Macias vs. Comelec

FACTS:

Petitioners are four members of the House of Representatives from Negros Oriental, Misamis Oriental and Bulacan, and the provincial Governor of Negros Oriental. They are requesting that the respondent officials be prevented to implement RA 3040, an act that apportions representative districts in the country

They alleged that their respective provinces were discriminated because they were given less representation. Furthermore, they allege that RA 3040 is unconstitutional and void because:

1. It was passed without printed final copies which must be furnished to the members of the HOR at least 3 calendar days prior to passage

2. It was approved more than 3 years after the return of the last census of the population3. It apportioned districts without regard to the number of inhabitants of the several

provinces.

Respondents Comelec and Vicente Gella (National Treasurer) contend that they

1. were merely complying with their duties under the statute which they presume and allege to be constitutional

2. petitioners have no personality to bring such action

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioners have the personality to bring such action.2. Whether or not the act conformed to the printed form and 3 day requirement.3. Whether or not the act of apportionment is within the 3 year requirement.4. Whether or not the apportionment of members of the HOR is valid.

HELD

The petitioners as voters and as congressmen and governor of the aggrieved provinces have the personality to sue.

The passage of the act did not conform to the printed-form and the 3 day requirement, and that there is no certificate of urgency from the President was received by the HO.

The requirement that the apportionment must be done within 3 year following the last census is complied with.

The apportionment of members of the HOR is not valid because it is not based on the number of inhabitants a province has. Some provinces were given more representation despite the inferior in number of inhabitants

The Court held that RA 3040 infringed the provisions of the Constitution and is therefore void.