Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R No. 188078 March 15, 2010 !

A ARDO, ULIO G. MORADA, Petitioners,

"t is ar-ued in the #otion to reconsider, that since Republic Act 3+6+ i#proves e9istin- conditions, this Court could perhaps, in the e9ercise of .udicial states#anship, consider the ;uestion involved as purel* political and therefore non0.usticiable. !he over7hel#in- 7ei-ht of authorit* is that district apportion#ent la7s are sub.ect to revie7 b* the courts>=? !he constitutionalit* of a le-islative apportion#ent act is a .udicial ;uestion, and not one 7hich the court cannot consider on the -round that it is a political ;uestion. "t is 7ell settled that the passa-e of apportion#ent acts is not so e9clusivel* 7ithin the political po7er of the le-islature as to preclude a court fro# in;uirin- into their constitutionalit* 7hen the ;uestion is properl* brou-ht before it. "t #a* be added in this connection, that the #ere i#pact of the suit upon the political situation does not render it political instead of .udicial. !he alle-ed circu#stance that this statute i#proves the present set0up constitutes no e9cuse for approvin- a trans-ression of constitutional li#itations, because the end does not .ustif* the #eans. :urther#ore, there is no reason to doubt that, a7are of the e9istin- ine;ualit* of representation, and i#pelled b* its sense of dut*, Con-ress 7ill opportunel* approve re#edial le-islation in accord 7ith the precepts of the Constitution. @ $E#phasis suppliedA internal citations o#itted% !o den* the Court the e9ercise of its .udicial revie7 po7er over RA 8(8, is to contend that this Court has no po7er Bto deter#ine 7hether or not there has been a -rave abuse of discretion a#ountin- to lacC or e9cess of .urisdiction on the part of an* branch or instru#entalit* of the Dovern#ent,B a dut* #andated under Section ,, Article <""" of the Constitution. "ndeed, if 7e subscribe to the COMELEC/s theor*, this Court 7ould be reduced to rubbersta#pin- la7s creatin- le-islative districts no #atter ho7 unreliable and non0authoritative the population indicators Con-ress used to .ustif* their creation. !here can be no surer 7a* to render #eanin-less the li#itation in Section ($3%, Article <" of the ,841 Constitution. 1 Second. nder E9ecutive Order No. ,3( $EO ,3(%, the population indicators Con-ress used to #easure Malolos Cit*/s co#pliance 7ith the constitutional li#itation are unreliable and non0authoritative. On Miranda/s Certification, $that the Bpro.ected population of the >Cit*? of Malolos 7ill be '(6,+3+ b* the *ear '+,+ usin- the population -ro7th rate of 3.14>E? bet7een ,88( and '+++B%, this fell short of EO ,3(/s re;uire#ents that $a% for intercensal *ears, the certification should be based on a set of de#o-raphic pro.ections and esti#ates declared official b* the National Statistical and Coordination Board $NSCB%A $b% certifications on intercensal population esti#ates 7ill be as of the #iddle of ever* *earA and $c% certifications based on pro.ections or esti#ates #ust be issued b* the NSO Ad#inistrator or his desi-nated certif*in- officer.

VICTORINO B. ALDABA, CARLO OLETTE S. MORADA, a"# MINERVA ALDABA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. RESOL !"ON CARPIO, J.:

!his resolves the #otion for reconsideration of respondent Co##ission on Elections $COMELEC% of the &ecision dated '( )anuar* '+,+. , !he COMELEC -rounds its #otion on the sin-ular reason, alread* considered and re.ected in the &ecision, that Con-ress/ reliance on the Certification of Alberto N. Miranda $Miranda%, Re-ion """ &irector, National Statistics Office $NSO%, pro.ectin- Malolos Cit*/s population in '+,+, is non0.usticiable. !he COMELEC also calls attention to the other sources of Malolos Cit*/s population indicators as of '++1 $'++1 Census of Population 2 PMS 3 2 Pro-ress Enu#eration Report'% and as of '++4 $Certification of the Cit* of Malolos/ 5ater &istrict, dated 3, )ul* '++4, 3 and Certification of the Li-a n- Baran-a*, dated '' Au-ust '++46% 7hich Con-ress alle-edl* used in enactin- Republic Act No. 8(8, $RA 8(8,%. !he COMELEC e9tends its non0.usticiabilit* ar-u#ent to these #aterials. 5e find no reason to -rant the #otion. :irst. "t 7ill not do for the COMELEC to insist that the reliabilit* and authoritativeness of the population indicators Con-ress used in enactin- RA 8(8, are non0.usticiable. "f la7s creatin- le-islative districts are un;uestionabl* 7ithin the a#bit of this Court/s .udicial revie7 po7er, ( then there is #ore reason to hold .usticiable subsidiar* ;uestions i#pactin- on their constitutionalit*, such as their co#pliance 7ith a specific constitutional li#itation under Section ($3%, Article <" of the ,841 Constitution that onl* cities 7ith at least '(+,+++ constituents are entitled to representation in Con-ress. !o fulfill this obli-ation, the Court, of necessit*, #ust in;uire into the authoritativeness and reliabilit* of the population indicators Con-ress used to co#pl* 7ith the constitutional li#itation. !hus, nearl* five decades a-o, 7e alread* re.ected clai#s of non0.usticiabilit* of an apportion#ent la7 alle-ed to violate the constitutional re;uire#ent of proportional representation=

:urther, usin- Miranda/s o7n -ro7th rate assu#ption of 3.14E, Malolos Cit*/s population as of , Au-ust '+,+ 7ill onl* be '68,333, belo7 the constitutional threshold of '(+,+++ $usin- as base Malolos Cit*/s population as of , Au-ust '++1 7hich is ''3,+@8%. !hat Miranda issued his Certification Bb* authorit* of the NSO ad#inistratorB does not #aCe the docu#ent reliable as it neither #aCes Miranda the NSO Ad#inistrator/s desi-nated certif*in- officer nor cures the Certification of its fatal defects for failin- to use de#o-raphic pro.ections and esti#ates declared official b* the NSCB or #aCe the pro.ection as of the #iddle of '+,+.1avvphi1 Nor are the '++1 Census of Population 2 PMS 3 2 Pro-ress Enu#eration Report, the Certification of the Cit* of Malolos/ 5ater &istrict, dated 3, )ul* '++4 and the Certification of the Li-a n- Baran-a*, dated '' Au-ust '++4, reliable because none of the# ;ualifies as authoritative population indicator under EO ,3(. !he '++1 Census of Population 2 PMS 3 2 Pro-ress Enu#eration Report #erel* contains preli#inar* data on the population census of Bulacan 7hich 7ere subse;uentl* ad.usted to reflect actual population as indicated in the '++1 Census results $sho7in- Malolos Cit*/s population at ''3,+@8%. !he COMELEC, throu-h the Office of the Solicitor Deneral $OSD%, adopts Malolos Cit*/s clai# that the '++1 census for Malolos Cit* 7as Bsloped to #aCe it appear that co#e Fear '+,+, the population count for Malolos 7ould still fall short of the constitutional re;uire#ent.B 4 !his unbeco#in- attacC b* the -overn#ent/s chief counsel on the inte-rit* of the processes of the -overn#ent/s census authorit* has no place in our .udicial s*ste#. !he OSD ou-ht to Cno7 that absent convincin- proof of so0called data Bslopin-,B the NSO en.o*s the presu#ption of the re-ularit* in the perfor#ance of its functions. !he Certification of the Cit* of Malolos/ 5ater &istrict fares no better. EO ,3( e9cludes fro# its a#bit certifications fro# a public utilit* -athered incidentall* in the course of pursuin- its business. !o elevate the 7ater district/s so0called population census to the level of credibilit* NSO certifications en.o* is to render useless the e9istence of NSO. !his 7ill allo7 population data incidentall* -athered b* electric, telephone, se7a-e, and other utilities to enter into le-islative processes even thou-h these private entities are not in the business of -eneratin- statistical data and thus lacC the scientific trainin-, e9perience and co#petence to handle, collate and process the#. Si#ilarl*, the Certification of the Li-a n- Baran-a* is not authoritative because #uch liCe the Malolos Cit* 5ater &istrict, the Li-a n- Baran-a* is not authoriGed to conduct population census, #uch less durin- off0census *ears. !he non0NSO entities EO ,3( authoriGes to conduct population census are local -overn#ent units $that is, province, cit*, #unicipalit* or baran-a*% sub.ect to the prior approval of the NSCB and under the technical supervision of the NSO fro# plannin- to data processin-. 8

B* presentin- these alternative population indicators 7ith their 7idel* diver-ent population fi-ures,,+ the COMELEC un7ittin-l* hi-hli-hted the dan-er of rel*in- on non0NSO authoriGed certifications. EO ,3(/s strin-ent standards ensurin- reliabilit* of population census cannot be diluted as these data lie at the core of crucial -overn#ent decisions and, in this case, the le-islative function of enforcin- the constitutional #andate of creatincon-ressional districts in cities 7ith at least '(+,+++ constituents. !here can be no doubt on the applicabilit* of EO ,3( to test the constitutionalit* of RA 8(8,. !he COMELEC invoCed EO ,3( to convince the Court of the credibilit* and authoritativeness of Miranda/s certificate. ,, "t is hardl* alien for the Court to adopt standards contained in a parallel statute to fill -aps in the la7 in the absence of an e9press prohibition. ,' "ndeed, one is hard0pressed to find an* distinction, statisticall* speaCin-, on the reliabilit* of an NSO certification of a cit*/s population for purposes of creatin- its le-islative district and for purposes of convertin- it to a hi-hl*0urbaniGed or an independent co#ponent cit*. ,3 Con-ress itself confir#s the 7isdo# and relevance of EO ,3(/s paradi-# of privile-in- NSO certifications b* #andatinthat co#pliance 7ith the population re;uire#ent in the creation and conversion of local -overn#ent units shall be proved e9clusivel* b* an NSO certification.,6 n;uestionabl*, representation in Con-ress is no less i#portant than the creation of local -overn#ent units in enhancin- our de#ocratic institutions, thus both processes should be sub.ect to the sa#e strin-ent standards. !hird. Malolos Cit* is entitled to representation in Con-ress onl* if, before the ,+ Ma* '+,+ elections, it breaches the '(+,+++ population #arC follo7in- the #andate in Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the ,841 Constitution that Ban* cit* 7hose population #a* hereafter increase to #ore than t7o hundred fift* thousand shall be entitled in the i##ediatel* follo7in- election to at least one Me#ber.B COMELEC neither alle-ed nor proved that Malolos Cit* is in co#pliance 7ith Section 3 of the Ordinance. :ourth. Aside fro# failin- to co#pl* 7ith Section ($3%, Article <" of the Constitution on the population re;uire#ent, the creation b* RA 8(8, of a le-islative district for Malolos Cit*, carvin- the cit* fro# the for#er :irst Le-islative &istrict, leaves the to7n of Bulacan isolated fro# the rest of the -eo-raphic #ass of that district. ,( !his contravenes the re;uire#ent in Section ($3%, Article <" that each le-islative district shall Bco#prise, as far as practicable, conti-uous, co#pact, and ad.acent territor*.B "t is no ar-u#ent to sa*, as the OSD does, that it 7as i#practicable for Con-ress to create a district 7ith conti-uous, co#pact, and ad.acent territor* because Malolos cit* lies at the center of the :irst Le-islative &istrict. !he -eo-raphic la*0out of the :irst Le-islative &istrict is not an insuperable condition #aCin- co#pliance 7ith Section ($3% i#practicable. !o adhere to the constitutional #andate, and thus #aintain fidelit* to its purpose of ensurin- efficient representation, the practicable alternative for Con-ress 7as to include the #unicipalit* of Bulacan in Malolos Cit*/s le-islative district. Althou-h unorthodo9, the resultinconti-uous and co#pact district fulfills the constitutional re;uire#ents of

-eo-raphic unit* and population floor, ensurin- efficient representation of the #ini#u# #ass of constituents. 5HERE:ORE, the Supple#ental Motion for Reconsideration of respondent Co##ission on Elections dated '' :ebruar* '+,+ is &EN"E& 5"!H :"NAL"!F. Let no further pleadin-s be allo7ed. SO OR&ERE&. ANTONIO Associate )ustice T. CARPIO