ROBERT V. TOBIAS, RAMON M. GUZMAN, TERRY T. LIM, GREGORIO D.

GABRIEL, and
ROBERTO R. TOBIAS, JR. petitioners, vs. HON. CITY MAYOR BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, CITY
TREASURER WILLIAM MARCELINO, and THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD, all of the
City of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, respondents
G.R. No. 114783, 8 December 1994, BIDIN

LEGAL KEYWORDS/DOCTRINE:
Legislative apportionment and Reapportionment, Conversion of a municipality into a city,
incidental effects, and Local Government Unit (LGU), reapportionment of legislative districts
may be made through a special law, such as in the charter of a new city.

FACTS:
The constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7675, which converted the Municipality of
Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city known as the City of Mandaluyong. Prior to the
enactment of the law, Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to the same legislative district.
A plebiscite was held to determine the approval of the conversion, with a turnout of only
14.41% of the voting population. The majority voted in favor of the conversion, and the law
was deemed ratified and in effect. Petitioners, who are residents and taxpayers of
Mandaluyong, argue that the law is unconstitutional for violating three specific provisions of
the Constitution.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the inclusion of Section 49 in Republic Act No. 7675 violates the "one
subject-one bill" rule.

Whether or not the division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into separate congressional
districts under Section 49 violates Article VI, Sections 5 (1) and (4) of the Constitution.

Whether or Not Section 49 of Republic Act No. 7675 preempts the right of Congress to
reapportion legislative districts.

RULING:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Republic Act No. 7675 is
constitutional.

RATIO:
The Court held that the creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not
a subject separate and distinct from the conversion of the municipality into a highly
urbanized city.

The Court held that the increase in the composition of the House of Representatives
mandated by Section 49 of Republic Act No. 7675 is not unconstitutional.

The Court rejected the argument that Section 49 of Republic Act No. 7675 preempts the
right of Congress to reapportion legislative districts.

DECISION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.