Last Monday, September 1, 2008, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pangasinan rejected House Bill 4267: “An Act Reapportioning the Province of Pangasinan into Seven Legislative Districts” authored by 2nd District Representative Victor Aguedo E. Agbayani and co-sponsored by 3rd District Representative Rachel Arenas and 1st District Representative Arthur Celeste, who, however, withdrew later his sponsorship. The provincial board, in Provincial Resolution No. 770-2008 or known as a “Resolution strongly opposing House Bill 4267”, shot down the plan citing that the reapportionment is unconstitutional because of its gerrymandering character, it lack local consultations and is seen as politically-motivated move.
GERRYMANDERING
Second District Board Member Von Mark Mendoza branded the proposal of the bill as a politically-motivated move because of suspicious realignment of towns that seems to defy geographical locations.
At present, the localities under the first district are Bolinao, Anda, Agno, Bani, Alaminos City, Sual, Mabini, Burgos, Dasol and Infanta; second district comprises Labrador, Lingayen, Binmaley, Bugallon, Aguilar, Mangatarem, Urbiztondo and Basista; and San Carlos City, Bayambang, Malasiqui, Sta. Barbara, Mapandan and Calasiao are in the third district.
Under the redistricting bill, the first district will be composed of Bolinao, Anda, Agno, Bani, Alaminos City and Burgos; and under second district are Sual, Mabini, Dasol, Infanta, Labrador, Lingayen and Binmaley. Geographically, the towns of Mabini, Dasol and Infanta which are located south-west of Pangasinan will be displaced as the three are about two hours away from Lingayen. The third district will be composed of San Carlos City, Bugallon, Aguilar, Mangatarem, Urbiztondo and Basista; while the fourth district will be composed of Bayambang, Malasiqui, Sta. Barbara, Mapandan and Calasiao. The current fourth, fifth and sixth districts will become fifth, sixth and seventh districts.
Sec 5(1), Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:
GERRYMANDERING
Second District Board Member Von Mark Mendoza branded the proposal of the bill as a politically-motivated move because of suspicious realignment of towns that seems to defy geographical locations.
At present, the localities under the first district are Bolinao, Anda, Agno, Bani, Alaminos City, Sual, Mabini, Burgos, Dasol and Infanta; second district comprises Labrador, Lingayen, Binmaley, Bugallon, Aguilar, Mangatarem, Urbiztondo and Basista; and San Carlos City, Bayambang, Malasiqui, Sta. Barbara, Mapandan and Calasiao are in the third district.
Under the redistricting bill, the first district will be composed of Bolinao, Anda, Agno, Bani, Alaminos City and Burgos; and under second district are Sual, Mabini, Dasol, Infanta, Labrador, Lingayen and Binmaley. Geographically, the towns of Mabini, Dasol and Infanta which are located south-west of Pangasinan will be displaced as the three are about two hours away from Lingayen. The third district will be composed of San Carlos City, Bugallon, Aguilar, Mangatarem, Urbiztondo and Basista; while the fourth district will be composed of Bayambang, Malasiqui, Sta. Barbara, Mapandan and Calasiao. The current fourth, fifth and sixth districts will become fifth, sixth and seventh districts.
Sec 5(1), Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:
Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
The underlying principle behind this rule is the concept of equality of representation which is the basic principle of Republicanism (Matias vs COMELEC, 3 SCRA 1, 7-8; 1961). One man’s vote should carry as much weight as the vote of every other man. In a representative system, this equality is ensured by requiring that the representatives represent as much as possible an equal number of constituents. This can be achieved either by making representatives represent districts of equal sizes in terms of inhabitants or by requiring that larger representative districts should be entitled to more representatives.
Moreover, in the same Article, Sec 5(3) provides:
Moreover, in the same Article, Sec 5(3) provides:
Section 5. (3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.
This section is a prohibition of gerrymandering, which means the creation of representative districts out of separate portions of territory in order to favor a candidate.
LACK OF LGU CONSULTATION
House Bill 4267 was approved by the lower house on August 5, 2008, transmitted to and received by the Senate on August 11, 2008.
The Provincial Board expressed dismay over the non-information and non-consultation done with local officials affected by the House Bill 4267. It was only when the bill already passed plenary debate in the House of Representatives and is now in the Senate for concurrence that the matter come to their knowledge.
On the contrary, Agbayani said that consultation was made about the matter on the barangay level deploying leaders to achieve feedbacks. He also added that the board members should not worry because there will be more consultations top be made. He acknowledged the Provincial Board’s side on the issue.
Notwithstanding this contention, it has been held in Bai Sandra Sema vs COMELEC and Didagen Dilangalen, GR No. 177597, July 16, 2008 that certainly, the power to increase the allowable membership in the House of Representatives, and to reapportion legislative districts is vested exclusively in Congress.
Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution vests in Congress the power to increase, through a law, the allowable membership in the House of Representatives. Section 5(4) empowers Congress to reapportion legislative districts. The power to reapportion legislative districts necessarily includes the power to create legislative districts out of existing ones. Congress exercises these powers through a law that Congress itself enacts, and not through a law that regional or local legislative bodies enact. The allowable membership of the House of Representatives can be increased, and new legislative districts of Congress can be created, only through a national law passed by Congress.
The exclusive power to create or reapportion legislative districts is logical. Congress is a national legislature and any increase in its allowable membership or in its incumbent membership through the creation of legislative districts must be embodied in a national law. Only Congress can enact such a law. It would be anomalous for regional or local legislative bodies to create or reapportion legislative districts for a national legislature like Congress. An inferior legislative body, created by a superior legislative body, cannot change the membership of the superior legislative body.
Indeed, the office of a legislative district representative to Congress is a national office, and its occupant, a Member of the House of Representatives, is a national official. The office of a district representative is maintained by national funds and the salary of its occupant is paid out of national funds. It is a self-evident inherent limitation on the legislative powers of every local or regional legislative body that it can only create local or regional offices, respectively, and it can never create a national office.
In a radio interview in Bombo Radyo Dagupan, Representative Agbayani said that reapportionment would mean more development for the province in terms of additional countryside development fund and other benefits due to a legislative district. At present, each congressman is allotted P70 million countryside development fund annually to be used for development programs and projects in his/her district. A new district, he also added, would mean 70 million pesos development fund for the province.
POLITICAL INTEREST/
LACK OF LGU CONSULTATION
House Bill 4267 was approved by the lower house on August 5, 2008, transmitted to and received by the Senate on August 11, 2008.
The Provincial Board expressed dismay over the non-information and non-consultation done with local officials affected by the House Bill 4267. It was only when the bill already passed plenary debate in the House of Representatives and is now in the Senate for concurrence that the matter come to their knowledge.
On the contrary, Agbayani said that consultation was made about the matter on the barangay level deploying leaders to achieve feedbacks. He also added that the board members should not worry because there will be more consultations top be made. He acknowledged the Provincial Board’s side on the issue.
Notwithstanding this contention, it has been held in Bai Sandra Sema vs COMELEC and Didagen Dilangalen, GR No. 177597, July 16, 2008 that certainly, the power to increase the allowable membership in the House of Representatives, and to reapportion legislative districts is vested exclusively in Congress.
Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution vests in Congress the power to increase, through a law, the allowable membership in the House of Representatives. Section 5(4) empowers Congress to reapportion legislative districts. The power to reapportion legislative districts necessarily includes the power to create legislative districts out of existing ones. Congress exercises these powers through a law that Congress itself enacts, and not through a law that regional or local legislative bodies enact. The allowable membership of the House of Representatives can be increased, and new legislative districts of Congress can be created, only through a national law passed by Congress.
The exclusive power to create or reapportion legislative districts is logical. Congress is a national legislature and any increase in its allowable membership or in its incumbent membership through the creation of legislative districts must be embodied in a national law. Only Congress can enact such a law. It would be anomalous for regional or local legislative bodies to create or reapportion legislative districts for a national legislature like Congress. An inferior legislative body, created by a superior legislative body, cannot change the membership of the superior legislative body.
Indeed, the office of a legislative district representative to Congress is a national office, and its occupant, a Member of the House of Representatives, is a national official. The office of a district representative is maintained by national funds and the salary of its occupant is paid out of national funds. It is a self-evident inherent limitation on the legislative powers of every local or regional legislative body that it can only create local or regional offices, respectively, and it can never create a national office.
In a radio interview in Bombo Radyo Dagupan, Representative Agbayani said that reapportionment would mean more development for the province in terms of additional countryside development fund and other benefits due to a legislative district. At present, each congressman is allotted P70 million countryside development fund annually to be used for development programs and projects in his/her district. A new district, he also added, would mean 70 million pesos development fund for the province.
POLITICAL INTEREST/
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED MOVE
The provincial board eyed the move as a tactical maneuver to suit political ends. Agbayani defended the move saying reapportionment of congressional districts is mandated by the Constitution. The first three districts are now qualified to be reapportioned to four districts as each district would have the minimum required population of 250,000.00
Pangasinan, whose population stands at 2,645,395, may now qualify to have up to 10 districts. Agbayani said it was high time to reapportion districts in the province. “I cannot recall how many Census had already been undertaken after 1987,” said Agbayani. He stressed that it is only now that an additional congressional district is being sought.
Agbayani and Arenas believed that Pangasinan would have a better representation in the House of Reps and that development would be a lot faster if an additional legislative district is created.
Sixth District Board Member Alfonso Bince believes that the division of Pangasinan is the best alternative to HB 4267. Dividing the province into 2 parts—Western and Eastern and not redistricting nor creating a new district is best for Pangasinan’s development. “If this HB is approved, it will dilute the configuration in the present SP, it will reduce financial assistance of the Provincial Government to the districts and worst about it is that redistricting is not subject to plebiscite unlike division of provinces or towns,” Bince further reiterated.
Pangasinan at present is only one of the three provinces that allow two district Board Members in every congressional district. Likewise, there is a law that mandates a maximum of 12 district BMs. Thus, the reapportionment of the existing districts into seven new one’s will only create political and legal problems because the consequence would, there will be 14 regular board members and that will be more than what is under the law.
.
The provincial board eyed the move as a tactical maneuver to suit political ends. Agbayani defended the move saying reapportionment of congressional districts is mandated by the Constitution. The first three districts are now qualified to be reapportioned to four districts as each district would have the minimum required population of 250,000.00
Pangasinan, whose population stands at 2,645,395, may now qualify to have up to 10 districts. Agbayani said it was high time to reapportion districts in the province. “I cannot recall how many Census had already been undertaken after 1987,” said Agbayani. He stressed that it is only now that an additional congressional district is being sought.
Agbayani and Arenas believed that Pangasinan would have a better representation in the House of Reps and that development would be a lot faster if an additional legislative district is created.
Sixth District Board Member Alfonso Bince believes that the division of Pangasinan is the best alternative to HB 4267. Dividing the province into 2 parts—Western and Eastern and not redistricting nor creating a new district is best for Pangasinan’s development. “If this HB is approved, it will dilute the configuration in the present SP, it will reduce financial assistance of the Provincial Government to the districts and worst about it is that redistricting is not subject to plebiscite unlike division of provinces or towns,” Bince further reiterated.
Pangasinan at present is only one of the three provinces that allow two district Board Members in every congressional district. Likewise, there is a law that mandates a maximum of 12 district BMs. Thus, the reapportionment of the existing districts into seven new one’s will only create political and legal problems because the consequence would, there will be 14 regular board members and that will be more than what is under the law.
.
Bince further stated that redistricting should be province-wide and not for selected districts only.
REPRESENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Seeing the issue as it transpires, it is the incumbent officials sitting in their most glorified seats, are the most upset because they have been painstakingly built their bailiwicks in the present compositions of districts; sowed money, time and effort in their ward leaders and now only to be suddenly derailed and discomfited by Congressmen supporting House Bills as such.
Only a homegrown debate engaged in by proponents and the opposition will help explain the bill to the people, especially those who will be affected by the changes if it is eventually approved and passed into law. After all, any decision involving the districts should not be so much a political issue but a matter of what would be best for the development of the province and its people.
Nevertheless, HB 4267 has given the people of Pangasinan their legal right in Congressional representation. The people control the government and the latter must do everything it can to help the people advance their cause. Our district representatives should be held responsible for being aware of what the Philippine Constitution provides for their fellow constituents, and that knowing the importance of the Census Population and the legal right the Constitution gave to every municipality and cities of every district—adding another Congressional district and a respective Representative in the Philippine Congress is paramount. As a matter of fact, If Pangasinan is entitled to 10 legislative districts, how come our Congressmen did not make the legal change of adding districts within the limited time allowed by the Constitution? Was this a constitutional oversight or a political control issue?
The more Congressional seats Pangasinan gets, legally, the more political power it can muster against the established quo of neglect for its constituency. It will help shift the political hegemony in Manila-centric politics, and rightfully transform the voice of Pangasinenses into a very powerful tool its leaders can use to bring home deserved funds to improve the province’s infrastructure from the towns and cities to the neglected barrios. The shameful begging days will be over, and due respect and treatment will be earned for the political might of Pangasinenses. Let us not forget though that by current statistics, Pangasinan is placed as the third (3rd) largest province in The Philippines! It has earned the right to have a powerful voice and influence in the country's political arena.
Although the aforementioned powerful political scenario holds many possibilities for Pangasinenses, we must also reflect on the possibility that it can be used negatively in the historical corruption of national and local politics. We only hope the good spirit of humanity prevails.
REFERENCES:
- Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary. Philippines: Quezon City. 2003 ed.
- Creation of ARMM's Shariff Kabunsuan is Invalid. Published August 31st, 2008 .
- National Statistics Office Website. Pangasinan Population.
No comments:
Post a Comment