Mariano, Jr. vs.

Commission on Elections

GR. No. 118577

Petitioner: Juanito Mariano, Jr. et al.

Respondent: Commission on Elections

Ponente: Puno
Petition to declare certain provisions of R.A. 7854 unconstitutional

Facts:

1. R.A. No. 7854 is “An Act Converting The Municipality of Makati Into a Highly Urbanized City
known as the City of Makati”
2. There are 2 petitions.
a. Petition of prohibition and declaratory relief by 11 petitioners, where only one of which,
Mariano, is a resident of Makati, they sue as taxpayers.
b. The second petition is filed by Sen. Osmena as a senator, taxpayer and concerned
citizen.

Issues:

I. W/N Sec. 2, Art. 1 of R.A. 7854 properly delineated the land area of the proposed city of Makati
with regard to Sec. 7 and 450 of the Local Government code?
II. W/N Sect 51 of R.A. 7854 alters or restarts the term limits for local elective officials, colliding
with Sec 8, Art. 10 and Sec. 7 Art. 6 of the Constitution?
III. W/N Section 52 of R.A. No. 7854 violates Sec 5 and Sec 26(1) Art. 6 of the Constitution?

Decision/Ratio:

I. YES, delineation is proper.

a. The Local Government Code requires that the area of an LGU be made by metes and
bounds with technical descriptions so that it can legitimately exercise powers within its
jurisdiction.
b. Petitioners have not demonstrated that the delineation of the land are will cause
confusion as to its boundaries
c. Sec. 2 Art 1 of R.A. 7854 did not add, subtract divide or multiply the established land of
Makati. States “shall compromise the present territory”
d. Sec. 2 Art 1 of R.A. 7854 did not specify metes and bounds, with technical description as
an act of fairness w/r to the territorial dispute between Makati and Taguig, which
should be left for the court to decide, which is common practice in Congress w/r to
unsettled boundary disputes.
e. Intent of Local Government Code is empower LGU’s and give them rightful due. To
invalidate RA 7854 serves the letter but defeats the spirit of the Code
 II. NO, Court cannot entertain the challenge to constitutionality.
a. Petitioners argue that the RA will provide the incumbent Mayor Binay, who has served 2
consecutive terms, to run as City Mayor in the 1988 elections since his previous 3-year
consecutive terms was as a Municipal Mayor. Thus violating the prohibition of elective
local officials from serving more than 3 consecutive terms.
b. Litigants do not have the requirements to challenge the constitutionality of a law
i. There must be an actual case or controversy
ii. Raised by the proper party
iii. Raised at the earliest possible opportunity
iv. Decision on the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination
of the vase itself.
c. Petition pose hypothetical issue : if Binay runs coming election, wins, further runs in
1998 .
d. Petitioners who are not residents of Makati, everyone aside from Mariano, are not
proper parties to raise this abstract issue.
e. Petition w/r to futuristic issue is for declaratory relief which this Court has no
jurisdiction.
III. NO, there is no violation w/r to reapportionment, population criteria, and incomplete bill title.
a. Sec 5 Art 6 of the Constitution provides that the Congress be composed of 250
members, unless provided by law. Like in Tobias v Abalos, reapportionment of
legislative district may be made by special law.
b. To argue that reapportionment can only be done by a general apportionment law,
reviewing all legislative districts would create inequitable situations denying
representation for an indeterminate period of time.
c. Sec 5 Art 6 provides that a city of at least 250,000 shall have at least one
representative. Makati, according to 1990 census, has population of 450,000 meeting
the minimum, qualifying for more than one.
d. Like in Tobias v Abalos, Court favors liberal construction of “one title-one subject rule”
as not to impede legislation. The tittle expresses the general subject and all provisions
are germane to such general subject.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. No costs.

Concurring Opinion: Davide JR.

I. The Constitution does not provide for a description by metes and bounds as a condition
sine qua non for the creation of a local government unit or its conversion.
II. Reliance on Section 450 R.A. 7160 is unavailing as it only applies to conversion into a
component city not highly urbanized city.
III. The increase of districts in R.A. 7854 is permissible under Section 1 and 3 of the
Ordinance appended in the Constitution.