EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 257427, June 13, 2023 ]
FLORIDA P. ROBES, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
DIMAAMPAO, J.:
Via this Urgent Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction (Urgent Petition),[3] Florida P. Robes (petitioner) seeks to compel respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to allocate two seats in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Bulacan in favor of the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte.[4]
The diegesis of the facts is synthesized as follows:
In 2000, Congress enacted Republic Act (RA) No. 8797[5] or the "Charter of the City of San Jose Del Monte." It converted the Municipality of San Jose Del Monte into a component city of the Province of Bulacan. Section 58 thereof provides that the City of San Jose del Monte shall continue to be a part of the Fourth Congressional District of Bulacan Province unless otherwise provided by law.[6]
Three years after the enactment of RA No. 8797, Section 58 was amended by RA No. 9230,[7] giving the City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, the right to elect its own representative, thus:
SEC. 58. Representative District. - The City of San Jose del Monte shall have its own representative district to commence in the next national election after the effectivity of this Act. (Emphasis supplied)
Subsequently, in 2021, Congress passed RA No. 11546,[8] reapportioning the Province of Bulacan into six legislative districts. The composition of the six legislative districts is provided in Section 1 of RA No. 11546, viz.:
SECTION 1. The Province of Bulacan is hereby reapportioned into six (6) legislative districts to take effect in the 2022 national and local elections. Each legislative district of the province shall now be composed of the following:
(2) Hagonoy;
(3) Paombong;
(4) Pulilan;
(5) Bulakan; and
(6) City of Malolos.
(2) Bustos; and
(3) Plaridel.
(2) San Miguel;
(3) San Rafael; and
(4) Do a Remedios Trinidad.
(2) Marilao; and
(3) City of Meycauayan.
(2) Balagtas;
(3) Pandi; and
(4) Bocaue.
(2) Norzagaray; and
(3) Angat.
Moreover, Section 3 of the same law delegated to the COMELEC the power to issue rules and regulations to implement the law. Accordingly, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 10707.[9] Section 6 thereof states that the qualified voters of the City of San Jose Del Monte, although a lone legislative district, shall continue to vote for members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in the Fourth Legislative District of Bulacan:
SECTION 6. Allocation of Seats for Elective Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. - Pursuant to Section 41 (b) of R.A. No. 7160, as amended by R.A. No. 8553, each of the six (6) Legislative Districts in the Province of Bulacan shall have two (2) Members in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Qualified voters of the City of San Jose del Monte shall continue to vote for Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in the Fourth Legislative District of the Province of Bulacan. (Emphasis supplied.)
Thereupon, petitioner wrote the COMELEC requesting clarification or amendment of the above Section 6. Petitioner posited that since RA No. 11546 increased the number of legislative districts in the Province of Bulacan to seven (including the lone district of San Jose Del Monte), then all legislative districts should be allocated with two members in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, including the lone district of San Jose Del Monte, in accordance with Section 41(b) of RA No. 7160, as amended by RA No. 8553.[10]
In due course, the COMELEC issued a reply[11] to petitioner denying her request.[12] The COMELEC ruled that the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte is ineligible to have its separate representation in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan because of the following grounds:
Aggrieved, petitioner seeks succor via this Urgent Petition,[14] imploring the Court to direct the COMELEC to amend Section 6 of Resolution No. 10707. Petitioner supplicates the allocation of two seats in favor of the lone district of San Jose Del Monte in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Bulacan.[15]
In its Comment,[16] the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as counsel for the COMELEC, refutes that a petition for mandamus is not the proper remedy to assail the Resolution issued by the COMELEC in the exercise of its quasi-legislative function.[17] Even assuming that mandamus is the correct remedy, the OSG avers that the Urgent Petition failed to establish the requisites of mandamus .
In her Reply,[18] petitioner reiterated her arguments m her Urgent Petition.
The jugular issue posed for this Court's adjudication can be encapsulated thusly - Is the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte entitled to its own representatives in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Bulacan?
THE COURT'S RULING
The Petition for Mandamus is a proper remedy to assail the COMELEC's refusal to amend Section 6 of Resolution No. 10707 |
Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides when the remedy of mandamus may lie, viz.:
Sec. 3. Petition for mandamus. - When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
There are two scenarios by which the writ of mandamus will issue: (1) when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; or (2) when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is entitled.[19]
In order for mandamus to prosper in the first scenario, the following requisites must be present: (a) the plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded; (b) it must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act, because it is mandated by law; (c) the defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law; (d) the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and (e) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[20]
Petitioner has duly proven the existence of the foregoing requisites.
Foremost, petitioner, as a resident, taxpayer, registered voter, and the incumbent representative of the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte, has shown her clear legal right to demand the election of two members who will represent the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan .
The right of the people to choose those who will govern them is primordial, sacred, and the bedrock of the nation's constitutional democracy. The paramount importance given to the people's right of suffrage emanates from the constitutional declaration that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.[21] Preserving the sanctity of the right of suffrage ensures that the State derives its power from the consent of the governed.[22]
Under Section 3[23] of RA No. 11546, Congress delegated to COMELEC the power to issue rules and regulations to implement the law, an exercise of COMELEC's quasi-legislative power.[24] It is in the nature of subordinate legislation that allows administrative bodies to implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by filling in the details which the legislature may not have the opportunity or competence to provide. The Congress finds it impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect.[25] In Calalang v. Williams,[26] the Court noted that the legislature cannot delegate its power to make the law; but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government.[27] There are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be known to the law-making power, and must, therefore, be a subject of inquiry and determination outside of the halls of legislation.[28]
Nevertheless, in exercising its power of subordinate legislation, the COMELEC cannot extend the law or expand its coverage. The disquisition of the Court in Lokin, Jr. v. COMELEC, et al.[29] edifies thusly-
The COMELEC, despite its role as the implementing arm of the Government in the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, has neither the authority nor the license to expand, extend, or add anything to the law it seeks to implement thereby. The IRRs the COMELEC issues for that purpose should always accord with the law to be implemented, and should not override, supplant, or modify the law. It is basic that the IRRs should remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out.[30] (Emphasis supplied.)
The COMELEC can only create rules and regulations that are germane to the objects and purposes of the law it will implement. These rules should not contradict but must be in full conformity with the standards prescribed by the law.[31] In this regard, it is rudimentary that mandamus is a remedy to compel the performance of purely ministerial acts. The peremptory Writ of Mandamus would not be available if, in the first place, there is no clear legal imposition of a duty upon the office or officer sought to be compelled to act, or if it is sought to control the performance of a discretionary duty.[32] Ministerial functions are those which an officer or tribunal performs in the context of a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner and without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done.[33]
Thus, when COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 10707 to implement RA No. 11546, it had no power to change nor modify the provisions thereof and cannot, by all means, steer away from the mandates of the law which it seeks to implement. It is in this sense that the quasi-legislative power of the COMELEC is ministerial.
The legislative history of
RA No. 11546
In denying the request of petitioner to amend Section 6 of Resolution No. 10707, which mandates qualified voters of the City of San Jose Del Monte to continue to vote for members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in the fourth district of the Province of Bulacan, the COMELEC ratiocinated that RA No. 11546 reapportioned Bulacan into merely six legislative districts, entitling them to two seats each in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
The COMELEC's thesis is tenuous.
As earlier adumbrated, in 2003, RA No. 9230 accorded the City of San Jose Del Monte its own representative district, constituting the City of San Jose Del Monte as a lone legislative district.
All the same, RA No. 11546, which effectively reapportioned the entire Province of Bulacan, noticeably left out the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte, thereby listing only six legislative districts to the exclusion of the Lone District of San Jose Del Monte.
This glaring incongruity calls to fore the application of the cardinal rule in statutory construction that where a statute is susceptible of several interpretations or where there is ambiguity in its language, there is no better means of ascertaining the will and intention of the legislature than that which is afforded by the history of the statute. By looking at and investigating the legislative history of the statute, the court will be able to arrive at its correct interpretation. For this purpose, the Court may take judicial notice of the origin and history of the statute which it is called upon to construe and apply, and of the facts which affect its derivation, validity, and operation.[34]
Appositely, the legislative history of RA No. 11546 divulges the irrefutable truth that it was indeed the intention of the legislators to reapportion the Province of Bulacan into seven legislative districts, including the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte.
The explanatory note of House Bill (HB) No. 5866, the precursor of R.A. No. 11546, states that:
This bill proposes for the reapportionment of the legislative districts in the Province of Bulacan from the current four (4) to seven (7), with the Constitution providing for in:
x x x x
The Province of Bulacan was initially divided into four (4) legislative districts on February 1987 under the guidelines set by the Constitution.
x x x x
But in the recent years, the erstwhile Municipalities of San Jose, Malolos and Meycauayan were converted into cities during the years 2000, 2002, and 2006 in that order.
And by virtue of Republic Act 9230 which amended RA 8797 (An Act Converting the Municipality of SJDM, Bulacan into a Component city to be known as the City of San Jose Del Monte), separated the said city from the Fourth District of Bulacan whereafter became the Lone District of San Jose del Monte in 2003 after satisfying the requisites of the law.
x x x x
As of the moment Bulacan has a total of five legislative districts, the original four districts of the Province of Bulacan and the lone district of San Jose del Monte comprising such.
x x x x
This bill aims to address the lack of representation of the Province of Bulacan in Congress given the population increase since the Constitution's inception in 1987.
x x x x
Withal, Section 1 of HB No. 5866 enumerated the proposed seven legislative districts comprising the Province of Bulacan, thus:
Section 1. Redistricting - The Province of Bulacan is hereby reapportioned into seven (7) Legislative districts as follows:
- First District: Calumpit, Hagonoy, Paombong, Pulilan, Bulakan, City of Malolos
- Second District: Baliuag, Bustos, Plaridel, Guiguinto
- Third District: San Ildefonso, San Miguel, San Rafael, Dona Remedios Trinidad
- Fourth District: Obando, Marilao and the City of Meycauayan
- Fifth District: Balagtas, Pandi, Bocaue
- Sixth District: Sta. Maria, Norzagaray, Angat
- Lone District of City of San Jose del Monte
Still and all, when HB No. 5866 was referred to the House Committee on Local Government, the Committee recommended the approval of HB No. 6867 in substitution of HB No. 5866. HB No. 6867 excluded the lone district of San Jose Del Monte from the composition of the six legislative districts comprising the Province of Bulacan, which was later retained in the approved RA No. 11546.
Section 1 of HB No. 6867 lists the Province of Bulacan's six legislative districts, viz.:
SECTION 1. The Province of Bulacan is hereby reapportioned into six (6) legislative districts to take effect in the 2022 national and local elections. Each legislative district of the province shall now be composed of the following:
(2) Hagonoy;
(3) Paombong;
(4) Pulilan;
(5) Bulakan; and
(6) City of Malolos.
(2) Bustos; and
(3) Plaridel.
(2) San Miguel;
(3) San Rafael; and
(4) Do a Remedios Trinidad.
(2) Marilao; and
(3) City of Meycauayan.
(2) Balagtas;
(3) Pandi; and
(4) Bocaue.
(2) Norzagaray; and
(3) Angat.
The approval of HB No. 6867 as a substitute bill came about when, during the Committee hearing, one of the authors of the bill, Representative Loma Silverio (Rep. Silverio) proposed an amendment to HB No. 5866, seeking to transfer the Municipality of Guiguinto, Bulacan from the second legislative district to the newly-created fifth legislative district. The following exchanges between the Committee members transpired:
REP. SILVERIO: Mr. Chair, before we approve, 'no, I would like to be transparent here. As I said earlier, there were some negotiations that went on when we presented this with the Mayors' League, 'no. and I would like to make a motion to amend our bill at this point, 'no. Upon consultation with the President of the Mayors' League of Bulacan and with due concurrence with Congressman Gavini "Apol" Pancho of the Second District, this Representation would Like to present an amendment to our bill in which the Municipality of Guiguinto be considered to be a part of the newly created Fifth District, to include the Municipalities of Balagtas, Pandi and Bocaue, instead of being retained in the Second District under our submitted bill. I so move, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So, I would like to be clear on this. For the First District of Bulacan, having a population of 717,820...820...the First District will comprise Malolos City, Bulakan, Calumpit, Hagonoy, Paombong, and Pulilan. So, now, for the proposed Second Legislative District, Guiguinto will now be transferred to the Fifth Legislative District. So, the Second Legislative District of Bulacan will comprise the three towns of Baliuag, Bustos and Plaridel. Is it correct, the Honorable Author?
x x x x[35]
As can be distilled from the aforementioned deliberations between Rep. Silverio and the Chairperson of the Committee, Congress never intended the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte to be left out. In fact, throughout the law's legislative history, the lawmakers were consistent in including the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte in the list of the Province of Bulacan's legislative districts. Thus, in breathing life into RA No. 11546, the original intent of the lawmakers, as embodied in HB No. 5866, should be given profuse weight and credence. The intent of the statute is the law itself, as held by the Court in Torres v. Limjap:[36]
If a statute is valid, it is to have effect according to the purpose and intent of the lawmaker. The intent is the vital part, the essence of the law, and the primary rule of construction is to ascertain and give effect to that intent. The intention of the legislature in enacting a law is the law itself, and must be enforced when ascertained, although it may not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute. Courts will not follow the letter of a statute when it leads away from the true intent and purpose of the legislature and to conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. Intent is the spirit which gives life to a legislative enactment. In construing statutes, the proper course is to start out and follow the true intent of the legislature and to adopt that sense which harmonizes best with the context and promotes in the fullest manner the apparent policy and objects of the legislature.[37]
The lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte is entitled to its own representatives in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan |
Section 41(b) of RA No. 7160, as amended by RA No. 8553, illuminates that Sangguniang Panlalawigan members are elected by district:
(b) The regular members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, and sangguniang bayan shall be elected by district as follows:
First and second-class provinces shall have ten (10) regular members; third and fourth-class provinces, eight (8): and fifth and sixth class provinces, six (6): Provided, That in provinces having more than five (5) legislative districts, each district shall have two (2) sangguniang panlalawigan members, without prejudice to the provisions of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6637 xx x. (Emphasis supplied.)
A legislative district is the basis for the election of a member of the House of Representatives and members of the local legislative body.[38] As such, "representative district" may pertain to either or both the House of Representatives and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The COMELEC, therefore, veered away from the exacting provisions of Section 41(b) of RA No. 7160 when it recognized the representation of the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte in the House of Representatives, yet concurrently dismissed its consequential significance in the determination of entitlement to representation in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
In sooth, to uphold COMELEC's stance would create an unfounded and inaccurate distinction between the manner of electing a member of the House of Representatives and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan by excluding the members of the Provincial Board from the application of Section 58 of RA No. 8797, as amended by RA No. 9230. This erroneous interpretation would effectively deny the lone legislative district of San Jose del Monte of its status as a full-fledged legislative district for purposes of entitling it to two seats in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Section 41(b) of RA No. 7160 does not distinguish between the manner of electing a member of the House of Representatives and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Where the law does not distinguish, neither should this Court.[39]
Ineludibly, owing to the nature of San Jose Del Monte as a lone legislative district, the qualified voters therein have the right to elect their own representatives in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan as much as they have the right to be represented in the House of Representatives. Stated otherwise, it cannot remain clustered with the municipalities or cities in the fourth legislative district of Bulacan for purposes of electing its board members.
Finally, given that the basis of the prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction is inextricably intertwined with the postulations raised in the main Petition, the Court finds no necessity to belabor the same.
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISQUISITIONS, the Urgent Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction is hereby GRANTED. A Writ of Mandamus is ISSUED, DIRECTING the Commission on Elections to AMEND Section 6 of Resolution No. 10707 to conform with Section 41(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 by allocating two seats in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Bulacan for the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte.
SO ORDERED."
Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, Marquez, and Singh, JJ., concur.
Gesmundo,* C.J. and Hernando,* J., on official leave.
Leonen,** Acting C.J. and Caguioa, J., see separate opinion.
Inting* * * and Kho, Jr.,* * * JJ., no part.
J. Lopez,* * * * J., on leave.
* On official leave.
* * Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2977 dated June 1, 2023.
* * * No part.
* * * * On leave.
[1] Section 41(b) of RA No. 7160, as amended reads:
b) The regular members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, and sangguniang bayan shall be elected by district as follows:
First and second-class provinces shall have ten (10) regular members; third and fourth-class provinces, eight (8); and fifth and sixth-class provinces, six (6): Provided, that in provinces having more than five (5) legislative districts, each district shall have two (2) sangguniang panlalawigan members, without prejudice to the provisions of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6637. Sangguniang barangay members shall be elected at large. The presidents of the leagues of sanggunian members of component cities and municipalities shall serve as ex officio members of the sangguniang panlalawigan concerned. The presidents of the Liga ng mga Barangay and the Pederasyon ng mga Sangguniang Kabataan elected by their respective chapters, as provided in this Code, shall serve as ex officio members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, and sangguniang bayan. (Emphasis supplied.)
[2] THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AS AMENDED. Promulgated on October 10, 1991.
[3] Rollo, pp. 3-25.
[4] Id. at 3.
[5] AN ACT CONVERTING THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JOSE DEL MONTE, BULACAN INTO A COMPONENT CITY TO BE KNOWN AS THE CITY OF SAN JOSE DEL MONTE. Approved on July 15, 2000.
[6] Section 58 of RA No. 8797 states:
Representative District. - Until otherwise provided by law, the City of San Jose del Monte shall continue to be a part of the Fourth Congressional District of Bulacan Province.
[7] AN ACT AMENDING SECTION 10(B) AND SECTION 58 OF REPUBLIC ACT No. 8797, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "AN ACT CONVERTING THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JOSE DEL MONTE, BULACAN INTO A COMPONENT CITY TO BE KNOWN AS THE CITY OF SAN JOSE DEL MONTE" AND PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR. Approved on December 18, 2003.
[8] AN ACT REAPPORTIONING THE PROVINCE OF BULACAN INTO SIX (6) LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS. Approved on May 26, 2021.
[9] IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11546, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS AN ACT REAPPORTIONING THE PROVINCE OF BULACAN INTO SIX (6) LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS. Promulgated on July 7, 2021.
[10] Rollo, pp. 7-9.
[11] The reply letter dated September 2, 2021 was signed by Executive Director Bartolome J. Sinocruz, Jr.
[12] Rollo, pp. 39-40.
[13] Id.
[14] Rollo, pp. 3-29.
[15] Id. at 24.
[16] Id. at 45-67.
[17] Id. at 51.
[18] Id. at 75-86.
[19] See Del Rosario v. Shaikh, G.R. No. 206249, December 10, 2019, 927 SCRA 431, 440-441.
[20] See Id. at 441.
[21] Section 1, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides -
SECTION 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.
[22] Kabataan Party-List Rep. Palatino, et al. v. Commission on Elections, 623 Phil. 159, 165 (2009).
[23] SECTION 3. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) shall issue the necessary rules and regulations to implement this Act.
[24] See Bedol v. COMELEC, 621 Phil. 498, 510 (2009).
[25] See Sobrejuanite-Flores v. Pilando, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 251816, November 23, 2021.
[26] 70 Phil. 726 (1940).
[27] Id. at 732.
[28] Sobrejuanite-Flores v. Pilando, Jr. et al., G.R. No. 251816, November 23, 2021.
[29] 635 Phil. 372 (2010).
[30] Id. at 399.
[31] See Quezon City PTCA Federation, Inc. v. Department of Education, 781 Phil. 399, 424 (2016).
[32] Del Rosario v. Shaikh, G.R. No. 206249, December 10, 2019, 927 SCRA 431, 441.
[33] Cawad, et al. v. Sec. Abad, et al., 764 Phil. 705, 722-723. Emphasis added.
[34] See RUBEN E. AGPALO, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION 173 (2009).
[35] Committee on Local Government, Committee Hearing, March 10, 2020, 18th Congress.
[36] 56 Phil. 141 (1931).
[37] Id. At 145-146.
[38] See Bagabuyo v. COMELEC, 593 Phil. 678, 696 (2009).
[39] See Gov. Javier v. COMELEC, et al., 777 Phil. 700, 717 (2016).
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
LEONEN, SAJ.:
I concur.
The ponencia deftly resolved the issue of whether the City of San Jose del Monte, as a lone legislative district of Bulacan province, was entitled to its own representatives in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan by tracing Republic Act No. 11546's legislative history.
As laid down in the ponencia, the City of San Jose del Monte was a municipality of the Province of Bulacan until the enactment of Republic Act No. 8797 in 2000. While the City of San Jose del Monte was converted into a component city of the Province of Bulacan, Section 58 of the law held that "[u]ntil otherwise provided by law, the City of San Jose del Monte shall continue to be a part of the Fourth Congressional District of Bulacan Province."[1]
Three years later, Section 58 of Republic Act No. 8797 was amended by Republic Act No. 9230 to read that "[t]he City of San Jose del Monte shall have its own representative district to commence in the next national election after the effectivity of this Act."[2]
In 2021, Republic Act No. 11546 was enacted to reapportion the Province of Bulacan into six legislative districts, with an enumeration of the territories that comprise each district.[3]
Notably, the law was bereft of any mention of the City of San Jose del Monte as either its own legislative district or a component of the six legislative districts. To resolve this issue, the ponencia held that:
This glaring incongruity calls to fore the application of the cardinal rule in statutory construction that where a statute is susceptible of several interpretations or where there is ambiguity in its language, there is no better means of ascertaining the will and intention of the legislature than that which is afforded by the history of the statute. By looking at and investigating the legislative history of the statute, the court will be able to arrive at its correct interpretation. For this purpose, the Court may take judicial notice of the origin and history of the statute which it is called upon to construe and apply, and of the facts which affect its derivation, validity, and operation.[4]
Thus, the ponencia examined the legislative background of Republic Act No. 11546, which includes earlier legislation on the topic, its antecedent bills, and the Committee on Local Government's transcribed deliberations, and concluded that the lawmakers' original intention was to include the lone legislative district of City of San Jose del Monte as one of the legislative districts of the Province of Bulacan.[5] Thus, the City of San Jose Del Monte had a right to have its own Sangguniang Panlalawigan representatives.[6]
I agree with the ponencia's use of legislative history to determine the proper way to interpret a given law. As I stated in David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal:[7]
Interpretation grounded on textual primacy likewise looks into how the text has evolved. Unless completely novel, legal provisions are the result of the re-adoption - often with accompanying re-calibration - of previously existing rules. Even when seemingly novel, provisions are often introduced as a means of addressing the inadequacies and excesses of previously existing rules.
One may trace the historical development of text: by comparing its current iteration with prior counterpart provisions, keenly taking note of changes in syntax, along with accounting for more conspicuous substantive changes such as the addition and deletion of provisos or items in enumerations, shifting terminologies, the use of more emphatic or more moderate qualifiers, and the imposition of heavier penalties. The tension between consistency and change galvanizes meaning.[8]
Laws are not formed in a vacuum-they can never be isolated from the landscape in which they were enacted or from their predecessors whose provisions they amend or even repeal.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Petition.
[1] Ponencia, p. 2.
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at 3.
[4] Id. at 8.
[5] Id. at 5-12.
[6] Id. at 12-13.
[7] 795 Phil. 529 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
[8] Id. at 572-573.
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
CAGUIOA, J.:
I concur in the ponencia. All circumstances considered, the city of San Jose Del Monte is entitled to its own legislative district for purposes of representation in both the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Sanggunian) and the House of Representatives (HOR) for the 2022 National and Local Elections (NLE). Having its own legislative district, San Jose Del Monte is, thus, entitled to two (2) seats in the Sanggunian pursuant to Section 41(6)[1] of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160,[2] otherwise known as the Local Government Code (LGC) which entitles each district in provinces having more than five (5) districts[3] to two (2) seats in the concerned provincial board.
First, R.A. No. 9230[4] clearly provides for the city's own representative district, thus:
SEC. 58. Representative District. - The City of San Jose del Monte shall have its own representative district to commence in the next national election after the effectivity of this Act. (Emphasis supplied)
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) argues that R.A. No. 9230 does not explicitly state that the lone district of San Jose Del Monte created therein is for purposes of electing members of Bulacan province's Sanggunian. However, the same reasoning may be said of the city's representation in the HOR. The law does not likewise expressly mention the HOR, yet the COMELEC construed the same as giving San Jose Del Monte its own district for purposes of the HOR elections, but not of the Sanggunian elections. The differential treatment does not seem to be supported by the plain language of Section 58.
To be sure, "representative district" may pertain to either or both the HOR and the Sanggunian. Basic is the legal maxim that where the law does not distinguish, neither should the court.[5] Thus, the COMELEC should not have distinguished between the HOR and the Sanggunian by excluding the latter in its application of Section 58 and thereby denying San Jose Del Monte of its own legislative district and its two (2) seats in the Sanggunian elections.
Second, R.A. No. 11546[6] which reapportioned Bulacan province into six (6) legislative districts does not exclude the lone legislative district of San Jose Del Monte created by R.A. No. 9230.
The COMELEC reasons that R.A. No. 11546 which reapportions Bulacan province into six (6) legislative districts and enumerates such six districts, does not mention the lone district of San Jose Del Monte; thus, it cannot be given its own district as the same would run contrary to R.A. No. 11546.
R.A. No. 11546 provides:
SECTION 1. The Province of Bulacan is hereby reapportioned into six (6) legislative districts to take effect in the 2022 national and local elections. Each legislative district of the province shall now be composed of the following:
(2) Hagonoy;
(3) Paombong;
(4) Pulilan;
(5) Bulakan; and
(6) City of Malolos.
(2) Bustos; and
(3) Plaridel.
(2) San Miguel;
(3) San Rafael; and
(4) Do a Remedios Trinidad.
(2) Marilao; and
(3) City of Meycauayan.
(2) Balagtas;
(3) Pandi; and
(4) Bocaue.
(2) Norzagaray; and
(3) Angat.
Indeed, it cannot be denied that R.A. No. 11546 speaks only of six (6) legislative districts and omits to mention that of San Jose Del Monte. However, this cannot be taken to mean as denying the city of its own district for the Sanggunian elections.
For one, the words "legislative district," similar to "representative district," can pertain to either or both the HOR and the Sanggunian. As in Section 58 of R.A. No. 9230, R.A. No. 11546 expresses no distinction between the two legislative bodies as it simply provides that Bulacan province shall have six (6) legislative districts for the 2022 NLE. Thus, assuming as valid the reasoning of the COMELEC that San Jose Del Monte is not entitled to its own district for the Sanggunian elections because it is not mentioned in R.A. No. 11546, then it should not likewise be entitled to such lone district for the HOR elections. The distinction that the COMELEC drew in favor of retaining the lone district of San Jose Del Monte for electing a member into the HOR but denying the same for purposes of having its own seats in the Sanggunian lacks basis in the law.
Another point is that R.A. No. 11546 does not explicitly provide that its list of legislative districts of Bulacan is exclusive or exhaustive. There is likewise nothing in the said law which impliedly or expressly repeals R.A. No. 9230. As such, R.A. No. 11546 should be reconciled with the earlier law of R.A. No. 9230 which created the lone district of San Jose Del Monte. The result is that Bulacan province has a total of seven (7) legislative districts for both the HOR and the Sanggunian elections: one (1) under R.A. No. 9230 (the lone district of San Jose Del Monte), and six (6) under R.A. No. 11546.
Well-entrenched in our jurisdiction that an implied repeal of a prior statute is disfavored. It is only accepted upon the clearest proof of inconsistency so repugnant that the two laws cannot be enforced.[7] Merely because a later enactment may relate to the same subject matter as that of an earlier statute is not of itself sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the latter, since the new law may be cumulative or a continuation of the old one.[8] The apparently conflicting provisions of a law or two laws should be harmonized as much as possible, so that each shall be effective.[9]
This interpretation aligns more with the failure of R.A. No. 11546 to mention the city of San Jose Del Monte. To stress, inasmuch as the city is not mentioned as a lone legislative district, it is likewise not one of the enumerated cities and municipalities of the fourth district. Thus, the inclusion by the COMELEC in the fourth district of San Jose Del Monte for the Sanggunian elections runs counter to R.A. No. 11546.
In these lights, I vote to GRANT the Petition for Mandamus.
[1] R.A. No. 7160, Section 41(b), as amended, reads:
b) The regular members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, and sangguniang bayan shall be elected by district as follows:
First and second-class provinces shall have ten (10) regular members; third and fourth-class provinces, eight (8); and fifth and sixth-class provinces, six (6): Provided, that in provinces having more than five (5) legislative districts, each district shall have two (2) sangguniang panlalawigan members, without prejudice to the provisions of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6637. Sangguniang barangay members shall be elected at large. The presidents of the leagues of sanggunian members of component cities and municipalities shall serve as ex officio members of the sangguniang panlalawigan concerned. The presidents of the Liga ng mga Barangay and the Pederasyon ng mga Sangguniang Kabataan elected by their respective chapters, as provided in this Code, shall serve as ex officio members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, and sangguniang bayan. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
[2] Approved on October 10, 1991.
[3] Bulacan Province, to which San Jose Del Monte belongs, presently has six (6) recognized legislative districts under R.A. No. 11546 excluding the lone district of San Jose Del Monte.
[4] An Act Amending Section 10(b) and Section 58 of Republic Act No. 8797, otherwise known as an Act Converting the Municipality of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan Into a Component City to be Known as the City of San Jose Del Monte and Providing Funds Therefor. Approved on December 18, 2003.
[5] See Spouses Villanueva v. People, 876 Phil. 855, 865 (2020).
[6] An Act Reapportioning the Province of Bulacan into Six (6) Legislative Districts. Approved on May 26, 2021.
[7] See De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al., 819 Phil. 616, 725 (2017).
[8] Valera v. Tuason, Jr., 80 Phil. 823, 827 (1948).
[9] Remo v. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, G.R. No. 169202, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 281, 290.