Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 880 views

    005 Aldaba Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Arthur Archie Tiu
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that the creation of a separate legislative district for the city of Malolos, Bulacan was unconstitutional because the population of Malolos did not meet the 250,000 threshold required by the Constitution. 2. While one certification from the National Statistics Office projected the population of Malolos to reach 254,030 by 2010, another certification projected the population to only be 241,550, below the 250,000 minimum. 3. There was no official record that the actual or projected population of Malolos would be at least 250,000 prior to the 2010 elections, so it did not qualify for its own legislative district under the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    005 Aldaba Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Arthur Archie Tiu
    880 views2 pages
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that the creation of a separate legislative district for the city of Malolos, Bulacan was unconstitutional because the population of Malolos did not meet the 250,000 threshold required by the Constitution. 2. While one certification from the National Statistics Office projected the population of Malolos to reach 254,030 by 2010, another certification projected the population to only be 241,550, below the 250,000 minimum. 3. There was no official record that the actual or projected population of Malolos would be at least 250,000 prior to the 2010 elections, so it did not qualify for its own legislative district under the Constitution.

    Original Description:

    aldaba vs COmelec digest

    Original Title

    005 Aldaba vs Comelec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The Supreme Court ruled that the creation of a separate legislative district for the city of Malolos, Bulacan was unconstitutional because the population of Malolos did not meet the 250,000 threshold required by the Constitution. 2. While one certification from the National Statistics Office projected the population of Malolos to reach 254,030 by 2010, another certification projected the population to only be 241,550, below the 250,000 minimum. 3. There was no official record that the actual or projected population of Malolos would be at least 250,000 prior to the 2010 elections, so it did not qualify for its own legislative district under the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    880 views2 pages

    005 Aldaba Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Arthur Archie Tiu
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that the creation of a separate legislative district for the city of Malolos, Bulacan was unconstitutional because the population of Malolos did not meet the 250,000 threshold required by the Constitution. 2. While one certification from the National Statistics Office projected the population of Malolos to reach 254,030 by 2010, another certification projected the population to only be 241,550, below the 250,000 minimum. 3. There was no official record that the actual or projected population of Malolos would be at least 250,000 prior to the 2010 elections, so it did not qualify for its own legislative district under the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    005 ALDABA vs COMELEC

    GR 188078 January 25, 2010


    TOPIC: ): population should not be based on

    AUTHOR: Arthur Archie Tiu


    NOTES:

    projection and certification must be issued by head of


    the Philippine Statistics Authority, formerly, National
    Statistics Office (NSO)
    PONENTE: Carpio, J.
    FACTS:
    1. The province of Bulacan was represented through 4 legislative districts (prior to May 2009)
    2. It was composed of Malolos, Hagonoy, Calumpit, Pulilan, Bulacan, and Paombong.
    3. RA 9591 lapsed to law on May 1, 2009. It amended the Malolos chapter by creating a separate legislative

    district for the city.


    4. The population of Malolos on May 1 is a contested fact, HB 3693 ( aka RA9591) relied on an undated
    certification issued by a regional director of the NSO that the projected population of the municipality of
    Malolos will be 254,030 by the year 2010
    5. This is in conflict over the certification stating that Malolos will only have 241,550 by 2010 based on the
    growth rate of 3.78%
    ISSUE(S): WON the creation of the legislative district of Malolos, Bulacan violates the minimum population requirement
    of 250,000?
    HELD: Yes
    DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We DECLARE Republic Act No. 9591
    UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being violative of Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the
    Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution.
    RATIO:

    1. Executive Order No. 135 cannot simply be brushed aside. The OSG, representing
    respondent Commission on Elections, invoked Executive Order No. 135 in its
    Comment, thus:
    Here, based on the NSO projection, the population of the Municipality of Malolos will be
    254,030 by the year 2010 using the population growth rate of 3.78 between 1995-2000. This
    projection issued by the authority of the NSO Administrator is recognized under Executive
    Order No. 135 (The Guidelines on the Issuance of Certification of Population Sizes), which
    states:
    xxx
    (d)
    Certification of population size based on projections may specify the range
    within which the true count is deemed likely to fall. The range will correspond to the
    official low and high population projections.
    xxx
    (f)
    Certifications of population size based on published census results shall be
    issued by the Provincial Census Officers or by the Regional Census Officers.
    Certifications based on projections or estimates, however, will be issued by the NSO
    Administrator or his designated certifying officer.1 (Emphasis supplied)
    1

    2. Clearly, there is no official record that the population of the City of Malolos will be at least 250,000,
    actual or projected, prior to the 10 May 2010 elections, the immediately following election after the
    supposed attainment of such population. Thus, the City of Malolos is not qualified to have a
    legislative district of its own under Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of
    the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution.
    3. The 1987 Constitution requires that for a city to have a legislative district, the city must have a
    population of at least two hundred fifty thousand. The only issue here is whether the City of Malolos
    has a population of at least 250,000, whether actual or projected, for the purpose of creating a
    legislative district for the City of Malolos in time for the 10 May 2010 elections. If not, then RA 9591
    creating a legislative district in the City of Malolos is unconstitutional.
    4. The constitutional check against gerrymandering, which means the creation of representative
    districts out of separate points of territory in order to favor a candidate, is found in Section 5(3),
    Article VI of the Constitution. It states that each legislative district shall comprise, as far as
    practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory. It should be noted, however, that this rule is
    qualified by the phrase as far as practicable. Hence, the fact that the creation of a legislative district
    for Malolos would separate the town of Bulacan from the rest of the towns comprising the first
    district, would not militate against the constitutionality of R.A. 9716. This is so because there is no
    showing that Congress enacted R.A. 9591 to favor the interest of any candidate. A city can aspire to
    have one representative who will represent its interest in Congress.
    CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
    DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy