10/25/2016

LawPhilippines:CaseDigest:AbasKidav.Senate
0

HigitPa SusunodnaBlog

BumuongBlog Magsignin

Law Philippines
Effect and Application of Laws

What is remedial law? [Philippines]

Case Digest: Abas Kida v. Senate

G.R.No.196271,:October18,2011
DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA, in his personal capacity, and in representation of
MAGUINDANAO FEDERATION OF AUTONOMOUS IRRIGATORS ASSOCIATION,
INC., et al., Petitioners, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its
President JUAN PONCE ENRILE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et
al.,Respondents.
FACTS:
OnAugust1,1989ortwoyearsaftertheeffectivityofthe1987Constitution,Congress
acted through Republic Act (RA) No. 6734 entitled "An Act Providing for an Organic
ActfortheAutonomousRegioninMuslimMindanao."Theinitiallyassentingprovinces
wereLanaodelSur,Maguindanao,SuluandTawitawi.RANo.6734scheduledthefirst
regular elections for the regional officials of the ARMM on a date not earlier than 60
daysnorlaterthan90daysafteritsratification.
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
regionalofficialstothesecondMondayofSeptember2001.
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
http://lawphil.blogspot.com/2011/10/casedigestabaskidavsenate.html

1/4

10/25/2016

LawPhilippines:CaseDigest:AbasKidav.Senate

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
acceptedcertificatesofcandidaciesforthevariousregionalofficestobeelected.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
ARMMelections.
Severalcasesforcertiorari,prohibitionandmadamusoriginatingfromdifferentparties
arose as a consequence of the passage of R.A. No. 9333 and R.A. No. 10153
questioningthevalidityofsaidlaws.
OnSeptember 13, 2011, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the
implementation of RA No. 10153 and ordering the incumbent elective officials of
ARMMtocontinuetoperformtheirfunctionsshouldthesecasesnotbedecidedbythe
endoftheirtermonSeptember30,2011.
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
andplebisciterequirementsprescribedunderSections1and3,ArticleXVIIofRANo.
9094inordertobecomeeffective.

Other Posts

CaseDigest:
Imbongvs.
Ochoa,Jr.
CaseDigest:
Disiniv.
Secretaryof
Justice
CaseDigest:
AtongPaglaum
v.COMELEC
CaseDigest:
Hacienda
Luisitavs.
PARC
CaseDigest:
Lokin,Jr.&
Planasv.
COMELEC
CaseDigest:
Reyesv.
COMELEC
Article1190of
theCivilCode
ofthe
Philippines
CaseDigest:
Atty.Macalintal
v.PET(2011)
CaseDigest:
Bureauof
Customs
Employees
Associationv.
Teves,etal.

The petitions assailing RA No. 10153 further maintain that it is unconstitutional for its
failuretocomplywiththethreereadingrequirementofSection26(2),ArticleVIofthe
Constitution.Alsocitedasgroundsaretheallegedviolationsoftherightofsuffrageof
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
OICstoundertakethefunctionsoftheelectiveARMMofficialsuntiltheofficialselected
undertheMay2013regularelectionsshallhaveassumedoffice.Corrolarily,theyalso
arguethatthepowerofappointmentalsogavethePresidentthepowerofcontrolover
theARMM,incompleteviolationofSection16,ArticleXoftheConstitution.
ISSUE:
A.Whether or not the 1987 Constitution mandates the synchronization of
elections
B.WhetherornotthepassageofRANo.10153violatestheprovisionsofthe
1987Constitution
HELD:
Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the constitutionality of R.A.
10153intoto.TheCourtagreedwithrespondentOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)
onitspositionthattheConstitutionmandatessynchronization,citingSections1,2and
5,ArticleXVIII(TransitoryProvisions)ofthe1987Constitution.WhiletheConstitution
doesnotexpresslystatethatCongresshastosynchronizenationalandlocalelections,
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,soughttoattainsynchronizationofelections.
The objective behind setting a common termination date for all elective officials, done
amongothersthroughtheshorteningthetermsofthetwelvewinningsenatorswiththe
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, Congressnecessarilyhas to reconcile the schedule of the
ARMMs regular elections (which should have been held in August 2011 based on RA
No.9333)withthefixedscheduleofthenationalandlocalelections(fixedbyRANo.
7166tobeheldinMay2013).
InOsmev.CommissiononElections,thecourtthusexplained:
It is clear from the aforequoted 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 VicePresident
havebeensynchronizedtoendonthesamehour,dateandyearnoonof
June30,1992.

http://lawphil.blogspot.com/2011/10/casedigestabaskidavsenate.html

Popular Posts

CaseDigest:
Imbongvs.
Ochoa,Jr.
CaseDigest:
Disiniv.
Secretaryof
Justice
CaseDigest:
BayanMunav.
Romulo
CaseDigest:
AtongPaglaum
v.COMELEC
CaseDigest:
Boracay
Foundationv.
Provinceof
Aklan
CaseDigest:
Southern
Hemisphere
Engagement
Networkv.Anti
Terrorism
Council,etal.
MustRead,
BarArea,
Landmark
CasesinLegal
Ethics
CaseDigest:
Reyesv.
COMELEC
CaseDigest:
Lokin,Jr.&
Planasv.
COMELEC
CaseDigest:
UPvs.Dizon

2/4

10/25/2016

LawPhilippines:CaseDigest:AbasKidav.Senate
CaseDigest:
Navarro,etal.
v.Executive
Secretary
Ermita

It is likewise evident from the wording of the abovementioned Sections

that the term ofsynchronizationis used synonymously as the
phraseholding simultaneouslysince this is the precise intent in
terminating their Office Tenure on the sameday or occasion.This
commonterminationdatewillsynchronizefutureelectionstoonceevery
three years (Bernas, the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines,
Vol.II,p.605).
ThattheelectionforSenators,MembersoftheHouseofRepresentatives
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 xrecords of the
proceedingsintheConstitutionalCommission.[Emphasissupplied.]
Althoughcalledregionalelections,theARMMelectionsshouldbeincludedamongthe
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, vicegovernor 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,
autonomousregionsareconsideredoneoftheformsoflocalgovernments,asevident
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
devotedtoLocalGovernment.
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
synchronizationdemands.Congress,therefore,cannotbeaccusedofanyevasionof
apositivedutyorofarefusaltoperformitsdutynoristherereasontoaccordmeritto
thepetitionersclaimsofgraveabuseofdiscretion.
In relation with synchronization, both autonomy and the synchronization of national
and local elections are recognized and established constitutional mandates, with one
beingascompellingastheother.Iftheircompellingforcediffersatall,thedifferenceis
in their coverage synchronization operates on and affects the whole country, while
regional autonomy as the term suggests directly carries a narrower regional effect
althoughitsnationaleffectcannotbediscounted.
In all these, the need for interim measures is dictated by necessity outoftheway
arrangementsandapproacheswereadoptedorusedinordertoadjusttothegoalor
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
questionofwisdomlefttocongressionaldiscretion.
However, the holdover contained in R.A. No. 10153, for those who were elected in
executive and legislative positions in the ARMM during the 20082011 term as an
optionthatCongresscouldhavechosenbecauseaholdoverviolatesSection8,Article
X of the Constitution. In the case of the terms of local officials, their term has been
fixedclearlyandunequivocally,allowingnoroomforanyimplementinglegislationwith
respecttothefixedtermitselfandnovaguenessthatwouldallowaninterpretationfrom
this Court. Thus, the term of three years for local officials should stay at three (3)
yearsasfixedbytheConstitutionandcannotbeextendedbyholdoverbyCongress.
RANo.10153,doesnotinanywayamendwhattheorganiclawoftheARMM(RANo.
9054) sets outs in terms of structure of governance.What RA No. 10153 in fact only
does is to"appoint officersincharge 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
powerisfardifferentfromappointingelectiveARMMofficialsfortheabbreviatedterm
endingontheassumptiontoofficeoftheofficialselectedintheMay2013elections.It
mustbethereforeemphasizedthatthelawmustbeinterpretedasaninterimmeasure
tosynchronizeelectionsandmustnotbeinterpretedotherwise.
Recommend this on Google

http://lawphil.blogspot.com/2011/10/casedigestabaskidavsenate.html

3/4

10/25/2016

LawPhilippines:CaseDigest:AbasKidav.Senate

No comments yet

Add a comment as Jevilyne Trilles

NewerPost

Home

OlderPost

Subscribeto:PostComments(Atom)

Simpletemplate.PoweredbyBlogger.

http://lawphil.blogspot.com/2011/10/casedigestabaskidavsenate.html

4/4