Tobias v.

Abalos
Friday, 26 July 2019 10:57 PM

FACTS: The Republic Act No. 7675 “An Act Converting the Municipality of
Mandaluyong Into a Highly Urbanized City to be Known as the City of
Mandaluyong” was sponsored by Hon. Ronaldo Zamora, who was the incumbent
congressional representative of the Mandaluyong/San Juan legislative district.
Such act was signed into law on February 9, 1994.

A plebiscite was held on April 10, 1994, pursuant to the Local Government Code
of 1991, which asked the people of Mandaluyong if they would approve of the
conversion of then Municipality of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city.
The said plebiscite’s turnout was 14.41% of the voting population, where 18,621
voted “yes”, and 7,911 voted “no”, which was enough to implement R.A. 7675.

Petitioners contended, majorly, that R.A. 7675, specifically, Article VIII, Section
49 is unconstitutional for violating 3 specific provisions of the Constitution.
1. It contravenes the “one subject-one bill” rule (Article VI, Section 26 (1)) -
(1) the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city; and (2) the
division of the congressional district of San Juan/Mandaluyong into two
separate districts.

2. The division of the 2 municipalities into separate congressional districts has

resulted in an increase composition of the House of Representatives; and was
not made pursuant to any census showing that the municipalities have attained
the minimum population requirements (Article VI, Sec. 5 (1)).
3. Section 49 has the effect of preempting the right of Congress to reapportion
legislative district (Article VI, Sec. 5 (4)).

Other concerns raised were:

4. The non-inclusion of San Juan’s people from the plebiscite.
5. The said law resulted in “gerrymandering” (practice of creating legislative
districts to favor a particular candidate or party).

ISSUE: Is Republic Act No. 7675 unconstitutional?

RULING:
- No, Republic Act no. 7675 is not unconstitutional.
- R.A. Act no. 7675 is compliant to the “one city-one representative” to
Article VI, Section 5 (3) of the Constitution, where “Each city with a
population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall
RULING:
- No, Republic Act no. 7675 is not unconstitutional.
- R.A. Act no. 7675 is compliant to the “one city-one representative” to
Article VI, Section 5 (3) of the Constitution, where “Each city with a
population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall
have at least one representative.”
- The creation of the congressional district is not a separate subject and
distinct subject, since it is but a natural and logical consequence of the
said implementation. Thus, the “one title-one subject” rule has bee
adopted.

- With regards to non-mention of census to show that both municipalities

had each attained the minimum inhabitant requirement (250,000) as
justification to their separation, such does not suffice to inquire the
validity of R.A. No. 7675. This is so, since it underwent the regular
congressional process, including due consideration by the members of
Congress of the minimum requirements for the establishment of separate
legislative districts. With this, it is not a requirement that all laws
emanating from the legislature must contain all relevant data considered
by the Congress for such to be enacted.
- On petitioners’ concern on the violation on the number of
representatives - increased in limit, Article VI, Section 5 (1), states that the
present limit of 250 members is not absolute. The composition shall be
composed of not more than 250 members, “unless otherwise provided by
law.”, as per the Constitution. Based on the latter clause, the increase in
congressional representation mandated by R.A. No. 7675 is constitutional.
- Regarding the preemption of the Congress right to reapportion legislative
districts, this is void, as the Congress itself, drafted, deliberated upon, and
enacted the said law.
- Re the non-inclusion to participate of the people of San Juan in the
plebiscite to change their legislative district is immaterial, since the main
subject involved was Mandaluyong’s conversion. With this, the
participation of the people of San Juan is unnecessary.
- Lastly, the concern on “gerrymandering” (the practice of creating
legislative districts to favor a particular candidate or party), such was not
the case. Rep. Ronaldo Zamora, who authored the law, consistently won in
both localities (Mandaluyong and San Juan). By dividing the two,
Zamora’s constituency has in fact diminished, which cannot be considered
favorable to him.

Therefore, Republic Act No. 7675, also known as “An Act Converting the
Municipality of Mandaluyong Into a Highly Urbanized City to be Known as the
City of Mandaluyong”, is constitutional.
Therefore, Republic Act No. 7675, also known as “An Act Converting the
Municipality of Mandaluyong Into a Highly Urbanized City to be Known as the
City of Mandaluyong”, is constitutional.