View full case

JUANITO MARIANO v. COMELEC

FACTS:

The case involves two petitions challenging certain provisions of Republic Act No. 7854, which converts the Municipality of Makati into a highly urbanized city to be known as the City of Makati.

In the first petition, filed by Juanito Mariano Jr. and others, only Mariano Jr. is a resident of Makati, while the others are residents of Ibayo Ususan, Taguig, Metro Manila. They argue that sections 2, 51, and 52 of R.A. No. 7854 are unconstitutional on various grounds, including the failure to properly identify the territorial jurisdiction of Makati, attempting to alter the term limit for local officials, and increasing the legislative district of Makati in violation of constitutional provisions.

In the second petition, filed by John H. Osmeña as a senator, taxpayer, and concerned citizen, he also challenges section 52 of R.A. No. 7854 as unconstitutional on the same grounds as the first petition.

The courts find no merit in the petitions. Regarding the failure to properly identify the territorial jurisdiction of Makati, the court notes that the delineation made in section 2 of R.A. No. 7854 did not change the land area previously covered by Makati as a municipality. The Congress refrained from defining the land area with metes and bounds due to an ongoing territorial dispute between Makati and Taguig over Fort Bonifacio.

The court holds that the existence of a boundary dispute does not prevent Congress from defining the territorial jurisdiction of a local government unit. In this case, Congress maintained the existing boundaries but made them subject to the resolution by the courts. Therefore, the court finds that section 2 of R.A. No. 7854 is constitutional.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the legislative intent behind the law creating new cities has been sufficiently served.

  2. Whether section 51, Article X of R.A. No. 7854 is constitutional.

  3. Whether the petitioners in the case have standing to raise the issue regarding the constitutionality of section 52, Article X of R.A. No. 7854.

  4. Whether the addition of another legislative district in Makati is unconstitutional.

RULING:

  1. The legislative intent behind the law creating new cities has been sufficiently served. The court held that the territorial jurisdiction of a city may be reasonably ascertained by referring to common boundaries with neighboring municipalities, and the absence of detailed technical descriptions similar to those appearing in Torrens titles does not invalidate the law. The court emphasized that the intent of the Local Government Code is to empower local government units and make them more responsive to the needs of their constituents, and requiring cadastral type of description would defeat this purpose.

  2. The court did not entertain the challenge to the constitutionality of section 51, Article X of R.A. No. 7854. The court ruled that there are requirements that must be met before a litigant can challenge the constitutionality of a law, such as the existence of an actual case or controversy, the question of constitutionality raised by the proper party, the constitutionality question raised at the earliest possible opportunity, and the decision on the constitutional question being necessary to determine the case itself. The petitioners failed to comply with these requirements as their challenge to the constitutionality of section 51 was based on contingent events and hypothetical issues.

  3. The petitioners do not have standing to raise the issue regarding the constitutionality of section 52, Article X of R.A. No. 7854. The Court dismisses their petition for declaratory relief as this Court does not have jurisdiction over the abstract issue they are raising.

  4. The addition of another legislative district in Makati is constitutional. Reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special law, such as in the charter of a new city. The Constitution does not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law other than a general reapportionment law. Moreover, to require reapportionment only through a general apportionment law would create an inequitable situation where a new city or province created by Congress will be denied legislative representation for an indefinite period of time. The population of Makati meets the minimum requirement for the creation of an additional legislative district.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Laws should be enforced when ascertained, even if it may not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute. Courts will not follow the letter of the statute when it would depart from the true intent of the legislature or yield conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act.

  • Legislation is an active instrument of government, and laws should be construed in a way that carries out the ends and purposes of the law rather than defeating them.

  • Before a litigant can challenge the constitutionality of a law, there must be an actual case or controversy, the question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party, the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, and the decision on the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.

  • The Court may dismiss a petition for declaratory relief if the petitioners do not have standing to raise the abstract issue.

  • Reapportionment of legislative districts may be done through a special law, such as in the charter of a new city.

  • The Constitution does not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law other than a general reapportionment law.

  • A liberal construction of the "one title-one subject" rule should be favored to not impede legislation.