10/17/2018 G.R No.

188078

EN BANC

VICTORINO B. ALDABA, G.R No. 188078

CARLO JOLETTE S. FAJARDO,
JULIO G. MORADA, and Present:
MINERVA ALDABA MORADA,
Petitioners, PUNO, C.J.,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
- versus - PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ, and
MENDOZA, JJ.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Promulgated:

Respondent. January 25, 2010
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is an original action for Prohibition to declare unconstitutional Republic Act No.
9591 (RA 9591), creating a legislative district for the city of Malolos, Bulacan, for
violating the minimum population requirement for the creation of a legislative district
in a city.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/188078.htm 1/9
10/17/2018 G.R No. 188078

Antecedents

Before 1 May 2009, the province of Bulacan was represented in Congress through
four legislative districts. The First Legislative District comprised of the city of
[1]
Malolos and the municipalities of Hagonoy, Calumpit, Pulilan, Bulacan, and
Paombong. On 1 May 2009, RA 9591 lapsed into law, amending Malolos City
[2]
Charter, by creating a separate legislative district for the city. At the time the
legislative bills for RA 9591 were filed in Congress in 2007, namely, House Bill No.
3162 (later converted to House Bill No. 3693) and Senate Bill No. 1986, the
population of Malolos City was 223,069. The population of Malolos City on 1 May
2009 is a contested fact but there is no dispute that House Bill No. 3693 relied on an
undated certification issued by a Regional Director of the National Statistics Office
(NSO) that the projected population of the Municipality of Malolos will be 254,030
[3]
by the year 2010 using the population growth rate of 3.78 between 1995 to 2000.

Petitioners, taxpayers, registered voters and residents of Malolos City, filed this
petition contending that RA 9591 is unconstitutional for failing to meet the minimum
population threshold of 250,000 for a city to merit representation in Congress as
provided under Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the
Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution.

In its Comment to the petition, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contended
that Congress use of projected population is non-justiciable as it involves a
determination on the wisdom of the standard adopted by the legislature to determine
[4]
compliance with [a constitutional requirement].

The Ruling of the Court

We grant the petition and declare RA 9591 unconstitutional for being violative of
Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance
appended to the 1987 Constitution

The 1987 Constitution requires that for a city to have a legislative district, the city
[5]
must have a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand. The only issue
here is whether the City of Malolos has a population of at least 250,000, whether
actual or projected, for the purpose of creating a legislative district for the City of

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/188078.htm 2/9
10/17/2018 G.R No. 188078

Malolos in time for the 10 May 2010 elections. If not, then RA 9591 creating a
legislative district in the City of Malolos is unconstitutional.

House Bill No. 3693 cites the undated Certification of Regional Director
Alberto N. Miranda of Region III of the National Statistics Office (NSO) as
authority that the population of the City of Malolos will be 254,030 by the year
2010. The Certification states that the population of Malolos, Bulacan as of May 1,
2000 is 175,291. The Certification further states that it was issued upon the request of
Mayor Danilo A. Domingo of the City of Malolos in connection with the proposed
creation of Malolos City as a lone congressional district of the Province of Bulacan.
[6]

The Certification of Regional Director Miranda, which is based on

demographic projections, is without legal effect because Regional Director Miranda
has no basis and no authority to issue the Certification. The Certification is also void
on its face because based on its own growth rate assumption, the population of
Malolos will be less than 250,000 in the year 2010. In addition, intercensal
demographic projections cannot be made for the entire year. In any event, a city
whose population has increased to 250,000 is entitled to have a legislative district
[7]
only in the immediately following election after the attainment of the 250,000
population.

First, certifications on demographic projections can be issued only if such

projections are declared official by the National Statistics Coordination Board
(NSCB). Second, certifications based on demographic projections can be issued only
by the NSO Administrator or his designated certifying officer. Third, intercensal
population projections must be as of the middle of every year.

[8]
Section 6 of Executive Order No. 135 dated 6 November 1993 issued by
President Fidel V. Ramos provides:

SECTION 6. Guidelines on the Issuance of Certification of Population sizes

Pursuant to Section 7, 386, 442, 450, 452, and 461 of the New Local Government
Code.

(a) The National Statistics Office shall issue certification on data that it has collected
and processed as well as on statistics that it has estimated.

(b) For census years, certification on population size will be based on actual
population census counts; while for the intercensal years, the certification will be
made on the basis of a set of demographic projections or estimates declared
official by the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/188078.htm 3/9
10/17/2018 G.R No. 188078

(c) Certification of population census counts will be made as of the census reference
date, such as May 1, 1990, while those of intercensal population estimates will be
as of middle of every year.

(d) Certification of population size based on projections may specify the range
within which the true count is deemed likely to fall. The range will correspond to the
official low and high population projections.

(e) The smallest geographic area for which a certification on population size may be
issued will be the barangay for census population counts, and the city or
municipality for intercensal estimates. If an LGU wants to conduct its own
population census, during offcensus years, approval must be sought from the NSCB
and the conduct must be under the technical supervision of NSO from planning to
data processing.

(f) Certifications of population size based on published census results shall be issued
by the Provincial Census Officers or by the Regional Census Officers.
Certifications based on projections or estimates, however, will be issued by the
NSO Administrator or his designated certifying officer. (Emphasis supplied)

The Certification of Regional Director Miranda does not state that the
demographic projections he certified have been declared official by the NSCB. The
records of this case do not also show that the Certification of Regional Director
Miranda is based on demographic projections declared official by the NSCB. The
Certification, which states that the population of Malolos will be 254,030 by the year
2010, violates the requirement that intercensal demographic projections shall be as of
the middle of every year. In addition, there is no showing that Regional Director
Miranda has been designated by the NSO Administrator as a certifying officer for
demographic projections in Region III. In the absence of such official designation,
only the certification of the NSO Administrator can be given credence by this Court.

Moreover, the Certification states that the total population of Malolos, Bulacan
as of May 1, 2000 is 175,291. The Certification also states that the population growth
rate of Malolos is 3.78% per year between 1995 and 2000. Based on a growth rate of
3.78% per year, the population of Malolos of 175,291 in 2000 will grow to only
241,550 in 2010.

Also, the 2007 Census places the population of Malolos at 223,069 as of 1

[9]
August 2007. Based on a growth rate of 3.78%, the population of Malolos will
grow to only 248,365 as of 1 August 2010. Even if the growth rate is compounded
yearly, the population of Malolos of 223,069 as of 1 August 2007 will grow to
[10]
only 249,333 as of 1 August 2010.
All these conflict with what the Certification states that the population of
Malolos will be 254,030 by the year 2010. Based on the Certifications own growth
rate assumption, the population of Malolos will be less than 250,000 before the 10
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/188078.htm 4/9
10/17/2018 G.R No. 188078

May 2010 elections. Incidentally, the NSO has no published population projections
[11]
for individual municipalities or cities but only for entire regions and provinces.

Executive Order No. 135 cannot simply be brushed aside. The OSG,
representing respondent Commission on Elections, invoked Executive Order No. 135
in its Comment, thus:

Here, based on the NSO projection, the population of the Municipality of Malolos
will be 254,030 by the year 2010 using the population growth rate of 3.78 between
1995-2000. This projection issued by the authority of the NSO Administrator is
recognized under Executive Order No. 135 (The Guidelines on the Issuance of
Certification of Population Sizes), which states:
xxx

(d) Certification of population size based on projections may specify the

range within which the true count is deemed likely to fall. The range will
correspond to the official low and high population projections.

xxx

(f) Certifications of population size based on published census results shall

be issued by the Provincial Census Officers or by the Regional Census
Officers. Certifications based on projections or estimates, however, will be
[12]
issued by the NSO Administrator or his designated certifying officer.
(Emphasis supplied)

Any population projection forming the basis for the creation of a legislative district
must be based on an official and credible source. That is why the OSG cited
Executive Order No. 135, otherwise the population projection would be unreliable or
speculative.
Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution provides:

Any province that may be created, or any city whose population may hereafter
increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the
immediately following election to at least one Member or such number of
members as it may be entitled to on the basis of the number of its inhabitants and
according to the standards set forth in paragraph (3), Section 5 of Article VI of the
Constitution. xxx. (Emphasis supplied)

A city that has attained a population of 250,000 is entitled to a legislative district

only in the immediately following election. In short, a city must first attain the
250,000 population, and thereafter, in the immediately following election, such city
shall have a district representative. There is no showing in the present case that the
City of Malolos has attained or will attain a population of 250,000, whether
actual or projected, before the 10 May 2010 elections.

Clearly, there is no official record that the population of the City of

Malolos will be at least 250,000, actual or projected, prior to the 10 May 2010
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/188078.htm 5/9
10/17/2018 G.R No. 188078

elections, the immediately following election after the supposed attainment of such
population. Thus, the City of Malolos is not qualified to have a legislative district of
its own under Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the
Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution.

On the OSGs contention that Congress choice of means to comply with the
population requirement in the creation of a legislative district is non-justiciable,
suffice it to say that questions calling for judicial determination of compliance with
constitutional standards by other branches of the government are fundamentally
justiciable. The resolution of such questions falls within the checking function of this
Court under the 1987 Constitution to determine whether there has been a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
[13]
instrumentality of the Government.

Even under the 1935 Constitution, this Court had already ruled, The
overwhelming weight of authority is that district apportionment laws are subject to
[14]
review by the courts. Compliance with constitutional standards on the creation of
legislative districts is important because the aim of legislative apportionment is to
[15]
equalize population and voting power among districts.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We DECLARE Republic Act No.

9591 UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being violative of Section 5(3), Article VI of the
1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/188078.htm 6/9