Effect of Reapportionment



Republic Act No. 9716 separated eight out of its ten towns comprising a legislative district and renamed them as another district.  Thereafter, a provincial board member was elected to the same position for the third and fourth time, but now in representation of the renamed district. The Supreme Court in Naval v. Commission on Elections[1] held that the fourth election was a violation of the three-term limit rule because the renamed district is the same one which brought him to office. The Supreme Court added that the actual difference in the population of the old Second District from that of the current Third District amounts to less than 10% of the population of the latter. This fact renders “the new Third District as essentially, although not literally, the same as the old Second District.”


[1] Naval v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 207851, July 8, 2014. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The End of Oposa

In two pervious works I went against conventional analyses of Oposa v. Factoran , a decision of the Philippine Supreme Court that supposedly recognized standing to sue in behalf of future generations to protect the environment. The first piece posited that Oposa is essentially misunderstood in that everything the Court said about standing to sue is merely obiter dictum , and not binding on any court. In fact, the Court merely remanded the case to the trial court saying that the petitioners in that case had a cause of action and that the trial court should not have dismissed the case in the first place. The lawyers did not pursue the case, however. The second piece showed that the rest of the Supreme Court’s decisions affecting the environment are in fact hostile to the environment revealing that the Court’s reputation for environmental activism is undeserved. Oposa raised a question that lingered for years: Is it possible to invoke the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction directly, based sole...
Read more

Gonzales and Gonzalez

The Inquirer's editorial Serving the President on September 3 summarized the worst aspects of Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez' stint in the Arroyo cabinet. It enumerated Gonzalez' offensive and outrageous statements that were designed to protect the President, whether she was right or wrong. The Inquirer was generous in its assessment: it left other acts of the Secretary which include Marcos-style surveillance of the media and his defense of the President's campaign to abolish the system of checks and balances in government. Illness has kept Raul Gonzalez out of the loop but his determination not to relinquish his post (at 76) should send chills up the country's collective spine. His record of politicizing his position parallels US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' own troubled record. Gonzales is Gonzalez's counterpart in the US. He is the head of the US Department of Justice. TIME magazine explains his disgraceful exit as a result of his penchant for...
Read more