102) Datu Michael Abas Kida V Senate

Datu Michael Abas Kida v Senate
GR No. 196271, 18 Oct. 2011

Brion, J.:
DOCTRINE
FACTS
On August 1, 1989, Congress acted RA 6734 (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 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, RA 9054 was passed to further enhance the structure of ARMM under RA
6734. Along with it is the reset of the regular elections for the ARMM regional officials
to the second Monday of September 2001.
RA 9333 was subsequently passed by Congress to reset the ARMM regional elections to
the 2nd Monday of Aug. 2005, and on the same date every 3 years thereafter. Unlike RA
6734 and RA 9054, RA 9333 was not ratified in a plebiscite.
Pursuant to RA 9333, the next ARMM regional elections should have been held on 8
Aug. 2011. COMELEC had begun preparations for these elections and had accepted
certificates of candidacies for the various regional offices to be elected. However, RA
10153 was eventually 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 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 Court issued a TRO enjoining the implementation of RA 10153 and ordering the
incumbent elective officials of ARMM to continue to perform their functions should
these cases not be decided by the end of their term on 30 Sept. 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 and
plebiscite requirements prescribed under Secs. 1 and 3, Art. XVII of RA 9094 in order to
become effective.
The petitions assailing RA 10153 further maintain that it is unconstitutional for its
failure to comply with the three-reading requirement of Sec. 26(2), Art. 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 Sec. 16, Art. X of the Constitution.
RA No. 10153 originated in the House of Representatives as House Bill No. 4146, which
the House passed on March 22, 2011 with 191 (of the 285) Members voting in its favor.
The Senate adopted its own version, Senate Bill No. 2756, on June 6, 2011. 13 (of the 23)
Senators voted favorably for its passage. On June 7, 2011, the House of Representative
concurred with the Senate amendments and on June 30, 2011, the President signed RA
No. 10153 into law.
ISSUES
Whether the passage of RA 10153 violate the 3-readings-on-separate-days rule under
Sec. 26(2), Art. VI of the Constitution.
RULING
No. The general rule that before bills passed by either the HRep or the Senate can
become laws they must pass through 3 readings on separate days, is subject to the
exception when the President certifies to the necessity of the bill’s immediate
enactment.
The Court, in Tolentino v Sec. of Finance, said that the presidential certification
dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also that of reading the bill on
separate days. The phrase “except when the President certifies to the necessity of its
immediate enactment” in Sec. 26(2), Art. VI qualifies the two stated conditions before a
bill can become a law: 1) the bill has passed 3 readings on separate days; and, 2) it has
been printed in its final form and distributed 3 days before it is finally approved.
In the present case, the records show that the President wrote to the Speaker of the
House to certify the necessity of the immediate enactment of a law synchronizing the
ARMM elections with the national and local elections. Following the Tolentino ruling,
the President’s certification exempted both the HRep and the Senate from having to
comply with the 3 separate readings requirement.
On the follow-up contention that no necessity existed for the immediate enactment of
these bills since there was no public calamity or emergency that had to be met, the
Tolentino case provides: “The sufficiency of the factual basis of the suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus or declaration of martial law Art. VII, Section 18, or the existence
of a national emergency justifying the delegation of extraordinary powers to the
President under Art. VI, Sec. 23(2) is subject to judicial review because basic rights of
individuals may be of hazard. But the factual basis of presidential certification of bills,
which involves doing away with procedural requirements designed to insure that bills
are duly considered by members of Congress, certainly should elicit a different
standard of review.”
The HRep and the Senate – in the exercise of their legislative discretion – gave full
recognition to the President’s certification and promptly enacted RA 10153. Under the
circumstances, nothing short of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the two houses
of Congress can justify our intrusion under our power of judicial review.
The petitioners, however, failed to provide us with any cause or justification for the
Court’s intrusion under the power of judicial review. Hence, while the judicial
department and the Court are not bound by the acceptance of the President's
certification by both the HRep and the Senate, prudent exercise of the Court’s powers
and respect due the co-equal branches of government in matters committed to them by
the Constitution, caution a stay of the judicial hand.
In any case, despite the President’s certification, the two-fold purpose that underlies the
requirement for three readings on separate days of every bill must always be observed
to enable the legislators and other parties interested in pending bills to intelligently
respond to them. Specifically, the purpose with respect to Members of Congress is: (1)
to inform the legislators of the matters they shall vote on and (2) to give them notice
that a measure is in progress through the enactment process.

102) Datu Michael Abas Kida V Senate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

102) Datu Michael Abas Kida V Senate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

102) Datu Michael Abas Kida V Senate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Datu Michael Abas Kida v Senate

GR No. 196271, 18 Oct. 2011

You might also like