This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| x x x a direct invocation of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and especially set out in the petition. Reasons of practicality, dictated by an increasingly overcrowded docket and the need to prioritize in favor of matters within our exclusive jurisdiction, justify the existence of this rule otherwise known as the "principle of hierarchy of courts." More generally stated, the principle requires that recourse must first be made to the lower-ranked court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court.[25] (Italics omitted; emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2012-09-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Neither can the petitions be dismissed solely because of violation of the principle of hierarchy of courts. This principle requires that recourse must first be made to the lower-ranked court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court.[57] The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. While this jurisdiction is shared with the Court of Appeals and the RTC, a direct invocation of this Court's jurisdiction is allowed when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and especially set out in the petition, as in the present case.[58] In the consolidated petitions, petitioners invoke exemption from the observance of the rule on hierarchy of courts in keeping with the Court's duty to determine whether or not the other branches of government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws, and that they have not abused the discretion given to them.[59] | |||||
|
2010-04-07 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Consistent with Mariano and with the framer deliberations on district apportionment, we stated in Bagabuyo v. COMELEC[39] that: x x x Undeniably, these figures show a disparity in the population sizes of the districts. The Constitution, however, does not require mathematical exactitude or rigid equality as a standard in gauging equality of representation. x x x. To ensure quality representation through commonality of interests and ease of access by the representative to the constituents, all that the Constitution requires is that every legislative district should comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory. (Emphasis supplied). | |||||
|
2010-04-07 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioners cannot insist that 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 four hundred fifty thousand (450,000). Said section provides, inter alia, that a city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) shall have at least one representative. Even granting that the population of Makati as of the 1990 census stood at four hundred fifty thousand (450,000), its legislative district may still be increased since it has met the minimum population requirement of two hundred fifty thousand (250,000). In fact, Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution provides that a city whose population has increased to more than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) shall be entitled to at least one congressional representative.[28] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2010-04-07 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| From its journal,[29] we can see that the Constitutional Commission originally divided the entire country into two hundred (200) districts, which corresponded to the original number of district representatives. The 200 seats were distributed by the Constitutional Commission in this manner: first, one (1) seat each was given to the seventy-three (73) provinces and the ten (10) cities with a population of at least 250,000;[30] second, the remaining seats were then redistributed among the provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Area "in accordance with the number of their inhabitants on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio."[31] Commissioner Davide, who later became a Member and then Chief Justice of the Court, explained this in his sponsorship remark[32] for the Ordinance to be appended to the 1987 Constitution: Commissioner Davide: The ordinance fixes at 200 the number of legislative seats which are, in turn, apportioned among provinces and cities with a population of at least 250, 000 and the Metropolitan Area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio. The population is based on the 1986 projection, with the 1980 official enumeration as the point of reckoning. This projection indicates that our population is more or less 56 million. Taking into account the mandate that each city with at least 250, 000 inhabitants and each province shall have at least one representative, we first allotted one seat for each of the 73 provinces, and each one for all cities with a population of at least 250, 000, which are the Cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan, Cebu, Iloilo, Bacolod, Cagayan de Oro, Davao and Zamboanga. Thereafter, we then proceed[ed] to increase whenever appropriate the number of seats for the provinces and cities in accordance with the number of their inhabitants on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio. (Emphasis supplied). | |||||
|
2010-01-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Even under the 1935 Constitution, this Court had already ruled, "The overwhelming weight of authority is that district apportionment laws are subject to review by the courts."[14] Compliance with constitutional standards on the creation of legislative districts is important because the "aim of legislative apportionment is `to equalize population and voting power among districts.'"[15] | |||||
|
2010-01-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The 1987 Constitution requires that for a city to have a legislative district, the city must have "a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand."[5] The only issue here is whether the City of Malolos has a population of at least 250,000, whether actual or projected, for the purpose of creating a legislative district for the City of Malolos in time for the 10 May 2010 elections. If not, then RA 9591 creating a legislative district in the City of Malolos is unconstitutional. | |||||