Lidasan v.
COMELEC, 21 SCRA 496, October 25, 1967
FACTS: The case revolves around the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 4790, entitled “An Act Creating
the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur.” Enacted on June 18, 1966, its controversy
stemmed from the inclusion of barrios from another province, Cotabato, thus changing the boundaries
between Cotabato and Lanao del Sur without explicitly stating this in the title of the Act.
The petitioner, Bara Lidasan, a resident and taxpayer of the detached portion of Parang, Cotabato, and a
qualified voter for the 1967 elections, brought the action. After the Act’s passage, the Commission on
Elections (Comelec) adopted resolutions concerning electoral preparations for the new municipality of
Dianaton. The Office of the President, recognizing the law’s potential constitutional violation,
recommended suspending the statute’s operation until clarified by corrective legislation. Despite this,
Comelec stood by its resolution, insisting on implementing the Act unless declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court. This prompted Lidasan to file an original action for certiorari and prohibition, challenging
the Act’s constitutionality on the grounds that it violated the constitutional mandate against including
more than one subject in a bill’s title.
ISSUES: 1. Whether Republic Act No. 4790 violates the constitutional requirement that a bill must not
embrace more than one subject, which should be expressed in its title.
2. Whether the petitioner has a substantial legal interest adversely affected by the implementation of
Republic Act No. 4790 justifying his standing to sue.
RULING: The Supreme Court, through Justice Sanchez, declared Republic Act No. 4790 null and void for
violating the constitutional mandate that the title of a bill must express its subject. The Court reasoned
that the Act’s title was misleading because it did not indicate that it would affect the territories of two
provinces by altering their boundaries. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner had legal standing
to sue as his voting rights in his place of residence were affected by the Act’s implementation, thereby
impairing his substantial rights and interests.
The decision reiterates the dual constitutional limitations on legislative power: (1) the prohibition against
the conglomeration of heterogeneous subjects under one statute, and (2) the requirement that the
subject of the statute must be expressed in the title of the bill. This case also emphasizes the importance
of adhering to these limitations to prevent fraud or surprise upon the legislators and to ensure that those
concerned, including the public, are properly informed of the nature, scope, and consequences of
proposed legislation.
Notes:
The constitutional mandate against including more than one subject in a bill’s title is meant to ensure
transparency and prevent deception in legislative processes. – A bill’s title must accurately and sufficiently
convey its subject to inform legislators and the public about its implications. – Legal standing in challenging
a statute’s constitutionality can arise from an impairment of substantial rights or interests caused by its
implementation.
The case demonstrates the complexities involved in legislative processes, especially in creating new
political subdivisions, highlighting the imperative for clarity and transparency in legislative titles to protect
the electorate’s rights and ensure informed legislative debate. It underscores the intricate balance
between legislative discretion and constitutional mandates designed to safeguard democratic processes
and the rule of law.
