Creation of 20 districts unconstitutional?

When Speaker Prospero Nograles recently asked the Supreme Court to clarify the number of members that the House of Representatives can have, he may have unwittingly raised questions on the legitimacy of 20 congressional districts created since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution.

Citing the “constitutionally mandated maximum of 250” seats for the lower chamber, Nograles filed on April 28 a petition asking the High Tribunal to clarify its new formula in computing the number of allocated seats for party-list representatives. A week before that, the SC allowed 32 additional party-list nominees to be proclaimed, bringing the total membership of the House to 263.

“Considering that this is the first time that the number of members will actually exceed the constitutionally mandated maximum of 250, clarification is sought whether a prior act of increasing the number of members of the House of Representatives is necessary in order that the 32 named party-list representatives may be accommodated or whether it should enrol only such number that will complete the 250 maximum membership prescribed by the 1987 Constitution,” the petition read.

Article VI, Section 5, of the Constitution states that the number of House members should not exceed 250, and that 20 percent of that—or 50—should be the party-list representatives. That leaves only 200 seats for district representatives, which was the number of districts when the 1987 Constitution was ratified.

Since 1987, however, several laws were passed that created 20 additional legislative districts. Nineteen have elected congressmen, while the newest district will elect its first representative in 2010.

Court Interpretation

If the this formula for the allocation of seats would be followed, the 20 “extra” districts would be unconstitutional, and their representatives illegitimate. (See Representatives of Legislative Districts Created After 1987)

Before the Supreme Court decision, this going beyond the 200-district allocation went unnoticed because the 50 seats meant for the party-list representatives were never filled (made impossible by the 2-percent cap and the 3-seat limit that the SC is now trying to correct). The total number of House members never exceeded 250.

However, the charter’s section on the House of Represenatives also says that the maximum of 250 will be observed “unless otherwise fixed by law.”

In the latest SC decision on the party list, penned by Justice Antonion Carpio, the phrase “unless otherwise fixed by law” is interpreted thus, “The Constitution allows the legislature to modify the number of the members of the House of Representatives.”

This recognition by the Court of the power of Congress to change the maximum House membership could very well cover the laws that created those district in excess of 200. The Court interpretation, in effect, is saying that Congress can create as many districts beyond 200, and with the additional district seats also create additional party-list seats, as long as the total is split 80-20.

Party List Overlooked

The House petition before the Court, however, clearly leans toward observing the maximum 250 seats. It even suggests the idea of proclaiming only the additional party-list representatives that would bring the total House membership to 250, overlooking the constitutional provision on party-list representatives having to compose 20 percent of the total membership.

Nograles has said that he filed the latest petition to get a "definitive" ruling on the composition of the House, so as to avoid confusion in succeeding elections.

The clarification would have been unnecessary. Aside from Carpio's decision on the party-list, which clearly stated that Congress can break that initial ceiling of 250, the Court had advised the legislature about this matter in an earlier case. Last year, in the Bai Sema case where the Supreme Court ordered the province of Shariff Kabunsuan dissolved, the Court already advised Congress of the need to increase the maximum number of House seats.

Most of the congressional districts established after the 1987 Constitution are created as a result of creation of new provinces, conversion of municipalities to highly-urbanized cities (HUC), and conversion of former sub-provinces to provinces, Newsbreak research showed.

Eight of these congressional districts are in the National Capital Region, while four are from the rest of Luzon. Six are from Mindanao and two are from the Visayas. (See Number of Additional Districts Per Region)

The 20 congressional districts created after 1987 are as follow: the lone congressional districts of Biliran in Eastern Visayas, Dinagat Islands in Caraga Region, Guimaras in Western Visayas, Mandaluyong City, Navotas City and Muntinlupa City in Metro Manila, Apayao in Cordillera region,  San Jose del Monte City in Bulacan; the two congressional districts of Antipolo City;  the second legislative districts of the cities of Makati, Valenzuela, Taguig, Paranaque, Marikina, Zamboanga, Cagayan de Oro and the second legislative districts of the provinces of Zamboanga Sibugay, Compostela Valley, and  Sultan Kudarat in Mindanao.

Pending Bills Affected, Too

Section 5, Article 3 of the Constitution mandates that that a city with a population of 250,000 or each province shall have at least one representative.

The 1987 Constitution’s Ordinance, which apportions the seats of the House of Representatives to 200 legislative districts, also said that provinces or cities that have more than 250,000 inhabitants shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one or more representatives depending on its population.

“Any province that may hereafter be created, or any city whose population may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one Member or such number of Members as it may be entitled to on the basis of the number of its inhabitants and according to the standards set forth in paragraph (3), Section 5 of Article VI [the provision on the legislative department] of the Constitution,” Section 3 of the Ordinance reads.

The petition’s argument may also mean that the approval of the pending bills seeking re-apportionment and creation of new districts are unconstitutional. In the 14th Congress, bills have been filed seeking the creation of 17 more legislative districts.

The proposed new districts include: four new districts in Cavite, a district for Puerto Princesa City (which was converted into an HUC in 2007), and additional districts for Pangasinan, Cagayan, Camarines Norte,  Aklan, Cebu, Surigao del Sur, North Cotabato, Malolos City, Iligan City, Pasig City, Iloilo City, and Angeles City.

Local Gov’t Code Started It

The creation of the 20 new legislative districts started with the implementation of Republic Act 7160 or 1991 Local Government Code, which mandates the conversion of the existing sub-provinces into provinces.

Section 462 of the Code states that, “Existing sub-provinces are hereby converted into regular provinces upon approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to be held in the said sub-provinces and the original provinces directly affected.”

Among sub-provinces affected by the Code provision were Biliran and Guimaras, which were sub-provinces of Leyte and Iloilo, respectively. Their conversion into provinces resulted in the creation of their legislative districts.

The division of Kalinga-Apayao into two separate provinces and the creation of Compostela Valley, Zamboanga Sibugay, and Dinagat Islands also resulted in additional districts.

In 1995, Kalinga-Apayao was divided into two distinct provinces by virtue of Republic Act 7878. The division results in the creation of the lone congressional district of Apayao. The same thing happened when Dinagat Islands was carved out of Surigao del Norte in 2006.

Compostela Valley is composed of 11 towns, which used to be part of Davao del Norte. Its creation in 1998 through Republic Act 8470 reduced the number of legislative districts in its mother province from three to two. Meanwhile, additional congressional districts were created in the provinces of Sultan Kudarat in 2006 and Zamboanga Sibugay, which is composed of the municipalities of the former third district of Zamboanga del Sur, in 2007.

New cities, More Districts

The conversion into cities of San Jose del Monte, Antipolo, Muntinlupa, Mandaluyong, and Navotas also resulted into creation of new districts. Muntinlupa used to be part of the lone district of Las Pinas-Muntinlupa, while Mandaluyong used to be part of the lone district of San Juan-Mandaluyong. Navotas, which became a city in 2007, used to be part of lone district of Malabon-Navotas; election for its first district representative will be held in 2010.

Antipolo, which used to be part of the Rizal’s first district, had its own first district in 1998 after it attained cityhood. Its second district was created in 2003, the same year when the lone district of San Jose del Monte City in Bulacan was created.

Parañaque’s and Marikina’s second districts were created in 2003 and 2006, respectively. Additional districts were also created in Makati in 1994, in Valenzuela in 1998, and in Taguig in 1998, after they became a highly-urbanized city. In Mindanao, the lone districts of the cities of Zamboanga and Cagayan de Oro in Mindanao were divided into two in 2004 and 2007, respectively. (Newsbreak)

https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/05/06/09/creation-20-districts-unconstitutional

Martin faces House probe over anthem

For his “incorrect” rendition of the national anthem at the start of the Pacquiao vs. Hatton fight, singer Martin Nievera may have to be called to an investigation to be conducted by the House of Representatives.

In Resolution 1137, Bayan Muna Rep. Teodoro Casiño complained that Nievera sang the Lupang Hinirang “in a manner not in keeping with the original arrangement of its composer Julian Felipe.”

He said the singer sang the anthem as if it were a ballad.

“Mr. Nievera is not the first artist who has sang the national anthem in a different style and tempo. As in the past, such non-traditional renditions elicit much debate among policymakers and the public at large as to the proper way of singing the Lupang Hinirang and whether artists have the license to deviate from tradition,” he said.

Casiño noted that the artists who have deviated from the traditional rendition of the anthem on different occasions include Charice Pempengco and Jennifer Bautista, as against Karylle, Kyla and Ciara Sotto who had traditional interpretations.

Casiño said officials of the National Historical Institute have accused Nievera and his arranger of violating Section 37, Chapter II of Republic Act 8491, or the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines.

The section provides: “The rendition of the national anthem, whether played or sung, shall be in accordance with the musical arrangement and composition of Julian Felipe.”

But the anthem may be played during the following: international competitions where the Philippines is the host or has a representative; local competitions; during the “signing off” and “signing on” of radio broadcasting and television stations; before the initial and last screening of films and before the opening of theater performances; and other occasions as may be allowed by the Institute.

The Oath of Patriotism (Panatang Makabayan) must be recited after the singing of the national anthem in basic education institutions. The Pledge of Allegiance (Panunumpa ng Katapatan sa Watawat ng Pilipinas) may be recited as well, though the law did not specify who is required to do so.

Section 20 of the law also states: “The rendition of the flag ceremony in official or civic gatherings shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing or singing of the anthem in its original Filipino lyrics and march tempo.”

The law imposes a fine of P5,000 to P20,000 or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both, upon the discretion of the court.

Even moviegoers who do not stand up when the National Anthem is being played in cinemas will be sanctioned if the measure subsequently, as it empowers the security personnel and ushers in movie houses to arrest a violator and summon law enforcement officers to assist in conducting citizens' arrest.

“The law notwithstanding, society also recognizes the artists’ right to free expression and to interpret the national anthem or depict the Philippine flag as they see fit, provided that such national symbols are revered and not desecrated,” Casiño said.

Casiño urged a review of the law in the light of Nievera’s interpretation of the national anthem.

Casiño said a review of RA 8491 is “appropriate, whether they should be relaxed or strengthened given the realities on the ground.”

Nievera, however, found an ally in Malacañang and a fellow artist.

Cabinet Secretary Silvestre Bello III said Nievera sang “in good faith.”

“He is an artist and so we should not be rash in our judgments,” Bello said. “In the first place, he sang the best way he could and we requested him to sing and he sang in good faith.”

Bello said 50 singers could render different versions of a song.

“Unless the NHI fells strongly about it, maybe we should accept Martin Nievera as the lucky charm of Manny Pacquiao, that’s why he won in two rounds instead of 12,” he said.

Bello said the public must be “more progressive in our considerations.”

Singer-activist Leah Navarro also agreed with Nievera’s rendition of the country’s anthem.

“I do not care how people sing it, whether it’s rap or out of tune for as long as they know how to sing it. That is, has sense of self,” she said.

What is important, Navarro stressed, are the lyrics of the song which was “sung from the heart, how the singer conveys the message to the audience.”

“What is important is upholding the value of the Filipino citizen,” she said.

Navarro said critics are making a big issue of Nievera’s rendition of the national anthem.

She said gospel music could also be sung in different ways. - With Delon Porcalla, Paolo Romero, Evelyn Macairan