EN BANC

G.R. No. 189793 – SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III and MAYOR JESSE ROBREDO, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by its Chairman JOSE A.R. MELO and its COMMISSIONERS RENE V. SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T. FERRER, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH and GREGORIO LARRAZABAL, Respondents.

Promulgated:

April 7, 2010

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DISSENTING OPINION

CARPIO, J.:

I dissent. The majority opinion wreaks havoc on the bedrock principle of our “democratic and republican State”[1] that all votes are equal. Instead, the majority opinion introduces the Orwellian concept that some votes are more equal than others. The majority opinion allows, for the first time under the 1987 Constitution, voters in a legislative district created by Congress to send one representative to Congress even if the district has a population of only 176,383. In sharp contrast, all other legislative districts created by Congress send one representative each because they all meet the minimum population requirement of 250,000.

The assailed Republic Act No. 9716 (RA 9716) is unconstitutional for being utterly repugnant to the clear and precise “standards” prescribed in Section 5, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution for the creation of legislative districts. Section 5(4)[2] of Article VI mandates that “Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards” fixed in Section 5. These constitutional standards, as far as population is concerned, are: (1) proportional representation; (2) minimum population of 250,000 per legislative district; (3) progressive ratio in the increase of legislative districts as the population base increases; and (4) uniformity in apportionment of legislative districts “in provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area.” The assailed RA 9716 grossly violates these constitutional standards.

Legislators Represent People, Not Provinces or Cities

There was never any debate[3] in the design of our government that the members of the House of Representatives, just like the members of the Senate, represent people – not provinces, cities, or any other political unit.[4] The only difference is that the members of the Senate represent the people at large while the members of the House represent the people in legislative districts. Thus, population – or the number of inhabitants in a district – is the essential measure of representation in the House of Representatives.[5] Section 5(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, just like in the previous Constitutions,[6] could not be any clearer:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of x x x members, x x x, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

Evidently, the idea of the people, as individuals, electing their representatives under the principle of “one person, one vote,”[7] is the cardinal feature of any polity, like ours, claiming to be a “democratic and republican State.”[8] A democracy in its pure state is one where the majority of the people, under the principle of “one person, one vote,” directly run the government.[9] A republic is one which has no monarch, royalty or nobility,[10] ruled by a representative government elected by the majority of the people under the principle of “one person, one vote,” where all citizens are equally subject to the laws.[11] A republic is also known as a representative democracy. The democratic and republican ideals are intertwined, and converge on the common principle of equality -- equality in voting power, and equality under the law.

The constitutional standard of proportional representation is rooted in equality in voting power -- that each vote is worth the same as any other vote,

not more or less. Regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, occupation, poverty, wealth or literacy, voters have an equal vote. Translated in terms of legislative redistricting, this means equal representation for equal numbers of people[12] or equal voting weight per legislative district. In constitutional parlance, this means representation for every legislative district “in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio” [13] or proportional representation. Thus, the principle of “one person, one vote” or equality in voting power is inherent in proportional representation.

It was in obedience to the rule on proportional representation that this Court unanimously struck down an apportionment law which:

(a) x x x gave Cebu seven members, while Rizal with a bigger number of inhabitants got four only; (b) x x x gave Manila four members, while Cotabato with a bigger population got three only; (c) [gave] Pangasinan with less inhabitants than both Manila and Cotabato x x x more than both, five members having been assigned to it; (d) [gave] Samar (with 871,857) four members while Davao with 903,224 got three only; (e) [gave] Bulacan with 557,691 x x x two only, while Albay with less inhabitants (515,691) got three, and (f) [gave] Misamis Oriental with 387,839 x x x one member only, while Cavite with less inhabitants (379,904) got two.[14] x x x x

for being repugnant to the constitutional edict under the 1935 Constitution that the Members of the House of Representatives “shall be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants.”[15]

Section 5(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution is even more precise by providing that the Members of the House “shall be elected from legislative districts

apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio x x x.” The phrase “as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants” in the 1935 Constitution has been changed in the 1987 Constitution to the more precise “in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio x x x.” The addition of the phrase “on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio” was meant to stress that the rule on proportional representation shall apply uniformly in the apportionment of every legislative district.

The phrase “in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants,” which precedes the phrase “provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area,” means that legislative districts in provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area shall be apportioned according to proportional representation or equal representation for equal numbers of people. Thus, there shall be one legislative district for every given number of people, whether inhabiting in provinces, cities or the Metropolitan Manila area.

The phrase “on the basis of a uniform x x x ratio” means that the ratio of one legislative district for every given number of people shall be applied uniformly in all apportionments, whether in provinces, cities or the Metropolitan Manila area. Section 5(3) of Article VI mandates that “[e]ach city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand x x x shall have at least one representative.” Consequently, a population of 250,000 serves as the default minimum population applicable to every legislative district following the rule on uniformity in the apportionment of legislative districts, whether in provinces, cities or in the Metropolitan Manila area.

The phrase “progressive ratio” means that the number of legislative districts shall increase as the number of the population increases, whether in provinces, cities or the Metropolitan Manila area. Thus, a province shall have one

legislative district if it has a population of 250,000, and two legislative districts if it has 500,000. This insures that proportional representation is maintained if there are increases in the population of a province, city, or the Metropolitan Manila area. This is what is meant by a “progressive ratio” in the apportionment of legislative districts, a ratio that must also be uniformly applied.

Obviously, the 1987 Constitution has laid down clear and precise standards in the apportionment of legislative districts compared to the 1935 Constitution. What is inescapable is that the 1987 Constitution has strengthened and tightened the requirement of uniformity in the apportionment of legislative districts, whether in provinces, cities or the Metropolitan Manila area.

To now declare, as the majority opinion holds, that apportionment in provinces can disregard the minimum population requirement because the Constitution speaks of a minimum population only in cities is logically flawed, constitutionally repulsive, and fatally corrosive of the bedrock notion that this country is a “democratic and republican State.”[16] This ruling of the majority strikes a debilitating blow at the heart of our democratic and republican system of government.

Under the majority’s ruling, Congress can create legislative districts in provinces without regard to any minimum population. Such legislative districts can have a population of 150,000, 100,000, 50,000 or even 100, thus throwing out of the window the constitutional standards of proportional representation and uniformity in the creation of legislative districts. To disregard the minimum population requirement of 250,000 in provincial legislative districts while

maintaining it in city legislative districts is to disregard, as a necessary consequence, the constitutional standards of proportional representation and uniformity in the creation of legislative districts in “provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area.” This means that legislative districts in provinces can have a minimum population of anywhere from 100 (or even less) to 250,000, while legislative districts in cities will always have a minimum population of 250,000. This will spell the end of our democratic and republican system of government as we know it and as envisioned in the 1987 Constitution.

Constitutional Standards for Reapportionment:

Population and Territory

The Constitution itself provides the “standards” against which reapportionment laws like RA 9716 will be tested, following its command that “Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section,”[17] referring to Section 5, Article VI. These standards relate to first, population, and second, territory. Section 5 admits of no other standards.

On population, the standards of the 1987 Constitution have four elements. First is the rule on proportional representation, which is the universal standard in direct representation in legislatures. Second is the rule on a minimum population of 250,000 per legislative district, which was not present in our previous Constitutions. Third is the rule on progressive ratio, which means that the number of legislative districts shall increase as the number of the population increases in accordance with the rule on proportional representation. Fourth is the rule on uniformity, which requires that the first three rules shall apply uniformly in all apportionments in provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area.

The Constitution[18] and the Ordinance[19] appended to the 1987 Constitution fixes the minimum population of a legislative district at 250,000. Although textually relating to cities, this minimum population requirement applies equally to legislative districts apportioned in provinces and the Metropolitan Manila area because of the constitutional command that “legislative districts [shall be] apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio.” To reiterate, the Constitution commands that this rule on uniformity shall apply to legislative districts in “provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area.” Otherwise, districts apportioned in provinces, if freed from the minimum population requirement, will have constituencies two, four, ten times lower than in districts apportioned in cities, violating the constitutional command that apportionment shall be based on a uniform ratio in “provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area.”

In short, the constitutional “standards” in the apportionment of legislative districts under Section 5 of Article VI, as far as population is concerned, are: (1) proportional representation; (2) a minimum “population of at least two hundred fifty thousand” per legislative district; (3) progressive ratio in the increase of legislative districts as the population base increases; and (4) uniformity in the apportionment of legislative districts in “provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area.”

For territory, the Constitution prescribes the “standards” that a legislative district must be, “as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent.”

To repeat, other than population and territory, there are no other standards prescribed in Section 5 of Article VI. This Court cannot add other standards not found in Section 5.

The Malapportionment of RA 9716 Flouts

the Constitutional Standards on Population

RA 9716 grossly malapportions Camarines Sur’s proposed five legislative districts by flouting the standards of proportional representation among legislative districts and the minimum population per legislative district.

Based on the 2007 census, the proposed First District under RA 9716 will have a population of only 176,383, which is 29% below the constitutional minimum population of 250,000 per legislative district. In contrast, the remaining four proposed districts have populations way above the minimum with the highest at 439,043 (proposed Third District), lowest at 276,777 (proposed Second District) and an average of 379,359. Indeed, the disparity is so high that three of the proposed districts (Third, Fourth, and Fifth Districts) have populations more than double that of the proposed First District.[20] This results in wide variances among the districts’ populations. Still using the 2007 census, the ideal per district population for Camarines Sur is 338,764.[21] The populations of the proposed districts swing from this ideal by a high of positive 29.6% (Third

District) to a low of negative 47.9% (First District).[22] This means that the smallest proposed district (First District) is underpopulated by nearly 50% of the ideal and the biggest proposed district (Third District) is overpopulated by nearly 30% of the ideal.

The resulting vote undervaluation (for voters in the disfavored districts) and vote overvaluation (for voters in the First District) fails even the most liberal application of the constitutional standards. Votes in the proposed First District are overvalued by more than 200% compared to votes from the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Districts and by more than 60% compared to votes in the Second District. Conversely, votes from the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Districts are undervalued by more than 200% compared to votes in the First District while those in the Second District suffer more than 60% undervaluation.

Proportional representation in redistricting does not mean exact numbers of population, to the last digit, for every legislative district. However, under the assailed RA 9716, the variances swing from negative 47.9% to positive 29.6%. Under any redistricting yardstick, such variances are grossly anomalous and destructive of the concept of proportional representation. In the United States, the Supreme Court there ruled that a variance of even less than 1% is unconstitutional in the absence of proof of a good faith effort to achieve a mathematically exact apportionment.[23]

Significantly, petitioner Senator Aquino’s attempt to redraw districting lines to make all five proposed districts compliant with the minimum population requirement (and thus lessen the wide variances in population among the districts) was thwarted chiefly for political expediency: his colleagues in the Senate deemed the existing districts in Camarines Sur “untouchable” because “[a Congressman] is king [in his district].”[24] This shows a stark absence of a good faith effort to

achieve a more precise proportional representation in the redistricting under the assailed RA 9716. Clearly, RA 9716 tinkers with vote valuation, and consequently with the constitutional standard of proportional representation, based solely on the whims of incumbent Congressmen, an invalid standard for redistricting under Section 5 of Article VI.

Equally important, RA 9716 violates the minimum population requirement of 250,000 in creating the proposed First District, which will have a population of only 176,383. The minimum population of 250,000 per legislative district admits of no variance and must be complied with to the last digit. The Constitution mandates a population of “at least two hundred fifty thousand” for a legislative district in a city, and under the principle of “uniform and progressive ratio,” for every legislative district in provinces and in the Metropolitan Manila area.

Entitlement of “Each Province” to “at Least One Representative”

No Basis to Ignore Standard of Uniform Population Ratio

The directive in Section 5(3) of Article VI that “each province, shall have at least one representative” means only that when a province is created, a legislative district must also be created with it.[25] Can this district have a population below 250,000? To answer in the affirmative is to ignore the constitutional mandate that districts in provinces be apportioned “in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio.” That the Constitution never meant to exclude provinces from the requirement of proportional representation is evident in the opening provision of Section 5(1), which states:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of x x x members, x x x, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio x x x.” (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)

In short, the Constitution clearly mandates that the creation of legislative districts in provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area must comply with proportional representation, on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio.[26]

Apportionment in the Ordinance Appended to the 1987 Constitution

Distinct from Legislative Reapportionments

It will not do to hoist the apportionment under the Ordinance appended to the Constitution or Mariano v. COMELEC[27] and Bagabuyo v. COMELEC[28] as normative props to shore up the hollow proposition that reapportionment in provinces can dispense with the minimum population of 250,000 as prescribed in Section 5 of Article VI. In the first place, the Constitutional Commission, exercising constituent powers, enjoyed absolute discretion to relax the standards it textualized in Section 5, Article VI, in the interest of creating legislative districts en masse cognizant of legitimate concerns.[29] Only the people, through the instrument of ratification, possessed the greater sovereign power to overrule the Constitutional Commission. By overwhelmingly ratifying the 1987 Constitution, the people in the exercise of their sovereign power sanctioned the Constitutional Commission’s discretionary judgments.

In contrast, Congress enacted RA 9716 in the exercise of its legislative powers under the 1987 Constitution and subject to the reapportionment standards in Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution. Congress is strictly bound by the reapportionment standards in Section 5, unlike the Constitutional Commission which could create one-time exceptions subject to ratification by the sovereign people. Until it enacted RA 9716, Congress never deviated from the minimum population requirement of 250,000 in creating a legislative district. Thus, in Republic Act No. 7854 (RA 7854) which doubled the legislative districts in Makati City, the Court in Mariano v. COMELEC took note of the certification by the National Statistics Office that at the time of the enactment of RA 7854, the population of Makati City was 508,174, entitling it to two representatives.[30]

Footnote 13 in Mariano v. COMELEC states: “As per the certificate issued by Administrator Tomas Africa of the National Census and Statistics Office, the population of Makati as of 1994 stood at 508,174; August 4, 1994, Senate Deliberations on House Bill No. 12240 (converting Makati into a highly urbanized city) x x x.”

Similarly, in Republic Act No. 9371 (RA 9371) which also doubled the legislative districts in Cagayan de Oro City, the two districts created complied with the minimum population of 250,000 (254,644 and 299,322, respectively), as the Court noted in Bagabuyo v. COMELEC.[31] Contrary to the assertion of the majority opinion, neither Mariano v. COMELEC nor Bagabuyo v. COMELEC supports the claim that Congress can create a legislative district with a population of less than 250,000. On the contrary, these cases confirm that every legislative district must have a minimum population of 250,000. Only very recently, this Court in Aldaba v. COMELEC[32] struck down a law creating a legislative district in the City of Malolos, which has a population just short of the 250,000 minimum requirement.

RA 9716 Harbinger for Wave of Malapportionments

More than 20 years after the 1987 Constitution took effect, Congress has yet to comply with the Constitution’s mandate that “[w]ithin three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.”[33] Instead, Congress has contented itself with enacting piecemeal reapportionment laws for individual areas, either for this sole purpose[34] or ancillary to the conversion[35] or creation[36] of a local government unit, at the behest of legislators representing the area. As movements

of district lines spell doom or salvation for entrenched political interests, this process subjects Congress to intense pressure to keep off certain districts.

Until RA 9716 came along, Congress was able to balance political exigency with constitutional imperatives. RA 9716 marks a tectonic shift by tilting the balance in favor of entrenched interests, sacrificing the Constitution and ultimately, the ideals of representative democracy, at the altar of political expediency. If left unchecked, laws like RA 9716 will fill the House of Representatives with two breeds of legislators, one, representing districts two, four, ten times more populous than other favored districts, elected by voters holding “mickey mouse votes” and another, representing small, favored districts, elected by voters holding “premium votes” two, four, ten times more valuable than the votes in disfavored districts.

Our oath of office as Justices of this Court forbids us from legitimizing this constitutionally abhorrent scheme, a scheme that for the first time under the 1987 Constitution creates a new politically privileged class of legislators in what is supposed to be a “democratic and republican State.”[37] To uphold RA 9716 is to uphold the blatant violation of the constitutional standards requiring proportional representation and a minimum population in the creation of legislative districts. This will derail our one person, one vote representative democracy from the tracks clearly and precisely laid down in the 1987 Constitution.

And for what end -- to create a special class of legislative districts represented by a new political elite exercising more legislative power than their votes command? Such a grant of privileged political status is the modern day equivalent of a royalty or nobility title, which is banned under the 1987 Constitution. History will not be kind to those who embark on a grotesquely anomalous constitutional revision that is repulsive to our ideals of a “democratic and republican State.”

The ruling of the majority today could sound the death knell for the principle of “one person, one vote” that insures equality in voting power. All votes are equal, and there is no vote more equal than others. This equality in voting power is the essence of our democracy. This Court is supposed to be the last bulwark of our democracy. Sadly, here the Court, in ruling that there are some votes more equal than others, has failed in its primordial constitutional duty to protect the essence of our democracy.

Accordingly, I vote to GRANT the petition and to DECLARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL Republic Act No. 9716 for grossly violating the standards of proportional representation and minimum population in the creation of legislative districts as prescribed in Section 5, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

---

[1] Section 1, Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” (Emphasis supplied)

[2] Section 5(4), Article VI of the Constitution provides: “Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.” (Emphasis supplied)

[3] The creation of the union of the United States of America was nearly aborted because of the bitter controversy in the drafting of the US Constitution on the manner of representation to the US Congress. The debate pitted, on the one hand, small States which wanted representation by State and, on the other hand, delegates who insisted on direct representation, consistent with democratic ideals. The impasse was broken by what is popularly known as the Great Compromise, allowing States to send two representatives to the US Senate (regardless of population) and reserving membership in the US House of Representatives to Congressmen directly elected by the people in legislative districts based on proportional representation. (See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 [1964].)

[4] Or as a parallel ruling in another jurisdiction puts it:

Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. (Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 [1964].)

[5] Save for those elected under the part-list system who represent sectors.

[6] Substantially identical provisions are found in Section 2, Article VIII (1973 Constitution) and Section 5, Article VI (1935 Constitution).

[7] Section 1, Article V of the Constitution provides: “Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.”

[8] Section 1, Article II, 1987 Constitution.

[9] The 1935 and 1973 Constitutions described the Philippines as a “republican State.” During the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna explained that the word “democratic” was added “to emphasize that in this new Constitution there are instances where the people would act directly, and not through their representatives.” IV Record of the Constitutional Commission, p. 735, 17 September 1986.

[10] Section 31, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides: “No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.”

[11] John Adams wrote in 1787 that the “only true definition of a republic” is “a government, in which all men, rich and poor, magistrates and subjects, officers and people, masters and servants, the first citizen and the last, are equally subject to the laws.” The Founders’ Constitution, Republican Government, Chapter 4, Document 10, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s10.html, accessed 3 April 2010.

[12] Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 11 [1964].

[13] Section 5(1), Article VI, 1987 Constitution.

[14] Macias v. COMELEC, No. L-18684, 14 September 1961, 3 SCRA 1, 5-6. The Court took note of the following addition malapportionments: “These were not the only instances of unequal apportionment. We see that Mountain Province has 3 whereas Isabela, Laguna and Cagayan with more inhabitants have 2 each. And then, Capiz, La Union and Ilocos Norte got 2 each, whereas Sulu that has more inhabitants got 1 only. And Leyte with 967,323 inhabitants got 4 only, whereas Iloilo with less inhabitants (966,145) was given 5.” (Id. at 6.)

[15] Section 5, Article VI, 1935 Constitution.

[16] Section 1, Article II, 1987 Constitution.

[17] Section 5(4), Article VI, 1987 Constitution.

[18] Section 5(3), Article VI provides: “Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.” (Emphasis supplied)

[19] Section 3, which provides:

Any province that may hereafter 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 or such number of Members as it may be entitled to on the basis of the number of its inhabitants and according to the standards set forth in paragraph (3), Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution. The number of Members apportioned to the province out of which such new province was created or where the city, whose population has so increased, is geographically located shall be correspondingly adjusted by the Commission on Elections but such adjustment shall not be made within one hundred and twenty days before the election.

[20] See note 22.

[21] Based on Camarines Sur’s total population of 1,693,821.

[22] The range of deviations is shown below (based on the 2007 census):

% Variation

District No. Population From Ideal

1 176,383 - 47.9

2 276,777 - 18.3

3 439,043 + 29.6

4 372,548 + 9.9

5 429,070 + 26.6

[23] Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983). The U.S. Supreme Court declared:

Article I, § 2 establishes a “high standard of justice and common sense” for the apportionment of congressional districts: “equal representation for equal numbers of people.” x x x. Precise mathematical equality, however, may be impossible to achieve in an imperfect world; therefore the “equal representation” standard is enforced only to the extent of requiring that districts be apportioned to achieve population equality “as nearly as is practicable.” x x x As we explained further in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, supra:

“[T]he ‘as nearly as practicable’ standard requires that the State make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality. x x x. Unless population variances among congressional districts are shown to have resulted despite such effort, the State must justify each variance, no matter how small.”

Article I, § 2, therefore, “permits only the limited population variances which are unavoidable despite a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is shown.”

x x x

x x x Adopting any standard other than population equality, using the best census data available, x x x would subtly erode the Constitution's ideal of equal representation. If state legislators knew that a certain de minimis level of population differences were acceptable, they would doubtless strive to achieve that level rather than equality. x x x Furthermore, choosing a different standard would import a high degree of arbitrariness into the process of reviewing apportionment plans. x x x. In this case, appellants argue that a maximum deviation of approximately 0.7% should be considered de minimis. If we accept that argument, how are we to regard deviations of 0.8%, 0.95%, 1%, or 1.1%? (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied)

[24] As evident in the following exchange between petitioner and Senator Joker Arroyo (Petition, pp. 23-24):

Sen. Aquino. Mr. President, we have to respond to the last statement. The others that have been recommended together with the Camarines Sur bill were all tested based on one standard, not separate standards for everybody. It is our opinion and that is the source of this discussion and of this debate, that we hold that there is a 250,000-rule embodied in so many provisions of the Constitution. Our distinguished colleague from the Bicol and Makati areas does not agree. I think we have established that we do not agree on our interpretation of the Constitution.

With his permission, Mr. President, since I am against of his time, may we move on to the next point so as not be accused of delaying the passage of the bill any further?

May we ask: Why was Libmanan not considered to be a portion of the proposed first district? Because having done the same, instead of having the 170,000-figure, we would have a 269,222 population figure. O achieve

Sen. Arroyo. All right. Look at that map.

Sen. Aquino. May we just move to another rostrum, Mr. President. We cannot view the details from this particular rostrum, with the indulgence of our distinguished colleague.

Sen. Arroyo. As I have said, the brown portion in that map of Camarines Sur ─ I do not know what district it is but it is - represented by Congressman Fuentebella. He does not want this district touched. There is nothing we can do about it since he does not want it to be touched.

The red portion is represented by Congressman Alfelor. He does not want his district to be touched. The green portion is represented by Congressman Villafuerte. He does not also want it touched. Even if they have a pregnant populace or inhabitants, he does not want it touched.

Now, the first district of Camarines Sur is so big that it consists of 40% of the province, area-wise. Libmanan is the biggest municipality in the entire or present first district. It stuck in the middle. We cannot move that no matter what – because that is the biggest. Anyway, we move it left, we move it right, it would change the configuration. Those are the practical difficulties in trying to figure out how. That is the situation. As we see, there is a water extension of the gulf. We cannot connect them because they are separated by water. So it is no longer contiguous because it is separated by water and there is nothing we can do about it. That is what I was saying about mathematical formula. We cannot have mathematical formula when a natural boundary like water cannot make the municipalities contiguous. That is the picture. It is all there.

The violet is the Tagalog-speaking province. The green is the Bicol-speaking province so that is the only way to divide it. So much has been done in the Lower House in trying to figure it out. But as long as the three Congressmen do not agree, then there is nothing we can do about it. That is the power. For those of us who have served in the House of Representative, what the Congressman says in his district is “king”. He is the king there, there is nothing we can do about it. We respect that.

Libmanan is the biggest one. We cannot move that anyway.

Sen. Aquino. Mr. President, the question is, why not include Libmanan in the proposed first district? The proposed first district has the towns of Del Gallego which is, I am not sure, in the northernmost tip of Camarines Sur, Ragay, Lupi, Sipocot, they are all adjacent to each other on the map previously shown and that can be done. That can be reconfigured if we were just using geography and the test of territoriality.

Now, in sequel to that, the proposed second district of Magarao, Panaman (sic) and Camaligan can be placed in the proposed second district and it will have a population of 258,000. The body of water alluded to by our distinguished colleague, it seems in our map that the municipalities mentioned are all on the same side of the waterway. We do not see where the issue of contiguousness comes in to play. The proposed third district, with these changes, would still be having a population of 364,187.

The only point we are trying to raise is that if it just a question of territory and population, there seems to be other ways of having configured these districts to enable Camarines Sur to have its entire complement of six districts. If the answer is, that the congressmen there who are now representing Camarines Sur cannot agree on the other modes of configuring their district, then that is another. But will our distinguished colleague agree that there is no constitutional prohibition for us to reconfigure these districts on a different formula.

Sen. Arroyo. Mr. President, this is where the Senate must differ to the House of Representatives. Redistricting is a local bill and it cannot emanate from the Senate. It will emanate only from the House of Representatives. This has been debated in the House of Representatives over and over and no one could agree. So, in its wisdom, the House of Representatives agreed to what has been presented here. If we agree now it to reconfigure it, the Senate now will be intruding into what is purely a House of Representatives business. This is redistricting. Quite frankly, what business does the Senate have in trying to reconfigure out the provinces when we do not represent any particular district? Only congressmen who are familiar with their own districts can discuss this. (Emphasis supplied)

[25] Thus, in Sema v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 177597, 16 July 2008, 558 SCRA 700) we struck down a statutory provision authorizing a regional legislative assembly to create provinces because the creation of provinces entails the creation of legislative districts which is the sole prerogative of Congress.

[26] Although extant legislation allows creation of provinces with population of less than 250,000 (Section 461(a) of Republic Act No. 7160), this is no reason to validate RA 9716 because Section 5(1) of Article VI trumps any statute. At any rate, the constitutionality of Section 461(a) is not before the Court.

[27] 312 Phil 259 (1995).

[28] G.R. No. 176970, 8 December 2008, 573 SCRA 290.

[29] Thus, the Constitutional Commission’s decision to relax the population threshold in Palawan, Benguet, and Baguio and consider other standards in apportioning legislative districts in Cavite (urbanization and livelihood), Maguindanao (political stability), and Laguna (topography), as noted in the Decision.

[30] 312 Phil 259 (1995).

[31] G.R. No. 176970, 8 December 2008, 573 SCRA 290, 309.

[32] G.R. No. 188078, 15 March 2010.

[33] Section 5(4), Article VI.

[34] E.g., RA 9371.

[35] E.g., RA 7854.

[36] E.g., Republic Act No. 4695 creating the provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao and Kalinga- Apayao and providing for their legislative districts.

[37] Section 1, Article II, 1987 Constitution.