Mariano vs.

COMELEC
FACTS:
The petitions assail certain provisions of RA 7854, the law converting the
Municipality of Makati into a Highly Urbanized City, as unconstitutional. They assail the
law as unconstitutional based on the grounds that:
(1) Sec. 2 of RA 7854 since it did not properly identify the territorial jurisdiction by
metes and bounds, with technical descriptions, in violation of Sec. 10, Article X,
in relation to Sec. 7 and 450 of the LGC.
(2) Sec. 51 since it attempts to alter or restart the three consecutive term limit for
local elective officials in violation of Sec. 8, Article X and Sec. 7, Article VI of the
Constitution
(3) Sec. 52 since it increased the legislative district of Makati only by special law,
and was not expressed in the title of the bill, and was not in accord with Sec.
5(3), Article VI as the population of Makati stands at only 450,000.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the said provisions were unconstitutional.
RULING:
The Court ruled in the negative.
(1) As for Sec. 2, the delineation did not change even by an inch the land area
previously covered by Makati as a municipality. Section 2 did not add, subtract,
divide, or multiply the established area of Makati. At the time of consideration of
RA 7854, there exist a territorial dispute between the municipalities of Makati and
Taguig. Out of a becoming sense of respect to a co-equal department, the
legislators felt that the dispute should be left to the courts to decide. Also, as long
as the territorial jurisdiction may be reasonably ascertained, the intent behind the
law has been sufficiently served.
(2) As for Section 51, the Court ruled that there exist no actual case or controversy
for the Court to exercise its power of judicial review.
(3) As for Section 52, the Court ruled, as in the case of Tobias vs. Abalos, that
reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special law. Also,
Congress is not precluded from increasing its membership by passing a law
other than a general reapportionment law. The Court also held that the provision
did not violate Sec. 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution. Said section provides that
a city with a population of at least 250,000 shall have at least one representative.
Since its current population stood at 450,000, its legislative district may still be
increased since it has met the minimum population requirement of 250,000.