Re: Based on verifiable indicators of viability/projected capacity
FACTS: Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of RA 7854 which sought to convert the Municipality of Makati to a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati. Petitioners contend that the special law did not properly identify, in metes and bounds with technical descriptions, the territorial jurisdiction of Makati; that it attempted to alter or restart the "three consecutive term" limit for local elective officials; that it increased the legislative district of Makati only by special law; that the increase in legislative district was not expressed in the title of the bill; and that the addition of another legislative district in Makati is not in accord with the population requirement, thus violative of the constitution and the LGC.
HELD:
(1) WON RA 7854 did not properly identify the land area or territorial jurisdiction of Makati by metes and bounds, with technical descriptions.
(2) WON it attempted to alter or restart the "three consecutive term" limit for local elective officials.
(3) WON it is unconstitutional for it increased the legislative district of Makati only by special law (the Charter in violation of the constitutional provision requiring a general reapportionment law to be passed by Congress within three (3) years following the return of every census.
(4) WON it is unconstitutional for the increase in legislative district was not expressed in the title of the bill.
(5) WON it is unconstitutional for the addition of another legislative district in Makati is not in accord with Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution for as of the latest survey (1990 census), the population of Makati stands at only 450,000. Said section provides, inter alia, that a city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) shall have at least one representative.
HELD:
(1) No. Petitioners have not demonstrated that the delineation of the land area of the proposed City of Makati will cause confusion as to its boundaries. We note that said delineation did not change even by an inch the land area previously covered by Makati as a municipality. In language that cannot be any clearer, section 2 of RA 7854 stated that, the city's land area "shall comprise the present territory of the municipality." The court take judicial notice of the fact that Congress has also refrained from using the metes and bounds description of land areas of other local government units with unsettled boundary dispute.
(2) No. The requirements before a litigant can challenge the constitutionality of a law are well delineated. They are: 1) there must be an actual case or controversy; (2) the question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party; (3) the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the decision on the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. Petitioners have far from complied with these requirements. The petition is premised on the occurrence of many contingent events, i.e., that Mayor Binay will run again in this coming mayoralty elections; that he would be reelected in said elections; and that he would seek re-election for the same position in the 1998 elections. Considering that these contingencies may or may not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig (except Mariano) are not also the proper parties to raise this abstract issue. Worse, they hoist this futuristic issue in a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has no jurisdiction.
(3) No. The Constitution clearly provides that Congress shall be composed of not more than two hundred fifty (250) members, "unless otherwise fixed by law". As thus worded, the Constitution did not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law, other than a general reapportionment of the law. This is its exactly what was done by Congress in enacting R.A. No. 7854 and providing for an increase in Makati's legislative district. Moreover, to hold that reapportionment can only be made through a general apportionment law, with a review of all the legislative districts allotted to each local government unit nationwide, would create an inequitable situation where a new city or province created by Congress will be denied legislative representation for an indeterminate period of time.
(4) No. The Constitution does not command that the title of a law should exactly mirror, fully index, or completely catalogue all its details. it should be sufficient compliance if the title expresses the general subject and all the provisions are germane to such general subject.
(5) No. Even granting that the population of Makati as of the 1990 census stood at four hundred fifty thousand (450,000), its legislative district may still be increased since it has met the minimum population requirement of two hundred fifty thousand (250,000). In fact, section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution provides that a city whose population has increased to more than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) shall be entitled to at least one congressional representative.
No comments:
Post a Comment