DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA vs.

SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011
BRION, J.:

Facts:

On August 1, 1989, Congress acted through Republic Act (RA) No. 6734 entitled "An Act
Providing for an Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao." A plebiscite
was held on November 6, 1990 as required by Section 18(2), Article X of RA No. 6734.

RA No. 9054 (entitled "An Act to Strengthen and Expand the Organic Act for the Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 6734, entitled An Act
Providing for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, as Amended") was the next
legislative act passed by the Congress.

Congress passed the next law affecting ARMM – RA No. 9140. This law thus reset the first
regular elections originally scheduled under RA No. 9054, to November 26, 2001. Later, RA No.
9054 was ratified in a plebiscite held on August 14, 2001.

RA No. 9333 was subsequently passed by Congress to reset the ARMM regional elections to the
2nd Monday of August 2005, and on the same date every 3 years thereafter. Unlike RA No.
6734and RA No. 9054, RA No. 9333 was not ratified in a plebiscite.
Pursuant to RA No. 9333, the next ARMM regional elections should have been held on August
8, 2011. COMELEC had begun preparations for these elections and had accepted certificates of
candidacies for the various regional offices to be elected. But on June 30, 2011, RA No. 10153
was enacted, resetting the ARMM elections to May 2013, to coincide with the regular national
and local elections of the country.

RA No. 10153 was originated in the House of Representatives as House Bill (HB) No. 4146,
seeking the postponement of the ARMM elections scheduled on August 8, 2011. On March 22,
2011, the House of Representatives passed HB No. 4146, with one hundred ninety one (191)
Members voting in its favor. Thereafter adopted its own version and Senate Bill No. 2756 (SB
No. 2756), on June 6, 2011. Thirteen (13) Senators voted favorably for its passage. On June 7,
2011, the House of Representative concurred with the Senate amendments, and on June 30,
2011, the President signed RA No. 10153 into law.

The early challenge to RA No. 10153 came through a petition filed with this Court assailing the
constitutionality of both HB No. 4146 and SB No. 2756, and challenging the validity of RA No.
9333 as well for non-compliance with the constitutional plebiscite requirement.

With the enactment into law of RA No. 10153, the COMELEC stopped its preparations for the
ARMM elections. The law gave rise as well to the filing of the following petitions against its
constitutionality.
Procedural History:

Petitioner filed a petition for the constitutionality of both HB No. 4146 and SB No. 2756,
and challenging the validity of RA No. 9333 as well for non-compliance with the constitutional
plebiscite requirement and assailing the validity of RA No. 9333. Hence, they filed a petition for
Prohibition and Mandamus against the COMELEC, docketed as G.R. No. 197280, to assail the
constitutionality of RA No. 9140, RA No. 9333 and RA No. 10153. All were dismissed by the
Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether the passage of RA No. 10153 violates Section 26(2), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution.

Held:
No, the passage of RA No. 10153 does not violate Section 26(2), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution.

Under the law, no bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed
three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed
to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity
of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency.

In this case, the President wrote to the Speaker of the House of Representatives certifying
the necessity of the immediate enactment of a law synchronizing the ARMM elections with the
national and local elections. Thus, under the ruling of Tolentino the President’s certification
exempted both the House and the Senate from having to comply with the three separate readings
requirement.

Therefore, RA No. 10153 is constitutional.