CASE TITLE: Tobias v.
Abalos the members of the House of Representative beyond that
KEY TAKE-AWAY: A charter need not mention the
population census.
DATE/GR NO/SCRA: December 8, 1994/ G.R. No. L-114783
PONENTE: BIDIN, J.
PETITIONER: ROBERT V. TOBIAS, RAMON M. GUZMAN, TERRY
T. LIM, GREGORIO D. GABRIEL, and ROBERTO R. TOBIAS, JR.
RESPONDENT: HON. CITY MAYOR BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, CITY
TREASURER WILLIAM MARCELINO, and THE SANGGUNIANG
PANLUNGSOD, all of the City of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila
NAME OF PERSON WHO MADE DIGEST: OWDYLYN LEE
FACTS:
Factual Antecedents:
The petitioners in this case are assailing the constitutionality
of RA 7675 or otherwise known as, An Act Converting the
Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to
be known as the City of Mandaluyong. Before the
enactment of the assailed statute, the municipalities of
Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only one legislative
district.
When the statute was approved, a plebiscite was held but
only 14.41% of the population came out to vote where,
18,621 voted "yes" and 7,911 voted "no. Because of this, RA
7675 was deemed ratified and in effect.
The petitioners contended that the act is unconstitutional for
violation of three provisions of the constitution. First, it
violates the one subject one bill rule. The bill provides for
the conversion of Mandaluyong to HUC as well as the
division of congressional district of San Juan and
Mandaluyong into two separate district. Second, it also
violate Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution, which
provides that the House of Representatives shall be
composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members,
unless otherwise fixed by law. The division of San Juan and
Mandaluyong into separate congressional districts increased
provided by the Constitution. Third, Section 5 of Article VI
also provides that within three years following the return of
every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of
legislative districts based on the standard provided in
Section 5. Petitioners stated that the division was not made
pursuant to any census showing that the minimum
population requirement was attained.
ISSUES:
1. W/N RA 7675 violate the one subject one bill
rule?
2. W/N it violates Section 5(1) of Article VI of the
Constitution on the limit of number of rep
3. W/N Is the inexistence of mention of census in
the law show a lack of constitutional
requirement
HELD:
1. No.
The court ruled that the creation of a separate
congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a separate
and distinct subject from its conversion into a HUC but is
a natural and logical consequence. In addition, a liberal
construction of the "one title-one subject" rule has been
invariably adopted by this court so as not to cripple or
impede legislation.
2. No.
The provision of the section itself show that the 250 limit
is not absolute. The Constitution clearly provides that
the House of Representatives shall be composed of not
more than 250 members, "unless otherwise provided by
law. Therefore, the increase in congressional
representation mandated by R.A. No. 7675 is not
unconstitutional.
3. No.
The Court ruled that there is no mention in the assailed
law of any census to show that Mandaluyong and San
Juan had each attained the minimum requirement of
250,000 inhabitants to justify their separation into two
legislative districts, unless otherwise proved that the the members of Congress of the minimum requirements
requirements were not met, the said Act enjoys the for the establishment of separate legislative district.
presumption of having passed through the regular
congressional processes, including due consideration by