Abbas v.

COMELEC, 179 SCRA 287

Facts: Datu Firdausi Abbas, et.al. challenged the constitutionality of R.A. 6734 on the
following grounds:
1) R. A. 6734 conflicts with the Tripoli Agreement (what conflicts the case doesn’t say)
2) R. A. 6734 provides for the unconditional creation of the ARMM and not through the mode
of a plebiscite as provided in the Constitution
3) The Constitution provides that ARMM shall be approved by a majority of votes cast in a
plebiscite by all voters residing in the provinces and cities affected, but R.A. 6734 says “by a
majority or votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite and only those provinces and
cities where a majority of votes cast in favor of the Organic Act shall be included in the
Autonomous Region. R.A. 6734 thus conflicts the Constitution
4) R. A. 6734 includes provinces and cities which do not have the same cultural and
historical heritage and other relevant characteristics needed for admission to the ARMM
5) R. A. 6734 violates constitutional guarantee on freedom of exercise of religion as some its
provisions run counter to the Koran
6) The creation of an Oversight Committee to supervise the transfer of power to the ARMM is
contrary to the constitutional mandate that the creation of the autonomous region hinges
solely on the result of the plebiscite
7)R. A. 6734 says “…that only the provinces and cities voting favorably in such plebiscite
shall be included in the ARMM. The provinces and cities which in the plebiscite do not vote
for inclusion in the Autonomous Region shall remain in the existing administrative
regions: Provided however, that the President may, by administrative determination, merge
the existing regions. This provision, Abbas claims, is contrary to the Constitutional mandate
that, “No province city, municipality or barangay may be created, divided, merged,abolished
or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established with
thelocal government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite in the unitsdirectly affected.” (Art. 10, Sec. 10, 1987 Constitution)

Held: Abbas is wrong. Reasons:

1) R. A. 6734 as an enactment of Congress, is superior to the Tripoli Agreement, being a
subsequent law to the Tripoli Agreement (though in my opinion it wouldn’t matter if R. A.
6734 was prior to the Tripoli Agreement)
2) The transitory provisions of R. A. 6734 does provide for a plebiscite (1 guess nobody
reads the transitory provisions)
3) The framers of the Constitution must have intended that the majority of votes must come
from each of the constituent units and not all the votes of the provinces and cities (I couldn’t
understand how the justices arrived at this conclusion)
4) It is not for the Court to decide on the wisdom of the law concerning the inclusion of
provinces and cities which Abbas claims should not be included in a plebiscite
5) There is no actual controversy yet as to any violation of freedom of religion, only a
potential one
6) The creation of an Oversight Committee is merely procedural and in fact will aid in the
timely creation of the ARMM
7) The power of the President to merge administrative regions is inherent in his power of
general supervisionover local governments. Besides, administrative regions are not
territorial or political regions. Examples of administrative regions are Regions I to XII and the
NCR