The Supreme Court declared Republic Act No. 9591 unconstitutional, preventing the creation of a separate legislative district for the city of Malolos, Bulacan. The Court held that the city failed to meet the constitutionally mandated minimum population of 250,000. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to strict constitutional requirements when establishing legislative districts, ensuring equitable representation based on verified population data rather than speculative projections.

Malolos’s Congressional Aspirations: When a City’s Growth Forecast Falls Short

At the heart of this case is Republic Act No. 9591 (RA 9591), legislation aimed at carving out a separate legislative district for the city of Malolos, Bulacan. Petitioners Victorino B. Aldaba, Carlo Jolette S. Fajardo, Julio G. Morada, and Minerva Aldaba Morada challenged the law’s constitutionality, arguing it violated Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates a minimum population of 250,000 for a city to merit its own legislative district. The controversy centered on whether Malolos met this population threshold, particularly since proponents relied on projected, rather than actual, population figures.

The petitioners argued that the population requirement was not met, while the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), contended that Congress’s reliance on projected population figures was a matter of legislative discretion and therefore non-justiciable. The pivotal piece of evidence was a certification from a Regional Director of the National Statistics Office (NSO), projecting Malolos’s population to reach 254,030 by 2010. This projection became the crux of the legal battle, with the Supreme Court scrutinizing its validity and the authority of the NSO official to issue such a certification.

The Supreme Court sided with the petitioners, emphasizing that the Constitution explicitly requires “a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand” for a city to have its own legislative district. The court found that the projected population of Malolos did not meet this requirement in time for the 2010 elections. A key point of contention was the legal effect of the Certification issued by the Regional Director of the NSO, which the Court deemed invalid due to several reasons.

The Court highlighted that certifications on demographic projections can only be issued if such projections are declared official by the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB). Moreover, such certifications can only be issued by the NSO Administrator or a designated certifying officer. This requirement is outlined in Section 6 of Executive Order No. 135, issued by President Fidel V. Ramos, which provides clear guidelines on the issuance of certifications of population sizes. According to the Court, the Regional Director’s certification failed to meet these requirements, rendering it without legal effect.

SECTION 6. Guidelines on the Issuance of Certification of Population sizes Pursuant to Section 7, 386, 442, 450, 452, and 461 of the New Local Government Code.

(a) The National Statistics Office shall issue certification on data that it has collected and processed as well as on statistics that it has estimated.

(b) For census years, certification on population size will be based on actual population census counts; while for the intercensal years, the certification will be made on the basis of a set of demographic projections or estimates declared official by the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB).

The Supreme Court also scrutinized the methodology used to project Malolos’s population. Based on the growth rate of 3.78% between 1995 and 2000, the Court calculated that the population of Malolos would only reach approximately 241,550 by 2010, falling short of the 250,000 threshold. Even using the 2007 Census data, the projected population for 2010 was still below the required minimum. This discrepancy further undermined the credibility of the NSO Regional Director’s certification.

Moreover, the Court emphasized the importance of timing, citing Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution: “Any province that may be created, or any city whose population may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one Member.” The Court interpreted this to mean that a city must actually attain the 250,000 population mark, and only in the subsequent election can it be entitled to a legislative district. Since Malolos did not meet the population requirement before the 2010 elections, the creation of a separate legislative district was deemed unconstitutional.

The Court also addressed the OSG’s argument that Congress’s choice of means to comply with the population requirement was non-justiciable. The Supreme Court firmly asserted its power to review actions of other branches of government for grave abuse of discretion, stating that compliance with constitutional standards is a matter of judicial review. This checking function is crucial to ensure that all branches of government adhere to the Constitution.

Dissenting Opinion	Majority Opinion
Argued that Congress has discretion to rely on NSO projections and the court should not interfere absent grave abuse of discretion.	Stressed the importance of adhering to constitutional population requirements and proper certification procedures for demographic projections.
Claimed Executive Order 135 does not apply because the case involves legislative district establishment, not LGU creation/conversion.	Maintained that any population projection must be based on credible and official sources, as outlined in EO 135.
Asserted the NSO Regional Director’s certification was based on official data.	Found the certification lacked legal effect due to non-compliance with Executive Order 135 and inconsistencies in the calculation of population projections.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Abad argued that the Court should be reluctant to second-guess Congress’s judgment and that the use of projected population figures was not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. He also contended that Executive Order No. 135 did not apply to the creation of legislative districts and that the NSO Regional Director’s certification was based on official data. Justice Abad emphasized that the certification issued by the NSO Region III Director, whose office has jurisdiction over Malolos City, partakes of official information based on official data.

This case highlights the delicate balance between legislative authority and constitutional constraints. While Congress has broad powers to create legislative districts, it must adhere to the specific requirements outlined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that population thresholds are not mere formalities but essential safeguards to ensure fair and equitable representation. By invalidating RA 9591, the Court reinforced the principle that compliance with constitutional mandates is paramount, even when pursuing legitimate legislative goals.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Republic Act No. 9591, creating a separate legislative district for Malolos City, was constitutional given that the city’s population was below the 250,000 threshold required by the Constitution. The Court examined whether projected population figures could be used to satisfy this requirement.
What population is required for a city to have its own legislative district?	The 1987 Constitution mandates that a city must have a population of at least 250,000 to be entitled to its own legislative district. This requirement is outlined in Section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution.
Why did the Supreme Court declare RA 9591 unconstitutional?	The Supreme Court declared RA 9591 unconstitutional because Malolos City did not meet the minimum population requirement of 250,000. The Court ruled that the projected population figures relied upon were not valid or credible under the existing legal framework.
What is the significance of Executive Order No. 135 in this case?	Executive Order No. 135 outlines the guidelines for issuing certifications of population sizes. The Supreme Court cited this EO to demonstrate that the NSO Regional Director’s certification lacked legal effect because it did not comply with the requirements for official demographic projections.
Can projected population figures be used to justify the creation of a legislative district?	While population projections can be considered, the Supreme Court emphasized that these projections must be based on official data and comply with established guidelines, such as those outlined in Executive Order No. 135. In this case, the Court found the projections to be unreliable.
What role does the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB) play in population projections?	The NSCB is responsible for declaring demographic projections official. According to Executive Order No. 135, certifications based on demographic projections can only be issued if the projections have been declared official by the NSCB.
What did the dissenting Justice argue in this case?	The dissenting Justice argued that Congress has the discretion to rely on NSO projections and that the Court should not interfere unless there is a grave abuse of discretion. He also claimed that Executive Order No. 135 did not apply to the creation of legislative districts.
What is the key takeaway from this Supreme Court decision?	The key takeaway is that the creation of legislative districts must strictly adhere to constitutional requirements, including population thresholds. Population projections must be based on credible data and comply with established guidelines to ensure fair and equitable representation.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the importance of adhering to constitutional mandates when creating legislative districts. The ruling underscores the need for reliable population data and proper certification procedures to ensure fair and equitable representation. This case sets a precedent for future legislative apportionment, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional principles.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: VICTORINO B. ALDABA VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R No. 188078, January 25, 2010