Scribd
Upload
61 views

(CD) Montejo V Comelec

The Supreme Court ruled Sec. 1 of Res. No. 2736 unconstitutional. COMELEC does not have the power to transfer municipalities between districts, only to make minor adjustments to apportionment. The 1987 Constitution and records of the Constitutional Commission show COMELEC was only intended to make minor corrections, not change district allocations by moving municipalities. Section 3 also did not grant COMELEC the power to transfer municipalities, only to adjust the number of legislative members.

Uploaded by

Raine
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
61 views

(CD) Montejo V Comelec

The Supreme Court ruled Sec. 1 of Res. No. 2736 unconstitutional. COMELEC does not have the power to transfer municipalities between districts, only to make minor adjustments to apportionment. The 1987 Constitution and records of the Constitutional Commission show COMELEC was only intended to make minor corrections, not change district allocations by moving municipalities. Section 3 also did not grant COMELEC the power to transfer municipalities, only to adjust the number of legislative members.

Uploaded by

Raine
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
(Apportionment/Reapportionment of Legislative Districts)
Montejo v COMELEC
G.R. No. 118702 (16 March 1995)
Puno, J.

CASE:
Petitioner Cirilo Roy G. Montejo, representing the First District of Leyte, pleads for the annulment of Section 1 of
Resolution No. 2736 of the COMELEC, redistricting certain municipalities in Leyte, on the ground that it violates
the principle of equality of representation. To remedy the alleged inequity, petitioner seeks to transfer the
municipality of Tolosa from his district to the Second District of the province. Intervenor Sergio A.F. Apostol,
representing the Second District, vigorously opposed the inclusion of Tolosa in his district.

FACTS:
Leyte is composed of 5 legal districts. In April 8, 1959, Biliran, located in the third district of Leyte, was made its
sub province by virtue of RA 2141. On Jan 1, 1992, the LGC took effect and pursuant to its sec 462, made Biliran a
regular province. It was approved by a plebiscite. As a consequence of the conversion, eight (8) municipalities of the
Third District composed the new province of Biliran A further consequence was to reduce the Third District to five
(5) municipalities with a total population of 145,067 as per the 1990 census. To remedy the resulting inequality in
the distribution of inhabitants, voters and municipalities in the province of Leyte, respondent COMELEC held
consultation meetings with the incumbent representatives of the province and other interested parties.
It promulgated Resolution No. 2736 where it rearranged several municipalities among the different districts.
Montejo filed a motion for reconsideration calling the attention of respondent COMELEC, among, to the inequitable
distribution of inhabitants and voters between the First and Second Districts. He alleged that the First District has
178,688 registered voters while the Second District has 156,462 registered voters or a difference of 22,226
registered voters. To diminish the difference, he proposed that the municipality of Tolosa with 7,700 registered
voters be transferred from the First to the Second District.
COMELEC said that (1) its adjustment of municipalities involved the least disruption of the territorial composition
of each district; and (2) said adjustment complied with the constitutional requirement that each legislative district
shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory. Montejo said that Sec. 1 of Res.
2736 violates the principle of equality of representation ordained in the constitution. Argued Wesberry v Sanders:
“the constitutional precept that as much as practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as
much as another’s.”

ISSUE:

Whether or not Sec. 1 of Res. No. 2736 is unconstitutional

RULING:

YES. COMELEC does not have the constitutional power to transfer municipalities from one legislative district to
another. COMELEC has basic powers to enforce and administrate our election laws as mentioned in section 2(c)
Art. 9 of our constitution but COMELEC invoked the ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution as its source of
its power of redistricting which is traditionally regarded as part of the power to make laws.

“Apportioning the Seats of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the Philippines to the Different
Legislative Districts in Provinces and Cities and the Metropolitan Manila Area.”

Sec 2: COMELEC is hereby empowered to make minor adjustments of the reapportionment herein made

Sec 3: The number of Members apportioned to the province out of which such new province was created or where
the city, whose population has so increased, is geographically located shall be correspondingly adjusted by the
Commission on Elections but such adjustment shall not be made within one hundred and twenty days before the
election.”
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
(Apportionment/Reapportionment of Legislative Districts)
By looking at the con-comm records, the Constitutional Commission denied to the COMELEC the major power of
legislative apportionment as it itself exercised the power. Section 2 of the Ordinance only empowered the
COMELEC “to make minor adjustments of the reapportionment herein made.” Some con-comm delegates felt
uncertain about delegating the reapportionment of the provinces to a quasi-judicial body such as COMELEC. Many
agreed that reapportioning the provinces themselves is the safest, most reasonable, and most workable approach that
is available to the Commission. The feasibility of such a task was already proven by delegates. MINOR adjustments
as defined by the con-comm: The authority conferred would be on minor corrections or amendments, meaning to
say, for instance, that we may have forgotten an intervening municipality in the enumeration, which ought to be
included in one district. That we shall consider a minor amendment.

Mr. De Castro: Can it be possible that one municipality in a district be transferred to another district and call it a
minor adjustment?

Mr. Davide: That cannot be done, Mr. Presiding Officer. Minor, meaning, that there should be no change in the
allocations per district.

Also, section 3 of the Ordinance did not also give the respondent COMELEC any authority to transfer municipalities
from one legislative district to another district. The power granted by Section 3 to the respondent COMELEC is to
adjust the number of members (not municipalities). COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction when it promulgated Section 1 of its Resolution No. 2736

You might also like