Tobias v.

Abalos
December 8, 1994
G.R. Nos. 114783 Bidin, J.
Art. VI, Sec. 5 Rios, M.
Petitioners: Respondent/s:
Robert V. Tobias, Ramon M. Guzman, Terry T. Hon. Coty Mayor Benjamin S. Abalos, City Treasurer William
Lim, Gregorio D. Gabriel and Roberto R. Tobias, Marcelino and Te Sangguniang Panlungsod, all of the City of
Jr. Mandaluyong, Metro Manila
FACTS:
1) Petitioners assail the constitutionality of R.A. 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” invoking
their rights as taxpayers and as residents of Mandaluyong.
2) Prior to the enactment, municipalities of Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only one legislative district.
Hon. Ronaldo Zamora, the incumbent representative of this legislative district, sponsored a bill which eventually
became R.A. No. 7675 and became a law signed by President Ramos. A plebiscite was held by the people of
Mandaluyong approving R.A. No. 7675.
3) Petitioners contend R.A. No 7675 Art. VIII Sec. 49 unconstitutional for violating the following provisions: (1)
Art. VI, Sec. 26 (1) “one-title, one subject” rule the subject of conversion of Mandaluyong into highly urbanized
city and creating of a separate congressional district; (2) Art. VI, Sec. 5 (1) increase in the composition of the
House of Representatives; (3) Art. VI, Sec. (4) effect of pre-empting the right of Congress to reapportion
legislative districts; (4) People of San Juan should have made to participate in the plebiscite on R.A. No. 7675
as same involved a change in their legislative district; and (5) Subject law has resulted in “Gerrymandering” of
practice of creating legislative districts to favour a particular candidate or party.
ISSUE:
W/N R.A. No. 7675 is unconstitutional

RULLING:
NO, R.A. No. 7675 is constitutional and the contentions of the petitioners are devoid of merit.

RATIONALE/ANALYSIS/LEGAL BASIS:
1) One-title, One Subject Rule- Art. VI. Sec. 5 (3) “Each city of a population of at least 250, or each, shall have
at least one representative”. Hence, the creation of a separate congressional district of the City of Mandaluyong
is decreed under Art. VIII, Sec. 49 of R.A. No. 7675. Contrary to the petitioners’ assertion, the creation of a
separate congressional district for Mandaluyong and the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city
s not a subject separate and distinct but a natural and logical consequence of its conversion into a highly
urbanized.
2) Increase in the composition- Art. VI, Sec. 5(1) “The Members of the House of Representatives shall be
composed of not more than 250 members, “unless otherwise provided by law”. The clause presents composition
of a Congress may be increased, if the Congress itself so mandates through a legislative enactment.
3) Effects of pre-empts- Petitioners overlook that it was the Congress itself which drafted deliberated upon and
enacted the assailed law. Congress cannot possibly pre-empt itself on a right which pertains itself.
4) Plebiscite- Principal Subject involved in the plebiscite was the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly
urbanized city. The matter of separate district representation was only ancillary thereto.
5) Gerrymandering- Rep. Zamora is the author of the assailed law as well as the incumbent representative of the
former San Juan/Mandaluyong district, having consistently won in both localities, diminishes development
favourable to him.
DISPOSITION:
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

NOTE:
1) A plebiscite for creating a new province should include the participation of the residents of the mother province
for the plebiscite to conform to the constitutional requirements.
2) The title of a bill is not required to be an index to the body of the act, or to be comprehensive as to cover every
single details of the measure.

Tobias v. Abalos G.R. No. 114783