Mariano vs Comelec

FACT: The case is about the constitutionality of certain provisions

in RA 7854 entitled “An Act Converting the Municipality of Makati
Into a Highly Urbanised City to be Known as the City of Makati”.
The petitioners argues the ff sections:
1. Sec 2 of RA 7854 did not properly identify the land area or
territorial jurisdiction of Makati by metes and bounds, with
technical description in violation of Sec 10 Art X of the
Constitutions in relation to Sec 7 & 450 of the Local
Government Code. 


2. Sec 51 of RA 7854 attempts to alter or restart “three

consecutive term” limit for the elective local officials in
violation of Sec 8 Art X & Sec 7 Art VI of the Constitution 


3. Sec 52 of RA 7854 is unconstitutional 


• the increase of the legislative district of Makati by special law 


• the increase of the legislative district of Makati was not expressed

in the bill 


• the increase of the legislative district of Makati is not accord with

Sec 5 (3) Art VI of the 
 Constitution for at the latest survey
population of Makati is at 450,000 Issue: WON RA 7854
violated the constitution
 Held: The court held: 


1. The delineation did not changed the area previously covered

by Makati Sec 2 stated that the city’s land area shall
comprise the present territory of the municipality. The
pending territorial dispute between Makati and Taguig over
Fort Bonifacio was the reason why no technical description
was given to defined the boundary on the said section. The
reason behind Sec 7 & 450 of the Local Government Code
was to provide a means by which the area of the said cities
may be reasonably ascertained. The legislative intent behind
the law has been sufficiently served 

2. The petitioners argues that by providing the new city a new
corporate existence, RA 7854 restarts the term of the present
municipal elective official of Makati and disregard the three
consecutive term restriction. This only pose a hypothetical
issue which has yet to ripen to an actual controversy thus the
court cannot exercise its judiciary power to review. Also, most
of the petitioners are fro Taguig who are not the proper
parties to raise the constitutional issue. 


3. The court refers to the case of Tobias vs Abalos in which the

court rued that the reapportionment of the legislative districts
may be made through a special law such as in the case of
the charter of a new city. The Constitution provides that
Congress shall be composed of not more than 250 member
unless otherwise fixed by law. By passing the law, it did not
violated the Constitution. Moreover, Sec 5(3) Art VI of the
Constitution states that a city of at least 250,000 shall have at
least one representative. Hence, legislative may be increased
since it has met the minimum population requirement. Lastly,
the contention of non inclusion of the increase of the
legislative district of Makati in the title of the bill does not
present merit since the Constitution does not command that
the title of a law should exactly mirror, fully index,or
completely catalogue all its details. The court ruled that it
should be sufficient compliance if the title expresses the
general subject and all the provisions are germane to such
general subject. This is so as not to impede legislation based
from the decision in the case of Tobias vs Abalos. 


Ruling: Dismissed for lack of merit.