G.R. No.

L-18684

September 14, 1961

LAMBERTO MACIAS, LORENZO TEVES, A!STO "!GENIO, ROGACIANO MERCA"O #$% MARIANO &ER"ICES, petitioners vs. T'E COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS #$% VICENTE GELLA ($ )(* C#p#+(t, #* N#t(o$#- Tre#*.rer, respondents. Crispin D. Baizas for petitioners. Barrios, Garcia and Apostol for respondent Commission on Elections. Office of the Solicitor General for respondent Vicente Gella. BENGZON, C.J.: Statement of the case. Petitioners request that respondent officials be prevented from implementing Republic Act 3040 that apportions representative districts in this country. It is unconstitutional and void they allege because! "a# it $as passed by the %ouse of Representatives $ithout printed final copies of the bill having been furnished the &embers at least three calendar days prior to its passage' "b# it $as approved more than three years after the return of the last census of our population' and "c# it apportioned districts $ithout regard to the number of inhabitants of the several provinces. Admitting some allegations but denying others the respondents aver they $ere merely complying $ith their duties under the statute $hich they presume and allege to be constitutional. (he respondent )ational (reasurer further avers that petitioners have no personality to bring this action' that a duly certified copy of the la$ creates the presumption of its having been passed in accordance $ith the requirements of the *onstitution "distribution of printed bills included#' that the +irector of the *ensus submitted an official report on the population of the Philippines in )ovember ,-.0 $hich report became the basis of the bill' and that the Act complies $ith the principle of proportional representation prescribed by the *onstitution.. After hearing the parties and considering their memoranda this *ourt reached the conclusion that the statute be declared invalid and a$are of the need of prompt action issued its brief resolution of August /3 partly in the follo$ing language! 0hereas such Republic Act 3040 clearly violates the said constitutional provision in several $ays namely "a# it gave *ebu seven members $hile Ri1al $ith a bigger number of inhabitants got four only' "b# it gave &anila four members $hile *otabato $ith a bigger population got three only' . . .' 0hereas such violation of the *onstitutional mandate renders the la$ void' (herefore $ithout pre2udice to the $riting of a more e3tended opinion passing additionally on other issues raised in the case the *ourt resolved $ithout any dissent forth$ith to issue the in2unction prayed for by the petitioners. )o bond is needed. 0hat $ith the reservation announced in the resolution and $hat $ith the motion for reconsideration this is no$ $ritten fully to e3plain the premises on $hich our conclusion rested. Personality of the petitioners. Petitioners are four members of the %ouse of Representatives from )egros 4riental &isamis 4riental and 5ulacan and the provincial governor of )egros 4riental. (hey bring this action in behalf of themselves and of other residents of their provinces. (hey allege and this *ourt finds that their provinces had been discriminated against by Republic Act 3040 because they $ere given less representative districts than the number of their inhabitants required or 2ustified! &isamis 4riental having 367 63- inhabitants $as given one district only $hereas *avite $ith 37- -0/ inhabitants $as given t$o districts' )egros 4riental and 5ulacan $ith 8-6 763 and 887 .-, respectively $ere allotted / representative districts each $hereas Albay $ith 8,8 -., $as assigned 3 districts. (he authorities hold that 9citi1ens $ho are deprived of as full and effective an elective franchise as they are entitled to under the *onstitution by an apportionment act have a sufficient interest to proceed in a court to test the statute. ",6 Am. :ur. ,--.# (herefore petitioners as voters and as congressmen and governor of the aggrieved provinces have personality to sue. In ;tiglit1 vs. ;chardien "<y# 40 ;.0. "/d# 3,8 the right of a citi1en to question the validity of a redistricting statute $as upheld. (he same right $as recogni1ed in :ones vs. =reeman "4>la.# ,4. P. "/d# 8.4 the court saying that each citi1en has the right to have the ;tate apportioned in accordance $ith the *onstitution and to be governed by a ?egislative fairly representing the $hole body of electorate and elected as required by the *onstitution. *olegrove vs. @reen 3/6 .A.;. 84- on $hich respondents rely appear to be inconclusive! three against three. (he seventh 2ustice concurred in the result even supposing the contrary $as 2usticiable.9 The printed form, three day re!"irement. (he *onstitution provides that 9no bill shall be passed by either %ouse unless it shall have been printed and copies thereof in its final form furnished its &embers at least three calendar days prior to its passage e3cept $hen the President shall have certified to the necessity of its immediate enactment.9 Petitioners presented certificates of the ;ecretary of the %ouse of Representatives to sho$ that no printed copy had been distributed three days before passage of the bill "on &ay ,0 ,-.,# and that no certificate of urgency by the President had been received in the %ouse. (he respondents claim in their defense that a statute may not be nullified upon evidence of failure to print because 9it is conclusively presumed that the details of legislative procedure leading to the enrollment that are prescribed by the *onstitution have been complied $ith by the ?egislature.9 (hey further claim that the certificates of the ;ecretary of the %ouse are inadmissible in vie$ of the conclusive "enrolledBbill# presumption $hich in several instances have been applied by the courts. In further support of their contention ;ec. 3,3"/# of Act ,-0 might be cited.,

4n the other hand it may be said for the petitioners that such printed bill requirement had a fundamental purpose to serve / and $as inserted in the *onstitution not as a mere procedural step' and that the enrolledBbill theory if adopted $ould preclude the courts from enforcing such requirement in proper cases. 0e do not deem it necessary to ma>e a definite pronouncement on the question because the controversy may be decided upon the issue of districtsBinBproportionBtoBinhabitants.#a$ph%l.n&t Pop"lation Cens"s. According to the *onstitution 9the *ongress shall by la$ ma>e an apportionment "of &embers of the %ouse# $ithin three years after the return of every enumeration and not other$ise.9 It is admitted that the bill $hich later became Republic Act 3040 $as based upon a report submitted to the President by the +irector of the *ensus on )ovember /3 ,-.0. It reads! I have the honor to submit here$ith a preliminary count of the population of the Philippines as a result of the population enumeration $hich has 2ust been completed. (his is a report on the total number of inhabitants in this country and does not include the population characteristics. It is the result of a hand tally and may be sub2ect to revision $hen all the population schedules shall have been processed mechanically. (he *ensus of Population is the first of a series of four censuses $hich include housing agriculture and economics in addition to population. (hese four censuses together constitute $hat is >no$n as the *ensus of ,-.0. ?i>e population the housing and agricultural censuses are undergoing processing $hile the economic census is no$ under preparation. Antil the final report is made these figures should be considered as official for all purposes. Petitioners maintain that the apportionment could not legally rest on this report since it is merely 9preliminary9 and 9may be sub2ect to revision.9 4n the other hand respondents point out that the above letter says the report should be considered 9official for all purposes.9 (hey also point out that the ascertainment of $hat constitutes a return of an enumeration is a matter for *ongress action. (his issue does not clearly favor petitioners because there are authorities sustaining the vie$ that although not final and still sub2ect to correction a census enumeration may be considered official in the sense that @overnmental action may be based thereon even in matters of apportionment of legislative districts "*ahill vs. ?eopold C*onn.D ,06 Atl. /d 6,6#. ";ee also Elliott vs. ;tate , Pac. /d 370' Ervin vs. ;tate 44 ;.0. /d 360' %erndon vs. E3cise 5oard /-8 Pac. //3' %olcomb vs. ;pi>es /3/ ;.0. 6-,.# Apportionment of 'em(ers. (he *onstitution directs that the one hundred t$enty &embers of the %ouse of Representatives 9shall be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the member of their respective inhabitants.9 In our resolution on August /3 $e held that this provision $as violated by Republic Act 3040 because "a# it gave *ebu seven members $hile Ri1al $ith a bigger number of inhabitants got four only' "b# it gave &anila four members $hile *otabato $ith a bigger population got three only' "c# Pangasinan $ith less inhabitants than both &anila and *otabato got more than both five members having been assigned to it' "d# ;amar "$ith 67, 687# $as allotted four members $hile +avao $ith -03 //4 got three only' "e# 5ulacan $ith 887 .-, got t$o only $hile Albay $ith less inhabitants "8,8 .-,# got three and "f# &isamis 4riental $ith 367 63- $as given one member only $hile *avite $ith less inhabitants "37- -04# got t$o. (hese $ere not the only instances of unequal apportionment. 0e see that &ountain Province has 3 $hereas Isabela ?aguna and *agayan $ith more inhabitants have / each. And then *api1 ?a Anion and Ilocos )orte got / each $hereas ;ulu that has more inhabitants got , only. And ?eyte $ith -.7 3/3 inhabitants got 4 only $hereas Iloilo $ith less inhabitants "-.. ,48# $as given 8. ;uch disproportion of representation has been held sufficient to avoid apportionment la$s enacted in ;tates having *onstitutional provisions similar to ours. =or instance in &assachusetts the *onstitution required division 9into representative district . . . equally as nearly as may be according to the relative number of legal voters in the several districts.9 (he ;upreme :udicial *ourt of that state found this provision violated by an allotment that gave 3 representatives to 7 -4. voters and only / representatives to 6 .,6 voters and further gave t$o representatives to 4 684 voters and one representative to 8 8-6 voters. :ustice Rugg said! It is not an appro3imation to equality to allot three representatives to 7 -4. voters and only t$o representatives to 6 .,6 voters and to allot t$o representatives to 4 684 voters and one representative to 8 8-. voters. . . . 0henever this >ind of inequality of apportionment has been before the courts it has been held to be contrary to the *onstitution. It has been said to be 9arbitrary and capricious and against the vital principle of equality.9 %oughton *ounty v. 5lac>er -/ &ich. .36 .47 .83' ,. ?RA 43/ 8/ ).0. -8,' @iddings vs. 5lac>en -3 &ich. , ,3 ,. ?RA 40/ 8/ ).0. -44' 5ar>er v. ;tate ,33 Ind. ,76 ,-7 ,6 ?RA 8.7 3/ )E 63. 33 )E ,,-' +enney v. ;tate ,44 Ind. 803 838 3, ?RA 7/. 4/ ). E. -/-. 4ther cases along the same line upholding the same vie$ are these! ,. ;tiglit1 v. ;chardien , s"pra $herein t$elve districts entitled to but si3 $ere given t$elve representatives and t$elve districts given t$elve only $ere actually entitled to t$entyBt$o. /. :ones v. =reeman, s"pra $herein districts entitled to only 3 senators $ere given 7 and districts entitled to ,8 $ere assigned seven only. It is argued in the motion to reconsider that since Republic Act 3040 improves e3isting conditions this *ourt could perhaps in the e3ercise of 2udicial statesmanship consider the question involved as purely political and therefore nonB2usticiable. (he over$helming $eight of authority is that district apportionment la$s are sub2ect to revie$ by the courts. (he constitutionality of a legislative apportionment act is a 2udicial question and not one $hich the court cannot consider on the ground that it is a political question. "Par>er v. ;tate e3 rel. Po$ell ,6 ?.R.A. 8.7 ,33 Ind. ,76 3/ ).E. 63.' ;tate e3 rel. &orris v. 0rightson // ?.R.A. 846 8. ).:.?. ,/. /6 Atl. 8.' %armison v. 5allot *omrs. 4/ ?.R.A. 8-, 48 0. Fa. ,7- 3, ;. E. 3-4#

It is $ell settled that the passage of apportionment acts is not so e3clusively $ithin the political po$er of the legislature as to preclude a court from inquiring into their constitutionality $hen the question is properly brought before it. "IndianaBPar>er v. Po$ell ",66/# ,33 Ind. ,76 ,6 ?.R.A. 8.7 3/ ). E. 63. 33 ). E. ,,-' +enney v. ;tate ",6-.# ,44 Ind. 803' 3, ?.R.A. 7/. 4/ ). E. -/-' &arion *ounty v. :e$ett ",-,8# ,64 Ind. .3 ,,0 ). E. 883.# "<entuc>yBRagland v. Anderson ",-07# ,/8 <y ,4, ,/6 Am. ;t. Rep. /4/ ,00 ;. 0. 6.8.# "&assachusettsBAtty. @en. v. ;uffol> *ounty Apportionment *omrs. etc.# It may be added in this connection that the mere impact of the suit upon the political situation does not render it political instead of 2udicial. "?amb v. *unningham ,7 ?.R.A. ,48 63 0is. -0.# . (he alleged circumstance that this statute improves the present setBup constitutes no e3cuse for approving a transgression of constitutional limitations because the end does not 2ustify the means. =urthermore there is no reason to doubt that a$are of the e3isting inequality of representation and impelled by its sense of duty *ongress $ill opportunely approve remedial legislation in accord $ith the precepts of the *onstitution. )eedless to say equality of representation3 in the ?egislature being such an essential feature of republican institutions and affecting so many lives the 2udiciary may not $ith a clear conscience stand by to give free hand to the discretion of the political departments of the @overnment. *ases are numerous $herein courts intervened upon proof of violation of the constitutional principle of equality of representation. An in2unction to prevent the secretary of state from issuing notices of election under an unconstitutional apportionment act gerryBmandering the state is not a usurpation of authority by the court on the ground that the question is a political one but the constitutionality of the act is purely a 2udicial question. ";tate e3 rel. Adams *ounty v. *unningham ,8 ?.R.A. 8., 6, 0is. 440 8, ).0. 7/4.# (he fact that the action may have a political effect and in that sense effect a political ob2ect does not ma>e the questions involved in a suit to declare the unconstitutionality of an apportionment act political instead of 2udicial. ";tate e3 rel. ?amb v. *unningham ,7 ?.R.A. ,48 63 0is. -0 83 ).0. 46.# An unconstitutional apportionment la$ may be declared void by the courts not$ithstanding the fact that such statute is an e3ercise of political po$er. "+enney vs. ;tate e3 rel. 5asler 3, ?.R.A. 7/. ,44 Ind. 803 4/ ).E. -/-.# (he constitutionality of a statute forming a delegate district or apportioning delegates for the house of delegates is a 2udicial question for the courts although the statute is an e3ercise of political po$er. "%armison v. 5allot *omrs. 4/ ?.R.A. 8-, 48 0. Fa. ,7- 3, ;. E. 3-4.# C3 ?.R.A. +igest p. /737.# Concl"sion. =or all the foregoing $e hereby reiterate our resolution declaring that Republic Act 3040 infringed the provisions of the *onstitution and is therefore void.