G.R. No. L-28089, October 25, 1967
BARA LIDASAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

FACTS

On June 18, 1966, Republic Act No. 4790 , entitled “An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur,” was signed into law. The law’s body stated it was separating twenty-one barrios from the Municipalities of Butig and Balabagan in Lanao del Sur to constitute the new municipality. However, it was later discovered that twelve of these barrios (Togaig and Madalum from Buldon, Cotabato, and Bayanga, Langkong, Sarakan, Kat-bo, Digakapan, Magabo, Tabangao, Tiongko, Colodan, and Kabamakawan from Parang, Cotabato) were actually located within the Province of Cotabato, not Lanao del Sur. This effectively transferred territory from Cotabato to Lanao del Sur, changing provincial boundaries. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC), through resolutions dated August 15, 1967, and September 20, 1967, resolved to implement the Act for election purposes despite a recommendation from the Office of the President to suspend its operation pending corrective legislation. Bara Lidasan, a resident, taxpayer, and qualified voter from the affected part of Parang, Cotabato, filed an original action for certiorari and prohibition to challenge the law’s constitutionality.

ISSUE

Whether Republic Act No. 4790 violates Section 21(1), Article VI of the 1935 Constitution, which provides that “No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill.”

RULING

Yes, Republic Act No. 4790 is unconstitutional for violating the constitutional requirement on the title of the bill. The Court granted the petition, declaring RA 4790 unconstitutional and nullifying the COMELEC resolutions implementing it.
The constitutional provision imposes a dual limitation: first, against conglomeration of heterogeneous subjects in one statute, and second, that the title must express the subject to notify legislators and the public. The title “An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur” is misleading and deceptive. It creates the impression that only Lanao del Sur is affected, with no intimation that barrios from the adjacent Province of Cotabato are incorporated into the new municipality. The title failed to inform Congress, the people of Cotabato, and the public that the law had the dual purpose of creating a municipality and dismembering towns in a different province, thereby changing provincial boundaries. This failure defeated the constitutional purpose of preventing surprise or fraud upon legislators and the interested public.
The Court rejected COMELEC’s argument that the change in provincial boundaries was merely an incidental legal result of defining the new municipality’s boundary. The transfer of a sizeable territory from one province to another, involving reduction in area, population, and income, is as important as the creation of a municipality and should have been reflected in the title. The Court distinguished the case from Felwa vs. Salas, noting that the title there (“An Act Creating the Provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, and Kalinga-Apayao”) was sufficient as provisions for provincial officers were germane to the subject of creation. Here, lumping barrios from separate provinces under one statute was neither a natural nor logical consequence of creating a new municipality.
Consequently, the entire Republic Act No. 4790 was declared void. The Court held that the invalid portions (transfer of barrios from Cotabato) were inseparable from the valid portions (creation of Dianaton from barrios actually in Lanao del Sur), as the legislature would not have enacted one without the other.