Additional Case Digest

Sema V. COMELEC 242 SCRA 211

FACTS:

The first legislative district of the Province of Maguindanao consists of Cotabato City and eight
municipalities. On August 8, 2006, the ARMM Regional Assembly, exercising its power to create
provinces under Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, enacted the Muslim Mindanao Act No. 201 (MMA
Act 201) creating the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan composed of 8 municipalities in the first district of
Maguindanao.

On 6 February 2007, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cotabato City passed Resolution No. 3999
requesting the COMELEC to "clarify the status of Cotabato City in view of the conversion of the First
District of Maguindanao into a regular province" under MMA Act 201.

On 10 May 2007, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 7902, amending Resolution No. 07-0407 by
renaming the legislative district in question as "Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato City (formerly
First District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City).”

In G.R. No. 177597, Sema (Bai Sandra S.A. Sema), who was a candidate in the 14 May 2007 elections
for Representative of "Shariff Kabunsuan with Cotabato City," prayed for the nullification of COMELEC
Resolution No. 7902 and the exclusion from canvassing of the votes cast in Cotabato City for that office.
Sema contended that Shariff Kabunsuan is entitled to one representative in Congress under Section 5 (3),
Article VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. Thus, Sema
asserted that the 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.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the ARMM Regional Assembly can create or reapportion a legislative district.

HELD:

For Congress to delegate validly the power to create a province or city, it must also validly delegate at the
same time the power to create a legislative district. The threshold issue then is, can Congress validly
delegate to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create legislative districts for the House of
Representatives? The answer is in the negative.

The ARMM Regional Assembly cannot create a province without a legislative district because the
Constitution mandates that every province shall have a legislative district. Moreover, the ARMM
Regional Assembly cannot enact a law creating a national office like the office of a district representative
of Congress because the legislative powers of the ARMM Regional Assembly operate only within its
territorial jurisdiction as provided in Section 20, Article X of the Constitution. Thus, we rule that MMA
Act 201, enacted by the ARMM Regional Assembly and creating the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan, is
void.
Tolentino V. COMELEC GR 148334
FACTS:
Shortly after her succession to the Presidency in January 2001, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
nominated then Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. ("Senator Guingona") as Vice-President. Congress
confirmed the nomination of Senator Guingona who took his oath as Vice-President on 9 February 2001.

Following Senator Guingona’s confirmation, the Senate on 8 February 2001 passed Resolution No. 84
("Resolution No. 84") certifying to the existence of a vacancy in the Senate. Resolution No. 84 called on
COMELEC to fill the vacancy through a special election to be held simultaneously with the regular
elections on 14 May 2001. Twelve Senators, with a 6-year term each, were due to be elected in that
election. Resolution No. 84 further provided that the "Senatorial candidate garnering the 13th highest
number of votes shall serve only for the unexpired term of former Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr.,"
which ends on 30 June 2004.

Gregorio Honasan ranked 13th in the polls.

COMELEC issued Res. 01-005 provisionally proclaiming the 12 senators (with 6-yr terms) and the 13th
senator (for the unexpired term).

Petitioners (Tolentino and Mojica) filed a petition for prohibition against COMELEC, enjoining them
from the final proclamation the 13th senator, and prayed for the nullification of Res. 01-005.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the special election was held validly.

HELD:
Under Section 9, Article VI of the Constitution, a special election may be called to fill any vacancy in the
Senate and the House of Representatives "in the manner prescribed by law," thus:

In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special election may be called to fill
such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term.

A Word to COMELEC

The calling of a special election, if necessary, and the giving of notice to the electorate of necessary
information regarding a special election, are central to an informed exercise of the right of suffrage.
While the circumstances attendant to the present case have led us to conclude that COMELEC’s failure to
so call and give notice did not invalidate the special senatorial election held on 14 May 2001, COMELEC
should not take chances in future elections. We remind COMELEC to comply strictly with all the
requirements under applicable laws relative to the conduct of regular elections in general and special
elections in particular.
Phil. Judges Association v. Prado
FACTS:
Section 35 of RA No. 7354, as implemented by the Philippine Postal Corporation, withdraws the franking
privilege from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Regional Trial Courts, the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Land Registration Commission and its Registers of Deeds,
along with certain other government offices.
(Franking privileges—the ability to send mail by one's signature rather than by postage)

It is alleged that R.A. No. 7354 is discriminatory because while withdrawing the franking privilege from
the Judiciary, it retains the same for the President of the Philippines, the Vice President of the Philippines;
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, the Commission on Elections; former Presidents
of the Philippines; the National Census and Statistics Office; and the general public in the filing of
complaints against public offices and officers.

The petition assails the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7354 on the grounds that: (1) its title embraces more
than one subject and does not express its purposes; (2) it did not pass the required readings in both Houses
of Congress and printed copies of the bill in its final form were not distributed among the members before
its passage; and (3) it is discriminatory and encroaches on the independence of the Judiciary.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Sec. 35 of RA No.7354 is constitutional.

HELD:
SC decides, “In sum, we sustain R.A. No. 7354 against the attack that its subject is not expressed in its
title and that it was not passed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. However, we annul Section
35 of the law as violative of Article 3, Sec. 1, of the Constitution providing that no person shall ‘be
deprived of the equal protection of laws.’

We arrive at these conclusions with a full awareness of the criticism it is certain to provoke. While ruling
against the discrimination in this case, we may ourselves be accused of similar discrimination through the
exercise of our ultimate power in our own favor. This is inevitable. Criticism of judicial conduct, however
undeserved, is a fact of life in the political system that we are prepared to accept.. As judges, we cannot
debate with our detractors. We can only decide the cases before us as law imposes on us the duty to be
fair and our own conscience gives us the light to be right.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is partially GRANTED and Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 is declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Circular No. 92-28 is SET ASIDE insofar as it withdraws the franking
privilege from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Regional trail Courts, the Municipal trial
Courts, and the National Land Registration Authority and its Register of Deeds to all of which offices the
said privilege shall be RESTORED. The temporary restraining order dated June 2, 1992, is made
permanent.”