Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

MARIANO, JR. VS. COMELEC Ponente: Puno, R. Parties Involved Juanito Mariano Jr. et. al.

(petitioner) John R. Osmea Commission on Elections, The Municipality of Makati, Hon. Jejomar Binay, The Municipal Treasurer, and the Sangguniang Bayan of Makati (respondent) Commission on Elections, The Municipality of Makati, Hon. Jejomar Binay, The Municipal Treasurer, and the Sangguniang Bayan of Makati Date: 07 MARCH 1995 Nature: Petition to declare certain provisions of R.A. 7854 unconstitutional

Facts and Background of the Case * Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of Sections 2, 51 and 52 of R.A. 7854 An Act Converting the Municipality of Makati Into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati * Petitioners held that Section 2 is unconstitutional because it did not properly identify the land area or territorial jurisdiction of Makati by metes and bounds with technical descriptions in violation of Section 10 Article X of the Constitution and Sections 7 and 450 of the Local Government * Petitioners claimed that Section 51 attempts to alter the three-consecutive term limit for local elective officials, in violation of Section 8, Article X and Section 7 Article VI of the Constitution. They alleged that this favors the incumbent Mayor, Jejomar Binay, as this will allow him to run again and restart the terms allowed for him. * Petitioners contends that Section 52 is unconstitutional because it sought to increase the legislative district of Makati only by special law, this increase was not expressed in the title of thebill, and the addition of another legislative district is not in accordance with Section 5(3) Article VI of the Constitution in relation to the population survey Legal Issues 1. Whether or not the requisites for a judicial review are present in the case (lis mota, actual controversy, locus standi and ripeness?) 2. Constitutional Issue Whether or not there was actual controversy in the case? Judgment Court found no merit in the Petition. Case is dismissed. Ratio (Legal Reasoning/ Justification) 1. Section 2 of RA 7854 did not change the present territory of Makati and left the resolution of territorial boundaries to the court to decide by virtue of the then existing boundary dispute between Makati and Taguig which was under court litigation.. It is not unconstitutional because Congress had a legitimate reason for not delineating Makatis territory by metes and bounds. (The boundaries of the Municipality of Makati would just be carried over if it became a city) 2. The basis for assailing the constitutionality of Section 51 of RA 7854 is premised on contingent events i.e. if Mayor Binay will run again, if he will seek a re-election, etc. There is, therefore, no actual controversy, laid down by the petitioners but merely hypothetical issues which have yet to happen. Petitioners are also not the proper parties to raise the abstract issue as they are residents of Taguig (except Mariano, Jr.) They are also asking for declaratory relief where the Court has no jurisdiction since resolution of the boundary dispute is dependent on the outcome of the litigation. 3. Section 52 is not unconstitutional because: 1) Constitution did not prevent Congress from creating another legislative district where the law demands so, such as when population has exceeded 250,000 in a certain area 2) the Constitution provides that should the population increase to more than 250,000, a legislative district is entitled to more than one representative 3. the creation of an additional legislative district does not need one title in the assailed law, Court upheld a liberal interpretation of the one title-one subject rule where a general title can encompass the provisions related to the title. Personal Notes * Issue determines the basis for judicial review.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen