G.R. No. 188078 , January 25, 2010
VICTORINO B. ALDABA, CARLO JOLETTE S. FAJARDO, JULIO G. MORADA, and MINERVA ALDABA MORADA, Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, who are taxpayers, registered voters, and residents of Malolos City, filed an original action for Prohibition. They sought to declare Republic Act No. 9591 (RA 9591) unconstitutional. RA 9591, which lapsed into law on May 1, 2009, amended the City Charter of Malolos, Bulacan, by creating a separate legislative district for the city. Prior to this, Malolos City was part of the First Legislative District of Bulacan. Petitioners contended that RA 9591 violated the minimum population requirement of 250,000 for a city to have its own legislative district, as provided under Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the appended Ordinance. The legislative bills for RA 9591 relied on an undated certification from an NSO Regional Director projecting Malolos City’s population to be 254,030 by the year 2010, based on a 3.78% growth rate from a base population of 175,291 as of May 1, 2000. The population of Malolos City at the time the bills were filed in 2007 was 223,069.

ISSUE

Whether Republic Act No. 9591 is unconstitutional for violating the minimum population requirement of 250,000 for the creation of a legislative district for Malolos City.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and declared RA 9591 UNCONSTITUTIONAL for violating Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended thereto. The Court held that the certification of projected population relied upon by Congress was without legal effect and void. The certification was issued by an NSO Regional Director without authority, as Executive Order No. 135 mandates that certifications based on demographic projections can only be issued by the NSO Administrator or a designated certifying officer, and only if such projections are declared official by the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB). Furthermore, the certification violated the guideline that intercensal population projections must be as of the middle of every year, not for an entire year like “by the year 2010.” Even based on its own data, applying the 3.78% annual growth rate to the 2000 population, Malolos would only have 241,550 by 2010, and using the 2007 census figure, it would only reach 248,365 or 249,333 by August 2010—all below the 250,000 threshold. The Court also ruled that under Section 3 of the appended Ordinance, a city is entitled to a legislative district only in the “immediately following election” after it attains the required population. There was no showing Malolos would attain the required population before the May 10, 2010 elections. The Court rejected the argument that Congress’s choice of means to comply was non-justiciable, stating that questions of compliance with constitutional standards are justiciable and fall within the Court’s power of judicial review.