Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Navarro Vs Ermita
Navarro Vs Ermita
Navarro Vs Ermita
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 180050 February 10, 2010
RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, VCTOR F. !ERNAL, a"# RENE O. MEDNA, Petitioners,
vs.
E$ECUTVE SECRETAR% EDUARDO ERMTA, re&re'e"()"* (+e Pre')#e"( o, (+e
P+)-)&&)"e'. Se"a(e o, (+e P+)-)&&)"e', re&re'e"(e# by (+e SENATE PRESDENT. /ou'e
o, Re&re'e"(a()0e', re&re'e"(e# by (+e /OUSE SPEA1ER. GOVERNOR RO!ERT
ACE S. !AR!ERS, re&re'e"()"* (+e 2o(+er &ro0)"3e o, Sur)*ao #e- Nor(e.
GOVERNOR GERALDNE ECLEO VLLAROMAN, re&re'e"()"* (+e "e4 Pro0)"3e o,
D)"a*a( '-a"#', Respondents.
D E C I S I N
PERALTA, J.:
!his is a petition for certiorari under Rule "# of the Rules of Court see$in% to nullif& Republic
Act 'R.A.( No. )*##, other+ise $no+n as An Act Creatin% the Province of Dina%at Islands, for
bein% unconstitutional.
Petitioners Rodolfo ,. Navarro, -ictor .. Bernal, and Rene . Medina aver that the& are
ta/pa&ers and residents of the Province of Suri%ao del Norte. !he& have served the Province
of Suri%ao del Norte once as -ice0 ,overnor and 1e1bers of the Provincial Board,
respectivel&. !he& clai1 to have previousl& filed a si1ilar petition, +hich +as dis1issed on
technical %rounds.
2
!he& alle%e that the creation of the Dina%at Islands as a ne+ province, if
uncorrected, perpetuates an ille%al act of Con%ress, and un3ustl& deprives the people of
Suri%ao del Norte of a lar%e chun$ of its territor&, Internal Revenue Allocation and rich
resources fro1 the area.
!he facts are as follo+s4
!he 1other province of Suri%ao del Norte +as created and established under R.A. No. 567"
on 8une 2), 2)"9. !he province is co1posed of three 1ain %roups of islands4 '2( the Mainland
and Suri%ao Cit&: '5( Siar%ao Island and Bucas ,rande: and '*( Dina%at Island, +hich is
co1posed of seven 1unicipalities, na1el&, Basilisa, Ca%dianao, Dina%at, ;ib3o, ;oreto, San
8ose, and !uba3on.
Based on the official 5999 Census of Population and <ousin% conducted b& the National
Statistics ffice 'NS(,
5
the population of the Province of Suri%ao del Norte as of Ma& 2, 5999
+as =72,=2", bro$en do+n as follo+s4
Mainland 572,222
Suri%ao Cit& 227,#*=
Siar%ao Island > Bucas ,rande )*,*#=
Dina%at Island 29",)#2
?nder Section ="2 of R.A. No. 6"29, other+ise $no+n as !he ;ocal ,overn1ent Code, a
province 1a& be created if it has an avera%e annual inco1e of not less than P59 1illion based
on 2))2 constant prices as certified b& the Depart1ent of .inance, and a population of not less
than 5#9,999 inhabitants as certified b& the NS, or a conti%uous territor& of at least 5,999
s@uare $ilo1eters as certified b& the ;ands Mana%e1ent Bureau. !he territor& need not be
conti%uous if it co1prises t+o or 1ore islands or is separated b& a chartered cit& or cities,
+hich do not contribute to the inco1e of the province.
n April *, 5995, the ffice of the President, throu%h its Deput& E/ecutive Secretar& for
;e%al Affairs, advised the San%%unian% Panlala+i%an of the Province of Suri%ao del Norte of
the deficient population in the proposed Province of Dina%at Islands.
*
In 8ul& 599*, the Provincial ,overn1ent of Suri%ao del Norte conducted a special census,
+ith the assistance of an NS District Census Coordinator, in the Dina%at Islands to deter1ine
its actual population in support of the house bill creatin% the Province of Dina%at Islands. !he
special census &ielded a population count of *62,#6" inhabitants in the proposed province. !he
NS, ho+ever, did not certif& the result of the special census. n 8ul& *9, 599*, Suri%ao del
Norte Provincial ,overnor Robert ;&ndon S. Barbers issued Procla1ation No. 92, +hich
declared as official, for all purposes, the 599* Special Census in Dina%at Islands sho+in% a
population of *62,#6".
=
!he Bureau of ;ocal ,overn1ent .inance certified that the avera%e annual inco1e of the
proposed Province of Dina%at Islands for calendar &ear 5995 to 599* based on the 2))2
constant prices +as P75,")",=**.5*. !he land area of the proposed province is 795.25 s@uare
$ilo1eters.
n Au%ust 2=, 599" and Au%ust 57, 599", the Senate and the <ouse of Representatives,
respectivel&, passed the bill creatin% the Province of Dina%at Islands. It +as approved and
enacted into la+ as R.A. No. )*## on ctober 5, 599" b& President ,loria Macapa%al0Arro&o.
n Dece1ber 5, 599", a plebiscite +as held in the 1other Province of Suri%ao del Norte to
deter1ine +hether the local %overn1ent units directl& affected approved of the creation of the
Province of Dina%at Islands into a distinct and independent province co1prisin% the
1unicipalities of Basilisa, Ca%dianao, Dina%at, ;ib3o 'Albor(, ;oreto, San 8ose, and !uba3on.
!he result of the plebiscite &ielded "),)=* affir1ative votes and "*,#95 ne%ative votes.
#
n Dece1ber *, 599", the Plebiscite Provincial Board of Canvassers proclai1ed that the
creation of Dina%at Islands into a separate and distinct province +as ratified and approved b&
the 1a3orit& of the votes cast in the plebiscite.
"
n 8anuar& 5", 5996, a ne+ set of provincial officials too$ their oath of office follo+in% their
appoint1ent b& President ,loria Macapa%al0Arro&o. Another set of provincial officials +as
elected durin% the s&nchroniAed national and local elections held on Ma& 2=, 5996. n 8ul& 2,
5996, the elected provincial officials too$ their oath of office: hence, the Province of Dina%at
Islands be%an its corporate e/istence.
6
Petitioners contended that the creation of the Province of Dina%at Islands under R.A. No. )*##
is not valid because it failed to co1pl& +ith either the population or land area re@uire1ent
prescribed b& the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
Petitioners pra&ed that R.A. No. )*## be declared unconstitutional, and that all subse@uent
appoint1ents and elections to the ne+ vacant positions in the ne+l& created Province of
Dina%at Islands be declared null and void. !he& also pra&ed for the return of the 1unicipalities
of the Province of Dina%at Islands and the return of the for1er districts to the 1other Province
of Suri%ao del Norte.
Petitioners raised the follo+in% issues4
I
B<E!<ER R N! REP?B;IC AC! N. )*##, CREA!IN, !<E NEB PR-INCE .
DINA,A! IS;ANDS, CMP;IED BI!< !<E CNS!I!?!IN AND S!A!?!RC
RED?IREMEN!S ?NDER SEC!IN ="2 . REP?B;IC AC! N. 62"9, !<ERBISE
ENBN AS !<E ;CA; ,-ERNMEN! CDE . 2))2.
II
B<E!<ER R N! !<E CREA!IN . DINA,A! AS A NEB PR-INCE BC !<E
RESPNDEN!S IS AN AC! . ,ERRCMANDERIN,.
III
B<E!<ER R N! !<E RES?;! . !<E P;EBISCI!E IS CREDIB;E AND !R?;C
RE.;EC!S !<E MANDA!E . !<E PEP;E.
7
In her Me1orandu1, respondent ,overnor ,eraldine B. Ecleo0-illaro1an of the Province of
Dina%at Islands raises procedural issues. She contends that petitioners do not have the le%al
standin% to @uestion the constitutionalit& of the creation of the Province of Dina%at, since the&
have not been directl& in3ured b& its creation and are +ithout substantial interest over the
1atter in controvers&. Moreover, she alle%es that the petition is 1oot and acade1ic because
the e/istence of the Province of Dina%at Islands has alread& co11enced: hence, the petition
should be dis1issed.
!he contention is +ithout 1erit.
In Coconut il Refiners Association, Inc. v. !orres,
)
the Court held that in cases of para1ount
i1portance +here serious constitutional @uestions are involved, the standin% re@uire1ents
1a& be rela/ed and a suit 1a& be allo+ed to prosper even +here there is no direct in3ur& to the
part& clai1in% the ri%ht of 3udicial revie+. In the sa1e vein, +ith respect to other alle%ed
procedural fla+s, even assu1in% the e/istence of such defects, the Court, in the e/ercise of its
discretion, brushes aside these technicalities and ta$es co%niAance of the petition considerin%
its i1portance and in $eepin% +ith the dut& to deter1ine +hether the other branches of the
%overn1ent have $ept the1selves +ithin the li1its of the Constitution.
29
.urther, supervenin% events, +hether intended or accidental, cannot prevent the Court fro1
renderin% a decision if there is a %rave violation of the Constitution.
22
!he courts +ill decide a
@uestion other+ise 1oot and acade1ic if it is capable of repetition, &et evadin% revie+.
25
!he 1ain issue is +hether or not R.A. No. )*## violates Section 29, Article F of the
Constitution.
Petitioners contend that the proposed Province of Dina%at Islands is not @ualified to beco1e a
province because it failed to co1pl& +ith the land area or the population re@uire1ent, despite
its co1pliance +ith the inco1e re@uire1ent. It has a total land area of onl& 795.25 s@uare
$ilo1eters, +hich falls short of the statutor& re@uire1ent of at least 5,999 s@uare $ilo1eters.
Moreover, based on the NS 5999 Census of Population, the total population of the proposed
Province of Dina%at Islands is onl& 29",)#2, +hile the statutor& re@uire1ent is a population of
at least 5#9,999 inhabitants.
Petitioners alle%e that in enactin% R.A. No. )*## into la+, the <ouse of Representatives and
the Senate erroneousl& relied on para%raph 5 of Article ) of the Rules and Re%ulations
I1ple1entin% the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code of 2))2, +hich states that GHtIhe land area
re@uire1ent shall not appl& +here the proposed province is co1posed of one '2( or 1ore
islands.G
2*
!he precedin% italiciAed provision contained in the I1ple1entin% Rules and
Re%ulations is not e/pressl& or i1pliedl& stated as an e/e1ption to the land area re@uire1ent
in Section ="2 of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code. Petitioners assert that +hen the I1ple1entin%
Rules and Re%ulations conflict +ith the la+ that the& see$ to i1ple1ent, the la+ prevails.
n the other hand, respondents contend in their respective Me1oranda that the Province of
Dina%at Islands 1et the le%al standard for its creation.1avvphi1
.irst, the Bureau of ;ocal ,overn1ent .inance certified that the avera%e annual inco1e of the
proposed Province of Dina%at Islands for the &ears 5995 to 599* based on the 2))2 constant
prices +as P75,")",=**.5#.
Second, the ;ands Mana%e1ent Bureau certified that thou%h the land area of the Province of
Dina%at Islands is 795.25 s@uare $ilo1eters, it is co1posed of one or 1ore islands: thus, it is
e/e1pt fro1 the re@uired land area of 5,999 s@uare $ilo1eters under para%raph 5 of Article )
of the Rules and Re%ulations I1ple1entin% the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
!hird, in the special census conducted b& the Provincial ,overn1ent of Suri%ao del Norte,
+ith the assistance of a District Census Coordinator of the NS, the nu1ber of inhabitants in
the Province of Dina%at Islands as of 599*, or al1ost three &ears before the enact1ent of R.A.
No. )*## in 599", +as *62,#6", +hich is 1ore than the 1ini1u1 re@uire1ent of 5#9,999
inhabitants.
In his Me1orandu1, respondent ,overnor Ace S. Barbers contends that althou%h the result of
the special census conducted b& the Provincial ,overn1ent of Suri%ao del Norte on Dece1ber
5, 599* +as never certified b& the NS, it is credible since it +as conducted +ith the aid of a
representative of the NS. <e alle%ed that the lac$ of certification b& the NS +as cured b&
the presence of NS officials, +ho testified durin% the deliberations on <ouse Bill No. 77=
creatin% the Province of Dina%at Islands, and +ho @uestioned neither the conduct of the
special census nor the validit& of the result.
T+e Ru-)"* o, (+e Cour(
!he petition is %ranted.
!he constitutional provision on the creation of a province in Section 29, Article F of the
Constitution states4
SEC. 29. No province, cit&, 1unicipalit&, or baran%a& 1a& be created, divided, 1er%ed,
abolished, or its boundar& substantiall& altered, e/cept in accordance +ith the criteria
established in the local %overn1ent code and sub3ect to approval b& a 1a3orit& of the votes
cast in a plebiscite in the political units directl& affected.G
2=
Pursuant to the Constitution, the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code of 2))2 prescribed the criteria for
the creation of a province, thus4
SEC. ="2. Requisites for Creation. 00 'a( A province 1a& be created if it has an avera%e annual
inco1e, as certified b& the Depart1ent of .inance, of not less than !+ent& 1illion pesos
'P59,999,999.99( based on 2))2 constant prices and either of the follo+in% re@uisites4
'i( a conti%uous territor& of at least t+o thousand '5,999( s@uare
$ilo1eters, as certified b& the ;ands Mana%e1ent Bureau: or
'ii( a population of not less than t+o hundred fift& thousand '5#9,999(
inhabitants as certified b& the National Statistics ffice4
Provided, !hat, the creation thereof shall not reduce the land area, population, and
inco1e of the ori%inal unit or units at the ti1e of said creation to less than the
1ini1u1 re@uire1ents prescribed herein.
'b( !he territor& need not be conti%uous if it co1prises t+o '5( or 1ore islands or is
separated b& a chartered cit& or cities +hich do not contribute to the inco1e of the
province.
'c( !he avera%e annual inco1e shall include the inco1e accruin% to the %eneral
fund, e/clusive of special funds, trust funds, transfers, and non0recurrin% inco1e.
2#
As a clarification of the territorial re@uire1ent, the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code re@uires
a conti%uous territor& of at least 5,999 s@uare $ilo1eters, as certified b& the ;ands
Mana%e1ent Bureau. <o+ever, the territor& need not be conti%uous if it co1prises t+o '5( or
1ore islands or is separated b& a chartered cit& or cities that do not contribute to the inco1e of
the province.
If a proposed province is co1posed of t+o or 1ore islands, does Gterritor&,G under Sec. ="2 of
the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code, include not onl& the land 1ass above the +ater, but also that
+hich is beneath itJ
!o ans+er the @uestion above, the discussion in !an v. Co11ission on Elections
'CME;EC(
2"
is enli%htenin%.
In Tan v. COMELEC, petitioners therein contended that Batas Pa1bansa Bl%. 77#, creatin% the
ne+ Province of Ne%ros del Norte, +as unconstitutional for it +as not in accord +ith Art. FI,
Sec. * of the Constitution, and Batas Pa1bansa Bl%. **6, the for1er ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
Althou%h +hat +as applicable then +as the 2)6* Constitution and the for1er ;ocal
,overn1ent Code, the provisions pertinent to the case are substantiall& si1ilar to the
provisions in this case.
Art. FI, Sec. * of the 2)6* Constitution provides4
Sec. *. No province, cit&, 1unicipalit& or barrio 'baran%a& in the 2)76 Constitution( 1a& be
created, divided, 1er%ed, abolished, or its boundar& substantiall& altered e/cept in accordance
+ith the criteria established in the local %overn1ent code, and sub3ect to the approval b& a
1a3orit& of the votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected.
!he re@uisites for the creation of a province in Sec. 2)6 of Batas Pa1bansa Bl%. **6 are
si1ilar to the re@uisites in Sec. ="2 of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code of 2))2, but the
re@uire1ents for population and territor&Kland area are lo+er no+, +hile the inco1e
re@uire1ent is hi%her. Sec. 2)6 of Batas Pa1bansa Bl%. **6, the for1er ;ocal ,overn1ent
Code, provides4
SEC. 2)6.LRe@uisites for Creation.LA province 1a& be created if it has a territor& of at least
three thousand five hundred s@uare $ilo1eters, a population of at least five hundred thousand
persons, an avera%e esti1ated annual inco1e, as certified b& the Ministr& of .inance, of not
less than ten 1illion pesos for the last three consecutive &ears, and its creation shall not reduce
the population and inco1e of the 1other province or provinces at the ti1e of said creation to
less than the 1ini1u1 re@uire1ents under this section. !he territor& need not be conti%uous if
it co1prises t+o or 1ore islands.
!he avera%e esti1ated annual inco1e shall include the inco1e allotted for both the %eneral
and infrastructure funds, e/clusive of trust funds, transfers and nonrecurrin% inco1e.
26
In Tan v. COMELEC, petitioners therein filed a case for Prohibition for the purpose of
stoppin% the CME;EC fro1 conductin% the plebiscite scheduled on 8anuar& *, 2)7". Since
the Court +as in recess, it +as unable to consider the petition on ti1e. Petitioners filed a
supple1ental pleadin%, averrin% that the plebiscite sou%ht to be restrained b& the1 +as held as
scheduled, but there +ere still serious issues raised in the case affectin% the le%alit&,
constitutionalit& and validit& of such e/ercise +hich should properl& be passed upon and
resolved b& the Court.
At issue in Tan +as the land area of the ne+ Province of Ne%ros del Norte, and the validit& of
the plebiscite, +hich did not include voters of the parent Province of Ne%ros ccidental, but
onl& those livin% +ithin the territor& of the ne+ Province of Ne%ros del Norte.
!he Court held that the plebiscite should have included the people livin% in the area of the
proposed ne+ province and those livin% in the parent province. <o+ever, the Court did not
direct the conduct of a ne+ plebiscite, because the factual and le%al basis for the creation of
the ne+ province did not e/ist as it failed to satisf& the land area re@uire1ent: hence, Batas
Pa1bansa Bl%. 77#, creatin% the ne+ Province of Ne%ros del Norte, +as declared
unconstitutional. !he Court found that the land area of the ne+ province +as onl& about 5,7#"
s@uare $ilo1eters, +hich +as belo+ the statutor& re@uire1ent then of *,#99 s@uare $ilo1eters.
Respondents in Tan insisted that +hen the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code spea$s of the re@uired
territor& of the province to be created, +hat is conte1plated is not onl& the land area, but also
the land and +ater over +hich the said province has 3urisdiction and control. !he respondents
sub1itted that in this re%ard, the 1ar%inal sea +ithin the three 1ile li1it should be considered
in deter1inin% the e/tent of the territor& of the ne+ province.
!he Court stated that GHsIuch an interpretation is strained, incorrect and fallacious.G
27
It held4
!he last sentence of the first para%raph of Section 2)6 is 1ost revealin%. As so stated therein
the Gterritor& need not be conti%uous if it co1prises t+o or 1ore islands.G !he use of the +ord
territor& in this particular provision of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code and in the ver& last
sentence thereof, clearl&, reflects that Gterritor&G as therein used, has reference onl& to the 1ass
of land area and e/cludes the +aters over +hich the political unit e/ercises control.
Said sentence states that the Gterritor& need not be conti%uous.G Conti%uous 1eans 'a( in
ph&sical contact: 'b( touchin% alon% all or 1ost of one side: 'c( near, HnIe/t, or ad3acent
'BebsterMs Ne+ Borld Dictionar&, 2)65 Ed., p. *96(. GConti%uous,G +hen e1plo&ed as an
ad3ective, as in the above sentence, is onl& used +hen it describes ph&sical contact, or a
touchin% of sides of t+o solid 1asses of 1atter. !he 1eanin% of particular ter1s in a statute
1a& be ascertained b& reference to +ords associated +ith or related to the1 in the statute
'Ani1al Rescue ;ea%ue vs. Assessors, 2*7 A.;.R., p. 229(. !herefore, in the conte/t of the
sentence above, +hat need not be Gconti%uousG is the Gterritor&G L the ph&sical 1ass of land
area. !here +ould arise no need for the le%islators to use the +ord conti%uous if the& had
intended that the ter1 Gterritor&G e1brace not onl& land area but also territorial +aters. It can
be safel& concluded that the +ord territor& in the first para%raph of Section 2)6 is 1eant to be
s&non&1ous +ith Gland areaG onl&. !he +ords and phrases used in a statute should be %iven
the 1eanin% intended b& the le%islature '75 C.8.S., p. "*"(. !he sense in +hich the +ords are
used furnished the rule of construction 'In re Binton ;u1ber Co., "* p. 5d., p. ""=(.
2)
!he discussion of the Court in Tan on the definition and usa%e of the ter1s Gterritor&,G and
Gconti%uous,G and the 1eanin% of the provision, G!he territor& need not be conti%uous if it
co1prises t+o or 1ore islands,G contained in Sec. 2)6 of the for1er ;ocal ,overn1ent Code,
+hich provides for the re@uisites in the creation of a ne+ province, is applicable in this case
since there is no reason for a chan%e in their respective definitions, usa%e, or 1eanin% in its
counterpart provision in the present ;ocal ,overn1ent Code contained in Sec. ="2 thereof.
!he territorial re@uire1ent in the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code is adopted in the Rules and
Re%ulations I1ple1entin% the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code of 2))2 'IRR(,
59
thus4
AR!. ). Provinces.L'a( Re@uisites for creationLA province shall not be created unless the
follo+in% re@uisites on inco1e and either population or land area are present4
'2( Inco1e L An avera%e annual inco1e of not less than !+ent& Million Pesos
'P59,999,999.99( for the i11ediatel& precedin% t+o '5( consecutive &ears based on
2))2 constant prices, as certified b& D.. !he avera%e annual inco1e shall include
the inco1e accruin% to the %eneral fund, e/clusive of special funds, special
accounts, transfers, and nonrecurrin% inco1e: and
'5( Population or land area 0 Population +hich shall not be less than t+o hundred
fift& thousand '5#9,999( inhabitants, as certified b& National Statistics ffice: or
land area +hich 1ust be conti%uous +ith an area of at least t+o thousand '5,999(
s@uare $ilo1eters, as certified b& ;MB. !he territor& need not be conti%uous if it
co1prises t+o '5( or 1ore islands or is separated b& a chartered cit& or cities +hich
do not contribute to the inco1e of the province. !he land area re@uire1ent shall not
appl& +here the proposed province is co1posed of one '2( or 1ore islands. !he
territorial 3urisdiction of a province sou%ht to be created shall be properl& identified
b& 1etes and bounds.
<o+ever, the IRR +ent be&ond the criteria prescribed b& Section ="2 of the ;ocal
,overn1ent Code +hen it added the italiciAed portion above statin% that GHtIhe land area
re@uire1ent shall not appl& +here the proposed province is co1posed of one '2( or 1ore
islands.G No+here in the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code is the said provision stated or i1plied.
?nder Section ="2 of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code, the onl& instance +hen the territorial or
land area re@uire1ent need not be co1plied +ith is +hen there is alread& co1pliance +ith the
population re@uire1ent. !he Constitution re@uires that the criteria for the creation of a
province, includin% an& e/e1ption fro1 such criteria, 1ust all be +ritten in the ;ocal
,overn1ent Code.
52
!here is no dispute that in case of discrepanc& bet+een the basic la+ and
the rules and re%ulations i1ple1entin% the said la+, the basic la+ prevails, because the rules
and re%ulations cannot %o be&ond the ter1s and provisions of the basic la+.
55
<ence, the Court holds that the provision in Sec. 5, Art. ) of the IRR statin% that GHtIhe land
area re@uire1ent shall not appl& +here the proposed province is co1posed of one '2( or 1ore
islandsG is null and void.
Respondents, represented b& the ffice of the Solicitor ,eneral, ar%ue that rules and
re%ulations have the force and effect of la+ as lon% as the& are %er1ane to the ob3ects and
purposes of the la+. !he& contend that the e/e1ption fro1 the land area re@uire1ent of 5,999
s@uare $ilo1eters is %er1ane to the purpose of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code to develop
political and territorial subdivisions into self0reliant co11unities and 1a$e the1 1ore
effective partners in the attain1ent of national %oals.
5*
!he& assert that in <ol& Spirit
<o1eo+ners Association, Inc. v. Defensor,
5=
the Court declared as valid the i1ple1entin%
rules and re%ulations of a statute, even thou%h the ad1inistrative a%enc& added certain
provisions in the i1ple1entin% rules that +ere not found in the la+.
In <ol& Spirit <o1eo+ners Association, Inc. v. Defensor, the provisions in the i1ple1entin%
rules and re%ulations, +hich +ere @uestioned b& petitioner therein, 1erel& filled in the details
in accordance +ith a $no+n standard. !he la+ that +as @uestioned +as R.A. No. )596,
other+ise $no+n as GNational ,overn1ent Center 'N,C( <ousin% and ;and ?tiliAation Act
of 599*.G It +as therein declared that the Gpolic& of the State H+asI to secure the land tenure of
the urban poor. !o+ard this end, lands located in the N,C, DueAon Cit& shall be utiliAed for
housin%, socioecono1ic, civic, educational, reli%ious and other purposes.G Section # of R.A.
No. )596 created the National ,overn1ent Center Ad1inistration Co11ittee, +hich +as
tas$ed to ad1inister, for1ulate the %uidelines and policies and i1ple1ent the land disposition
of the areas covered b& the la+.
Petitioners therein contended that +hile Sec. *.5 'a.2( of the IRR fi/ed the sellin% rate of a lot
at P699.99 per s@. 1., R.A. No. )596 did not provide for the price. In addition, Sec. *.5 'c.2(
of the IRR penaliAes a beneficiar& +ho fails to e/ecute a contract to sell +ithin si/ '"( 1onths
fro1 the approval of the subdivision plan b& i1posin% a price escalation, +hile there is no
such penalt& i1posed b& R.A. No. )596. !hus, the& conclude that the assailed provisions
conflict +ith R.A. No. )596 and should be nullified.
In <ol& Spirit <o1eo+ners Association, Inc., the Court held4
Bhere a rule or re%ulation has a provision not e/pressl& stated or contained in the statute
bein% i1ple1ented, that provision does not necessaril& contradict the statute. A le%islative rule
is in the nature of subordinate le%islation, desi%ned to i1ple1ent a pri1ar& le%islation b&
providin% the details thereof. All that is re@uired is that the re%ulation should be %er1ane to
the ob3ects and purposes of the la+: that the re%ulation be not in contradiction to but in
confor1it& +ith the standards prescribed b& the la+.
In Section # of R.A. No. )596, the Co11ittee is %ranted the po+er to ad1inister, formulate
guidelines and policies, and i1ple1ent the disposition of the areas covered b& the la+.
I1plicit in this authorit& and the statuteNs ob3ective of urban poor housin% is the po+er of the
Co11ittee to for1ulate the 1anner b& +hich the reserved propert& 1a& be allocated to the
beneficiaries. ?nder this broad po+er, the Co11ittee is 1andated to fill in the details such as
the @ualifications of beneficiaries, the sellin% price of the lots, the ter1s and conditions
%overnin% the sale and other $e& particulars necessar& to i1ple1ent the ob3ective of the la+.
!hese details are purposel& o1itted fro1 the statute and their deter1ination is left to the
discretion of the Co11ittee because the latter possesses special $no+led%e and technical
e/pertise over these 1atters.
!he Co11itteeNs authorit& to fi/ the sellin% price of the lots 1a& be li$ened to the rate0fi/in%
po+er of ad1inistrative a%encies. In case of a dele%ation of rate0fi/in% po+er, the onl&
standard +hich the le%islature is re@uired to prescribe for the %uidance of the ad1inistrative
authorit& is that the rate be reasonable and 3ust. <o+ever, it has been held that even in the
absence of an e/press re@uire1ent as to reasonableness, this standard 1a& be i1plied. In this
re%ard, petitioners do not even clai1 that the sellin% price of the lots is unreasonable.
!he provision on the price escalation clause as a penalt& i1posed to a beneficiar& +ho fails to
e/ecute a contract to sell +ithin the prescribed period is also +ithin the Co11itteeNs authorit&
to for1ulate %uidelines and policies to i1ple1ent R.A. No. )596. !he Co11ittee has the
po+er to la& do+n the ter1s and conditions %overnin% the disposition of said lots, provided
that these are reasonable and 3ust. !here is nothin% ob3ectionable about prescribin% a period
+ithin +hich the parties 1ust e/ecute the contract to sell. !his condition can ordinaril& be
found in a contract to sell and is not contrar& to la+, 1orals, %ood custo1s, public order, or
public polic&.
5#
<ence, the provisions in the i1ple1entin% rules and re%ulations that +ere @uestioned in <ol&
Spirit <o1eo+ners Association, Inc. 1erel& filled in the necessar& details to i1ple1ent the
ob3ective of the la+ in accordance +ith a $no+n standard, and +ere thus %er1ane to the
purpose of the la+.
In this case, the pertinent provision in the IRR did not fill in an& detail in accordance +ith a
$no+n standard provided for b& the la+. Instead, the IRR added an e/e1ption to the standard
or criteria prescribed b& the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code in the creation of a province as re%ards
the land area re@uire1ent, +hich e/e1ption is not found in the Code. As such, the provision in
the IRR that the land area re@uire1ent shall not appl& +here the proposed province is
co1posed of one or 1ore islands is not in confor1it& +ith the standard or criteria prescribed
b& the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code: hence, it is null and void.
Contrar& to the contention of respondents, the e/traneous provision cannot be considered as
%er1ane to the purpose of the la+ to develop territorial and political subdivisions into self0
reliant co11unities because, in the first place, it alread& conflicts +ith the criteria prescribed
b& the la+ in creatin% a territorial subdivision.
.urther, citin% ,alarosa v. -alencia,
5"
the ffice of the Solicitor ,eneral contends that the
IRRs issued b& the versi%ht Co11ittee co1posed of 1e1bers of the le%islative and
e/ecutive branches of the %overn1ent are entitled to %reat +ei%ht and respect, as the& are in
the nature of e/ecutive construction.
!he case is not in point. In ,alarosa, the issue +as +hether or not ,alarosa could continue to
serve as a 1e1ber of the Sangguniang a!an be&ond 8une *9, 2))5, the date +hen the ter1
of office of the elective 1e1bers of theSangguniang a!an of Sorso%on e/pired. ,alarosa
+as the incu1bent president of the "atipunang a!an or Association of aranga! Councils
'ABC( of the Municipalit& of Sorso%on, Province of Sorso%on: and +as appointed as a
1e1ber of the Sangguniang a!an 'SB( of Sorso%on pursuant to E/ecutive rder No. *=5 in
relation to Sec. 2=" of Batas Pa1bansa Bl%. **6, the for1er ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
Sec. =)= of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code of 2))2
56
states that the dul& elected presidents of
the liga Hng mga #aranga!I at the 1unicipal, cit& and provincial levels, includin% the
co1ponent cities and 1unicipalities of Metropolitan Manila, shall serve as e$ officio 1e1bers
of the sangguniang #a!an% sangguniang panglungsod% and sangguniang panlala&igan,
respectivel&. !he& shall serve as such onl& durin% their ter1 of office as presidents of
the liga chapters +hich, in no case, shall be be&ond the ter1 of office of
the sanggunian concerned. !he section, ho+ever, does not fi/ the specific duration of their
ter1 as liga president. !he Court held that this +as left to the b&0la+s of the liga pursuant to
Art. 522'%( of the Rules and Re%ulations I1ple1entin% the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code of 2))2.
Moreover, there +as no indication that Secs. =)2
57
and =)= should be %iven retroactive effect
to adversel& affect the presidents of the ABC: hence, the said provisions +ere to be applied
prospectivel&.
!he Court stated that there is no la+ that prohibits ABC presidents fro1 holdin% over as
1e1bers of theSangguniang a!an. n the contrar&, the IRR, prepared and issued b& the
versi%ht Co11ittee upon specific 1andate of Sec. #** of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code,
e/pressl& reco%niAes and %rants the hold0over authorit& to the ABC presidents under Art. 529,
Rule FFIF.
5)
!he Court upheld the application of the hold0over doctrine in the provisions of
the IRR and the issuances of the DI;,, +hose purpose +as to prevent a hiatus in the
%overn1ent pendin% the ti1e +hen the successor 1a& be chosen and inducted into office.
!he Court held that Sec. =)= of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code could not have been intended to
allo+ a %ap in the representation of the #aranga!s, throu%h the presidents of the ABC, in
the sanggunian. Since the ter1 of office of the punong #aranga!s elected in the March 57,
2)7) election and the ter1 of office of the presidents of the ABC had not &et e/pired, and
ta$in% into account the special role conferred upon, and the broader po+ers and functions
vested in the #aranga!s b& the Code, it +as inferred that the Code never intended to deprive
the#aranga!s of their representation in the sangguniang #a!an durin% the interre%nu1 +hen
the liga had &et to be for1all& or%aniAed +ith the election of its officers.
?nder the circu1stances prevailin% in ,alarosa, the Court considered the relevant provisions
in the IRR for1ulated b& the versi%ht Co11ittee and the pertinent issuances of the DI;, in
the nature of e/ecutive construction, +hich +ere entitled to %reat +ei%ht and respect.
Courts deter1ine the intent of the la+ fro1 the literal lan%ua%e of the la+ +ithin the la+Ns
four corners.
*9
If the lan%ua%e of the la+ is plain, clear and una1bi%uous, courts si1pl& appl&
the la+ accordin% to its e/press ter1s.
*2
If a literal application of the la+ results in absurdit&,
i1possibilit& or in3ustice, then courts 1a& resort to e/trinsic aids of statutor& construction li$e
the le%islative histor& of the la+,
*5
or 1a& consider the i1ple1entin% rules and re%ulations and
pertinent e/ecutive issuances in the nature of e/ecutive construction.
In this case, the re@uire1ents for the creation of a province contained in Sec. ="2 of the ;ocal
,overn1ent Code are clear, plain and una1bi%uous, and its literal application does not result
in absurdit& or in3ustice. <ence, the provision in Art. )'5( of the IRR e/e1ptin% a proposed
province co1posed of one or 1ore islands fro1 the land0area re@uire1ent cannot be
considered an e/ecutive construction of the criteria prescribed b& the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
It is an e/traneous provision not intended b& the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code and, therefore, is
null and void.
5+e(+er R.A. No. 6755 3o2&-)e# 4)(+ (+e re8u)re2e"(' o, Se3()o" 9:1 o, (+e Lo3a-
Go0er"2e"( Co#e )" 3rea()"* (+e Pro0)"3e o, D)"a*a( '-a"#'
It is undisputed that R.A. No. )*## co1plied +ith the inco1e re@uire1ent specified b& the
;ocal ,overn1ent Code. Bhat is disputed is its co1pliance +ith the land area or population
re@uire1ent.
R.A. No. )*## e/pressl& states that the Province of Dina%at Islands Gcontains an appro/i1ate
land area of ei%ht& thousand t+o hundred t+elve hectares '79,525 has.( or 795.25 s@.
$1., 1ore or less, includin% <ibuson Island and appro/i1atel& fort&0seven '=6( islets / /
/.G
**
R.A. No. )*##, therefore, failed to co1pl& +ith the land area re@uire1ent of 5,999 s@uare
$ilo1eters.
!he Province of Dina%at Islands also failed to co1pl& +ith the population re@uire1ent of not
less than 5#9,999 inhabitants as certified b& the NS. Based on the 5999 Census of Population
conducted b& the NS, the population of the Province of Dina%at Islands as of Ma& 2, 5999
+as onl& 29",)#2.
Althou%h the Provincial ,overn1ent of Suri%ao del Norte conducted a special census of
population in Dina%at Islands in 599*, +hich &ielded a population count of *62,999, the result
+as not certified b& the NS as re@uired b& the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
*=
Moreover,
respondents failed to prove that +ith the population count of *62,999, the population of the
ori%inal unit '1other Province of Suri%ao del Norte( +ould not be reduced to less than the
1ini1u1 re@uire1ent prescribed b& la+ at the ti1e of the creation of the ne+ province.
*#
Respondents contended that the lac$ of certification b& the NS +as cured b& the presence of
the officials of the NS durin% the deliberations on the house bill creatin% the Province of
Dina%at Islands, since the& did not ob3ect to the result of the special census conducted b& the
Provincial ,overn1ent of Suri%ao del Norte.
!he contention of respondents does not persuade.
Althou%h the NS representative to the Co11ittee on ;ocal ,overn1ent deliberations dated
Nove1ber 5=, 599# did not ob3ect to the result of the provincial %overn1entNs special census,
+hich +as conducted +ith the assistance of an NS district census coordinator, it +as a%reed
b& the participants that the said result +as not certified b& the NS, +hich is the re@uire1ent
of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code. Moreover, the NS representative, Statistician II Ma. Solita
C. -er%ara, stated that based on their co1putation, the population re@uire1ent of 5#9,999
inhabitants +ould be attained b& the Province of Dina%at Islands b& the &ear 59"#. !he
co1putation +as based on the %ro+th rate of the population, e/cludin% 1i%ration.
!he pertinent portion of the deliberation on <ouse Bill No. 77= creatin% the Province of
Dina%at reads4
!<E C<AIRMAN '<on. Alfredo S. ;i1(4 . . . !here is no proble1 +ith the land
area re@uire1ent and to the inco1e re@uire1ent. !he proble1 is +ith the population
re@uire1ent.
/ / / /
No+ because of this @uestion, +e +ould li$e to 1a$e it of record the stand and repl&
of National Statistics ffice. Can +e hear no+ fro1 Ms. Solita -er%araJ
MS. -ER,ARA. Be onl& certif& population based on the counts proclai1ed b& the
President. And in this case, +e onl& certif& the population based on the results of the
5999 census of population and housin%.
!<E C<AIRMAN. Is thatO
MS. -ER,ARA. Sir, as per Batas Pa1bansa, BP 65, +e onl& follo+ $un% ano po
P&on% 1andated b& the la+. So, as 1andated b& the la+, +e onl& certif& those counts
proclai1ed official b& the President.
!<E C<AIRMAN. But the %overn1ent of Suri%ao del Norte is headed b& ,overnor
Robert ;&ndon Ace Barbers and the& conducted this census in &ear 599* and &ours
+as conducted in &ear 5999. So, +ithin that ti1e fra1e, three &ears, there could be
an increase in population or transfer of residents, is that possibleJ
MS. -ER,ARA. Ces, sir, but then +e onl& conduct census of population ever& 29
&ears and +e conduct special census ever& five &ears. So, in this case, 1a&be b&
ne/t &ear, +e +ill be conductin% the 599".
!<E C<AIRMAN. But ne/t &ear +ill be @uite a lon% ti1e, the 1atter is no+ bein%
discussed on the table. So, is that the onl& thin% &ou could sa& that itNs not
authoriAed b& National Statistics fficeJ
MS. -ER,ARA. Ces, sir. Be have passed a resolutionLorders to the provincial
officesLto our provincial offices statin% that +e can provide assistance in the
conduct, but then +e cannot certif& the result of the conduct as official.
!<E C<AIRMAN. Ma& +e hear fro1 the <onorable ,overnor Robert ;&ndon Ace
Barbers, &our repl& on the state1ent of the representative fro1 National Statistics
ffice.
MR. BARBERS. !han$ &ou, Mr. Chair1an, %ood 1ornin%.
Ces, &our <onor, +e have conducted a special census in the &ear 599*. Be +ere
acco1panied b& one of the e1plo&ees fro1 the Provincial National Statistics ffice.
<o+ever, +e also ad1it the fact that our special census or the special census +e
conducted in 599* +as not validated or certified b& the National Statistics ffice, as
provided b& la+. So, +e ad1it on our part that the certification that I have issued
based on the sub1ission of records of each localit& or each 1unicipalit& fro1
Dina%at IslandHsI +ere true and correct based on our level, not on National Statistics
ffice level.
But +ith that particular ob3ection of E/ecutive Director Ericta on +hat +e have
conducted, I believe, &our <onor, it +ill be, ho+ever, 1oot and acade1ic in ter1s of
the provision under the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code on the re@uire1ents in 1a$in% one
area a province because +hat +e need is a 1ini1u1 of 59 1illion, as stated b& the
<onorable Chair1an and, of course, the land area. No+, in ter1s of the land area,
Dina%at IslandHsI is e/e1pted because /// the area is co1posed of 1ore than one
island. In fact, there are about =6 lo+ tide and hi%h tide, less than =9J ////
!<E C<AIRMAN. !han$ &ou, ,overnor. ////
/ / / /
!<E C<AIRMAN. Althou%h the clai1 of the %overnor is, even if +e hold in
abe&ance this @uestioned re@uire1ent, the other t+o re@uire1ents, as 1andated b&
la+, is alread& achieved Q the inco1e and the land area.
MS. -ER,ARA. Be do not @uestion po the results of an& locall& conducted census,
$asi po tala%an% +e provide assistance +hile the&Nre conductin% their o+n census.
But then, an% re@uire1ent po $asi is, basta +e +ill not certif&L+e +ill not certif&
an& population count as a result noon% $anilan% locall& conducted census. Eh, sa
;ocal ,overn1ent Code po, +e all $no+ na an% /// nire0re@uire nila is a
certification provided b& National Statistics ffice. PCon po P&on% re@uire1ent, di
ba poJ
!<E C<AIRMAN. o. But a certification, even thou%h not issued, cannot %o
a%ainst actual realit& because thatNs 3ust a bureaucratic re@uire1ent. An% ibi% $on%
sabihin, ipa%pala%a&, a couple Q isan% lala$i, isan% babae Qna%1a1ahalan sila. As an
offshoot of this und&in% love, na%$aroon n% 1%a ana$, hindi ba, pero hindi $asal,
itNs a live0in situation. An% tanon% $o lan%, +hether eventuall&, the& %ot 1arried or
not, that love re1ains. And +e cannot den& also the e/istence of the offsprin% out of
that love, di baJ Ea&aON&on lan%. $a&. So, +e 3ust s$ip on thisO.
MS. -ER,ARA. Cour <onor.
REP. EC;E ',;ENDA(. Mr. Chair1an.
!<E C<AIRMAN. Please, Ms. -er%ara.
MS. -ER,ARA. PCon% sinasabi nN&o po, sir, bale +e co1puted the esti1ated
population po n% Dina%at Province for the ne/t &ears. So, based on our co1putation,
1ari0reach po n% Dina%at ProvinceN&on% re@uire1ent na 5#9,999 population b& the
&ear 59"# pa po based on the %ro+th rates durin% the period of O.
!<E C<AIRMAN. 59"#J
MS. -ER,ARA. 59"# po.
/ / / /
!<E C<AIRMAN. . . . H!Ihis is not the center of our ar%u1ent since, as stated b&
the %overnor, $ahit ha hu+a% na 1unan% i0consider iton% population re@uire1ent,
eh, na$ala%pas na1an sila doon sa inco1e and land area, hindi baJ
$a&. ;etNs %ive the floor to Con%ress+o1an Ecleo.
REP. EC;E ',;ENDA(. !han$ &ou, Mr. Chair1an.
!his is in connection +ith the special census. Before this +as done, I +ent to the
NS. I tal$ed to Ad1inistrator Ericta on the population. !hen, I +as told that the
population, official population of Dina%at is 29",999. So, I told the1 that I +ant a
special census to be conducted because there are so 1an& houses that +ere not
reached b& the %overn1ent enu1erators, and I +ant to have 1& o+n or our o+n
special census +ith the help of the provincial %overn1ent. So, that is ho+ it +as
conducted. !hen, the& told 1e that the official population of the proposed province
+ill be on 5929. But at this 1o1ent, that is the official population of 29",999, even
if our special census, +e ca1e up +ith *62,999 plus.
So, that is it.
!<E C<AIRMAN. !han$ &ou, Con%ress+o1an.
Cour insi%hts +ill be reflected in 1& repl& to Senate President Drilon, so that he can
also ans+er the letter of Bishop Cabahu%.
MS. -ER,ARA. Mr. Chair1an, 1a& clarifications lan% din po a$o.
!<E C<AIRMAN. Please.
MS. -ER,ARA. PCon po sa sinasabi na1in% esti1ated population, +e onl& based
the co1putation doon sa %ro+th rate lan% po tala%a, e/cludin% the 1i%ration. ////
MR. C<AIRMAN. NoNn% 1%a residents.
MS. -ER,ARA. Ces, sir, natural %ro+th lan% po tala%a si&a.
*"
!o reiterate, +hen the Dina%at Islands +as proclai1ed a ne+ province on Dece1ber *, 599",
it had an official population of onl& 29",)#2 based on the NS 5999 Census of Population.
;ess than a &ear after the procla1ation of the ne+ province, the NS conducted the 5996
Census of Population. !he NS certified that as of Au%ust 2, 5996, Dina%at Islands had a total
population of onl& 259,72*,
*6
+hich +as still belo+ the 1ini1u1 re@uire1ent of 5#9,999
inhabitants.
*7
In fine, R.A. No. )*## failed to co1pl& +ith either the territorial or the population
re@uire1ent for the creation of the Province of Dina%at Islands.
!he Constitution clearl& 1andates that the creation of local %overn1ent units 1ust follo+ the
criteria established in the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
*)
An& dero%ation of or deviation fro1 the
criteria prescribed in the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code violates Sec. 29, Art. F of the
Constitution.
=9
<ence, R.A. No. )*## is unconstitutional for its failure to co1pl& +ith the criteria for the
creation of a province prescribed in Sec. ="2 of the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code.
Bhether the creation of the Province of Dina%at Islands is an act of %err&1anderin%
Petitioners contend that the creation of the Province of Dina%at Islands is an act of
%err&1anderin% on the %round that <ouse Bill No. 77= e/cluded Siar%ao Island, +ith a
population of 227,#*= inhabitants, fro1 the ne+ province for co1plete political do1inance b&
Con%ress+o1an ,lenda Ecleo0-illaro1an. Accordin% to petitioners, if Siar%ao +ere included
in the creation of the ne+ province, the territorial re@uire1ent of 5,999 s@uare $ilo1eters
+ould have been easil& satisfied and the enlar%ed area +ould have a bi%%er population of
599,*9# inhabitants based on the 5999 Census of Population b& the NS. But <ouse Bill No.
77= e/cluded Siar%ao Island, because its inclusion +ould result in uncertain political control.
Petitioners aver that, in the past, Con%ress+o1an ,lenda Ecleo0-illaro1an lost her
con%ressional seat t+ice to a 1e1ber of an influential fa1il& based in Siar%ao. !herefore, the
onl& +a& to co1plete political do1inance is b& %err&1anderin%, to carve a ne+ province in
Dina%at Islands +here the Philippine Benevolent Me1bers Association 'PMBA(, represented
b& the Ecleos, has the nu1bers.
!he ar%u1ent of petitioners is unsubstantiated.
G,err&1anderin%G is a ter1 e1plo&ed to describe an apportion1ent of representative districts
so contrived as to %ive an unfair advanta%e to the part& in po+er.
=2
.r. 8oa@uin ,. Bernas, a
1e1ber of the 2)7" Constitutional Co11ission, defined G%err&1anderin%G as the for1ation
of one le%islative district out of separate territories for the purpose of favorin% a candidate or a
part&.
=5
!he Constitution proscribes %err&1anderin%, as it 1andates each le%islative district to
co1prise, as far as practicable, a conti%uous, co1pact and ad3acent territor&.
=*
As stated b& the ffice of the Solicitor ,eneral, the Province of Dina%at Islands consists of
one island and about =6 islets closel& situated to%ether, +ithout the inclusion of separate
territories. It is an unsubstantiated alle%ation that the province +as created to favor
Con%ress+o1an ,lenda Ecleo0-illaro1an.
Alle%ations of fraud and irre%ularities durin% the plebiscite cannot be resolved in a special
civil action for certiorari
;astl&, petitioners alle%ed that R.A. No. )*## +as ratified b& a doubtful 1andate in a
plebiscite held on Dece1ber 5, 599#, +here the G&es votesG +ere "),)*=*, +hile the Gno
votesG +ere "*,#95. !he& contend that the 299R turnout of voters in the precincts of San 8ose,
Basilisa, Dina%at, Ca%dianao and ;ib3o +as contrar& to hu1an e/perience, and that the results
+ere statisticall& i1probable. Petitioners ad1it that the& did not file an& electoral protest
@uestionin% the results of the plebiscite, because the& lac$ed the 1eans to finance an
e/pensive and protracted election case.
Alle%ations of fraud and irre%ularities in the conduct of a plebiscite are factual in nature:
hence, the& cannot be the sub3ect of this special civil action for certiorari under Rule "# of the
Rules of Court, +hich is a re1ed& desi%ned onl& for the correction of errors of 3urisdiction,
includin% %rave abuse of discretion a1ountin% to lac$ or e/cess of 3urisdiction.
==
Petitioners
should have filed the proper action +ith the Co11ission on Elections. <o+ever, petitioners
ad1ittedl& chose not to avail the1selves of the correct re1ed&.
B<ERE.RE, the petition is ,RAN!ED. Republic Act No. )*##, other+ise $no+n as HAn
Act Creatin% the Province of Dina%at IslandsI, is hereb& declared unconstitutional. !he
procla1ation of the Province of Dina%at Islands and the election of the officials thereof are
declared N?;; and -ID. !he provision in Article ) '5( of the Rules and Re%ulations
I1ple1entin% the ;ocal ,overn1ent Code of 2))2 statin%, G!he land area re@uire1ent shall
not appl& +here the proposed province is co1posed of one '2( or 1ore islands,G is declared
N?;; and -ID.
No costs. S RDERED.