LOCGOV – 042

Robert Tobias vs. Hon. Benjamin Abalos (1994)

The inhabitants of San Juan were properly excluded from the plebiscite as they had nothing to do with the change
of status of neighboring Mandaluyong.

Facts:
 Prior to the enactment of RA 7675 (An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly
Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong), the municipalities of Mandaluyong and San Juan
belonged to only 1 legislative district.
 Hon. Ronaldo Zamora, the incumbent congressional rep. of this legislative district, sponsored the bill
which eventually became RA 7675. Pres. Ramos signed RA 7675 into law on Feb 9, 1994.
 A plebiscite was held on Apr 10, 1994, pursuant to the LGC. The people of Mandaluyong were asked
whether they approved of the conversion of the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city
as provided under RA 7675. The turnout at the plebiscite was only 14.41% of the voting population.
 Nevertheless, 18,621 voted "yes" whereas 7,911 voted "no." By virtue of these results, RA 7675 was
deemed ratified and in effect.

Petitioner’s arguments:
RA 7675, viz. Art. VIII, Sec 49 is unconstitutional for being violative of the Constitution.
1. RA 7675 contravenes with the "one subject-one bill" rule, as enunciated in Art VI, Sec 26(1) of the
Constitution (see Held/Ratio #1).
2. There is no mention in RA 7675 of any census to show that Mandaluyong and San Juan had each attained
the minimum requirement of 250,000 inhabitants to justify their separation into 2 legislative districts (see
Held/Ratio #2).
3. RA 7675 violates the present limit on the number of representatives as set forth in Art VI, Sec 5(1) of the
Constitution (see Held/Ratio #3).
4. Sec 49 of RA 7675 preempts the right of Congress to reapportion legislative districts (see Held/Ratio #4).
5. (TOPICAL) The people of San Juan should have been made to participate in the plebiscite on RA 7675 as it
involved a change in their legislative district (see Held/Ratio #5).
6. RA 7675 has resulted in "gerrymandering" (see Held/Ratio #6).

Respondent’s arguments:
1. The statutory conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city with a population of not less than
250,000 complies with the "1 city-1 representative" proviso in the Constitution: …Each city with a
population of at least 250,000, or each province, shall have at least 1 representative" [Art VI, Sec 5(3)].
2. With regards to gerrymandering, Rep. Ronaldo Zamora, the author of RA 7675, is the incumbent rep of
the former San Juan/Mandaluyong district. By dividing San Juan/Mandaluyong, Rep. Zamora's
constituency has been diminished, which could hardly be considered as favorable to him.

Issue: WON the plebiscite was held pursuant to Sec 10 of the LGC (YES)

Held/Ratio:
1. The creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct
from the subject of its conversion into a highly urbanized city but is a natural and logical consequence of
its conversion into a highly urbanized city.
 2. It is not required that all laws emanating from the legislature must contain all relevant data considered by
Congress in the enactment of said laws.
3. Art VI, Sec 5(1) of the Constitution shows that the present limit of 250 members is not absolute. The
Constitution clearly provides that the House of Rep shall be composed of not more than 250 members,
"unless otherwise provided by law." It means that the present composition of Congress may be increased,
if Congress itself so mandates through a legislative enactment. Thus, the increase in congressional
representation mandated by RA 7675 is constitutional.
4. It was Congress itself which drafted, deliberated upon and enacted RA 7675, including Sec 49 thereof.
Congress cannot possibly preempt itself on a right which pertains to itself.
5. (TOPICAL) The principal subject involved in the plebiscite was the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly
urbanized city. The matter of separate district representation was only ancillary thereto. Thus, the
inhabitants of San Juan were properly excluded from the plebiscite as they had nothing to do with the
change of status of Mandaluyong.
6. Respondent Sol-Gen is correct (see Respondent’s argument’s #2).

Digested by: L Agliam