Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 350 views

    Tobias Vs Abalos

    Uploaded by

    Arvin Jay Leal
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7675 converting Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city. First, the Court ruled that creating a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong was a natural consequence of its conversion and did not violate the one subject one bill rule. Second, the law did not violate the 250-member limit for the House of Representatives as the Constitution allows the number to be changed by law. Third, in the absence of proof otherwise, the Court presumed Congress followed all requirements, including considering population data, before approving separate legislative districts for Mandaluyong and San Juan.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tobias Vs Abalos

    Uploaded by

    Arvin Jay Leal
    350 views1 page
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7675 converting Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city. First, the Court ruled that creating a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong was a natural consequence of its conversion and did not violate the one subject one bill rule. Second, the law did not violate the 250-member limit for the House of Representatives as the Constitution allows the number to be changed by law. Third, in the absence of proof otherwise, the Court presumed Congress followed all requirements, including considering population data, before approving separate legislative districts for Mandaluyong and San Juan.

    Original Description:

    CAse

    Original Title

    Tobias vs Abalos

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7675 converting Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city. First, the Court ruled that creating a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong was a natural consequence of its conversion and did not violate the one subject one bill rule. Second, the law did not violate the 250-member limit for the House of Representatives as the Constitution allows the number to be changed by law. Third, in the absence of proof otherwise, the Court presumed Congress followed all requirements, including considering population data, before approving separate legislative districts for Mandaluyong and San Juan.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    350 views1 page

    Tobias Vs Abalos

    Uploaded by

    Arvin Jay Leal
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7675 converting Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city. First, the Court ruled that creating a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong was a natural consequence of its conversion and did not violate the one subject one bill rule. Second, the law did not violate the 250-member limit for the House of Representatives as the Constitution allows the number to be changed by law. Third, in the absence of proof otherwise, the Court presumed Congress followed all requirements, including considering population data, before approving separate legislative districts for Mandaluyong and San Juan.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Tobias vs Abalos, G.R. No.

    L-114783 case brief summary


     
    Tobias vs Abalos, G.R. No. L-114783 case brief summary
    December 8, 1994

    Facts: Complainants, invoking their right as taxpayers and as residents of Mandaluyong, filed a petition
    questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7675, otherwise known as "An Act Converting the
    Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong."
    Before the enactment of the law, Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to the same legislative district.
    The petitioners contended that the act is unconstitutional for violation of three provisions of the
    constitution. First, it violates the one subject one bill rule. The bill provides for the conversion of
    Mandaluyong to HUC as well as the division of congressional district of San Juan and Mandaluyong into
    two separate district. Second, it also violate Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that
    the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
    otherwise fixed by law. The division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into separate congressional districts
    increased the members of the House of Representative beyond that provided by the Constitution. Third,
    Section 5 of Article VI also provides that within three years following the return of every census, the
    Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standard provided in Section
    5. Petitioners stated that the division was not made pursuant to any census showing that the minimum
    population requirement was attained.

    Issue:
    (1) Does RA 7675 violate the one subject one bill rule?
    (2) Does it violate Section 5(1) of Article VI of the Constitution on the limit of number of rep?
    (3) Is the inexistence of mention of census in the law show a lack of constitutional requirement?

    Rulings: The Supreme Court ruled that the contentions are devoid of merit. With regards to the first
    contention of one subject one bill rule, the creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is
    not a separate and distinct subject from its conversion into a HUC but is a natural and logical
    consequence. In addition, a liberal construction of the "one title-one subject" rule has been invariably
    adopted by this court so as not to cripple or impede legislation.
    The second contention that the law violates the present limit of the number of representatives, the
    provision of the section itself show that the 250 limit is not absolute. The Constitution clearly provides that
    the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members, "unless otherwise
    provided by law”. Therefore, the increase in congressional representation mandated by R.A. No. 7675 is
    not unconstitutional.
    With regards, to the third contention that there is no mention in the assailed law of any census to show
    that Mandaluyong and San Juan had each attained the minimum requirement of 250,000 inhabitants to
    justify their separation into two legislative districts, unless otherwise proved that the requirements were
    not met, the said Act enjoys the presumption of having passed through the regular congressional
    processes, including due consideration by the members of Congress of the minimum requirements for the
    establishment of separate legislative district
    The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

    You might also like