Lidasan vs COMELEC GR No L-
28089 25 Ocotber 1967
09 MondayMAR 2015
POSTED BY RACHEL CHAN IN CASE DIGESTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
LEAVE A COMMENT
Facts: Republic Act 4790, being disputed, reorganized the barrios in different municipalities
of Province of Lanao del Sur. It came to light later that 2 barrios in the statute are within
the boundaries of other municipalities and that other 10 barrios are parts and parcel of
another municipality, all in the Province of Cotabato and not of Lanao del Sur. As the statute
stood, 12 barrios are transferred to the province of Lanao del Sur. This brought about a
change in the boundaries of the two provinces.
Apprised of this development, the Office of the President, recommended to Comelec that the
operation of the statute be suspended until clarified by correcting legislation. Comelec, by
resolution of September 20, 1967, stood by its own interpretation, declared that the statute
should be implemented unless declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
This triggered the petition for certiorari and prohibition by Bara Lidasan, a resident and
taxpayer of the detached portion of Parang, Cotabato, and a qualified voter for the 1967
elections. Petitioner requested that Republic Act 4790 be declared unconstitutional; and that
Comelecs resolutions implementing the same for electoral purposes, be nullified.
Petitioner relies upon the constitutional requirement that [n]o bill which may be enacted
into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the
bill.
Issue: Whether or not Republic Act 4790 is null and void.
Decision: Republic Act 4790 is null and void. Constitutional provision contains dual
limitations upon legislative power. First. Congress is to refrain from conglomeration, under
one statute, of heterogeneous subjects. Second. The title of the bill is to be couched in a
language sufficient to notify the legislators and the public and those concerned of the import
of the single subject thereof.
Of relevance here is the second directive. The subject of the statute must be expressed in
the title of the bill. Compliance is imperative, given the fact that the Constitution does not
exact of Congress the obligation to read during its deliberations the entire text of the bill.
Of course, the Constitution does not require Congress to employ in the title of an
enactment, language of such precision as to mirror, fully index or catalogue all the contents
and the minute details therein. It suffices if the title should serve the purpose of the
constitutional demand that it inform the legislators, the persons interested in the subject of
the bill, and the public, of the nature, scope and consequences of the proposed law and its
operation. And this, to lead them to inquire into the body of the bill, study and discuss the
same, take appropriate action thereon, and, thus, prevent surprise or fraud upon the
legislators.
The test of the sufficiency of a title is whether or not it is misleading; and, which technical
accuracy is not essential, and the subject need not be stated in express terms where it is
clearly inferable from the details set forth, a title which is so uncertain that the average
person reading it would not be informed of the purpose of the enactment or put on inquiry
as to its contents, or which is misleading, either in referring to or indicating one subject
where another or different one is really embraced in the act, or in omitting any expression
or indication of the real subject or scope of the act, is bad.
Since the petitioner is a qualified voter from the affected barrio, he has every right to
become a suitor to challenge the constitutionality of the Act as passed by Congress.
