Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Tobias vs. Abalos

Tobias vs. Abalos

Ratings: (0)|Views: 510|Likes:

More info:

Published by: John Byron Jakes Lasam on Jun 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/21/2014

pdf

text

original

 
TITLE:
TOBIAS vs. ABALOS
Nature of the case:
petition to render RA No. 7675 unconstitutional
Petitioner:
Robert Tobias Ramon Guzman, Terry Lim, Gregorio Gabriel and Roberto R.Tobias, Jr.
Respondents:
Hon City Mayor Benjamin Abalos, City Treasurer William Marcelino and theSangguniang Panlungsod, all of the city of Mandaluyong
Facts:
 As taxpayers and residents of mandaluyong, petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA No.7675 otherwise known as “An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a HighlyUrbanized City to be known as City of Mandaluyong. Prior to the enactment of the statute,Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to one legislative district. Hon Congressionalrepresentative Hon. Ronaldo Zamora sponsored the bill and signed by pres. Fidel Ramosbecoming RA No. 7675. A plebiscite was held on April 10, 1994. The turnout of the plebiscitewas only 14.41% of the voting population: 18, 621 voted “yes” while 7,911 voted “no”. Thus, RA7675 was deemed ratified and in effect.
Issue:
1)
RA No 7675 specifically Art VIII Sec 49 thereof is unconstitutional for being violative of three specific provisions of the Constitution. First objection is that it contravenes the“one-subject-one bill” rule as enunciated in Art VI section 26(1) of the Constitution (everybill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed inthe title thereof.) this section embraces two principal subjects 1) the conversion of Mandaluyong into a HUC and 2) the division of the congressional district of SanJuan/Mandaluyong into two separate districts.2)Second and third objection involve Art VI, Sec 5 (1) and (4) of the COnsti. Petitionersargue that division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into separate congressional districtshas resulted in increase in the composition of the House of representatives and that itpreempts the right of Congress to reapportion legislatives districts pursuant to Sec 5(4).
Held:
Contentions are devoid of merit. The petition is DISMISED for lack of merit.
Ratio:
1)The creation of separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a subjectseparate and distinct from the subject of conversion into a HUC but is a natural andlogical consequence of its conversion into a HUC. A liberal construction of the “one title-one subject” rule, it should be given a practical rather than a technical construction. Itshould be sufficient compliance with such requirement is the title expresses the generalsubject and all the provisions germane to that general subject
2)
Statutory conversion of Mandaluyong into HUC with a population of not less than 250thousand indubitably ordains compliance with the one city, one representative proviso inthe constitution—the said Act enjoys the presumption of having passed through theregular congressional processes including due consideration by the members of 

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Black Phoenix liked this
Stallone Choa liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->