EN BANC

[ GR No. 180050, Apr 12, 2011 ]

RODOLFO G. NAVARRO v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA +

RESOLUTION

NACHURA, J.:

For consideration of the Court is the Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment dated October
20, 2010 filed by Movant-Intervenors[1] (Congressman Francisco T. Matugas (incumbent Congressman
of the First Legislative District of Surigao del Norte), Hon. Sol T. Matugas, Hon. Arturo Carlos A. Egay, Jr.
(incumbent Governor and Vice Governor, respectively, of the Province of Surigao del Norte), Hon.
Simeon Vicente G. Castrence, Hon. Mamerto D. Galanida, Hon. Margarito M. Longos, and Hon. Cesar M.
Bagundol (incumbent Board Members of the First Provincial District of Surigao del Norte).

dated and filed on October 29, 2010, praying that the Court (a) recall the entry of judgment, and
(b) resolve their motion for reconsideration of the July 20, 2010 Resolution.
To provide a clear perspective of the instant motion, we present hereunder a brief background of the
relevant antecedents--

FACTS
On October 2, 2006, the President of the Republic approved into law Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9355 (An Act Creating the Province of Dinagat Islands)
.[2] On December 3, 2006, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) conducted the
mandatory plebiscite for the ratification of the creation of the province under the Local
Government Code (LGC).
[3] The plebiscite yielded 69,943 affirmative votes and 63,502 negative votes .

[4] With the approval of the people (through the plebiscite) from both the mother province of
Surigao del Norte and the Province of Dinagat Islands (Dinagat), the President appointed the interim
set of provincial officials who took their oath of office on January 26, 2007. Later, during the May
14, 2007 synchronized elections, the Dinagatnons elected their new set of provincial officials
who assumed office on July 1, 2007.[5]
On November 10, 2006, petitioners Rodolfo G. Navarro, Victor F. Bernal and Rene O. Medina,
former political leaders of Surigao del Norte, filed before this Court a petition for certiorari
and prohibition (G.R. No. 175158) challenging the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9355.[ 6] The
Court dismissed the petition on technical grounds. Their motion for reconsideration was also
denied.[7]
Undaunted, petitioners, as taxpayers and residents of the Province of Surigao del Norte, filed
another petition for certiorari[8] seeking to nullify R.A. No. 9355 for being unconstitutional .
They alleged that the creation of Dinagat as a new province, if uncorrected, would perpetuate an illegal
act of Congress, and would unjustly deprive the people of Surigao del Norte of a large chunk of the
provincial territory, Internal Revenue Allocation (IRA), and rich resources from the area . They pointed
out that when the law was passed, Dinagat had a land area of 802.12 square kilometers
only and a population of only 106,951, failing to comply with Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution and of Section 461 of the LGC, on both counts, viz.--

Constitution, Article X - Local Government

Section 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or
its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the
local government code and subject to the approval by a majority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
LGC, Title IV, Chapter I

Local Govt Code

Section 461. Requisites for Creation. –
(a) A province may be created if it has an average annual income, as certified by the
Department of Finance, of not less than Twenty million pesos (P20,000,000.00) based on 1991
constant prices and either of the following requisites:

(i) a continuous territory of at least two thousand (2,000) square kilometers , as certified
by the Lands Management Bureau; or

(ii) a population of not less than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) inhabitants as
certified by the National Statistics Office:

Provided, That, the creation thereof shall not reduce the land area, population, and income of
the original unit or units at the time of said creation to less than the minimum requirements
prescribed herein.
(b) The territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two (2) or more islands or is separated
by a chartered city or cities which do not contribute to the income of the province .
(c) The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund, exclusive
of special funds, trust funds, transfers, and non-recurring income . (Emphasis supplied.)
On February 10, 2010, the Court rendered its Decision[9] granting the petition.[10] The
Decision declared R.A. No. 9355 unconstitutional for failure to comply with the requirements
on population and land area in the creation of a province under the LGC. Consequently, it
declared the proclamation of Dinagat and the election of its officials as null and void. The Decision
likewise declared as null and void the provision on Article 9(2) of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the LGC (LGC-IRR), stating that, "[t]he land

Several motions after has led to the case at bar

With the ISSUE

of whether or not the creation of provinces is covered by the exemption stated

in Article 9 Section 2 of the implementing rules and regulations of the Local
Government Code
LGC-IRR: ARTICLE 9. Provinces. – (a) Requisites for creation – A province shall not be created
unless the following requisites on income and either population or land area are present:
(1) Income – An average annual income of not less than Twenty Million pesos (₱20,000,000.00)
for the immediately preceding two (2) consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices, as
certified by DOF. The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general
fund, exclusive of special funds, special accounts, transfers, and non-recurring income; and
(2) Population or land area – Population which shall not be less than two hundred fifty
thousand (250,000) inhabitants, as certified by NSO; or land area which must be contiguous
with an area of at least two thousand (2,000) square kilometers, as certified by LMB. The
territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two (2) or more islands or is separated by a
chartered city or cities which do not contribute to the income of the province. The land area
requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one
(1) or more islands. The territorial jurisdiction of a province sought to be created shall be
properly identified by metes and bounds.
area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands"
for being beyond the ambit of Article 461 of the LGC, inasmuch as such exemption is not expressly
provided in the law.[11]

As the law-making branch of the government, indeed, it was the Legislature that imposed the criteria for
the creation of a province as contained in Sec. 461 of the Local Government Code. No law has yet been
passed amending Sec. 461 of the Local Government Code, so only the criteria stated therein are the
bases for the creation of a province.

HELD
The Court held that The Constitution clearly mandates that the criteria in the
Local Government Code must be followed in the creation of a province; hence,
any derogation of or deviation from the criteria prescribed in the Local
Government Code violates Section 10, Art. X of the Constitution.
The Local Government Code took effect on January 1, 1992, so 19 years have lapsed since its enactment.
If the Legislature committed the "congressional oversight in Section 461 of R.A. No. 7160" as alleged by
Justice Nachura, it would have amended Section 461, which is a function of Congress. Substantial
"oversights" in the basic law, particularly as alleged with respect to Section 461 of R.A. No. 7160, cannot
be corrected in the implementing rules thereof, as it is settled rule that the implementing rules of the
basic law cannot go beyond the scope of the basic law.1awphi1

According to the Court, Elementary is the principle that, if the literal application
of the law results in absurdity, impossibility, or injustice, then courts may resort
to extrinsic aids of statutory construction, such as the legislative history of the
law,

or may consider the implementing rules and regulations and pertinent

executive issuances in the nature of executive and/or legislative
construction.
As such Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR should be deemed incorporated in the basic
law.
Accordingly, Republic Act No. 9355 (An Act Creating the Province of Dinagat
Islands) is declared as VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL, and the proclamation of the
Province of Dinagat Islands and the election of the officials thereof are declared
VALID;

( Pursuant to this principle, Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR should be deemed incorporated in the
basic law, the LGC.)
Another important note which is more than the issue of land area is the average annual
income:
What is more, the land area, while considered as an indicator of viability of a local
government unit, is not conclusive in showing that Dinagat cannot become a province, taking
into account its average annual income of ₱82,696,433.23 at the time of its creation, as
certified by the Bureau of Local Government Finance, which is four times more than the
minimum requirement of ₱20,000,000.00 for the creation of a province. The delivery of basic
services to its constituents has been proven possible and sustainable. Rather than looking at
the results of the plebiscite and the May 10, 2010 elections as mere fait accompli circumstances
which cannot operate in favor of Dinagat’s existence as a province, they must be seen from the
perspective that Dinagat is ready and capable of becoming a province.
__________________x_____________________x______________________x_____________
As this relates to “Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of
local governments.” How will the state ensure?
It is stated in Section 2 of the Local Government Code that “the State
shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government
structure instituted through a system of decentralization….. The
process of decentralization shall proceed from the National
Government to the local government units.”
Example is the Internal Revenue Allotment of the Central Govt to the
LGUs

It is well to remember that the LGC-IRR was formulated by the Oversight Committee consisting of
members of both the Executive and Legislative departments, pursuant to Section 53332 of the LGC.

The ponente also stated that it may be well to remember basic policy considerations underpinning the
principle of local autonomy, and cited Section 2, R.A. No 7160, which provides:

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - (a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and
political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to
attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in
the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and
accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby local
government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. The process of
decentralization shall proceed from the National Government to the local government units.

Indeed, the policy of the State is that "the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy
genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-
reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals."

Further, the bill that eventually became R.A. No. 9355 was filed and favorably voted upon in both
Chambers of Congress. Such acts of both Chambers of Congress definitively show the clear legislative
intent to incorporate into the LGC that exemption from the land area requirement, with respect to the
creation of a province when it consists of one or more islands, as expressly provided only in the LGC-IRR.
Thereby, and by necessity, the LGC was amended by way of the enactment of R.A. No. 9355.
What is more, the land area, while considered as an indicator of viability of a local government unit, is
not conclusive in showing that Dinagat cannot become a province, taking into account its average
annual income of ₱82,696,433.23 at the time of its creation, as certified by the Bureau of Local
Government Finance, which is four times more than the minimum requirement of ₱20,000,000.00 for
the creation of a province. The delivery of basic services to its constituents has been proven possible and
sustainable. Rather than looking at the results of the plebiscite and the May 10, 2010 elections as mere
fait accompli circumstances which cannot operate in favor of Dinagat’s existence as a province, they
must be seen from the perspective that Dinagat is ready and capable of becoming a province.

WHEREFORE, the Court resolved to:

1. GRANT the Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment by movants-intervenors, dated and filed on
October 29, 2010;

2. RECONSIDER and SET ASIDE the July 20, 2010 Resolution, and GRANT the Motion for Leave to
Intervene and to File and to Admit Intervenors' Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated July
20, 2010;

3. GRANT the Intervenors' Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 12, 2010. The May
12, 2010 Resolution is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The provision in Article 9(2) of the Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 stating, "The land area requirement shall
not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands," is declared VALID.
Accordingly, Republic Act No. 9355 (An Act Creating the Province of Dinagat Islands) is declared as VALID
and CONSTITUTIONAL, and the proclamation of the Province of Dinagat Islands and the election of the
officials thereof are declared VALID; and

4. The petition is DISMISSED.

On the merits of the motion for intervention, after taking a long and intent look, the Court finds that the
first and second arguments raised by movants-intervenors deserve affirmative consideration.

It must be borne in mind that the central policy considerations in the creation of local government units
are economic viability, efficient administration, and capability to deliver basic services to their
constituents. The criteria prescribed by the LGC, i.e., income, population and land area, are all designed
to accomplish these results. In this light, Congress, in its collective wisdom, has debated on the relative
weight of each of these three criteria, placing emphasis on which of them should enjoy preferential
consideration.

Without doubt, the primordial criterion in the creation of local government units, particularly of a
province, is economic viability. This is the clear intent of the framers of the LGC.

But it must be pointed out that when the local government unit to be created consists of one (1) or
more islands, it is exempt from the land area requirement as expressly provided in Section 442 and
Section 450 of the LGC if the local government unit to be created is a municipality or a component city,
respectively. This exemption is absent in the enumeration of the requisites for the creation of a province
under Section 461 of the LGC, although it is expressly stated under Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR.

There appears neither rhyme nor reason why this exemption should apply to cities and municipalities,
but not to provinces. In fact, considering the physical configuration of the Philippine archipelago, there is
a greater likelihood that islands or group of islands would form part of the land area of a newly-created
province than in most cities or municipalities. It is, therefore, logical to infer that the genuine legislative
policy decision was expressed in Section 442 (for municipalities) and Section 450 (for component cities)
of the LGC, but was inadvertently omitted in Section 461 (for provinces). Thus, when the exemption was
expressly provided in Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR, the inclusion was intended to correct the congressional
oversight in Section 461 of the LGC – and to reflect the true legislative intent. It would, then, be in order
for the Court to uphold the validity of Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR.

This interpretation finds merit when we consider the basic policy considerations underpinning the
principle of local autonomy.

Section 2 of the LGC, of which paragraph (a) is pertinent to this case, provides—

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. – (a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and
political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to
attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in
the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and
accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby local
government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. The process of
decentralization shall proceed from the national government to the local government units.