DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA, in his personal capacity, and in representation of MAGUINDANAO FEDERATION

OF AUTONOMOUS IRRIGATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al v SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its

President JUAN PONCE ENRILE, et al

J. Brion October 18, 2011 No. 196271, No. 196305, No. 197221, No.
197280, No. 197282, No. 197392, No. 197454

Doctrine From the perspective of the Constitution, autonomous regions are considered on the forms of
local governments.
ARMM is constitutional on 3 grounds
o The power of Congress to legislate pursuant to a constitutional mandate
o Power to pass a law on synchronization of elections since COMELEC cannot fix the date of
special elections
o Powers granted to ARMM rests on the concept of autonomy as recognized and
established under 1987 constitution
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

Summary RA 10153 was passed into law providing for the ff: change of elections in the ARMM to synchronize with
national elections and for the president to appoint officials during the transition period. Petitioners
assailed constitutionality of law as it did not abide by provisions of organic act of ARMM (RA 9054). Court
held in favor of its constitutionality, further ruling that certain provisions in RA 9054 were
unconstitutional.

Facts: On June 30, 2011, Republic Act (RA) No. 10153, entitled An Act Providing for the Synchronization
of the Elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with the National and
Local Elections and for Other Purposes was enacted. The law provided for:
o The reset of ARMM elections from the 8th of August 2011, to the second Monday of May
2013 and every three (3) years thereafter, to coincide with the countrys regular national
and local elections. (Note: this effectively creates a gap period of 21 months)
o It also granted the President the power to appoint officers-in-charge (OICs) for the Office
of the Regional Governor, the Regional Vice-Governor, and the 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 (to take position during the gap period)
Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of the law on the grounds discussed in seriatim in the
ratio

Note: Legislative History of ARMM

1. 1987 Consti provided for the creation of Autonomous Region1

2. In 1989, the first organic act of the ARMM was made effective, RA 6734.
a. This organic act was made effective through a plebiscite as provided for in the Consti,
Sec 18 (par 2), Art X
b. Aside from the its many provisions providing for the basic structure of the region, the
only provision regarding the elections was that it would be held on a date not earlier

1 The State, through Sections 15 to 22, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, mandated the creation of autonomous regions in
Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. Section 15 states:
Section 15. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces,
cities, municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and
social structures, and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as
well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

Section 18 of the Article, on the other hand, directed Congress to enact an organic act for these autonomous regions to
concretely carry into effect the granted autonomy.
 than 60 days nor later than 90 days after its ratification
3. The organic was amended through RA 9054, also ratified through a plebiscite held on August
2001
a. Again, among the many features of this new organic act, the only provision regarding the
schedule of elections is that it should be done on the 2nd Mon of Sept
4. Throughout 2001-2011, Congress has passed laws changing the date of the ARMM regional
election. The subject matter of these laws were the schedule of the elections
a. RA 9140- From Sept 2001 to Nov 2001
b. RA 9333- Nov to 2nd Mon of Aug
c. RA 10153: 2nd Mon of Aug to 2 nd Mon of May, synchronizing the regional
elections to that of nationals. (Disputed law)

Ratio/Issue IN RE: CHANGE OF DATE OF ELECTION

s Whether the 1987 Constitution mandates the synchronization of elections [YES]
1) Argument of the OSG: The Constitution mandates synchronization pursuant to Sections 1 2, 23 and 54,
Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of the 1987 Constitution.
2) The Court agrees with the OSG. The Constitutional Commission deliberations, read with the provisions of
the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution, all serve as patent indicators of the constitutional mandate
to hold synchronized national and local elections, starting the second Monday of May, 1992 and for all the
following elections.
3) 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.

Whether the synchronization mandated by the Constitution includes the regional elections of
the ARMM [YES]
1) 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.
2) Understood in its ordinary sense, the word local refers to something that primarily serves the needs of a
particular limited district, often a community or minor political subdivision. Regional elections in the
ARMM for the positions of governor, vice-governor and regional assembly representatives obviously fall
within this classification, since they pertain to the elected officials who will serve within the limited region

Section 18. The Congress shall enact an organic act for each autonomous region with the assistance and participation of the
regional consultative commission composed of representatives appointed by the President from a list of nominees from
multisectoral bodies. The organic act shall define the basic structure of government for the region consisting of the executive
department and legislative assembly, both of which shall be elective and representative of the constituent political units. The
organic acts shall likewise provide for special courts with personal, family and property law jurisdiction consistent with the
provisions of this Constitution and national laws.

The creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when approved by a majority of the votes cast by the constituent
units in a plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting favorably in such
plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region.

2 Section 1. The first elections of Members of the Congress under this Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of
May, 1987. The first local elections shall be held on a date to be determined by the President, which may be simultaneous
with the election of the Members of the Congress. It shall include the election of all Members of the city or municipal councils
in the Metropolitan Manila area.

3 Section 2. The Senators, Members of the House of Representatives and the local officials first elected under this
Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992. Of the Senators elected in the election in 1992, the first twelve obtaining
the highest number of votes shall serve for six year and the remaining twelve for three years.

4 Section 5. The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice President elected in the February 7, 1986 election is, for
purposes of synchronization of elections, hereby extended to noon of June 30, 1992. The first regular elections for President
and Vice-President under this Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of May, 1992.
 of ARMM.
3) As applied, autonomous regions are considered one of the forms of local governments, as evident from
Article X of the Constitution entitled Local Government. That an autonomous region is considered a form
of local government is also reflected in Section 1 5, Article X of the Constitution.

Whether the passage of RA No. 10153 violates Section 26(2), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution [NO]
1) Petitioners: RA No. 10153 failed to comply with Section 26(2), Article VI of the Constitution, which
provides that before bills passed by either the House or the Senate can become laws, they must pass
through three readings on separate days. The exception is when the President certifies to the necessity of
the bills immediate enactment.
2) In Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, the Court explained the presidential certification dispensed with the
requirement not only of printing but also that of reading the bill on separate days.
3) As applied, since the President wrote to the Speaker of the House of Representatives to certify the
necessity of the immediate enactment of a law synchronizing the ARMM elections with the national and
local elections, the President's certification has the effect of exempting both the House and the Senate
from complying with the three separate readings requirement

Whether the passage of RA No. 10153 requires a supermajority vote and plebiscite [NO]
Does the postponement of the ARMM regular elections constitute an amendment to Section 7, Article
XVIII of RA No. 9054? NO. RA No. 9333 and RA No. 10153 are not amendments to RA No. 9054
1) Petitioners argued that RA No. 9333 and RA No. 10153 are amendments to the organic act, hence a
plebiscite is necessary for their effectivity.
2) The contention is not meritorious. Neither RA No. 9333 nor RA No. 10153 amends RA No. 9054.
3) RA No. 9054 (2nd organic act) only provides for the schedule of the first ARMM elections and does not fix
the date of the regular elections. Hence, there is a need for Congress to fix the date of the subsequent
ARMM regular elections, which it did by enacting RA No. 9333 and thereafter, RA No. 10153.
4) RA No. 9333 and RA No. 10153 cannot be considered amendments to RA No. 9054 as they merely filled in
a gap in RA No. 9054 or supplemented the law by providing the date of the subsequent regular elections.

Does the requirement of a supermajority vote for amendments or revisions to RA No. 9054
violate Section 1 and Section 16(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the corollary doctrine
on irrepealable laws? YES. Supermajority voting requirement is unconstitutional for
giving RA No. 9054 the character of an irrepealable law

1. Section 16(2), Article VI of the Constitution provides that a majority of each House shall constitute a
quorum to do business. As long as majority of the members of the House of Representatives or the
Senate are present, these bodies have the quorum, and within a quorum, a vote of majority is generally
sufficient to enact laws or approve acts.
2. In contrast, Section 1, Article XVII of RA No. 9054 requires a higher voting requirement of no less than
two-thirds (2/3) of the Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, voting separately, in
order to effectively amend RA No. 9054.
3. This supermajority requirement is higher than what the Constitution requires- a complete anathema to
democratic principles.

Does the requirement of a plebiscite apply only in the creation of autonomous regions under
paragraph 2, Section 18, Article X of the 1987 Constitution? YES. Section 3, Article XVII of RA
No. 9054 excessively enlarged the plebiscite requirement found in Section 18, Article
X of the Constitution

1. Section 3, Art XVII of RA 9054 provides, Any amendment to or revision of this Organic Act shall become
effective only when approved by a majority of the vote cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose, which
shall be held not earlier than sixty (60) days or later than ninety (90) days after the approval of such
amendment or revision.
2. Section 18, Article X of the Constitution states that the plebiscite is required only for the creation of
autonomous regions and for determining which provinces, cities and geographic areas will be included in

5 Section 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities,
and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao, and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.
 the autonomous regions.
3. This requirement means that only amendments to, or revisions of, the Organic Act constitutionally-
essential to the creation of autonomous regions i.e., those aspects specifically mentioned in the
Constitution which Congress must provide for in the Organic Act require ratification through a plebiscite.
4. These amendments to the Organic Act relate to: (a) the basic structure of the regional government; (b)
the regions judicial system, i.e., the special courts with personal, family, and property law jurisdiction;
and, (c) the grant and extent of the legislative powers constitutionally conceded to the regional
government under Section 20, Article X of the Constitution.
5. The date of the ARMM elections does not fall under any of the matters that the Constitution specifically
mandated Congress to provide for in the Organic Act and cannot be construed as a substantial
amendment of the Organic Act that would require compliance with these requirements.
6. Considering the foregoing, Section 3 is unconstitutional as it requires a plebiscite for ALL amendments
and revisions, while the Constitution merely requires the plebiscite on special matters as already
identified above.

IN RE: APPOINTING POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT

(The petitioners argue that the president cannot appoint officials to fill the 21 month gap period, but
rather, that the incumbent remain in position pursuant to Sec 7, Art 7 of RA 9054, or that the COMELEC
hold special elections for the 21 month period)

Whether the holdover provision in Section 7, Article VII of RA No. 9054 is constitutional [NO]
1) Sec 7, Art 7 (RA 9054) provides, Terms of Office of Elective Regional Officials. (1) Terms of Office. The
terms of office of the Regional Governor, Regional Vice Governor and members of the Regional Assembly
shall be for a period of three (3) years, which shall begin at noon on the 30th day of September next
following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date three (3) years thereafter. The
incumbent elective officials of the autonomous region shall continue in effect until their
successors are elected and qualified.( holdover provision)
2) A holdover violates Section 8, Article X of the Constitution, which states that Section 8. The term of
office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be
three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.
3) Since elective ARMM officials are local officials, they are covered and bound by the three-year term limit
prescribed by the Constitution; they cannot extend their term through a holdover.
4) In Osmena v Comelec, the Court held that the legislature cannot, by an act postponing the election to fill
an office the term of which is limited by the Constitution, extend the term of the incumbent beyond the
period as limited by the Constitution.
5) In the decided cases of Sambarani v. COMELEC, Adap v. Comelec, and Montesclaros v. Comelec, the Court
ruled that the elective officials could hold onto their positions in a hold over capacity, but these cases
refer to elective barangay and sangguniang kabataan officials whose terms of office are not explicitly
provided for in the Constitution.
6) Also, in passing RA No. 10153, the Congress made it explicitly clear that it had the intention of
suppressing the holdover rule that prevailed under RA No. 9054 by completely removing this provision.
The deletion is a policy decision that is wholly within the discretion of Congress to make in the exercise of
its plenary legislative powers, and this Court cannot pass upon questions of wisdom of legislation.

Whether the COMELEC has the authority to order special elections [NO]
1) Pursuant to Section 3, Article X 6, on local government, of the 1987 Constitution, no elections may be held
on any other date for the positions of local officials, except when so provided by another Act of Congress,
or upon orders of a body or officer to whom Congress may have delegated either the power or the
authority to ascertain or fill in the details in the execution of that power. This is also true for the election

6 Section 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for xxx the qualifications, election,
appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials.
 of President, Vice President,7 Members of Congress8.
2) As applied, Congress has made a policy decision in the exercise of its legislative wisdom that it shall not
call special elections as an adjustment measure in synchronizing the ARMM elections. Instead,it acted by
postponing the scheduled August 2011 elections and synchronizing it with the presidential, congressional
and other local elections. After Congress has so acted, neither the Executive nor the Judiciary can act to
the contrary by ordering special elections instead at the call of the COMELEC.
3) Furthermore, the constitutional power of the COMELEC is limited to enforcing and administering all laws
and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. The Congress did grant, via Sections 5 9 and 610 of
BP 881, COMELEC with the power to postpone elections to another date but only where the elections do
not occur or had to be suspended because of unexpected and unforeseen circumstances.
4) As applied, the postponement of the ARMM elections is by law i.e., by congressional policy and is
pursuant to the constitutional mandate of synchronization of national and local elections, and
not due to extralegal causes that obstruct the holding of elections as provided in Sections 5 and 6, BP
881.

Whether the Court has power to shorten the terms of elective officials [NO]
1) The Court is not empowered to adjust the terms of elective officials. Based on the Constitution, the power
to fix the term of office of elective officials is specifically given to Congress. However, not even Congress
and certainly not this Court, has the authority to fix the terms of elective local officials in the ARMM for
less, or more, than the constitutionally mandated three years pursuant to Section 8, Article X of the
Constitution.
2) Thus, in the same way that the term of elective ARMM officials cannot be extended through a holdover,
the term cannot be shortened by putting an expiration date earlier than the three (3) years that the
Constitution itself commands.
3) Neither the Court nor Congress can opt to shorten the tenure of those officials to be elected in the ARMM
elections instead of acting on their term. As with the fixing of the elective term, neither Congress nor the
Court has any legal basis to shorten the tenure of elective ARMM officials. They would commit an
unconstitutional act and gravely abuse their discretion if they do so.

Whether the grant of the power to the President to appoint OICs for a fixed and specific
period as an interim measure, and as allowed under Section 16, Article VII of the
Constitution, unconstitutional [NO]
1) The appointing power, which is executive in nature, is embodied in Section 16 11, Article VII of the
Constitution. This provision classifies into four groups the officers that the President can appoint: 1 st: the

7 Section 4(3), Article VII, with the same tenor but applicable solely to the President and Vice-President, states: Unless otherwise
provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May.

8 Section 8, Article VI, applicable to the legislature, provides: Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the
Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May.

9 Section 5 of BP 881 reveals that it is meant to address instances where elections have already been scheduled to take
place but have to be postponed because of (a) violence, (b) terrorism, (c) loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or
records, (d) force majeure, and (e) other analogous causes of such a nature that the holding of a free, orderly and honest
election should become impossible in any political subdivision.

10 Section 6 of BP 881 applies only to those situations where elections have already been scheduled but do not take place
because of (a) force majeure, (b) violence, (c) terrorism, (d) fraud, or (e) other analogous causes the election in any polling
place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting,
or after the voting and during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass
thereof, such election results in a failure to elect.

11 Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of
the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls or officers of the armed forces from the rank of
colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also
appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and
those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. xxx
 heads of the executive departments; ambassadors; other public ministers and consuls; officers of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, from the rank of colonel or naval captain; and other officers whose
appointments are vested in the President in this Constitution; 2 nd: all other officers of the government
whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law; 3rd: those whom the President may be
authorized by law to appoint; and 4th: officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may
by law vest in the President alone.
2) Since the President's authority to appoint OICs emanates from RA No. 10153, it falls under the third
group of officials that the President can appoint pursuant to Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution,
hence, facially rests on clear constitutional basis.
3) Also it must be noted that RA No. 10153 did not amend RA No. 9054 but only provided for
synchronization of elections and for the interim measures that must in the meanwhile prevail. Aside from
its order for synchronization, it is purely and simply an interim measure responding to the adjustments
that the synchronization requires.
4) Finally, the appointment of OICs is an absolute necessity as a period of 21 months or close to 2 years
intervenes from the time that the incumbent ARMM elective officials terms expired and the time the new
ARMM elective officials begin their terms in 2013. This vacuum in governance would clearly cause
disruptions and delays in the delivery of basic services to the people, in the proper management of the
affairs of the regional government, and in responding to critical developments that may arise..

Whether the synchronization of elections defeats or impedes the autonomy constitutionally

granted to the ARMM [NO]
1) The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole based on the principle in constitutional construction ut
magis valeat quam pereat. Hence, one mandate should not be given importance over the other except
where the primacy of one over the other is clear.
2) The autonomy granted to the ARMM cannot be invoked to defeat national policies and concerns. Since
the synchronization of elections is not just a regional concern but a national one, the ARMM is subject to
it; the regional autonomy granted to the ARMM cannot be used to exempt the region from having to act
in accordance with a national policy mandated by no less than the Constitution.

Whether Congress acted with grave abuse of discretion in enacting RA No. 10153 [NO]
1) 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.
2) Also, since every statute is presumed valid, Congress has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality
of its acts, and the party challenging the validity of a statute has the onerous task of rebutting this
presumption. Any reasonable doubt about the validity of the law should be resolved in favor of its
constitutionality.

Held Consolidated petitions are DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the constitutionality of this law is UPHELD.

Prepared by: Kim Dela Cruz & slightly modified by Carla Cucueco [LocGov | Loanzon]