Sema v COMELEC

G.R. No. 177597. July 16, 2008

J. Carpio | GPAVeluya

Facts:

 The Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution provided for 2 legislative districts for the
Province of Maguindanao. The first legislative district is composed of the City of Cotobato and 8
municipalities. Maguindanao is a part of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
which was created under an Organic Act RA 6734 which was amended by RA 9054. Cotobato is
not part of the ARMM due to having voted against being part of the ARMM. Cotobato belongs
Region XII.
 Under Sec. 19, Art VI of RA 9054, The Regional Assembly of the ARMM has the power to create,
abolish, divide, merge or substantially alter boundaries of provinces, cities, municipalities and
barangays in their territory and the Regional Assembly may impose standards lower than those
imposed by the local government code in the creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration
of the boundaries of provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays.
 Wielding the said power provided for by RA 9054, The Regional Assembly enacted Muslim
Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 (MMA Act 21) on August 28, 2006 which created the Province
of Shariff Kabunsuan which is composed of the 8 municipalities in the first district of
Maguindanao (Only left separate is the City of Cotobato)
 There is a provision in MMA Act 21 which provides that “ Except as may be provided by national
law, the existing legislative district, which includes Cotabato as a part thereof, shall remain.” 3
new municipalities were carved out from the original municipalities consisting of Shariff
Kabunsuan thus it is now composed of 11 municipalities. The votes of Maguindanao ratified this.
 The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cotobato City passed a resolution requesting the COMELEC to
“clarify the status of Cotobato City in view of the conversion of the First District of Maguindanao
into a regular province.” Under the MMA Act 21. COMELEC issued Resolution No. 07-0407 which
“maintains the status quo with Cotobato City as part of Shariff Kabunsuan in the First Legislative
District of Maguindanao.” It further provides that the status quo will be maintained pending the
enactment of the appropriate law by Congress.
 Subsequently, the COMELEC, in preparation for the May 14, 2007 elections promulgated
Resolution No. 7902 which amended the prior resolution (Resolution No. 07-0407) which
renamed the legislative district in question as “Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato City”
 G.R. No. 177597 (G.R. No. 178628 is also the same with G.R. No. 177597)
 Petitioner Sema was a candidate for the May 2007 elections for the Representative of
Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato City. She is praying for the nullification of
Resolution No. 7902 and prayed for the exclusion of the votes cast from Cotobato City
for the position of Representative of Shariff Kabunsuan. She further contends that
Shariff Kabunsuan is entitled to 1 seat in the Congress as provided for by Sec. 5 (3), Art.
VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance Appended to the Constitution.
 Sema further Contends that COMELEC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in
issuing Resolution No. 7902 which maintained the status quo in Maguindanao’s first
legislative district despite the COMELEC’s earlier directive in Resolution No. 7845
designating Cotabato City as the lone component of Maguindanao’s reapportioned first
legislative district. Sema further claimed that in issuing Resolution No. 7902, the
COMELEC usurped Congress’ power to create or reapportion legislative districts.
 COMELEC initially did not ponder on the merits of the case and attacked the procedural
aspect of the case claiming that Sema wrongly availed of the writ of certiorari in
nullifying the resolution of the COMELEC because in issuing the said resolution,
COMELEC did not exercise its quasi-judicial power. It was exercising it administrative
power. In addition to this, the COMELEC stated that the petition of Sema already
became moot because of the proclamation of Didgaen Dilangalen as Representative of
the legislative district of Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato City.
 Dilangalen stated that Sema is estopped questioning the COMELEC’s resolution because
in her certificate of candidacy she indicated that she was seeking election as a
Representative of the legislative district of Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato
City. He further stated that Resolution No. 7902 is constitutional because it merely
renamed Maguindanao’s first legislative district. He further claims that the COMELEC
could not reapportion Maguindanao’s first legislative district to make Cotabato City its
sole component unit as the power to reapportion legislative districts lies exclusively with
Congress, not to mention that Cotabato City does not meet the minimum population
requirement under Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution for the creation of a
legislative district within a city.
 The Court required the parties to file a Comment on the issue whether a province
created by the ARMM Regional Assembly under Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054 is
entitled to one representative in the House of Representatives without need of a
national law creating a legislative district for such new province.
Sema: Yes there is no need for a national law. Used the case of Felwa v Salas. She claims
that that “when a province is created by statute, the corresponding representative
district comes into existence neither by authority of that statute—which cannot provide
otherwise—nor by apportionment, but by operation of the Constitution, without a
reapportionment”; (b) Section 462 of Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160) “affirms” the
apportionment of a legislative district incident to the creation of a province; and (c)
Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to
the Constitution mandate the apportionment of a legislative district in newly created
provinces.
COMELEC: The COMELEC answered YES and contends that Section 5 (3), Article VI of the
Constitution is “self-executing.” Thus, every new province created by the ARMM
Regional Assembly is ipso facto entitled to one representative in the House of
Representatives even in the absence of a national law.
Dilangalen: No. “province” contemplated in Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution is
one that is created by an act of Congress taking into account the provisions in RA 7160
on the creation of provinces; (b) Section 3, Article IV of RA 9054 withheld from the
ARMM Regional Assembly the power to enact measures relating to national elections,
 which encompasses the apportionment of legislative districts for members of the House
of Representatives; (c) recognizing a legislative district in every province the ARMM
Regional Assembly creates will lead to the disproportionate representation of the
ARMM in the House of Representatives as the Regional Assembly can create provinces
without regard to the requirements in Section 461 of RA 7160; and (d) Cotabato City,
which has a population of less than 250,000, is not entitled to a representative in the
House of Representatives.
 On the issue of the constitutionality of Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054 (the power to
create provinces, cities, municipalities and brangays:
Sema: Constitutional and it is a valid delegation by Congress to the ARMM the power to
create provinces under Section 20 (9), Article X of the Constitution granting to the
autonomous regions, through their organic acts, legislative powers over “other matters
as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of
the region” and as an amendment to Section 6 of RA 7160.
Dilangalen: Unconstitutional. The power to create provinces was not among those
granted to the autonomous regions under Section 20, Article X of the Constitution and
the grant under Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054 to the ARMM Regional Assembly of the
power to prescribe standards lower than those mandated in the Local Government
Code on the creation of provinces contravenes Section 10, Article X of the Constitution
and the Equal Protection Clause.
COMELEC: Unconstitutional. It contravenes Section 10 and Section 6, Article X of the
Constitution and the power to create provinces was withheld from the autonomous
regions under Section 20, Article X of the Constitution.

Issues:

1. WON Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, delegating to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to
create provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays, is constitutional
2. WON a province created by the ARMM Regional Assembly under MMA Act 201 is entitled to one
representative in the House of Representatives without need of a national law creating a
legislative district for such province.
3. WON Resolution No. 7902 is valid

Held:

1. No. The creation of local government units is governed by Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution. The creation of any of the four local government units—province, city, municipality
or barangay—must comply with three conditions. First, the creation of a local government unit
must follow the criteria fixed in the Local Government Code. Second, such creation must not
conflict with any provision of the Constitution. Third, there must be a plebiscite in the political
units affected. Congress under its plenary power may delegate to local legislative bodies the
power to create local government units but this must be subject to reasonable standards and it
must not be in conflict with the Constitution. Art. X of the Constitution provides that only the act
of Congress can create provinces, cities and municipalities.
Under Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, Congress delegated to the ARMM Regional Assembly
the power to create provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays within the ARMM. Congress
 under its plenary power designated the power to create local government units because this
power was not an express grant of the Constitution to regional legislative bodies. There is no
provision in the Constitution that conflicts with the delegation to regional legislative bodies of
the power to create municipalities and barangays, provided Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution is followed. However, the creation of provinces and cities is another matter.
Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution provides, “Each city with a population of at least two
hundred fifty thousSimilarly, Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution provides,
“Any province that may hereafter 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 x x x.”and, or each province, shall have at least one
representative” in the House of Representatives. This means that for a province to be created, a
legislative district because it will violate Sec. 5 (3), Art. VI of the Constitution as well as Sec. 3 of
the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. A city with a population of 250,000 or more cannot
also be created without a legislative district. Hence, the power to create a province or a city also
requires the power to create a legislative district because once the population of the city
reaches 250,000 the city is automatically entitled to one seat in the House of Representative.
The Congress cannot validly delegate the power to create a legislative district. Only the Congress
has the power to increase the allowable membership in the House of Representative and to
reapportion legislative districts. Sec. 5, Art. VI (4) of the Constitution provides that: “(4) Within
three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of
legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.” Congress may only increase
the legislative districts or the seats in the House by enacting a national law pertaining to such
changes. In Montejo v. COMELEC, the Court held that the “power of redistricting x x x is
traditionally regarded as part of the power (of Congress) to make laws,” and thus is vested
exclusively in Congress. It is absurd to say that the regional legislative bodies can enact laws to
affect or change membership in the Congress. An inferior legislative body, created by a superior
legislative body, cannot change the membership of the superior legislative body. Nothing in
Section 20, Article X of the Constitution authorizes autonomous regions, expressly or impliedly,
to create or reapportion legislative districts for Congress.
To allow the ARMM Regional Assembly to create a national office is to allow its legislative
powers to operate outside the ARMM’s territorial jurisdiction. This violates Section 20, Article X
of the Constitution which expressly limits the coverage of the Regional Assembly’s legislative
powers “[w]ithin its territorial jurisdiction x x x.”
2. No. As mentioned in the first issue, in creating a province or a city a legislative district must also
be created. The power to create a legislative district is vested solely to the Congress. The Felwa
case raised by Sema is not applicable in this case because in the case of Sema the city was
created as a result of a special law enacted by Congress itself. Thus, it complied with the
requirement of the law. However, that is not the case with the creation of the Province of Shariff
Kabunsuan. To allow the ARMM Regional Assembly to create legislative districts without
complying with the requirements provided for by law will create disastrous effects. Some of the
disastrous effects are:
(1) An inferior legislative body like the ARMM Regional Assembly can create 100 or more
provinces and thus increase the membership of a superior legislative body, the House of
 Representatives, beyond the maximum limit of 250 fixed in the Constitution (unless a national
law provides otherwise);
(2) The proportional representation in the House of Representatives based on one
representative for at least every 250,000 residents will be negated because the ARMM Regional
Assembly need not comply with the requirement in Section 461(a)(ii) of RA 7160 that every
province created must have a population of at least 250,000; and
(3) Representatives from the ARMM provinces can become the majority in the House of
Representatives through the ARMM Regional Assembly’s continuous creation of provinces or
cities within the ARMM.
3. Yes. The Court held that COMELEC Resolution No. 7902, preserving the geographic and
legislative district of the First District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City, is valid as it merely
complies with Section 5 of Article VI and Section 20 of Article X of the Constitution, as well as
Section 1 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution.