Herrera v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Province of Guimaras, initially a fifth-class province, was reclassified to a fourth-class province. This reclassification, coupled with the addition of two new municipalities, San Lorenzo and Sibunag, prompted the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Guimaras to request a division of the province into two districts for the apportionment of Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats. The underlying dispute concerns the manner in which the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) divided the province into districts and allocated the seats for the May 11, 1998 elections. Procedural History: Following the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's request for division, the Provincial Election Supervisor of Guimaras conducted consultative meetings on August 21 and October 2, 1996. Based on the consensus reached, a memorandum recommending the division into two districts was issued. Subsequently, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2950 on November 3, 1997, which divided Guimaras into two provincial districts and apportioned eight Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats. This resolution is the subject of the present petition. The Petition: Petitioners, taxpayers and residents of Guimaras, filed a petition for certiorari seeking to annul COMELEC Resolution No. 2950. They contend that the division into districts was flawed, arguing that the districts were not compact, contiguous, and adjacent; that the consultative meetings did not reflect the true sentiment of the voters; and that the apportionment of seats was inequitable, leading to a disparity in the ratio of voters represented per board member. Petitioners proposed an alternative redistricting plan they believe better adheres to legal and constitutional provisions.
Issue(s)
Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 2950. Whether the districting of Guimaras into two provincial districts was in accordance with the requirements of being compact, contiguous, and adjacent. Whether the apportionment of Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats was equitable and based on the correct population figures. Whether the consultative meetings adequately represented the true sentiment of the voters.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 2950.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that COMELEC did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The division of Guimaras into two provincial districts and the apportionment of eight SP seats were in accordance with Republic Act No. 6636 and Republic Act No. 7166, which mandate such division for provinces with only one legislative district. The reclassification of Guimaras to a fourth-class province justified the allotment of eight seats. The COMELEC followed the prescribed rules and guidelines for districting and apportionment. On the requirement of compact, contiguous, and adjacent territory: The Court found that the districting in Resolution No. 2950 satisfied the requirement. The First District comprised Buenavista and San Lorenzo, which are geographically adjacent and share a common border. The Court distinguished this from a hypothetical grouping of non-adjacent municipalities, which would clearly lack basis. The definition of "contiguous" and "adjacent" from Webster's Dictionary was cited to support the finding that the municipalities grouped together adjoined each other. On the equitable apportionment and basis of population: The Court held that the basis for division into districts is the number of inhabitants, not the number of registered voters, as contended by the petitioners. COMELEC Resolution No. 2131, which provides guidelines for apportionment, mandates the use of the 1990 census of population. The districting in Resolution No. 2950 was based on the 1995 Census of Population, which is the correct basis according to the law and COMELEC rules. The Court found the petitioners' claim of disproportionate representation to be untenable because it was based on registered voters rather than inhabitants. The Court implicitly rejected the petitioners' proposed redistricting by upholding COMELEC's resolution. The petitioners' proposal was based on registered voters, which the Court already ruled as an incorrect basis for apportionment. Their arguments regarding inequitable representation and disparity in the ratio of voters per board member were also dismissed as they were premised on the wrong basis. On the representation in consultative meetings: The Court found no basis for the petitioners' claim that the consultative meetings did not express the true sentiment of the voters. The Provincial Election Supervisor conducted two meetings with due notice to all concerned parties, including elected officials, political parties, and other interested groups. Attendance sheets, appended to COMELEC's comment, showed that all interested parties were duly notified and represented, contradicting the petitioners' allegations. The process followed COMELEC Resolution No. 2313.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 2950, which divided the Province of Guimaras into two provincial districts and apportioned eight Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats, as the division was based on the number of inhabitants, complied with the requirements of compact, contiguous, and adjacent territory, and followed the prescribed consultative process.