Bara Lidasan v COMELEC

GR No. L-28089, October 25, 1967, J Sanchez

Title of Bills

DOCTRINE: Bills must not embrace more than one subject expressed in the title.

This constitutional provision contains dual limitations upon legislative power: (1) Congress is to
refrain from conglomeration, under one statute, of heterogeneous subjects; (2) the title to the bills is
to be couched in a language sufficient to notify the . . . and those concerned of the import of the
single subject thereof.

FACTS:  This is a petition for certiorari assailing the constitutionality of RA No. 4790 (An Act Creating the
Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur” and the COMELEC Resolutions
implementing the same for electoral purposes.

 It came to light later that 12 barrios – in 2 municipalities in the province of Cotabato — are
transferred to the province of Lanao del Sur by virtue of said law. This brought about a change in
the boundaries of the two provinces.

 Petitioner Bara Lidasan is a resident and taxpayer of the detached portion of one of the
municipalities (Parang, Cotabato) and a qualified voter for the 1967 elections.

o He avers that RA No. 4790, as well as the COMELEC resolution implementing the same,
should be declared null and void because it violates the constitutional requirement that
“no bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall
be expressed in the title of the bill.”

ISSUE: 1) WON RA No. 4790, as well as the COMELEC resolution implementing the same, should be
declared null and void because it violates the constitutional requirement that “no bill which may
be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of
the bill.” YES

2) WON RA No. 4790 is divisible, thus, it may still be salvaged if the portion with reference to the
detached barrios is declared unconstitutional. NO

HELD: 1. The constitution provision has dual limitations:

o First – For Congress to refrain from conglomeration, under one statute, of heterogenous
subjects
o Second – Title of the bill is to be couched in a language sufficient to notify the legislators,
the public, and those concerned of the import of the single subject thereof.

The rationale for this is that the Constitution does not require Congress to read during
deliberations the entire text of the bill. Thus, the title must be sufficient to inform the legislators
and the public of the nature, scope and consequences of the proposed law and its operations.

The following guidelines are helpful in ascertaining whether a title of a statute confirms with the
constitutional requirement:

o Is the title so uncertain that the average person reading it would not be informed of the
purpose of the enactment?
o Is it misleading? Or is the title referring to or indicating one subject where another or
different one is really embraced in the act?
 Evaluated against these standards, Court held that RA 4790 does not comply with the
constitutional requirement.
o The title – “ An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton, in the Province of Lanao del
Sur” – projects the impression that solely the province of Lanao del Sur is affected by the
creation of Diatanon.
o Not the slightest intimation is there that communities in the adjacent province of
Cotabato are incorporated in this new Lanao del Sur town.
o Title is misleading or deceptive. Legislation has two-pronged purposes embodied in one
statute:
 It creates municipality of Dianaton
 It dismembers 2 municipalities in Cotabato

Thus, the title did not inform the members of Congress as to the full impact of the law; it did not
apprise the people of the concerned municipalities that part of their territory is being taken away
and added to the adjacent province of Lanao del Sur.

This case is not analogous to Felwa vs Salas because the assailed provision in said case is the
portion pertaining to elective officials of the province thus created. Court held that an Act
creating provinces is expected to provide for the officers who shall run the affairs thereof, which
is manifestly germane to the subject of the legislation.

Applicable in this case is Hume v Village of Fruitfort which declared a law in Michigan
unconstitutional for changing boundaries of political subdivisions, which legislative purpose is
not expressed in the title.

2. Where a portion of a statute is rendered unconstitutional and the remainder valid, the parts will
be separated, and the constitutional portion upheld.

But when the parts of the statute are so mutually dependent and connected, as conditions,
considerations, inducements, or compensations for each other, as to warrant a belief that the
legislature intended them as a whole, and that if all could not be carried into effect, the
legislature would not pass the residue independently, then, if some parts are unconstitutional, all
the provisions which are thus dependent, conditional, or connected, must fall with them.

In this case, since Diatanon was created upon the basis considerations of progressive community,
large aggregate population and sufficient income, Congress clearly did not intend to create a
province with only 9 barrios of the original 21.

Thus, Republic Act 4790 is thus indivisible, and it is accordingly null and void in its totality.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition GRANTED. RA 4790 and the COMELEC resolution implanting the same are unconstitutional.

Prepared by: C. Cupay