Bai Sandra S.A Sema v. COMELEC, et. Al. G.R. No.

177597, july 16,2008

FACTS: The Province of Maguindanao is part of ARMM. Cotabato City is part of the province of Maguindanao but it
is not part of ARMM because Cotabato City voted against its inclusion in a plebiscite held in 1989. Maguindanao
has two legislative districts. The 1st legislative district comprises of Cotabato City and 8 other municipalities.

A law (RA 9054) was passed amending ARMM’s Organic Act and vesting it with power to create provinces,
municipalities, cities and barangays. Pursuant to this law, the ARMM Regional Assembly created Shariff Kabunsuan
(Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act 201) which comprised of the municipalities of the 1 st district of Maguindanao
with the exception of Cotabato City.

For the purposes of the 2007 elections, COMELEC initially stated that the 1 st district is now only made of Cotabato
City (because of MMA 201). But it later amended this stating that status quo should be retained; however, just for
the purposes of the elections, the first district should be called Shariff Kabunsuan with Cotabato City – this is also
while awaiting a decisive declaration from Congress as to Cotabato’s status as a legislative district (or part of any).

Bai Sandra Sema was a congressional candidate for the legislative district of S. Kabunsuan with Cotabato (1 st
district). Later, Sema was contending that Cotabato City should be a separate legislative district and that votes
therefrom should be excluded in the voting (probably because her rival Dilangalen was from there and D was
winning – in fact he won). She contended that under the Constitution, upon creation of a province (S. Kabunsuan),
that province automatically gains legislative representation and since S. Kabunsuan excludes Cotabato City – so in
effect Cotabato is being deprived of a representative in the HOR.

COMELEC maintained that the legislative district is still there and that regardless of S. Kabunsuan being created,
the legislative district is not affected and so is its representation.

ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9054 is unconstitutional. Whether or not ARMM can create validly LGUs.

HELD: RA 9054 is unconstitutional. The creation of local government units is governed by Section 10, Article X of
the Constitution, which provides:

Sec. 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary
substantially altered except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to
approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.

Thus, the creation of any of the four local government units province, city, municipality or barangay must comply
with three conditions. First, the creation of a local government unit must follow the criteria fixed in the Local
Government Code. Second, such creation must not conflict with any provision of the Constitution. Third, there
must be a plebiscite in the political units affected.

There is neither an express prohibition nor an express grant of authority in the Constitution for Congress to
delegate to regional or local legislative bodies the power to create local government units. However, under its
plenary legislative powers, Congress can delegate to local legislative bodies the power to create local government
units, subject to reasonable standards and provided no conflict arises with any provision of the Constitution. In
fact, Congress has delegated to provincial boards, and city and municipal councils, the power to create barangays
within their jurisdiction, subject to compliance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code, and the
plebiscite requirement in Section 10, Article X of the Constitution. Hence, ARMM cannot validly create Shariff
Kabunsuan province.

Note that in order to create a city there must be at least a population of at least 250k, and that a province, once
created, should have at least one representative in the HOR. Note further that in order to have a legislative district,
there must at least be 250k (population) in said district. Cotabato City did not meet the population requirement so
Sema’s contention is untenable. On the other hand, ARMM cannot validly create the province of S. Kabunsuan
without first creating a legislative district. But this can never be legally possible because the creation of legislative
districts is vested solely in Congress. At most, what ARMM can create are barangays not cities and provinces.
Sarangani v. Comelec, Gr. No. 135927 dated june 26, 2000

FACTS: On September 15, 1997: a petition for annulment of several precincts, among of which was
Padian Torogan, and annulment of book of voters in Madalum, Lanao Del Sur was filed with the
COMELEC by Hadji Oblais R. Omar thru counsel Atty. Nasib D. Yasin, herein private respondents.

On September 18, 1997: the COMELEC sent telegrams to the respective Board of Election Inspectors of
the questioned precincts in Madalum, Lanao Del Sur, including Padian Torogan to file their answer to
the petition for abolition of precincts and annulment of book of voters.

On October 31, 1997: the incumbent mayor of Madalum, Lanao Del Sur, Usman T. Sarangani, together
with other oppositors, filed an Answer in Opposition which included the affidavits attesting the fact that
the herein private respondent as motion were for the purpose of diminishing the bailiwicks of the
incumbent mayor of Madalum, Lanao del Sur. The COMELEC issued an Order referring the case to its
Law Department for appropriate investigation. The COMELEC - Law Department conformably issued a
memorandum directing Atty. Muslemin Tahir "to conduct a rigorous incisive investigation on the alleged
ghost precincts which resulted to the creation of TASK FORCE INVESTIGATION TEAM.

On June 18, 1998: an ocular inspection was conducted yielding the results that Padian Torogan and
Rakutan were uninhabited. On June 29, 1998: the COMELEC issued the assailed Order finding "Padian
Torogan as ghost precinct and shall be excluded from the special election to be conducted in Madalum."

On November 3, 1998: Sultan Usman Sarangani, Soraida M. Sarangani and Hadji Nor Hassan filed the
instant petition for certiorari and mandamus urging the Court to nullify the Order issued by the
COMELEC, for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring
Padian-Torogan as ghost precinct

RULING: The determination of whether a certain election precinct actually exists or not and whether the
voters registered in said precinct are real voters is a factual matter. On such issue, it is a time-honored
precept that factual findings of the COMELEC based on its own assessments and duly supported by
evidence, are conclusive upon this Court, more so, in the absence of a substantiated attack on the
validity of the same. Upon review of the records, the Court finds that the COMELEC had exerted efforts
to investigate the facts and verified that there were no public or private buildings in the said place,
hence its conclusion that there were no inhabitants. If there were no inhabitants, a fortiori, there can be
no registered voters, or the registered voters may have left the place. It is not impossible for a certain
barangay not to actually have inhabitants considering that people migrate.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the assailed Order dated June 29, 1998 of the
Commission on Elections is UPHELD. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILLIPINES V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 177597 ,
NOVEMBER 18, 2008

FACTS:

These cases were initiated by the consolidated petitions for prohibition filed by the League of
Cities of the Philippines (LCP), City of Iloilo, City of Calbayog, and Jerry P. Treñas, assailing
the constitutionality of the sixteen (16) laws, each converting the municipality covered thereby
into a component city (Cityhood Laws), and seeking to enjoin the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) from conducting plebiscites pursuant to the subject laws.

In the Decision dated November 18, 2008, the Court En Banc, by a 6-5 vote, granted the
petitions and struck down the Cityhood Laws as unconstitutional for violating Sections 10 and 6,
Article X, and the equal protection clause.

In another Decision dated December 21, 2009, the Court En Banc, by a vote of 6-4, declared the
Cityhood Laws as constitutional.

On August 24, 2010, the Court En Banc, through a Resolution, by a vote of 7-6, resolved the Ad
Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Annul the Decision of December 21, 2009.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Cityhood Bills violate Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution

Whether or not the Cityhood Bills violate Article X, Section 6 and the equal protection
clause of the Constitution

HELD: The petition is meritorious.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Cityhood Laws

First issue:

The enactment of the Cityhood Laws is an exercise by Congress of its legislative

power. Legislative power is the authority, under the Constitution, to make laws, and to alter and
repeal them. The Constitution, as the expression of the will of the people in their original,
sovereign, and unlimited capacity, has vested this power in the Congress of the Philippines.
The LGC is a creation of Congress through its law-making powers. Congress has the power to
alter or modify it as it did when it enacted R.A. No. 9009. Such power of amendment of laws
was again exercised when Congress enacted the Cityhood Laws. When Congress enacted the
LGC in 1991, it provided for quantifiable indicators of economic viability for the creation of
local government units—income, population, and land area.
However, Congress deemed it wiser to exempt respondent municipalities from such a belatedly
imposed modified income requirement in order to uphold its higher calling of putting flesh and
blood to the very intent and thrust of the LGC, which is countryside development and autonomy,
especially accounting for these municipalities as engines for economic growth in their respective
provinces.

R.A. No. 9009 amended the LGC. But the Cityhood Laws amended R.A. No. 9009 through the
exemption clauses found therein. Since the Cityhood Laws explicitly exempted the concerned
municipalities from the amendatory R.A. No. 9009, such Cityhood Laws are, therefore, also
amendments to the LGC itself.

Second Issue:

Substantial distinction lies in the capacity and viability of respondent municipalities to become
component cities of their respective provinces. Congress, by enacting the Cityhood Laws,
recognized this capacity and viability of respondent municipalities to become the State’s partners
in accelerating economic growth and development in the provincial regions, which is the very
thrust of the LGC, manifested by the pendency of their cityhood bills during the 11th Congress
and their relentless pursuit for cityhood up to the present.

The Resolution dated August 24, 2010 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Cityhood Laws are
declared CONSTITUTIONAL.
ALDABA V. COMELEC, NO. 188078 , JAN. 25 , 2010

Facts: This case is an original action for Prohibition to declareunconstitutional, R.A. 9591 which
creates a legislative district for the City of Malolos, Bulacan. Allegedly, the R.A. violates the
minimum population requirement for the creation of a legislative district in a city. Before the
May 1, 2009, the province of Bulacan was represented in Congress through 4 legislative districts.
Before the passage of the Act through House Bill 3162 (later converted to House Bill 3693) and
Senate Bill 1986, Malolos City had a population of 223, 069 in 2007.

House Bill 3693 cites the undated Certification, as requested to be issued to Mayor Domingo
(then Mayor of Malolos), by Region III Director Miranda of NSO that the population of Malolos
will be as projected, 254,030 by the year 2010.

Petitioners contended that R.A. 9591 is unconstitutional for failing to meet the minimum
population threshold of 250,000 for a city to meritrepresentative in Congress.

Issue: Whether or not R.A. 9591, “Án act creating a legislative district for the City of Malolos,
Bulacan” is unconstitutional as petitioned. And whether the City of Malolos has at least 250,000
actual or projected.

Held: It was declared by the Supreme Court that the R.A. 9591 isunconstitutional for being
violative of Section 5 (3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of
the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution on the grounds that, as required by the 1987
Constitution, a city must have at least 250,000 population. In relation with this, Regional
Director Miranda issued a Certification which is based on the demographic projections, was
declared without legal effect because the Regional Director has no basis and no authority to issue
the Certification based on the following statements supported by Section 6 of E.O. 135
as signed by President Fidel V. Ramos, which provides:

The certification on demographic projection can be issued only if such are declared official by
the Nat’l Statistics Coordination Board. In this case, it was not stated whether the document have
been declared official by the NSCB.

The certification can be issued only by the NSO Administrator or his designated certifying
officer, in which case, the Regional Director of Central Luzon NSO is unauthorized.

The population projection must be as of the middle of the year, which in this case, the
Certification issued by Director Miranda was undated.

It was also computed that the correct figures using the growth rate, even if compounded, the
Malolos population of 223,069 as of August 1, 2007 will grow to only 249,333 as of August 1,
2010.
It was emphasized that the 1935 Constitution, that this Court ruled that the aim of legislative
reappointment is to equalize the population and voting power among districts.
AQUINO AND ROBREDO V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 189793, APRIL 7, 2010

FACTS:

Republic Act No. 9176 created an additional legislative district for the province of Camarines
Sur by reconfiguring the existing first and second legislative districts of the province. The said
law originated from House Bill No. 4264 and was signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo on 12 October 2009.

To that effect, the first and second districts of Camarines Sur were reconfigured in order to create
an additional legislative district for the province. Hence, the first district municipalities of
Libmanan, Minalabac, Pamplona, Pasacao, and San Fernando were combined with the second
district Municipalities of Milaor and Gainza to form a new second legislative district.

Petitioners claim that the reapportionment introduced by Republic Act No. 9716 violates the
constitutional standards that requires a minimum population of two hundred fifty thousand (
250,000) for the creation of a legislative district. Thus, the proposed first district will end up with
a population of less than 250,000 or only 176,383.

ISSUE:

Whether a population of 250,000 is an indispensable constitutional requirement for the creation

of a new legislative district in a province.

HELD:

NO. The second sentence of Section 5 (3), Article VI of the constitution states that: “ Each city
with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one
representative.”

There is a plain and clear distinction between the entitlement of a city to a district on one hand,
and the entitlement of a province to a district on the other. For a province is entitled to at least a
representative, there is nothing mentioned about the population. Meanwhile, a city must first
meet a population minimum of 250,000 in order to be similarly entitled.

It should be clearly read that Section 5(3) of the constitution requires a 250,000 minimum
population only for a city to be entitled to a representative, but not so for a province.
BAGABUYO V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 17690, DEC. 8, 2008
MAGTAJAS V. PRYCE PROPERTIES CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 111907 , JULY 7,1994

FACTS: There was instant opposition when PAGCOR announced the opening of a casino in
Cagayan de Oro City. Civic organizations angrily denounced the project.The trouble arose when in
1992, flush with its tremendous success in several cities, PAGCOR decided to expand its operations
to Cagayan de Oro City.he reaction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City was
swift and hostile. On December 7, 1992, it enacted Ordinance No. 3353.Nor was this all. On January
4, 1993, it adopted a sterner Ordinance No. 3375-93Pryce assailed the ordinances before the Court
of Appeals, where it was joined by PAGCOR as intervenor and supplemental petitioner. Their
challenge succeeded. On March 31, 1993, the Court of Appeals declared the ordinances invalid and
issued the writ prayed for to prohibit their enforcement

ISSUE: WON Ordinance 3353 and 3375-93 valid

HELD: No
Local Government Code, local government units are authorized to prevent or suppress, among
others, "gambling and other prohibited games of chance." Obviously, this provision excludes games
of chance which are not prohibited but are in fact permitted by law.The rationale of the requirement
that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is obvious.Casino gambling is authorized by
P.D. 1869. This decree has the status of a statute that cannot be amended or nullified by a mere
ordinance. Hence, it was not competent for the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City to
enact Ordinance No. 3353 prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of a casino and
Ordinance No. 3375-93 prohibiting the operation of casinos. For all their praiseworthy motives, these
ordinances are contrary to P.D. 1869 and the public policy announced therein and are therefore ultra
vires and void.
ABBAS V. COMELEC, 179 SCRA 287 (1989)

Facts:

A plebiscite in thirteen (13) provinces and nine (9) cities in Mindanao and Palawan, was scheduled for November
19, 1989, in implementation of RA 6734, entitled "An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao" (Organic Act). These consolidated petitions pray that the Court: (1) enjoin the
COMELEC from conducting the plebiscite; and (2) declare RA 6734, or parts thereof, unconstitutional. The
arguments against R.A. 6734 raised by petitioners may generally be categorized into either of the following: (a)
that R.A. 6734, or parts thereof, violates the Constitution, and (b) that certain provisions of R.A. No. 6734
conflict with the Tripoli Agreement.

Issue:

Whether or not certain provisions of the Organic Act are unconstitutional.

Held:

The petition has no merit and the law is constitutional.

1. Petitioner contends that the tenor of a provision in the Organic Act makes the creation of an
autonomous region absolute, such that even if only two provinces vote in favor of autonomy, an
autonomous region would still be created composed of the two provinces where the favorable votes
were obtained. There is a specific provision in the Transitory Provisions (Article XIX) of the Organic Act,
which incorporates substantially the same requirements embodied in the Constitution and fills in the
details, thus: SEC. 13. The creation of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao shall take effect
when approved by a majority of the votes cast by the constituent units provided in paragraph (2) of Sec.
1 of Article II of this Act in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than ninety (90) days or later than
one hundred twenty (120) days after the approval of this Act:

Provided, that only the provinces and cities voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The provinces and cities which in the plebiscite do not vote for
inclusion in the Autonomous Region shall remain the existing administrative determination, merge the existing
regions. Thus, under the Constitution and R.A. No 6734, the creation of the autonomous region shall take effect
only when approved by a majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite, and only those
provinces and cities where a majority vote in favor of the Organic Act shall be included in the autonomous
region. The provinces and cities wherein such a majority is not attained shall not be included in the autonomous
region. It may be that even if an autonomous region is created, not all of the thirteen (13) provinces and nine (9)
cities mentioned in Article II, section 1 (2) of R.A. No. 6734 shall be included therein. The single plebiscite
contemplated by the Constitution and R.A. No. 6734 will therefore be determinative of (1) whether there shall
be an autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao and(2) which provinces and cities, among those enumerated in
R.A. No. 6734, shall compromise it.

2. The question has been raised as to what this majority means. Does it refer to a majority of the total
votes cast in the plebiscite in all the constituent units, or a majority in each of the constituent units, or
both? The 1987 Constitution provides: The creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when
approved by majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite called for the purpose,
provided that only provinces, cities and geographic areas voting favorably