MANUEL T. DE GUIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COUNCILOR OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF PARAñAQUE, METRO MANILA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition
assailing the validity and the enforcement by respondent Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) of its RESOLUTION NO. 2313, adopting rules and
guidelines in the apportionment, by
district, of the number of elective members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in
provinces with only one (1) legislative
district and the Sangguniang
Bayan of municipalities in the
Metro Manila Area for the preparation of the Project of District Apportionment
by the Provincial Election Supervisors and Election Registrars (Annex
“A”, Petition), RESOLUTION
NO. 2379, approving
the Project of District Apportionment submitted pursuant to Resolution No. 2313
(Annex “B”, Petition), and RESOLUTION
UND. 92-010 holding
that pars. (a), (b) and (c), and the first sentence of par. (d), all of Sec. 3,
R.A. 7166, apply to the May 11, 1992 elections (Annex “C”, Petition).

Petitioner Manuel T. De Guia is an incumbent Member of the
Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila, having been
elected in the January 1988 local elections. He prays, more particularly, for reversal of the position of respondent
insofar as it affects the municipality of Parañaque and all the other
municipalities in the Metro Manila Area. He claims that the second proviso of par. (c), Sec. 3 of R.A. 7166,
which requires the apportionment into districts of said municipalities does not
specify when the members of their Sangguniang Bayan will be elected by
district. He would consequently lean on
par. (d) of Sec. 3, which immediately succeeds par. (c), to support his view
that the elected members of these municipalities mentioned in par. (c) should
continue to be elected at large in the May 11, 1992 elections.

Paragraph (d) states that “[F]or purposes of the regular
elections on May 11, 1992, elective members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and
Sangguniang Bayan shall be elected at large in accordance with existing
laws. However, beginning with the
regular elections in 1995, they shall be elected by district.” Petitioner
therefore insists that the elected members of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Parañaque fall under this category so that they should continue to be elected
at large until the 1995 regular elections.

Before addressing the crux of the controversy, the Court observes
that petitioner does not allege that he is running for reelection, much less,
that he is prejudiced by the election, by district, in Parañaque. As such, he does not appear to have a locus
standi, a standing in law, a personal or substantial interest.^[1]
He does not also allege any legal right that has been violated by
respondent. If for this alone,
petitioner does not appear to have any cause of action.

However, considering the importance of the issue involved,
concerning as it does the political exercise of qualified voters affected by
the apportionment, and petitioner alleging abuse of discretion and violation of
the Constitution by respondent, We resolve to brush aside the question of
procedural infirmity, even as We perceive the petition to be one of declaratory
relief. We so held similarly through
Mr. Justice Edgardo L. Paras in Osmeña v. Commission on Elections.^[2]

Now on the meat of the dispute.

On November 18, 1991, Congress passed R.A. 7166, signed into law
by the President on November 26, 1991. It is “An Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local
Elections and for Electoral Reforms, Authorizing Appropriations Therefor, and
for Other Purposes”. At issue in
this case is the proper interpretation of Sec. 3 thereof which provides:

“Section 3. Election of Members of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, Sangguniang
Panlungsod, and Sangguniang Bayan. – The elective members
of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod and Sangguniang Bayan
shall be elected as follows:

‘(a) For provinces
with two (2) or more legislative districts, the elective members of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan shall be elected by legislative districts x x x x

‘(b) For provinces
with only one (1) legislative district, the Commission shall divide them into
two (2) districts for purposes of electing the members of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan x x x x

‘(c) The number and
election of elective members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and Sangguniang
Bayan in the Metro Manila Area, City of Cebu, City of Davao and any other city
with two (2) or more legislative districts shall continue to be governed by the
provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of Republic Act No. 6636 x x x x Provided,
further, That, the Commission shall divide each of the municipalities in Metro
Manila Area into two (2) districts by barangay for purposes of representation
in the Sangguniang Bayan x x x x and,

‘(d) For purposes of
the regular elections on May 11, 1992, elective members of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod and Sangguniang Bayan shall be elected at large in accordance with
existing laws. However, beginning with
the regular elections in 1995, they shall be elected by district x x x x”

On November 20, 1991, respondent COMELEC, invoking authority of
the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, R.A. 6636, R.A. 6646 and R.A.
7166,^[3]
issued Resolution No. 2313 and the subsequent resolutions in question.

On February 20, 1992, in view of the perceived ambiguity in the
meaning of par. (d), particularly in relation to par. (c), Sec. 3, R.A. 7166,
petitioner filed with COMELEC a Motion for Clarification of its Resolution No.
2313 inquiring whether the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Parañaque and
the other municipalities of Metro Manila enumerated therein, which are all
single-district municipalities, would be elected by district in the May 11,
1992 or in the 1995 regular elections.

Meanwhile, on March 3, 1992, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2379
approving the guidelines submitted by the Provincial Election Supervisors and
Municipal Election Registrars concerned pursuant to Resolution No. 2313, and
stating therein its purpose in recommending to Congress the
districting/apportionment of Sangguniang Panlungsod and Sangguniang Bayan
seats, i.e., to reduce the number of candidates to be voted for in the May 11,
1992 synchronized elections. In this
Project of Apportionment, Parañaque together with the other twelve (12) municipalities
in the Metro Manila Area was divided into two (2) districts with six (6)
elective councilors for each district.

On March 10, 1992, COMELEC resolved petitioner’s Motion for
Clarification by interpreting Sec. 3, R.A. 7166, to mean that the election of,
elective members of the Sangguniang Bayan, by district, of the thirteen (13)
municipalities in the Metro Manila Area shall apply in the May 11, 1992
elections (Resolution UND. 92-010, prom. March 10, 1992). Petitioner says that he received copy of
Resolution UND. 92-010 on March 13, 1992.

On April 7, 1992, apparently not satisfied with this third
Resolution of COMELEC, petitioner filed the instant petition asserting that
under par. (d), Sec. 3 of R.A. 7166 the elective members of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod and the Sangguniang Bayan, for purposes of the May 11, 1992 regular
elections, shall be elected at large in accordance with existing laws. He would include in this class of sanggunian
members to be elected at large those of the municipality of Parañaque.

Petitioner therefore imputes grave abuse of discretion to COMELEC
in promulgating Resolution No. 2313, Resolution No. 2379 and Resolution UND.
92-010 which clarifies, contrary to his view, that the district apportionment
of the municipalities in the Metro Manila Area is applicable to the
May 11, 1992 regular elections.

We have carefully examined pars. (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Sec. 3,
R.A. 7166, and its precursor bills on synchronized elections, Senate Bill No.
1861 and House Bill No. 34811, and We realize the web of confusion generated by
the seeming abstruseness in the
language of the law. Some framers of
the law were even fazed at the empirical implications of some of its
provisions, particularly Sec. 3 thereof, and they admitted in fact that said
provisions were susceptible of varied interpretations, as borne by the
sponsorship and explanatory speeches now spread in the Journals of
Congress. Hence, We can understand why
petitioner would interpret Sec. 3 as he would. But if we pursue his course, we may conclude in absurdity because then
there would have been no reason for R.A. 7166 to single out the single-district
provinces referred to in par. (b), and the municipalities in the Metro Manila
Area mentioned in the second proviso of par. (c), to be apportioned at once
into two (2) districts each if the members of their respective sanggunian after
all would still be elected at large as they were in the 1988 elections.

No law is ever enacted that is intended to be meaningless, much
less inutile. We
must therefore, as far as we can, divine its meaning, its significance, its
reason for being. As it has oft been
held, the key to open the door to what the legislature intended which is
vaguely expressed in the language of a statute is its purpose or the reason
which induced it to enact the statute. If the statute needs construction, as it does in the present case, the
most dominant in that process is the purpose of the act.^[4] Statutes should be construed in the light of
the object to be achieved and the evil or mischief to be suppressed,^[5] and they should be given such construction
as will advance the object, suppress the mischief, and secure the benefits
intended.^[6] A construction should be rejected that gives
to the language used in a statute a meaning that does not accomplish the
purpose for which the statute was enacted, and that tends to defeat the ends
which are sought to be attained by the enactment.^[7]

The reason for the
promulgation of R.A. 7166 is shown in the explanatory note of Senate Bill No.
1861 which states in part:

“This bill proposes to set the national and local elections
for May 11, 1992, and provide for the necessary implementing details. It also endorses reforms and measures to
ensure the conduct of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
elections. Specifically, it seeks to: (1) Reduce
the number of positions to be voted for by providing therein that the members
of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan,
Sangguniang Panlungsod and Sangguniang Bayan be elected not at large, but by
district x x x x”

That respondent COMELEC is cognizant of this legislative intent
of R.A. 7166 is reflected in the “WHEREAS” clauses constituting the
preamble to Resolution No. 2379. Thus –

“WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections, in order to reduce the
number of candidates to be voted for in the May 11, 1992 synchronized elections
recommended, among others, to the Congress of the Philippines, the
districting/apportionment of sangguniang panlungsod and sangguniang bayan
seats;

“WHEREAS, the Congress
of the Philippines passed Republic Act 7166, and approved by the President of
the Philippines on November 26, 1991, adopting among others, the recommendation
of the Commission on Elections aforestated;

“WHEREAS, pursuant to, and in implementation of Republic Act
7166, particularly Section 3 thereof, the Commission promulgated Resolution No.
2313, directing the Provincial Election Supervisors and
Election Registrars concerned to submit, after consultation, public hearings,
and consensus-taking with the different sectors in the community, the Project
of District Apportionment of single legislative-district provinces and
municipalities in the Metro Manila area;

“WHEREAS, the
established criteria/guidelines in the determination of the district
apportionment are as follows: a. compactness, contiguity and adjacentness of
territory; b. apportionment shall be
based on the 1990 census of population; c. no municipality, in the case of provinces, and no barangay, in the
case of cities and municipalities, shall be fragmented or apportioned into different
districts.”

This avowed policy of having sanggunian members elected by
district is also manifest from the four corners of Sec. 3 of R.A. 7166.^[8]
Thus, a careful analysis of the provisions of Sec. 3 shows that the purpose of
districting/apportionment of the sanggunian seats is to reduce the number of
positions to be voted for in the May 11, 1992, synchronized elections and
ensure the efficiency of electoral process. Considering that the single-district provinces and the municipalities in
the Metro Manila Area, which are all single-districts, and under pars. (b) and
(c) have already been apportioned into two (2) districts, they will henceforth
be electing the members of their Sangguniang Panlalawigan and Sangguniang Bayan
by district in the coming May 11, 1992, elections, although under par. (d), the
single-district cities and all the municipalities outside the Metro Manila Area
which are all likewise single-districts, will have to continue electing at
large the members of their Sangguniang Panlungsod and Sangguniang Bayan as they
have yet to be apportioned. But
beginning the regular elections of 1995, they will all have to be elected by
district. Bye then, COMELEC would have
had enough time to apportion the single-district cities and the municipalities
outside the Metro Manila Area.

As they now stand in relation to the districting/apportionment of
local government units for purposes of election under Sec. 3 of R.A. 7166, it
is clear that: (1) for provinces with
two (2) or more legislative districts contemplated in par. (a), they shall
continue to be elected by district; (2) for provinces with single legislative
districts, as they have already been apportioned into two (2) districts each
under par. (b), they shall henceforth be elected likewise by district; (3) for
cities with two (2) or more legislative districts, e.g., the cities of Manila,
Cebu and Davao, they shall also continue to be elected by district under the
first part of par. (c); and, (4) for the thirteen (13) municipalities in the
Metro Manila Area, which have already been apportioned into two (2) districts
each under the second proviso of par. (c), they shall likewise be elected by
district in the regular elections of May 11,1992.

Then, that should leave us the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the
single-district cities and the Sangguniang Bayan of the municipalities outside
Metro Manila, which remain single-districts not having been ordered apportioned
under Sec. 3 of R.A. 7166. They will
have to continue to be elected at large in the May 11, 1992, elections,
although starting 1995 they shall all be elected by district to affect the full
implementation of the letter and spirit of R.A. 7166. That is the true import of par. (d). Consequently, as We view it, where he stands, petitioner must
fall.

WHEREFORE, finding no abuse of discretion, much less
grave, on the part of respondent, and for lack of merit, the instant petition
is DISMISSED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras,
Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, and Nocon, JJ., concur.

^[1] Sanidad
v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976, 73 SCRA
333; Municipality of Malabang v.
Benito, G.R. No.
L-28113, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 533.

^[2] G.R. No.
100318, July 30, 1991, 199 SCRA 750.

^[3] R.A. 7166 was approved only on November 26,
1991, when the President signed it into law, although it was passed by Congress
on November 18, 1991, or before COMELEC promulgated its Resolution No. 2313.

^[4] De
Jesus v. City of Manila, 29 Phil. 73 [1914]; Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. Filipinas De Seguros, 107 Phil. 1055 [1960]; 1 Garcia v.
Ambler, 4 Phil. 81 [1904]; McMicking v. Lichauco, 27 Phil. 386
[1914].

^[5] LVN
Pictures, Inc. v. Phil. Musicians Guild, 110 Phil. 725 [1961]; People v. Purisima, G.R. No. 52050, November
20, 1978, 86 SCRA 542; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Filipina Compania De Seguros, 107
Phil. 1055 [1960].

^[6] Rivera
v. Campbell, 34 Phil. 348 [1916].

^[7] Muñoz
& Co. v. Hord, 12 Phil. 624 [1909]; Ty Sue v. Hord, 12 Phil. 485 [1909]; Sarcos v. Castillo, G.R. No.
29755, January 31, 1969, 26 SCRA 853; Republic Flour Mills, Inc. v.
Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L-28463, May 31, 1971, 39 SCRA 269; People
v. Gatchalian, 104 Phil. 664 [1958]).

^[8] Manila Lodge No. 761 v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41001, September 30,1976, 73
SCRA 162.