
MunicipalityofMakatishallcontinueastheofficialsoftheCityofMakatiandshall
exercisetheirpowersandfunctionsuntilsuchtimethatanewelectionisheld
andthedulyelectedofficialsshallhavealreadyqualifiedandassumetheir
offices:Provided,Thenewcitywillacquireanewcorporateexistence
o PetitionersclaimthatthesaidsectionviolatesSec.8,Art.XandSec.7,ArticleVI
oftheConstitution
Undertheseprovisions,electivelocalofficials,includingMembersofthe
HouseofRepresentatives,haveatermofthree(3)yearsandare
prohibitedfromservingformorethanthree(3)consecutiveterms
Theyarguethatbyprovidingthatthenewcityshallacquireanew
corporateexistence,thesaidsectionrestartsthetermofthepresent
municipalelectiveofficialsofMakatianddisregardsthetermspreviously
servedthem.
x inparticular,petitionerspointthatthesaidsectionfavorthe
incumbentMakatimayor,JejomarBinay
o TheCourtheldthat
thepetitionershavenotcompliedwiththerequirementstochallengethe
constitutionalityofalaw,namely:
x 1)theremustbeanactualcontroversy
x 2)thequestionofconstitutionalityshouldberaisedbytheproper
party

3)theconstitutionalquestionmustberaisedattheearliest
possibleopportunity
x 4)thedecisionontheconstitutionalquestionmustbenecessary
tothedeterminationofthecaseitself
thepetitionispremisedontheoccurrenceofmanycontingenteventsthat
mayormaynothappen.Thus,thepetitionersmerelyposeahypothetical
issuewhichhasyettoripentoanactualcaseorcontroversy
thepetitionerswhoareresidentsofTaguigarealsonottheproperparties
toraisetheabstractissue
WoNSec.52ofRA7854isunconstitutional
o NO.
o SEC.52:LegislativeDistricts.Uponitsconversionintoahighlyurbanizedcity,
Makatishallthereafterhaveatleasttwo(2)legislativedistrictsthatshallinitially
correspondtothetwo(2)existingdistrictscreatedunder
o Section3(a)ofRepublicAct.No.7166asimplementedbytheCommissionon
Electionstocommenceatthenextnationalelectionstobeheldafterthe
effectivityofthisAct
o Petitionerscontendthattheadditionofanotherlegislativedistrictis
unconstitutionalbecause1)reapportionmentcannotbemadebyaspeciallaw,2)
theadditionofalegislativedistrictisnotexpressedinthetitleofthebill,and3)
Makatispopulationasperthe1990censusstandsatonly450,000
o TheCourtheldthat
InTobiasvAbalos,thecourtruledthatreappointmentoflegislative
districtsmaybemadethroughaspeciallaw,suchasinthecharterofthe
newcityandthattheConstitutiondidnotprecludeCongressfrom
increasingitsmembershipbypassingalaw,otherthanageneral
reapportionmentact(Sec.5(1),Art.VIprovidesthatCongressshallbe
composedofnotmorethan250members,unlessotherwisefixedbylaw)
Toholdthatreapportionmentcanonlybedonethroughageneral
apportionmentlawwouldcreateaninequitablesituationwhereanewcity
orprovincecreatedbyCongresswillbedeniedoflegislative
representationforanindeterminateperiodoftime
PetitionerscannotclaimthattheadditionviolatesSec.5(3),Art.VIofthe
Constitutionbecauseitslegislativedistrictmaystillbeincreasedsinceit
hasmettheminimumpopulationrequirementof250,000,andSec.3of
theOrdinance*appendedtotheConstitutionprovidesthatacitywhose
populationhasincreasedtomorethan250,000shallbeentitledtoat
leastonecongressionalrepresentative
TheConstitutiondoesnotcommandthatthetitleofthelawshouldexactly
mirror,fullyindex,orcompletelycatalogueallitsdetails

OPINION
x

Davide,Jr.concurring(hejustwantedtoaddmoredetails/points)
o Withregardtothefirstissue:

TheConstitutiondoesnotprovideforadescriptionbymetesandbounds
asaconditionsinequanonforthecreationofalocalgovernmentunitor
itsconversionfromoneleveltoanother
thepetitionerscannotrelyonSec.450ofRANo.7160(Local
GovernmentCode)becauseitonlyappliestotheconversionofa
municipalityoraclusterofbarangaysintoacomponentcity,notahighly
urbanizedcity
o Withregardtothesecondissue:
Strictlyspeaking,theincreaseinthenumberoflegislativeseatsforthe
CityofMakatiisnotanincreasejustifiedbytheclause,unlessotherwise
fixedbylaw,butitispermissibleinaccordancetoSections1and3of
theOrdinanceappendedtotheConstitution

NOTES
x
x

theonesinbluearejustsecondaryinformationIdidntwanttoputtheminthispartto
avoidconfusion
*thisreferstotheOrdinanceApportioningtheSeatsoftheHouseofRepresentativesof
theCongressofthePhilippinestotheDifferentLegislativeDistrictsinProvincesand
CitiesandMetropolitanManilaArea