University of the Philippines College of Law | LocGov | D2021
Topic Basic Principles > General Power and Attributes > Plebiscite
Case Name Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC
Case No. & Date G.R. No. 118627 and 118577 (1995)
Ponente Puno
Petitioners Juanito Mariano, Jr (G.R. No. 118627), John R. Osmena (G.R. No. 118577)
Respondents COMELEC, Municipality of Makati, Hon. Jejomar Binay, Municipality Treasurer, and Sangguniang Bayan of
Makati
Summary (recit- Two petitions assail the constitutionality of certain provisions of RA7854, or "An Act Converting the
friendly) Municipality of Makati Into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati. It is alleged that Sec2
of RA7854 did not properly identify the territorial jurisdiction of Makati, while Sec3 (a) increased the
legislative district of Makati only by special law (Charter) in violation of the constitutional provision requiring
a general reapportionment law to be passed by Congress within 3 years following the return of every census;
(b) the increase in legislative district was not expressed in the title of the bill; and (c) the addition of another
legislative district in Makati is not in accord with Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution for as of the latest
survey (1990 census), the population of Makati stands at only 450,000. SC denied the petition. See doctrine.
Doctrine/s So long as the territorial jurisdiction of a city may be reasonably ascertained, i.e., by referring to common
boundaries with neighboring municipalities, as in this case, then, it may be concluded that the legislative
intent behind the law has been sufficiently served.
Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution provides that a city whose population has
increased to more than 250,000 shall be entitled to at least one congressional representative.
RELEVANT FACTS
Juanito Mariano, a resident of Makati, along with some residents of Taguig suing as Taxpayers, assails sections 2, 51 and 52 of
R.A. No. 7854. R.A. 7854 is entitled "An Act Converting the Municipality of Makati into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the
City of Makati." Another petition assailing the constitutionality of R.A. 7854 was filed by John Osmeña as a senator, taxpayer and
concerned citizen.
The petitioners are assailing the said provisions as unconstitutional on the following grounds:
1. Sec. 2 of RA 7854 did not properly identify the land area or territorial jurisdiction of Makati by metes and bounds, with
technical descriptions, in violation of Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, in relation to Sections 7 and 450 of the Local
Government Code;
2. Sec. 51 of RA 7854 attempts to alter or restart the "three consecutive term" limit for local elective officials, in violation of
Section 8, Article X and Section 7, Article VI of the Constitution.
3. Sec. 52 of RA 7854 is unconstitutional for:
(a) it increased the legislative district of Makati only by special law (the Charter in violation of the constitutional provision
requiring a general reapportionment law to be passed by Congress within three (3) years following the return of every census;
(b) the increase in legislative district was not expressed in the title of the bill; and
(c) the addition of another legislative district in Makati is not in accord with Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution for as
of the latest survey (1990 census), the population of Makati stands at only 450,000.
ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
1. WON Section 2 of
R.A. No. 7854
delineated the No – So long as the territorial jurisdiction of a city may be reasonably ascertained, it may be concluded
land areas of the that the legislative intent behind the law has been sufficiently served.
proposed city of Section 2 of R.A. 7854 states that the City of Makati “shall comprise the present territory of the
Makati violating Municipality of Makati in Metropolitan Manila Area” making it clear that the territory of Makati
sections 7 and 450 when it was a municipality remains unchanged. The fact that area was not made in metes and
of the Local bounds is being overemphasized, for that requirement is simply meant as a tool in the establishment
Government Code of Local Government Units (LGUs).
on specifying At the time when R.A. 7854 was up for consideration, the dispute between the municipalities of
University of the Philippines College of Law | LocGov | D2021
metes and bounds Makati and Taguig over territory (Fort Bonifacio) was still under court of litigation. Out of deference
with technical to a co-equal branch of government, the legislators felt that the dispute should be left to the courts
descriptions. – NO to decide.
2. WON Section 51,
Article X of R.A.
No. 7854 collides No – This challenge on the controversy cannot be entertained as the premise on the issue is on the
with Section 8, occurrence of many contingent events.
Article X and Section 8, Article X of the Constitution states that “no such official (i.e. elective local officials) shall
Section 7, Article serve for more than three consecutive terms,” while section 7, Article VI of the Constitution that a
VI of the Member of the House of Representatives “shall be elected for a term of three years” and that no
Constitution member “shall serve more than three consecutive terms.”
stressing that the The petitioners allege that Section 51 of R.A. 7854, which will give “the new city a new corporate
new city’s existence” restarts the term of the present municipal elective officials of Makati and disregards the
acquisition of a terms served by them. They further argue that should Mayor Binay decide to run and eventually win
new corporate as city mayor in the coming elections, he can still run for the same position in 1998 and seek another
existence will three-year consecutive term since his previous three-year consecutive term as municipal mayor
allow the would not be counted. Thus, petitioners conclude that said section 51 has been conveniently crafted
incumbent mayor to suit the political ambitions of respondent Mayor Binay.
to extend his term Considering that these events may or may not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue
to more than two which has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy. Moreover, only Mariano among the
executive terms as petitioners is a resident of Taguig and are not the proper parties to raise this abstract issue. More
allowed by the importantly, the requirements before a litigant can challenge the constitutionality of a law are well
Constitution – NO delineated. They are: 1) there must be an actual case or controversy; (2) the question of
constitutionality must be raised by the proper party; (3) the constitutional question must be raised at
the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the decision on the constitutional question must be
necessary to the determination of the case itself.
3. WON the addition No - The legislative district may still be increased since it has met the minimum population
of another requirement of 250,000.
legislative district Section 5(1), Article VI states that Congress may not be comprised of more than 250 members, unless
in Makati is otherwise provided by law. Considering, how the provision was worded, the Constitution does not
unconstitutional as make it impossible for Congress to increase the size of its membership by passing a law, other than a
the general reapportionment of the law.
reapportionment Even granting that the population of Makati as of the 1990 census stood at 450,000, its legislative
cannot be made by district may still be increased since it has met the minimum population requirement of 250,000. In
a special law – NO fact, Sec. 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution provides that a city whose population has
increased to more than 250,000 shall be entitled to at least one congressional representative
Dispositive: DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Others/Notes:
Issue: WON the law is unconstitutional for the creation of additional legislative district in Makati is not stated in the title of the
bill. NO.
Ratio: In Tobias v. Abalos, Court reiterated that it favors a liberal construction of the "one title-one subject" rule so as not to
impede legislation. It should be sufficient compliance if the title expresses the general subject and all the provisions are germane
to such general subject.
