the exercise of governmental powers. However, petitioner failed to show thatdelineation of land area of proposed City of Makati will create confusion as to itsboundary. Delineation did not change even by an inch the land previouslycovered by the municipality.
It will be shown that boundary was not defined by metes & bounds due toterritorial dispute bet Makati & Taguig re Fort Bonifacio w/c was still underCourt litigation. Out of respect to a co-equal dept, legislators felt that courtshould be left to decide dispute. They didn’t want to foreclose dispute bymaking a legislative finding of fact w/c could decide dispute.
Existence of a boundary dispute does not per se present an insurmountabledifficulty w/c will prevent Congress from defining w/reasonable certitude theterritorial jurisdiction of a LGU. Maintaining existing boundaries was an act of fairness.
Requirement on metes & bounds is merely a tool in establishing a LGU. So longas the territorial jurisdiction may be reasonably ascertained by referring tocommon boundaries w/neighboring municipalities, legislative intent behind lawhas been sufficiently served. Strict interpretation would defeat purpose of thelaw w/c is to empower LGUs & give them their rightful due to make the LGUmore responsive to the needs of their constituents. Invalidating RA 7854merely on this ground would serve letter of the law but defeat its spirit.
2. WON Sec. 51 is unconstitutional – CAN’T BE DECIDED.
Petitioners claim that this violates Sec. 8, Art. X (term of office of elective locofficials except brgy officials: 3 yrs & can’t serve for more than 3 consecutiveterms) and Sec. 7, Art. VI (mems of House of Reps: 3 yrs & not more than 3consecutive terms). They claim that by acquiring a new corporate existence, RA7854 restarts term of present municipal elective officials & disregards termspreviously served. Meaning, municipal officials will be entitled to another 3-consecutive terms. They further claim that such has been conveniently craftedto suit political ambitions of respondent Makati Mayor Binay.
Court can’t decide on this matter because petitioners failed to complyw/requirements before a litigant can challenge constitutionality of a law (actualcase/controversy, locus standi, raised at earliest possible opportunity, lis mota).
Petition premised on contingencies w/c pose hypothetical issues w/c still needto ripen to an actual case or controversy. Taguig residents are not properparties either.
Court has no jurisdiction over declaratory relief on futuristic issues.
3. WON Sec. 52 is unconstitutional - NO
Tobias vs Abalos: reapportionment of legislative districts may be made thruspecial law such as charter of new city. Consti provides that Congress shall becomposed of not more than 250 mems unless otherwise fixed by law w/c doesnot preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law otherthan a gen. Reapportionment law.
To hold that such can only be done thru a gen reapportionment law wouldcreate an inequitable situation where new city/province created by Congresswill be denied legislative representation until such time a reapportionmentoccurs. Such will deprive people a particle of their sovereignty. Note thatsovereignty is indivisible.
Sec. 5(3), Art. VI of Consti provides that city w/population of at least 250k shallhave at least one rep. And since 1990 census already showed that Makati had450k residents, then RA 7854 is not violative of the Consti for it has metminimum population requirement of 250k.
Tobias vs. Abalos: Court favors liberal construction of the one title-one subj ruleso as not to impede legislation. Consti doesn’t command that the title of the lawshould exactly mirror, fully index or completely catalogue all its details.Sufficient for title to express gen subj & that all provisions are germane to thatsubj.
Held: Case dismissed for lack of merit.
Aquino v. COMELEC
,MOVE MAKATI, MATEO BEDON & JUANITO ICARO (1995)Special Civil Action in SC. Certiorari.FACTS:On March 20 ’95, petitioner Aquino filed his Cert of Candidacy for the position of REPRESENTATIVE for the new 2
Legislative District of Makati City. The info heprovided are as follows:
Residence: Palm Village Mkt
Residence in the constituency where he seeks to be elected immediatelypreceding the election:
____Years and 10 Months
Eligible for office, obligation assumed voluntarilyOn April 24 ’95, MOVE Mkt, a duly-registered political party, & Bedon, Chairman of LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Brgy Cembo, Mkt filed a petition to
Aquino on theground that
the latter lacked the residence qualification
as a candidate for
w/c under Sec 6 Art VI of the 1987 Consti should be for a period
notless than 1 yr
immediately preceding the May 8, 1995 elections. Petition wasassigned to the 2
Division of COMELEC.The next day, Aquino filed another cert of candidacy amending the previous. Thistime he stated that he had resided in the said constituency for
1 yr & 13 days
.In May 2, a hearing was conducted and petitioner presented as evidence a leasecontract between himself and Leonor Feliciano for 2yrs and 2 affidavits (Feliciano’s & one Galamay).In May 6, a Resolution was promulgated by COMELEC wherefore it resolved todismiss the petition for disqualification & declares Aquino eligible to run for office.In May 7, the respondents filed a motion for reconsideration.On May 8, 1995, elections were held. In Mkt, 3 candidates vied for thecongressional seat in the 2
District. Petitioner ranked 1
w/ 38,547 votes againstclose contender Agusto Syjuco w/ 35,910 votes.In May 10, respondents filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and an UrgentMotion
to suspend proclamation of petitioner.In May 15, COMELEC issued an Order suspending the petitioner Aquino’sproclamation. It held that pursuant to provisions of Sec 6 of RA No 6646, the Bd of Canvassers of Mkt is directed to complete the canvassing of election return of the2
suspend the proclamation
of Aquino should he obtain the winningnumber of votes until Motion for Reconsideration has been resolved by COMELEC.