G.R. No. 176970, December 8, 2008
ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

FACTS

On October 10, 2006, House Bill No. 5859, which became Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9371, was filed to apportion the lone legislative district of Cagayan de Oro City into two districts. The law specified which barangays would comprise the first and second legislative districts. On March 13, 2007, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 7837 implementing R.A. No. 9371. Petitioner Rogelio Bagabuyo filed a petition against the COMELEC, seeking to nullify R.A. No. 9371 and Resolution No. 7837 on constitutional grounds. He argued that the COMELEC could not implement R.A. No. 9371 without providing rules for a plebiscite, which he claimed was indispensable for the division or conversion of a local government unit. He prayed for an order to cease implementing R.A. No. 9371 and COMELEC Resolution No. 7837 and to revert to COMELEC Resolution No. 7801, which provided for a single legislative district. The May 14, 2007 elections proceeded as no temporary restraining order was issued. The respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that the petitioner did not respect the hierarchy of courts; that R.A. No. 9371 merely increased representation pursuant to the Constitution; that the criteria under the Constitution for local government unit changes did not apply; and that no plebiscite was required as there was no change in territory, population, or income classification. The petitioner replied that the Supreme Court could take cognizance due to the importance of the issues; that the reapportionment fell under the constitutional provision on division of local government units; that it involved a material change in political and economic rights; that it arbitrarily reduced a voter’s power to elect a Congressman for the entire city; and that it involved illegal disbursement of funds without prior electorate approval.

ISSUE

1. Did the petitioner violate the hierarchy of courts rule?
2. Does R.A. No. 9371 merely provide for legislative reapportionment, or does it involve the division and conversion of a local government unit?
3. Does R.A. No. 9371 violate the equality of representation doctrine?

RULING

1. No, the petitioner did not violate the hierarchy of courts rule. The Supreme Court found the petition to be an exception to the principle. The case involves a petition assailing the validity of a legislative enactment and a COMELEC en banc resolution implementing it. The subject matter and nature of the issues raised, including whether legislative reapportionment involves a division of a local government unit, are special and important reasons for direct invocation. Additionally, as the petition assails a COMELEC en banc resolution, review by the Supreme Court via a Rule 65 petition for certiorari is required under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
2. R.A. No. 9371 provides for legislative reapportionment and does not involve the division and conversion of a local government unit. The Court distinguished between legislative apportionment under Article VI, Section 5 of the Constitution and the creation, division, merger, abolition, or alteration of boundaries of local government units under Article X, Section 10. Legislative apportionment or reapportionment allocates seats in a legislative body in proportion to population and involves drawing district lines to equalize population and voting power among districts. It does not create, divide, merge, abolish, or alter the boundaries of a province, city, municipality, or barangay. The apportionment under R.A. No. 9371 did not change Cagayan de Oro City’s territory, population, income classification, or corporate existence. It merely increased its legislative representation by creating an additional legislative district, which is a purely legislative function that does not require a plebiscite. The plebiscite requirement under Article X, Section 10 applies only to changes in the political unit itself, not to changes in legislative districts.
3. No, R.A. No. 9371 does not violate the equality of representation doctrine. The constitutional standard for legislative apportionment is based on a “uniform and progressive ratio” and requires each district to comprise, as far as practicable, continuous, compact, and adjacent territory. The law creating an additional legislative district for Cagayan de Oro City was based on its population exceeding 250,000, which qualifies it for more than one representative under the Constitution. The Court noted that the equality of representation mandated by the Constitution is not mathematical exactitude but substantial equality. The apportionment was a legislative function, and the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the legislative determination.