FACTS:

Rogelio Bagabuyo (petitioner) filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), seeking to prevent the implementation of Resolution No. 7837 on the ground that Republic Act No. 9371 (RA 9371), which Resolution No. 7837 implements, is unconstitutional.

RA 9371 was enacted to increase the legislative district of Cagayan de Oro from one to two. The voters of Cagayan de Oro would be classified into either the first or second district depending on their place of residence. Each district would elect their own representative to Congress and eight members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod.

The COMELEC en Banc promulgated Resolution No. 7837 on March 13, 2007, implementing RA 9371. On March 27, 2007, petitioner filed a petition against the COMELEC, which was later amended to include additional respondents such as the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, the Chairman of the Commission on Audit, the Mayor and members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cagayan de Oro City, and its Board of Canvassers.

Petitioner argued that the COMELEC cannot implement RA 9371 without providing for the rules, regulations, and guidelines for the conduct of a plebiscite required for the division or conversion of a local government unit. He sought the nullification of RA 9371 and Resolution No. 7837, and asked for a revert to COMELEC Resolution No. 7801, which provided for a single legislative district for Cagayan de Oro.

Despite the petitioner's request for a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction, the May 14 National and Local Elections proceeded according to RA 9371 and Resolution No. 7837.

The respondents argued that the petitioner did not respect the hierarchy of courts and that the RTC has concurrent jurisdiction over cases assailing the constitutionality of a statute. They also contended that RA 9371 only increased the representation of Cagayan de Oro City in the House of Representatives and Sangguniang Panglungsod.

The core issues in this case are: 1) whether the petitioner violated the hierarchy of courts rule, 2) whether RA 9371 involves the division and conversion of a local government unit, and 3) whether RA 9371 violates the equality of representation doctrine.

ISSUES:

1. Is the principle of hierarchy of courts applicable in the present case?

2. Does R.A. No. 9371 convert and divide the City of Cagayan de Oro as a local government unit?

3. The issue in this case is whether a plebiscite is required for legislative apportionment.

4. Whether or not a plebiscite is required for the validity of a legislative apportionment or reapportionment.

5. Whether or not R.A. No. 9371, which is a reapportionment legislation for the lone legislative district of the City of Cagayan de Oro, is valid.

6. Does the division of Cagayan de Oro City into two districts require a plebiscite?

7. Does the legislative reapportionment violate the principle of equality of representation?

8. Whether or not there is a resulting inequality in the division of Cagayan de Oro City into two districts due to the difference in the levels of development or developmental focus of the barangays in each district.

RULING:

1. The principle of hierarchy of courts does not apply in the present case. Although the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, a direct invocation of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is allowed only when there are special and important reasons clearly set out in the petition. The present petition involves the validity of legislative enactments and a resolution by the COMELEC en banc, making it an exception to the principle of hierarchy of courts.

2. R.A. No. 9371 does not convert and divide the City of Cagayan de Oro as a local government unit. The argument of the petitioner stems from a misunderstanding of the concepts of legislative apportionment and division of local government units. Legislative apportionment involves the determination of the number of representatives from an area, while the division of local government units refers to the creation, division, merger, abolition, or alteration of boundaries of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. These are separate and distinct concepts under the Constitution, and R.A. No. 9371 falls under legislative apportionment, not the division of a local government unit.

3. The Court ruled that a plebiscite is not required for legislative apportionment. The Constitution and the Local Government Code expressly require a plebiscite to carry out any creation, division, merger, abolition, or alteration of the boundary of a local government unit. However, no plebiscite requirement exists under the apportionment or reapportionment provision. The Court emphasized that the aim of legislative apportionment is to equalize population and voting power among districts, whereas the concern of local government units is the commencement, termination, and modification of their corporate existence and territorial coverage. These two provisions have different objectives and standards to be met, hence the difference in the requirement for a plebiscite.

4. A plebiscite is not required for the validity of a legislative apportionment or reapportionment. Unlike the creation, division, merger, abolition, or alteration of local government units, a legislative apportionment or reapportionment does not require the holding of a plebiscite. The need for a plebiscite in the creation, division, merger, or abolition of local government units was not constitutionally enshrined until the 1973 Constitution. Moreover, historical tracks show that a plebiscite was never a requirement in legislative apportionment or reapportionment.

5. R.A. No. 9371, which is a reapportionment legislation for the lone legislative district of the City of Cagayan de Oro, is valid. It is a purely and simply a reapportionment legislation passed in accordance with the authority granted to Congress under Article VI, Section 5(4) of the Constitution. The legislation apportions the lone legislative district of the City of Cagayan de Oro to include specified barangays in the first district and specified barangays in the second district.

6. The division of Cagayan de Oro City into two districts does not require a plebiscite. The city remains a single unit and its administration is not divided along territorial lines. The addition of another legislative district and the delineation of the city into two districts are only for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives. Thus, no plebiscite is necessary to validly apportion Cagayan de Oro City into two districts.

7. The legislative reapportionment does not violate the principle of equality of representation. The law provides that the basis for districting shall be the number of inhabitants of a city or province, not the number of registered voters. Although there may be a disparity in the population sizes of the districts, the Constitution does not require mathematical exactitude or rigid equality as a standard. It only requires that every legislative district should comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory.

8. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that the difference in the levels of development or developmental focus of the barangays in the two districts of Cagayan de Oro City does not violate the constitutional standards for legislative apportionment or reapportionment. The division of the city into districts is a matter for the lawmakers to determine as a matter of policy, and as long as the constitutional requirements of being contiguous, compact, and adjacent are satisfied, the Court cannot interfere in the wisdom of these policies.

PRINCIPLES:

• Principle of hierarchy of courts - A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is allowed only when there are special and important reasons clearly set out in the petition. Generally, recourse must first be made to the lower-ranked court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court.

• Legislative apportionment - The allocation of seats in a legislative body in proportion to the population of an area. It is the drawing of voting district lines to equalize population and voting power among the districts.

• Division of local government units - The creation, division, merger, abolition, or alteration of boundaries of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. This requires a plebiscite in the political unit directly affected and is subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast.

• The objective of legislative apportionment is to equalize population and voting power among districts.

• The criteria for creating, dividing, merging, abolishing, or altering the boundary of a local government unit are income, population, and land area.

• A plebiscite is required for the creation, division, merger, abolition, or alteration of the boundary of a local government unit, but not for legislative apportionment.

• The historical roots of the apportionment provision can be traced back to the American concept of equal representation in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

• Inequality of representation in legislative apportionment is a justiciable, not a political issue.

• Division of a city into districts for representation in the House of Representatives does not require a plebiscite if the city remains a single unit and its administration is not divided along territorial lines.

• The basis for districting is the number of inhabitants of a city or province, not the number of registered voters.

• The Constitution does not require mathematical exactitude or rigid equality in the distribution of legislative districts. It only requires that every legislative district should comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory.

• The Constitution does not require the division, merger, or transfer of local government units to satisfy the numerical standard it imposes, as long as they are contiguous, compact, and adjacent as far as practicable.

• The difference in the levels of development or developmental focus of the barangays in different districts is not a violation of the constitutional standards for legislative apportionment or reapportionment.

• The division of a city into districts is a matter for the lawmakers to determine as a matter of policy, and the Court cannot interfere in the wisdom of these policies unless there is grave abuse of discretion or violation of established legal parameters.