FACTS: On August 1, 1989 or two years after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, Congress

acted through Republic Act (RA) No. 6734 entitled "An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao."The initially assenting provinces were Lanao del
Sur,Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-tawi.RA No. 6734 scheduled the first regular elections for the
regional officials of the ARMM on a date not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after its
ratification.
Thereafter, R.A. No. 9054 was passed to further enhance the structure of ARMM under R.A.
6734. Along with it is the reset of the regular elections for the ARMM regional officials to the
second Monday of September 2001.
RA No. 9333was subsequently passed by Congress to reset the ARMM regional elections to the
2ndMonday of August 2005, and on the same date every 3 years thereafter. Unlike RA No.
6734 and 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 onAugust
8, 2011. COMELEC had begun preparations for these elections and had accepted certificates of
candidacies for the various regional offices to be elected.But onJune 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 .With the enactment into law of RA No. 10153, the COMELEC
stopped its preparations for the ARMM elections.
Several cases for certiorari, prohibition and madamus originating from different parties arose as
a consequence of the passage of R.A. No. 9333 and R.A. No. 10153 questioning the validity of
said laws.
The petitioners assailing RA No. 9140, RA No. 9333 and RA No. 10153 assert that these laws
amend RA No. 9054 and thus, have to comply with the supermajority vote and plebiscite
requirements prescribed under Sections 1 and 3, Article XVII of RA No. 9094 in order to
become effective.
The petitions assailing RA No. 10153 further maintain that it is unconstitutional for its failure to
comply with the three-reading requirement of Section 26(2), Article VI of the Constitution.Also
cited as grounds are the alleged violations of the right of suffrage of the people of ARMM, as
well as the failure to adhere to the "elective and representative" character of the executive and
legislative departments of the ARMM. Lastly, the petitioners challenged the grant to the
President of the power to appoint OICs to undertake the functions of the elective ARMM officials
until the officials elected under the May 2013 regular elections shall have assumed office.
Corrolarily, they also argue that the power of appointment also gave the President the power of
control over the ARMM, in complete violation of Section 16, Article X of the Constitution.
ISSUE: A. Does the 1987 Constitution mandate the synchronization of ARMM elections with the
regular national and local elections of the country?
HELD: Yes, while the Constitution does not expressly state that Congress has to synchronize
national and local elections, the clear intent towards this objective can be gleaned from the
Transitory Provisions (Article XVIII) of the Constitution, which show the extent to which the
Constitutional Commission, by deliberately making adjustments to the terms of the incumbent
officials, sought to attain synchronization of elections.
The objective behind setting a common termination date for all elective officials, done among
others through the shortening the terms of the twelve winning senators with the least number of
votes, is to synchronize the holding of all future elections whether national or local to once every
three years. This intention finds full support in the discussions during the Constitutional
Commission deliberations. Furthermore, to achieve synchronization, Congress necessarily has
to reconcile the schedule of the ARMMs regular elections (which should have been held in
August 2011 based on RA No. 9333) with the fixed schedule of the national and local elections
(fixed by RA No. 7166 to be held in May 2013).
In Osme v. Commission on Elections, the court thus explained:
It is clear from the afore quoted provisions of the 1987 Constitution that the terms of office of
Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, the local officials, the President and the
Vice-President have been synchronized to end on the same hour, date and year noon of June
30, 1992.
It is likewise evident from the wording of the above-mentioned Sections that the term of
synchronizationis used synonymously as the phrase holding simultaneously since this is the
precise intent in terminating their Office Tenure on the same day or occasion. This common
termination date will synchronize future elections to once every three years (Bernas, the
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Vol. II, p. 605).
That the election for Senators, Members of the House of Representatives and the local officials
(under Sec. 2, Art. XVIII) will have to be synchronized with the election for President and Vice
President (under Sec. 5, Art. XVIII) is likewise evident from the x x x records of the proceedings
in the Constitutional Commission.

Although called regional elections, the ARMM elections should be included among the elections
to be synchronized as it is a "local" election based on the wording and structure of the
Constitution. Regional elections in the ARMM for the positions of governor, vice-governor and
regional assembly representatives fall within the classification of "local" elections, since they
pertain to the elected officials who will serve within the limited region of ARMM. From the
perspective of the Constitution, autonomous regions are considered one of the forms of local
governments, as evident from Article Xof the Constitution entitled "Local
Government."Autonomous regions are established and discussed under Sections 15 to 21 of
this Article the article wholly devoted to Local Government.

Second issue: Congress, in passing RA No. 10153, acted strictly within its constitutional
mandate. Given an array of choices, it acted within due constitutional bounds and with marked
reasonableness in light of the necessary adjustments that synchronization demands. Congress,
therefore, cannot be accused of any evasion of a positive duty or of a refusal to perform its duty
nor is there reason to accord merit to the petitioners claims of grave abuse of discretion.
In relation with synchronization, both autonomy and the synchronization of national and local
elections are recognized and established constitutional mandates, with one being as compelling
as the other. If their compelling force differs at all, the difference is in their coverage;
synchronization operates on and affects the whole country, while regional autonomy as the term
suggests directly carries a narrower regional effect although its national effect cannot be
discounted.
In all these, the need for interim measures is dictated by necessity; out-of-the-way
arrangements and approaches were adopted or used in order to adjust to the goal or objective
in sight in a manner that does not do violence to the Constitution and to reasonably accepted
norms.Under these limitations, the choice of measures was a question of wisdom left to
congressional discretion.

However, the holdover contained in R.A. No. 10153, for those who were elected in executive
and legislative positions in the ARMM during the 2008-2011 term as an option that Congress
could have chosen because a holdover violates Section 8, Article X of the Constitution. In the
case of the terms of local officials, their term has been fixed clearly and unequivocally, allowing
no room for any implementing legislation with respect to the fixed term itself and no vagueness
that would allow an interpretation from this Court. Thus, the term of three years for local officials
should stay at three (3) years as fixed by the Constitution and cannot be extended by holdover
by Congress.

RA No. 10153, does not in any way amend what the organic law of the ARMM(RA No. 9054)
sets outs in terms of structure of governance. What RA No. 10153 in fact only does is to"appoint
officers-in-charge for the Office of the Regional Governor, Regional Vice Governor and
Members of the Regional Legislative Assembly who shall perform the functions pertaining to the
said offices until the officials duly elected in the May 2013 elections shall have qualified and
assumed office."This power is far different from appointing elective ARMM officials for the
abbreviated term ending on the assumption to office of the officials elected in the May 2013
elections. It must be therefore emphasized that the law must be interpreted as an interim
measure to synchronize elections and must not be interpreted otherwise.